1992-04-09

Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act established the legislative mandate for collecting, analysing, and reporting environmental information and providing that information in a report to Canadians.
Therefore it is my great honour today to table, in both official languages, the second report on the state of Canada's environment.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


75TH ANNIVERSARY OF BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, today, Canada is commemorating
the 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, the most important military victory in our history.
Just hours ago, the Prime Minister and the President of France stood before the Vimy Memorial and spoke of the significance of that success.

Mr. Speaker, as your father and three of your uncles were with the Canadian Corps in France, you will certainly know the importance of the Vimy victory reached beyond the battlefields of France and Belgium.
Vimy was the first time all four divisions of the Canadian Corps fought together as a single force. The enemy had held Vimy Ridge against all comers and it would become the graveyard of well over 100,000 allied troops.
Yet, 75 years ago today, the Canadian Corps stormed into the history books. The snow and rain shielding their successful advance was like the weather at home. The tactics were also all Canadian, innovative, well rehearsed, and involving every one from general to private in the battle plan.
The capture of Vimy Ridge changed our nation. Domestically it confirmed that our pioneering people were capable of meeting any challenge. Internationally we were soon more than just a junior partner.
Today 14 veterans of Vimy, ranging in age from 91 to 101, are back at the battleground of their youth. They are being accompanied by veterans who followed in their tradition, the soldiers who took part in the Dieppe raid 50 years ago, where once again Canadians were chosen to lead an allied assault.
Last Sunday I had the honour of meeting our Vimy veterans. At the service at the National War Memorial the rabbi spoke of both the pain and the pride. How right he is. The pain obviously comes from the memory of so many friends, over 3,500 Canadians, who were killed and the bereaved families in need of comforting. The pride comes from the knowledge that they were the peacemakers of their time, the nation-builders of their day.

April 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Shortly after the end of the First World War an inscription was placed on a panel in the Peace Tower in this very building. It reads:
They are too near to be great, but our children shall understand
when and how our fate was changed, and by whose hand.
Last Sunday I shook hands with 14 of the men who were there on that Easter Monday in a battle which was described by Brigadier-General Alexander Ross, commander the 28th battalion at Vimy:
It was Canada from Atlantic to Pacific on parade. I thought then
that in those few moments, I witnessed the birth of a nation.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as was stated, 75 years ago, during the few days between the first assault and the time when the guns fell silent at Vimy Ridge, close to 4,000 young Canadians lay dead. History has shown that their sacrifice was not in vain.
We all know that what they accomplished on those cold April mornings was twofold. They captured a prime military objective, one which had earlier defied the efforts of both the French and the British. They also showed, during those few bloody days, that Canadians, working together as a team, were disciplined, motivated and could be counted on to get the job done.
We honour them today, both for the military victory, which helped an ally in a time of need and made Canada, in the words of my hon. colleague, an equal partner.
We honour them for being the first Canadians to go into battle, united as a single force. They were indeed among our nation builders.
We must never forget the lesson of Vimy Ridge. Canadians, working together, can accomplish what others fail to do. Let us not permit the forces, which would divide us, to make a mockery of the sacrifices that those Canadians made when they are called on to do so.
Today, we honour those valiant Canadians still alive from the battle of Vimy Ridge and we also remember those who did not return. Let us honour their memory by making sure that the Canada they fought and died for remains strong, united and free. To do less would be, in the words of the poet, John McCrae, "to break faith with those who die". This we must never do. The greatest memorial we can erect in their memory is a united country.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleagues to pay tribute to all who fought for Vimy Ridge during more than two years of that war.
Vimy Ridge was a victory others were not able to accomplish. I do not denigrate their efforts; over 100,000 allied troops ended in the graveyard at Vimy Ridge. When Canadians were ordered to try to take it, they were smart enough to spend weeks in planning and preparation.
I remember reading years ago about the kind of planning and preparation that was carried out. One of the most notable was the miles and miles of tunnels that were dug, tunnels that started well to the rear and up to where German lines on Vimy Ridge began.
This made the operation all the more Canadian since hundreds of them who had some experience in this kind of endeavour were assigned to this dirty, wet and miserable task. Mr. Speaker, you will know among the tunnelers were miners from Quebec and northern Ontario and other parts of Canada. They knew what to do and how to do it.
It was the first time Canadians fought together as a unit: four divisions, about 60,000 soldiers. When you add to that the support groups required to ensure success, it had to amount to about 100,000 Canadians directly involved, nursing sisters, medical and first aid staff, thousands in the service corps who spent many weeks of preparation, hauling and stockpiling supplies with horses and trucks and on their backs. In frost and mud, they brought in food, medical supplies and equipment, ammunition of all kinds, clothes, especially socks and boots and there was never enough.
If you put all those contributions together, it added up to a victory equal to, if not greater than, any other in that war. But it was a victory of great cost in lives and suffering; over 3,000 killed and 8,000 wounded, a casualty rate of more than 10 per cent. But one thing we can be thankful for, that if it had not been for the planning and preparation as well as the courage, the casualties would have been much greater and we might not have won.
We honour their memory, and our country must always do so. I believe the best way we can honour all those who took part, and especially those who died or
April 9, 1992

Routine Proceedings
suffered wounds, is to implement and enlarge on the biblical verse: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of God". Equally blessed is the peacekeeper.
I have always looked upon our peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts as a way to make as sure as we can that the valour of Vimy will not be in vain. For as those very people from both wars will tell you: "No more war, never again."
Our country can, on an ongoing basis, honour and remember great contributions and sacrifices at Vimy Ridge and many other events in two wars by continuing to make every effort at peacemaking and peacekeeping. This is the best way to honour and remember those we honour today, and those from many other battles.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport has the honour to present its third report.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October 9, 1991, your committee has considered Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Lewis moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
[Bill read the first time and printed]



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur) moved: for leave to introduce C-342, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (teachers).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to introduce a bill to amend the Income Thx Act with respect to teachers.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Thx Act to allow teachers who teach in educational institutions in Canada to deduct in computing their income certain expenses made in the course of their employment, such as attendance at professional development days, expenses incurred in travel to conferences, whatever, as other professions now do.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Arseneault moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the Thunder Bay area and smaller communities like South Gillies.
The petitioners are concerned about a decision by the government to cancel a freeze on unemployment insurance premiums for three years and instead to increase UI premiums. They feel it is unfair and insensitive particularly to small businesses during hard economic times.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates at the 1991 level for one year.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition on behalf of constituents of my riding.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.
The acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments is to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of the provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province, following the leadership of my leader and the Liberal Party.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present these 150 petitions with thousands of signatures from across Canada. These are to be added to the over 370,000 signatures presented on the same subject.
Citizens who are signing this petition feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system in Canada. They ask that the government amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, Question No. 270 will be answered today.


Mr. Harvard: By moving the quarterly instalment income tax payments from the
end of the months of March, June, September and December to the
15th of each of these months, how much extra money is the
government making because of these earlier payments?


Hon. Don Frank Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Effective January 1990 the
due dates of personal quarterly income tax instalment payments were moved up from the last day of March, June, September and December to the 15th day of the relevant months. This change resulted in a one-time deficit reduction of $900 million in the 1989-90 fiscal year and ongoing savings in annual interest expenses. It is important to note that the shifting of the due dates resulted in an acceleration of the receipt of revenues, not an increase in personal income tax liability.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended today by nine minutes, beginning at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, 10 years ago on February 15,1982, 84 Canadians lost their lives in the search for oil in the Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland.
On that day the Ocean Ranger, one of the most advanced drilling rigs in the world, sank in a matter of hours and there were no survivors.
April 9, 1992

The enormity of that tragedy will be remembered by Canadians for generations to come. Every year in various places, particularly in Newfoundland, family members gather to commemorate February 15, 1982. Most recently on the 10th anniversary that commemoration took place in the foyer of the house of assembly as well as in other locations.
Today we are considering legislation which completes the efforts that began immediately following the sinking to ensure that Canadians are never again put at such risk. Within days of the sinking, a royal commission headed by the Hon. T. Alexander Hickman was jointly established by the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador to examine the causes of the accident and to recommend measures to improve the safety of petroleum activity in the Canadian offshore.
At the same time new standards were established by the government for the command of offshore drilling units for structural integrity, for ballasting and maintenance of trim, for the availability of survival suits, and for lifeboat requirements. All rigs operating in Canadian waters were immediately returned to port to ensure that they met these new standards.
In the ensuing months all regulations governing offshore safety were reviewed. New standards were developed for the structural design of rigs, for training, survival equipment, evacuation systems, emergency procedures, contingency plans, weather forecasting, and performance standards for standby vessels as well as rescue craft.
When the royal commission made its final report in 1985, over half its recommendations had already been implemented. Since then all remaining recommendations have been acted on. Canadian safety standards for the offshore are now among the most advanced in the world.
I had opportunity to visit the offshore in the North Sea a few months ago. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope of the projects, by the coming together of men and women of various nations in a tremendous enterprise in the North Sea. For example in the harbour of Aberdeen, Scotland, the joining of a traditional enterprise, namely fishing and the new enterprises of oil and gas, particularly oil discoveries and development in the North Sea, is most apparent.
Government Orders
It is interesting to speak to the people of that area and the manner in which they have been able to reconcile, as I say, a very traditional activity and the new-found wealth of the North Sea.
In Aberdeen today the helicopter traffic is the greatest single helicopter movement in the world other than during military manoeuvres when the world joins together in activities such as the gulf war. The emphasis on safety is unbelievably pervasive in everything they do, all the way from their training when they get their first instruction to the manner in which they wear their survival gear and their suits, to the manner in which they get on to the helicopter systems, to the manner in which they conduct themselves when they are on the rigs and the return.
Despite all that effort just in the last number of weeks there were lives lost in the North Sea in the movement of men and equipment by helicopter.
I think those of us who are responsible for these activities but who have to take advice from those who know safety have attempted in this bill to incorporate the very best procedures, equipment purchasing or procurement we are able to do. We have had the events of the last few weeks to again bring emphasis to the danger that this work naturally is part of daily activity.
The matter of safety never rests. In fact,one can never have the assurance that "everything has been done" because there could always be more that might be done. So often it is bitter experience that teaches or dictates to us what more needs to be done.
We hope that this bill and the regulations that flow from it will give not only more assurance, but will in fact put us even further at that critical edge of where safety, despite the circumstances that we know we face, is not compromised. While most of the Hickman recommendations were addressed by changes to standards and regulations, a small number required a reassessment of the way in which regulatory authority should be exercised, particularly in emergency situations.
To address these recommendations, the government appointed a task force to examine regulatory practices and other offshore jurisdictions. That is why I reference, for example, to the North Sea.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
The task force concluded that a number of changes should be made to Canada's regulatory system and that these should be embodied in legislation. Following consideration of the task force recommendations by the government, intensive consultations were held for several years with interested parties on the substance of the proposed legislation.
I want to say to you, Madam Speaker and members of the House, these have been intense negotiations. The Coast Guard, other departments, provincial authorities, unions, have been, to say the least, breaking new ground. They have been time-consuming. I accept very much that they have been time-consuming as well.
To complete the process of reforming Canada's offshore safety regime, the government has therefore tabled amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, which you now have before you for consideration. The act will be re-entitled "The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act" to better reflect the all-encompassing nature of the act. By virtue of the joint offshore oil and gas management regimes which have been established in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, consequential amendments will also be made to the East Coast Accord Implementation Act and similar amendments will be made by these provinces to their accord legislation.
The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is designed to ensure that an integrated approach is taken to the certification and operation of all equipment used in the exploration for and production of offshore oil and gas resources. Offshore exploration and production units are extremely complex pieces of equipment. They must be capable of meeting all of the risks associated with drilling for and producing oil and gas and, at the same time, they must also be able to meet the might and fury of the worst ocean storms.
It is very interesting as minister of energy to meet with other ministers with that responsibility. One of the questions they constantly ask is: "How are you going to meet the storms in the North Atlantic as you bring your goal production into reality?" I find it rather interesting that often Canadians seem to have less awareness of what is happening and hopefully can continue to happen on the east coast because they relate their own experiences. Whether it is the people of the United Kingdom or the people of the Scandinavian countries, they have great experience and we can learn from them, but they know especially about the particular conditions that we have to face off the east coast of Canada.
On the other hand, just for the interest to the House, despite the difficulties we are having with Hibernia at the present time, Canada's first oil production will come onstream in the next number of weeks, before this place rises for summer, I would hope. Canadians should be aware that these historical events are in fact unfolding off our east coast. Not only must this equipment that we use in these very hostile areas meet these dual challenges, so must the people who operate it. That is perhaps the most important lesson that we have learned from the Ocean Ranger catastrophe. Offshore safety fundamentally depends upon having the best equipment operated with clear, consistent and comprehensive safety procedures, by crews that are thoroughly trained in both oil and gas and marine aspects of their work.
The bill you have before you contains provisions related to these fundamental aspects of offshore safety. In addressing the fundamentals of equipment procedures and training, as well as organization, the bill creates a framework that will enable Canada to maintain a standard of offshore safety as high as any in the world.
For example, the bill requires all operators of exploration and production equipment to obtain a certificate of fitness from an independent certifying authority in order to conduct petroleum activities. The certifying authority will be responsible for ensuring that the equipment meets all safety standards related not only to oil and gas activities, but to marine activities as well.
The certification process will ensure both a comprehensive and integrated approach and is taken to examine the fitness of equipment to work safely in the offshore.
The bill also requires owners and operators to have appropriate operating procedures and trained personnel to carry out offshore petroleum activities safely and to make a formal declaration to this effect. It further requires that at all times one person, the offshore installation manager, be in charge of the entire operation. We want a very clear delineation not only of command procedures but in terms of people who are in charge. To ensure consistency in ongoing improvements
April 9, 1992

in the administration of offshore regulations, the bill provides for the creation of an oil and gas administration advisory council with representation from the federal government and appropriate provincial governments, as well as all regulatory authorities with responsibilities for the safety of petroleum activities on the frontier lands.
It also provides for an offshore oil and gas training and standards advisory board to be established to encourage the development of uniform requirements for training, qualification, accreditation standards and course assessments.
In the case of an emergency where the safety of personnel or equipment could be in danger, the bill provides the minister of energy with the power to suspend temporarily specific sections of other federal acts to ensure that there are clear lines of authority to deal with the emergency situation. There is the right in that comment where I am sure it becomes apparent to you very quickly why there has been much negotiation and debate, not for grabs of authority by the minister of energy or the department of energy. My colleague the Minister of Transport is in the room today. He has responsibilities such as the Coast Guard, the Ministry of Transport. How do we, not only through the government federally, but through the provinces, the unions, the men and women who are working there, the companies, have a co-ordinated plan?
I pointed out already the kind of personnel that is needed in terms of this kind of operation. I believe it is estimated that in the city of Aberdeen, Scotland, alone, something like 23,000 people are involved. We are not working here with a small operation. This is massive and it needs these regulations.
These are some of the more important measures which have been included in the bill before you. It is the product of extensive consultations. Would I have liked to have done it in a shorter period of time? The answer is yes. But I do not apologize for the consultations that took place and the product that we have today. It is not only a product of extensive consultations here within Canada, but internationally. We went to look at international experiences and how we could incorporate those experiences into our new emerging offshore development, off Canada's east coast particularly.
It is based on the insight and experience of foreign regulators and safety inquiries such as that into the Piper
Government Orders
Alpha accident in the North Sea. I had extensive briefings on the Piper Alpha accident. In Canada, federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, knowledgeable experts, offshore regulatory boards in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and the oil and gas industry have been consulted. I can say that in all important aspects they have had an opportunity to consider the safety measures contained in the bill and bring their accumulated wisdom to bear on it.
In conclusion, one of the great benefits of becoming a member of Parliament is that you find Canadians in all walks of life, different experiences, different backgrounds, ordinary Canadians doing very extraordinary things. I remember as a newly minted Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development being on my first offshore rig off Tuktoyaktuk in 1979. I have been there since. Of course, right at the moment we do not have any development in that area.
I will never forget that. It was a cold day. It was summer, but it was still cold. There was sleet. There were two men working on the drill floor. One was a young man from Hamilton. I asked him how did he get there and why was he there. He had probably as good a reason as I could find. He said: "I'm getting married and I need some money". It made sense to me. That was pretty practical, I thought.
Working beside him was a young Inuit lad. I said: "Why are you here?" He said: "It's my home". That made sense too. I said: "Isn't this going to change your way of life?" He said: "Yes, but we will still try to retain as much of our traditional way of life as possible". That was incorporated in that development in the north. In the mining industry as well that was done.
Both men agreed on one thing despite their different backgrounds. They thought that they were really doing something for Canada. They were going into a hostile area, tough conditions, and what they were doing was exploring. They were at the frontier. Iliey knew it would have meaning for Canada.
On Canada's east coast today, are there problems with Hibernia? The answer is yes. Do I believe sincerely in my mind that someday the offshore of Canada is going to be as important as what I saw in the North Sea, as it has been for Europe? The answer is yes, despite the present difficulties.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
One thing I know is we can have the best safety regulations, we can have the best equipment, we can have the best knowledge, we can have the best experience, but it is going to be the men and women who are giving of themselves, their expertise and yes, very often, working in conditions that are very dangerous to do this for our country.
I say to my colleagues opposite, if there are improvements we can make to the bill, we will obviously want to consider that. We believe that this bill is only going to be as good as the best advice we can get to have the best safety regulations for the men and women who work in our offshore.
May I just say to the House I will be able to stay for a while to listen to my colleague from Edmonton Southeast. If I leave at eleven o'clock, then my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the member for St. John's East, who comes from Newfoundland, will be representing the government during the rest of that debate.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Gander-Grand Falls, wanted very much to be here to speak in this debate on behalf of my party this morning. We had talked about it. He had prepared. As those opposite know, this is the morning of the National Prayer Breakfast and he is one of two people who are acting as co-chairmen of the seminar for approximately 150 people, I believe, from across Canada. It was simply impossible for him to be here and there simultaneously. He and I both very much regret that the bill is going ahead now rather than at some other time when the member for Gander-Grand Falls could have been here to speak on it.
My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception will be speaking and giving the Newfoundland perspective later in the day.
First, I would like to read the surnames of the victims of the tragedy which precipitated what we are talking about today. Those from Newfoundland, their surnames are: Arsenault, Augot, Baldwin, Blackmore, Boutcher, Brinston, Buriy, Bursey, Caines, Chafe, Chalmers, Clarke, Conway, Crawford, Dawe, Drake, Dwyer, Dyke,
Escott, Evoy, Fenez, Foley, Freid, Fry, Greene, Harnum, Heffeman, Hickey, Hicks, Holden, Howell, LeDrew, LeDrew, Maurice, Melendy, Miller, Noseworthy, O'Brien, O'Neill, Palmer, Parsons, Pieroway, Pinhom, Power, Putt, Reid, Sheppard, Smit, Smith, Stapleton, Tiller, Tilley, Warford, Winsor and Winsor.
The victims from outside Newfoundland, their surnames are: Blevins, Dagg, Dodd, Donlon, Droddy, Dugas, Fogg, Ferguson, Garbeau, Gorum, Grandy, Halliday, Hatfield, Hauss, Howell, Howland, Jacobsen, Kuhl, Madden, Mitchell, Morrison, Powell, Rathbun, Ryann, Smith, Thompson, Vaughn, Watkin and Wilson.
I would say at the outset it is most regrettable that this tragedy took place ten years ago.
The final report by the Hickman royal commission was handed to the government in 1985.1 appreciate that this minister has not been the minister since 1985. It is unfortunate that it takes this long to bring forward this bill. It strikes me as something that is basically unforgivable to the seriousness of the issue and to the tragedy of the people whose names I just read and their families.
Having been a federal public official in the justice department, I know that consultations can take time. But ten years is not needed if there is any ministerial or successive ministerial will to employ with all deliberate speed. As the minister said, the stakeholders had to be consulted, but does it really take approximately 3,650 days to win concurrence for this bill from the stakeholders?
Ten years ago in the Basilica of St. John's, Newfoundland, Archbishop A.L. Penny addressed about 2,000 friends, co-workers and family members of the victims of the Ocean Ranger disaster and he asked: "What makes this tragedy so benumbing? This disaster has its own special desolation because it is associated with a venture which was bright with promise", he said in response.
Promise there was on this "largest, safest, unsinkable, most advanced semi-submersible in the world" as the tour guides used to describe the rig. Among those in the petroleum industry it was referred to as the Cadillac of the oil rigs. I suppose now they would say Mercedes or some good Japanese car.
April 9, 1992

However, since February 15, 1982, there has been significant change in the way those marvels of modem technology are perceived by Newfoundlanders and all other Canadians.
The safety concerns voiced by some Ocean Ranger crew members who referred to the rig as the "Ocean Danger" rather than the "Cadillac of rigs" suddenly came into sharp focus. As it turned out the rig was a disaster waiting to happen. No one could answer troubling questions about why the supposedly unsinkable rig had gone down and why not a single crew member had survived.
Testimony before the Hickman commission suggested lax federal regulations and industry standards at the time made the tragedy all but inevitable.
Several issues have been addressed by a royal commission whose final report made a great many recommendations on marine drilling practices on the offshore of Atlantic Canada. In its 1986 "Response to the Recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger Marine Disaster", the Mulroney government committed itself in recommendation 107 to establish "without delay performance standards and initiate a joint major engineering development project to produce a safe primary evacuation system for offshore drilling rigs".
According to some sources, a decade after the tragic loss of the Ocean Ranger and seven years after a royal commission investigating the tragedy released its report, offshore evacuation systems have still not been established. Inquiries to the federal government as to how performance standards would be implemented were met by the explanation that energy, mines and resources department had other priorities.
The royal commission said the lifeboats on the Ocean Ranger were inadequate. According to the spokesman for the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, such lifeboats are now rigorously inspected and each rig must have enough to carry twice the crew actually on the rig.
What appears to remain unresolved is whether even with the best training and equipment available offshore rig employees in small lifeboats have a decent reasonable chance of surviving in the mountainous seas, if the boats can be launched at all. Are the evacuation systems designed and capable of launching a lifeboat from a rig
Government Orders
far away from the structure in order to avoid collisions with its foundering legs?
It is believed that just such a collision damaged and caused the sinking of the only lifeboat known to have been launched from the Ocean Ranger, and with scores of lives lost.
According to Norwegian authorities, and they have much experience in offshore matters: "Launching lifeboats from any vessel in 80 knot winds and 50 foot seas is next to impossible. There really is no technology to do it safely". New evacuation procedures being used in the North Sea are far better than those used in Canada, I understand.
For example, soon after the capsizing near Norway of the U.S. leased Alexander L. Kielland in 1980 the Norwegians quickly implemented a requirement that their rigs must be upgraded to withstand both the loss of one supporting leg and a list of 35 degrees without toppling over. The Ocean Ranger was abandoned after it developed a list of 15 degrees.
The Norwegians have also tested a new launching system which allows lifeboats to slide down a ramp and fall freely into the water.
Do the new measures seriously intend to address the issue of emergency evacuation of oil rigs, I would ask the minister? Do we take foreign technological advances into consideration? Or do we choose to remain ignorant of technology that elsewhere races ahead of us?
Families of the crew members who perished in the 1982 disaster have been lobbying hard for new legislation and are demanding an end to winter drilling. But this government unfortunately has failed to address the issue completely. It has not become a priority because as a result of depressed oil prices it would appear that only a few rigs have been working in Canadian waters in recent years.
In its shortsightedness the government does not appear to realize that the situation is likely to change if major production projects such as Hibernia go ahead, and we all hope they do. In fact, plans for further development of Terra Nova are already in place.
Undoubtedly all parties involved would like to know whether this new legislation is comprehensive enough to ensure that the reasonable safety of these new rigs would not be shunted into second place again, especially as oil exploration is pushed into deeper and more unpredictable waters.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
The Ocean Ranger Foundation, established shortly after the tragedy to assist families of the crew members unfortunately folded in December 1985 for lack of funding. That organization asked federal and provincial governments for $75,000 but the two levels of government responded with $5,000 from each. While the foundation was formed to assist the families, its prime concern was with the safety of those working offshore.
As one of its members put it: "The government wants the disaster and the foundation to fade away like a bad dream. They are unwilling to go on funding us because they know that we will continue to look over their shoulders. Yet, in announcing their withdrawal of support, they do not have the good graces or the guts to put the arguments on the table".
Many employees and families brought their concerns about safety to the foundation and with its role as a watch-dog over offshore safety gone there seems to be a large void to fill.
The federal government, either this one or the next one, should fully accept responsibility for ensuring that offshore safety measures are adequate.
In April 1986, the then Minister of Justice, who is now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, vowed that the report of the royal commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster "was not going to be buried or gather dust on any shelves". Indeed it has not been buried for good, yet 10 years and millions of dollars later, this government, buried deep in its red tape is not capable of passing legislation before the 10th anniversary of the Ocean Ranger sinking. Maybe the minister can tell us why it has taken 10 years to do it.
In closing, it essentially amounts to blatant insensitivity to the victims' families, to the people of Newfoundland, people in the oil industry across Canada including Alberta, and to Canadians as a whole. It is also a shame for this minister and his officials. I say that recognizing that he has not been the minister for 10 years. I fully acknowledge that.
We on this side will endorse the new measures if working on oil rigs in the North Atlantic is made safer today than was the case when 84 men died or froze to death in stark and lonely moments of terror.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-58 before us, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof, presented today for second reading by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I thought it rather fitting to comment that at the beginning of today's session we were commemorating lives lost and victories won in fields even further afield than the Canadian offshore when we heard a number of members and the associate minister of National Defence pay tribute to those who fought at Vimy Ridge. It is the 75th anniversary of that battle in which so many Canadian lives were lost. This August will be the 50th anniversary of the Canadian raid on Dieppe when again many Canadian lives were lost.
April 28 has officially been recognized by this House as a day of mourning for those Canadians who have lost their lives and have been injured in the workplaces of Canada.
With all those events coming into place this year which is the 10th anniversary of that horrible incident that took place off the Canadian east coast on February 15,1982, it perhaps helps to put into context just what a price many Canadians pay for the standard of living we enjoy, and that we may enhance our standards and improve our production capabilities in order to provide even better standards for those who will come after us.
On February 15, 1982 during a severe Atlantic storm, the semi-submersible drilling unit, the Ocean Ranger, which was the largest of its kind in the world at the time, capsized and sank about 166 nautical miles east of St. John's, Newfoundland. All 84 men on board perished.
While the Ocean Ranger was regarded as the Cadillac of offshore rigs at the time, it was certainly not the first in the world. While it involved the second largest loss of life in this type of incident in world history, it was not the first serious accident. There had been others. Work on offshore oil rigs around the world had resulted in 241 lives lost in various types of accidents before the Ocean Ranger disaster occurred.
April 9, 1992

