1987-11-26

Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3246 to 332-3260 inclusive; 332-3263 and 332-3266.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to Bill C-87.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an Act respecting political rights of public servants.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House may know that the issue of political rights for public servants is an issue which has been of concern to me since I had the honour of being elected to this Chamber. I have spoken on the issue a
number of times, I think the first occasion was November, 1984.
Today 1 have the honour to introduce this Bill which deals with the essential liberties of Canadian people, public servants who serve the people of Canada here in Ottawa and across the country. The Bill deals with essential fundamental liberties of these Canadian citizens, the right to free speech, free assembly and the right to work peacefully and lawfully for democratic change.
[DOT] (mo)
It seems to me that on the surface, there should be no dispute about these fundamental rights, but the current law which is contained essentially in Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act contains restrictions which in my view are too far reaching to be categorized as reasonable. The law turns the basic rights of a large number of Canadians over to the whims of unelected officials at the Public Service Commission and in various line departments and agencies of the Government.
This Bill will essentially divide the Public Service-


Mr. Speaker:: It is very clear that the Hon. Member has a Bill of some importance. I know Hon. Members would want to have some thorough knowledge of its contents, but the practice is that when a Bill is introduced, there is a short introductory statement made on the basic assumption that afterward, of course, all Hon. Members will read with great diligence the Bill that has been introduced and will seek out any further information that they might wish from the Hon. Member. Perhaps the Hon. Member could conclude his remarks.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to point out to the House in a very succinct closing statement that the Bill would essentially divide the Public Service into three categories: senior managers for whom the status quo would obtain, those in the lower levels, largely unionized employees, who would have full political rights, and a group in the middle who would have some political rights, depending on their particular functions.
I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to its support.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Hon. Members will feel that appropriate and adequate notice has been given of the contents of the Bill.
Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?

November 26, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we were waiting for the tabling of petitions, but we are probably going to skip this item today.
Yesterday, when I began my remarks on Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, I showed that as far as the unemployment insurance scheme is concerned, this Conservative Government has failed miserably. I should like to remind the Government that-The House is aware that as the Holiday season is approaching the Government is second to none when it comes to taking Quebecers and the other Canadians for a ride. Before the Holiday season, last year he had changed the rules of the game and cut 46,000 people from the Unemployment Insurance roles-
Mr. Speaker, are we going to table petitions or-? Then, could I continue my remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the House's consent, we will revert to the tabling of petitions. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a petition signed by a number of Montreal voters who object to Bill-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products. They are opposed to it because they feel this Bill violates the freedom of expression of Canadians.


André Ouellet: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I have here a bunch of petitions signed by voters from my Papineau riding who object to the Federal Government putting a tax on food, convinced as they are that such a sales tax on foodstuffs would have highly detrimental effects on senior citizens and low income families. They therefore ask the Government not to proceed any further with this unfair tax.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would have petitions to present, first from residents of various regions of Quebec who are against the Conservative Government's decision to discriminate against older workers with respect to unemployment insurance benefits.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I also have another series of petitions from Ontario and Quebec residents who, like my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-and I must point out that 100,000 such petitions have reached me so far-are opposed to the decision of the Government to consider taxing such foodstuffs as bread, milk and butter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
November 26, 1987
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recapitulate what I said earlier regarding Bill C-90, whose purpose is actually to extend an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, under which the Unemployment Insurance Commission may authorize benefits in remote areas on the basis of a variable eligibility period.
This is a valid piece of legislation, and it is a measure initiated by the Liberal Party. It gives fishermen in regions like the Atlantic Provinces, the Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands, considering their limited period of activity and the high unemployment rate in those areas, the right to draw unemployment insurance benefits after ten or twelve weeks of employment. In regions where the unemployment rate is not as high, the eligibility period is twenty weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recall the negative impact that the Conservative Government has had on unemployment insurance. I may remind the House that 46,000 older workers were penalized when the Government cut their unemployment insurance benefits without prior notice. I gave the figures for each province but unfortunately, today there are still people who are being penalized. For instance, when a business announces it is going to close its plant, workers are laid off. All older workers covered by a so-called employee-employer pension plan are not entitled to their full unemployment insurance benefits, while older workers who get the same amount in benefits from a registered retirement savings plan are entitled to draw the full amount of their unemployment insurance benefits.
I think the Conservative Government is perpetuating a flagrant injustice in this case.
I wonder why this amendment is being extended for one year only. Mr. Speaker, I realize that previously, Governments made these changes for one year or for a limited number of years because they were planning to carry out a thorough reform of the unemployment insurance system, which would include this particular aspect. In fact, the committee recommended a uniform period of ten weeks, after which everyone would be eligible.
So today, I wonder why the Government has decided to introduce this amendment for one year only. Is there some connection with the free trade agreement?
We know the Americans consider the unemployment insurance benefits paid to fishermen in Quebec, the Maritimes and Western Canada as a hidden subsidy and thus an unfair trade practice, as they would have it. Isn't it a fact that the Prime Minister is now in Toronto, trying to persuade all the Premiers to accept the Free Trade Agreement, without talking about the contents, and without having seen the final text? And that the Government has introduced a Bill which, to do the Americans a favour, will be effective for one year only, a Bill that deals with how the Unemployment Insurance Act applies to fishermen and maternity benefits and the rest? As soon as this Agreement is signed, sight unseen, the Americans
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
can say: Now you will have to withdraw unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen and for maternity benefits and sick leave, because in companies and industries in our country one cannot do that. It would take a uniform period of twenty or twenty-five weeks. Then the Government would not have to say it had backtracked. And the Government would not table this amendment to extend the principle of variable periods for remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, but I think all Canadians listening to us today should also be concerned that the Government has decided to introduce this amendment for one year only.
I think we should remember this Government promised a thorough reform of the unemployment insurance system. This Government paid the Forget Commission $6 million to carry out a study, make recommendations and conduct an inquiry. Officials at the Department of Employment and Immigration and other departments worked on draft proposals for changes in the unemployment insurance system.
We had the Committee on Labour, Enmployment and Immigration, and all Members of all parties in this House were unanimous in wanting to propose changes, and everyone, including workers, unions, business, small businesses, corporations, and provincial Governments, everyone agreed that improvements were needed in the existing unemployment insurance system. Unfortunately, and we remember what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said, and in fact yesterday, instead of looking after his Department, he went off to do a little performance on the program Vedettes en direct or Vedettes indirectes. I have the impression that yesterday's performance was as disastrous as his proposals for changing the unemployment insurance system. I think it would have been better that he be here this morning to defend the interests of workers instead of trying to sweet-talk anybody.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, we all recall that the Government simply threw the reports in the trash can-they cost $7 million, taxpayers' money thrown away. Yet at the same time the Government brought in only one amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that was the injustice towards older workers who were denied full unemployment insurance benefits. Mr. Speaker, I would think that all people are unanimous on this point, as much the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, which included a number of Conservative Members, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace who has been active in this case. They all thought amendments were needed. Everybody is still urging the Government to bring in amendments designed to revamp unemployment insurance programs, extend maternity leaves, and make it easier for people to have access to such a good program. Well, Mr. Speaker, after so much consultation we can see today that the Government is introducing an amendment which the Liberal Party will endorse because the basic principle underlying the amendment relates to a decision of the Liberal Party to make it possible for workers in remote regions

November 26, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
to enjoy the same privileges as urban residents who have better chances of finding employment.
Mr. Speaker, again I must get back to the free trade deal as it relates to the question of unemployment benefits. If we consider the issue in light of the free trade text now available, if we keep in mind that both countries will have to synchronize their policies, that means-in fact, on the basis of this agreement, will the Americans set up social programs which will be as effective as the ones we have here in Canada?
Will the Americans accept unemployment insurance programs like the ones we have in Canada, or will it be the other way round and will Canadians have to adjust and harmonize with the Americans, in other words, cut down on their social programs? And we must not forget that our unemployment insurance system is also used to cover certain aspects of health care.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of unemployment insurance we tend to forget, which the Government has abolished, and which unfortunately has yet to be reinstated, namely the provisions for older workers.
A year and a half ago, we still had the Liberal Government program that dealt with the needs of workers in the textile, footwear and clothing industry and in specific regions, such as the asbestos-producing area. This employee adjustment program was supposed to deal with the impact of technological change. Workers fifty-five and over, who had worked for a certain number of years in the textile industry in the region concerned would, in case of layoffs, be eligible for the program which was the equivalent of unemployment insurance, namely 60 per cent of their salary until the age of sixty-five. Meanwhile, these people could, after a regular year, draw unemployment insurance benefits. Even if they found another more or less regular job and lost it again, they could come back and still be fully eligible for the adjustment program.
The Conservative Government announced the program would be abolished and said that it would negotiate another program with the provinces which would be called the Older Worker Adjustment Program. That was a year and some months ago, and no progress has been made. The provinces refused to accept the federal Government's proposal. Before, the program was 100 per cent funded by the federal Government, while today, the Government is proposing to have a new program funded on a fifty-fifty basis. At this very moment, the provinces are all very reluctant. Meanwhile, we have about 500 workers in Canada, three-quarters of whom are in Quebec, who would be eligible under the previous program.
I have nothing against the Government wanting to improve the program or offering a new program. But I disagree with the Government abolishing the old program in the belief that the new one would be accepted within six months. At the moment, older working men and women in Canada are excluded from this program, simply because the Government was negligent. As Mr. Paradis, the Quebec Income Security Minister, was saying: The Federal Government should have
maintained the old program, which was good, during the negotiations period and after an agreement with the provinces on the new one had been reached, then it could have been abolished.
But today, because of the Government's shortsightedness, some 500 older workers throughout Canada are not eligible for the new program which has not yet been implemented, and they have lost their rights to the old one. If some of these people are forced to go on welfare, the others cannot, because their spouses have no income or some property. And we know that under the social security legislation, people must be almost destitute to be entitled to this type of assistance.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have two minutes left. I hope that this bill will reach Second Reading and committee stage, for the Liberal Party intends to support it. I also hope that when it is called upon to consider this bill, the Committee will accept amendments calling for a five year extension, in order to convince all Canadians that this is government policy . . . The bill will be reconsidered if ever there is a thorough reform of the Unemployment Insurance scheme. I should like also the Government to take remedial action as soon as possible, so that the 500 older workers and the others who join their ranks every month, may become eligible either for the old program or the new one. I should like the Federal Government, when the negotiations are over, to implement a new readaptation program for older workers, making them all eligible to Unemployment Insurance benefits.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members have already stated, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the variable entry requirement for unemployment insurance for one more year, until January 3, 1989. Before I deal with the substance of the Bill, I want to say that its handling is another example of a lack of cooperation with the Opposition by the Government in dealing with House business. I was told last Friday that this Bill would be brought forward for debate on Tuesday of this week. I prepared myself for that. However, late Monday I was told it would not be put forward on Tuesday, that Tuesday to be an Opposition Day, and I would be advised later when the Bill would come forward. Late Tuesday I was told that the Government wanted to proceed with it yesterday, and yesterday afternoon was the only day of the week that I could not be here to deal with the Bill because I had agreed to serve on a panel at Concordia University in Montreal to discuss refugee policy with the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and a representative of the Inter-church Committee for Refugees. The Minister of State for Immigration could not go but he was to be replaced by the Parliamentary Secretary who could not attend either because of the snowstorm.
Nevertheless, the only day this week that I could not be here to deal with this Bill was yesterday afternoon. Despite that, the Government plowed ahead and put the Bill forward for debate.
November 26, 1987

It is regrettable because I was quite willing to co-operate with the Government in dealing with all stages of the Bill in one day. I simply ask the Government to be more sensitive in these matters.
This Bill extends the variable entrance requirement for unemployment insurance for another year. Let me explain the variable entrance requirement. According to the original unemployment insurance law, individuals in Canada had to work for at least 14 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. In 1977 the Liberal government of the day recognized that in some regions of Canada the rates of unemployment were so high and it was so difficult to find work that it decided to permit individuals in those high unemployment regions to qualify for unemployment insurance after 10 weeks.
Therefore, we now have a variable entrance requirement of 10 to 14 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. The entrance requirement depends on the region in which one lives and the rate of unemployment in that region. For example, if one lives in a region of very high unemployment, then one will qualify for unemployment insurance benefits after 10 weeks. If one lives in a region that does not have a very high unemployment rate, one will qualify after 14 weeks. Therefore, the entrance requirement of between 10 to 14 weeks depends on the rate of unemployment.
This is a Liberal measure that was introduced on a temporary basis to deal with regional unemployment problems and has been extended from year to year. The Government is asking us to extend it for one more year, until January 3, 1989. We support that.
There is very good reason for continuing this variable entrance requirement. There is still a very high rate of unemployment in the regions of the country. The official rate of unemployment in Newfoundland for the month of October was 17.1 per cent; 13.7 per cent in New Brunswick; 12.7 per cent in Prince Edward Island; 11.4 per cent in British Columbia; and 11 per cent in Nova Scotia.
The Government is proud to announce week-in and week-out that it is very successful in creating jobs. However, I must remind the Government that nearly all those new jobs have been created in the greater Toronto region in southern Ontario. I must also remind the Government that, despite the jobs that have been created, the national rate of unemployment is still 8.4 per cent, or approximately 1.1 million Canadians who are still unemployed, mostly in the regions of the country. While that unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent is a drop from the high rate recorded during the recession, it is still not down to the pre-recession rate of 7.5 per cent unemployment in 1981.
The Government hesitates to admit this, but it should be pointed out as well that many of the new jobs are in low-wage and non-union occupations. Much of that is due to the new contracting out policies that governments and the private sector have adopted. Rather than utilizing their employees
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
within the company or Government department, their full time workers are laid off and a contract is let to smaller companies to do such things as cleaning and maintenance, advertising and so on. Frequently, those smaller firms operate by using nonunion workers at minimum wage, especially in jobs like maintenance and cleaning. In addition, many of those jobs are part-time or temporary jobs that may last from two months to a year. Furthermore, those jobs may entail only 12 to 14 hours a week. This may be acceptable employment in some cases, but there is a growing number of people with part time jobs who would rather work full time.
The number of jobs being created in low-wage, non-union, part-time and temporary employment has led to a widening gap between the rich and poor in Canada. The well trained skilled professionals and unionized workers are being paid well, but there is a growing number of people who are in nonunionized, minimum wage part-time or temporary work.
It was pointed out earlier this year that for the first time in 15 years after the average wage of women and men had considerably narrowed, suddenly the wage gap between men and women workers had widened. As a result of this phenomenon of part-time and temporary work, there is a larger number of what are called working poor.
While part-time work at a fast food outlet may be acceptable to single people who are going to school, it is not enough for those who are attempting to build a home and support a family. While the creation of these types of jobs is better than nothing, it is not the answer and is not something of which the Government should be proud. According to the most recent polls, unemployment is still the greatest concern of Canadians because they feel insecure in the types of jobs that are being created and in the benefits which they provide.
While the variable entrance requirement for unemployment insurance is beneficial, it is not the answer to the problem. There must be a greater commitment to regional economic development by the Government. Since it was elected in 1984, it has cut back huge sums of money from regional economic development.
We also need a greater commitment toward more resources and financing for post-secondary education, especially for literacy training. Without that training and education, one cannot qualify for the well paying permanent jobs, and it is those people with no training or low education who are drifting into these lesser jobs.
I repeat that we support this Bill because the Government is extending a measure that was introduced by Liberal governments in the past. We regret, however, that once again the Government has rejected all serious reform of the unemployment insurance system. It set up the Forget Commission to make recommendations with respect to reform. We did not agree with all the recommendations of the Forget report, especially the key recommendations, when that report was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, but after studying the report we made 90

November 26, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
unanimous recommendations. These recommendations were supported by members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The Government refused them all. It did not accept one recommendation, and it did not accept any of the recommendations made by the Forget Commission.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, many of the 90 recommendations made by the parliamentary committee, of which I was a member, were similar to the Forget recommendations.
We rejected the Forget recommendation for annualization and for ending regionally extended benefits, but many of our 90 recommendations were similar and supported the Forget Report. Nevertheless the Government rejected recommendations which were unanimous even among members of its own Party.
We regret the lack of commitment of the Government to reform the unemployment insurance system. We must also put on record again our complete-and I have to use the word- disgust with the Government in the way it tried to solve the problem of early retirement. About two years ago it cut unemployment insurance benefits for those people who were forced to take early retirement. After a year of pressure, of lobbying, of marches on Parliament Hill by veterans and by retired members of the RCMP, it decided to rectify its mistake, but only in part. The Government returned the benefits it cut from some of those people, but not all of them, leaving a great sense of injustice in Canada that will remain because of the way the Government handled this matter.
We support this Bill but we regret the Government's lack of commitment to the reform of the unemployment insurance system. We also regret the disgraceful way in which the Government handled the cuts in unemployment insurance for early retirees, only restoring benefits to part of that group of people. I believe the Government's record with respect to unemployment insurance is part of the reason it is still at 25 per cent in the polls in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Debate.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say about this Bill. The Bill says that during a period up until next year, the number of weeks that an insured person has to wait-I presume that is a person wanting to draw unemployment insurance, other than a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force-shall be such and such. I just want to put on the record that the law itself is discriminatory. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how silly it sounds to someone trying to get unemployment insurance when the law passed by the Parliament of Canada says, you can collect unemployment insurance but it depends upon whether you are an new entrant or a re-entrant or whatever? It does not matter where one worked, what one did or how long one worked; it now depends on who one is. I notice that 90 per cent of re-entrants are women, and that no one over the years has
really zeroed in on that particular aspect, not that I am overly concerned about it.
A re-entrant would need 20 weeks on the Gaspe Coast, the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland or some rural area. That would be a young man or woman who has managed perhaps in a poor area just to get as much work as everyone else. They do not qualify for unemployment insurance. Why? Because they are categorized as a new entrant. The law says they did not collect unemployment insurance before so they have to have double the number of weeks that someone who collected unemployment insurance before has to have. How silly can it get? How silly and discriminatory can the law be?
If one missed a year of work-and perhaps the industry was down in the area for last year- and wants to qualify, one has to work double the period one worked two years ago. How silly the law is. How silly the people of Canada must think are the Parliament of Canada, governments and politicians in general.
We are not talking about people who make a lot of money. What is the maximum UI benefits today? Certainly one would not be making $300 a week. You would not be bringing in any great sum of money. Yet we make these laws. One would have to say that the people who devised the Unemployment Insurance Act over the years had to be a group of people who were trying to complicate the system. Why do we not just give people unemployment insurance benefits when they have been working and have lost their jobs?
For the last two months I imagine most Members of Parliament have been inundated with cases, as I have been, of people who have returned to school. Perhaps it is night school, afternoon school or morning school; perhaps it is a trade school or to a university doing part-time courses. Those people returned to school because they were perhaps out of work and were drawing unemployment insurance only to discover that they are not allowed to go to school if they are drawing unemployment insurance. They have to sit home next to the phone and if they move away from the phone they can be cut off. They cannot go looking for work. They cannot take a course in the afternoon from one o'clock to three o'clock because the Act says that in that case they are not available for work.
I just simply wanted to put that on the record. How silly, how very silly the Unemployment Insurance Act is. It has always been there. We have always tried to figure out ways to track people down and stick them. The Unemployment Insurance Commission now has employees whose job description is to try to figure out how many people they are going to cut off today. It is bad enough to tell someone who has just lost his or her job that they have a two week waiting period. What are they supposed to live on? One other option is to go down to the welfare office, but if they do that they have to sign a sheet of paper saying that it can be taken out of their unemployment insurance when they receive it. If they do not do that they can be charged under the Welfare Act of any provincial Government. We deal with these cases daily.
November 26, 1987