The worst of those accidents involved the collapse of a floating hotel in the North Sea off the coast of Norway in March 1980 in which 123 workers were killed. The second worst, the collapse during a storm of an oil rig in the Bohai Gulf off north-east China in November 1979 left 72 workers dead.
In October 1980, a blow-out killed 18 workmen aboard the U.S.-owned rig Tappmeyer off Saudi Arabia. In April 1971, 13 were drowned when the U.S. rig Ocean Express sank off Texas. In December 1965, the British rig Sea Gem collapsed in the North Sea with the loss of 13 lives. In May 1979, a platform collapsed aboard the U.S. rig Ranger I in the Gulf of Mexico, killing two workmen. The Tappmeyer incident off Saudi Arabia in October 1980 resulted in many more casualties.
It is just a little over 10 years since the disastrous incident involving the Ocean Ranger occurred off our east shore. My colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Edmonton Southeast, appropriately read into the record today a list of the surnames of those who perished in that disaster.
Perhaps it would be good for Canadians to think back and remember the tragic and horrible headlines that dominated all of the Canadian news media at that time. There were 84 very personal family stories of the impact of that disaster. It was caused by the absence of proper diligence being paid to the situations that arise on high seas in stormy conditions, when we venture into the kind of major innovations in technology required by offshore oil drilling.
The day after the disaster, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the minister responsible for the constitutional negotiations, rose in his place and said the Prime Minister should "immediately designate" one federal ministry as the lead agency in rescue efforts.
A little over 10 years have passed and the member who raised that point then is now a senior member of the government and a former Prime Minister. We are finally designating one senior minister to be responsible for these types of affairs.
My colleagues, many people in the industry and I are not sure, however, that the minister of energy-it is no criticism of the existing minister-who is primarily responsible for production and revenue for oil and gas is the appropriate minister to have the ministerial override in matters dealing with safety on the high seas.
Government Orders
Later on in this debate, my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, will be dealing with that particular point in somewhat more detail and with more emphasis.
The Minister of Transport is much more directly responsible for and familiar with matters relating to safety and proper conditions of operations on the high seas. Perhaps when it comes to emergency designations in the area of safety, he should be the minister who has the override in disaster situations.
The minister stated there had been a lot of consultation, and I am sure he is correct to some degree. In fact one of the reasons given for the 10-year plus a few days delay in having this bill come before the House was all the extensive consultations that took place.
Certainly we agree those consultations were necessary, particularly on matters relating to safety, where we have had such clear burning images in our minds of what the lack of proper safety enforcement and provisions can mean.
However, I took the opportunity a while ago of asking the minister of energy just what consultations with certain parties had taken place regarding this bill. A letter dated March 19 was sent to my assistant from the minister's senior adviser on energy in answer to the question whether there were any consultations with trade unions, particularly the Seamen's International Union. I would point out as an aside it is the union most involved in Canadian shipping and in the type of rigs we are dealing with here today. The answer was that there were no formal consultations with trade unions.
It goes on to add the bill does not conflict with worker safety requirements vis-a-vis regulations under the labour code.
I should point out, to be fair, that in the development of the oil and gas occupational health and safety regulations under the labour code, there were extensive consultations with labour.
Despite that, in regard to this bill, there are the matters of the ministerial override, the appointment of the safety officer and his duties, which ministry should be involved and which minister has the experience to deal with the problems. It is inconceivable to me and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, as well as many other Canadians, that in the 10 years of consultations leading up to the presentation of this bill before this

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
House of Commons, the one union that had the primary responsibility of representing those people who died and representing the direct interests and life, health, and safety of those who will be working and do work in this industry in the off-shore was not consulted. I find that incomprehensible and inconceivable.
I would like to briefly quote from a letter sent to me from Mr. Roman Gralewicz, the president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada, dated April 2. He says: "This attempt by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to go through a legislative back door with safety legislation without the input of labour, regardless of its content, shows the blatant disregard this government and the oil industry truly have with respect to fair representation of the industry work force. This designated attempt by energy, mines and resources to usurp the mandate of Labour Canada, a federal department which does utilize the consultative process with its clientele and is responsible for occupational safety and health, warrants investigation. Why were labour representatives not invited to participate? What are the government and the oil industry hiding? As employee safety is an issue, is EMR the right department to responsibly handle it?"
We will be supporting this bill in principle. We want it to go before committee, but before we enter into detailed clause by clause study, I hope we will have a significant opportunity to be able to have representatives of the people who died and of the people who put their lives at risk in these kinds of operations before that committee. Then we can have the kind of consultation that should have been carried out in the formation of the legislation.
The government may believe it has consulted, as it did in previous regulations, but it apparently did not consult with organized labour in putting together the legislation now before us. I find that lack of tripartite consultation rather incomprehensible. This ministry ignored what should have been an automatic process in matters dealing with health and safety. That makes me and many others question whether this ministry is the appropriate
one to have an override in matters dealing with dangerous situations, safety and health. It just seems wrong.
In all jurisdictions across Canada, both federal under the Canada Labour Code and provincial, in matters dealing with health and safety, everything is done on a tripartite basis. When it comes to health and safety, many labour relations boards are structured in the same way. They have direct ongoing representation from the three parties, government or government agencies, labour, the working people involved, and management of the industry concerned. They are all involved in health and safety decisions. There can be no other way. The lack of sensitivity and understanding of this ministry to that very essential principle is what makes me very, very concerned about the direction the ministerial override in this legislation has taken.
As we go through the bill, I just want to touch on a couple of other items. I have had a number of consultations on this bill with the leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Newfoundland. Mr. Newhook initially built his involvement in public affairs largely around working with the families of those who died in this disaster. That was one of his earlier main contributions and the beginning of his public life in the province of Newfoundland. He has built up considerable expertise in that area and has followed it closely ever since that time.
In a recent letter to me Mr. Newhook said after looking through the legislation and reading a significant amount of material on it:
From what I can gather, the bill coming before Parliament represents what the people in Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board referred to as the last tidying up of the royal commission findings on the Ocean Ranger.
That is correct. Mr. Newhook goes on to say he recalls that Pat Carney set up the Harrison task force to review how government could best deal with the commission recommendations. It was his understanding that the main thrust of the bill comes straight out of that Harrison report. It deals mostly with training and safety. Most importantly, it provides for the separation of a chief safety officer from the chief conservation officer. This is to ensure that safety is separated from other functions within the energy field.
April 9, 1992

He goes on to agree that this is what needs to be done in order to clean up the remaining recommendations that arose from that disaster. The major criticism, Mr. Newhook goes on, of what government has done re the commission relates to section 107 of the commission recommendation. Just to read it briefly, 107 says:
It is recommended that (a) government and industry, without delay establish performance standards and initiate a joint major engineering development project to produce a safe primary evacuation system for offshore drilling rigs.
(b) during the intervening period, it be a condition of the right to drill that existing primary evacuation systems be improved or replaced so as to improve materially their capability to evacuate the crew.
Mr. Newhook, who has been close to the situation ever since the disaster occurred, points out that nothing substantial has been done by either level of government about that critical issue. The industry has put some R and D money into a modified version of davit launched lifeboat systems called PROD. Husky-Bow Valley was the main player in this development. He goes on to say that opinions may vary somewhat as to its usefulness but few would claim that it solves the problem. The bottom line is that we still do not have any effective way of safely evacuating workers from offshore installations in an emergency situation.
He concludes with what I think is a very salient point in terms of our priorities as a country: "Canada is spending billions on space technology and it is ridiculous that we can retrieve people from space but not from our oceans". That applies not only to Canada but to every other major nation involved in offshore drilling. We do not seem to have our priorities right when it comes to the lives, health and safety of Canadian workers in this industry.
While I and my colleagues hope that this bill will move toward that end, and we will certainly do our part along with other hon. members in ensuring that it does, we do call into question again the lack of direct consultation with the representatives of those who died and those who work in this industry in the putting together of this legislation, this wrap-up legislation, we hope.
We also question the decision to have the ministerial override. We agree it is essential that one ministry ultimately be responsible in high risk and dangerous situations, but we question seriously whether the ministry of energy is the appropriate department for that to take place.
We look forward to the committee and dealing clause
Government Orders
by clause with this legislation. We hope that we will be afforded every opportunity to have the appropriate witnesses come before us so that we can take steps to ensure that nothing of this kind, no disaster of this magnitude and consequence, ever occurs in Canada again.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I wish to put a question to my colleague who has just spoken on this bill.
It has been a very long time coming, given that it is 10 years since the Ocean Ranger disaster. It is six or seven years since the first preliminary report of the Hickman royal commission into the Ocean Ranger disaster. It is five and a half years since the government gave its initial response to the recommendations contained in the Hickman royal commission into the Ocean Ranger disaster.
Because so much time has gone by I suspect many members who are in the House today have very little knowledge of the debate into the reasons for the Ocean Ranger disaster and those who were here 10 years ago, certainly their memories about the details of this disaster have faded because the recommendations and the changes to the appropriate legislation have been so long in coming.
One of the major recommendations of the Hickman royal commission, one of the major areas of controversy at the time of the sinking of this so-called unsinkable vessel, was the fact that oil and gas rigs were treated in a different manner from all other forms of shipping plying the waters of the North Atlantic. An oil and gas rig or semi-submersible rig was treated as a mechanism for extracting oil or exploring for oil and all other self-propelled vehicles on the surface of the ocean were treated as ships and therefore were subject to the regulations of the Canada Shipping Act. The act therefore required that all of these stringent safety regulations of the Canada Shipping Act be met and that all of the requirements for proper licensing, for a proper captain aboard, be met. In fact we discovered much to everybody's great sadness at the time of this disaster that the same was not true of rigs, that a rig was not considered a ship, it did not require a seagoing captain. The man in charge was an expert in extracting or drilling for oil, but he was not a mariner.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
So 10 years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago there was a veiy large and strong consensus that we had to move immediately to treat these exploration vehicles, these oil extraction vehicles, like ships. The same kind of stringent safety code ought to apply, the same level of expertise for navigation ought to be available. It was a requirement. It was most important that a single agency ought to be in charge of the regulation regime with respect to these pieces of equipment.
I want to ask my hon. friend who just spoke very knowledgeably about this bill whether he is satisfied that we now have a single agency in charge of safety on oil and gas rigs as a consequence of the amendments brought in today.
I must confess I did a very quick reading of the bill. I note that there is still provision for the minister of energy to set regulations in some circumstances. There is still provision for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set regulations in other circumstances. No doubt, I suppose in some circumstances depending on the nature of the rig, we may still have the Minister of Transport or other ministries involved in the operation of these rigs.
I have to ask myself, 10 years after the tragic disaster that nobody survived on the unsinkable Ocean Ranger, have we finally got it right? Do we have a set of regulations and a regime that we can trust?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for the question. It is a very appropriate one.
No, Madam Speaker, we are not entirely satisfied. We note with some satisfaction that there is, for prescribed emergency situations, an opportunity for one minister, although we think it is the wrong ministry, to be able to exercise direct and unilateral control.
If I may just read section 16.1(1):
In a prescribed emergency situation where the Minister is of the opinion that there is a conflict between the provisions of this Act or the regulations and the provisions of another federal law, other than provisions implementing an international treaty or convention to which Canada is a party, and that compliance with that law and this Act or the regulations is likely to create a situation that would seriously endanger the safety of persons or equipment, the Minister may issue a written declaration to that effect.
Under that circumstance there is one single ministry. But, if we wait for an emergency situation to develop, I really wonder how that is going to help the safety and the lives and the health of people engaged in another stormy sea situation on what turns out to be an unstable rig sitting off the Atlantic coast.
Certainly the member is right in his suggestion that it is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has general responsibility if the offshore rigs are in the high Arctic. That is another minister.
It is our opinion that we have to do much more, and not only in emergency situations, to ensure that we have some kind of unified command. We do note, with some approval, that there are measures within this bill that seem to finally designate someone who is not called the master of the vessel, or the skipper, but someone with the same authority and powers as a skipper or a master of a ship usually has. Even so, they can still designate that same person provided an advisory council, which we do not think is fully representative, is willing to approve the appointment of an individual whose primary responsibility other than that which is legislated here is the insertion and retraction of the drill itself.
We seriously question whether that is appropriate although, as I said, we are glad that there does seem to be some single person aboard, if that is the appropriate word, with the authority of a master. We just hope that they have the skills and training that a master of a normal ship on the high seas would have.
We are not totally satisfied with any kind of unified structure of responsibility here except in the case of emergencies and even there we question whether or not the right ministry is in charge.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, I have just a few words concerning this legislation.
I note that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said: "These amendments will close the chapter on the Ocean Ranger royal commission's recommendations". The closing of the chapter on the royal commission's recommendations on the Ocean Ranger is shockingly inadequate on the part of the Government of Canada and unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and to the people of Canada.
April 9, 1992

We note that the minister, in his statement before the House today and in a press release issued today, says that it took so long because of the consultations with the various interests, the petroleum industry, and he is pleased to say that a consensus has been reached among the key players. Reaching a consensus should not be the job of the Government of Canada when it comes to health and safety, when it comes to lives on the high seas. Waiting for a consensus has taken too long and is shockingly inadequate as presented before this House.
Was there anything in this statement today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that talked about increasing the presence of coast guard vessels on the high seas? No. Was there anything in the announcement today in closing the chapter on the Ocean Ranger that talked about increasing search and rescue surveillance from the air? No, there was not a thing.
We have the recommendations concerning the Ocean Ranger saying that one of the biggest problem areas, as the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and our critic pointed out a few moments ago, is how to remove people from these rigs on the high seas in times of emergency.
The hon. member said a moment ago that some of our memories are fading as to the exact description of what happened, but I can recall quite vividly reading the testimony of the people who were out there and who saw the men on the water but could not get them they were almost touching them but could not get them. There was no way to take them from the life-rafts on to the ship. They were representing the people of Canada. There was no way. They just could not be taken from the ocean and put aboard the ship in those high seas in those circumstances.
Where is the reference to coast guard vessels? Where is the reference to vessels on the high seas from the Canadian coast guard from the Newfoundland region? None. Yet one of the chief recommendations of the commission was to have some means of saving people in those circumstances on the high seas. What are we left with? I will tell you what we are left with. We are left with a Newfoundland region for the Coast Guard that is one of the smallest regions in Canada. Why, it is not even as big as the region in the Great Lakes. It is not as
Government Orders
big as the sister regions up in Quebec and down into the maritimes. No, it is not.
The numbers of vessels, ice-breakers, medium-sized vessels used in search and rescue has not changed. It is the lowest amount in any one region. In fact, the people servicing that region of Coast Guard are actually on a lower rate than other people in other regions. Nothing has changed.
The Government of Canada says: "Well, in times of emergency we can realign our resources. In times of emergency on the high seas we can bring a few icebreakers up from Quebec City or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, that might be tied up to the wharf and send them out 200 miles southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland". That is totally unacceptable.
When we have our major drilling operations in Canada in the offshore taking place east of the city of St. John's, the majority of Coast Guard vessels that are used for safety purposes on the high seas should make that region one of the major regions in this country. But it is the smallest region.
Was there any change announced here today in closing the chapter on the Ocean Ranger? Was there any announcement on new search and rescue helicopters? Was there any announcement on new equipment on board the helicopters to be able to function in bad weather conditions, as we need that new equipment? No, Madam Speaker, there was not.
Was there an announcement that there were going to be more search and rescue helicopters in the province of Newfoundland? No, there was not. If anything, when you look at the DND estimates, there has actually been a reduction in the resources that have been put toward search and rescue, safety on the high seas.
Was there a mention today of Hibernia? No, Madam Speaker, there was not. Was there a mention of the future or the present in the area in which the Ocean Ranger went down and where these people worked? Not a mention. One would have thought the minister would have used this opportunity to stand in this House and say: "Yes, the Hibernia development is going to move ahead. Newfoundland will receive future work and

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
future resources from this development". But there was not one mention. No, there was not.
Yet they sit in their offices, in their cabinet rooms, after listening to Mr. Hopper stand up and say that if in 60 days there are not other partners found that Hibernia is going to have to be mothballed. They sit in their cabinet rooms and they read. One of the major players in the offshore is Petro-Canada. It is owned 80.4 per cent by the Government of Canada. The board of directors is appointed by the Government of Canada. Development is approved by the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada tells them what to say as far as offshore development off the coast of Newfoundland is concerned. It tells them what their construction program is. It sat there this year and it approved for Petro-Canada drilling programs in Columbia in the Magdelena Valley in the home of the drug lords.
It approved drilling programs offshore all right, off the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. It approved drilling programs down in Myanmar that used to be known as Burma. Oh, yes, it has approved that this year for Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada then turns around and says unless a new partner is found within 90 days, the Hibernia development that we are talking about here today is going to have to be mothballed. It is owned 80.4 per cent by the Government of Canada, every member on their board appointed by the Government of Canada, their construction program approved and their drilling program approved every year by the Government of Canada, with the two members sitting on the board visiting the cabinet meetings from time to time.
Was there a mention here today about changing the accord regulations, or the bills that went through this Chamber? Oh, yes there was. It said that the acts would have to be changed, but was there any mention of changing it so that more developments could take place in the province of Newfoundland from offshore oil development? No, there was not.
We have this Chamber that dealt with the accord and said that we have to be content in Newfoundland with existing refining capacity and that we cannot build refining capacity or petrochemical industries to make use of offshore oil unless all existing petrochemical industries and all existing feedstock requirements in all the rest of eastern Canada are met and that is after, of
course, any deals signed with the United States or any other part of the world are met.
All in all, I am very disappointed with this announcement here today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There is nothing wrong of course with what he is bringing in in the legislation, but to turn around and say that this closes the chapter is certainly shockingly inadequate on the part of the Government of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put questions to my friend from Gander-Grand Falls. The memory of the great tragedy that was the loss of 84 lives on the Ocean Ranger in February 1982 will never fade as long as there is a voice as articulate as that of the hon. member to rise in this House and remind us of our responsibility to those who toil, who work on rigs on the high seas.
I said a moment ago when I spoke that our memories have faded somewhat about the details of this disaster and that is true. But we do not forget and we cannot forget that it was the member for St. John's West, the current minister of fisheries, who stood in the House when the interim report of the Hickman royal commission was submitted to the government, with some 90-odd recommendations I believe. In response to questions from the member for Gander-Grand Falls, and I think I put some questions myself, he told us that the report of the royal commission, the final report that was submitted, was "not going to be buried or gather dust on any shelf". That was in April 1986, six years ago.
I want to ask my friend from Gander-Grand Falls who knows this area so well in particular the Coast Guard side of it, whether he is satisfied that the $15 million report into the loss of 84 lives, with recommendations to ensure that regulations were developed to prevent that kind of loss again, has in fact gathered dust and whether after six long years he is satisfied that this report has addressed in particular the question of rig evacuation.
In his very moving and stirring comments a few minutes ago, he recalled to all of our minds that torturous picture of people being off the rig, being in the water and incapable of being rescued. He reminded all of us that one of the major failures in the case of the Ocean Ranger after a disaster was clear and present, after
April 9, 1992

danger was clear and present, was the inability to get off that rig.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I can remember several years ago when we were examining the report. It was the hon. member for Elumber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and I who sat down and went over specifically the points that struck us as being important.
The fact that people were alive in the water struck us as being very important. I remember us talking about it privately behind those curtains. Was it possible to have a vessel that could remove people from those life rafts, remove people from another ship safely under those conditions? Every single mariner I have spoken to since then, every single captain of every single vessel that sailed out in those areas, any boat beyond 45-feet long as a fishing vessel, always comes back to what we came back to when we discussed it. They say: "There are only two ways you can be saved. One way is on the water, the other way is in the air". You either have to get off whatever you are on, on to another boat, or you have to be taken by a helicopter. There are only two ways.
They turn around and they say: "These are the areas where the Government of Canada has sole responsibility. These are the areas that need great upgrading". Yes, you can change the regulations. Nobody is complaining about these regulations. We are complaining that it took so many years to get a consensus. Mainly, we are complaining that you can change the regulations. You can take the royal commission report and take out the specific recommendations that talk about regulations, doing this and that while ignoring the most important recommendations of all, those involving the removal of people from a sinking ship or rig on the high seas. The people who wrote the commission report did not really know what the answer was. That is what they asked the Government of Canada to find out.
If at least the Government of Canada had turned around and said: "Well, all right, we are now going to beef up our search and rescue, we are going to beef up the vessels on the oceans that perform that function", you could then turn around and say yes, the Government of Canada has responded to the most important thing that was in the royal commission report. It did not.
We are not criticizing what is in the bill. We are criticizing what is not in the bill. We are criticizing the inaction of the Government of Canada, especially the
Government Orders
statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who stood in this Chamber a few moments ago and said what he said in his press release, that this was the closing of the final chapter on the Ocean Ranger disaster.
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and assure members of this Chamber that this will not close the final chapter. There are other things that need to be done. The next Government of Canada will address those very important questions and at least assure those people who work on the high seas that we are looking at those two main areas. That is what you can do from the sky and what you can do from the ocean when these people's lives are in danger.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Members opposite are clearly upset at the great interest that the member for Gander-Grand Falls and I have in this issue. In particular, they are upset at the great interest the member for Gander-Grand Falls has because he has the capacity to go straight to the heart of the matter.
He has the capacity not to get bogged down or caught up or tangled up in all of the little regulatory niceties, all the little entanglements and enticements that the minister offers up to the House as a reassurance that something is being done. The member has pointed out that the bill is deficient not for what is in the bill, but for what is not in the bill. The bill is deficient not in the amendments it proposes but in the amendments that are not proposed.
The member has just told us that on the question of when all else goes wrong, when the order is given to get off the rig, when the order is given that all of the regulations have failed, all of the precautions are for naught, you have got to get off to save your life, there is nothing in this bill to assist anybody any better now than 10 years ago.
He is absolutely right. I hope the member will be in committee to argue for amendments to this bill and to argue for better technology and better mechanisms for evacuating people off those rigs because 84 lives lost on the unsinkable rig is 84 lives too many.
In the brief time remaining I ask the member whether or not he agrees with me that there is a continuing conflict over who is in charge. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs each has a finger in here.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
There is no role for the Department of Transport and no treatment of rigs and ships. I ask whether that is a continuing cause for concern as well for the member for Gander-Grand Falls.


George Baker: I completely agree with the hon. member. It simply remains to be pointed out that the very two departments that we are talking about when we talk about saving lives on those drilling rigs are not the two that the hon. member just mentioned. They are the Department of National Defence in the air and the Department of Transport on the ocean.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker,I want to do something unusual in my presentation in this House today. I want to go to bat for the Minister of Transport. In the past I have tended to go after him because of decisions being made by the department, but today I want to defend him from the actions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As my colleagues have just spoken about, this bill gives primacy to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in matters of safety of events at sea.
When we had the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard before the transport committee this week I raised the question of this conflict, of why the minister of energy is given the decision-making power to decide when to abrogate safety laws or transport laws or navigation laws or any other kind of laws that may be appropriately reconsidered in the time of emergency.
The argument from the commissioner was okay. They had worked it out and he was satisfied that the minister of energy had greater knowledge and understanding of issues at sea than the Coast Guard did. That is my interpretation of his words, but I would say to the Minister of Transport he has lost the turf war once again.
In the same way that the Department of National Defence reigns supreme over search and rescue instead of the Department of Transport just because it has the bigger toys is another indication that the Minister of Transport has been captured by other departments.
I believe that the Minister of Transport should be the sole minister designated in this legislation because he and the people who work for him on behalf of the people of Canada have the expertise. They know the sea. They know the air. They have the responsibility for ships and for ship safety. Quite frankly a drill rig is a ship with legs as far as I am concerned, and from time to time it is a ship. There is no question in my mind that the Minister of Transport should be the one who has to make that decision.
The legislation suggested he will be consulted. I can just see the phone call: "John, this is Jake. I need to turn off some lights on the rig because we might have an explosion. What do you think?" Give me a break.
The Minister of Transport has the responsibility in other legislation, in marine matters, for the safety of the rig, for the safety-this is the most important part-of the people who work on that rig, or on that ship, or on that airplane, as long as it is either Canadian or in Canadian waters.
To say that the minister who has responsibility for the economic matters as to the appropriateness of drilling in a particular spot suggests that we have allowed the banker once again to be in charge of safety as opposed to the minister who has that responsibility.
This is not new. We have done battle in this House over this issue ever since the Ocean Ranger disaster, ever since the report came out and the government acted on some of the recommendations.
I know that my colleague, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, will pursue this matter in committee as I did with the minister of energy's parliamentary assistant when he briefed us on the bill. I made it very clear that I was dissatisfied with the designation of the minister of energy in this bill. I know that my colleague will pursue this matter in committee, because we need to put the responsibility where it belongs.
I want to move on and touch on a couple of other issues that are interrelated. The briefing note that was provided to me by the parliamentary secretary on
April 9, 1992

amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act has a line in it that says:
Extensive consultations with accord provinces, territorial governments, industry, offshore boards and other federal departments, including the Department of Transport, and allowing all stakeholders now concur with legislation.
The one set of stakeholders who were not even consulted were the people who represent the workers. In a letter back to my colleague, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a senior adviser to the minister of energy wrote, in answer to the following question: Were there any consultations with the trade unions, particularly SIU? The answer was that no, there were no formal consultations with trade unions.
This bill does not conflict with worker safety requirements vis-a-vis regulations under the Labour Code. Through the work of my colleague we began discussions with the unions to let them know about the bill and to see what the reaction was.
I have a letter from Roman Gralewicz who is the president of the Seafarers International Union:
This scoundrel attempt by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to go through a legislative back door with its safety legislation without the input of labour regardless of its content shows the blatant disregard this government and the oil industry truly have with respect to fair representation of the industry work force.
This designated attempt by EMR to usurp the mandate of Labour Canada, a federal department, which does utilize the consultative process with its clientele and is responsible for occupational safety and health warrants investigation. Why were labour representatives not invited to participate? What are the government and the oil industry hiding? As employee safety is an issue is Energy, Mines and Resources the right department to responsibly handle it?
This bill should be referred to a committee consisting of labour, management and government representatives for review.
That is the view of the president of the Seafarers International Union. He is concerned because those who represent the workers were not consulted.
Perhaps if they were consulted they might say the Minister of Transport should be the lead minister. They might say the Minister of Labour should be the lead minister, but I know they would say it should not be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The third area I want to touch on is the whole question of the safety of the workers in the event of an emergency. One of the key recommendations that came out of the Royal commission on the Ocean Ranger is article 107
Government Orders
that "(a) government and industry without delay establish performance standards and initiate a joint major engineering development project to produce a safe, primary evacuation system for offshore drilling rigs and (b) during the intervening period it be a condition of the right to drill that existing primary evacuation systems be improved or replaced so as to improve materially their capability to evacuate the crew".
When we checked with Cle Newhook, who is the leader of the New Democrats in Newfoundland and Labrador, he pointed out:
The major criticism of what Government has done re the Commission relates to section 107. Nothing substantially has been done by either level of government about this critical issue. The industry has put some R & D money into a modified version of davit launched lifeboat systems called P.R.O.D. Husky-Bow Valley was the main player in this development. Opinions may vary somewhat as to its usefulness, but few would claim that it solves the problem. The bottom line is we still do not have any effective way of safely evacuating workers from offshore installations in an emergency situation.
He points out that Canada is spending billions on space technology and it is ridiculous that we can retrieve people safely from space but not from our oceans.
It is clear that what has to happen in committee as this bill is reviewed in detail is that we have to give teeth to recommendation 107, that we have to ensure that the dollars are allocated, whether they be private sector or public sector, to develop that safe method of egress, that primary evacuation system.
We have to recognize that during this kind of evacuation it will probably be when aircraft are disabled, in times of very violent weather, which also precludes surface vessels travelling in a rapid way either to or from the rig. So we need some kind of cocoon that will not only remove the workers from a burning rig or a rig that is about to explode or to capsize, but will also safely protect them from the elements and allow them to survive their egression.
We have a responsibility to do that. If we do not, we are not justifying our efforts here. We are not protecting them as we are required to by law. It is the job of the Government of Canada to provide that protection. We might as well not have bothered with a Royal commission report. We might as well not bother with legislation like this unless we are serious about protecting those workers.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
Yes, we can fight over which minister should be in charge of it, but the bottom line is we had damn well better find a way to protect those workers when they are out there. Otherwise, there will be another Royal commission and there will be more memorials because there will be more people who have lost their lives because we did not act.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with respect to the legislation before us and the whole issue has been that much of the relevant Canadian law does not apply outside the operable limit. This means that present rescue operations are carried out through memorandums of understanding that allow for operations to proceed as if there were legal sanctions. This is presently true for Newfoundland, but it is not a fact in Nova Scotia where there is no such agreement. The fear expressed to us by some representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard is that the passage of this act will cause the existing Memorandum of Understanding to unravel with respect to the province of Newfoundland. That has rather strong implications on safety and benefits insofar as workers are concerned.
The other problem is that one of the key recommendations of the Hickman report stressed that section 107 should receive primary consideration. It deals with safe egress in developing appropriate modules for rescue. Those considerations have largely been seen as irrelevant because they have not really led to any new developments of technology in that regard, so we have a number of additional problems taking place.
There is a new rig which I think is called The Gorilla going into operation. It should be bringing up oil in June of this year off the coast of Nova Scotia. A number of us, including some representatives of the coast guard, are concerned that we do not currently have proper memorandum of understanding with that province.
My colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan made some comments, and I am particularly pleased that as the transport critic for the New Democratic Party he has contributed to this debate. There has been a lack of consultation between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the SIU, and representatives of the workers who will be involved in this industry. This is another example of why this is the wrong ministry to have the override in situations of this kind.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his comments and his questions.
I think it is clear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has a particular focus. That focus legitimately is on oil exploration and the rules regarding that oil exploration. But as my colleague pointed out, because of that focus areas may have been overlooked such as the impact on the Memorandum of Understanding and the impact on the workers and their protections. The consultation with labour and the representatives of the people who work on these rigs or will work on these rigs has also been overlooked. That is another reason why this should be changed in committee. We must change it from the minister of energy to the Minister of Transport. In that split jurisdiction, the minister of energy will be concerned about the exploration aspects and the Minister of Transport will be responsible for the safety elements. There will be great pressure on the minister of energy to do what should be done.
I think it is an important thing to do. I would encourage my colleague to invite the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to appear before the committee as well as the Minister Transport and even the Minister of Labour.
Let us get this out in the open. I am not suggesting this legislation should be delayed in any fashion because 10 years is long enough and we have a responsibility to get on with it. Let us take a quick look at it and make sure we can make it better. Then we can bring it back to this House to pass and get off to the other place so that finally all of the chapters on the Ocean Ranger can be closed in a positive way.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where my colleague the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan left off.
Today we are debating the amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Reservations have been expressed by members who have spoken in this debate, but it is important to say that, by and large, the amendments being proposed by the federal minister of energy today are welcomed in this House. There is provision within the act laid down before the House today to clarify many of the regulatory concerns raised by the Hickman royal commission and by industty, government, regulatory agencies and labour representatives, with respect to the operation of oil and gas works.
April 9, 1992

The House would be remiss if it did not indicate that the bill is a step in the right direction. This bill will improve the prospects for safe operation of oil and gas rigs and a safe work environment for people who are employed in the offshore. It is important that fact be acknowledged so all other comments that are meant to draw attention to the bill and establish some areas for discussion, debate and exploration when this bill goes to committee can be taken in the proper context.
It is important for people to realize we are not voting today to pass or reject this bill. We are having an initial discussion about a set of proposals that will be sent off to a special legislative committee drawn up of members of this House. They will examine the bill to see whether or not it can be improved, changed, passed in its current form or amended. That is what is going to happen, and I make my comments in that context.
I want to restrict my comments to the question of jurisdiction. When the Ocean Ranger disaster occurred in February 1982, 10 years ago, with the consequential loss of 84 lives, there was an absolute flurry of activity in the land. There were countless declarations of good intent all across this land. Within 10 days, almost a record-setting time frame, a royal commission was launched, off and running. The government said it wanted answers.
Within a month of the Ocean Ranger disaster, the Ocean Ranger Disaster Fund was established. Within a year of the disaster a scholarship fund was set up which sent 11 kids to university this year. There was a flurry of activity and a commitment to make life at sea aboard an oil and gas rig safer for the men and women who worked on it.
It is now 10 years after the fact. Despite all of the commitments of good will, good intent and quick action, we are only now getting technical amendments to the existing Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.
It has been 10 years since 84 men disappeared without a trace, their bodies never seen, in a north Atlantic storm. It is pretty tragic we are only now talking technical amendments. What is more tragic is that we still have a turf war going on within the federal government. It is shameful. How many Canadians realize that within the national government there is still a debate going on at
Government Orders
the level of senior bureaucrats and ministers over who is going to control the operation of offshore oil and gas rigs.
How many Canadians realize that every single vessel that plies the Atlantic Ocean within Canada's jurisdiction is governed by safety regulations laid down by the Canada Shipping Act, with the exception of oil and gas rigs? Why is it necessary to exempt oil and gas rigs that are ships from the Canada Shipping Act? They are self-propelled and everything that is self-propelled is a ship.
Why do they have to set up a separate division to regulate rigs within the department of energy? It is in the business of energy exploration and production, not safety. Can anybody give me one good reason, 10 years after 84 men died, why the department of energy should be allowed to retain its jurisdiction over those rigs? It is not a Tory, Liberal, or NDP problem. It is a bureaucratic problem.
Can anybody give one functional reason why it is better? How is anybody any safer? Is there one reason? There are no reasons.
The Hickman royal commission touched on that. It talked about the fact that oil and gas rigs were not treated as ships. The Hickman royal commission told us that the people who were aboard those vessels and who had ultimate authority were not qualified sea captains. They were not mariners. Why would they be, when the department of energy regulated the operation of the rigs? Its primary role and responsibility, quite properly, is to promote development, exploration and production of offshore oil and gas. It is a gross conflict of interest to have the same department that promotes oil and gas exploration also responsible for safety.
What does the minister do when there is a conflict between his desire to make an offshore oil and gas exploration happen and his responsibility to ensure that whatever costs associated with a safe operation are brought to bear on an offshore oil and gas rig? Where is the minister's priority? Is it cutting the cost and promoting exploration, or imposing an additional cost and burden and ensuring safety?

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
It is a conflict of interest. It is like putting a pyroma-niac in charge of the fire hall. It is outrageous, 10 years after the Ocean Ranger disaster that we allow this. Yes, it is touchy behaviour for a member to stand here and harp on the fact that 84 people died. Yes, it is tough for a member to stand here and remind us all that 84 families are without their loved ones. Yes, it touches a raw nerve and is tough rhetoric in debate. But we have to remind ourselves that offshore oil and gas safety is what we are concerned with here.
My purpose in rising today is to say to those members who will sit on the special committee and examine this bill that they cannot accept at face value the continued jurisdiction of the department of energy over the operation of oil and gas rigs. It is wrong.
It makes no sense. It is abnormal. It is the one exemption from the Canada Shipping Act. All other vessels that ply Canadian waters do so under regulations laid down by the Canada Shipping Act. There is absolutely no good reason why offshore oil and gas rigs should function in a different manner.
What does this bill before us provide for offshore oil and gas rigs? It provides that in some cases the department of energy will have jurisdiction over the operation of the rigs. It provides that in other cases the department of Indian and northern affairs will have jurisdiction over the operation of oil and gas rigs.
Why should that be? Why should the possibility of conflict even exist? Why should the possibility of different regulations being applied differently in different circumstances even exist when all it takes is the government deciding to take the advice of a $15 million royal commission into this disaster, to take the advice of many members of Parliament, to take the advice of Canada's mariners, to take the advice of the officials who are in the ship safety division of Transport Canada, and to transfer jurisdiction and responsibility for the safe operation of these rigs to the men and women within our public service whose sole purpose in breathing when they wake up in the morning is to ensure proper safe ship operation? Why should there be an exemption for oil and gas rigs?
I will tell you why. Because it is a turf war. It is a classic example of the transparently petty power game that goes on in the nation's capital. It is a transparent example of
the petty politics played between ministers and senior bureaucrats as to who is going to build the biggest kingdom, as to whether or not the minister of energy who is in charge and is responsible for promoting offshore oil and gas exploration and production is going to allow another minister on his turf.
That is what is going on here. That went on 10 years ago. That is what went on 15 years ago. It has not changed. It has not changed in the face of a tragic loss of life.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is in Canada today a kind of profound cynicism about the political process and public life, a profound corrosive doubt about the ability of the system to work for the public good when we continue to allow in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary this kind of turf war to exist.
I point out that it is not unique to any particular party, but it is unique. This kind of turf war is commonly associated with big government wherever big government is found.
I hope my contribution to this debate will challenge the status quo as is represented by this regulatory regime as proposed under this bill, will challenge those members who will indeed I am sure with good will, good heart, and good conscience participate in the examination of this bill before the appropriate standing committee to take a look at whether or not it is appropriate for the minister of energy, the person in charge of getting offshore oil and gas exploration going and in charge of accelerating the pace of development, to also have his hand on the safety brake, and if he does have his hand on the safety brake, whether or not he is in a conflict of interest.
I submit no matter who that minister is, no matter what his or her intentions, no matter what their personal integrity, whether they are Tory or Liberal or New Democrat makes no difference, that minister is automatically put in a conflict. They have to decide whether the priority is development or safety. They have to decide whether or not in the name of efficiency to attract capital they scrap safety, or whether or not in the name of a decent working environment from time to time they impose an additional cost on those who want to participate in offshore oil and gas production. There is no need for that conflict. There is no need for one ministry to have both those roles. It is inappropriate, it is improper, and it ought to be changed.
April 9, 1992


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell the House what the Hickman report recommended with reference to the turf, which department should control. It is an important question. I would think the royal commission may have considered that. It may not have considered that, but it is certainly an area, and those of us who know Ottawa know that there is a turf. We would not want safety to slip between the cracks, either through a fight between the federal and the provincial governments or the federal, provincial or international control or a kind of turf war between the department of energy versus the department of Indian affairs or the department that is responsible for Canada shipping.
I wonder if the member knows the answer to that. If he does, could he tell the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
The Hickman royal commission did not come down clearly on the side of any department. I must tell you that the Hickman royal commission very clearly said, and it was one of the major recommendations, that there ought to be one regulator. There ought to be a single department, a single ministry, in charge of the safe operation of the rigs. That is what the royal commission said. It did not say whether it ought to be energy, Indian and northern affairs, transport, federal, provincial. It stayed silent. I suspect the reason the commission stayed silent is that at that stage, if the member will recall because he was here in the House, there was a large debate going on about who owned the offshore. There were negotiations going on between the federal government of the day and the provincial government of the day as to whether or not there would be a joint regulatory regime. There was a court challenge at the same time.
I think some of those questions that were ongoing and that were unresolved at that point in time probably created a climate. Here I am guessing, surmising. The commissioners decided they would leave which department open to an appropriate decision by Parliament, but they clearly and very strongly-in fact it was one of the first and major recommendations-recommended one department.
Government Orders
What is important? What is relevant? Here we are, 10 years after the disaster, seven or eight years after the submission of both the preliminary and final reports, and we do not have one department. What we have is a statement in the explanatory note covering the new bill. I ask my friend to consider that. In the event of an emergency, in the event that a rig is offshore, is in trouble, is in a storm, is perhaps going to sink, perhaps we are going to have to abandon ship, the minister of energy will have the right to override all other departments and have sole jurisdiction over the rig.
I think it is rather pathetic, quite frankly, that 10 years after the Ocean Ranger disaster, the government is not doing what the royal commission recommended, giving to one department the responsibility for safety. I submit it ought to be the Department of Transport because it is a disinterested, honest player. Transport's role is ship safety. Transport Canada has a ship safety branch. It exists only for one purpose. It has no other purpose in life but to maintain, propose and execute proper procedures for ship safety. It is not in the business of exploring for oil. It is not in the business of granting licences for blocks of Canada lands. It is not in the business in the case of Petro-Canada of being an 80 per cent shareholder in an oil company.
The minister of energy holds, on behalf of the people of Canada, 80 per cent of the shares of Petro-Canada. He is a shareholder. He is in the business of exploring for oil and gas. Is he going to impose upon himself, holding the shares of Petro-Canada on behalf of the people of Canada, additional costs, being the chief safety officer? He is in a rabid, he is in an unmitigated, he is in a transparent, he is in an obvious, he is in a painfully ridiculous conflict of interest. How can you both be a shareholder of an oil exploration company and the chief safety officer on behalf of the people of Canada?
It ought not be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It ought to be the Minister of Transport who has that responsibility because he is disinterested. He does not have a conflict. He does not wear two hats, one as promoter and one as safety officer. He wears only one. The member should know that a ship is defined in the Canada Shipping Act as any self-propelled vehicle that plies the ocean. An oil rig is self-propelled. Most rigs today are self-propelled but they are the only exception

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
to the Canada Shipping Act. As this bill goes to committee, let us get it right.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I was in the House 10 years ago. I remember it was a pretty chilling occasion. The House was very silent. We had heard about the disaster on the news the night before. There were questions. The minister gave answers. They were bad answers because they were tragic, but they were good answers because we received real facts. It was a good example of this House working at the time. I remember thinking that.
I am from British Columbia, the west coast. I remember our hearts went out to the workers and their families who were affected. I was pleased to hear in the member's speech that 10 years later, through the scholarship fund, some kids had gone to university. It is not as good as having the people back, but it is something. That is good news.
I tend to agree with the member. As you know, I was the energy critic for our party for a number of years. At the time I was energy critic. The member is right. There were other things we had to look at. I would have thought the royal commission would have looked at who should have jurisdiction. Now I understand perhaps why they could not.
Now that these other jurisdictional questions have been sorted out, it is important to have an independent department. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to be pushing Canada's energy and pushing development. Quite frankly, the development of Hibernia scares me. We know iceberg alley and we know that it is dangerous. We know that this could happen again.
I am hoping that in committee the government will be open, that we can keep our rhetoric down and keep focusing on who will be responsible. The government might be open for changes. Let us not have turf wars. Let us have a department that is unbiased and with no conflicts.
I agree with what the hon. member has said and I look forward to hearing what the government has to say.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. He has been energy critic and knows this dossier well.
I would take as notice that, hopefully, at least two of the three parties in Parliament are going to go to the committee with a view to improving this bill. One of the ways of doing it is to get rid of the conflict that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been putting to ensure that Transport Canada, which has an interest and honest approach to safety, is given that mandate and that we put an end to the turf warfare that goes on in Parliament.
I thank the member for his indication of his party's position. I believe that will be the position of my party. I hope that the member for St. John's East will indicate when he speaks shortly that he has an open mind on the subject. I have known the hon. member for many years and I know that his mind has been described in a great many ways, some flattering some less than flattering, but his mind has always been open. We shall see in a moment whether or not he is prepared to indicate his willingness to work with members opposite to make this a better bill for all Canadians.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as usual, my friend from Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte is more than generous. It is my pleasure to follow him in this debate.
As he and others have said, we should remember that what we are doing here is moving this legislation off to committee. At committee there will be a broad discussion on a number of aspects of this legislation.
We should also remember that this legislation does not apply just to offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador, in fact it applies right across the industry. It has particular importance for the frontier which is, in this country, quite broad and quite inclusive.
I suppose it is the tragedy of February 14 and 15, 1982 that makes us focus on this tragedy which was quite personal for many of us. Not only did many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians lose family members and, like me, lose friends, but it was something that was felt right through the community. Those of us who have lived by
April 9, 1992

and from the sea for so long, while recognizing constant danger and being aware of constant loss of life, do become perhaps a little bit immune, a little bit brave and with a perception of indestructibility.
The window at the back of my house at the time looked right out over the harbour with an unimpeded view. The view of the support vessels that returned to that harbour carrying equipment and tragically bodies was something that remains with me today. It reminds us that we are fragile and it reminds us that we do live a very dangerous life by the sea.
At the time, St. John's particularly, but all of the island part of our province, was excited by oil and gas. There were great prospects: there were jobs, there were ships coming and going, there were rigs in Marystown and rigs sitting outside St. John's, drill ships inside the harbour, supply boats coming and going, helicopters overhead all the time, and people getting ready for what they thought would be an opportunity to make some money and create some jobs. I tell you that Monday morning sure brought us down to earth very quickly with a thump.
It has been 10 years, but anybody who was living in St. John's or Newfoundland at the time will ever forget it. We see the results every day. Those of us who have lost family members or know people who have lost family members continue to deal with the tragedy. We are reminded through memorials and particularly through the efforts of a number of groups such as scholarship funds and others.
We are reminded again as we deal with Bill C-58, which seeks to address almost all of the concerns that were raised in the subsequent investigations, studies, royal commissions and task forces, first of all, to get an idea of what caused this tragedy. Why did the great Ocean Ranger sink? Why was there such a huge loss of life? Why was there such a tragic result on that awful February night? Winds had been experienced before and high seas had been experienced before and supposedly all of the precautions had been taken.
We have heard a lot about the royal commission, the Hickman study, the Ocean Ranger inquiry. For three years that kept us all focused not only on that particular tragedy, but on the work that was done and the net that was expanded to look at technologies that were available around the world, at standards that were being used around the world and at conditions that existed around the world for the production of oil and gas off our shores.
Government Orders
There have been private sector task forces. We have heard about the consultations that have taken place, consultations that have been conducted not only by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but by other departments. For instance, Labour Canada has conducted consultations with the trade unions and with the labour movement to deal particularly with health and safety measures, in committees and that sort of process.
That of course is being fed into the ongoing and ever expanding discussion among government departments, with provincial governments, with territorial governments and with industry in a variety of ways, styles and processes. We do have a body of knowledge that allows us to finally put the last touches in place.
As all members of the House know, immediately after the tragedy there was a move to put standards in place that would govern offshore drilling units: ballasting, structural integrity, survival suits and lifeboat requirements. It was done immediately.
By the time the Hickman study came out half of its recommendations had been put in place. It should be remembered that the study came out in two parts. The first part had 66 recommendations that dealt with rig designs, evacuation, search and rescue, training and that sort of thing. The second part had 70 recommendations dealing with offshore safety.
The recommendations were extensive. They had been widely studied. We have gathered the information, the studies that were available at the time, and a fairly broad approach to doing new research and gathering new information.
Over a period of time most of the recommendations, as I said, had been put in place.
Where there has been a problem, where there have been delays from 1986-87 after the Harrison task force did its work, has been somewhat, as my friend has said, not what to do but how best to do it. How can we most efficiently and effectively put in place the regulations to ensure that the management of the regulatory authorities was efficient, effective and transparent. How to ensure that the lines of authority were clear and delineated. How to ensure that the resources of government, the agencies that are responsible for safety, industry and all of the stakeholders quite clearly understood their roles and responsibilities and knew what to do if there were questions and knew what to do as we evolve new

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
regulations, as we evolve new technologies and we move forward.
We have seen the appointment of the Oil and Gas Administration Advisory Council and the Offshore Oil and Gas Training Standards Advisory Board, as the minister has said. But what has gone on in the last 10 years? We have seen ups and downs in exploration. We have seen what we thought were the first steps toward serious development off the east coast.
I need not tell this House how worried many of us are with the backing out of Gulf and the impact that has, not only on the Hibernia situation but oil and gas development generally. We are hopeful today that partners are in Asia pursuing opportunities there with the assistance of energy, mines and resources and the co-operation of government departments.
We have spent a lot of money on R and D, developing new equipment, developing new mechanisms that can get people off and away from a rig or a ship that is in danger. We have worked on new equipment that allows for survival in water. We have spent a lot of time training people in the area of safety in the offshore and have dealt with the whole question of being 275 kilometres from the nearest land in some of the roughest water in the world.
We heard a lot this morning about the question of jurisdiction, the question of control, the question of turf. It strikes me that this bill makes it very clear who, if there were a turf battle or had been a turf battle, is now to be in charge. The responsibility of departments and the authority of ministers is laid out.
There may be a dispute over which minister it should be. We have heard from the New Democratic Party members who have variously said the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport. We have heard from the Liberals who believe it should be the Minister of Transport. I want, briefly, to address that.
My friend from the west coast of Newfoundland was right when he said that the Hickman commission stated that there has to be a minister. It did not say which.
The private sector task force that sat down to review and advise government on these matters and reported in 1986 under Roland Harris suggested that it should be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Why? My friend keeps asking why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and not the Minister of Transport?
I think there are a couple of things that we have to recognize. The first is that we are dealing not just with a vessel, a ship, a self-propelled rig. These regulations cover the marine safety and the industrial safety, the industrial operation of this very expensive, very complex and potentially very dangerous piece of equipment.
That has to be kept in mind. It should be remembered, and I want to make it perfectly clear, that the rigs operating offshore Newfoundland are subject to the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. They are not exempt from the Canada Shipping Act.
As such, the Minister of Transport, the Department of Transport and Coast Guard have a role to play. It is an important role, but transport, like other departments, gets into this conflict. We have heard about the government through EMR owning shares in Petro-Canada, giving leases and providing safety.
Transport and so many other departments find themselves in exactly the same conflict. They set the policy. They write the regulations. They enforce the regulations. In many cases, they provide for the penalties for breach of those regulations.
They, as well, play a role through search and rescue in their co-operation with DND through the Coast Guard. Therefore, those conflicts potentially exist all over the place. What is important to recognize is that we have provided for one minister to co-ordinate the responsibilities of a variety of departments.
When there is an emergency situation or a situation that demands action, that minister has the ultimate responsibility and therefore the tools at his or her disposal to exercise that responsibility and that authority.
We must recognize that this is not only a marine industry. It is a very complicated industrial problem as well with the combination of the need to address worker safety so that we ensure all aspects of the operation are
April 9, 1992

safe and the need to protect the workers wherever they are in the frontiers of this country.
One of the colleagues of my friend from Gander-Grand Falls suggested that we were afraid to hear him. I am always delighted to hear the member for Gander-Grand Falls. Occasionally he speaks on the matters before the House. He is always entertaining. He speaks always from a caring and compassionate point of view. He does not always make sense. None of us do, I suspect. He has raised a couple of points. He talks about what is not in the bill. I know his interest will take him to the committee. I know he will find out in the committee that of course this legislation does not specifically deal with a couple of things he is most concerned about. One is the question of evacuation, and the other is the question of search and rescue.
He will find out that the question of evacuation and those related issues will be dealt with in the regulations as they are with all other legislation. They do not appear in the bill. They appear in the regulations and are quite definitively addressed in DND's search and rescue program.
I know when he participates in this committee, he will find these things out. I know his contribution will be substantial and important.
The tragedy that befell so many in Newfoundland in 1982 was felt around the world. The media attention at the time was frightening. The outpouring of support and understanding was exhilarating. The loss was tragic. We saw journalists from around the world. We saw family members come back. We saw people putting out their hands of support and generosity. Yes, we saw the vultures too. We learned a lot about ourselves, our history and our fragility. The fact is, we are not indestructible on the sea regardless of how careful we are and how much respect we have.
This legislation must ensure the work that has gone on in the last 10 years finalizes the package of what we know today. Part of making the package final is to ensure mechanisms are in place to continue to develop regulations and improve safety. We must continue to protect the workers, the environment and the future. We must do this not only for the benefit of offshore oil and gas
Government Orders
development but for our environment and those who can benefit and make a contribution to this world.
I know the study at committee will be thorough and will lead to productive discussions. I am sure all members will want to be constructive, helpful and positive as we put this behind us, having benefited, if at all possible, in some small way from this terrible tragedy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I have just a brief question for the member. I know all of us on both sides of the House are concerned after 10 years that this not be unduly delayed, particularly since we have a new rig, Gorilla 3, going into operation in June off Sable Island. We want to ensure everything is put in place before then.
As stated in the House earlier, a number of labour organizations, the SIU in particular, felt there was a total lack of consultation with them regarding the measures this bill deals with. We should have a clear opportunity for witnesses to be brought before the committee so we can have input from that vantage point in a tripartite way before proceeding with dispatch to the conclusion of clause by clause study. I gave assurances to the minister yesterday that it was not our intent to delay this very long. We really want to have some opportunity for witnesses to represent the viewpoint of the working people involved.
Could he respond to that, hopefully in a positive way?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake to have a discussion with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on exactly that matter. He will co-ordinate and play a substantial role in the committee. Those who know the member, know he is interested in moving ahead with this legislation and will attempt to be co-operative where he can.
I will pass on those comments of my friend from British Columbia so the minister fully understands the concern and intent of that member.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: listened with interest to the debate this morning on Bill C-58 and the opinions of all members. They are very concerned with the safety regulations with respect to our offshore drilling rigs, and indeed all of our vessels.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
I am somewhat concerned with this bill, and the fact it does not do everything we hoped it would do. I join with other members in the House who were deeply saddened by the tragedy that happened on the Ocean Ranger 10 years ago in February. We must be very cognizant of the legislation we are putting forward today and make sure we do everything we can to ensure such a tragedy never recurs.
As the member for St. John's East has said, it is not only a question of this bill and the ultimate legislation. It is also a question of the subsequent regulations that relate to this legislation. I hope both will get a very careful screening and the government will give us its undertaking that this bill will be studied very carefully in committee. Witnesses must be invited to attend as much as possible, and when the regulations come forward they must be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Energy.
I think we all regret it has taken so long to bring forward this legislation. We would like to show to the families of those who lost loved ones in the Ocean Ranger that we can work much more quickly than we have to bring forward this legislation. I do not think this is a true testimony to the concern of Canadians for those who lost their lives on the Ocean Ranger and the concern of Canadians that this not happen again. I think there has been undue delay. The inquiry, which presented its report in 1986, was not sufficiently complicated to warrant the time it has taken to bring this bill before this House.
It is reassuring in the time it has taken to bring the legislation before the House that people think even though it is taking too long to come forward we will ultimately get the legislation and regulations and have the proper protection. I am not convinced the proper protection now exists. This is going to be of concern for those who work on the drilling rigs and have eagerly awaited this legislation. They know the drilling rigs and the situations they are faced with. They know they must have that protection. It is in everyone's interest to have the safety structure there. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act must be sufficient for the job that has to be done.
The hon. member for St. John's East said he is not concerned that the minister of energy has the ultimate say in safety matters that relate to this bill. One of the reasons he used was that this relates not only to ocean safety but to industrial safety. That is not a point I would accept as confirming the fact that the minister of energy
should be the ultimate voice in this procedure. I do not accept that for a minute.
Industrial safety is a major factor but there is a lead time to correct the problem before and after it occurs. We are not going to lose a complete drilling rig in the event of this industrial accident. Certainly industrial accidents can be harmful and people can be killed but a whole rig and crew can be completely swallowed up by the ocean in a matter of minutes. The ultimate care of the rig itself has to be paramount when we determine who is going to make the ultimate decision in safety matters regarding offshore drilling rigs.
There is no question a drilling rig is a vessel. It is propelled and it is in the ocean. Even if it is not a vessel, it is sitting in the middle of the ocean. The Hibernia is over 250 kilometres from shore and in some of the roughest water in the world.
For somebody to appreciate the savagery of the ocean he or she would have to be there. You cannot possibly just describe it. It is frightening to say the least for those on the drilling rigs. It will be more frightening if the workers on the drilling rigs do not feel they have ultimate safety.
One could say we are not helping matters by saying we do not feel there are adequate safety provisions. That may be the case, but it is not for this House to say. We do not want to alarm people by saying there are problems and leaving it at that. It is much better to alarm and make the changes needed.
The question, of course, is what changes can be made. I believe as others do that the Minister of Transport should have the ultimate say in this question of safety on the ocean. The drilling rig is a vessel, and the question of ocean safety has already been studied by the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport deals in ocean transportation and has people in the department who are knowledgeable on that subject. They are involved in the safety of ordinary standard vessels. They are involved in clean-up mechanisms when there is a spill. They are involved in that. They supervise the Coast Guard. They supervise control aircraft. On land they have an excellent department that looks after the transportation of dangerous goods. They are involved in safety. They have a lot of expertise on safety matters, particularly on the water. That is not to say the Department of Transport should have all safety matters. For instance, the Department of Labour looks after safety in mines and so on. You cannot transport that to the Department of Transport, no pun intended.
April 9, 1992