I think someone, sometime, should sit down with a couple of sensible people and rewrite the Unemployment Insurance Act so it is not so silly and so discriminatory and so that it does what it is supposed to do. In this way the Government would not spend all of its time trying to take people off unemployment insurance. The Government tries to show us a picture by pointing to the Auditor General's Report and saying, "Look at the overpayments to people".
Anyone who has dealt with unemployment insurance problems in the nation knows that the overpayments are as a result of departmental mistakes and corrections. An overpayment results when the Unemployment Insurance Commission overpays someone. An overpayment results when the Unemployment Insurance Commission says, "We found out you helped somebody fix their kitchen two weeks ago so we do not think that you should have been on unemployment insurance two weeks ago". That is an overpayment. Those cases are now piling up before the appeal committees and the Federal Court.
We will soon need to have a whole new group of judges to hear these cases just because of the sheer number of appeals that are underway in the high unemployment areas of the country. It is unfortunate that the Government does not act, sit down with people who have been on unemployment insurance and read the judgments of the Federal Court which hears the appeals. These federal judges were once known as umpires.
One can walk into one of those courtrooms on any day and hear the federal judge read his judgment. There are thousands of CUBs, which are the judgments of the federal judges. Very often the judge points out that there is something wrong with the Unemployment Insurance Act or with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) who interprets the Act.
Why is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) bringing in this Bill? I do not know. He is not responsible for what is in the Act. He does not make a judgment on what is in the Act. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has no more to do with the Act than does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). So why is he bringing it in?
The Minister of National Revenue determines those sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deal with eligibility and determination of employment. It is he who determines whether or not someone qualifies for unemployment insurance benefits. He decides whether or not they have the required number of weeks. When one appeals a ruling against a determination of one's eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits that appeal is made to the Minister of National Revenue.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. As the previous speaker said, I will vote for this legislation simply because one has to support it. In one respect-one small respect-it continues a system which recognizes that the high unemployment areas have particular problems. However, at
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
the same time, I wish to put on the record how foolish is the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mir. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has referred to some serious failings in the Unemployment Insurance Act, as well as some weaknesses in it. He said in his remarks that someone should sit down to write a new Act in order to correct these matters. Does he realize that the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration spent more than six months doing exactly what he suggested? It drafted a report in which it recommended many of the changes to which the Hon. Member has referred. It was a unanimous report. It was given to the Government and not one of the recommendations was accepted.
For example, the committee recommended that if one was unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance benefits then one should be allowed to take courses in a training school, university, or whatever in order to upgrade one's qualifications. The Government rejected that recommendation. One of the recommendations dealt with these so-called overpayments and the fact that they are often made by bureaucrats and officials. The committee made 90 recommendations to bring up to date the Unemployment Insurance Act in these various areas. They were rejected totally and completely. The Hon. Member has made his plea today. I do not know what else we can do.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is absolutely correct. He referred to people who are going to a trade school or who are in the process of upgrading themselves. These people are sitting at home saying to themselves, "My goodness, I would love to do a course. I want to go to better myself so that perhaps I can get another job. I need those qualifications to get another job". They go to a training school and are cut off from unemployment insurance benefits. The committee recommended that because these people are retraining they should be allowed to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, certain people are able to do that today. In trade schools anywhere in Canada one finds that half the students are collecting unemployment insurance benefits while the other half is not. Why? Because the one half which is collecting unemployment insurance benefits are in Manpower seats.
I will have to explain what a Manpower seat is. Only someone collecting unemployment insurance who goes through the system knows what a Manpower seat is. It is a seat that is paid for by the Department of Employment and Immigration, but we call it a Manpower seat in our jargon. There are only so many seats which are paid for by the Department and there is a trick to getting one. When one goes to apply for unemployment insurance one must register for a seat. The recommendation of the standing committee in this area was one of the planks in the platform built by the Conservative Party when it ran for election. It was one of those glorious planks that even I looked at and said, "My goodness, they have some sense.

November 26, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
There is some sense there in that political party". I have now discovered that nothing at all has been done about it.
I imagine there are other speakers in the House who might be interested in saying a few words about the entrant and reentrant to the labour force category and how unfair the unemployment insurance system is. I say that especially when someone can walk into the Unemployment Insurance office today only to be told that his claim is under review. There is no procedure whereby that person can actually sit down and go over the decision not to pay benefits. One can go through the appeal process but that can take up to a year and a half.
I am sure there are other Members who might wish to express an opinion on that matter, especially the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) who has approximately the same type of constituency problems as I have in terms of unemployment insurance.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to commend the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) for what he said. I would say that the silliness about which he was talking should be quadrupled. Some of the regulations in the Unemployment Insurance Act are silly, silly, silly, silly. I am surprised that this administration which has done so many good things since it took office three years ago has not been more determined to bring in more legislation than what is contained in the Bill before us. Although I am glad to see that people in certain regions of the country will still be able to qualify for unemployment insurance with only 10 weeks contributions, in my particular riding, there are many people who are not even fortunate enough to be able to find work to get 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has already alluded to the situation of Manpower seats in trade schools, and so on. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that some people can qualify to have their seat paid for and receive a certain weekly fee to attend training, and that more people cannot qualify at all. For instance, some employers are willing to continue to pay wages if the employees are attending school to take certain mandatory courses. Another example is, people going to sea who have to have marine emergency duty courses, and the employer will continue to pay their wages. However, these persons have to pay for the seats in a trade school, in the fisheries college, or the employer has to pay it for them. There are people who have had their seats paid for and are receiving unemployment insurance at the same time. I think that that is wrong and it should be looked into. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate mentioned it. It is time that Parliament took a serious look at the unemployment insurance regulations.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate mentioned that people have to appeal to Revenue Canada. Officials in the Unemployment Insurance Commission will advise people that they are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and
then a ruling will come from Revenue Canada that states that they are not eligible. In some cases, it takes weeks or months for someone to find out if they are eligible or not.
I know of one person who had worked for years, was laid off, and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. It took so long to get his claim processed before it went to appeal, and then it went to a court hearing, which only occurs in the maritime and Atlantic provinces once a year. That person missed the 90-day period and could not get in to be heard. In the process he lost his house because he could not make the mortgage payments. That is downright shameful.
I noticed that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate was not partisan, as he usually is, because he blamed it on parliamentarians more so than the Government. I think that it does rest with the parliamentarians, because we should see that the Government makes some changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Forget Commission made some recommendations that are probably acceptable in some areas of Canada, but are highly unacceptable in other areas. The same thing applies to unemployment insurance for fishermen. The Hon. Member knows that practically all the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans did not wish any changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, because they were afraid of what might be put in place.
Until such time as the Government is willing to set out a course and advise the people that this is what it would like to implement, and ask if they are willing to accept it, the people will be afraid of changes in unemployment insurance. They are afraid that the changes might be for the worse instead of for the better.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to this Bill. As a new Member looking at this Bill it looks pretty dry. In a way, it is a very simple Bill. It states that we will change the words "twenty-one" to "thirty-three". I do not think that anyone has risen in the House to speak against the Bill. I also rise to support the Bill and the changes in the Act. I wish to take the opportunity to change these cold, plain words and put some flesh and blood into the debate.
As has been pointed out, the mere fact that the Government needs to continue this provision in the Act underscores and underlines the great problem that we have with unemployment in particular parts of Canada. As a Newfoundlander and as the Member for St. John's East, I must pay particular attention to the problems in Newfoundland.
At this time of year in Newfoundland many people are very worried. They are not so much worried about finding permanent jobs, but that they will not be able to get enough work to get unemployment insurance in order to survive the winter. Whether they do or not is the difference for is the difference between unemployment insurance and welfare. That is not a very good choice for an individual in a country that is as
November 26, 1987

prosperous as Canada with, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is so fond of saying, an economic performance that excels in the western world.
As a Newfoundlander, and also as a Canadian, it is a shock and a shame for me to be able to say that the rest of Canada does not know how terrible the situation is and that the Government does not want to do anything that will resolve that problem. Of course, we cannot vote against this legislation. But it is a drop of water where a bucket is needed.
The Elouse and other Canadians need to be reminded that we in Newfoundland have an unemployment rate of twice the national average. When the national unemployment rate goes down the Government gets up and applauds itself and pats itself on the back, and usually at the same time the unemployment rate goes down in Newfoundland. Last year it went up when the Canadian rate went down. But it is always twice the national rate.
That is only part of the story. It is all very well to say that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 17 per cent. But when you look at the statistics another very important story can be told, and it is always left out when anybody talks about the unemployment rate and how wonderful it is. A very important figure that goes along with the labour force data is the participation rate. That rate tells us how many of those who are eligible to be in the workforce are actually considered by Statistics Canada to be in the workforce at all.
In looking at Newfoundland, the participation rate is 52.7 per cent. That means that 52.7 per cent of those eligible for work are considered by Statistics Canada to be in the workforce. Before I talk more about that, I will mention all the other provinces. In Nova Scotia the participation rate is 60 per cent; in New Brunswick it is 58.8 per cent; Quebec, 63.6 per cent; Ontario, 68.7 per cent; Manitoba, 66 per cent; Saskatchewan, 66.9 per cent; Alberta, 71.4 per cent; and British Columbia, 65.3 per cent. All across the country the participation rate in the labour force is higher than that of Newfoundland. Why is that? The reason is that there are no opportunities for people to have jobs.
Compared with the rest of Canada there is an unemployment rate that is twice the national average. More than that there are eight, ten, fifteen, twenty points difference in the participation rate of the Newfoundland workforce, which I call the real workforce, from other parts of the country so you have another potential of 15 to 20 per cent unemployment. It is not called unemployment by Statistics Canada because the people in that category are not actively seeking work. They have not had a job interview in the last three weeks.
It does not take much imagination to come to the conclusion that if someone lives in a community where there are no jobs, where the only source of employment may be the town hall, the fish plant or a construction project, that they are unemployed. They do not go from one door to the next asking "do
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
you have a job for me?" If there are jobs available they know by word of mouth. But these people are not in the labour force according to Statistics Canada.
Despite that, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is at least twice the national average by official standards. There are more than 52 per cent who are interested in working, wanting an opportunity to use their talents and abilities, wanting an opportunity to support their families, to make money, to earn a decent living and have an opportunity to take advantage of the good things which this country is able to provide. It seems that this House, other Canadians and the Government, have to be reminded that Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders are a part of Canada. Newfoundlanders ought to have the same opportunities for employment and be able to use their talents and look after their families as the rest of Canadians. If this were a situation that existed in the Province of Ontario or in the Province of Quebec, there would be a massive government program to do something about it.
The situation in Newfoundland is comparable to the situation that existed in Canada during the depression. When there are national problems of unemployment we do have government action to provide solutions.
What do we have in the case of Newfoundland's very serious problem? We have legislation that says, "we recognize there are problems and if you manage to get 10 weeks work somewhere along the line we will let you collect unemployment insurance while in the rest of Canada people have to work at least 14 weeks. We will vary that rate". Obviously we cannot vote against that because this legislation is desperately needed. Whatever assistance the workers in Newfoundland can get is vital because it is the difference between spending the winter- in many cases, on welfare, or maybe not even qualifying for welfare if you are single and unemployed-and having a few dollars from unemployment insurance. The Government needs to eradicate this problem.
Looking at the Bill, and there may have been changes over the years, it seems that this 33-month period for this 10 to 14 week variable rate started on December 4, 1977. I assume in 1977 this provision was brought in. It is now 10 years later. Since this what has happened to the unemployment rate in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker? It is still, even officially, double the national average. As I say, by looking at the participation rate it is easy to see, even by the statistics, that the rate is probably three or four times the national rate.
We need legislation to provide massive government assistance based on the unemployment rate that is keyed and geared to reducing that rate or at least reducing the difference between the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland and the Canadian average. Programs should be put into place to carry on until that national average is achieved, and we should compare annually the effect of programs on the unemployment rate. We would then have some recognition by the Government that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is a national problem. It would give a signal to Newfoundlanders that they

November 26, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
can rely on the Canadian Government to address their problems. Unfortunately that is not the case.
It is a source of great concern to me when many of my constituents call me asking if I can find them a job. They tell me they are having difficulty getting in touch unemployment insurance and are experiencing difficulty getting with the bureaucracy. As mentioned yesterday by my colleague, the Hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), people are even unable to get hold of the unemployment insurance office. 1 have a constituent in Pouch Cove who spent days trying to get through on the telephone to the unemployment insurance office to ask a simple question so he could fill out his forms and collect his unemployment insurance. He spent one entire day on the telephone trying to get through. It was busy, then no answer. Busy, no answer.
The Government's approach and attitude with massive numbers of people unemployed is to set up a system to treat them as statistics, cards in a computer system. I am pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson), himself a Newfoundlander with many constituents with similar problems, recognizes the inadequacy of the Government's response.
There is a need for a proper unemployment insurance system. What is evident from the necessity of this legislation is the far greater need for economic opportunities for Newfoundland, in the Atlantic provinces and in the regions of this country that are suffering because the Canadian economy and the government policy has left them behind.
We Newfoundlanders have been part of Confederation for getting on to 40 years. It is the whole of the country we look to for standards and leadership on national issues. We also look to Canada as a whole to fulfil our dreams of full participation in the nation. We cannot do that in a situation where the level of opportunity in Newfoundland is less than half, in fact far worse, than the national average. I think it comes down in the end to a question of respect for Newfoundlanders as individuals and as a people. We too ought to have a chance to participate at the same level in the Canadian life. As the Jew, Shylock, in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice said "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" The unemployed in Newfoundland and those who would like to make it to the unemployment rolls, who are not even recognized by statistics as being unemployed, are human beings. Sadly, our people are bleeding from the lack of policy and action on the part of the Government to overcome these problems.
The Government tries to give us hope with ideas that will not assist. It talks about the Atlantic Opportunities Agency. That agency was announced last June but I am told that it has not spent a cent other than on programs that already existed. For Newfoundlanders who are seeking employment and will have to suffer another winter without jobs, and in some cases without jobs and without unemployment insurance benefits,
that is not good enough. We need a commitment from the Government and a commitment from the people of Canada to see that Newfoundlanders are treated equally. This measure is necessary, and I am glad the Government has recognized that. However, it is a very weak response to a very serious problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). I think he has put the case very well. I would like to add a few points if I may.
The Hon. Member talked about the unemployment rate and the participation rate. I would like to add that among young people in Newfoundland, the official unemployment rate, according to Statistics Canada, is 50 per cent. While the official unemployment rate for the population as a whole is one that will not be seen in other parts of Canada as absolutely tragic, although we see it that way at home, the official rate among young people is tragic.
My hon. colleague was quite right in talking about alternatives. Young people will have to have alternatives. What will be their alternatives? There is a whole generation growing up now asking, "What is there for us to do, what is the point in getting all this training, and what is there for us to do when we finish?"
We must emphasize the young people particularly, their unemployment rate, their participation rate and the opportunities that will be available to them when they finish training. That is an aspect of the question I wish to add to the very useful, helpful and accurate summary made by my colleague from St. John's East.
It is too bad that we are here debating the status quo. What a tragedy it is that we are only going that far. The Government is only prepared to keep the status quo going for another 12 months.
We brought in the regional rate of entry in the first instance for 133 months. Will the situation change in 12 months? If so, I would like to know how the Government will change it.
Let me describe for government Members the situation. Official Department of Fisheries and Oceans statistics show that the catch rate in the inshore fishery has gone down consistently over the past six years. Bear in mind that the inshore fishery is fundamental to many communities in my riding, in the riding of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and in the riding of the Hon. Member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). There are so many communities that are dependent on that inshore fishery. Yet the statistics have shown that over the past six years the catch rate has gone down. That means that inshore Fishermen, fishermen with boats anywhere from 20 feet to 45 feet, are catching fewer fish and therefore can qualify less and less
November 26, 1987

easily for unemployment insurance. They do not make as much money and they do not as easily qualify for unemployment insurance. As well, many women work in fish plants all over the province, not because they want to but because they have to, and many of them will be affected by that decline in the inshore catch.
I am building on the argument made by my hon. friend that there is a lack of opportunity and of alternatives. The only thing the people have to fall back on is the unemployment insurance system. Does the Government have some sort of plan that will change the pattern of fish landings in the next 12 months? What happens after that 12-month period if that does not happen? Do we simply come back here and talk about the status quo again?
The status quo is not good enough. Let me describe some specific changes that should be made. Let us deal with fishermen on the Labrador coast, for example. At least fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland can draw unemployment insurance up until May 15. They begin drawing it on November 15. Bear in mind that in many areas, fish is not caught after October so fishermen have to go from some time in October to November 15 before they can begin to draw unemployment insurance. In most cases, benefits can be drawn up to May 15, but what happens to fishermen on the Labrador coast? The ice remains off the Labrador coast until some time in late June. From May 15 to late June, a six-week period, the fishermen on the Labrador coast have no income at all. They have no unemployment insurance benefits and no opportunities to catch fish, through no fault of their own. They cannot catch fish because the ice is in the bays. There are serious weaknesses in the existing program.
If we have any regard for human rights, fairness and equity whatsoever, specific changes should be made right now. I think we should go well beyond that and put in place the kind of system that was recommended by Forget and by commission after commission, some kind of income-support plan for fishermen. If we do not want to do it only for fishermen, let us go all the way and create a guaranteed annual income. Let us stop fooling around with a system that everyone feels they have to beat. The big game in town is how to beat the system. The system is bad and unfair so people must devise ways every day to beat an unfair system.
Why are we expending our energies, our creativity and our imagination in an attempt to beat a lousy system? Why do we not come up with a plan that would allow flexibility and creativity? If we want to do that, we should be looking specifically at a guaranteed income for fishermen as was recommended by Forget and the House report. In fact, let us go all the way and look at a guaranteed annual income. Let us stop all this nonsense about bilking an unwieldy and inflexible system of money that is owed to people, money they need and money they deserve if they are to have a decent life in Canada. It seems to me that the time has come for us to move in that direction.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
There is no reason to do a song and dance about the Government suddenly agreeing in its wisdom to maintain the status quo. Let me return to the young people. A young person, one of those 50 per cent unemployed, must have not 10 weeks of employment but 20 weeks of employment in Newfoundland if he wants to get into the system now. In the short fishing season on the northeast Coast of Newfoundland or the coast of Labrador, where will he find 20 weeks in which to qualify for the system? Again, I make the point that the status quo is simply not good enough. Therefore, I cannot get excited about the Government, in its wisdom, agreeing to keep what is already there.
I think it is a comment on the kind of leadership we have that while the Government is telling Canadians that it wants, through the free trade deal, to give Canadians opportunities for job creation, for hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and it wants, through Meech Lake, to give Canadians equality in Canada, it is saying to the people in Newfoundland that they must be content with the status quo for 12 months. There are no brave words, no imaginative ideas, no plans for revitalizing the inshore fishery in Newfoundland, simply the status quo for 12 months. That is not good enough.
Hundreds and thousands of people are in grave danger at this time. We have a generation of workers in certain areas of Newfoundland in danger of ceasing to work at all. I really have very grave concerns about the future of the inshore fishery in my province. That industry supports not only a lot of fishermen and plant workers, but a lot of communities. Let the Government come forward with a plan to save not only a dying industry and those fishermen and plant workers but whole communities which are in jeopardy at this time.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about this legislation. The two Members who spoke before me really set the pattern in articulating what needs to be said about the variable entrance requirement. I guess what we first need to say is what it is and then what it says about the kind of Government we have.
In certain regions of this country with significantly higher levels of unemployment people can qualify for unemployment insurance in a shorter period of time than those in other areas. That is only just and we in this Party support the extension of this provision in the Act.
We also must remind ourselves that the reason we have a variable entrance requirement is because a Liberal Government decided to get tough on unemployment insurance. It decided that the qualifying period was too short and it was going to lengthen it. It wanted to make it much more difficult for all Canadians to obtain unemployment insurance. It was only because of a significant rump in the Liberal Party that opposed this move, as well as other Opposition objections, that the Liberal Government of the day backed away. A compromise solution was found, that most Canadians would have to