I do feel that in this case the Minister of Transport should have the ultimate authority. I have no objection to the minister of energy or the department of energy. That is not a reflection on them and any subsequent minister. I think the minister, whoever he or she may be, will do the best job possible. It is just when the ultimate decision has to be made in an ocean disaster or a potential problem on the ocean it has to be made quickly. If you do not make it quickly, you are going to have a lot of time to reflect on it because it will be too late.
The problem is that these things happen very suddenly and that decisions have to be made suddenly. Also, if you have to make a sudden decision, you have to know who to contact to get confirmation as to what you are doing is correct. You have to get the expertise in a moment's notice. You have to know who to call. You have to know the systems that are in place, the search vessels, the search planes. The whole procedure has to be dealt with very, very quickly. I do not feel that the minister of energy can make those instantaneous decisions and contacts.
I also do not think that the minister of energy is going to be doing himself any favour by putting himself in this position. If a delay occurs, and a delay could occur for very innocent reasons, for instance, not having all of the facts, not realizing the seriousness of the situation, not waiting for further information, it could be blamed on the minister's inability to make that decision when he or she may not have all of the information or may not be apprised of the seriousness.
Also, if a decision is not made quickly and properly by a minister of energy, the minister of energy is open to the allegation that he or she was more concerned about protecting an asset of an oil company, a drilling rig or some equipment company and the safety of the workers was not paramount in the minister's mind. That would be tragic. It would be tragic that that kind of reflection could be placed upon the minister.
I think that we have to avoid any chance of aspersions being cast on the minister. A system should be in place to do the best job possible as quickly as possible. It is not
only a question of efficiency. It is a question of cost effectiveness and the fact that we must in this country in the days of technological advances and the importance of maintaining certainly the most important aspect, the importance of maintaining human life, deal with things in the best manner possible.
Co-ordination is vital. It has to be there to the nth degree, more so than even in oil spills. In oil spills, you are going to damage property, but with regard to ocean safety, you are most certainly faced with loss of life. The case of the Ocean Ranger with the loss of 84 lives is a tragedy which will be with us for as long as we all live in Atlantic Canada.
The member for St. John's East knows, as he said, some of the people and certainly the families of those who lost their lives. It was unquestionably a terrible, terrible tragedy.
Have we really looked at it? Someone has got to bear the ultimate responsibility. You cannot have a lot of departments involved without somebody having the ultimate responsibility. You have to know whom to contact to ask questions. The search and rescue operations are a vital part of ocean safety, but they have not been integrated to the extent that would satisfy me, frankly. The technology for launching the lifeboats from a drilling rig has not been answered.
The most difficult feature is getting the lifeboats into the water and having the people in the lifeboats live. These drilling rigs are monstrous structures. You need to have a lifeboat that goes from that drilling platform into an ocean that could have 100-foot waves and winds howling at 100 knots an hour. It is incredible out there. You need to have them enclosed so that the men cannot fall out, not only when they are being launched, but when they are in the water. It is an awful thing. Even if they live, they are subject to such motion sickness that you cannot even possibly comprehend, but the main thing is they will live if the proper precautions are taken.
With the Ocean Ranger it is assumed, and I do not know if anyone knows for sure, that one lifeboat did get launched, but that lifeboat was sunk by the collapsing drilling rig. We do not know how many men were in that lifeboat, if any, but that is a tragic assumption.

April 9, 1992
What we have to make sure of is that the boats are launched far enough away from the drilling rig so that if the platform collapses it does not crash down on the lifeboats. There is no assurance that will not happen but that has to be taken into consideration.
I do not feel that the necessary consideration has been given to lifeboat launching. I say that without having all the particular knowledge, but I am not convinced. I hope that those who serve on the drilling rigs will be more convinced than I am.
I reflect back to the disaster in 1980 in the Norwegian waters when they had a drilling rig loss. They made sure that the rig could actually remain stationary if it lost one of its support legs. They have also developed a system of putting the lifeboats on to a slide and launching them that way into the water. A great deal of care was taken. I hope care has been taken here, I really do. I would invite the government to make sure, through careful hearing at legislative time in front of the committee, that experts be invited to come forward to testily and that the subsequent regulations be looked at veiy carefully.
If the government is prepared to do that then that will ease my concern tremendously because we need expert opinion on this. I think we should be inviting that expert opinion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.09 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.09 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Canada and Quebec today signed a four-year $136 million forestry development agreement to be financed equally by both of them.
This is a result of the work done by the Conservative members from Quebec in Ottawa, headed by the hon. member for Champlain. This agreement provides significant support for the forest economy in rural Quebec and direct and indirect benefits for various Quebec interest groups.
In recent months the Conservative government renewed two other agreements, namely those for industrial development and for tourism.
Quebec's mining industry awaits the signature of a Canada-Quebec subagreement on mineral development.


THE MEDIA
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, for the past few days the media has been seized with the national crisis of the NHL players' strike. I, too, love hockey. I grew up with international champions, the Trail Smoke Eaters. I also strongly believe in free collective bargaining and the player-worker right to withdraw their labour.
My argument is not with the NHL players who are seeking a fair settlement. My argument is with Canada's media who played this dispute as the lead story from coast to coast to coast. Hey there, story editors, where are your priorities?
Where are the national headlines about the giant Bank of Commerce, for example, which has locked out 22 women for 15 months for trying to get a first agreement? What are these women asking for? An end
April 9, 1992

to wage discrimination, seniority for casuals, protection from harassment.
These women are stars too. Let us get our priorities right and give them equal play.


O. T. ANDERSON
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the 1992 Citation for Citizenship Awards were presented in Ottawa yesterday to honour individuals and organizations for their outstanding contributions to Canadian citizenship.
One of these national awards was presented to Mr. Osmond T. Anderson of Winnipeg, currently chairperson of the Manitoba Multicultural Resources Centre and the founding chairperson of the city of Winnipeg Community and Race Relations Committee. O.T., as he is commonly known by thousands of Winnipeg students, is also the vice-principal of Daniel McIntyre High School. O.T. has been a volunteer in Winnipeg for numerous organizations. The efforts of citizens like O.T. are greatly appreciated as well as needed in our ever changing multicultural society.
On behalf of all Manitobans, I would like to thank O.T. Anderson for his contributions in the areas of race relations, multiculturalism and citizenship. I know that all members of the House join me in congratulating O.T. on receiving this award.


CANADIAN INVESTMENT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect and demand that our federal government invest hard-earned tax dollars in Canadian products and in the communities and Canadians who produce them.
Some say our federal government does not invest in Canadians. How can this be when our government invests heavily on an ongoing basis in the very infrastructure of Canada? The infrastructure of our airports has been invested in. Recently, in Kelowna, British Columbia, the government invested $200 million in Western Star Thicks, and in my riding of London-Middlesex, $800 million in General Motors Diesel. Both of these projects are to improve the infrastructure of Canada's armed services.
These continued investments acknowledge loudly and clearly to the world that the government has faith and pride in Canadian excellence. On behalf of the people of London-Middlesex, I call upon our government to continue its obvious investment in Canadian infrastructure and excellence. The people of our country deserve no less.


ECONOMIC GROWTH
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in its latest budget, the federal government expects the economy to grow 2.7 per cent in 1992. The Royal Bank is more realistic: it predicts a 1.4 per cent growth rate.
The message is clear: the recession brought on by too high interest rates and an overvalued dollar will continue. This means that the federal debt will continue to grow.
Quebec is caught in this system. The federal government is running up a scandalous debt, over which we have no control. Canadian federalism is bankrupt. The glorious heritage that awaits us is a monumental debt.
It is obvious that Quebec has no interest remaining in the Canadian federation with that kind of result.


DAY CARE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of criticism in this House of the decision to shelve the national child care program. I also believe that the government should help parents who need to work to escape poverty.
However, do New Democrats help parents who need help to escape poverty? Absolutely not.
In Ontario, the NDP is currently implementing a $105 million program to convert privately operated day care, which provides 27 per cent of the spaces in Ontario, to non-profit co-ops. This program will not add a single day care space.
These small businesses will receive compensation for toys only and will lose their subsidy agreements if they do not donate their capital investment to new, non-profit co-op boards, although they meet all licensing requirements and have parent advisory committees.

April 9, 1992
Less than 8 per cent of children who need care in Ontario are in licensed facilities. This will mean there will be even fewer opportunities for poorer parents for licensed care and much higher costs.
Management that is ideologically acceptable for socialists-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


MONTREAL
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, 189,000 Montrealers are unemployed, 12.9 per cent of our work force, and the numbers are continuing to grow under the economic mismanagement of the Conservative government.
The city is losing jobs in the high-tech field, a sector that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have described as the future of Canada's economy.

The loss of 500 jobs at Phillips in Saint-Laurent adds to the list of employers in the Montreal area who have had to cut employment. The Montreal area is wasting away under the Conservative government which is unable to improve the lot of the jobless in our city.

We need to create an economic climate that will help companies like Phillips flourish, not falter. We need to help Montreal develop a core of high technology companies that will be competitive throughout the world.
As well, this Conservative government and the minister responsible for Montreal are doing nothing to address the many other sectors such as textile, clothing, and small business. Our municipal infrastructure is badly in need of repair.
If this government will not do it, the Liberal government will.


FOREST DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the federal Minister of Forestry, the Quebec Minister of Forests, Albert Cote, signed a four-year federal-provincial subagreement on forest development this morning. This agreement, a calm in the present constitutional storm, provides $136 million, to be paid equally by both of the governments involved.
I am glad that private forest producers will benefit most from this agreement, because most of the funds, $100 million, will be for private forest development in Quebec. A major thrust of the private forest development program will be a silviculture initiative emphasizing the development of some 80,000 hectares of natural forest and the replanting of about 46,400 hectares of private forest.
The agreement signed this morning also provides for the development and implementation of a geo-forest information system and for forest development on the Upper North Shore.
I congratulate the federal Minister of Forestry, and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Champlain, on successfully negotiating this issue.


STOP HUNGER FAST
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, no problem can be more immediate yet at the same time have such lasting consequence as the inability of a growing number of people in our world to find enough food to eat.
While permanent solutions to this human suffering lie in the creation of a lasting world peace, investment in the individual and- environmentally sustainable development, we must find the time and the means to address the fact that today and every day in Canada and around the world, people are going hungry.
April 9, 1992

This Saturday, April 11, we in Ottawa South are organizing the third annual Stop Hunger Fast, a nonpartisan hunger awareness event. Over the day, we hope to collect food, raise money through a 24-hour fast and find volunteers for the Ottawa Food Bank and UNICEF.
The Stop Hunger Fast will be held at the Heron Gate Mall in Ottawa. We are hoping that our residents will take the time to learn about how we can stop hunger and to celebrate the efforts of those organizations which are working to this end.
The world is capable of producing enough food to feed all of its people. Let us endeavour to put an end to our collective failure to ensure that it is distributed to those in need.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the government is going to have to face a problem with the original design of the GRIP as introduced last year complete with its so-called offsets.
If a farmer grows a better than average crop he gets little or no GRIP payment. If he has been unable to deliver that crop to market he has no money. Farmers expected the spring GRIP payment to at least equal the fall payment which for most farmers did not pay the outstanding premium. Since the GRIP payout is the difference between the coverage levels minus product times price, the projected payout will decrease as price rises.
The $10 per tonne increase to the initial wheat price over winter means that the spring GRIP payout will disappoint a lot of farmers, particularly those who produce a better than average crop.
I call on the government to provide another increase to Wheat Board initial prices so that grain growers will have some cash available to help pay for fuel, parts, seed, fertilizer and chemicals to put in this spring's crop.


GOING GREEN IN '93
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Canada's sustainable futures exposition
for Truro, N.S., better known as Going Green in '93, will be a major exposition which addresses many aspects of environmental concerns and our long term sustainable future.
The business of the environment and the environment of business will be the next driver of our economy in the future. Even now international trade agreements negotiated must deal with environmental issues unheard of just a few years ago.
Going Green in '93 is a timely project which will establish Atlantic Canada as a leader in sustainable development. It will be funded by the municipality of Truro, the province, the federal government, the private sector and the approximate 300,000 visitors.
At the moment we are seeking tangible support from all levels so that the project can proceed. The municipality is on side. Now it would be helpful for the Minister of the Environment to express his commitment and provide assistance to keep up the momentum.


BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this is the 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, the victory claimed by Canadians, fighting together for the first time as Canadians.
Both the British and the French had failed before them, but Canadians attained what some thought impossible.
But what a price they paid: more than 3,000 dead, almost another 8,000 wounded men and, yes, boys from all parts of Canada whose spirit of sacrifice and courage almost defies description.
Yet that spirit lives today. In the last few hours we have all seen on television pictures of 14 Canadians, the youngest 91 years old, revisiting the battlefield. Their effort to honour the memory of their comrades in arms today are as noble as their gallantry 75 years ago.
That was and is the spirit that won Vimy. That was and is the spirit that built this great country.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, as many members have been reminding us this week, today we are marking the 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge.
This is an appropriate occasion to pledge that our Canadian veterans and their loved ones will continue to receive more than rhetoric from a grateful nation.
It is so easy to make promises in the patriotic fever of war. It is not so easy to keep them in the cold dawn of post-war budgeting. But we have kept ours.
It is to Canada's credit that various governments have kept their word. Looking back to the thirties, Parliament introduced the War Veterans Allowance, which was a trail blazer for Canada's social safety network. The allowance recognized that someone who had spent their youth in the trenches of France was likely to age more quickly than someone who had spent the war by the fireside.
More recently the Veterans' Independence Program was brought in to help veterans stay in their own homes and out of institutions. This program is one of the finest ever launched by Veterans Affairs.
We can say in all truth that 75 years after Vimy and 50 years after Dieppe we continue to show our gratitude through veterans legislation worthy of the men and women who risked their lives in the name of Canada.


SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's withdrawal from social housing is a tragic move that will leave thousands of Canadians out in the cold.
Social housing is vital to the welfare of thousands of Canadians. An estimated 200,000 households are on waiting lists nationally for affordable housing. Yet, the
latest federal budget has slashed the planned commitment for social housing by 34 per cent.
The budget has terminated the Co-operative Housing Program which is one of the most effective means of providing community housing. A Liberal government introduced the program in 1973, believing in the philosophy of the co-operative sector. It recognized that co-operative housing is affordable housing. It creates jobs for builders, helps fashion a strong community base and offers hope to some 800,000 households in Canada in core housing need.
I appeal to the government to reinstate funding to social housing and the Co-operative Housing Program. Too many Canadians rely on housing assistance for the government to simply turn its back on them.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, while Canadians rightly condemn the use of violence against the Embassy of Iran in Ottawa, Iran's bombing of Iranian resistance forces based in Iraq last weekend was the latest in a long series of violations of international law by the Iranian government.
Last month the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned Iran for the eleventh year in a row for gross and systematic human rights violations. The death sentence against British author Salman Rushdie by the late Ayatollah Khomeini continues to stand, forcing Rushdie to live in hiding.
The Iranian government recently expelled the International Red Cross Committee in spite of having agreed last fall with the UN General Assembly to allow them to visit Iranian prisons.
In 1990 Amnesty International reported that Iran executed over 5,000 political prisoners and others in the three previous years. Amnesty is also concerned about killings of Iranian opposition activists outside Iran.
Western governments, including Canada, must end the policy of rapprochement with Iran as long as it maintains repression against its own people and continues to violate fundamental human rights.


CANADIAN FORCES
Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, last year we commemorated one of Canada's most significant
April 9, 1992

battles, remembering the sacrifice of a generation of Newfoundlanders at Beaumont-Hamel. This year we are commemorating two others. Seventy-five years ago the Canadian Corps stormed Vimy Ridge and won universal admiration.
British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote that it was the Canadians who were brought into the line to lead one great allied assault after another.
It was the same story 50 years ago. A different war, a different part of France, but again it was Canadians who were picked to lead an allied strike force against the enemy. We can look back with pride at the bravery of Canadians who took part in the Dieppe raid. They were given an impossible task and they did not flinch.
Vimy, Dieppe and so many other battles saw Canadians at their best. We must remember so we do not repeat. I call on the government to spare no effort in honouring those who have participated in these great events.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The report on the state of the environment tabled today paints a devastating picture of the pollution of drinking water in Canada. Serious health problems are to be expected. Nevertheless, the green plan promised that a drinking water bill would be passed last year.
Can the minister tell us specifically how this bill, which we are still waiting for, will assure Canadians that they can safely drink tap water?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the House that a very comprehensive, in fact perhaps the most comprehensive state of the environment report being prepared anywhere in the world, has been tabled today. As you know, this is the second such report, the first having been made available in 1986.
Canada, in co-operation with industry and many groups throughout the community, has set the stage for
Oral Questions
this state of the environment report. We have provided the lead and other nations of the world are following us.
With respect specifically to the question of water quality which is a very important issue, as the hon. member has already said there has been some very significant progress made as indicated in the report.
As the hon. member will know, because I am sure he has read the report very carefully, there are several indications of progress, including the fact that the federal government, in co-operation with provincial governments and municipal governments, is now able to report that sewage treatment has increased from 63 per cent to 70 per cent of those communities with a population of over 1,000. That is a very significant step forward.
There are specific plans in the report which indicate an improvement in water quality in other areas. As indicated, the legislation to which the hon. member has referred has in part been put in place, particularly by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has provided money to assist with water quality-


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we will have to move on.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Let me quote from today's report.
Hundreds of chemical substances in use in Canada are contaminating Canadian lakes, rivers and groundwater and some are entering the food chain.
I have another quote, which ought to be of interest to the parliamentary secretary and to the Deputy Prime Minister who are both from western Canada.
Water quality on the prairies is close to a minimal level. For those who live in the Great Lakes more than 360 chemical contaminants have been detected in the Great Lakes.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is not to congratulate oneself over the quality of the binding of this book, it is what is one going to do about it.
The issue is why has this government consistently refused to enforce a policy of zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals into our water, water which is at the very base of our food chain?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know very well considering your background, one of the very important areas in which we can address this problem is through pulp and paper regulations.

April 9, 1992
Oral Questions
I am very pleased to be able to say to this Elouse that the pulp and paper regulations, which were a result of very significant consultations with industry, with provinces and other jurisdictions, are now in place. The rules and regulations will be in effect in 1993. Dioxins and furans which are toxic substances will be regulated.
The second part deals with biological oxygen demand and suspended solids. These too will come into effect in 1993. It is an indication of this government's commitment, not only toward enhancement of the environment but to work in co-operation with other sectors. Without that co-operation, the type of progress which we wish to achieve will not be secured.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that verbal pollution in this House is going to solve the major pollution problems in this country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Let me ask the minister of health a question. We are dealing with a major health problem.
On March 20 the government unveiled its action plan entitled "Health and the Environment". That report barely skims the surface of the problem as outlined here. To demonstrate the extent of the disaster let me again quote from today's report:
Fish with tumours and diseases caused by toxins in water, birds
with crossed bills and other deformities all suggest that human
health may be in jeopardy.
Will the minister of health go back to the drawing board and come up with an immediate action plan which demonstrates that the government understands the seriousness of the health problem as set out in the environmental report.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all I note that the hon. member refers to verbal pollution. I can only say that in areas like this I defer to my hon. friends opposite.
On the question of specifics, Mr. Speaker, let me say with respect to the conditions of water that pollution in the Great Lakes has been reduced to the extent that
trout and salmon have returned to Lakes Ontario and Erie. We have also seen the reappearance of bald eagles and cormorants in the Great Lakes.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things you can do when you have a document of this extent, as the hon. member has done, is find evidence in it of the challenges yet remaining, challenges which face all levels of government. But there is also in this report evidence of progress made to date and we have every right to be proud of that.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While the Minister of the Environment was waxing eloquent in Montreal, federal government appointees on the Hamilton Harbour Commission have entered into contracts to dump tens of thousands of tonnes of gasoline soaked, petroleum laced soil illegally into Hamilton harbour.
The Hamilton Harbour Commission has entered into a contract which involves the dumping of tens of thousands of tonnes of contaminated soil.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is going on when his minister talks about cleaning up the Great Lakes and his harbour commissioners continue to plunder and pollute it illegally.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to a particular decision of the harbour commission we will certainly investigate the elements she is talking about.
I am taking note of her question and I will investigate it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, they talk about the environment and boast of the green plan, when last week and even today, thousands of tonnes were dumped illegally and next week thousands of tonnes will be dumped illegally in Hamilton harbour.

I want to know why, in violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, the Great Lakes water quality agreements, the Federal Fisheries Act, these appointees
April 9, 1992

of the federal government are polluting the very water that our children are counting on to drink. Why?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I note again that the member for Hamilton East is very strong on vague accusations but very reluctant to provide details.
I repeat to her that if these accusations are facts rather than allegations, if she would give the Minister of Transport such precise accusations, we will investigate and provide the appropriate answers.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, today the Conference Board joined many other groups in predicting that over 10 per cent unemployment rates will last for at least two more years. This means no hope for that 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. It certainly means fewer opportunities for Canada's youth.
The situation since the budget only seems to be getting worse. Is the Minister of Finance going to sit back and accept this situation or is he prepared to really work at job creation for all of those unemployed and for the youth of this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada has revised its projected growth figures downward. Its most recent figures showed Canada's Gross Domestic Product growing at some 3.2 per cent. It has adjusted these downward to 2.1 per cent.
I simply remind the hon. member that we made similar adjustments to the budget which I presented to the House in February. We indicated at that time that the fourth quarter was very poor and that it might very well spill over into the first quarter of 1992.
That situation has since been exacerbated by the recent uncertainties in the international marketplace, particularly in Japan and Germany, the political situation in Europe, and the sporadic recovery that is occurring in the United States of America.
There should be nothing new in the figures that have been brought forward by the Conference Board of
Oral Questions
Canada. As a matter of fact, we did indicate in the budget that unemployment rates would remain high in 1992.
However, we did predict that over the longer term, after we got through the period of restructuring and adjustment that there would be improvement in the economy which would have the advantage of providing new jobs and new job opportunities for Canadians across the country.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, predictions and hopes have not helped those thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of Canadians who are out of work.

No one believes that the economic situation can be turned around overnight, but the government can do some things right away.
In the report published this morning, the Minister of the Environment spoke of the lamentable state of sewers. Municipal infrastructure programs would create 67,000 new jobs.
Why does the government continue to refuse to create these programs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says: Do something.
I direct her attention to the budget wherein we outlined a number of specific actions to bolster economic recovery and to renew confidence, such as reducing personal income tax; the home buyers purchase plan; steps to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing and processing sector; improvements in research and development; changes to the lifetime capital gains exemption so we could direct that investment into more productive means; changes to the Small Business Loans Act and improvements for small business; changes to venture capital; improvements for venture capital; a new child benefits program; improvements in legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we had better go on.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the report issued by the Minister of Environment today states that communities of over 1,000 people in Canada continue to release untreated sewerage into lakes, rivers, streams and oceans. It is a major environmental prob-

April 9, 1992
Oral Questions
lem. It is an environmental problem that affects all parts of the country.
The minister has been very free in terms of spending: spending $1 billion on free corporate lunches, spending $5 million to publicize the Canada-U.S. trade deal, spending $30 billion to maintain unemployment in the country.
When is the minister going to be prepared to invest in Canadian jobs to maintain the environment, get Canadians back working and put into place this co-operative infrastructure program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the green plan that was announced by this government is the most comprehensive approach to environment in the world, the best approach to sustainable development and has been heralded throughout the world and particularly by the United Nations. The Government of Canada, the people of Canada are spending $3 billion in enhancing the environment, putting together programs and doing some of the things the hon. member has suggested.
I know the member is an advocate and supporter of the infrastructure program. I indicated to the House yesterday that there are some areas where the federal government is prepared to act, and particularly on improving a national highway system. We are prepared to work with the private sector in airport development. We are supporting very aggressively the fixed link, which is a major capital project.
We have an ongoing task force working with the province to see whether in fact we can advance these projects, and particularly find realistic ways of funding them.
I know the hon. member shares the same concern as all Canadians. We cannot continue to add to the burden of debt. We must deal with the deficit and we must maintain an action plan to start whittling away at the burden of debt because no one wants to leave that burden to future generations.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister for International Trade. We have been informed that the government, and more specifically the minister's department, is about to spend several million dollars on a propaganda campaign to spread the word about 150 businesses that benefited under the free trade agreement.
Does the minister intend to spend the same amount of money on describing the fate of thousands of companies that have gone under since free trade came into force, and especially the hundreds of thousands of victims who lost their jobs because this agreement is a disaster for Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from Canadians is that people want to hear who the successful companies are in the country. We have seen since the free trade agreement came into effect an increase in exports of $5 billion. They want to know who are making that increase in exports to the United States.
Is my hon. friend saying to me that he is against providing information to Canadians to let them know who the successes are, why they are successful, whether they have achieved that success through better use of technology, better use of training and better accessing of international markets?
This is the type of information we feel Canadians want. They are telling us they want it and we are responding with this program.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there was a poll yesterday and 69 per cent of Canadians want this government to renegotiate the free trade agreement, something we have been telling them for years.
I would like to know from the minister if it would not be more reasonable, rather than have a propaganda campaign, a pre-electoral spending of money by the government, to try to do something that Canadians have not condemned. Would it not be better to use that
April 9, 1992

money and help the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs because this government could not do a good job in negotiating that deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe my hon. friend has missed the point. We are doing precisely that. If people can learn from the successes, learn from how companies have achieved that success in applying new technology and getting into new markets, maybe this will motivate others to do the same thing and in that way create more jobs and create more technology in the country. That is precisely what we are going to do.
Let me just ask one question of my hon. friend. If he says he is going to renegotiate, what is he going to renegotiate? What is he going to give up for the things he wants to get back?
I ask my hon. friend to come clean with Canadians.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in a growing number of sectors-automobiles, electronics and textiles-the United States is demanding content rules that would protect its own manufacturers and discourage investment and jobs in Canada. This is not freer trade; this is continentalism and protectionism which Canadian governments have been resisting for 125 years.
Will this government refuse to sign a trilateral agreement if the final price is content rules that would favour the United States over Mexico and Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe I am not hearing something correctly here. Is the member saying now that his party is in favour of the free trade agreement? That was the thrust of the question that he just asked, and I am not sure his leader has just agreed with that. Maybe this is one other indication of the differences in the Liberal benches trying to find a policy on trade.
In response to my hon. friend's question, let me give him the precise answer. We disagree with the tightening of the rules of origin. He is absolutely right. This makes it more difficult to have freer access to the United States market. It is precisely the position we have been taking at
Oral Questions
the table and it is precisely the position we will continue to take at the table to ensure that Canadian companies get the access to the United States market that is in the free trade agreement.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the position of the Liberal Party has always been in favour of freer trade. Throughout our years in office we pursued global freer trade on a consistent basis through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The minister knows that as well as every member on this side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Roy MacLaren: The minister should equally know that it is not in the interests of an independent Canada to be trapped inside a protectionist, U.S. dominated continental bloc, for this is what will happen if this government caves in to U.S. demands for content rules that would favour the United States and create barriers for the remainder of the world.
If the United States continues to demand higher content requirements as the price of a trilateral agreement, does the government intend to seek instead a bilateral agreement involving Canada and Mexico?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that only half his colleagues applauded his first statement.


An hon. member:: Where is the member for Winnipeg South Centre?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Lakeshore):: The member for Winnipeg South Centre is not even here.
The point my hon. friend is making is a very valid one. What we are seeking on the rules of origin is clarification in the administration, clarification in the understanding so that companies can comply. That has clearly been the problem with the Honda action we have discussed before in this House. That is one of the objectives.
Another of the objectives is not to have the rules of origin so tight that it makes it both difficult to comply with but also cuts off access to the market. These are two objectives that we have, and I am sure my hon. friend would support us in that regard.

April 9, 1992
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today another expensive and weighty report on the state of Canada's environment was released. This follows the green plan pattern of much attention to public relations and very little action.
This is immediately apparent on the issue of global warming. It is clear we must shift from a carbon based economy to a hydrogen economy. Japan and Germany are already making this shift.
I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: What action is Canada taking on this front?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, if one looks at the comments the hon. member just made, the world is not shifting from a carbon based economy in many ways.
I will give her an example. Today coal still remains the first energy choice. In fact it will expand. I will give her another example. China now uses about a billion tonnes of coal a year and will probably go to 1.1 billion or 1.2 billion.
It would be in our interest, both globally and from a Canadian contribution point of view, if we used clean coal technology for example to help countries such as China. I think that would have a much greater global impact and I think the hon. member would agree with that.
Second, on hydrogen, we are engaged in hydrogen research. However I remind her that even for hydrogen production she is going to need an energy source of some type. If she looks at her colleague next to her, in most cases the NDP has been opposing most new energy projects we have been putting into place.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of energy.
Yesterday a major study by Informetrica predicts Canadian greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 80 per cent by the year 2020.
What actions are the minister's department taking to prove this study wrong?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there was no question, as we were looking at an expansion of the economy, that there were going to be increased emissions of greenhouse gases. That is why we have been working closely with the Department of the Environment.
In terms of what the department is doing in hydrogen, we are funding hydrogen research. We are funding clean coal technology research. We are funding alternate energies research. We are funding ethanol. We are funding methanol. We are funding the fusion program.
With respect to energy efficiency there is a bill that just came out of committee today. If we get approval from the parties opposite we should be able to get that passed fairly quickly.
We have a new database in place. As well we have programs relating to R-2000. We have a program with windows and doors. We have a program, for example, on fuel efficiency. We are working with the transport department to have-


Some hon. members:: More, more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I could go on.


Some hon. members:: Time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Willowdale.


CLOTHING MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the trade minister.
Statistics Canada reports that in just three years under free trade Canada's clothing manufacturing industry has lost 33,000 or 27 per cent of its jobs.
Since one presumes the government foresaw these consequences of its economic and trade policies, just where does the trade minister suggest Canada's 33,000 displaced garment workers apply for new jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend talks about some negatives that he sees in free trade. Let me also observe that some elements of the clothing industry have found a market niche in the United States in women's fashions with specialty types of materials. They have been experiencing good successes in developing new business, expanding business in the United States market.
April 9, 1992

There are pluses and minuses, and not just the minuses that my hon. friend points to.
The other point that I would make is that the job losses he refers to can be the result of adjustment related to the United States market. They can also relate to the recession that has been under way in Canada. It is not just the free trade agreement that my hon. friend talks about.
We do have a number of adjustment programs for individuals. We have had a significant increase, some three-quarters of a billion dollars this year, in the amount of money being put toward training individuals so that people can move from one job to another.
When the economy starts to pull out of the difficulties that we are in-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must move on.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if this is just the result of reorganization of business as the minister suggests and not the fault of Canadian economic and trade policies, why is it that Canada has lost 27 per cent of its clothing jobs and the U.S. has lost only 4 per cent of its clothing jobs?
We want the minister to make a commitment today, first, that he will undo the harm he has done to our clothing industry through the free trade agreement.
Second, will he commit through the North American free trade negotiations that he will not do any further harm to those few sectors-he mentioned a couple of them, by far the minority-that have not already been hurt?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says "by far the minority". I cannot recall in this House whether it was my hon. friend or others saying that the wine industry was going to be wiped out.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The wine industry is being wiped out, 27 per cent of jobs lost.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the statistics on the Canadian wine industry, he would see that there has been a
Oral Questions
significant recovery in that industry. There is good growth.


Mr. Andre:: Thirty-six per cent growth last year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My colleague is saying that there was 36 per cent growth. That is an indication of whether an industry has adjusted and is taking advantage of the increased access to the largest single market in the world.
My hon. friend asked what is to be done in the current negotiations. I responded to his colleague about the positions that we are taking on rules of origin which are of significant importance in the clothing and textile sector.
We are conscious of my colleague's concern. We will be following this one very closely in the negotiations.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the last year in my riding of Northumberland there has been a loss of hundreds and hundreds of jobs.
It is estimated that Trenton alone has lost 20 to 25 per cent of its manufacturing jobs. In Northumberland County, the welfare role has grown from 260 cases in 1989 to 1,500 cases in March this year.
The jobless and welfare families in Northumberland want to know when they will see an adjustment program and when they will get working again.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite direct with my hon. friend.
There are major structural changes that are happening in the economy today, and they are happening in a global sense. They are causing changes in the United States, in Canada and in many other countries.
Our job as government is to help companies make those changes. If the companies cannot make the changes, then help the people. We have a number of programs in place in the department of industry to help companies make those changes. The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Program and the Automotive Components Program are two of those.

April 9, 1992
Oral Questions
On the people side, ray colleague from employment and immigration has talked about new training and different types of training programs available that we are working with the provinces and the private sector to implement.
In both ways we have been responding.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the jobless in Northumberland tell me that these government programs just are not working.
Those most severely affected by family joblessness are our children. Budgetary family and child allowance changes do not help the hundreds of thousands of children of unemployed families.
The government should know that our growing deficit in meeting children's basic needs eliminates our chances of ever getting rid of our national debt. This government must commit to instituting emergency programs for our country's impoverished children.
Our children will not wait. When will this government stop waiting?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that type of pejorative comment does not help anybody who is watching what is happening in this House of Commons today.
This government is not waiting and my hon. friend knows that. She knows that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in the last budget brought in a program to help children in poverty. He knows that my colleague from Employment and Immigration is increasing significantly the number of training programs that people in poverty can take advantage of.
She knows also that in previous years, we have brought in programs to help people on welfare get training programs to get them back into the job course. So this government is not waiting; it is acting in an aggressive fashion.
The other point that I had mentioned is in the budget. The Minister of Finance brought in specific programs to increase the tax incentives for new investments so that the companies my friend is worried about will have more
incentives to re-invest in new technologies so that they can be competitive in the future and maintain those jobs.


TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the minister of health concerning the increasing lack of leadership by this government in preventing cigarette smoking.
The government has not moved on its own plan to raise the legal age for smoking to 18 and the requirement for more effective health warnings on cigarette packages.
Can the minister explain why these two important anti-smoking measures have been stalled by the cabinet for more than two years when it took less than seven weeks for this government to act on behalf of the tobacco companies and withdraw the export tax on cigarettes which would have checked the smuggling of cheap cigarettes back into Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the last part of the hon. member's statement is absolutely not true.
We have found a mechanism with the tobacco industry whereby we can track the sale of exported tobacco products into the United States and elsewhere. It will allow our law enforcement agencies to identify, apprehend and arrest the convicted criminals who are bringing tobacco products into Canada. It will put a major dent into cheap tobacco products coming back into Canada and thereby reduce, in our view, the amount of smoking that takes place in this country.
Therefore, I do not accept in any way, shape or form the hon. member's premise in his question. As far as the tobacco markings are concerned, the hon. member will know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and this government are continuing to discuss the matter with the tobacco industry and will take every step we possibly can to improve the situation.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue.
The minister has repeatedly said in the last two days that removing the $8 a carton export tax will actually reduce cigarette consumption in Canada.
April 9, 1992

Will the minister explain to this House this unique consumer behaviour? Why does making cigarettes $8 a carton cheaper actually cause people to buy fewer cartons, either legally or illegally?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not seem to understand. I made it clear yesterday as well as earlier this morning in the finance committee that this government from day one, on the day we announced the export tax, said that if we could find a mechanism to track the tobacco products and give the necessary tools to the law enforcement agencies to be able to deal with this very serious situation that a major dent is going to be put into the smuggling of tobacco products into Canada.
Clearly the hon. member must understand that if cigarettes can be bought under the table at a lower price as opposed to paying the legitimate price above the table there is going to be a reduction in the amount of tobacco products coming into Canada. It makes sense to the law enforcement agencies and it makes sense to us. This is a major step in the right direction to combating smuggling of tobacco products into Canada.


PERLEY BRIDGE
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Canadian unity is a priority for all of us. At a time when we speak of abolishing barriers between our provinces it seems important to take concrete action and in this instance there is an urgency to build a new bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec.
I would like to ask if the federal government will soon undertake construction of a new bridge between Grenville, Quebec, and Hawkesbuiy, Ontario, and if the negotiations on cost sharing which were undertaken a very long time ago between the three levels of government involved have finally produced results?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a study done by the federal
Oral Questions
government on the environmental aspect of rebuilding the Perley Bridge. It shows that it can be rebuilt.
We have been negotiating with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec on their share and contribution to the rebuilding of the bridge. Unfortunately the deputy ministers of both provinces have recently changed and the negotiations are going to pick up in the first week of May when the new deputy ministers have been briefed.


MACCAN POWER PLANT
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Nova Scotia Power Corporation recently announced the closure of the Maccan Power Plant because of increased operating costs. Private interests have expressed an interest in buying the plant and re-powering it but the power corporation has turned that down because of reduced demand. Now it is considering demolition of the plant and we would like some help.
Will the minister instruct his officials to meet with the power corporation officials in the province and explore energy or fuel alternatives and other purposes for this plant so we can keep it open?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in Nova Scotia the utility is owned by the provincial Crown which has responsibility for it.
The question of whether or not some of these old plants can be refurbished would be up to the Nova Scotia utility.
If it would help the hon. member, namely if members of Nova Scotia Power would want to talk to officials in my department of studies that we have done either for coal generation or for utilization of coal technology which we have also done research on through CANMET, my officials would be pleased to sit down at the appropriate time once that request has been received.

April 9, 1992
Oral Questions UNEMPLOYMENT


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Nearly 35,000 people are unemployed in the Hamilton area and 27,000 people are on welfare, an increase of 49 per cent over last year. The economic policies of this government have had a devastating impact on Hamilton.
I would like to know what the minister is prepared to do to help these people get back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I am sure that in the budget we took a number of steps to bolster economic growth and to improve confidence by providing a reduction in personal income tax and by providing some stimulus to the housing industry.
We continue to see the monetary conditions easing. Today the Bank of Canada rate dropped by 20 basis points. That had the effect of reducing the prime rate back to 8 per cent. Three of the major banks have reduced it, so monetary conditions are indeed easing. That is good news.
The fundamentals are in place. I think the hon. member would agree that the way in which we can look toward sustained recovery is through the continuation of lower inflation. That will provide lower interest rates. That will increase the purchasing capacity of Canadians and improve confidence.
I think that while we are going through some very difficult times, and I acknowledge that, the combination of the slow recovery and the restructuring that has to go on is something that is a fact of life.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, approximately 7,000 households in Hamilton now depend on food banks. At many food banks there is a 33 per cent increase over last year.
Again I ask, what does the minister plan to do that will work to help these people in Hamilton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, we
have initiated a number of steps to bolster economic recovery and to instil confidence and hope.
As I indicated today, with the low inflation we can look forward to further monetary easing. Housing starts are up. Motor vehicle sales have improved. Our exports to the United States have improved.
But this is not simply a Canadian issue. This is not a problem that only Canada is experiencing. It is worldwide. The recovery is slow in the industrialized nations of the world. The United States recovery is sporadic. We are an exporting nation and we have to recognize that fact. The most important thing is to prepare ourselves and be in-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to try to move on. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, a single question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Last week, speaking about the Kitty Nowdluck case, the commissioner of the RCMP said: "A number of very obvious errors were committed and she, once a victim, became almost a victim again". He then said an internal review had addressed the officers involved in the case.
I have now learned that last year the RCMP cleared all officers who worked on the case.
Why did the RCMP commissioner admit mishandling the case and not discipline the officers involved?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, regrettably I am not in a position to discuss this matter because it is before a public complaints commission hearing at the present time. I think the hearing has been completed and we are waiting for the decision of the commissioner.
I can assure the House and my hon. friend that all the appropriate action has been taken to this point as far as I am informed. We will be further advised by the commission's report and that will all be made public.
April 9, 1992

OLYMPIA & YORK


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
There is public speculation that Revenue Canada is prepared to allow Olympia & York to issue distress shares and allow Canada's poor banks out of the problem they find themselves in.
In light of the fact that small businesses do not qualify for these distress shares and in light of the fact that the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian people, ought to know what it is going to cost them when this thing shakes down, will the minister disclose what this government is prepared to do to bail out those poor Canadian banks from their entanglement with Olympia & York?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my hon. friend are sheer speculation. I can only advise him, as I have advised the House on other occasions, that the Department of Finance is monitoring the situation and there is nothing further to report.


ECONOMIC GROWTH
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the latest federal budget the Minister of Finance predicted that economic growth would be around 2.7 per cent. Yesterday, the president of the Royal Bank predicted it would be 1.4 per cent. I am more inclined to believe the president of the Royal Bank. It means that this year, the annual deficit will again be $30 billion. This works out to a cumulative debt for Quebec of about $6 billion. Did the Minister of Finance ask the Government of Quebec for permission to incur another $6 billion worth of debt on its behalf?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a question with respect to assumptions and projections.
I can only advise the hon. member that when we prepared the budget we prepared it on the basis of the assumptions that were available at that particular time
Business of the House
and in accordance with the private sector forecast. A number of private forecasters are adjusting their growth projections downward. The IMF and the OECD are doing likewise.
I should remind the hon. member that at the time we brought the budget down organizations such as the Royal Bank, OECD, IMF, and the Conference Board of Canada were projecting growth well in excess of what we were projecting. They were in excess of 3 per cent.
There has been some weakening in the economy. There has been some weakening in industrialized economies. Obviously we have to take that into consideration. We will be making those kinds of adjustments as we deem necessary.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the government could indicate what the business of the House will be for the remainder of today and tomorrow and for the first day back after the recess.
While the minister is on his feet perhaps he could indicate to the House when he might convene a House leaders meeting in order to discuss the referendum legislation. I remind the hon. government House leader that this was announced in the throne speech. I believe there were some undertakings given most recently by the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs as well as the Prime Minister in terms of possible legislation on a possible referendum.
It would be important for House leaders to convene a meeting in order that we might discuss this to direct either a special committee of the House or one of the standing and/or legislative committees of the House to pursue this particular matter. I am wondering if he could share some information on that.
I also wish to point out that my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier would like to ask a question of the government House leader as well.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of business, we expect to complete second reading of Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, this afternoon.

April 9, 1992
Business of the House
We will then call and hopefully complete third reading of Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures. Discussions are now ongoing between the three parties in terms of other business for tomorrow.
In terms of plebiscite-referendum legislation, as indicated the hopes and to a degree the expectations of the government are that we will reach an agreement between the provinces for the successful conclusion of constitutional amendments that will keep the country united. In the event that it becomes advisable for a plebiscite to be held across the country then action will be taken at that point in time.
I understand that the committee, under the chairmanship of the government Whip, looking into electoral reform has been considering this question as well. Certainly we would expect at some time in the near future, depending on events at the constitutional table and so on, it may well be appropriate to bring forward some legislation respecting plebiscites. Of course the usual consultations among the parties would occur at that time.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the activities of the committee of which the chief government Whip is chairman, I do not believe-and perhaps we could have another debate at another time-that it would be in order to refer the subject matter of referendum legislation to that committee. In fact it might be some other committee.
I am wondering if the government Blouse leader would not think it wise to convene a House leaders meeting earlier as opposed to some later date in order that we can discuss this matter and agree to the appropriate committee which would be seized with the legislation. I presume the government House leader and PCO would probably have the bill ready to table in this House at a moment's notice.


Harvie Andre: I want to make it clear that there are two questions at issue. One is the mechanism for holding a plebiscite-referendum. Logic would dictate that the Elections Act would probably form the basis for doing that. In other words, one would hold a national plebiscite in the same manner as one would hold a national election in terms of eligibility, enumeration, et cetera.
The second question and the more important question by far as to what questions to be put to the people of
Canada is a question that cannot even be contemplated until it is clear that is the only recourse for moving along the constitutional file in a way that will result in a successful conclusion.
The specific details of how a referendum campaign would be conducted and the mechanisms are in the Elections Act. Whatever minor modifications are necessary in view of the fact that the answer is yes and no as opposed to which candidate do you select can be accommodated through a change in the law.
At the appropriate time that will be brought forward. The hon. member is right. There are variations of that in draft form. I will always welcome the opportunity to meet with the hon. member at any particular time. However, I am not sure what useful purpose would come from such a meeting in respect of this issue.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking a meeting for the purposes of having a meeting with the hon. member. I am sure he and I have other things and other responsibilities that we must attend to.
I want to be clear. Is the hon. member now saying that within the department, either the Privy Council Office or the Department of Justice, there is a bill with regard to referendum? If so, and if he does not wish to table it at this time, would the hon. member at least give us an opportunity to sit down and discuss the contents of that bill?
He has made some references to the Elections Act. We would be interested in knowing exactly where the government House leader wishes to go in terms of this possible legislation. We are not trying to obstruct in any way. We are just trying to elicit more information so that all of us can be ready and be prepared to go at the opportune time.


Harvie Andre: The rules are very clear: first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading.
There will be more than enough opportunity for everyone in the House to examine the legislation, if and when it is brought forward, and to amend it in committee. This type of legislation is normally of the type where there is general consensus, if not unanimity, in the
April 9, 1992

House. That will be the way it will be proceeded with when it is appropriate.
I wish the hon. member was so enthusiastic about understanding other pieces of legislation we brought forward and so willing to discuss a way of accommodating these other pieces of legislation.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same topic. I do not think the government House leader is aware that the Chief Electoral Officer was in front of the House management committee today. I asked him specific questions with regard to the Elections Act and whether or not it was applicable and useful in terms of a national referendum. We talked about a number of issues from enumeration to the revision process, to expenditure limits. The problem is that entire act is based on candidates and political parties throughout.
Without trying to put words in the mouth of the Chief Electoral Officer, I am sure when the minister checks with his own people who were at the meeting he will be informed that the Chief Electoral Officer made it very clear he could not operate on the basis of the present Elections Act.
I asked him questions with regard to the recommendations of the royal commission, and again he said they would not apply with regard to a referendum.
In addition, when the private member's bill was tabled in front of the special committee chaired by the chief government Whip, it was made very clear by members of the committee that there is no way we can really examine that legislation. Our workload is too heavy. Based on the priorities we have set, it would require a House order for us to look at that private member's bill or any other referendum legislation.


Harvie Andre: We could debate this all afternoon. The fact of the matter is that if there is a plebiscite or a referendum the people eligible to vote will undoubtedly be the same as those who are eligible to vote in a general election.
The polling stations will likely be the same places they would be in an election. The officers required to monitor in terms of returning officers, et cetera, would undoubtedly be the same.
Business of the House
All those kinds of details, important details to be sure but details nevertheless, can and will be dealt with at the appropriate time.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the leader of the government in the House of Commons. The standing committees of the House are now examining the Main Estimates, and a number of departments and agencies are appearing before the committees to explain their expenditures. It is all part of the democratic process referred to as scrutiny of public spending.
The Standing Committee on official languages which is a standing committee of the House of Commons, has not met since it was reorganized, which means since October 21 or 22 last year, when we elected a new chairman, the hon. member for Halton-Peel, and we have yet to examine the Estimates. The government House leader knows as well as I do that the Estimates must be reported back to the House by May 31. They will be deemed to have been examined, although that will not be the case.
I would appreciate it if the government House leader, who decides how the House operate, would exercise some pressure.-1 have already tried. I presented an S. O. 31 in the House and I made representations to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the House leader whether he could perhaps call his Whip or call the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halton-Peel, and ask him to hold a committee meeting so that we can get down to the business of considering these Estimates.


Harvie Andre: One of the first things the Prime Minister did upon election in 1984 was appoint the McGrath commission. It established much more independence and authority for committees to act, and committees are masters of their own fate.
I hear the representation of the hon. member and I will certainly communicate his representation.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the House leader before in House business and it relates to the royal commission on electoral reform.

April 9, 1992
Business of the House
I gather from the letters the House leader, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance have given to me on a particular matter which only affects independent members that there is no thought of changing the act now to address the discrimination against financing of independent members who cannot give the tax receipt whereas registered parties can.
If the minister is not going to reflect on that over the Easter break, then I would suggest that the only alternative left for an independent member to redress this wrong is to take court action, the same as the Reform Party has done under the broadcasting item of the elections act and have an injunction against all political donations until this matter is resolved.
I would like the House leader to address that and/or seriously think about it over the Easter break because that is certainly one option that one may be forced to take. Regardless of the timetable of the committee and the royal commission recommendations and a law to implement them, the reality is that even if that is done before the next election, it is very much unlikely to be done in this calendar year and another year will have gone by. I think I have been patient enough.


Harvie Andre: The committee studying the Lortie commission recommendations which deal with financing among other things, as I understand it, is looking at acting as expeditiously as possible. I understand they have been sitting long hours and will be able to bring forward recommendations for a new act that might be implemented quickly before the next election.
I understand that one of the categories of change that is under consideration in that regard is the question of financing for candidates in political parties.
I think a representation to the committee would be appropriate and I think it would be considered.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the government House leader who said we could stand here and debate the issue of referendum for a long time, I wanted to note that the member for Churchill was in fact giving a report of what took place at
the House management committee meeting in a discussion with the chief electoral officer.
Based on the response of the government House leader, I think it is even more imperative that the government have its officials meet with the chief electoral officer and see just what is necessary because the government House leader obviously has not been advised of what took place.


Harvie Andre: I appreciate the lecture from the hon. member which seems to be her habit. I am aware of what is going on.
As I indicated to the House leader of the Liberal Party, I do recognize that there needs to be two pieces of legislation, one dealing with effective adjustments and additions to the elections act to allow for the conducting of a plebiscite. The more important issue is what question in fact the plebiscite would be asking of Canadians.
I indicated to the House leader of the Liberal Party, perhaps the hon. member was not there when I mentioned this, that in fact those considerations are being borne in mind at the appropriate time.
If it is appropriate, legislation will be brought forward. Then she will have the opportunity at second reading, committee study and report stages to go through all of those wonderful details and make sure it is perfect.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order asking unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from standing, special or legislative committees in order to present the report on private member's Bill C-328, sponsored by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I have consulted with all House leaders.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus I would like to say that not only do we agree, but we are also very pleased to support the creation of a Public Service week that would recognize the workers in the government service.
I think that it would be appropriate at this time while legislation is being reviewed for the administration of government workers that the government show its regard for its workers.
April 9, 1992



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of Legislative Committee H on Bill C-328, an act respecting a national week of the Public Service, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam had 13 minutes remaining in debate, plus 10 minutes questions and comments. The hon. member for Port-Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 13 minutes, that is pretty lucky. I will try to make it 12.
This bill is called the Contraventions Act. It is part of the government's so-called protection of society week. This is the successor to the government's law and order week that it had some time ago. As I said the other day, let us get some law and order, not law and ornaments. There are a lot of ornaments here, a lot of publicity hype and so on, but let me deal with the bill.
As I said before, the New Democratic Party will support the bill to get it into committee and get it through quickly, because it seems like a fairly straightforward bill.
Government Orders
Just to be reminded of what the bill does, I am reading from the government's press release. The government says: "The Contraventions Act provides for tickets to be issued when a person commits a minor offence under a federal act or regulation". We have traffic tickets in the provinces and we have tickets for minor offences against provincial acts and regulations. Apparently we have a more formal system in the federal area and so the government is bringing in a bill to change that.
The government says that examples of minor offences include picking flowers on federal property-obviously not for the last few months in Ottawa, but maybe in Vancouver at the airport-hunting without a valid licence, and failing to dump refuge in a proper container while on park lands.
As a matter of fact in the government's press release it does issue a number of minor regulatory offences where the act will apply. They are a little bit more than picking flowers on federal property.
The government lists Agriculture Canada, Atomic Energy Control Board-we might want to look closely at that, what it is going to mean, what kind of offences there-Canada Ports Corporation, Communications Canada, National Defence, and Environment Canada. We are going to want to look very closely there so that we are not making offences against the environment act and that we are not downgrading these offences. Canadians generally, in my view, want to see increased penalties for offences against the environment and a tougher regime. The government mentions Fisheries and Oceans Canada as well. These are a number of areas mentioned by the government in its press release.
I mentioned that there are provincial laws in which the provinces have already done this. When we examine this bill our committee should look at how it is functioning in the provinces. How are these ticket regimes working and how will it work in the federal area?
Someone was saying to me the other day: "I guess what this will mean is now we will really have to pay our parking tickets at the airport". Before, parking tickets could be ignored because it cost too much money to go before the courts, rather than just to have them paid by mail, as can be done under the provincial offences. Maybe the government will end up collecting some money.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
The government says in its press release that this will not cost money. We want to have a look at that. We do not want to waste money. We want to make sure we are not wasting money and we want to maybe get some money for the government.
The government says in its press release that it wants to modernize the law. It introduced a number of pieces of legislation this week. This is justice week or protection of society week, if I can call it that. We have debated legislation on anti-terrorism, legislation on jury selection, this bill on contraventions, the rape shield legislation that we debated yesterday, and so on. I want to say to the government that if it wants to modernize the law do not get rid of the Law Reform Commission. This government is going to do that. That is what it said in the budget. The Law Reform Commission is gone.
It was the Law Reform Commission in 1976 that brought forward some of these ideas, specifically the idea of this bill. The Law Reform Commission does the forward-looking research, or at least it did, and then we see the bills coming to Parliament. We have this bill and the bill changing the insanity provisions.
The hon. member from Okanagan-Similkameen and I were both Crown counsel in British Columbia and we know what it is like to go to court on some of these issues. He knows and I think the House knows that if you want to modernize the law you do not get rid of the Law Reform Commission. People say: "Well, you will save $4 million". As I have just said, we want to save money but this is not a good way of saving money.
This government is adding $16 million to its budget for lawyers in the department and for the litigation budget. So, it gives money there. Of course, those lawyers are always on the side of the government. And it takes money away from the Law Reform Commission which is looking to the future in law reform.
Similarly, it pays $800,000 a year to clip the papers for the Prime Minister so he can read his good press at breakfast.