November 26, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
work longer in order to qualify for unemployment insurance but in areas with high levels of unemployment people could qualify in a shorter period of time.
I wanted to take note of that because it is fascinating to see how differently the Liberal Party acts when in opposition compared to when in Government. These days Canadians are demanding more and more consistency from their political Parties. They would like to see the promises implemented.
What does this Bill tell us about the Government? Since the variable entrance requirement is being extended for only one year it can be described as a crumb from the table of the rich, a sop to the unemployed and poor. The Government is saying it will give just enough to keep you quiet. It is not going to do anything to reform the system and make it more adequate, it is just going to extend this sop. The Government seeks to maintain the status quo. Of course, it is Conservative philosophy to maintain the status quo, not to bring about activist Government which will tackle difficult problems and bring about real solutions so that we can build a more humane society. It is simply to hold back the flood and give a little so it can say it has done something.
That is not good enough. We have significant levels of unemployment right across the nation. It is about 8 per cent these days, which does not sound like a heck of a lot because it has been much higher. However, there are other countries that have found ways of providing employment for a much larger percentage of their population. For example, unemployment in Sweden is about 2 per cent. The same for Norway.
Why have Canadian Governments failed to meet the challenge of providing employment for all its people? In short, it is simply because the Government wants to maintain the status quo. It is not willing to ask the kind of questions about its policies and the economic system which need to be asked in order to provide the solutions which would lead to full employment.
Full employment is significant because as unemployment has risen, so has poverty. We have had the spectre of the homeless brought to us on our television screens. We have had much more visible evidence of hunger in our society. We are also reminded on a regular basis that fully one-fifth of our population is functionally illiterate. They do not have the basic reading and writing skills required to hold down a good job in a modern society.
These are significant problems, yet the Government simply says it will extend the variable entrance requirement for one more year. It is a symbolic move and completely inadequate. It reflects a failure to recognize that unemployment, poverty, hunger, and a lack of housing is a serious crisis today.
I want to remind people that over the last five or 10 years we have seen a new political philosophy. It is getting a little ragged around the edges but it has dominated political discourse. What is that? It is because of neo-conservatism or the re-emergence of the attitude that the status quo is good
enough. It is resistance to social change. It is the absence of concern about social programs and an unwillingness to take action. That philosophy is significant because it reflects itself in public policy, or a lack of public policy.
I also want to remind Canadians that this is very much the attitude expressed by R. B. Bennett in the depression days. This is the attitude expressed by Herbert Hoover, President of the United States, when the depression began. From that depression, in which the vast majority of citizens were brought to their knees, emerged a new political leadership which was able to give hope to people by using the power they had to tackle the problems people were facing, particularly the problem of unemployment. I am thinking now of J. S. Woods-worth, Tommy Douglas, and Franklin Roosevelt in the U.S. These leaders said that when we face problems as a nation we must take action. By the time Franklin Roosevelt delivered his second inaugural address he had taken significant action, had renewed people's hope, and had begun experimenting with solutions to solve problems. However, he said at that time that one-third of the nation remained ill-housed, ill-clothed, and ill-fed. That was half a century ago and the statement is still true today.
It is time for us to pick up the torch from Roosevelt, J. S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas and renew a commitment to activist government, a commitment to fulfilling the basic human needs of ordinary Canadians. Although official statistics say that we have 8 per cent unemployment in this country, there is close to 50 per cent unemployment in Newfoundland and 80 to 90 per cent unemployment on Indian reserves. When we imagine the human devastation of living in a community with 80 or 90 per cent unemployment, we must realize that it is time to act and renew our commitments.
I estimate that the unemployment rate in my riding of Winnipeg North Centre is close to 30 per cent. That is a conservative estimate made on the basis of a survey of the parents of school children. It was only teachers who had the courage to try to find out the actual level of unemployment in the community. The teachers wanted to know why the kids come to school hungry and why they have to move three or four times a year due to inadequate housing as a result of low incomes. These parents do not have sufficient employment to provide for the needs of their children in a modern, industrial society.
It is time for us to pick up the torch and renew our commitment to bring about social change which will allow us to fulfill basic human needs. Only when the basic human needs for food, clothing, and shelter are met can people begin to fulfill their potential. Government and political leadership must be about giving people the opportunity to fulfill their human potential and giving society an opportunity to develop a greater sense of community.
November 26, 1987

Some people might say that that is a little difficult in these days when budgets are tight and people no longer believe that government can act in the collective manner. That mood is pervasive across the nation, but we must dispel it. We must dispel the notion that the status quo is adequate and that we cannot take action.
I would like to identify one small step which governments could take today in order to demonstrate that action can be taken. I suggest that we study what social democratic governments have done in European countries such as Sweden where they have chosen to intervene in a significant way in the labour market by way of training and providing support for people as they move from one job to another. They have invested in people in order to bring down the level of unemployment.
Although models cannot be transferred from one country to another entirely without change, we know that in Canada one-fifth of our population is functionally illiterate. We must recognize that it will be impossible for us to solve the unemployment problem without doing something about that situation. We should take illiteracy as a challenge and put in place the programs and funding necessary to eliminate functional illiteracy. If we raise the skill levels of our people they could take advantage of employment opportunities and provide for the needs of their children. This is one area in which we could take a significant step forward.
This is not an abstract notion. While knocking on doors in my riding over the last few days I met a young mother at home with her child. This lady is seeking up-grading as a first step toward acquiring the necessary marketable skills.
In this way we could take a first step toward attacking the problem of unemployment, particularly where it is gravest such as in Newfoundland, on Indian reserves, and in the inner cities.
While there are many other issues to be addressed, such as the industrial strategy of the country and challenging the Government to back away from weakening Canadian sovereignty, we must recognize that the legislation before the House today which provides for a one-year extension of the variable entrance requirement is only a sop to the unemployed, the poor and the hungry. It is a commitment to the status quo. It is a reaffirmation of benign neglect. That is no longer adequate.
The time has come to challenge the neo-conservative dominance of the political debate in this country and to recommit ourselves to the value of providing for the basic human needs of all our citizens. We can start by taking the problem of unemployment seriously. We can start by committing the Government to do whatever it takes to reduce the unemployment rate in inner cities, which is now at about 30 per cent, to reduce unemployment in Newfoundland, which is at about 50 per cent, and to reduce unemployment on Indian reserves, which is at about 80 or 90 per cent. We must bring those rates down to at least the national level.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Let us stop this abuse of human beings. We must recognize in our actions and public policy that we are all equal. Let us stop this neglect. Let us get a government in place which is committed to action, can renew the hope of Canadians, and can give pride to all Canadians in the knowledge that we are a community rather than a dog-eat-dog society.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the unemployment rate in Sweden and Norway which is 2 per cent. I recently read a study of the unemployment rates of the 15 countries of the OECD and compared them with the rates in countries such as Canada, the U.S., Austria and Japan. The study compared all the factors which might be involved in an unemployment rate and tried to discover what would account for the differences.
After discounting factors which relate to the nature of the labour force, and certain other factors, the study concluded that the reasons for the varied unemployment rates was government policy. Certain governments pursue a policy of full employment and as a result their populations are employed. These countries perform as well or better as the other countries in the OECD but have full employment. It seems that whether we have full employment or not is a matter of government policy. Why does my colleague believe the Government does not pursue such a policy?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to be reminded that full employment is not just an objective or dream, but a policy of some countries in the world. In other words, those countries use the full range of policy instruments available to them to pursue the objective of full employment and therefore bring about that result.
This reminds us that the kind of society in which we live is the result of the decisions we make. It is not like the weather, about which we cannot make decisions. However, these days it seems the climate can be a matter of human decision, as in the case of Brazil where the pollution in the rain forests of Brazil is adversely affecting the climate.
The Government does not pursue a policy of full employment because it believes that the private market is sacred and there should be no intervention. It believes that competition is the only ideology worth upholding. It forgets that the Government should intervene when markets do not work for the people and competition abuses the quality of human life in society. We must take collective action and reinforce the values of solidarity.
The fact is that we are our brother's keeper and when many in our society are suffering because of a lack of adequate employment we must address that problem and take action. It is time to get rid of a Government that is simply satisfied with the status quo and is unwilling to strive for the goal that every citizen's right to a decent job can be fulfilled.

November 26, 1987
Tabling of Documents


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) pointed out that Denmark, Norway and Sweden only have 2 per cent unemployment.


Ms. Mitchell:: Good social democrats.


Jack Wendele Shields: I am glad the Hon. Member said that. Why do they not go on to explain that Denmark, Norway and Sweden have conscription? Denmark and Norway are members of NATO. We know the position of the socialist party in Canada as far as NATO is concerned. Are they advocating conscription for all our young people in Canada, because that would certainly bring full employment or at least reduce unemployment to 2 per cent?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member was able to rise in the House and ask a question of New Democrats without mentioning Shirley Carr or Bob White.


Jack Wendele Shields: We knew that you would.


Cyril Keeper: Every time a New Democratic stands in the House the Hon. Member asks: Where is Shirley?
The Hon. Member asks why we do not promote conscription if we want full employment-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like my question answered and not repeated erroneously. I asked if that socialist party advocated conscription as it is in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I am not advocating it. I am asking if they do.


Cyril Keeper: I am pleased that my hon. colleague is getting such good practice asking questions and supplementary questions because he will soon be back in the opposition benches and the Conservatives will need those skills.


Jack Wendele Shields: Answer the question.


Cyril Keeper: I am delighted that the Hon. Member has acted like a Member of the Opposition and treating us as if we are in government. I welcome that eventuality and that challenge. Clearly, this is a further elaboration of the Conservative tactic to distort and misrepresent the New Democratic Party position. Certainly conscription has not been the policy of this Party. We have no intention c*f advocating that policy. We have taken the stand that we will withdraw from NATO. We have been consistent with that policy and we take that stand because we are concerned about the survival of this planet.
We want people to know that it is important to recognize that while there are regional and global differences, we also share a common humanity. The survival of the planet must be a top priority.
My hon. friend has made an error in reasoning. He believes that there is only one set of policies to follow in order to achieve the objective of full employment. He suggests that we
must use the policies of another country to achieve the same objective of full employment. That is not the case. We are Canadians. We will draft a set of Canadian policies to achieve full employment. We will draft a Canadian socialism. We are concerned about meeting basic human needs and ensuring that people have a right to work and contribute to society. We intend to implement a comprehensive set of policies to provide for full employment, and they will be Canadian policies.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I wonder if I might have unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents in order to table a document on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) a document entitled Building Benefits for Homemakers, in both official languages.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I think you will find that there is agreement to pass this Bill in all stages before the lunch break.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Some Hon.Members: Question.
November 26, 1987


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1.03 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, last June there was an important debate in this House and Hon. Members were asked to state their position concerning the reinstatement of capital punishment. I am sure that each one of us found the decision hard to make because of the impact likely to be felt after the debate. Today, in retrospective, I am ever more convinced that we made a good decision.
Still, the end of the debate should not signal the end of concern over the crime issue. When will habitual criminals serve exemplary sentences fully consistent with the seriousness of the crimes they have committed? We must continue our efforts aimed at setting up a court system which faithfully reflects legality and which has every consideration for respect for the right to life as well as for protection of the individual, a court system which through research and new experiemnts will do away with the shortcomings of the present system.
Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) make up his mind to act and take all necessary steps to review and improve the present system? Crime is not a problem which concerns only police forces and courts of justice. People fully expect the Minister of Justice to do whatever may be necessary to protect individuals against the criminal element and, at the earliest opportunity, to launch an in-depth reform of the Canadian court system through appropriate measures.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, November 29 is commemorated by the United Nations as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people in accordance with Resolution 32/40B adopted by the General Assembly on December 2, 1977. Its objectives are to draw to the world's attention the plight of the Palestinian people and to mobilize world opinion on the need to take action to enable Palestinians to recover their fundamental rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by the General Assembly to include self-determination.
At present approximately 4.5 million Palestinian people are scattered over many countries. I encourage the Canadian Government to recognize and support the resolution of the United Nations on Palestinian human rights.



WELFARE


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, provincial and federal Governments refuse to face up to the fact that more than a million children in Canada are living in poverty. One out of six kids goes to school hungry and, of course, does poorly in school as a result. By the third week of the month their parents line up at food banks because welfare rates are so low. Many single mothers are forced into prostitution to supplement their welfare cheques, most of which goes to pay for very high rent.
The recent report of the National Council on Welfare shows that a family of four in a major city now needs over $21,000 to pay for basic family necessities. Yet in most provinces families receive only one half of this amount. I hope Canadians will tell their Government that this kind of deprivation of children cannot continue. Governments can and must act.
The federal Government must insist that provinces implement the Canada Assistance Act which requires that social assistance rates cover basic needs. Provinces must raise welfare rates to cover the real cost of shelter.
I also call upon the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia to support a school food program which has been proposed by the Vancouver School Board. This can be a model for similar programs for poor children across the land.

November 26, 1987
[ Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, various federal or provincial Ministers have been making all kinds of contradictory statements which have created dismay among shipyard workers in my riding. The suggestion that the $3.5 billion contract for six frigates might be awarded to one shipyard is an aberration. Given its 50 years of experience in military shipbuilding and know-how acquired through the first frigate program, again this time Marine Industries must be awarded its share of subcontracts, at least two frigates in this instance.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, such infighting among Canadian shipbuilders points to the urgent need to establish a truly Canadian shipbuilding policy so that, once and for all, workers in the Maritime provinces may regain their pride.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Monday last, at the annual conference on Eastern Ontario's Economic Outlook held in Ottawa, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) was selling his Prime Minister's free trade agreement. As reported by Mr. Robert Bousquet in the daily newspaper Le Droit, in answer to a question on the negative impact of the free trade agreement, he had this to say and I quote:
They had three or five opportunities to modernize under Government programs. Those companies which did not avoid themselves of those opportunities, deserve to shut down.
So said the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the industries which are victimized by this Prime Minister's trade agreement do not deserve to shut down. Textile workers, like those at the Texturon plant in Hawkes-bury, in my constituency, do not deserve to lose their lively-hood. This Tory Government deserves to be defeated in election because of its arrogance. I would therefore invite all Canadians to demand apologies from the Associate Minister of National Defense for his lack of sensitivity and compassion for textile workers. If he fails to do so, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should fire him. This is all he deserves after all.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, when farm income from the market-place is undermined by agricultural policies of the United States and the European Economic Community, Canadian farmers can count on the Government to provide strong financial support. Last year's Special Canadian Grains Program provided such support, and farmers can expect similar assistance for the 1987-88 crop year.
Because of administrative difficulties and the need to put the Special Canadian Grains Program in place as quickly as possible in 1986-87, farmers who irrigated crops outside designated irrigation districts did not receive the same level of support as their fellow producers in irrigation districts. For example, in Saskatchewan 80 per cent of the irrigated acreage was not eligible for supplementary benefits that reflected the additional yields and costs of irrigation.
The administrative difficulties in treating all irrigation farmers fairly can now be overcome. The Government could find administrative advice from such sources as the provincial Departments of Agriculture, associations of rural municipalities and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
Irrigation helps farmers overcome such recurring problems as drought. It helps farmers to diversify and to stabilize individual farm operations. The Government's support to the farming community therefore should not put some farmers who irrigate at a disadvantage with other irrigation farmers.
I call upon the Government to take the necessary administrative steps to ensure that additional yields of farmers who irrigate outside irrigation districts are recognized in this year's Special Canadian Grains payment.



FISHERIES


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen of Nova Scotia are very concerned about the plans of Texaco Canada Resources to drill on Georges Bank. This is a very valuable fishery, a prime fishing area, which includes groundfish and a very valuable stock of scallops.
Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia and the fishing industry of Nova Scotia in general are flatly opposed to drilling. Through Bill C-75 the Government will be implementing the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore resources plan and agreement. In this agreement there is a provision for the establishment of
November 26, 1987

a joint Nova Scotia-Canada board which will make decisions of this nature.
In the meantime, decision making is in the hands of the federal Government. The fishermen of Nova Scotia need a commitment now that, until this legislation is passed and until the board is established to which there will be Nova Scotia input, there will be no drilling on Georges Bank. There needs to be input into such decision making by representatives of the Province of Nova Scotia and the industry of Nova Scotia.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, have you noticed how silent the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has been this week? This silence is deafening after the noise that he made a few days ago about calling an election. Why this change?
Well, this week there was a provincial by-election in Alberta. In spite of all the NDP could do, who do you think won? The PC candidate, that's who, and with 52 per cent of the votes. This fine lady will continue the splendid work of her predecessor as a member of the people's team of Premier Don Getty.
The separatists came in second with 22 per cent of the vote. Albertans are not separatists, and they will fight policies like the national energy policy from within the Progressive Conservative Party. The Liberals, breathing hot and cold about free trade and everything else, came in third with 15 per cent of the vote.
Now, hear this! The NDP came in close to the tail end, huffing and puffing against free trade and every other free enterprise policy, with 10 per cent of the vote. Did you hear me-with 10 per cent of the vote! The NDP had better get used to the tail end, because that is where they will be more and more during the next two years. Viva the PCs!



ROAD SAFETY


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters from Canadians who support my road safety campaign. I have now tabled 30,735
signatures of Canadians who want the Government to improve the current legislation.
I have here a letter signed by Mrs. Ginette Beaulne of the Community Health Department of Montreal General Hospital, in which she says:
I have two young children who travel each day on the back seat of the car, and I assume that they are not sufficiently protected by the vehicule's standard safety devices.
This letter strongly supports the petition which recommends the installation of shoulder belts which can be adjusted to fit the front seat passenger, of shoulder belts which can be adjusted to fit the back seat passengers and of inflatable bags in the front of automobiles.
She closes by saying:
From a citizen who is concerned for the safety of her family and Canadian fellow citizens when they travel by car.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it is because I am sitting here today, after having sat on the other side of the House, but I feel somewhat in opposition and I would like to address this House on behalf of constituents of mine who are worried, and I mean people in Montreal east end.
Four or five committees have been set up and have submitted every conceivable type of reports, but nothing is forthcoming for people in Montreal east end. Today I would like to hear a clear answer. What will the Canadian Government do for east end Montreal? Mr. Speaker, I would not want us to do like the Liberals, who are mainly responsible for the situation in Montreal east end.
As we know, 15 years ago hundred of jobs were lost because of the Liberals. But now we have all the reports indicating what must be done, and those reports were referred to responsible people.
Mr. Speaker, I am expecting-not tomorrow but today-a clear answer on the situation in east end Montreal.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, by resuming bilateral aid to Guatemala, the Government has made a complete farce of its commitment to link

November 26, 1987
bilateral aid to the human rights record of the recipient country.
Nineth de Garcia, the President of the Group for the Support of the Families of the Disappeared, stated "before, there were kidnappings; before, there were murders. Now there are kidnappings and murders. The only difference is that now it is supposed to be a democratic Government".
There are an average of 70 political murders in Guatemala each month. How then can the Government maintain that the human rights record has improved sufficiently to warrant a resumption of bilateral aid?
Two years ago we resumed bilateral aid to El Salvador, a country with a disgraceful, disgusting record of human rights violations, capped last month by the murder of the head of the human rights organization in that country.
On the other hand, Nicaragua, which has the best record for making good, effective use of development assistance of any country in Central America, has not been receiving the kind of support from Canada that its need warrants. It has received a paltry $1 million increase in development assistance, while the Government is promising to increase development assistance by $18 million for Honduras, a country which is providing the base for the Contras who are waging a war against development in Nicaragua, a country whose economy is completely distorted by the militarization from the United States.
Canadians can only object to this distortion of the aid program in the interest of short-sighted, kowtowing to United States foreign policy.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-ELIMINATION OF TARIFFS ON CANADIAN FISH EXPORTS

Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak on free trade as it affects Newfoundland. Newfoundland's economy, like that of the rest of Canada, is based on exports. Most of our jobs depend on the province's chief export, fish. In fact fish landings in 1985 amounted to over 450,000 metric tonnes. The processed value of fish products exceeded $400 million from over 120 plants. The United States is the largest buyer of Newfoundland fish products, absorbing exports worth $360 million in 1985.
For many years now there have been high tariffs, ranging from 15 per cent to as high as 30 per cent, placed on secondary processed fish products entering the U.S. market. This tariff means that processors in Newfoundland must export unprocessed fish to the United States, meaning many secondary processing opportunities are lost to the United States. The free trade agreement will mean that these tariffs will be eliminated on all fishery products, the majority over five years or less, with the duty on a few sensitive items being removed in 10 years.
The reduction and eventual elimination of these tariffs will mean an increase in the production of value-added products in Newfoundland and Labrador. What does this mean to the fishermen, fish plant workers, and the whole economy of Newfoundland? It means new opportunities, more jobs, more development and better prosperity for Newfoundland.
This free trade agreement will provide opportunities for Newfoundlanders to expand their capacity for secondary processing. It offers a significant opportunity to add value to many of Newfoundland's resource-based products and to reinforce the growing, self-sustaining development of its secondary manufacturing sector. It will create new investment opportunities. This leads to an increase in business, an increase in jobs and an increase in prosperity.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret that the Hon. Member has exceeded his time.



SHIPBUILDING


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the 5 000 workers in Quebec shipyards are fed up with this Tory Government. Even the Hon. Member for Richelieu and the Hon. Member for Hochelaga today are joining Liberal Members in asking for justice for the 5 000 workers in Montreal, Sorel, and Lauzon, near Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, we even have workers from the Halifax shipyards coming here asking for work.
I would therefore urge all Conservative Members to join the Liberal Party's fight, alongside the Hon. Members for Sorel and Hochelaga, to have this Government guarantee that all the workers in Canadian shipyards will have assured work, because they are qualified workers, quite capable of competing with any worker in any shipyard outside of Canada.
November 26, 1987



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE PARLIAMENT OF ISRAEL

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing Question Period and because our distinguished guest must leave early, I know Hon. Members would want me to draw to their attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Shlomo Hillel, Speaker of the Parliament of Israel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was wrong yesterday when he claimed that the federal Parliament has the power to implement a treaty with the United States in matters of provincial jurisdiction.
He repeated that claim again yesterday and said that he had the total right to implement the deal. Indeed, when challenged about this patently false constitutional position by reporters, he was reported to have said that it will all come out in the wash.
Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what precise constitutional provision or jurisprudence has the Prime Minister found his unusual and unsubstantiated position that the Parliament of Canada can implement a treaty in areas falling within provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take absolute issue with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on the categorical legal opinion which he has just given. I appreciate the fact that he wants to get some assistance from the Government in connection with this legal matter. However, I notice from the same articles which the Leader of the Opposition has perused that, in terms of authorities, so far it is four to two in favour of the Government, according to The Globe and Mail.
I think we are doing very well in respect of people who support the position. Eminent constitutional authorities, trade lawyers, and people who are aware of the position in connection with this particular trade arrangement are simply behind the position of the Government. That is to say, we have, under the trade and commerce provisions of the Constitution, the right to enter into these arrangements with other countries.
Oral Questions
To suggest somehow that the provinces can in fact make international agreements is simply not the case. If that is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying, it is a curious view of Canada.


John Napier Turner: I know that the Minister of Justice and his colleagues are inclined to poll for every decision they take, but a poll of judicial authorities is not going to help them.
The poll upon which I relied was the unanimous decision of the Privy Council 50 years ago in the Canadian Labour Conventions case, and I recommend that the Minister read it over the weekend when he has some spare time.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we still do not have the legal and final text, and today even Nova Scotia Conservative Premier John Buchanan is asking for the final text.
Why must we Canadians continue the debate without having the final legal text? Why must we Canadians endorse the agreement even before the Americans begin their debate? Why must Canadians complete their study of the agreement, and why must Parliament approve it before the American Congress gets to examine it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the right hon. gentleman yesterday, of course we are disappointed that the final text is not in our hands at this particular time. As the right hon. gentleman knows, this is a very complex document. It is probably one of the largest commercial transactions that has ever been undertaken by two countries in history.
The fact that there are still some outstanding issues-there has been a lot of progress made and there are a few outstanding issues-should not rush us into conceding any of the important positions that Canada wants to take or the consensus that Canada wants to take in the final analysis of this arrangement.
I have every reason to expect that the document will be completed, hopefully early next week, and, as I said yesterday in the House, it is expected that the final text will be fully consistent with the elements package.
Quite frankly, this debate has been going on for quite some time. There is a debate going on literally in every province, there are committee hearings, and there is the debate that is going on in the House. We have brought forth to the House the information that we have available as soon as it has been attained or achieved, and we will continue to be that forthright as the process proceeds.

November 26, 1987
Oral Questions


DEADLINE FOR SIGNING AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a January 2 deadline. It has taken about two years to negotiate this deal. It has taken technical draftsmen two months to put it in draft form. Now, under this timetable, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to examine 1,200 pages of complicated legal text in a few days to meet that American deadline. Yet once the agreement is signed, the U.S. Congress and U.S. business and professionals will have months to examine the deal, debate it, and maybe amend it.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: Yet Canadians will have only a few days to decide how their jobs, their businesses, and their professions are affected. The same applies to the provincial Premiers.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why Canadians have to march to an American drummer? Why are Canadians bound by an American timetable?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition but he is dead wrong. I find it very strange that he should take such a position today when his Party, when it was in government and negotiated the Auto Pact, did not see fit to bring that pact before this House for debate. It did not see fit to refer it to a committee or take it across the country because it was an important national issue. It did not go to the Senate. Now we have this sort of double standard and I find it awfully strange.
The fact of the matter is that the right hon. gentleman knows that it will require enabling legislation to effect this treaty. Necessary legislative changes will have to be implemented. There will be debates in this House on Bills brought before it. Those Bills will have to go to their respective committees and be approved and ratified in the Senate. What is the right hon. gentleman afraid of?


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Air Canada rotating strike is already causing enormous inconvenience to air travellers, travel agencies and other businesses. Certainly it would not be an overstatement to say that the Government had advance warning of this one. Even the conciliation commissioner in his report to the Minister
some time ago had to admit that he was in no position to make specific recommendations.
Since receiving that report, what has the Government done to try to prevent this strike? Has someone on the government side, either the Minister of Labour or someone in his Department, been in contact with both parties to try to bring them closer together? What other action has the Government taken in accordance with the Canada Labour Code to try to spare the Canadian public from an air transportation strike, especially as Christmas is approaching?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the inconsistency in the policies of the Liberal Opposition. I am not sure what the Hon. Member is advocating. Is he advocating back-to-work legislation before a full strike occurs?


John Napier Turner: We are just asking what you are doing about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will tell the right hon. gentleman what we are doing about it. This is a dispute solely between the two parties and we encourage them to get back to the negotiating table. If there is a need for intervention we would be very happy to meet it. At this time there has not been a request, as I understand it. We urge them to get together and hope they can make progress.
At this time the Government stands ready and willing to assist if it would be of use to the two parties to bring them closer to a negotiated settlement. That is really the ultimate manner in which this should be resolved.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Government thinks this one will settle by itself but stranded air travellers think that now is the time for the Government to get involved and try to do something to settle the strike.


APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: 
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government regrets the inconvenience that will be caused to the travelling public. However, the hon. gentleman knows that there is a bargaining process which must be respected. He has been a stout defender of that process and I would ask him to continue, in a consistent way, to defend that bargaining process.
The Government will stand by to intervene any time that those parties are of the opinion that it would be in their best interests for the Government to do so. Until such time as that request is made, and until such time as there is a genuine effort to get back to the bargaining table to resolve this dispute in the normal collective bargaining process, I think that would be premature.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some 4 million Canadians have their tax returns completed by tax discounters or tax preparers. During the course of the Principal investigation it was found that personal financial information is being sold like a commodity for profit. Does the Minister find this situation acceptable? If not, what action does he intend to take to change it?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is of concern. The Income Tax Act clearly provides that information which citizens are compelled by law to provide to the Government is to be kept strictly confidential. When one goes to a tax discounter with one's return there is not the same compulsion, so the question of secrecy presumably could be left to the individual. If people do not wish to have their records used they should ensure that that is the case.
Nevertheless, the fact that this seems to be quite widespread is of concern. We are studying the situation to see whether in fact legislative action is required.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear the Minister's answer but I would like him to be a little more specific. Does he not think that this is a sufficiently important matter for legislation? Will he not consult with the provinces and the industry with a view to introducing legislation which would protect the confidentiality of people who avail themselves of this service?
Oral Questions
It seems to me that the course of action is clear. I want to know whether the Minister is going to follow that course of action.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that it is probably advisable for us to determine the extent to which this is being practised and the implications this might have for this industry, the services of which the consumers seem to enjoy, and to make a rational assessment of all of the evidence before bringing in legislation.
I repeat, however, that it is a matter of concern. It is not something which we take lightly. We are monitoring and looking into the situation.


REGULATION OF COMPANIES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should re-emphasize that one in three Canadians use this service and I think they expect that confidentiality will be maintained. The vague answer which we heard is nice and comforting, but this matter requires some urgency of action.
Will the Minister act, not only with regard to protecting the confidentiality of records submitted to the tax preparers and discounters, but also to examine the necessity of regulating an industry so intimately involved with the financial matters of so many Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the Member's second supplementary question was contained in my response to his first two questions. We do take this matter seriously, but even the article which stimulated the question from the Hon. Member indicates that at least two of the major providers of this tax service do in fact keep the information confidential.
An analysis of that kind of information must be considered before we make the final decision. However, protection of privacy is certainly a priority of the Government. We do not treat the issue lightly.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. He will know that 140 unemployed shipyard workers from Halifax protested here in Ottawa today about the way the Government is treating them. In 1984 his Prime Minister promised those very same workers "jobs, jobs, jobs". Three years later the Halifax shipyard workers have no jobs and no shipbuilding policy other than despair and unemployment.

November 26, 1987
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works on their behalf whether he could explain to the people of Nova Scotia, and the people of Halifax in particular, why those shipyard workers are being discriminated against with regard to government policy. While he is on his feet, would he tell us when the Government is going to come clean and deliver on its promises of jobs for the Halifax shipyard workers?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the last three years is very responsive to a campaign promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stewart Donald McInnes: That is 1,700 jobs a day in the last three quarters.
I have met with representatives of the Halifax shipyards on five occasions in the last six months. There is obviously a problem, not peculiar to that area, but all across Canada. I and my learned friend, the Minister of State for Finance, met with them today. We indicated that we are going to undertake and deliver a strategy. We are sympathetic to their problem. We delivered the Louis St. Laurent only recently. I think they understand that we are working in co-operation with them.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE AWARDED BEFORE CHRISTMAS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who sits in Cabinet and is supposed to represent the interests of the Halifax shipyard workers. Consultation is no substitute for action. There have been delays, delays, and more delays with regard to that facility.
Will the Minister of Public Works give an undertaking today to expedite the process and award the contract for the Louis St. Laurent before Christmas? It was supposed to be issued in November, 1987.
If the Minister cannot do that, will he undertake to those unemployed workers that he will put in place immediately, forthwith, an interim Canada Works grant in order to tide them over until the awarding of the Louis St. Laurentl Will he be that honourable and provide that commitment?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironical that the Hon. Member, who was part of a Government which sat for years and years without developing a comprehensive national shipbuilding policy, now complains. We have an understanding with the representatives of the union. We met with them five times. We will deliver. Hold on.


David Charles Dingwall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Public Works is so convinced and reassured that his colleagues in the Cabinet will support him, will he put his seat on the line and undertake to those workers to deliver to them before Christmas the awarding of the contract for the Louis St. Laurentl Does he have the guts to stand in the House and to give that undertaking?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may or may not wish to answer. I think the question is getting very close to being out of order. The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON ATLANTIC CANADA FISH PRODUCTS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On October 1 the U.S. Government placed an embargo on the import of certain Atlantic fish products. On October 4 the Government of Canada entered into a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. We learned yesterday, November 25, that the Canadian Government protested the action by diplomatic note. Why did we hear nothing of this from the Government until it was reported in the press? Why did the Government wait until after I raised this in the House to issue a press release informing the people of Canada of this undermining of the agreement that the Government is trying to sell the people of Canada?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Transport answered those questions quite fully yesterday. We have been making very strong representations to the United States administration about what we feel is a very unjust attack on our fishing industry. We will continue to do that.
We will use all avenues open to us to ensure that this industry is not attacked unfairly by our neighbours to the south.


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade states in this press release, which was received in my office this morning, that the Government is awaiting a response from the U.S. administration. She also states: "We will do everything in our power to resolve the issue". In my view, issuing a press release seven weeks later and awaiting a response from the U.S. administration does not amount to much pressure.
November 26, 1987

Why does the Government not admit that it has been snookered by the Americans in this deal and that it has tied its own hands with this agreement, while leaving the Americans to do exactly what they want under their own laws to attack our exports?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first, there is absolutely no truth in the preamble of the hon. gentleman's question. Second, we have in no way tied our hands in objecting to what we believe is an unfair and unwarranted attack on this industry, or any industry for that matter.
If we do not receive from the United States a satisfactory answer to our diplomatic note, which was very strongly worded, I believe we have the responsibility to go to the GATT panel and request one, because we feel that it is a very unfair and unwarranted attack on the fishing industry.
We will not give up on the fishing industry at all. As a matter of fact, the free trade agreement is very good for the fishing industry and they know it.


AGRICULTURE
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Last year's Special Canadian Grains Program excluded over 80 per cent of the irrigated acreage in Saskatchewan from receiving supplementary benefits because these acres were not in a recognized irrigation district.
These producers either pay a water tax or a water licence and are recognized by the provincial crop insurance plan as being irrigators. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House if the administrative difficulty in treating all irrigation farmers fairly can now be overcome?
Will the Government make use of the information that is readily available from places like the Irrigation Branch of the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture to ensure that all irrigation farmers will receive the same level of support in this year's Special Canadian Grains Program?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Member for Moose Jaw for his very conscientious efforts on behalf of irrigation farmers in his province.
Let me point out that there has been no announcement of a Special Grains and Oilseed Program No. 2, although I share his hope that there will indeed be such an announcement.
Oral Questions
As a result of the efforts of the Hon. Member and some of his colleagues, very serious consideration is being given at the moment to ensuring that those irrigation farmers who live outside organized irrigation districts should be identified through the payment of a water tax or water licence fee and be entitled to share as other irrigation farmers do in any Special Grains and Oilseeds Program, if and when it is announced.
We may want to distinguish between those who are part of a pivot system and those who backflood, but that might be the only distinction.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the person who is answering for the Solicitor General. The Justice and Solicitor General Committee was told on Monday that an inmate, while on parole in Toronto, and while under the supervision of Operation Springboard, a private agency, committed a rape.
This incident took place on September 18 or 19 this year. It was alleged that the details of this sexual assault were subsequently covered up by officials of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Will the Government give the House its undertaking to initiate an independent review of the circumstances of this particular incident?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work that the standing committee is performing with respect to its investigation of the corrections system and parole system in Canada. It is too bad that the Hon. Member does not want to participate in that.
However, since he has raised this issue, I can assure him that the Solicitor General will obviously look into the matter on the basis of information that has been received.
I will also assure the Hon. Member that, once the investigation is over, the Solicitor General will have a response for the Hon. Member and Members of the House.


ALLEGED ACTION BY BOARD CHAIRMAN
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are seeking an independent review of the circumstances of this case. Hopefully it will be an independent review. While they are investigating, will they also investigate the further allegation that the Chairman of the National Parole Board approached the Chief of Police for Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Marks, and requested that Mr. Marks "not go public" on this particular case?
Will the Minister of Justice give us his undertaking that this allegation will also be investigated?

November 26, 1987
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have two observations. First, I do not accept the veracity of any of the allegations. I think the idea of innocence until proven guilty still applies here.
However, the Hon. Member has raised the matter. The committee itself will have an opportunity to analyse and assess the veracity of these matters. Since the matter has been raised, I am sure the Solicitor General is monitoring carefully the proceedings of this independent committee of the House of Commons which is intensively examining some very vexing problems in our country.
I know that the chairman of the committee will bring to the attention of the Solicitor General the views of the committee with respect to the veracity or legitimacy of any allegations. I will take that matter to the Solicitor General myself, to make sure that he addresses the matter in a proper way.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. In response to a question on August 31, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government was investigating why most Saskatchewan irrigation farmers did not receive supplementary payments under the Special Canadian Grains Program while most Alberta farmers did.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the discrimination against Saskatchewan irrigation farmers happened in the first place, and whether Saskatchewan irrigation farmers have now received the same supplementary benefits as Alberta farmers?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as most of us in the House recognize, the much appreciated $1 billion Special Grains and Oilseeds Program that was made available to Canadian farmers last year was allocated as a result of consultations with the farm community right across the country. In fact, that was the first time in Canadian history that this had taken place.
Of course, there is no way we can go back and alter the formula which was resolved upon to meet last year's needs. However, as I indicated earlier in response to a question by the Member for Moose Jaw, as a result of representations made to the Government by irrigation farmers and several Members of the House, I am extremely confident that in any future Special Grains Program the needs of all irrigation farmers, depending
on whether they must pay a water tax, water licence fee or use a pivot system, will be adequately served.