An hon. member:: That is wrong. It is $869,000.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, sorry. My friend tells me it is $869,000.1 missed $69,000. That money could be used in justice related matters, specifically to keep the Law Reform Commission.
If you want to modernize the law you make the law equal and you make access to the courts equal. You do not get rid of the Court Challenges Program.
The government got rid of the Court Challenges Program at $2.7 million a year and it cut off the right to access of many people to challenge. The disadvantaged groups, women's groups, poor groups and so on would never get to the highest court of the country. They did have that access through the Court Challenges Program. The law was changed and a better law was made for it. We passed some bills that were dealt with in this House as a result of some of those cases. As a matter of fact, we dealt with one this week on jury selection.
I want to read a letter that was written to the Minister of Justice by Timothy Findley. Timothy Findley is one of Canada's foremost authors. His stories are a treat to read. Many members of the House have read his books.
I will just read this letter because he writes English a lot better than I write it or speak it.
"Dear Minister, I am both saddened and surprised that in its attempts to reduce spending and the deficit our present government has announced that among its belt-tightening measures will be the abolition of the Court Challenges Program.
There is a goodly proportion of the electorate which believes, as I do, that it is our social programs which not only hold this country together, but which also give us a vital component of our identity in the face of growing pressures to Americanize Canada and the Court Challenges Program has been an important part of our social contract, offering as it has, financial aid to those who could not otherwise seek redress in the courts against government infringements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I therefore urge you to resist attempts to abolish this important program. There are many other more costly and less important expenditures which can be examined with an eye to reducing federal spending.
April 9, 1992

Sincerely yours, Timothy Findley."
I say to the government, if you make some money on this program in collecting these fines and making this a more efficient program then let us take the money and put it back into the Court Challenges Program. Cut that big litigation budget. Put some money in the Court Challenges Program and get the Law Reform Commission going again.
There are only two countries in the Commonwealth that do not have Law Reform Commissions. This is a crazy cut. It is a ridiculous cut and a mean cut.
I will finish with protection of society week. If you really want to tackle crime, I am for tackling crime. I want lawn order not lawn ornaments.
Let us tackle crime, because Canadians are concerned about the increased violence in our society. You get adequate gun control, good regulations on control of firearms. You do not wait until next January as the minister announced today; you get the regulations now. You do not wait until next January so the people can buy all these guns and get big clip sizes and put them in the guns and you cannot make a change when it comes to next January. That is what has to be done to tackle gun control. You need the political will there.
You also change our prisons from being just a revolving warehouse system for criminals. What you do is get some decent treatment programs. You should be prepared to look at a new juvenile act in which you can deal with the juveniles right there with good treatment facilities, short and sharp sentences to catch juveniles before they become criminals.
You look after victims. You do not ignore victims in the criminal justice system. You tell them what is going on. You tell them what happens to the cases and you deal with the particular crimes. These are the kinds of things you can do if you want a protection of society week, not just announcements or fairly minor bills like this bill. We need some real substance.
That is what Canadians want in dealing with law and order in this country. We will see how this bill goes in committee. We will let it go now, for our part.
The parliamentary secretary may have something to say. I hope he stands up in the House and announces
Government Orders
that we get the Law Reform Commission again and we get the Court Challenges Program again.
I hope he cuts back the litigation budget and all that waste in the department and in the Prime Minister's office, channels it for justice and getting real protection for Canadians because that is what Canadians want.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to follow my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam who in his own right was and still is a very distinguished member of the bar and has served in other capacities in other jurisdictions. He has distinguished himself quite well.
I want to ask my colleague who has far more experience than I in terms of the actual practice of law a question. He has made mention of the Law Reform Commission. It seems to me that this is an important vehicle for the Government of Canada to utilize not only for the purpose of reviewing existing laws, but also to looking to the future in a way which Canadians could be somewhat visionary in terms of what laws they would like to see in the future.
I would like to ask my colleague who has distinguished himself at the bar as I said earlier in my remarks, what does he conceive of the reasons why a government would want to abolish the Law Reform Commission when, on the other hand, the Minister of Justice parades herself across this country from capital city to capital city saying that we have to modernize the law?
It seems to me to be somewhat-I use a harsh word and I do not normally do that-hypocritical to say on the one hand modernize, but on the other hand, the thing which you need to modernize the law both from a substantive point of view and also from an educational point of view is the Law Reform Commission.
I am wondering what reasons the hon. member could give as to why the government would want to proceed in such a Draconian fashion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The government has proceeded in a Draconian fashion. It has cut off its nose to spite its face, as the old expression goes.
Why? I can only speculate. One reason may be that the Minister of Justice did not have much clout in the cabinet with respect to losing these particular areas from the Department of Justice. The other reason may be that it was intentional.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
The Law Reform Commission gave a report before Christmas in which it talked about a role for aboriginal self-government in the justice system, a kind of separate justice system for aboriginal people since the system has clearly been failing aboriginal people. That was directly against what the minister believed in and bang, there goes the Law Reform Commission. Perhaps I am being too suspicious. Look at the Economic Council of Canada. It brought in a report on Quebec that the government did not like and bang, there goes the Economic Council of Canada. That will teach the council.
Look at the Court Challenges Program. They kind of made life uncomfortable for the government. They challenged a few of the government's laws and the Reform Party does not like them. Bang, they are gone.
These are harsh reactions, ideological reactions from a government that is adrift and is shell-shocked. The government gets lots of applause in this House. The Prime Minister may get lots of applause in this House, but he walks outside the door of this House and he gets booed and has no support. I think the government is reacting from a shell-shocked, bunker mentality.
I can tell the hon. member that the government has also tried to combine freedom of information and privacy together in one office. This means that in fact it is going to restrict freedom of information and argue the right to privacy instead. It has been doing that consistently, if we read articles by journalists who try to get information. One of the worst offenders is the Minister for International Trade.
It is part of a pattern: cut back on access to government, cut back in information, cut out independent bodies that may say something different from what you are saying, spend your money on your own lawyers, pad your own budgets for public relations, for polling, and so on, and never release them to the Canadian people.
That is all right. We only have about 500 days left, I can tell my friend, and it will all be over. That is about the maximum before the election will be held. We are now in the countdown and Canadians will be very pleased, but let us hope the government does not do too much more damage before that period is over.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend for
all the work he has done as justice critic for the New Democratic Party.
I want to make a comment with respect to the apparent paradox we have before us with the justice ministry on the one hand streamlining the system with a ticketing method that it should have done years and years ago, and on the other hand cutting back on the programs he has talked about. As a member of the British Columbia Bar Association, I find it totally backward for the government to cut out the Law Reform Commission and the Court Challenges Program.
The Court Challenges Program has been used by minority people, aboriginal people, women in need, disabled persons, pensioners, seniors, all those people who do not have the ability because of lack of funding to have their cases properly heard. Often we found that those programs or those challenges have been landmark cases that have been taken and paid for under the Court Challenges Program.
As one who has worked for many of those groups over a period time and has been in the court system in British Columbia, I find that to be a very regressive step on behalf of the government and a surprise.
My question concerns the regulation end of the ticketing process. I found the member's remarks rather interesting in referring to the press release. I know that in the provinces things like the Wildlife Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and many others are done through a ticketing system. On the one hand it provides persons, whether working men or women or business persons, with the ability to pay their penalty in court rather than agree that they are guilty and pay a penalty set out by regulation. On the other hand, if persons wish to dispute it they still have the ability to go into court, have their day in court, have a trial, and have the matter heard by a full court. I wonder if there is any indication from the government as to what its plans are with respect to regulation, how extensive the regulations will be and what areas, aside from the ones he has mentioned, or how extensive within these areas the government will be regulating and whether it will be setting out penalties within each one of these within the regulations themselves.
April 9, 1992


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.
It looks like there will be, on reading the material, a right to a trial if you want one or the ability to just pay your fine. The member is right. We have to look at the regulations. That is why I am a bit suspicious when I read the government's press release that says, you know, it is a picking of flowers on government property. I suspect it goes a lot further than that. There are a lot more offences than that.
We are going to see the regulations in the committee. That is what I understand. I wait to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on this. The government so far has not set it out. In the previous debate it just paid tribute to an hon. member who had brought a case about boat regulations years ago. That was nice, but we would like to hear from the government.
We are going to push in committee to get those regulations, to have a look at them. We do not want, I think what the member is saying, the government to start legislating quasi-criminal law by regulation. It becomes too easy to do and it does not have enough public scrutiny.
I want to end with this. The Law Reform Commission came up with this idea in 1976. You are right. It has been going on a long time. What did the government do? It brings it in and then abolishes the Law Reform Commission. That is rather ironic, is it not?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary wishes to enter the debate, I would gladly consent to allowing him to go before me if that is his wish.
I will not be all that long in my intervention. I just want at the outset on behalf of my party to congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys who has done a superb job in regard to Bill C-46 as well as a host of other legislation which has come before the House. I listened quite attentively to what my colleague said with regard to this particular bill and, more important, with the whole issue of justice and the administration of justice in this country.
Government Orders
I asked on an earlier occasion my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam about the benefits of the Law Reform Commission. I must say that I would have to concur with what he has said. When one looks at this bill and its attempt to streamline certain things, one has to take into consideration a number of actions of the Government of Canada, particularly as of late.
We have another bill before us, Bill C-63. It is linked with this one as well in terms of the abolition of the Law Reform Commission.
We also have other budgetary matters which are of particular concern to ordinary Canadians. I note in Hansard that my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, my colleague from Ottawa Vanier, my colleagues from the Hamilton area, as well as my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have stated repeatedly the Government of Canada's ill-advised action in terminating the Court Challenges Program.
I know the hon. member opposite who happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I cannot for the life of me understand how such an honourable individual can sit in this place and allow the government to gut the Court Challenges Program.
Those very distinguished and able litigators in the Department of Justice have had their budget increased from $73 million to $89.5 million. That is $16 million or a little bit more. That is a pretty sizeable chunk of money. That is so they can go court and advocate a particular cause which in numerous instances is in direct opposition to what an ordinary citizen would like to take before the courts. What has the Government of Canada done for those ordinary citizens? How are they going to receive the kind of legal expertise that they will need in order to argue their case before a judicial body?
Previously there was money, less than $2 million if you will, set aside for the Court Challenges Program. Now, the government in modernizing the law has gutted the Court Challenges Program, thereby denying ordinary citizens the opportunity to present their case with the support of legal, and I will use the word loosely, expert counsel on particular issues of the day. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary and his cronies have awarded themselves a $16 million increase for the

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
litigation dossier in the Department of Justice. If there was ever a demonstrable act of hypocrisy, that is it.
I do not wish to impute motive because that would be unparliamentary, but I suspect that you who sits in this chair and is the arbitrator of debate in this House, and known as a reasonable and prudent individual, would probably have many constituents who would look upon this example-on the one hand, $89.5 million for the litigation dossier in the Department of Justice and absolutely nothing under the Court Challenges Program-as being somewhat unfair.
I bet I could find individuals in my constituency who, if I told them that $89.5 million has been set aside for the government to argue its case and nothing has been given under the Court Challenges Program by the Government of Canada, would say that is unfair.
I could name constituents who would think that that would be unfair. I could name members of my own legal community. I could name distinguished legal counsel whom I know in Halifax. Elvin MacNeil for instance, might be of some interest to the parliamentary secretary across the way. What is even more frightful than this demonstrable act of unfairness and of hypocrisy by the Government of Canada is that the parliamentary secretary supports this.
I find that unbelievable. I would think that the people in Niagara Falls would be very, very disgusted to learn that their representative, who is supposed to represent all of the people and not just a click of people, is supporting a measure which would be so unfair.
That is the first point. The second point is in reference to the question on the Law Reform Commission.
I am not an individual who has years of experience at the bar, as my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, who in an earlier life, like my colleague from the New Democratic Party, distinguished himself at the bar, practised law and practised extensively corporate law, I might add, both in terms of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Sydney Steel Corporation. But it would seem to me that if one is modernizing the law, you do not gut or throw into the scrap heap the Law Reform Commission, which is the tool that can assist and facilitate the modernization of the law.
If we are going to ask the Department of Justice to do all the modernization of the law, I am afraid of what we
will get. No deference to those officials within the department, but they have their political masters who they are accountable to. Under the Law Reform Commission they had opportunities whereby they could reach out and get into different areas of the law, make recommendations, do examinations of existing studies, look to other jurisdictions, whether it be on a provincial basis or indeed internationally. Now we have forfeited the opportunity for the Law Reform Commission to do that because we have sacked the Law Reform Commission.
I find that to be extremely unfair and inappropriate for the Government of Canada to pursue. The Parliamentary Secretary will rise to close off this debate in a few moments. Notwithstanding the comments that I have of the public policy, I acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary in his own right is an able practitioner of the law. I wonder if the Minister of Justice has flown across this great country and whether she has touched base with the provincial Attorneys General across this country. I wonder if it has been an item at the various conferences of the provincial Attorneys General and whether they and the working committee of the deputy ministers of provincial Attorneys General have agreed that the Law Reform Commission is a waste of time.
I would venture to say, and I hope the hon. parliamentary secretary can prove me wrong, that they were not even consulted, that they had absolutely no say in terms of the termination of the Law Reform Commission. The hon. member opposite may shake his head and say that, technically, legally, the Government of Canada which will decide on whether the Law Reform Commission stays in existence or not. That is true, but the fact of the matter is that it has consequential effects and great impact on provincial jurisdictions in this country.
If we are looking at the country as a whole, as I am sure the hon. member and others in this Chamber do, one can see the rationale behind the Law Reform Commission.
I speak of the Law Reform Commission but I wish to state up front that I do not do so under a conflict of interest. I am a member of the bar as well, but I am not attempting to obtain some sort of position on the Law Reform Commission of Canada. I want to make that clear. But if you are going to modernize the law, and have individuals come to the commission to study the
April 9, 1992

issues which are of great importance, I think you still need a Law Reform Commission.
In an earlier day in a previous jurisdiction, I served with one of Nova Scotia's most renowned politicians who was an Attorney General himself, the late Judge Allan E. Sullivan. When it came to the Law Reform Commission, I can recall at previous meetings of the Minister of Justice and her provincial colleagues, the provincial Attorneys General, as well as the deputy ministers of Attorneys General, the importance they gave to the Law Reform Commission and, more important, the kinds of subject matter that the Law Reform Commission would study because provincial jurisdictions had neither the time nor the human resources in which to pursue that kind of examination.
I hope in the attempt to modernize the law, the parliamentary secretary and government will not bastardize the process in terms of eliminating the Law Reform Commission.
There are other issues which I wish to address. I will leave it at that because I know we are interested in hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I hope that during his interventions, the hon. member will avail himself of the opportunity to explain to Canadians the unfairness of doing away with the Court Challenges Program while at the same time sucking $16 million into the litigation dossier of the Department of Justice. If he would explain the rationale for the gutting and the throwing to the scrap heap the Law Reform Commission, when at the same time, the minister parades across this country, into each and every capital and before every bar society in Canada, talking about the modernization of law. One of the most effective tools in modernizing the law, the Law Reform Commission, it has done away with. I wait eagerly to hear the comments from my colleague opposite who no doubt will want to provide the kind of information that members on this side of the House will need in order to pursue the debate in much greater detail than we have up to date.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to talk about changes to the Contraventions Act, Bill C-46.
I along with other colleagues who spoke earlier on this want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He is a very effective private mem-
Govemment Orders
ber, as you know, Mr. Speaker. He has had considerable influence and I would suggest considerable success in this House.
I remember when the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada signed the acid rain agreement. Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister made special mention of his work in the area of acid rain and his fight during his years in Parliament to see progress made on that. I think it was very fitting that both the President and the Prime Minister singled him out in that regard.
It was appropriate as well to have members of this House single him out again with respect to the bill that is before the House. The ticketing scheme proposed in this bill is one that is of particular concern to him and to other members who have recreational waterways and lakes within their ridings. I guess this is where, among other things, I would differ from the member of the New Democratic Party who spoke. He called this a minor bill and commented that this was law and ornaments week and why are we not bringing in important legislation, and all that. I guess it depends on if you are affected by something.
For my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound- Muskoka, tourism and the reasonable enjoyment of nature, the lakes, the forests in that particular area, is of concern to him. Tourism is a major concern in his riding.
I can tell the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and I will tell all members of the House, this is not a minor piece of legislation for individuals who are affected by this. This is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to having it moved through the House and into committee where we can talk about it.
I tell the hon. member who thinks this is a minor piece of legislation that this is something that provincial and territorial colleagues of the Minister of Justice have been pressing for, for some time. It provides an alternative to the criminal court system, a system when taken up with minor matters, to which this bill addresses itself, can be both costly and inefficient.
On another day and in another debate, Mr. Speaker, you will hear members in this House decry the crowding of Canada's court system. You have heard that cry many times: the courts are too crowded; governments should do something about it. This is a very constructive piece of legislation.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
Our provincial counterparts, all those involved with court systems in Canada, welcome this piece of legislation. Why? Because it provides an alternative to individuals who want to plead guilty to minor regulatory infractions. It provides them with a way to do that, so that they do not have to go through the criminal court process and clog up the courts, take up the court's time for some individuals to say: "I have made a mistake. It is a minor mistake. I just want to pay the fine. How do I do it?" Now we have established a regime to do that.
I can tell members of the House that those individuals for whom the overcrowding of Canada's court system is a problem, and it is an acknowledged problem, will welcome this. They will say that this is a step in the right direction.
I say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party who have said the Law Reform Commission came up with this in 1976, for heaven's sake, why did they not do it? Why did they not listen? What took them eight years? People are pretty generous with criticism around here.
I give credit to the Minister of Justice. She did not just think tough about this, she actually did something about it. She did something constructive. She heard comments from the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. She consulted with her provincial counterparts. She consulted with other members of the House and has brought this forward.
I know it is a step in the right direction. It provides for three main objectives, the decriminalization of minor federal regulatory offences, the removal of uncontested cases from the courts: and the improved enforcement of fines. Who can argue with that?
It was asked in Parliament this afternoon: to whom and how does this apply? Well, I can tell the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam that there are 12 different departments that are going to be a part of the initial phase. Each of the participants has chosen to have minor infractions within their department or jurisdiction included within the schedule of offences. I think it should be noted, and noted very clearly, this legislation does not
create any new offences, but rather provides a new, simplified procedure for the enforcement of existing minor offences.
In answer to the question the hon. member raised in his remarks, a list of those offences is available. They have been provided to the assistants to the critics of the other two political parties. We will have them in committee.
If members want to know exactly what we are talking about when we move this into committee, we can have a look at it. It will be right there to be seen so there is no mystery about what we are doing. I would even suggest there is no controversy about what we are doing. This was unanimously agreed to by people who want to unclog our courts and have a better more efficient way of handling minor offences.
One of the important things for me to do in this debate is to bring to the attention of the House the wishes of the Governor General with respect to this. Therefore I would like to bring to the attention of the House that clause 66 of the bill would abolish the right of the Crown to refuse to issue a passport or to revoke it as a consequence of a charge or conviction under the Contraventions Act.
This clause, which is a consequence of decriminalization of designated regulatory offences would affect Her Majesty's prerogatives.
His Excellency, the Governor General, has been informed of the purport of this bill and has given his consent as far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying a number of things. We have heard the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam asking why are we bringing in minor bills.
This has been a sterling week for people who want to see important legislation brought before Parliament. There is a tendency in this House, if something is not today, then we can forget about it and speak in a vacuum. However, in public security week, we have brought forward justice initiatives.
April 9, 1992

I believe it was unanimously concluded in this House and by every speaker that the rape shield bill that was brought before Parliament for second reading is major legislation. It is a major accomplishment that the Minister of Justice has brought this in. It was fine to acknowledge it yesterday, but it can be acknowledged today; it is very important.
It goes along with a whole host of legislation that has been brought in, some of it passed, some of it sent to committee. It will be interesting when the Minister of Justice appears before the Standing Committee on Justice.
I remember last year the member for Port Moody- Coquitlam said to the minister: "Well, you have not passed any bills. What bills have you done?" She has lots to talk about this year. I hope she gets the same question and she can tell all the great things that this Minister of Justice has done for Canada, the measures that have been brought before this Parliament, including the initiative of yesterday. That is a very important initiative.
I do not want to confine it to that. Members can move just the day before that when we were talking about the extradition bill which, as you know, was in the report and third reading stage. Again, it is major legislation. The hon. member for the Liberal Party says: "How will the people of Niagara Falls view this and other legislation that we have brought in?" I think they will view it very favourably. When I get the opportunity to tell them, as I mentioned two days ago, that the existing law gives them more rights of appeal if they are a fugitive fighting extradition than if they are charged with a criminal offence in Canada.
Who thinks that is a good idea? I told Parliament a couple of days ago that we are changing that. We are streamlining the process. That is not minor. That is something that all parliamentarians can and should applaud.
I hope this moves quickly through the House. I know some hon. members would like to see this in place as quickly as possible because of the benefits. I look forward to participating at the committee stage on this because this is an improvement. This is something that was talked about by the previous administration I know for eight
Government Orders
years, but it is something that the present Minister of Justice has done something about.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make it very clear to the member that I, as a member of the New Democratic Party, and I believe our justice critic, has made it clear that the initiative set out in Bill C-46 is an initiative that has been long overdue.
The government has had some seven and a half years to bring it in. We are very interested in ensuring that it progress fairly rapidly and reasonably for a number of the reasons set out by the parliamentary secretary, not the least of which is tire convenience to the members of the public.
However, having said that, I think it is essential. I am pleased to see that the parliamentary secretary has indicated that the regulations will be tabled or shown ahead of time to the committee so that it has the opportunity of seeing exactly which areas will be governed by Bill C-46. That is very important, not only to us as parliamentarians but for the court system, for lawyers and for the public in general.
One of the things I noticed in listening intently to the member's comments in the defence of his Minister of Justice was all that has been done over the past week in particular in justice and certainly over the last year. When he talks about these things being done, the absence of one comment stands out. It has been pointed out by the justice critic for the New Democratic Party as well as the Whip for the Liberal Party concerning the abolition of a Law Reform Commission and the abolition of the Court Challenges Program.
As we tiy to get the system more streamlined and fairer for everybody, at the same time I put to the parliamentary secretary that the government seems to be backing off on two programs that have been very essential in the growth of the justice system and justice within Canada.
I turn particularly to the Canadian Bar Association's press release of February 28 and its comments in which it says that the CBA president also noted that the work of the commission-referring to the Law Reform Commission-has enjoyed considerable success.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
"Its reports have been extensively cited by courts both inside and outside Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Many of its recommendations have been implemented through both administrative and legislative action. CBA particularly regrets that a number of much needed projects which are already well advanced such as a new Criminal Code to replace the present 100-year old law will almost certainly never be completed".
That release from the Canadian Bar Association points out the folly of the policy of doing away with the Law Reform Commission. It points out the folly of where this government has gone.
The Criminal Code governs all of us. It is one of the few codes and laws of which all the people in Canada are well aware. It needs revamping. There are certainly people in our party who are looking at that. There is a committee of the House that is looking at it, but the Law Reform Commission has proven itself to be non-partisan. It looks in all areas. It has excellent people in it. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the shortsightedness of doing away with the Law Reform Commission. It has more than proven its worth for the small amount of money paid out over the years. The reform commission has proven its value to Canadian society. Why did they do away with it in the last budget?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let me take one of the comments the member made towards the end, and I will work my way back to talk a little bit about the Law Reform Commission.
I disagree with the hon. member's comments concerning draft revisions to the Criminal Code. I know the hon. member for Lethbridge is very involved with this as a member of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Justice and the Solicitor General.
It is a huge undertaking, there is no question about that. Our present Criminal Code is approximately 100 years old. It was adapted almost in total from the British Criminal Code in force at the time. It is an enormous undertaking. If we just change one section of the Criminal Code, we as parliamentarians scrutinize it very carefully, as we should.
I do not share the member's pessimistic views about that. I put my confidence and trust in the member for Lethbridge who has undertaken this task. I believe he will see it through to a successful conclusion.
Let me talk in general terms about the comments of the hon. member about the Law Reform Commission being a good idea. I make no bones about it at all. The Law Reform Commission has done very good work in many pieces of legislation. I have been involved with 22 pieces of justice legislation, and I think it has done good work.
I guess I disagree with the NDP that any time you have a good idea it must continue and funding must not only be sustained at present levels, but increased.
I happen to believe there are outstanding researchers within the Department of Justice. At one time I was working on the young offenders bill, and wanted to mention to the members of the committee and the House the outstanding job I believed was done by the officials within the Department of Justice. Somebody said to me: "Well, you do not really do that. I guess we sort of pretend that we politicians do everything. That we come up with all good ideas. I just happened to write the changes to the Contraventions Act last week and I am presenting it to Parliament". Well, that is nonsense.
The research that goes on within the Department of Justice is outstanding in this particular area and in all areas in the justice field. I have complete confidence it will continue to bring forward the legislation we are discussing here today, legislation like the Young Offenders Act, the Rape Shield Act, changes to the Young Offenders Act, changes to the Extradition Act, all these things that have been developed within the Department of Justice. Of course it will continue to get good advice from people because it seeks out good advice. It contacts groups and individuals who are experts from across the country. It can and will continue to do an outstanding job of researching and developing legislation. I have complete confidence in that and so should the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
April 9, 1992


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we go into Orders of the Day, I have received a written notice from the hon. member for Delta that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, April 10, 1992. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a). Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 94.2(b), private members' hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour, or else we can adjourn the House, one way or the other.
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 Sault Ste. Marie, Retraining; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Fisheries; the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, Human Rights; the hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso, North American Trade Agreement; the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre, General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.