LEGISLATIVE LOOPHOLES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government has indicated that some changes are to be made in the Special Canadian Grains Program, if there is such a program. In order to be fair to all producers, will the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the Government will eliminate the loophole dealing with production zones which allows some farmers to gain extra benefits by simply moving their permit books to a delivery point in a production zone with a higher rate than the zone where they actually farm?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: As the Hon. Member knows, there have been four meetings with Canadian farm organizations during the course of the last few months, the last being in Winnipeg on August 27. There has been a very conscientious effort to work closely with the industry to ensure that some of the loopholes which have existed in the past-because, indeed, this program was unprecedented in nature-would not be there in the future if the Government is able to provide the incredible financial assistance to Canadian farmers it has been able to provide to date.
Certainly we are conscious of the fact that whenever we create a government program, and many of us, I suppose, wish there was no need for such programs, there are people who will somehow or other attempt to manipulate the system to their advantage. What we are trying to do is ensure first that an adequate amount of financial assistance be made available- quite frankly, I wish the provinces would join in on that more than they have done to date-and, second, that it be directed to those who need it most, in a very legitimate and equitable fashion. I am certain the Hon. Member's question will be very much a part of that consideration.

[Translation)


FREE TRADE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns a very important matter. The Deputy Prime Minister is well aware that the overwhelming majority of Quebecers are very sensitive to the French fact and that the Conseil de la langue frangaise has expressed the view that free trade could affect in various ways the status of French in Quebec and the related legislation. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why, in this agreement we now have before us in which the Government has protected our health systems,
November 26, 1987

national security and consumer interests, it did not also provide Canadian and Quebec francophones guarantees that the French fact would be protected in Canada and that Quebec would still have the right to legislate in linguistic matters?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am only sorry I cannot respond in the French language. I am still not comfortable with it, although working at it. Let me say that there is absolutely nothing in the free trade agreement-nothing whatsoever-that will interfere with the bilingual nature of this country, or the requirements we have in Canada under bilingualism-absolutely nothing. That has been reinforced not only by our trade negotiators but by Ministers from the Quebec Government who have looked at it very, very carefully. 1 can assure the Hon. Member, and all Francophones in this country, that there is nothing in this agreement that would take away from the bilingual nature of our country.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Two Quebec Ministers have said that they expect changes to be made to the agreement and that if these include no guarantee of protection, they would withdraw their support for the agreement. What 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is this. There is of course nothing in the agreement which prevents bilingualism, but why did the Government not ensure that the agreement would include the assurance by the Americans that all products sold in Canada and Quebec will bear instructions in both official languages, and that all documents and instructions for all types of appliances will be written in both official languages? Why did the Government not include this guarantee instead of saying that there was nothing to prevent it? It is essential to have guarantees to make sure that, in ten years, when our children receive an electric appliance from the United States, they will find instructions in both French and English. Why not include this guarantee?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the Hon. Member would try to make a political issue out of this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: I want to make it very, very clear that there is absolutely nothing in the agreement that would take away from the bilingual nature of our country. Second, this is a trade agreement. It is not a social agreement. It is not a social policy document. It is a trade agreement. It has to do with trade, trade between the two largest trading partners in the world. There is nothing in this agreement that will interfere
Oral Questions
with the bilingual nature of this country, or the laws affecting biculturalism or bilingualism, whatsoever.
There is no reason to place that in a trade document which was negotiated, because we are talking about trade, we are not talking about language differences.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The Minister will be aware that charges were laid earlier this fall against 10 native Indians under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. These persons reside in the James Bay area. It is a serious question, because the Minister will also know that native people rely on this hunt for their sustenance and have traditionally hunted these lands in the past.
Could the Attorney General please advise the House whether he has had an opportunity to review the matter, and what he intends to do with respect to these charges?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed had an opportunity to review the circumstances in this case and have decided to exercise my discretion as Attorney General of Canada to stay the proceedings.
The past practice has demonstrated a leniency with respect to the enforcement of this provision of the law with regard to our aboriginal peoples. It is not surprising that the Indian people have thought they were quite entitled to hunt in a way that would provide food for them, notwithstanding the rather straightforward provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Therefore, while I think it is fair to say that the charges would be sustainable, it seems to me that discretion in this case in favour of staying the proceeding is the appropriate course to take with respect to our aboriginal peoples, and I have made that decision.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We have all received complaints from consumers across the country about bank service charges-and I know we can all count on the Commerce-but the fact is that the chartered banks hold a privileged position in our society. Not only do the big five hold virtual control over Canadian finances

November 26, 1987
Oral Questions
but they accumulate exorbitant profits and pay very little in taxes. Meanwhile, these banks can impose anywhere from 55 to 160 different charges, at varying rates and increasing at various exorbitant percentages.
I want to ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs to stand up for consumers for a change. Is the Government going to tolerate the banks abusing their virtual monopoly over Canadians' money by imposing service charges at whatever rate they see fit? Will Canadians continue to subsidize the record profits of Canadian bands, and bail them out from bad investments in developing countries?


Harvie Andre: That was a fine speech, Mr. Speaker. In answer to what I think was a question buried in that speech, yes, we are concerned about the new fees and increasing charges which are a relatively new phenomenon. In this regard, officials in my Department are examining and monitoring the situation. We are concerned there be adequate and timely disclosure of these fees to consumers. We are in discussions with the Canadian Bankers Association to see if there will be some voluntary compliance in this regard. We are also having discussions with the Minister of Finance in respect to possible amendments to the Bank Act should that be necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt on a short supplementary question.


BANKS-FREEZE ON SERVICE CHARGES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister.
Service charges levied by the five major banks have gone up by 29 per cent between 1982 and 1986, whereas inflation has increased by 19.4 per cent. Would the Department be prepared to ask the banks to freeze their service charges until public hearings have been held just so consumer groups and the banks might have an opportunity to study the situation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance,, which is chaired so ably by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, is looking at the issue. I certainly think that it is something that could be examined profitably by the Standing Committee.
As I indicated, we are monitoring the situation. We are talking to the Bankers' Association and having discussions with the Department of Finance about possible remedial action, if required.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns Canada's proposal for refugee assistance to the Contra rebels toward facilitating a Central American peace plan. Given that this initiative was offered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Nicaragua on Sunday, dismissed as hypothetical by the Minister for External Relations in Ottawa on Tuesday, and today rejected outright by this Minister in statements to La Presse, I would like to ask the Minister this.
Why is the Government conducting immigration and, indeed, foreign policy in such a confusing, contradictory and embarrassing manner? Will the Minister with one clear voice clarify and inform the House and Canadians of what the Government's official policy is on any proposed refugee programs for Nicaragua and, indeed, for the Central American region?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is any confusion or contradiction. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that this was a hypothetical question. It is clear, and my friend knows very well, what the policy of the country is in terms of refugees. A case-by-case assessment is performed by the Department. Whoever comes into the country has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Hon. Member knows full well that all those accused of violence, whoever they are, will not be accepted. That is something which will not be decided by the Hon. Member or by me; it will be decided by the refugee determination process. I think that the Immigration Act is good. It is not contradictory. It does not contradict what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


CENTRAL AMERICA-ARIAS PEACE PLAN-CANADIAN ROLE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Liberals support the Arias peace plan in Central America. We also believe that any ministerial statements on this very serious matter ought to represent government policy and not reflect personal opinion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is acting in a very bizarre and amateurish way in promoting the idea of troops being used as peacekeepers in that area without first having obtained Cabinet approval?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best approach would be to wait until the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs returns, since what the Hon. Member is really talking about is second-hand expressions.
November 26, 1987


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Attacking the press again!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think that the hon. gentleman would be interested in what the Secretary of State for External Affairs clearly said and in what the policy is. 1 am sure that he will articulate that policy in a very clear and concise manner next week.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East. I would just say to the Hon. Member that, given the time, I hope her question will be short.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last night on The Journal the Prime Minister stated that he wants to be remembered for his tolerance and justice toward minorities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yet this is the same Prime Minister who refuses to apologize and to redress past discrimination against Canadians of Japanese origin. His Minister responsible for multiculturalism has been prohibited by Cabinet from meeting to discuss the Chinese head tax.
Why is the Government refusing to meet with representatives of the Chinese Canadian National Council about past injustices against elderly citizens of Chinese origin who were subjected to legislated racial discrimination in terms of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act? What will he do about this?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise the Hon. Member by agreeing with part of her preface. I think that the Prime Minister is probably more sensitive to minority rights than any Prime Minister in the history of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As a member of a minority group in Canada I am proud to serve under the Prime Minister. 1 am very proud indeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition laughs. Does he think that this is a joking matter? 1 think not.
This is a serious question which has been raised by the Hon. Member. Although I do not have details with respect to the
Oral Questions
specifics concerning any meetings, I do not accept the premise of the question that somehow there has been a prohibition placed on any meeting. I will take this matter as notice. In fact I am sure a response will be given to the Hon. Member by the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State returns to the House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: A quick supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The Chair, as much as any other Member, is constrained by the time. The last question will be a single question. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


RAILWAYS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will certainly remember that Canadian railways saw the competitive line rates in Bill C-18 as probably the single most important threat to their continued viability. In order to deal with this concern the Minister should remember that the Hon. Member for Lachine, on behalf of the Government, introduced an amendment that would allow the suspension of the CLR, if necessary. Can the Minister now confirm that the transportation annex of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal now totally nullifies that safeguard and renders the amendment of the Hon. Member for Lachine completely meaningless? What does the Minister intend to do about this?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Liberal Party has always been very clear. When it comes to dealing with transportation inequities it takes the side of the railways rather than the side of the customers. What this Bill has tried to do is to remove freight rate discrimination once and for all. One of the chronic problems that has affected the regions of the country has been high freight rates and tariffs. The Government has acted very effectively and responsibly on both those issues. I invite the Hon. Member to get onside and to start taking the side of the shippers for a change.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that there are some unfinished matters that have arisen over the last day or so. I am prepared to hear Hon. Members at this point. I understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) wishes to make an intervention, and I will hear him at this point. I know that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will also be seeking the floor. I will, of course, recognize him, and there may be others.

November 26, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
Before we get on to those matters perhaps Hon. Members would co-operate with the Chair in allowing me to recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be helpful for the orderly dispatch of business, before we got on to the matters just mentioned by Your Honour, if I were allowed to ask the customary question as to what business the Government intends to present for the coming week. I would then ask the Chair to recognize the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who has a short question about a specific Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to proceed today with second reading debate on Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code. Tomorrow will be an allotted day. If Bill C-54 is not finished today then on Monday we will proceed again with it to be followed up by Bill C-87, the customs harmonization Act.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the business of the House question. I would like to ask the Government House Leader to inform the House today, or at the very earliest opportunity, when he intends to introduce for second reading Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act, which, as the Minister probably knows, has been languishing on the Order Paper since December 11 of last year. Can he give us an answer to that question?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The House will know that we have recently debated at length the proposed Environmental Protection Act which is an important environmental matter. That is presently before committee. I appreciate that this is another environmental matter. We are attempting to balance the legislation that we put into committee, and we will proceed with that as soon as possible.


PRIVILEGE
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I felt I should intervene this afternoon in connection with the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Hon.
Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) arising out of our committee's visit to Kingston, Ontario, earlier this week.
From having glanced at yesterday's Hansard, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that you intended to adjourn this matter to permit the majority of the members of the committee, who continued the work in Kingston until last evening, to make representations to you.
Hon. Members will know that the justice committee has embarked upon a major comprehensive review of sentencing, parole, and various other forms of conditional release and related aspects of Correctional Services Canada. As part of that review, we agreed to go to Kingston, Ontario. We spent Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week visiting various institutions in that region.
As part of our visits to Collins Bay, Millhaven, the federal women's prison, and Kingston Penitentiary, we met with a number of witnesses, inmates' committees, parole officers, wardens at the institutions, representatives of the various unions representing the correctional officers at the various institutions, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and many other groups during what was a very hectic schedule this week.
Before dealing with the particular matters raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, may I say at the outset that I recognize that it is fundamental to the successful operation of the committees of this place that testimony be as free and frank as possible. To the extent that is humanly possible, committees should be able to get at the truth of the matters they are trying to examine. That is the tradition of this House. I would suggest that it is a tradition given perhaps further meaning by the parliamentary reform that has taken place during the last couple of years.
As chairman of the committee, I have certainly endeavoured to ensure that that objective is reached, and that we obtain the type of candour from witnesses that we should expect. I can tell the House that 1 certainly encouraged that during all our meetings in Kingston. For example, I insisted on officials not being present at any of the meetings that we held with witnesses. All those meetings were in camera. They were private meetings, the proceedings of which will not be part of the reports of our work. That applied not only to inmate committees and unions, but also to wardens; the idea being to create an atmosphere in which all witnesses could testify in a free and uninhibited manner.
No one from the Minister's office, from Correctional Services Canada, from the National Parole Board, either in Ottawa, or in the Ontario region in Kingston, was present at those meetings. In addition, we made special arrangements to provide an opportunity for parole officers to meet separately from their managers. It was at this meeting that one of the heads claimed by the Member for Burnaby arose, and I will deal with that in a minute.
November 26, 1987

In short, I wish to make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other Members of the House, that we made every effort possible in organizing the meetings, and I would suggest in conducting them, to receive candid, uninhibited testimony.
The first matter raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby relates to the transfer of a certain inmate, one John Avery, from the federal institution at Millhaven, Ontario, to the federal institution known as Kingston Penitentiary.
I will not repeat the facts as set out in yesterday's Hansard, other than to refer to the account thereof of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) which can be found at page 11175. Generally, I would adopt that statement as my own, other than to elaborate by pointing out that when it became known to us that Mr. Avery, who is a member of the inmate committee at Millhaven Penitentiary, had been transferred to Kingston Penitentiary two days prior to our arrival, as a group we indicated to the Correctional Services officials present at Collins Bay Penitentiary, on Monday morning that we wished to hear from Mr. Avery, if he was still a member of the inmate committee.
We suggested three alternatives: One, he be transferred back to Millhaven; second, the other members of the inmate committee, and at that point we understand there were two who were then at Millhaven, be transferred to Kingston to join him, if that were a preferable option from a security point of view; and the third option that was suggested was that a telephone conference call occur-when we met with the inmates of the Millhaven Penitentiary on Tuesday that there be a telephone hookup with Kingston Penitentiary to ensure that Mr. Avery could be part of that meeting. In descending order those were the options.
We accepted as a committee-the majority of the members of the committee with the sole dissent of the Hon. Member for Burnaby-that for security reasons we had to defer to the officials of Correctional Services Canada. It was their evidence before us that Mr. Avery posed a security risk and hazard were he to be maintained at Millhaven. I remind Members that for two weeks Millhaven has been in a locked-down situation. The prisoners have been on strike and they are locked in their cells for most of the day. I can assure Members that the situation there is tense.
We accepted the security recommendations of the service and deferred to its recommendation which was made after consultation, at least with their regional office, if not with the head office, that the telephone conference call occur. That conference call did occur the day after as planned, and I would suggest that it worked well. The Hon. Member for Burnaby was not at the meeting other than in the very early part, because he had decided to return to Ottawa at or about noon of that day.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston took part in the meeting. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he indicated to you what
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
took place at that meeting, as found at page 11176 of Hansard. I think it is worth quoting, since he expressed it adequately. I wish to quote very briefly what occurred during that telephone conference meeting:
Mr. Avery was on the line from Kingston Penitentiary by way of a telephone hookup. He was able to hear what was happening at that particular meeting. He was able to make submissions. The chairman of the justice committee gave members of the inmate committee every opportunity to make submissions with regard to conditions at Millhaven Institution. Mr. Avery was given every opportunity. I, as a member of the committee, asked Mr. Avery a number of questions. I asked members of the inmate committee a number of questions. Documents were in fact presented to the committee by members of the inmate committee.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for you to know that we received from Mr. Avery and the other members of the inmate committee-and I wish to add parenthetically that there were five members in total of that committee, three members having been added to the committee in recent days- what I would regard as full and frank evidence of the state of affairs at the Millhaven Institution at this point in time, as far as they were concerned, what their concerns and particular problems were, not only in terms of the immediate situation, but some recommendations they had to make on the main purpose of our work which, of course, is corrections, parole, and sentencing.
The testimony was not only frank and uninhibited, I would call it brutally frank from time to time. In my respectful submission, were I to be asked for my view, 1 would say there was no prima facie case of breach of the privileges of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) established by the incident referred to relating to the transfer of inmate Avery from the Millhaven Institution to the Kingston Penitentiary.
If I can deal now with the second allegation made by the Hon. Member, found in yesterday's Hansard at page 11173, it arises out of events which took place at the meeting, to which I referred in my opening remarks, with parole officials in Kingston. I think it is important for you to know that this meeting occurred in camera as well, as did the other meetings. Not only that, at the outset of the meeting there was an indication of concern, if I can put it that way, by representatives of the parole offices, who were represented in part by a member of the union representing them, that their testimony was to be considered confidential. The word "immunity" was used for what they had to tell us. We heard from them in a very full and frank way.
I must say 1 express some regret that the Member for Burnaby felt that he had to raise an issue that was raised in this confidential manner. I express my disgust that in the Question Period today we heard from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston on other matters raised at that meeting, particularly in light of the fact that yesterday in his remarks, in condemnation of the Member for Burnaby, he pointed out that this was a confidential meeting in which the confidence of the witnesses was to be respected. I find that to be totally

November 26, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
distasteful as well as totally inconsistent with his conduct yesterday,
I think it is important that you should know, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the allegation of the Hon. Member relating to intimidation-I believe that is the word he used or implied, and this was made clear I think by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston yesterday-that we obtained no direct evidence on this matter at all. It is, in law, hearsay evidence at best. I have some hesitation in even talking about the nature of it in light of what I view as my commitment to those people not to disclose what took place. We had no evidence on the point raised and upon which the Hon. Member bases his second claim for privilege. No one else was at the alleged meeting to which he refers. No one at the meeting was in a position to provide direct evidence in support of the hearsay evidence of the other witness.
My own sense of this whole matter is that you, Sir, and we as a committee have no evidence of anything more than what I would term the appropriate direction being given to public servants unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, public servants outside Ottawa who had not appeared before parliamentary committees before. In fact, one of them indicated he had gone to his superiors for advice as to what the parameters were for him to appear before our committee.
It seems to me the kind of direction they got was to set out the customary parameters surrounding the giving of testimony before parliamentary committees by public servants. We know the tradition surrounding that, namely, that public servants do not discuss matters of policy. Matters of policy are to be dealt with by Ministers.
I understand other members of the committee, particularly the vice-chairman, may want to add their own observations on the matter and I hope you will give them an opportunity to be heard because this is an important point and deserves a full airing. I have given you my sense of it as an individual and as chairman of the committee.
May I say as chairman of the committee that I think I am cognizant of my responsibilities, particularly under parliamentary reform, to conduct our hearings and meetings in an impartial and in an even-handed manner. I think I have done that. I want our committee to continue what has been a tradition of acting in a relatively non-partisan manner to try to get at the root of some fundamental problems in the justice system today. We are doing some hard-slugging work of law reform. There are no easy answers to the problems that we are looking at. I hope members of the Opposition will not be deterred by the tough, hard work ahead of us and will try to set aside short-term political gamesmanship to carry on with the work of the committee. I can assure the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that I will continue to remain vigilant to ensure that the image of impartiality is maintained.
May I conclude by saying that I see no case, Mr. Speaker, for you finding a case of privilege arising out of the second incident referred to. We have no direct evidence on it. Let me
repeat what I said at the outset. We want to get as complete, full, frank and uninhibited testimony as we can from witnesses as we go across the country. I am not convinced, based on the alleged incident in Kingston, that that basic objective was deterred. Obviously when you are dealing with human nature and human beings there will always be different responses, different levels, at which people will interpret their responsibilities. As far as I am concerned, we were able to do good work in Kingston and we look forward to continuing to do good work as we go across the country.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address this matter in as much as being a member of the committee I had a responsibility to hear those individuals and groups that we as a committee agreed to hear. Those hearings did not conclude until 5.30 p.m. yesterday so this is my first opportunity to make comments.
I have to agree with the comments of the chairman of the committee. I think he set out very well the circumstances surrounding the case.
Let me say a few words about the first question raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It concerns the circumstances surrounding the transfer of a Mr. John Avery from the Millhaven Institution to Kingston Penitentiary. You have heard very clearly the circumstances surrounding that. I think those circumstances as set out yesterday by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and by the chairman would lead you I believe, Mr. Speaker, to conclude that nothing sinister or untoward has been done. This was strictly a security question. It seemed reasonable under the circumstances.
Coupled with that, I think you should take into consideration that every effort was made to let us communicate with the individual and we did communicate with him by telephone. It is my understanding that one or more members of the committee had met with the individual. Nothing was done in my opinion to stop anyone on this committee from getting an opportunity to discuss anything with this individual.
There was an allegation that there was somehow something sinister, something covered up, something done improperly with respect to the documents. I suggest to the individual in question that if documents were missing or lost he should have reported that to the proper authorities. There is a significant point that I hope you will take into consideration as well. When we spoke with Mr. Avery by phone he indicated that these were copies of his documents, that the originals were with his lawyer and that he would make arrangements for us to have them from his lawyer. Nothing was being kept from the committee and everything that was done was done reasonably.
May I say, as well on the second point raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on the confidential, in camera meeting on Monday, November 23, that the Hon.
November 26, 1987

Member is asking you, Mr. Speaker, to say that there has been a breach of his privileges because a member in that meeting said that he had been told by his supervisor, who in turn was at a meeting at which he was informed, that something took place. 1 would suggest that that is not evidence at all; that is nothing. Certainly that would be something the parliamentary committee itself might wish to pursue if it thought it had any basis. However, an unsubstantiated allegation like that is not something of which you, Mr. Speaker, should take cognizance and make a ruling that there has been a prima facie breach of the Hon. Member's privilege.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if it were your role to try to track down and investigate every unsubstantiated allegation by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure would be very, very busy.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in due course. The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson).