SPENDING CONTROL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-56, an act that purports to control program spending in the future.
The Conservative government members, with this act, would have us believe they are the only ones who understand spending controls and budget deficits.
I would like to make it perfectly clear that all of us on this side of the House as well as on that side of the
Government Orders
House are very much aware of the serious financial difficulties faced by this country and the government of this country. That does not mean we believe it knows how to control these difficulties.
The government would have us believe program spending is the reason we are facing these huge deficits. Although program spending has been a culprit, it is certainly not the biggest one. A lot of it has to do with the extremely high rates of interest we have been forced to endure by this government's very tight fiscal and monetary policy, especially over the last few years.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if we had lower interest rates sooner, we might have had less difficulty and there would be more jobs now in this country.
The Conservative government, by this bill, seeks to impose its own agenda on the future governments of this country. That speaks very loudly to the fact this government realizes it will not be here after the next election. To be very honest, most Canadians are very anxious to have this happen and the sooner the better. There is absolutely no doubt in most minds across this country this country will be far better off without this Conservative government. Many of the woes we are facing now have a lot to do with the way this government has managed this economy.
Has anyone ever thought of what the supremacy of Parliament means? It means the government that is elected takes responsibility for its actions.
Yesterday I stood in this House and spoke to Bill C-49, a bill concerning the rape shield law. This particular bill would make everyone take responsibility for her or his actions.
This government has to take responsibility for its actions now. Why is it trying to impose its failed agenda? Just ask around. It has failed and failed miserably and is now trying to impose it on the future generations of this country.
I want this government to take responsibility for its actions now.
It would seek to impose restraints on program spending in its august position of ultra knowledge. We all know its predictions are worth absolutely nothing. It has never been able to come out right on anything it has predicted for this economy.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
Now, after the benefit of this knowledge of the past which was non-existent, it is predicting program spending should be 3.3 per cent this year. It should be that amount, and that amount. Mind you, it will not include so-called self-financing programs, including unemployment insurance.
What happens if we are forced to pay more in unemployment insurance claims because of high unemployment? What happens then? Who foots the bill?
This is just a sham. It is a political shenanigan and there is absolutely no other way to look at it. I will tell you right now this government does not know how to control its own house and its own expenditures. There are some very glaring examples of it right now, starting with today.
Today I received this very beautiful book in my office. It is called "The State of Canada's Environment". I guess the costs for this were borne under Canada's green plan. Now we all know that Canada's green plan has to do with protecting our environment. This is a veiy beautiful book, but how is it going to help our industries become less polluting? It is absolutely beautiful reading, but it is also a very costly piece of literature. I have not had a chance to read it. I have just received it. I am sure many people will enjoy it, but will it help us control environmental pollution or will it just cause more pollution and excessive waste?
I leave the question to you and the people of Canada. In my thinking, the only way to control the environment and pollution is to actually bring in pollution abatement programs, not print fancy books.
That was a glaring example just today. How many millions have been spent? I do not know but I am about to find out.
Other glaring examples are the government's fantastic advertising campaigns. It certainly knows how to promote and advertise. You turn on the television set and hear about the wonderful Beaudoin-Dobbie report. Then the Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says that is not really the government's policy. Well, if it is not really its policy then why are we advertising this report?
It is another example of one part of the government saying one thing while another part says something else.
Just recently there was a poll indicating that 66 per cent of Canadians believe that the free trade agreement was bad for us, that it did us absolutely no good, and that as a matter of fact it caused us a lot more pain than gain.
What is this government's answer to Canadians? Is it in programs to help the unemployed? No. There is a lot of nice talk but there is not a lot of nice action. There are no additional programs of retraining for our unemployed Canadians, but there is another advertising program. We are going to make all those unemployed Canadians feel good by spending money to tell them how great the free trade agreement was for some small number of companies. I am very happy that it has been good for some, but I certainly do not know of very many.
Spending those millions, and they are always millions, on advertising to convince Canadians of something that is at best shady, at best, a total waste of money. What this government is actually doing is using taxpayers' money in a pre-election advertising spree to try to promote itself as the saviour of our country.
Is that the way to spend money? In my way when you have no money you cut the frills and you quit the b.s. That is what this is all about. This is b.s.
I am going to give another very glaring example. This is all within one week. We do not have to read a lot of papers. We do not have to sit back for hours and do a lot of research. It is just all there for the taking, all the examples of the absolute waste and how this government says one thing and does another.
It relates to the depots under national defence. There was an announcement by the Minister of National Defence that he would spend $100 million building a depot in Montreal for national defence. I have no qualms with that. Montreal certainly needs job creation. But what it says to me is that they are not really doing what they say they are doing. They are saying one thing and doing another.
There have been many studies on these depots. In 1987 the then Minister of National Defence, who is now Minister of Communications, promised $100 million for the rebuilding of or a new depot in Moncton. The next Minister of National Defence, I guess a year or two later,
April 9, 1992

the present Minister of Agriculture, confirmed that decision. As well the now Minister of National Defence confirmed that decision.
The department went out and got 20 private sector proposals to build this new facility. It looked as if this particular proposal would cost less than $100 million. Actually the new proposals came in at around $70 million. Many of these groups spent a lot of money preparing these proposals.
During the last budget deliberations the Minister of National Defence cancelled the depot saying there was no money. It was difficult for the people of Moncton to accept that there was no money, but they knew it. We have all faced it and we all have to take some difficult decisions. They were prepared to accept that decision because there was no money. Three weeks later-not three years, not three months, but three weeks later- the Minister of National Defence announced that they were going to build a new facility and that they were going to build it in Montreal at a cost of $100 million. If we look at any reports or any of the studies that were done comparing which facilities would be most cost effective, Montreal was the least cost effective of all of them.


Mr. McCreath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am listening with great interest to my hon. friend opposite and finding it very interesting. However, I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate if she spoke to the bill that is before the House, which is Bill C-56 respecting the Expenditure Control Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the hon. member is coming to that topic. I will let her continue to speak.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing spending control. That is what I am talking about. I am addressing the fact that this government says it controls spending but in effect does not control spending at all. These are examples of it.
I need to expand on these arguments because it explains to Canadian people what this group is trying to pull. It is pulling the wool over Canadians' eyes.


Mr. Mifflin:: Not any more, not any more.


Diane Marleau: To get back to these depots, this is the kind of decision we get. They will be shutting down
Government Orders
Moncton and the depot in Downsview. Of course these people will lose their jobs. It is too bad for them.


Fred J. Mifflin: Some 450 in Moncton.


Diane Marleau: Some 450 people in Moncton. It is nice the government is going to create jobs in Montreal. I have no objections, but if it wants to create jobs in Montreal, why does it pit one region against the other? Why does it go against its own proposals of controlling spending? Why?
I remember at the end of the gulf war there was to be a peace dividend for the people of Canada. Where is that peace dividend? I have never seen anyone like this group opposite able to say "oh, by the way, we are decreasing expenditures" when all the time all they are decreasing is the amount of increase. When we look at the national defence budget that is where we really see it. We are playing little games, little boys' games, I must say.
When I look at some of the things that are happening I am not convinced we have to give out a $1 billion contract to build new helicopters for the military. I am not convinced of that. Maybe it is the right decision, but there are many, many places those dollars would be very beneficial.
Before the Conservatives try to foster their ideas I am going to be very happy not only to take responsibility for my future actions when we form the next government but also willing to assume the disaster they are going to leave us. That is what they are doing. It is not going to be easy, but I personally will never make these kinds of stupid promises that I cannot keep.
When we talk of cutting expenses we have to talk seriously. We cannot take from one pocket and put it in the other. This bill says program spending is going to be capped. Fine, fine. They pick a number out of the hat: 3 per cent. Why 3 per cent? Why not 1 per cent? Why not an increase? Why not a decrease? There are no explanations.
Why would they not control, on the other hand, the one sector that they are not controlling, that is the tax expenditure? This bill controls program expenditure, but it does not prevent any government from going out and giving its friends a huge tax break. That is not going to help the deficit. This does nothing to control that kind of thing, absolutely nothing. It does not include servicing the debt.

Government Orders
Have you ever heard of any business or any household that does not take into consideration all of its expenses when it budgets? Have you ever heard of anyone doing that? When we are looking at the money you bring in, do you turn around and say: "My mortgage payment does not count. I am going to put it aside over there and I am just going to spend on groceries and heating. My mortgage is separate?"
I will have you know, if your mortgage rate goes up you have to get the money from somewhere. You had better include it in your over-all budget or you are going to be in even bigger trouble. This does not do that. It does not. It has all kinds of loopholes, but basically it is a total and complete sham. It is this government trying to go to the Canadian people to tell them: "See how great we are".
One of my colleagues and the ex-chairman of the finance committee said to me: "What a funny bill. It is a got-ya bill. If you vote against it, it means that you are against controlling expenditures, so we have got ya".
That is not the way that I want to run this country. That is not the kind of legislation that we should be discussing in this House. It debases each and every one of us.
This is not a time to be playing political games and this is a political game from beginning to end. It is very much the time for all of us to sit down and start being honest with Canadians. There is no doubt in my mind that we can certainly run things better than what has been done in the past and we can certainly look after the people of Canada.
That is what we have to look at. It is fine to go on and rant and rave, but we have these glaring examples of absolute disregard for spending. There are many more. I just raised three or four of them I have become privy to in the last week.
This bill also says that in any one year the Minister of Finance can say that he will overspend the program limits. He has to state it. Then he has to tell the House of Commons how he will recoup that in the next two years.
What happens if, for instance, in 1993 when this government is facing an election it stands up and says: "All right, this year we are going to spend x dollars more than what this bill says and we will recoup it in the two
years following", knowing full well that it is not going to have to take responsibility for it"?
What kind of nonsense is that? I ask because I am absolutely disillusioned that what I thought were responsible people are trying to pull this kind of wool. I just become so incensed that people who purport to know how to run finances would try to limit and to fool the people of Canada in that way.
Can we imagine that? There is no doubt in my mind that that is all this is. There are many aspects of it that are uncontrolled. For instance, what happens if a government does not recoup in the following two years? What happens then? Who does what?
The Auditor General puts out a nice report and says: "You have been bad. You have not recouped the amount of money". Who elects the people sitting in this House? It is not the Auditor General. He reports to the people. The only real power remains with the people. Therefore, any government has to answer to the people, as this one will very shortly, within the next year. It will also get a very strong message within the next year. It is already getting it. It chooses not to hear it, but it is getting it.
It has to do with the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament makes its own decisions. What would happen if we as a government, or you as a government, decided to trade tax points for revenues or decided, for instance, that you would turn a program over to the provincial level. We are discussing that right now in the constitutional debate. If we were to turn over a program to another level and in return we would allow them more tax room, what would this bill do? It would still say that program spending should stay at that level. Program spending should not stay at that level if we turn a program over to another level of government. It should not.
Sound decisions based on what is happening on the day and in the year is what is needed and not in some sanctimonious, pious way, and I have to watch my next statement, what this group is trying to perpetrate on Canadians across this country. The record of this government speaks for itself, and it is not a good record. Until this government starts to do what it says it is going to do, it will continue to have no respect in the eyes of Canadians.
April 9, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. The hon. member for Essex- Windsor will have 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes questions or comments.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on a bill which should be called the deficit increase bill because that is what we have in front of us. We have a bill which opens the door to increase the deficit as far and as completely as one wants to in this country.
We had thought when this piece of legislation first came before the House that it might have something to do with trying to control deficits, that it might have something to do with trying to make the government of this country pay some attention to the fact that we have a national debt of over $420 billion, that we in fact have in this country a government which has consistently missed its deficit reduction targets, a government which has consistently failed to bring the finances of this country into any kind of sense of balance, even during the good times that existed in the latter part of the 1980s.
We thought that this bill might possibly put some brakes on this government's habit of giving tax breaks to its friends and continuing to increase expenditure and driving up the deficit.
In fact, many witnesses came before us in committee. Those many witnesses convinced the finance committee, and the finance committee came back with a report to the House of Commons which said very clearly if you want to control the deficit, you have to control tax expenditures.
You cannot continue to make it possible for a government to come in on budget day and say: "Well, we are going to change something which in the past has been a program of direct grants to people. We are going to make it a program of tax credits to people".
That is a fascinating change, but what it does is increase the deficit and at the same time has the effect on paper of reducing the expenditures. Yes, it is true expenditures are reduced, but tax giveaways are increased. That is what this debate is about. It is about the fact that the finance committee of this House of Commons unanimously said to this government: "If you are going to be serious about this bill, you have to put some controls on tax expenditure". If you are going to be serious about this legislation, if you are going to be
Government Orders
serious about deficits in this country, you have to accept that you cannot simply hand away tax breaks to large corporations or to different groups within the country that shout and scream. You cannot come in as the government did just yesterday and say: "Yes, it is true that we had planned to increase taxes by $150 million on the tobacco companies in this country, but the tobacco companies have pressured us. They persuaded us and so we are going to get rid of that tax".
You cannot have a system where the government can get rid of taxes, hand out goodies to its friends, make new giveaways to target groups that it wants to support in the election campaign and then expect the deficit in this country to be controlled.
It is interesting that the Minister of Finance, when he first introduced this legislation last year, said: "You know, we have looked at the United States. We have seen that in the United States they have some expenditure control systems in effect which are aimed at reducing their deficit. We think we have to follow that route".
It is interesting. The finance committee went to the United States. We talked to American legislators. We talked about the congressional and White House budget staffs. They told us very clearly that at the heart of the American legislation was a system which said if you want to come in and give a whole new tax giveaway program to somebody, you have to pay for it. You have to pay for it either by increasing taxes or by reducing expenditures. Otherwise you get continued increases in the deficit.
The finance committee listened. The finance committee, which is made up of all three parties in this House, unanimously came to the conclusion that our deficit problems are so serious in this country at the federal level that we have to to something to control the deficit. They said if you are going to control the deficit, you have to include in this legislation something such as is in the American legislation, something that says if there is a new tax giveaway system, it has to be paid for. What is absolutely remarkable, what is incredible, coming from this government which says it is worried about the deficit, which stands up and preaches to other provinces in this country, to other governments in this country with respect to the deficit, despite that preaching about the evils of deficits, what we have in front of us is a bill to authorize the increase in deficits in Canada.

April 9, 1992
Government Orders
That is what this bill should be entitled. This bill has rejected the key recommendation which the finance committee unanimously made to the government. It has rejected the heart of the expenditure control system in the United States. It has rejected the idea that there has to be some kind of limitation on tax giveaways.
The tax giveaways will continue. We can look at some of these tax giveaways. We can look at, for instance, the $1 billion tax giveaway which exists in the form of the business entertainment tax deduction. Corporations can buy season tickets to Blue Jays baseball games. They can buy season tickets to Vancouver Canucks hockey games, if we ever have those in the future. Corporations can take clients to expensive dinners, to receptions, and they can get all of this deducted from the taxes that they have to pay to the Government of Canada. One billion dollars it costs us.
Let us talk about another tax giveaway. Over $3 billion is given away by this government in the capital gains tax exemption of $100,000. This is not the usual tax giveaway for people who sell their principal residence. The capital gains tax on principal residence is something which all of us support. It is about seeing that people are decently housed.
Tax exemptions for small business of $500,000 we support because it helps small business. We support it for farmers up to $500,000. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the tax giveaway that lets people make money by speculating on the stock market and says those people do not have to pay a penny in tax.
That costs federal and provincial governments in this country $3 billion each year. Over 60 per cent of that tax giveaway goes to people whose individual income is over $100,000 per year. Over one-quarter of that tax benefit goes to people whose individual income is over $250,000 per year.
We are talking about massive tax giveaways that this government has put into effect. We are talking about, for instance, the tax giveaways that are being increased with respect to Registered Retirement Savings Plans in the increased limit for putting money into RRSPs, which is being put into effect each year, a policy that was started by the Liberal government, continued by the Conservative government. We are talking about the fast write-offs that exist for corporations in this country when they
make investments. All of these are at the very root of the massive public debt that we have in this country. They are responsible for the fact that the deficit in this coming fiscal year is going to be $3.5 billion higher than the government said it would be last year. They are at the root of the total fiscal irresponsibility which this government has stood for ever since 1984 and which the Liberal government stood for before that.
We are spending ourselves into an economic disaster, but the problem is not program spending. The problem is tax giveaways.
I moved an amendment in committee to try to put into this legislation the unanimous recommendation of the finance committee of this House. Believe it or not, this government of people supposedly concerned about the deficit voted against that amendment.
Not only has it brought in a bill which should be entitled how to increase the deficit in Canada, but it has refused to support opposition attempts to see to it that tax giveaways were attacked as they must be if we are going to get ourselves back to a position in this country where we will have some ability to shift expenditures as economic conditions change, where we have enough fiscal responsibility being demonstrated by government that interest rates will come down significantly.
This is not just a bill to increase the deficit in Canada. It is a bill to continue high interest rate policies in this country. In the face of this government's refusal to be responsible in its budgets, the Bank of Canada has pushed interest rates far higher than they have ever been in this country compared to the levels in the United States. This has hurt the economy. It has brought about a recession which has thrown 1.5 million people out of work.
This legislation is so profoundly irresponsible, so profoundly counter to the needs that this country has at the federal level to see some serious attempts to deal with our deficit problem that we can no longer support it.
I was one of those people who signed the unanimous finance committee report of this House saying that it made sense to have legislation like this, on condition that it controlled tax spending as well as program spending. This government has refused to bring such legislation before this House. It has instead brought legislation before us which is designed deliberately to increase the
April 9, 1992

deficit and that is something that we, at the federal level, will never support in 1992.
This is a bad bill and it should be defeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The member will have three minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes questions and comments when the bill comes up for debate again.
It being five o'clock, p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved: that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors visas), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee A.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take up this private member's bill at second reading. The bill is quite simple and provides that a visa officer under the Immigration Act shall take account of the existence of a surety or performance bond given by a Canadian resident whenever an application for a visa is made by a family relative of that Canadian.
This is a procedure that is not now available under the Immigration Act and in my view it is one that is badly needed for reasons which I hope I can review here.
In order to do that and to go through the rationale for this bill, I think it is necessary to take a quick look at the current law in the Immigration Act because it is quite relevant to why this bill and this amendment are so necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to section 8 of the act which reads: "Where a person seeks to come into Canada, the burden of proving that the person has a right to come into Canada or that his
Private Members' Business
admission would not be contrary to this act or the regulations rests on that person".
That section states that the burden of proof or convincing of the entitlement to a visa lies with the applicant.
Subsection (2) reads: "Every person seeking to come into Canada shall be presumed to be an immigrant until that person satisfies the immigration officer examining him or the adjudicator presiding at his inquiry that he is not an immigrant".
The problem with that is that it impacts very negatively on the process. We know that all visitors to Canada except visitors from prescribed countries require a visa.
Those two sections impact on bona fide visitors in the following way. The law provides through a presumption that the person is an immigrant, but an immigrant could not possibly be a bona fide visitor because an immigrant already has an intention of staying and a bona fide visitor of course does not have the intention of staying.
This is a serious problem. It is in effect a built-in catch-22 for every visitor who applies for a visa.
The burden is therefore on the applicant to discharge those burdens. Before you can get a visa you have to actually rebut a presumption not just on the balance of probabilities but you have to answer a rebut, a legal presumption, that you are not a bona fide visitor. That is a tall order.
Luckily it is not an impossible task but it is a difficult one. In some countries the burden is very high and it is very difficult to obtain a visa. I thought I would check a couple of years ago to see just what the statistics were and I took locations, one in Islamabad, Pakistan, and one in New Delhi, India.
In New Delhi in 1989 of 29,000 applications, 11,209 were rejected. In Islamabad of 8,274 applications, 4,277 were rejected. That is roughly a rejection rate of one-third to one-half.
To summarize, our law sets a very high, potentially difficult procedural standard for applicants for visitors visas. The way the law is drafted means that the visa officer is always right. The visa officer can never be wrong. The reason an application fails is that the

April 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
applicant fails to discharge the burden which is, as I have explained, tantamount to a catch-22 in some cases.
There are some very obvious changing realities in Canada, at least over the last few decades. In the last 30 or 40 years Canada and the world has changed and it is a lot different now. People from all over the world travel and visit a whole lot more than they used to. There are millions of new Canadians with family in countries all over the world. More travel and more Canadians; those are two very significant changes. There are more Canadians with family and relatives in other countries, including what we call the visa countries.
The stark reality is that when relatives of Canadians from visa countries want to visit here, Canadians themselves have virtually no role in that process. In fact, the visitor without a relative in Canada is treated legally the same as a visitor with a relative here.
There is one minor practice that has evolved as if to address that and I would just like to mention it. It is the process of the Canadian who invites the father or mother, or the brother or the sister, to come and visit. They will go out and often prepare an affidavit and provide some other documentation saying that they will support the visitor. That has really become a pro forma exercise and it has no legal force or impact on the process. In my view, a simple letter from the Canadian to the office abroad would have as much effect and do as well in communicating the invitation.
However, Canadians still go out and spend the $25 or $50 or $100 for the affidavit for what it is worth and that is part of the process.
A third factor that has changed the background here is the refugee process. Since the 1970s we have had a huge increase in the number of refugee claims and among the refugee claims are false or marginal refugee claims. This has caused some problems in the system. There has been abuse of the refugee process, not by all refugees of course but by the few and that abuse of the refugee process has damaged the visitor visa system.
As a result visa officers have become what I call gun shy because their careers depend in part on then-successful issuance of visitor visas. It stands to reason that a visa officer who issues a lot of visitor visas that are
defaulted on is not going to look so good on paper when his or her career is considered by the supervisors.
In that context Canadians and their families, in my view, have been prejudiced here and forgotten in those three changes that have taken place in the world and in Canada. It is those Canadians who are paying all the bills. Those Canadians are paying the tax dollars that pay the salaries of eveiybody in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Employment and Immigration. Those Canadians who pay the bills want to be heard and they want to have a role in the system.
I would like to take the House through just one case to show you an example of some of the difficulties. Last December, a constituent of mine, Mrs. Saravia, came to see me and said she wanted her brother to visit. Her brother lived in Bolivia and she wanted him to visit for Christmas. Now, Mrs. Saravia has lived in Canada for 20 years. She is married. She and her husband work. They have children. From my point of view, she is a good constituent. In fact Mrs. Saravia's mother visited Canada about a year and a half ago. That was a successful visit. However, Mr. and Mrs. Saravia do not have any other relatives in Canada. I am sure they have friends, but not relatives.
She wanted her brother to come and visit. Her brother had never been here and her children had never met their uncle. The uncle, Mr. Torres, arranged four weeks vacation at Christmas. He made an application for a visa. The visa was turned down. Mrs. Saravia had bought a round trip airline ticket. She had also sworn an affidavit. Her brother had submitted all of the other documents that are normally required for consideration of a visa application. Anyway, he was turned down.
Mrs. Saravia came to see me. I wrote a letter to the embassy outlining some of the circumstances of the case. The embassy kindly agreed to reconsider. After reconsideration within a few days the application was turned down.
In the meantime, Mr. Torres, who had to travel from La Paz to Lima, Peru, was staying in a hotel. He did not have a lot of money. Mrs. Saravia had sent a bit of money. He was mugged and robbed Christmas Eve. In any event, his application was turned down. He did not
April 9, 1992

get to visit. Mrs. Saravia did not get to have her brother visit. She said that she felt hurt and I understand that hurt.
In January I received a letter from our embassy. As members of Parliament we all correspond frequently with our posts abroad and we receive letters of explanation. This letter was a fair and honest letter. It was correct legally, and I am grateful for the response.
I do not want to single out the particular office abroad as being any better or any worse than any of the other offices abroad. They are doing their job and they are doing what they are supposed to do under the law.
This letter came back explaining why Mr. Torres could not have a visa. It states: "Visitors visas are a very tricky part of our work. As you know, a great number of aliens enter Canada each year as tourists and try to stay after their original stay has ended. We have to determine in each case, with very little information at hand and very little time, if the applicant is really a visitor or if the person is an immigrant trying to enter Canada on a tourist visa. The only way an applicant can convince us that he or she is really a visitor is by demonstrating that he or she has very strong ties to his or her home country which will force him or her to return to that country. This is what we requested Mr. Torres to show us. He explained he was leaving his wife and two children behind. He declared he had a job in Bolivia to which he wanted to return. Unfortunately, he showed absolutely no proof that his financial situation in Bolivia was comfortable or that he had any property or good reasons to return."
That was the summary, fairly stated, of why Mr. Torres could not visit his sister, my constituent.
It shows not just those reasons for the rejection but it also shows that there was no role, no credibility attached to his sister's submissions from Canada. The person who had invited him had absolutely nothing to do in the consideration of the visa.
This person, as I said, along with 25 million other Canadians are the ones who pay the bills for the system in the first place.
Bill C-232 was meant to rectify that omission from the process. This bill would require a visa officer to take into
Private Members' Business
account a performance bond or a surety provided by the Canadian relative for the purposes of an application.
I want to point out that a performance or surety bond does not require cash. It can be a high, low, or nominal amount. It does not require cash. This mechanism would provide us with two things. First, it would give the Canadian a role in the application process. Second, it would give the Canadian a stake in the role in the fulfillment of the terms of the visitor visa. That is what Canadians are telling me they want.
Here are a few miscellaneous perspectives on this bill. The bill does not change the existing criteria for issuance of a visa. They stay the same. It only provides for one additional positive consideration, one that can only come from a Canadian resident.
Secondly, it does not prejudice other visitor applicants who do not have Canadian relatives or who cannot make arrangements for a surety. It does not because I have specifically inserted a clause in the bill that states:
(6) The absence of any security described in subsection (5) shall not
be taken into account in making the determination described in
subsections (2) and (4).
That is the determination as to whether or not a visa should be issued or not. So it does not and it will not prejudice those who do not have the sureties.
Thirdly, the surety and the performance bonds already exist in the act as mechanisms used in the act, but not for visitors. They exist under section 18 and they are used for points of entry decisions on admission. So the forfeiture enforcement and the administrative provisions in relation to sureties and performance bonds are already in existence in the act and do not have to be created.
Fourthly, some have suggested that these bonds could be used to get into Canada illegally. I disagree with that because this bond does not guarantee anybody admission. The visa officers will still be making decisions on admission to Canada using the same criteria they use now, that is, bona fide visitors.
All that the surety does is add one additional positive element coming from a Canadian resident. I point out that this only exists for relatives of applicants and, as in any illegal situation, should a visitor outstay a visa, the visitor is illegal and subject to deportation. The presence or absence of a surety or bond would not affect that.

April 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
In the United States, as an example, there is a similar mechanism available which is used. I will only make reference to it by citation, I will not read it. That is section 1184 of title 8 of the U.S. Code which governs the creation of sureties or performance bonds in granting of visas from aliens into the United States of America.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the hon. member for a few minutes.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, without amendment: Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act; Bill C-12, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code; and Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1992.



ROYAL ASSENT

["There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nPursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper."]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
April 9,1992 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable William Stevenson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 9th day of April at 5.50 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, Anthony P Smith, Deputy Secretary, Policy Program and Protocol
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-12, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act-Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1992-Chapter No. 12.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lee that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors visas), be read a second time and referred to Legislative Committee A.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has three minutes left in his debate.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to take a few minutes to visit the other place on a matter of royal assent.
I want to wrap up my submissions to the House in connection with this private member's bill. I believe in it very much, both in terms of its integrity and substance now and in terms of what I believe it can do to improve the visitor visa application process to the benefit of the millions of Canadians who have family and relatives in other countries.
I want to reiterate that the Canadians this bill was designed to assist are the same Canadians who pay the bills. They are the same Canadians who vote. They are the same Canadians who want to have a role and be recognized when they invite their family to visit them in Canada. They have family, loved ones, and want the government to create this mechanism.
April 9, 1992

I submit it to the House in the hope that in either this procedure for private members' bills or perhaps in what I gather is a government amendment to the Immigration Act coming soon the matter can be accommodated positively.