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reinforce what my colleagues on the government side, as members of the justice committee, have very capably said in addressing the facts surrounding our visit to the various penitentiaries and our meetings with the various officials and inmates involved in the penitentiary system.
I think what I find personally repugnant about this whole situation is the obvious political posturing-


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) and the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), and of course I will hear the Hon. Member for London East.
However, in the interests of moving things along without interrupting, perhaps I exercised some latitude in allowing some of the remarks made by both the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls in respect of the Hon. Member for Burnaby.
Whatever Hon. Members may feel, yesterday in his intervention the Hon. Member for Burnaby put forward facts as he thought they were and, except for perhaps some difference of opinion between himself and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), was not making any comments concerning the motivation or the dedication of other members of the committee.
As a consequence I think that the Hon. Member for London East could help me by addressing the question of privilege itself. He, like other Hon. Members, was there and I want very much to hear his point of view. However, I would ask Hon. Members to stay away from impugning in any way the motives of other Hon. Members, especially when the Chair must listen to these interventions and decide legal points of procedure. Obviously there can be more latitude exercised when we are in full swing of debate, but we are listening here to careful
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
arguments on a difficult matter and I know that Hon. Members would want to co-operate.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess what I am trying to say, in synopsis, is that as one member of that committee I had total freedom to meet with any prisoner or any group-anybody involved in the whole process-without management being there to monitor or sanitize those opportunities.
We had opportunities to talk with prisoners in the hole, as they would describe it, or in protective custody, with lifers' groups, inmates' groups, parole officers, case management work officers-virtually everybody involved. There was total freedom.
For the Hon. Member for Burnaby to suggest that this was a fixed arrangement, a sanitized hearing of the various groups, I think is grossly unfair and one which lacks any element of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member for Burnaby will resist the temptation perhaps to do other than abide by the very gentle admonitions of the Chair.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by the gentle and sage admonitions of the Chair, as always.
I wanted to respond to a couple of points which were made this afternoon by my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. Obviously I will not respond to any suggestion as to motives. I think that Your Honour has dealt with those, and I do not think any purpose would be served by indicating that the reason for this intervention quite obviously is my concern with respect to the integrity of the committee process itself.
I will make a couple of points. First of all, it has been suggested-and it seems to be at the heart of the argument that is made by all three of my committee colleagues-that the information which I brought before Your Honour yesterday with respect to the possibility of an attempt to control or manipulate the flow of evidence to the justice committee in some way should be disregarded because it was not in fact direct evidence; it was not evidence that came directly from an individual who was present at the meeting at which the alleged or attempted interference took place.
Surely it is clear why that particular submission must be rejected by Your Honour. The nature of the alleged wrongdoing in this case is precisely the fact that senior supervisors in the Ontario region allegedly were told that if in any way they were critical of their employer, or if they were critical of the Government or of the policies of Correctional Service Canada, that could affect their future career prospects within Correctional Service Canada. That is the context within which this problem arose.
I would submit, with respect, that it is totally unreasonable to argue that, because one of those individuals who apparently

November 26, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
was subject to that kind of potential threat did not directly come before the committee and speak to the committee of this threat or this attempted coercion, somehow the matter is not serious.
The individuals in question, the senior supervisors in question, appeared as a group with their manager before the justice committee on Monday evening. They were not in any way in a position to make allegations of that nature at that time without, to the best of their understanding, possibly jeopardizing their job.
Of course one always prefers direct evidence. One always prefers the evidence of an individual who was present at a particular meeting. However, I submit, with respect, that it was entirely impossible, given the nature of the alleged pressure which took place, for that to have occurred.
What happened was that an individual who worked with one of those senior supervisors stood before our committee at an in camera session and said to the committee, recognizing fully the seriousness of what he was saying, that his supervisor, at a meeting with that supervisor, had alleged that they were subject to this kind of pressure, this kind of potential manipulation, what I have called an attempt to gag or muzzle the witnesses. That individual was not challenged in any way as to his veracity or his credibility by any member of the committee. It was not suggested that somehow he might have been misstating the facts, that his memory might have been flawed, or that perhaps he had it wrong. Members of the committee were free to cross-examine him as they saw fit. That was not done.
I suggest the fact that that parole officer, a professional dedicated public servant, saw fit to raise this concern with members of our committee provides grounds for the finding of a prima facie breach of the privileges of Members of the House with respect to the question of evidence and direct evidence.
I now want to comment just briefly on the first allegation 1 made concerning the transfer of Avery. It has been suggested that everything worked out fine in the end because there was Avery on a conference call from Kingston Penitentiary communicating with members of the committee. It was suggested as well that because I, as one member of the committee, met with Avery there was no attempt at manipulation. There are two key points on that.
First, the remaining members of the inmates committee did not even know, until I informed them about an hour before the meeting took place, that Avery, a key member of that committee, was even going to participate. Second, Avery himself was not even told until I informed him that he would be allowed to communicate with members of the committee.
The final, and in many ways most serious point is that, like any other witness, Avery needed time to prepare properly to
make his representations to our committee. He needed his extensive documents. At no point after he was scooped from Millhaven and sent to Kingston Penitentiary did he have as much as one single sheet of paper with him. His documents were conveniently left behind at Millhaven. It was only that morning, when I insisted that his documents be transferred so 1 could get authorization to see some of them myself, that they were carted over to him. It was literally while he was on the telephone to members of the committee that they brought him his documents in a box. He opened the box, looked inside and, lo and behold, four of his file folders had disappeared.
I suggest that this is a very serious matter and to suggest that somehow he was able to communicate because he was on the telephone with us is just not adequate.
My final point is this. It has been suggested that somehow there has been a breach of the in camera tradition of the committee. To that I respond as follows. I recognize as well as any member of the committee the importance of respecting witnesses who appear before an in camera meeting. For that reason I spoke directly with both the individual who made the specific allegation concerning his supervisor having been in effect threatened, if you will, concerning his evidence, and with other witnesses immediately following that. I told them that I viewed this matter very seriously indeed, as I know all of my colleagues did. I asked whether it would be appropriate to raise that particular matter publicly, indeed in the House of Commons itself. I received the full consent of that individual and the other individual with whom I spoke to make this matter public. Indeed, he said he hoped it would be made public because he was deeply concerned about the implications. I think that disposes of the suggestion that there was any breach of propriety.
I am not in any way commenting on the other matter raised in Question Period today and certain other allegations made about information conveyed to our committee. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) can deal with that, it is up to him. However, in yesterday's Kingston Whig-Standard the regional representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada made some very significant statements on this second aspect of the meeting. I want to close my remarks by bringing this to the attention of the Chair and I will send a copy of this article to Your Honour.
Mr. Bob Boucher, a regional representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, told the Kingston Whig-Standard this morning that he had complaints last week, from various people working in a range of positions within the CSC, that senior officials were attempting to control testimony given to the parliamentary committee. The complaints were, and I quote Mr. Boucher:
"that the people who were assigned to meet with the committee were by and large handpicked, and they were advised they were not to be critical in their comments," Boucher said.
He said he hoped the committee would "take into account that people are subjected to covert retribution if they were critical".
November 26, 1987

Despite the fact that he told people to go and tell it as it is, he said:
God, if we can't even talk to the people who are running this country freely,
there is something drastically wrong with our system.
That is from the representative of the officials who were to appear before our committee. This argument that we could ask all the questions we wanted, we had total freedom to meet with anyone we wanted to meet, is naive. The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) is suggesting somehow that it meets the concern. Frankly, it is ludicrous to suggest that because we could ask the questions and go anywhere we wanted there was no attempt made by senior officials to shape the nature of the responses. Surely that is the fundamental issue. That goes to the integrity of the committee process.
I know that the chairperson of our committee wants to ensure that as the committee travels across the country, it receives evidence without fetter or restriction. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has said he does not intend to participate any further in the hearings of this committee. That is the decision of members of the Liberal Party and they can defend it.
I reiterate that my concern is for this committee to do its job properly and there must not be any suggestion, directly or indirectly, of interference in the nature of evidence it receives. We heard a rather pathetic warning from the chief Crown Attorney of Ottawa on the eve of our visit to Kingston, Mr. Andrejs Berzins. He warned us there would be attempts to shape or control the evidence given to our committee and to beware of those attempts. I am afraid that this is exactly what may have happened in Kingston, in the Ontario region, and it is for that reason I believe a prima facie breach of our privileges has been established.
I hope that you rule that a case has been made which at least requires further investigation by the appropriate body of this House, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, and as I indicated yesterday, I am certainly prepared to move the appropriate motion should Your Honour so find.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should say to Hon. Members again, in the interest of ensuring that the public knows what this has been all about, that the Hon. Member has raised a serious matter with respect to whether or not certain witnesses working for the Correctional Service of Canada who appeared in front of the standing committee were interfered with in some way by their superiors with respect to what they should or should not or could or could not say. That is the essence of the question the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has raised, and he cited two particular examples. There has been considerable comment from other Hon. Members with respect to whether or not the facts as suggested by the Hon. Member for Burnaby are accurate.
I will consider very carefully the interventions I have heard. The task for the Chair is to consider this matter carefully, of
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
course, and decide whether or not a prima facie case of privilege has been established. I think it is important to keep repeating that privilege in this place is something which affects the ability of a Member to carry out the duty of being a Member of Parliament. Someone said that, in its simplest and perhaps most dramatic way, it is something that interferes with the right of a Member to exercise his undoubted and ancient right of free speech. There are of course some variations on that scene. The Hon. Member for Burnaby suggests that in this case, if witnesses have in fact been tampered with by their employers, the privilege, not only of the Hon. Member but of all Hon. Members on the committee, has been affected because, if such is the case, they would not be able to get all the information they ought to have.
That is the essence of the complaint. The Hon. Member for Burnaby said that this would be tantamount to contempt of the parliamentary committee. Other Hon. Members have said that they do not have the same view of the facts as the Hon. Member for Burnaby. That is a matter which I will have to take into account.
I shall give this very careful consideration. I might indicate to Hon. Members and to the public that 1 have given much more latitude in listening to this case than I would ordinarily because the charge is that senior public servants, or middle rank public servants, or some public servants, tried to influence, one way or the other, the evidence that other public servants who were their subordinates would give to a standing committee. That is the charge and it is a serious one and I have given more time to this particular matter than I would ordinarily.
I hope that Hon. Members realize that the general rule is that the Chair is really not in a position to interfere with the affairs of a committee. I hope Hon. Members will not take the extensive latitude which I have extended in this case as normal every time they believe they have some complaint about what happens in committees. I want to re-emphasize that, generally speaking, Members with a complaint should go back into the committee and sort it out there.
However, the charge here is a very serious one and 1 will have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for me to rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege. That is what I am charged to do under the rules of the House and that is what I will consider. However, I want everyone to understand clearly that the latitude given in listening to representations in this case will not necessarily be extended in every other case.
I know that Hon. Members who may not be as happy as they might be with what happens in committee have an understandable urge to bring the matter to the floor of the House. However, I urge them, in most cases, to go back into the committee and try to work it out there.

November 26, 1987
Criminal Code
In any event, I thank all Members for their interventions. The allegation is serious and I will give it very careful consideration and report back to the Elouse as quickly as possible because 1 think a ruling on my part might be helpful to the entire committee which, after all, is charged with very serious responsibilities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour today to address the House to raise a matter of common interest and fundamental significance. I am talking about improving Canadian legislation on pornography which our Government views as a priority. Bill C-54 reflects the Government's commitment to pass legislation to fight against pornography in an effective manner, and to insert in the Criminal Code the relevant provisions it so badly needs.

Our legislative response is aimed at ensuring the dignity of the individual in Canadian society. All Hon. Members will agree that we must take the steps necessary to protect our children from gratuitous violence, whether emotional or physical, and must protect individuals from degradation and exploitation.
I do not need to remind Hon. Members of what an insidious and pervasive problem pornography is. It degrades the men, women, and children who are portrayed as well as those who are exposed to it. This problem was highlighted by the Fraser Committee which studied both pornography and prostitution and made more than 100 recommendations. The Fraser Committee called for Criminal Code amendments as well as other steps to deal with these two problems.
All Hon. Members realize that the time has come to amend the Criminal Code to deal with child pornography and with material which is sexually violent, exploitative, and degrading. We all recognize that this material is unacceptable.
Bill C-54 is the result of extensive consultations with interested groups and individuals. Much consultation preceded Bill C-114 introduced by my predecessor in 1986. This Bill has further benefited from the public input received since that time.

I received representations from spokespersons for women's groups, religious organizations, artistic circles, museums and
other associations concerned over the proliferation of pornography. In certain cases, I met with these people. Some Hon. Members have also conveyed to me many observations coming from their constituents. I have also received quite a few letters on this issue from the general public.
As a Government we listened to interested people and groups, and we took into account the often diverging opinions they expressed. So we are showing leadership on a question of national interest whose solution is not easy to come by.

The words "other sexual activity" used in the definition of pornography in Bill C-114 have been deleted from this Bill. We have moved to deal with the worst forms of written and audio pornography which, I emphasize, advocate, encourage, promote or incite sexual acts with children, sexually violent or degrading conduct, bestiality, incest or necrophilia. We have moved to deal with the worse forms of "dial pornography".
At the same time we have responded to concerns of the artistic community by ensuring that a judge shall find an accused not guilty and shall declare that the material that formed the subject matter of the charge is not pornography where the defence of artistic merit is successful.
These proposals represent a very real improvement over the current state of law. Many critics have called the obscenity law vague and imprecise. It may interest Hon. Members to recall and reflect upon the fact that Section 159 of the present Criminal Code defines obscene material on the basis of "undue exploitation", the only test of which is community standards as interpreted by the courts on a case by case basis. The only defence explicitly provided in the current law is that of the public good, on which there is little developed case law. The maximum penalty in the Criminal Code at present for engaging in the production and distribution of obscene matter is two years in prison. This is true even in those cases of the most extreme portrayals of sexual violence and child pornography.
By contrast, Bill C-54 defines pornography as precisely as possible and clearly sets out for the first time defences such as those based on artistic merit or scientific, educational, or medical purposes. The criminal law must be capable of consistent application across Canada. Penalties for dealing in pornography are provided in Bill C-54 to reflect the seriousness of the conduct involved. Ten-year maximum sentences are available where child pornography or pornography involving sexual violence is involved.
This Bill also includes a definition of erotica, meaning visual matter, the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction of certain parts of the body in a sexual context or for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. This material would be available but controlled in its access to children and its public display.
November 26, 1987

Those critics and commentators who have equated this definition with nudity are simply wrong. The definition is clear in requiring a dominant characteristic, a sexual context or the purpose of sexual stimulation. Those who have made extravagant claims that cherubs will need to be painted over, clearly do not understand the Bill.
These claims are some of many made by those who have not taken the time to consider this Bill carefully or to follow the current state of the law. For example, there are those who say that this Bill takes the Government back into the bedrooms of the nation. This charge is absolutely false. We are not in any sense proscribing conduct between individuals in private. Rather, we are coming to grips with the public exhibition, trafficking in sexual violence, degradation, child pornography and exploitative material.
Indeed, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Video World Ltd. case, which affirmed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, shows the ambit of the current law. In that case, certain films were at issue which showed vaginal intercourse, oral intercourse, anal intercourse and masturbation, among other acts portrayed. The court, under the current Criminal Code provisions, had no hesitation in finding this material to be obscene.
Those who claim that the Government is turning back the clock should familiarize themselves with the Video World Ltd. decision. Bill C-54 is in step with contemporary community standards and levels of tolerance. The Canadian public expects a strengthening of the present law, not greater licence to trade in the exploitation of private acts.
While the Government has shown its resolve to deal effectively with this type of material, and has suggested penalties which clearly show that its dissemination will not be tolerated, we have also been vigilant in ensuring that freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is safeguarded. Canadians expect that creative expression which has flourished in our nation should continue to enjoy an environment which will allow for its further development. With this the Government fully agrees. While Bill C-54 attacks hard core pornography, it also effects many innovative and helpful changes to the law which are meant to recognize the important concerns of the artistic community.
These proposals represent a reasonable balance. There is general agreement on the major objectives of the legislation.

I seek your support for this Bill. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this measure will be referred to the legislative committee as soon as possible. I know that both Opposition Parties endorse its basic elements.

This is a time for Members of Parliament from all Parties to work together to deal effectively with these exploitative, hateful, degrading and dehumanizing representations. Let us work together to send out the signal that we have strengthened
Criminal Code
the criminal law in order to curtail the trade in pornography while remaining sensitive to the needs of the artistic community and respecting freedom of expression.
I believe the time has come for us to debate this Bill in a serious manner. It is time for Members of Parliament, whether on the government side, or indeed in the opposition Parties, to come forward and let us know precisely where they stand with respect to this particular issue.
W'e have heard the justice spokesman on behalf of the Liberal Party indicate his support of the major portions of this particular legislation. He has indicated that he has some concerns with respect to the provisions dealing with depiction and portrayal of explicit sexual activity.
We know the position of members of the New Democratic Party. I understand that they do not support this legislation. However, I will want to know during the course of this debate where members of the New Democratic Party stand with respect to the provisions which, for the first time, specifically and squarely address the question of portrayals of damage and injury, cruelty and degradation to women. I want to know where they stand with respect to the question of curtailing the exploitation of children and child pornographic portrayals in Canadian society.
These are important issues that we must address. I will cheerfully accept constructive criticism and suggestions. It will not be good enough for members of the Opposition to say that they are generally in favour of laws with respect to child pornography and enacting tougher penalties with respect to the degrading portrayal of women and the exploitation of women in pornographic terms, but will hijack the Bill and prevent it from going to a committee for thorough study because they are unclear about a certain clause.
I suggest to Hon. Members sincerely that the Canadian public will not tolerate any equivocation. They want to know the criticisms and precisely where the opposition Parties stand on this issue. They will want to know their solution.
I wait with some interest to hear whether or not members of all Parties will have constructive suggestions. I am very interested in the parliamentary process, and this is the time for the opposition Parties to inform us.
I do not believe we can simply rely on the present law. If there are concerns with respect to this legislation, I think one indeed could have some concern about the present provisions of the Criminal Code. The provisions in the Criminal Code with respect to pornography presently come under the general section dealing with obscenity. We have defined and targeted exactly the kind of offensive matters with which we want to deal under the law. I suggest that those who are interested in freedom of expression would want to have a clear definition of what is meant by pornography in a legal sense.
Let me refer to the present provisions of the Criminal Code, and I ask Members of the House to consider whether or not

November 26, 1987
Criminal Code
they believe the present law is satisfactory. Section 159(1) states:
Every one commits an offence who
(a)	makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever, or
(b)	makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells, or has in his possession for the purposes of publication, distribution or circulation, a crime comic.
(2)	Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse
(a)	sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever,
(b)	publicly exhibits a disgusting object or an indecent show,
Let me interrupt myself in reading these particular provisions to point out that this is now the present law of Canada. The section continues:
(c)	offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage, or
(d)	advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.
The third clause of that particular provision states:
(3)	No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if he establishes that the public good was served by the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence and that the acts alleged did not extend beyond what served the public good.
This is the defence of public good. As I indicated in my remarks, this does not give us any guidance in terms of what defences are available to the average Canadian citizens, whereas the new legislation deals specifically with those defences. Clause 5 states:
For the purposes of this section the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
This is the present law and I would like people to dwell on it. I hope the Lion. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) is not one of those who wants to stand still and not move ahead. 1 know she is more progressive than wanting to rely on this particular legislation. She should be the one, speaking as she does on behalf of her own Party, who would applaud the direction in which this legislation is going.
I would like to read clause 8 to give Hon. Members a flavour of what is provided for in the present law:
For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.
I come back to my original proposition that this legislation follows a very intensive examination of the question of pornography by a commission which was established by the predecessor Government, headed by Mr. Paul Fraser, a past
President of the Canadian Bar Association and a lawyer of distinction from Vancouver, British Columbia.
The committee travelled extensively with respect to this matter and made recommendations which I think indicated that we should in fact increase substantially the sanctions with respect to offensive material which goes against those levels of portrayal and depiction, including child pornography, the exploitation of children and the degradation of women. That has been the subject of agreement of members from all Parties.
1 want to remind Hon. Members of the other provisions in the definition of pornography which deal with the explicit depiction of sexual activity. The Supreme Court of Canada has declared itself at the present time with respect to the law and has found that material to be a contravention of the present obscenity laws. These are the facts that I believe should be kept in mind by Hon. Members when they address this particular legislation.
There has been, as I have said, criticism from a number of critics who have dealt with this particular legislation that this is somehow going to create new difficulties. I reject those criticisms absolutely. I say to Hon. Members that what we now have is an important advance in the law. We have precision in what we are in fact sanctioning as far as public behaviour is concerned. No one in this House is more supportive of the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression than myself. That is an important concept and should always be kept at the forefront of all of our points of view in dealing with any legislation. But freedom of expression and freedom of speech do not mean unfettered speech. Where actions of any person in Canada cause injury or damage to their fellow citizens, it is the principle of law which has been in place throughout the history of our country, and continues to be the situation, that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and should be subject to sanctions under the Criminal Code.
Pornography is a form of hate propaganda. It is hate propaganda against the integrity and importance of the individual. That is precisely what we have in this legislation. We say that where there is legitimate purpose, whether it be artistic, scientific, medical or educational, these matters are not covered as far as this particular legislation is concerned. This type of portrayal is absolutely acceptable. Where the main purpose is exploitative and is of itself a degradation of the individual's dignity, where it is a trivialization of the individual or exploitation of the individual, this is the type of portrayal and depiction I think all of us would want to address in the legislation.
I simply say in terms of Bill C-54, that I am interested in having a good examination of this particular legislation in the committee of the House of Commons. I am interested in hearing precisely where Members of Parliament from all Parties stand with respect to this matter. If they feel they have some constructive suggestions, they can rest assured that I, for one, will be listening with great interest. However, if the position of those members is that they are not going to give
November 26, 1987

constructive alternatives, that they will attempt to defeat this legislation, I will work as hard as 1 can to pass this legislation because I think it is important that we in Canada move ahead in this area.
I look forward to the matter being dealt with in a reasonably expeditious manner on the floor of the Elouse of Commons. I will listen with great interest to all Members. 1 think it is important for us to move this to committee stage. There are a number of groups and individuals who will want to make their point of view on this particular issue known.
Perhaps I could just say that there has been a good deal of interest from the general public in this matter. I have received a great deal of correspondence which has been in support of the legislation. There has been some criticism with respect to the legislation which I have attempted in each case to address.
I have attempted to meet with people. I have responded to correspondence pointing out that many of the criticisms are in fact dealt with effectively by this legislation. I am very anxious to have this matter proceed as quickly as possible. I ask Hon. Members to give this matter serious attention so we can get through the debate as quickly as we can. The Hon. Member from Outremont will have an opportunity to speak. Every time she makes an intervention I think it is another intervention of support for this legislation and I appreciate it.


Mrs. Pepin:: No way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: She only moves me to carry on and plead with the Hon. Member to convince the rest of the members of the Liberal Party to take a consistent view of this legislation. I would be very interested to hear from the justice critic that he supports the general thrust of this Bill. I am interested in hearing his solution as I am interested in hearing the solutions of the Hon. Member for Outremont with respect to how certain provisions should be phrased.
As was pointed out by the Fraser Commission, nothing can be gained from the Government not moving to change the present law. It was a commitment of the Government that we would move ahead with reasonable legislation to attack this odious type of hate propaganda which is in existence in our country. We will do it in a way which respects the freedom of expression of Canadians and which allows Canadians to say that as far as their respect for their fellow men and women in Canada is concerned we have a law that meets the test of reasonableness. It is a law which will be tough on those areas of gross behaviour that are unacceptable to the majority of Canadians. It will say to Canada that we in this Parliament have finally come down to deal with serious questions so that we can go forward and say that we in fact have made Canada a better place in which to live.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I find no pleasure in having to deal with such a repressive law which
Criminal Code
takes us back to the Victorian era. In order to express my views, I would like to quote from an article that came out in La Presse on May 7, 1987, under the Lysiane Gagnon's signature. This article very well reflects my views and feelings about Bill C-54 now before us. And I quote:
Here we go again. Straight ahead to the Victorian era, on that old puritan bandwagon of Tories who are back with their anti-pornography legislation.
A legislation that is just as moronic as it is repressive, that will make Canada the most puritan country in the Western world. Because who ever heard of a country where the visual representation of a couple doing what is done regularly in the most ordinary families, and indeed what our governments are encouraging us to do, since it is the only way to increase the birth rate?
This legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is a true reflection of that pathetic exercise by a government which is prepared to do anything, however ridiculous, in order to please the Conservative rightists and the bigot or naive pressure groups who believe censorship will eliminate women and child abuse.
In this legislation the Conservative Government is being overly prudish, to put things mindly ... it fails to exercise the openmindedness expected by the majority of Canadian men and women.
Material involving scenes of violence and degradation must be banned. But dragging the Government back into Canadian bedrooms, including libraries, book stores, museums and art galleries, I find unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Also, normal sexual acts between willing adults have nothing to do with pornography.
Pornography and eroticism are two things quite far apart, a fact which Bill C-54 seems to ignore.

The flow of harmful pornography across our border must be stopped. Pornography gives us an image of women, children and men sexually so distorted that it warps people's views and actions. The anger, frustration and violence emanating from this material is overwhelming.
What does pornography tell our society? What messages can we take from the existence of this material? Pornography tells us that women and children are instruments for the pleasure of men. It tells us that violence towards women, children and men is socially acceptable, even normal. It tells us that women and children are sexually insatiable, that they accept, even enjoy, physical abuse and degradation. Pornography tells us that sex is power and most fun when one controls and coerces the other person.
To whom are these messages being transmitted? Who are they affecting in our society? The highest users of pornographic materials are boys between the ages of 12 and 17.

It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that oftentimes parents pass their problems onto their children, and I explain-since parents are too embarrassed to talk about sexuality, children fall back on pornographic video tapes and magazines.

November 26, 1987
Criminal Code

This is where many boys get their sex education, and many think that this is normal sexual activity. In a York University study conducted recently 25 of the young men interviewed said that they would commit rape under certain conditions. In women's shelters and among rape victims one will often hear that these victims were forced to imitate Deep Throat or other violent pornography.
In a Queen's University study it was found that one-third of child molesters and rapists questioned used pornographic material to arouse them before and during sexual acts. So pornography is bad. It has an insidious effect on our society. Its availability should be controlled. The problem consists in deciding how to balance an individual right to freedom of expression with the obvious harmful effects of pornography. Where should we make the cut-off? Where should we put our foot down and say, "You cannot watch that or read that"?
The first problem consists of defining pornography. The existing law uses an obscenity standard by which the courts decide what is or is not obscene based on community standards. Everyone pretty much agrees that this is too vague and inefficient and places too much importance on censorship. It is obviously not stopping the harmful pornography from spreading across Canada.
The Conservative Government's Bill C-54 goes to the other extreme. Its aims are honourable and its intents justified, but its method is repressive. Bill C-54 replaces the existing obscenity standard with a very detailed definition of pornography. This definition includes physical harm, sexual violence, child pornography, bestiality, incest, as well as masturbation, lactation and sexual intercourse. Pornography seems to include anything sexual. This puritanical Bill includes sexual intercourse in the same category as bestiality and sexual violence.
Bill C-54 also makes a distinction between pornography and erotica. Since pornography includes every type of sexual activity, erotica seems to be defined as anything depicting nudity. In 1987 does this seem a realistic way of representing our sexual mores? Are we not regressing back to the Victorian age with this Bill?
Is human sexuality that dangerous? Is the Conservative Government saying that human sexual relations can never be depicted as healthy and loving? Is the Government confusing sex with violence and hate? I believe that we need to attack pornography, but that does not mean attacking sexuality.
In a recent poll it was found that 69 per cent of Canadians feel that Bill C-54 is too puritanical and that it goes too far. This Bill is moralistic. Its primary concern is with the effects on the moral behaviour of the population. Is that how the Government proposes to protect society from harm, by introducing legislation that disregards the freedom of expression and the liberties accorded to each citizen under the Charter of Rights?
The artistic community fears that warning signs will have to be posted in art galleries and theatre entrances if this Bill is passed. Many exhibitions and theatrical performances will become 18 and over X-rated. Painters such as Picasso will be for adult entertainment only. Movies such as Not a Love Story and Lolita will be prohibited. Librarians also fear that their shelves will be empty under Bill C-54. There are many classics that include intercourse, masturbation, and sexuality between minors, for example, Romeo and Juliet, that one might be forced to produce age of majority cards to enter the library.

Their fears are not unfounded, Mr. Speaker, because when we realize that the police will have to determine what is pornography and what is art, there are some serious questions we should be asking ourselves. If the police enforce the provisions on pornography like they enforce those on prostitution, this legislation could be dangerous.
I also would like to recall an article that appeared in the media on October 10, about RCMP officers who seized forty-two colour slides from a women's group against pornography, on the grounds that they were showing pornography. In fact, this was simply an educational program these women were putting on across Alberta to demonstrate what pornography is and what the difference is between pornography and erotica.
All these documents were seized, and these women are now waiting for the provincial solicitor general to decide whether the case they will come before the courts or not.
Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the kind of mistakes the police sometimes make, especially when they are asked to do things they are not equipped to do.

When we are so concerned that our children watch too much television and video, it is ironic that we might turn them away from books if we start censoring strictly. Educational material on AIDS and other sexual diseases is so explicit it could also be banned.
Bill C-54 simply does not meet the needs of Canadian society in the 1980s. I believe that we can stamp out harmful pornography without getting rid of erotica and sexuality. We need a different definition of pornography. The Fraser report of 1985 provided us with a moralistic view on pornography. It is not what the Minister was saying earlier; they have not followed the recommendations of the Fraser Commission.
That Commission proposed three tiers of punishment for pornographic material. The first and most severely punished tier would be sexually explicit material where actual harm was caused to the participants, or material which involves minors. The second tier to be severely punished would be material showing sexual violence, abuse, or degradation. The third tier would deal with sexually explicit material or erotica showing no violence or abuse. Laws would be passed as to how and
November 26, 1987

where it could be made available to those interested. Punishment would only come if it was ever made available to minors.
In my view, anyone manufacturing, distributing, selling, or displaying any material that is harmful, violent, or degrading would be severely punished. But sexual material without violence would still be made available discreetly to those who want it. This position maintains a balance between freedom of expression, and banning harmful pornography. It maintains individual liberties, where Bill C-54 does not.
We must make a distinction here between adults and children. Any pornography or erotica involving or being made available to children must be controlled. But adults must have access to erotica, if they so wish. Individual liberties are guaranteed in the Constitution as long as they harm no one else. Individuals should have access to non-violent sexual material.
Bill C-54 gives maximum penalties of up to 10 years, with no defence available for those involved with the manufacturing, distribution, or rental of child pornography or violent pornography. Is it right to give the same penalty to the manufacturer of child porn and the man at the cornerstore who rents the material? Are police really going to arrest every video store owner who will face up to a decade in prison? I propose that there be different sentences for different levels of involvement in pornography.
Bill C-54 puts the onus on the manufacturer, distributor, or seller to prove that his or her material is not pornographic. Does this not go against our principle of presuming innocence until proven guilty? Is this not against Canada's justice system?
Under Bill C-54 materials displaying masturbation, ejaculation, or sexual intercourse are offences which attract terms of up to two years. Those materials should be discreetly displayed. Municipalities that control zoning and licencing should decide how erotica should be displayed and where it should be made available. In this way citizens will have more flexibility in deciding how they wish to deal with this material in their own towns.
Free trade also becomes an issue when one realizes that 85 per cent of the pornography is imported from the United States. Only 3 per cent of the material is made in Canada. How will we stop pornography from flooding our borders under a free trade agreement? How will we control the magazines, television programs, and the pay-TV and satellite emissions? We already have a problem controlling their access now. I ask the Government to tell the Canadian people how this will stop under free trade. We are talking about a $12 billion to $50 billion business. This is not something that will stamped out easily.
We welcome that portion of the Bill, Clause 3 on page 10 amending Section 281.1(4) prohibiting hate literature against an identifiable group defined by sex.
Criminal Code
So far we have seen that violent, degrading and child pornography do have profound effects on our society. We have seen that 69 per cent of Canadians reject Bill C-54. Why? Because Canadians want to prohibit pornography, but they also want access to non-violent erotica which does not involve children.
Let us go back and examine the worthy conclusions of the Fraser report. Let us examine the effect that Bill C-54 could have on cultural, artistic and literary expression in Canada. Let us not be morally subjective when dealing with this issue, but let us clearly stamp out violent and degrading material. Let us bring this legislation out of the Victorian age and back into the 1980s.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an article that appeared in Le Soleil, which said that the dividing line between pornography and erotica should be defined by the Government, so that more realistic criteria could be set. The legislation creates a dilemma in that it is strict where it should be but at the same time too strict where it should not be strict at all. It is simply not attuned to the present situation in Canada.
There was also an editorial in The Globe and Mail on November 20, which said:
Bill C-54 is praiseworthy for its attack on violent pornography and the
sexual exploitation of children, but it needs finetuning to allow wide public
access to sex education, erotic art and expressions of human sexuality.
Creating criminal sanctions against the use and abuse of pornography is necessary today given the point to which it has infiltrated our society. But we should never forget what this material represents. It represents the anger, the frustration, the sexism and the alienation in Canadian society. Until we change people's attitudes toward sex, toward women and children, we will never get rid of the desire for violent and child pornography in Canada.
[ Translation]
The Bill is unacceptable in its present form. It must be amended. We must discuss and adopt legislation to deal with violence and degradation, but we must also find another definition for pornography, because at the present time, the only positive point in this Bill is the one that concerns direct exploitation of women and children through pornography. I think the Government would do well to retain only the first part of this Bill. As for the rest of the Bill, I do not think it is worth discussing.

We need to protect children, not to be treated like children.

November 26, 1987
Adjournment Motion

1 feel the present Bill treats us all like children. I think the federal Government should take a far more educational and preventive stance with respect to the sexual exploitation of women and children, as opposed to the position taken in this Bill. The first part of the Bill is acceptable, while the second certainly is not.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-Trade- Softwood lumber export tax/Closure of sawmills; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Official Languages Act-Government's alleged fear of backlash in the West-Request for clarification/Allegations concerning Act- Government position; the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy)-Science and Technology-Sale of Canadian company to American corporation/Transfer of technology.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in debate on what is one of the most significant and important pieces of legislation to come before this House for many years.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in speaking to the legislation suggested that its purpose was to protect Canadians from violence, degradation, and sexual exploitation of children. No Member of this House would in any way disagree with the fundamental importance of achieving those objectives. But in the guise of attacking violent, degrading and child pornography the Government has brought forward a piece of legislation which is profoundly dangerous and which, in fact, is a significant step backwards for Canadian society.
Bill C-54, instead of focusing as it should on violence, degradation and exploitation of children, represents an
approach which is dangerous, puritanical and which is a rightwing obscenity itself.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, pornography as defined in this Bill includes any sexual relation whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, that is the approach of the moral majority in Canada. That approach will make Canada the most puritan country in the Western world. In fact, it is an attempt to please the right wing extremists in the Conservative Party and pressure groups within the right wing Conservative caucus.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an effort to give a little gift to the extreme right wing of the Tory caucus.