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River on his diligence in representing the interests of his constituents in this particular matter. Indeed I want to acknowledge the work of all members in assisting their constituents on immigration matters, particularly matters relating to visitors visas.
The bill proposed by the member would require visa officers in missions abroad to take into account performance bonds posted by an applicant's family member who is a citizen or permanent resident of Canada. This performance bond would be taken as a guarantee that the applicant would abide by the terms and conditions of any visa issued. The money posted would be forfeit if the visitor did not depart from Canada at the appropriate time.
It is important to understand that this represents a fairly significant departure from current practice, perhaps more significant than it might appear at first glance.
The range of factors that a visa officer takes into consideration when assessing an applicant's request for a visa includes the circumstances of any relatives who are residing in Canada. In other words family considerations are already taken into account. However, immigration officers operate on the basic principle that the intentions of the applicant must be the most important, indeed the deciding factor in assessing a visa application.
An officer may have reason to believe that the applicant is not applying in good faith. In other words, if the applicant does not intend to be a bona fide visitor but has other intentions on entering Canada, the act requires the officers to refuse the application if they have reason to believe the applicant is using a visitors visa as a short-cut to immigration status.
In some cases a clear-cut decision may not be so easy. An officer may have reason to suspect an applicant's intentions but not have conclusive evidence for that suspicion.
Private Members' Business
I presume the proposed amendment is intended to deal with those borderline cases. It would allow a visa officer to take into consideration the existence of something new, a performance bond posted by a Canadian resident providing an additional factor to help the officer make a decision on the case.
It seems to me there are really two basic questions here. First there is the question of principle. Is it appropriate to shift the focus in this way from a basic consideration of the applicant's intentions in coming to Canada? I say this is a matter that deserves very careful consideration.
Second there is the question of the practical implications of allowing performance bonds. Can we implement this bill in a way that is fair, efficient and cost effective?
These practical issues are also important. For example, I would want to ensure that a system of performance bonds could be implemented fairly without discriminating against applicants who are unable to have a family member post the bond. Obviously many applicants do not have family members in Canada and even for those who do, the family member may not be able or may not have the resources to post a bond. I would be concerned about setting up any kind of system that would be unfairly biased against people in such circumstances.
We would also need to consider the question of how much is enough. What dollar value for a performance bond would really be appropriate? If we were to set the value too low, it might encourage people simply to use performance bonds as a way to buy their way into Canada and by-pass proper immigration procedures. But if we were to set the value high enough to stop such abuse, we may only be precluding any practical use of performance bonds at all. The level required might simply be too high to be within reach of most people.
We must also look at the effects of the proposed amendment on the efficiency of the visa application process and the workload of immigration offices as a whole. I should point out that this workload is already high and growing. In 1991 alone offices abroad issued 536,787 visitor visas. This does not include students and workers and does not include immigrant visas.
One of my main concerns and the concern of this government is to streamline immigration procedures wherever possible in the interests of fairness and

April 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
efficiency. I know many in this House share that concern. Therefore I would ask the member for Scarborough- Rouge River whether in light of this concern his proposed bill would represent a move toward greater fairness and efficiency, or would it merely add another complicating layer to the system? As I said, all these issues are quite complex, perhaps more complex than they might appear at first glance.
There is a simpler way to approach this problem, and that is all parties should agree the act should be applied in its literal sense, that no inland applications for immigration be issued, that each and every perspective immigrant apply at the immigration office or embassy at home such as is the custom and law with most countries.
Let me remind members that when the minister tabled the 1992 immigration plan last fall, he indicated that he would be introducing a number of legislative amendments to the Immigration Act this year. Perhaps the House will deem it appropriate to consider the issues raised by Bill C-232 when the minister brings forward those legislative amendments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough- Rouge River in bringing forward this bill as a suggestion of what might be done to ease a situation which I know is very painful and I think often unnecessarily painful for many people.
The member who has just spoken has talked about the many hundreds of thousands of visitors visas issued in a year, which is true. I think there would be a small proportion of that number in addition to whom this sort of bill might apply. I believe the previous speaker's worry about inefficiency and waste of time are overblown. They are out of proportion.
What the bill proposed by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River says is that an overseas visa officer shall take into account the existence of a satisfactory performance bond. That is not a bond that any person could make. It has to be made by a very close relative; a parent, brother, sister, child or the spouse of such a person, resident in Canada, permanent resident or citizen, who undertakes-in effect, it is like bail money- that if the visitor or the person who applies for the
visitors visa does not go home within the time limit of the visa, then that Canadian will lose that money.
It has been argued that it might not be a big enough amount of money to discourage a visitor. In any case, whether it is bail in court or a bond such as is used now at the point of entry, there is of course a necessity to arrive at a fair amount that would not be too easy and invite people to abuse and not be too heavy to prevent its benefiting the people who should benefit by it.
The bond arrangement is used now at the point of entry in some cases, not in many cases but in some, where the examining officer is not sure whether he or she should allow the person to enter. This is to give some added security. Nobody is going to be absolutely infallible. Whether he always says yes or always says no, he is not going to be infallible. There will be mistakes made both ways. This would help to reduce the likelihood of permitting a person to enter whose intention was to abuse that permission.
I represent the constituency, Trinity-Spadina, in which the majority of people were bom outside of Canada. It was that way when I became the member 10 or 11 years ago and it has not changed. It may be even more so because of the heavy immigration over this past decade. The sort of case that I found very difficult is, for example, an elderly couple from a far country who had been settled here. They were reasonably comfortably fixed. They wanted to bring an adopted son, actually biologically a nephew, to visit them once in their old age here because the wife found it difficult for medical reasons to travel back to the home country.
They were citizens of Canada. I knew the husband. They were honourable people. He offered a bond but it was rejected because we do not have any arrangement for making a bond while a person is still overseas.
I have to say that eventually after a year the visa was granted and I am very grateful for that. It illustrated to me what I think is the unnecessary difficulty of doing at an overseas office what is permitted at a point of entry.
The United States does that. It has a provision for that. I have not heard that it is being disastrously overwhelmed by phoney visitors. In the United States, an immigration officer at the American embassy can advise what their practice is, to make the arrangements for security while the visitor is still abroad. The officer
April 9, 1992

abroad would make the assessment on an applicant's case for a visitor visa.
If it was a borderline case he would advise the person that a bond would be required to be posted in the United States. The bond is not taken overseas. The sponsor of the visit in the United States would then go to the appropriate office and make the necessary arrangements instead of the person flying half way around the world to the port of entry, not knowing if he could be admitted or not, even if he is in completely good faith.
I had this more often in the case of a Canadian citizen or resident who has married a person overseas and is not allowed to bring back the person with him. Sometimes they have to wait two or three years. That is pretty rough on newlyweds. I have had them ask: "Can my wife or can my husband at least come and visit me?" In my experience, more often than not, the answer is no because we are afraid you will stay.
That is unreasonable because in most cases, both parties to the marriage would have to suffer the consequences of staying. It is not that easy for a married couple to go underground even though that is also a consequence of overstaying.
I had the case of a Canadian whose brother, newly arrived, was killed by a drunk driver. The parents overseas wanted to come to the funeral. They wanted to come and take up the legal matters relating to the cause of the death and the insurance. No, they could not come. It was felt that they resided in a country that tended to produce refugees and they might have claimed refugee status. It is pretty hard that that body is left alone in storage in Canada and the parents are far away overseas.
I believe we would not suffer serious consequences if we followed the practice of the United States in this matter. It is not open to everybody. I do not see discrimination in that. We already provide sponsorship in the cases of immediate family members. It is not available for cousins or others. It has to be parent, brother or sister, child of major age. That is not regarded as discriminatory.
The privilege of posting a bond to give the final bit of assurance, within reason of performance, might belong to such a close relative along with the right of sponsoring. It would ease the situation, not only for the sponsor in Canada, not only for the visitor sponsored from
Private Members' Business
overseas, but also for the officer dealing with it who very often has a very difficult decision to make.
This evidence of good faith, not an absolute guarantee-there are no absolute guarantees in life-but some evidence of good faith in the posting of a bond by a person who has good reason to want to post the bond. It does not open the way to a smuggling racket. How many brothers is a person going to sponsor if he wants to be in the smuggling racket? It is limited.
The risk of adopting this motion is small and the benefit to a number of Canadians, including our visa officers, would be very substantial.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River on his motion and his bill which reflect a very humanitarian approach, both to the present situation and to the problems-although there is good news as well-faced daily by the Department of Immigration with respect to the issuance of visas.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the issuance of visitor visas to non-Canadian relatives of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. I agree wholeheartedly, and I am sure all members of this House will agree, that family reunification is a good thing, provided Canada's national interests are protected.
I am also convinced the House will agree that measures aimed at simplifying the process-simpler procedures, elimination of unnecessary delay, maximum effectiveness and fairness-are also a good thing. The question, however, is this: Is this bill, with the measures it contains, the best way to achieve that goal? I don't think we can examine this issue properly unless we put it into the general perspective of immigration program management.
The issuance of visas is only one aspect of the immigration program. We want the entire program to be managed fairly and effectively, in accordance with the needs of all concerned, and we want procedures to be as efficient as possible.

April 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The government raised these general concerns at the time the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled the 1992 Immigration Plan. The government had already taken a number of steps to simplify immigration procedures.
I would like to comment briefly on some of these, because it would be useful for hon. members to be aware of what is involved, for the purposes of a discussion of what is referred to as "facilitation". When the plan was tabled a number of specific measures had already been taken to improve management of immigration movements and to protect the program's integrity. Here are a few of these measures: first, modifying family class selection criteria to improve family reunification; second, improving the selection process and application processing for independent immigrants who contribute to Canada's economic development; third, a review-and subsequent reform-of the business immigration program to make it as responsive as possible to our national and regional economic development requirements; and, fourth adopting more effective procedures for the detection and dissuasion of foreign criminals before they enter Canada, for investigating and laying charges against immigrants and visitors who commit criminal offences in Canada and for deporting foreign criminals.
The government has also introduced a series of measures to improve immigration services, both in Canada and abroad. Immigration officials are trying to simplify administrative procedures and improve the quality of services offered under the immigration program. These measures are intended to reduce the paper burden, accelerate decision making and eliminate unnecessary cost.
Quite recently, to improve management procedures, the government made a major decision and transferred responsibility for the immigration program abroad from the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Employment and Immigration. This means that the same minister is responsible for enforcement of our immigration policy and for implementation of the immigration program, both in Canada and abroad, which makes it easier to assign organization resources and bring together the design and implementation functions.
The government is determined to do what is necessary to make every aspect of the immigration program as fair and effective as possible. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the measures I just described affect many aspects of the program.
Far be it from me to argue that the issues raised by Bill C-232 do not deserve careful consideration.
However, we must seriously consider whether the measures proposed in this bill will actually facilitate the issuance of visas or whether they will simply add to the complexity of a system we are trying to simplify.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to further elaborate on a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on March 16 in which we talked about the possibility of extending to UI recipients two or three year retraining programs in universities as well as community colleges.
In a brief history, we pursued the concept of allowing UI recipients, both steelworker and non-steelworker, to access these programs. There was a disparity there and the government recognized that. It allowed the doors to be open to both steelworkers and non-steelworkers.
In doing so, they made it fairer for everybody but took away something that I think was very important to both groups across the country, not only in Sault Ste. Marie, that three years of training is okay but not three years of training to pursue a university degree.
April 9, 1992

Our question is: Why a double standard? Why would the government say: "You can pursue three years of community college training, but you cannot pursue three years of university training which could lead to a degree"? We are saying: Why would you discriminate against individuals who would, perhaps, be better off pursuing a university degree than a trade certificate, diploma or degree?
We believe that this sort of discrimination against individuals pits one institution of higher learning against another. The minister on that particular day said: "We are open to suggestions". I want to proffer that there had been many suggestions, and not only in Sault Ste Marie. I have taken the liberty to call a few universities.
I called the University of Manitoba, the University of Alberta, Acadia University in Nova Scotia, and the president, vice-president or registrar of those universities say: "We fully support what you are proposing to the government". If indeed the minister is looking for suggestions, that is a suggestion that is coming from Algoma University College in my community and also coming from universities across the country.
Should he want more endorsation, I will certainly pursue the other universities. I suggest they will say: "We are more than willing. We are eager to accept UI recipients into our programs if they fit. If the applications are appropriately run through the process, they will certainly be accepted".
In my community, the people who have been displaced from industry are doing better than the students out of high school because they are more mature people and they know that education is important.
Why preclude university? I have a petition, not an appropriate petition, but nevertheless a petition from 200 students just in my community who say: "Yes, we endorse this principle. We want the opportunity to proceed to a university as well as a community college, not pit one against the other".
I thank Bruce Hall from my community for pursuing this petition on our behalf. I have a letter from Mr. Lawson, the president of Algoma University College saying: "By all means, pursue this. We think it is important".
Adjournment Debate
It goes right along with the prosperity agenda, the competitiveness agenda of this government. Why we would preclude people from pursuing university degrees is beyond me. There have been various reasons proffered. Maybe it is a leftover from the National Training Act where community college was the only thing that you could pursue. We think that is somewhat archaic now. Why not extend it to universities as well? We look forward to the elaboration.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a fair number of questions that all have to do with the ongoing development of the programs which our departments wish to offer.
I remember last year, or a while ago anyway, how difficult it was for us, because we believe in training, to transfer these funds from unemployment insurance to training. I recall how it went back and forth between the Senate and the House of Commons.
Now the question is raised about these new criteria: Why would we not go further? Of course, when a client, if we may use that term, discusses the best possible training plan with employees of Employment and Immigration Canada, there is a whole range. Even though we put $300 million more into the training program, there is also a question of how long the programs last and also how much they cost.
I must tell you that we have to be very careful there, because it is not a matter of what kind of diploma one gets when one graduates, but only depends on what students need to at least fit themselves for work. The programs of Employment and Immigration Canada do not exist to replace totally all the training that a Canadian might want at some time in his or her life. This co-operation among beneficiaries, the interested parties, the community and Canada Employment Centres, subject to the funding and duration constraints, will improve our programs. Of course there is room for improvement, but for now, the Canada Employment Centres are managing this program as efficiently as possible.

April 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate


FISHERIES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on the subject of the nose and tail of the bank. I am referring to a question that I asked of the minister of fisheries on February 18, 1992. The question was: Why does the minister say one thing in Newfoundland, that he is going to take measures like unilateral control beyond the 200-mile limit of the nose and tail of the bank that we have been asking for in this House, and I have been asking for personally for four years, and then in the House of Commons, in Parliament, stand up and speak, not necessarily against the motion, to say that perhaps it has to be done some time, but that he would not be in favour of doing it now. During the vote on the motion on March 12, following an excellent debate on all sides of the House, it was defeated by a vote of 90 to 51, including all members on that side who were present.
When you sound like a broken record, it is very hard to get the motivation to find something new. The message is the same and the response keeps being the same, but essentially what has happened is that since 1986 the foreigners have been catching every fish they can beyond the nose and tail of the bank. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are sick and tired of hearing this too, and I think you have too much courtesy to nod your head. I want to tell you something a little new in this.
For four centuries almost we have had, if you average it out over the years, around 300,000 tonnes plus total catch of northern cod off the coast of Newfoundland. The best catch was in 1968, when it was 815,000 tonnes. Last year, it was 127,000 tonnes. In one year, 1974, the inshore fishery went down to 35,000 tonnes, the worst year on record in three centuries.
The plundering of northern cod stocks by foreigners, the European community, led to Canada's unilateral declaration in 1977. We have already unilaterally declared control of the 200-mile limit. Mr. Speaker, what you may know and what you may not know and what the House may not know and is little known is that Canada's position in 1977 was to extend beyond the 200-mile limit out to include the nose and tail of the bank. That was our position when we went to the Law of the Sea Conference. We maintained that position for a long time, until we finally withdrew because we were assured that the system would look after the ecosystem and would look after possible overcatching of northern cod stocks, in fact, of groundfish. In theory, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization would look after it, and specifically acknowledge we would have custody of the 95 per cent involved and some kind of benign interest in the nose and tail of the Bank. In practice, the Europeans, and particularly Spain, Portugal and recently Germany, have caught until they can catch no more.
I want to read what the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland said at a committee meeting a week ago. He talked about a motion they introduced in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland. It said: "Be it resolved that Canada immediately extend management jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks". He refers to the hon. minister of fisheries' own party.
He also said in the closing notes of his speech: "It is time for Canada to be more aggressive in its approach and take whatever action is necessary to enforce its management regime over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks".
This is a responsibility for the Government of Canada. It has to act now, not tomorrow, the next day, or next year. I am asking the minister to consider that and do something about it now.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know the Government of Canada recognizes in a most serious way that foreign overfishing must stop.
We are, however, taking strong action to put an end to what can be properly called ecological destruction. We are committed to exhausting every legal and diplomatic avenue available to put an end to foreign over-fishing and to secure international recognition of the rights of coastal states with respect to fish stocks straddling the 200-mile limit.
Just yesterday, the Prime Minister raised the issue of European Community overfishing, with French President Mitterrand. He used charts and graphs to demonstrate in a very clear fashion the very serious ecological risk being imposed upon fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic.
April 9, 1992

That is just the latest in the considerable and concentrated diplomatic effort that is underway. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in New York very recently impressing upon the members of the United Nations that there is a man-made environmental crisis today on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Moreover, the Prime Minister will be taking this message to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, normally called the UNCED meeting, in Rio de Janeiro in June of this year. Canada will be seeking support at that meeting for a high seas fishery resolution which we have been advocating and which has been gaining support from other nations.
Also, early in May at Canada's request there will be a special meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization to enhance international surveillance and enforcement, especially in endangered areas. Moreover, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has carried this message to a number of key foreign countries.
It is much too easy and irresponsible to do as some have done and call for unilateral high seas action. We cannot lightly dismiss the consequences of what some have called "gunboat diplomacy". If we are to be truly successful in these efforts we must have international co-operation, and that is where our efforts are being directed.
I hope we can achieve this objective through this option rather than through others. At the end of the day I believe we will be able to point to the value and worth of these ongoing efforts.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: On February 13,1 asked the Acting Prime Minister: "Will the Acting Prime Minister assure this House that Canada will not sign a North American Free Trade Agreement until such time as there is international verified progress and respect for human rights in Mexico, including free and fair elections in keeping with the headlines that the Prime Minister won for supporting democracy and human rights in Paris?"
Adjournment Debate
In effect, there was no answer. Another minister got up and said these matters were under discussion, but there was no assurance given by the government whatever.
This is an important matter as many people know who have visited Mexico, especially if they have observed the election there as I did a year ago. The most blatant violation of common sense and human rights is that the voters at most of the tables I saw had no means of privacy in marking their ballots. The tables are out on the street, everybody is around: police, poll watchers, interested people and everybody else. A voter walks up, shows his identification, gets his ballot, lays it down on the table and marks it there for everybody to see and then puts it in the box. In most places there was not even a little, tiny cardboard shield to enable him to mark in private. No wonder the elections are considered corrupt.
It is not only visitors who consider them corrupt. Political violence and electoral fraud have been reported by no less an organization that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. It severely criticized the conduct of the election at which Mr. Salinas was claimed to be the victor after the whole process was stopped for a week so that they could rearrange the computer and the counting.
It is not only elections; human rights are under attack by the police of the country. Human rights activists have been murdered. In one case a high-ranking police officer was charged but the other people involved have not yet been charged or brought to justice.
In fact peasants are under attack and a bishop and a priest in the south who have defended the right of the peasants to have the land that was given to their ancestors years ago have been threatened with jail. The priest was jailed for over a month and then released without charges. Trade unionists have been harassed, again by the police.
These are serious violations of human rights that go almost entirely without being investigated, let alone punishment of the officials, including police officials who are often known to be responsible for them.

April 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Therefore, we have to ask that that be rectified before Canada signs away some of our sovereignty to Mexico.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have raised questions on a number of occasions in which they attempt to link the NAFTA, the North American free trade negotiations with Mexico's human rights record. We recognize that there has been a very serious problem with human rights abuses in Mexico. I believe also the Government of Mexico has openly recognized that situation and has begun to take significant corrective action.
We agree that human rights issues must be addressed and I would say, furthermore, that they are being addressed separately from the trade negotiations.
As evidence of the fact that this government takes these issues very seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the issue with the Mexican Secretary for External Relations in Mexico City in November of last year. More recently the executive secretary of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission visited Canada and while here she met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and a number of other officials, including labour leaders and representatives of various NGOs.
The National Human Rights Commission has released three reports on which the government has acted. The number of complaints regarding torture has dropped dramatically. A new federal law for the prevention of torture is now in effect which provides stiff penalties for offenders and renders confessions and evidence obtained by torture as inadmissible in court.
Criminal charges have been laid against high-ranking police officials. One hundred and thirty-nine public officers were prosecuted for human rights offences during the period from May to December 1991.
We think there has been very significant progress. We understand the gravity of the conditions which remain but we believe that the Government of Mexico is headed in the right direction and, furthermore, we hope any economic improvement in that country as a result of the free trade negotiations will also be a positive factor.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1992 I rose during Question Period to put a question to the Minister for International Trade. My question concerned the North American Free Trade Agreement and the potential impact it could have on regional development, specifically, the ability of the federal government to deliver regional assistance programs.
I also asked the minister on that day how he could allow land transportation to be put on the negotiating table at the NAFTA talks given the extent to which the Atlantic Canada transportation infrastructure has been eroded over the last few years.
My questions of March 25 were important questions to the people of Atlantic Canada. These questions deserve a straightforward and frank answer.
I understand the limitations placed upon the minister in his desire not to reveal commercially confidential information or to allude directly to our bottom line position on a number of key issues. But the minister must understand that the uncertainty which has arisen out of the secretive nature of these talks is adversely affecting consumer confidence throughout the country, and this is particularly so in Atlantic Canada where uncertainty is becoming a part of life.
The Liberal Party's position on the NAFTA negotiations is clear. There must be a firm commitment from this government to uphold Canada's social, cultural and regional development programs. We have also asked for an explicit statement of Canada's position with regard to subsidy negotiations which is a particularly crucial aspect of any trade agreement.
In responding to my question on March 25, the Minister for International Trade could not or would not give such an assurance that these programs would be protected. Instead he referred to the Dunkel text of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations dated December 20 of last year as providing the assurances Canadians are seeking on regional development and other key programs.
April 9, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Yet the Dunkel text, as the minister must concede, is only a draft agreement. It explicitly states that: "Final agreement on the attached draft will depend on substantial and meaningful results for all parties being achieved in the ongoing market access negotiations, including those related to tariffs and non-tariff measures. This applies to areas such as natural resource-based products, agriculture, textiles and clothing".
We have no assurances that substantial and meaningful results will be achieved in these areas. In fact, there are indications to the contrary.
Surely in this light, Canadians cannot accept the minister's answer to my questions and his reference to the Dunkel text as a commitment on his part to protect our most basic and sacred programs such as regional development assistance during the NAFTA talks.
As I pointed out on March 25, the United States has continued to use its trade remedy laws to challenge our regional development programs despite the existence of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which was supposed to preclude this from happening.
As for transportation and how the NAFTA negotiations might impact upon it, the minister suggested on March 25 that I had misread the NAFTA draft text obtained by the Action Canada Network. Let me refer directly to the text right now. It reads that the NAFTA agreement "shall apply to all measures related to the provision of land transportation services" excluding urban mass transit services and taxis.
The draft goes on to define land transportation services as including transportation by bus, truck and rail; land side aspects of port activities; freight forwarding; customs brokerage; warehousing; maintenance and repair; pipeline operations; and courier services.
Am I misreading the text, Mr. Speaker, or was I correct on March 25 when I said to the minister that the NAFTA draft text puts all land transportation on the table?
I await a reply from the government.
[Translation\
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to answer the question
Adjournment Debate
of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, on behalf of the government.
The government continues to maintain that the multilateral trade negotiations of the Uruguay round remain the best way to try to solve the problems related to subsidies and countervailing measures. That was our position in negotiating the free trade agreement with the United States and it is still the government's position in negotiating the North American free trade agreement.
One of the government's main objectives for the Uruguay round was to include areas of government assistance that should not be countervailable under international rules on subsidies and countervailing duties. We believe that this objective has been achieved. The draft agreement on the results of the Uruguay round ensure that federal and provincial programs to assist regional development (and research activities) will not be subject to American countervailing measures.
Another of our main objectives in the multilateral negotiations, Mr. Speaker, was to improve the investigation process for the imposition of a countervailing duty in order to limit the recourses and practices now used under American trade legislation.
We believe that this objective has also been achieved. The Government of the United States will, for example, have to respect the classes of subsidy that are not subject to countervail. Furthermore, the draft agreement gives a definition of subsidy that, for the first time, will reduce the discretionary power often exercised by the American authorities.
I believe that these changes negotiated in the Uruguay round discussions on subsidies and countervailing measures are a clear improvement over the present agreement and will definitely allow the government to continue to promote the development of our disadvantaged regions.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, about two months ago, a number of questions were asked in the House about the GATT talks in Geneva. Obviously Canadian farmers had been watching these talks very closely because the principle of supply management was at stake.

April 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The purpose of these questions was to find out whether the government opposite, in the event that supply management would disappear, had made impact studies of the tariffication proposal made by certain countries at the GATT talks, especially by the United States, where they have never been enthusiastic proponents of supply management. They prefer the law of the jungle and have no consideration for the human aspect of this program.
If we look at the history of agriculture in this country we see that tremendous progress has been made since supply management was introduced. At the time, I had the privilege of representing a provincial riding in Quebec City. Before 1970 it was very difficult for farmers to generate enough income to meet their needs. For many farmers working a farm had become extremely problematic.
In 1970 and 1971 the federal government at the time decided to try a new approach and it introduced farm products supply management in this country. The rest is history. Agriculture flourished. Our production costs were covered and many farmers-praise the Lord-became very prosperous as a result. I may add that our agricultural products met exceptionally high standards if compared with those in other countries.
However, since the GATT talks started the tariffication issue has been moving in on supply management. People are worried, as they should be. We do not know what repercussions this might have on agriculture as a whole. One thing is certain, however, and that is the federal government's weakness on this issue in its dealings with GATT partners in Geneva. We saw our negotiators in Geneva. I do not want to point the accusing finger, but you really cannot say they were dedicated to the cause. I say they never really understood what supply management was all about. All they have is a theory.
Actually why does the government revise the proposals it tabled through its negotiators in Geneva? There certainly was a weakness somewhere. I am convinced, considering the success story of supply management in this country, it should have been much easier to convince our other GATT partners of the importance of a system that has never created a surplus on the agri-food market.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, this is indeed a very important issue.
The status quo is simply not good enough at the present time for two basic reasons. It is not good enough, of course, for those who are involved in supply management. They too have suffered during recent years because they have seen import quotas established on ice cream and yogurt and ruled out of order under existing GATT rules.
Furthermore, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the grain producers have suffered as well because of trade wars that have been existing. That is why it is so important.
We have some success in the current Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations. Canada believes and continues to believe and is negotiating today in the firm conviction that we can achieve a balanced approach. We can vote in the export subsidy trade war, at least get a significant reduction in that. It has been so damaging to our grain producers and yet we can at the same time both clarify and enhance article XI which is absolutely vital to the future of supply management in Canada.
That has been our position on the part of our negotiators and on the part of our ministers, many of whom have visited Geneva and other European locations on several different occasions. It is a position advocated by the Government of Canada and by the Prime Minister of Canada when he met with farm leaders here just recently, and by those who left from that meeting, including ministers and supply management leaders and other agriculture leaders, to go to Europe.
Specifically as a result of the meeting which occurred here in Ottawa just a few short weeks ago, we believe that the Dunkel proposal which is before us is not a perfect document, but indeed it is a basis for negotiation. We believe we must build upon that.
The difficulty we have is that we do not have the support at this point in time of a lot of the members of the GATT. Perhaps there are five or six who are supporting us, but there is hope. I would say, for example, that Germany gave some indications of hope during that visit to Europe by our farm leaders not too long ago.
April 9, 1992

We must maintain the position which is there now. It is important, if I may say in closing, that we do not sit down and evaluate what will happen if we fail. If we do that, it will simply be an admission on our part to the other members of the GATT that we are not serious about what we are seeking to achieve.
We are serious. We believe we can have that balanced approach. We believe we can get a solution which is good for our grain producers and is equally good for supply management.
Adjournment Debate
It is exceedingly important that this House remain united in support of the government's position on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 10, 1992