I would note that while there has been a great outcry across the country from all sectors of the community against this legislation, there have been one or two voices speaking out in favour. One of those urging the Government to move forward on Bill C-54 is Lynne Scime, National President of REAL Women of Canada. What does she say about Bill C-54? She says:
Out of the dark shines a ray of hope in the form of Justice Minister
Raymond Hnatyshyn's Bill C-54. At long last, a truly conservative Bill from
the federal Government!
One of the Conservative dinosaurs to whom I have referred applauds that kind of mentality from REAL Women of Canada. She goes on to say:
Now that Hnatyshyn has said what we wanted him to say, it's up to us to get
co-ordinated and urge him to hold firm.
There are alternatives, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party recognize pornography for what it is. It is a form of hate literature directed against women. Pornography tells lies about women. It robs them of their dignity and of their humanity. It reduces women, in effect, to vaginas and breasts. Ultimately it is misogynistic. It is a multimillion dollar industry which profits from the promotion of this kind of hatred. It is one with which we want to have nothing whatsoever to do, and we will do everything we can to discourage and prevent that industry from profiting.
The New Democratic Party has called for some time for tough legislation to deal with material, and I quote now from our policy: "which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings". As well we have called for action on the production and distribution of material which portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children. We have called for severe penalties for offenders. Indeed, it is in that vein that we will be attempting, during the course of committee study on this legislation, to bring forward amendments to reflect these important policies. Certainly if the Government should have a sudden change of heart and turn its back on the right wing of the caucus, on the extreme zealots in the fundamentalist movement in Canada, on the puritans who are fundamentally anti-sex in their approach to this question, if the Government should buckle up the courage to recognize
November 26, 1987

that there is a distinction between erotica and pornography, we would be proud to stand in our places and support legislation that reflects that policy. But 1 am not holding my breath, Mr. Speaker.
Imagine what the Government has put before us in this piece of legislation. 1 want to give an example of exactly what are the implications. An image of a man and a woman, two adults engaging in consensual love-making, will be illegal under the provisions of this Bill. Those who distribute that image or that video will go to jail. They will be subject to a term of imprisonment for two years. An image of two adults making love consensually and equally will be illegal.
However, another image of those same people, only this time the man has a chain-saw in his hands and he is brutally violating the woman, hacking her to bits with the chain-saw, an image of blood, gore, and violence, will be entirely legal under the provisions of Bill C-54.
What utter hypocrisy. What utter dangerous hypocrisy on the part of a Government which says that it is concerned about violence and degradation. It wants to say that if we depict adult sexuality it is a crime in Canada today, yet if we depict violence, murder, or illegal acts there is nothing wrong with it. What kind of twisted mentality is it? What kind of puritan, Victorian, repressive mentality is it that says that it is okay to show a man hacking a woman to bits with a chain-saw, but it is illegal and we go to jail if we show that same man making love to the woman? That is what this piece of legislation is all about.
How many Canadians have asked for that legislation? It was roughly 20 years ago that a former Prime Minister said to Canadians that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. He was right, but what the Conservative Government would do is to take the state, not just back into the bedrooms of the nation, but into the living-rooms, the libraries, the museums, and the art galleries of the nation. To whom is it responding? It is certainly not the witnesses who appeared before the Fraser Commission.

As my colleague from Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) has indicated, many witnesses who came before the Fraser Commission asked for severe penalties for violence, degradation and child pornography. However, the Fraser Commission has recommended to make a fundamental distinction between pornography and erotica.
But, Mr. Speaker, what does a Conservative Government consider as erotica? Erotica is nudity, period. That's all. Incredible, Mr. Speaker! They have completely ignored the recommendations made by the McDonald Commission.

The Government has brought forward legislation which has caused profound concern in a broad cross-section of the
Criminal Code
community. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, a very respected umbrella organization including over 200 groups that are deeply concerned about pornography and the lies that it tells about women, has strongly condemned Bill C-54. It has urged the Government to go back to the drawing-board, to start again and bring forward legislation which reflects our concern about violence, degradation, and child pornography.
At the same time the Government has raised serious concerns in the artistic community. For example, I note the remarks of the artistic director of Toronto's Theatre Passe Muraille, Clarke Rogers, who recently said the following:
-all that you do is intimidate artists and encourage self-censorship in the name of economic survival. If you are constantly being threatened by big legal bills, creativity is bound to suffer.
Of course there is a danger of self-censorship in the artistic community.

There is a danger of self-censorship by artists who are not wealthy because in our society artists are often poor, they are needy and they will suffer from this legislation.

This Government claims to be concerned about violence against women and degradation. Some of the greatest violence which can be perpetrated against women and children is the violence of poverty, the violence of sexual assaults, and the violence of beatings. However, this is a Conservative Government which has cut back on the funding for sexual assault crisis centres. It has cut back on the funding for centres to assist women who are victims of violence. It has cut back on programs to deal with sexual abuse of children, and it claims to be concerned about violence.
Pierre Berton put it well, as he so often does in his eloquent writings, when he said:
Under the hypocritical guise of saving us all from "kiddie porn", the yahoos and rednecks who run our lives have managed to turn the clock back and inform us that sex is naughty and we must be protected from it.
This is the thrust of the amendments to the Criminal Code on pornography that have just been placed before Parliament. In order to protect our children, we are all being treated like children. I, for one, resent it.
Well, so do I, Mr. Speaker. So do members of my caucus, so do members of the New Democratic Party.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) in opposing this legislation. She indicated her support for the thrust of the recommendations of the Fraser Commission. However, I must say that I was somewhat surprised to hear those remarks, because the official spokesperson for her Party on justice has taken a very different position. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) does not agree with the Hon. Member for Outremont. He has said that the undue exploitation of sex should remain illegal in Canada. According to the Liberal justice critic, images of

November 26, 1987
Nova Scotia
adults engaging in sexual activity should continue to be criminal.
I note that the Hon. Member for York Centre did not lead off the debate on this particular Bill. 1 am pleased that the Hon. Member for Outremont, the spokesperson on the status of women for that Party, has taken a strong stand. I hope that she, and not the Hon. Member for York Centre, in fact reflects the position of the Liberal Party on this serious issue. If the Bill is passed, it will ultimately make Canada the most culturally repressive nation of the western democracies.
Because time is running out at this stage, I will close by indicating that I intend to propose, at the conclusion of my remarks, an amendment which would call upon the House to decline to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to define clearly pornography as material that condones violence, coercion, abuse, and degradation in its depiction of human beings, or that portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children, and also because it does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational, or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public including artists.
It puts a burden on artists to defend the merit of their works. It reverses the onus. Surely that constitutes a serious assault on the basic freedoms set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1 will be proposing that amendment at the appropriate time, at the close of my remarks. At this point I would like to indicate once again the deep concern which we as New Democrats have with the importance of bringing forward legislation to tackle real, violent, degrading child pornography, but legislation which fails to make that fundamental distinction, we will certainly vigorously oppose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   THE OFFICIAL DESIGNATION OF NOVA SCOTIA ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved: that Bill C-217, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia", be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as some Members may be aware, this is one of my pet personal projects. It has a great deal of significance. It is a simple Bill: one page, one paragraph really. As I made clear at the start, the Bill is for the proper use of
proper nouns. It is as simple as that. It is not anti-anything. It is not anti-English or anti-French. It is not negative English or negative French. The fact of the matter is that my province is known as Nova Scotia. It was given by a grant of King James the First in 1621. I do not know, perhaps in those days a lot of people did not speak English or French. To avoid confusing people, they chose Latin. Nova Scotia is a Latin name. Translated to the English you get New Scotland. From New Scotland you get Nouvelle-Ecosse.
I have been trying in a quiet way since I became a Member of this House to have the official designation be that of Nova Scotia in federal documents. I am not asking to repeal or change all documents. However, since this Parliament has been looking very much to the future in many ways, be it the Meech Lake Accord or free trade, we should recognize the reality of proper nouns in the proper place. That is, Nova Scotia is Nova Scotia. It is not Nouvelle-Ecosse and it is not New Scotland. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.
I may come at this in another way in another session. If we are not going to have the proper use of proper nouns, then I am going to bring in a Bill to make sure that every name is bilingualized. Then we can really corrupt the language, be it English or French. If you are going to accept some of the reasoning I have heard in the past from people who have spoken against this Bill, that you have to be bilingual, then we should do that. I am all for bilingualism. I have voted for every bilingual Bill in this House-
[ Translation]
-and supported French wholeheartedly, and I wanted to speak French today.

The next time I bring in this Bill I hope to speak all in French. I want to try to get rid of the canard-and I will come back to that word-that this is anti-anything. It is for something. It is for the proper use of proper nouns.
My name is John Patrick Nowlan. That is J-O-H-N, not Jean. The name of my good friend, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson), is James Jepson; it is not Jean Jepson. Wolfville is my home town; it is not Ville de Loup. Grand Pre is the ancestral home of Longfellow's romantic Evangeline. That is three miles from my home town. We are proud to call it Grand Pre. We do not call it Grand Meadow. My mother was born on Canard Street. We do not call it Duck Street. You know this better than I, Mr. Speaker, because your fluency in both languages makes me pale by comparison. I commend you for it. However, you have a heritage that perhaps I was not exposed to.
We have a man in the front benches, the Hon. Marcel Masse. If we are going to be bilingual, then let us make it Marcel Sledgehammer in English. That is the way it is. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) comes from a historic place on the North Shore called Baie Comeau. I do not think he
November 26, 1987

wants to see a Bill go through this House which says that Baie Comeau should be Comeau Bay.
In essence, what I have been trying to do here in my own small way is to have my province designated as Nova Scotia, period. Nova Scotia has a rhythm to it, a romanticism. Tourism is a big thing in Atlantic Canada and there is a certain romanticism to Nova Scotia.
This Bill does not penalize anyone who wants to use Nouvelle-Ecosse. There are a lot of Acadians from my province and people from la belle province who feel more comfortable using Nouvelle-Ecosse. Let them use it. This does not penalize anyone. It is for the proper use of proper nouns. Nova Scotia is Nova Scotia.
I mentioned my good friend the Prime Minister because he and I share many things. Many years ago I worked on the railroad. At that time, long before the Prime Minister had an interest in the Iron Ore Company of Canada, I was part of the survey crew that laid the centre line for the railway which went from a place called Seven Islands up to Schefferville, a brand-new town. During my lifetime, quite properly, Seven Islands became Sept-iles. The reason I got on to this issue of Nova Scotia was that the then Member for Trois-Rivieres would rise on a point of order every time Three Rivers was mentioned. He would hold up the charter of Trois-Rivieres.

His name is Mr. Mongrain, I believe. Yes, I am thinking about Mr. Mongrain, the Member for Trois-Rivieres.

Every time an Anglophone mentioned Three Rivers when he was in the House, he would stand and make his point. I got a ticket in Three Rivers many years ago and I was called to the police station. It was called Three Rivers then. Now it is Trois-Rivieres. I say that Trois-Rivieres is the proper noun in the proper place. Sept-iles is the proper noun in the proper place. The same thing is true for Nova Scotia.
We have some other beautiful provinces in this land of ours. We do not translate the name Ontario. That is the Iroquois word for "beautiful lake". We do not call it le bel lac or whatever. Quebec is Algonquin for "where the river narrows". Manitoba is Cree for "the spirit of Manitou". Saskatchewan is also Cree for "rapid current". We accept them for what they are, proper nouns in the proper place. We do not try to translate them, and I am trying to focus attention on the fact that I am not trying to be anti, I am trying to be positive with respect to the proper use of proper nouns. I want to maintain the romanticism of Nova Scotia forever. I do not want it diluted by translation.
The Americans coming up here are sometimes confused about a place called Nouvelle-Ecosse when we have been advertising Nova Scotia. That is a practical problem, but it is deeper than that.
Nova Scotia
What about the capital? How many Members appreciate the fact that Ottawa is Algonquin meaning "to trade or barter". A very proper name in view of the fact that the House of Commons is here, and I guess we trade and barter.
I am asking Members not to talk this Bill out this time. I am, I guess, trading and bartering to get this Bill to committee where Hon. Members will come to understand that nothing horrific will occur if we use the proper noun in the proper place. It is as simple as that.
There is a Member on our front benches who used to be a Minister, Roch La Salle. If we want to translate and bilingual-ize everything, why do not we call good old Roch "Roch the Room"? We could call my good friend, the Minister of Agriculture, John Wise, "Jean Lesage". Let us be consistent.
I am going to continue to bring this before the House as long as I am here. If I cannot get this done one way, I will bring forward a Bill which will put Members on the spot to ensure that every name is bilingualized.
One of our great Speakers was Jeanne Sauve. I had some problems with her from time to time. I did not think she was a great Speaker, but she is a very fine Governor General. Sauve is a perfect name for a Speaker. Let's bilingualize it and call her "Jean Saved".
The name Nova Scotia was given to us by the Charter of King James I in 1621. It is in the original BNA Act. We in this Parliament, with some division, have just passed the Meech Lake Accord which brought Canadians together and brought Quebec into the Constitution. It recognizes the distinct society which Quebec is. I understand that. I have some problems with the promotion of it as a province, but I have no problem at all with the preserving and protection of a distinct society. However, what is good for Quebec as a whole in terms of a distinct society is good for Nova Scotia in terms of its name. The name Nova Scotia is distinct.
I ask Members not to talk this Bill out but to refer it to committee. I am not asking that we go to expense or that we roll back all the legislation and regulations. However, I am asking that we recognize the use of proper nouns in their proper place.
I believe I have illustrated the fact that we will have some very oddball situations if we bilingualize every proper noun. A word is a proper noun because it is a name, and it should not be bilingualized. The names of some of the provinces can be translated from English to French, from British Columbia to Colombie Britannique, from Newfoundland to Terre Neuve, or from Prince Edward Island to Isle du Prince Edouard. I frankly think it is wrong to translate those proper names, but I do not argue that case. However, Nova Scotia is neither English nor French. It is Latin, and Latin it should stay because that is the proper use of a proper noun.

November 26, 1987
Nova Scotia


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of the Hon. Member. Coming from Nova Scotia myself I take great interest in Bill C-217. I understand the Hon. Member's point of view. To most Nova Scotians Nova Scotia is, of course, Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has a very proud tradition, as the Member said, dating back to the Charter which was granted many years ago. He mentioned the changes of names which have taken place in Canada, Seven Islands to Sept-Isles and Three Rivers to Trois Rivieres.
We have done the same thing in Nova Scotia. In fact, the oldest permanent settlement in North America was founded in the Annapolis Valley in 1604, four years before the founding of Quebec in 1608 by Champlain. In fact, Champlain was one of the founding group of the settlement which was initially called Port Royal on the Annapolis Basin. They experienced very difficult winters there and established an organization which is still known as the Order of Good Cheer. We have, however, changed the name from Port Royal to Port Royal.
One of the most important French forts and strategic points in Canada was at what is now Louisbourg. Louisbourg was founded by the French to guard against British attacks by both Britain itself and New England forces in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to guard the entrance of the St. Lawrence River. It was founded in 1713 and captured in 1745 by New England forces and again in 1758 by a British army under the command of General Wolfe. Of course, Louisbourg was not originally called Louisburg but Louisbourg after King Louis of France. We changed that name after it was taken by the English in 1758. It certainly was not called Louisbourg anymore, but Louisburg.
We in Nova Scotia have made our own changes. That situation does not exist only in Quebec. We have French translations for a lot of the provinces in Canada, Nouveau Brunswick for New Brunswick and Colombie Britannique for British Columbia. Therefore, Nova Scotia is not unique in that regard except that Nova Scotia is not English but Latin. There is a distinction in that regard. That is not to say, however, that the French language cannot translate Latin as well as it can translate English. Nova Scotia in Latin, of course, means New Scotland and the French translation is very accurate. Therefore, the French language has not really changed the meaning, only the language and I think it has respected the name.
This country takes pride in having two founding peoples and two languages, and I think it is of paramount importance that all Canadians respect the bilingualism of this country. I believe that to say that we will not allow French-speaking Canadians to call Nova Scotia by the name they have called it for many years is an infringement on their rights considering that they have accurately translated the name since Nova Scotia was founded by the French in 1604.
Perhaps the Hon. Member can tell me exactly what the feelings of the Acadians in Nova Scotia are with regard to this particular Bill because I think that is very significant. If they
wanted Nova Scotia referred to as is requested in this Bill, Nova Scotia, that would have a great deal of impact on my thinking. I have not done the research which the Hon. Member has done so I do not know what the Acadians want. However, until I know their thinking on this issue I think that to change it may be a presumption on their wishes, which I would not want to make at this time.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this Bill put forth by the Hon. Member. I find it somewhat strange that the Hon. Member has put so much effort into trying to tell French-speaking people what words to use and how to speak their own language.
The Hon. Member has brought similar Bills before the House of Commons on previous occasions. Apparently he had no support from the francophone Members of the House and, indeed, the Member who just spoke was very interested in knowing what Acadians thought of this Bill. I am pleased to be able to tell him.
The organization of Acadians, known as La Federation Acadienne de la Nouvelle Ecosse say that the choice of what to call Nova Scotia is theirs. Francophones have called Nova Scotia by the name la Nouvelle Ecosse for as long as it was known as Nova Scotia by Anglophones.
I do not believe this House should tell people how to speak their own language. It would be very different if this were a long-standing error that the Government had made.
The Hon. Member suggests that since the name Nova Scotia is Latin, it ought not to be translated. I suggest to him that many words in the English language have their roots in Latin. When I consider this Bill, I wonder if it is the terra incognita of the Hon. Member's mind that makes him make such an effort to bring this Bill before the House.
The real problem facing francophones in Nova Scotia does not include the designation of the name of the province, rather, it is getting proper services in French.
The organization FANE and Acadians in Nova Scotia generally, as well as my Party in that province, have made great efforts to obtain services and an official languages policy in that province. While such a designation has apparently been achieved, it is somewhat less than desirable.
I am surprised that the Hon. Member would persist with this type of legislation rather than fight for the rights of Acadians and francophones in general in Nova Scotia. There are approximately 30,000 people in Nova Scotia who have French as their mother tongue, and approximately another 8,000 with French and English as their mother tongue. This represents 4.5 per cent of the population of Nova Scotia, which is a significant portion of the province which has been fighting for improved services and recognition by the provincial
November 26, 1987

Government. That group refers to Nova Scotia as la Nouvelle Ecosse.
The Hon. Member states that the BNA Act was written in English, for which there was never an official French translation. That does not matter. We must respect the rights of people who speak any language to choose how they will refer to a province, a river, a company or a country. There are French names for Great Britain, England, Germany and many other countries that are different from the names used by the people of those countries. I suggest it would be very highhanded for this House to consider passing a Bill that would require French speaking people in this House, in referring to Nova Scotia, to use words which are of the Member's choosing and not theirs.
I do not believe there is any reason why the House should pass a Bill that would force Members to refer to an area in a language that is not of their own choosing.
There are many places in my own province that are referred to in English, Basque, Portuguese and French. These places were given those names by the people who travelled to Newfoundland, fished in Newfoundland and worked there. These places are referred to in English and in French.
My province is known as Terre Neuve by the Frenchspeaking people.
This Bill is a waste of time for the House. It is trivial, frivolous and pedantic. It ought not to receive the support of the House.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about Bill C-217 on the official name of Nova Scotia, which is sponsored by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).
The Hon. Member, who is a good friend, told us earlier how certain phrases can be translated from French to English, but I am convinced that he forgot a very important one. Mr. Speaker, I am not taking this example because he sits with the Opposition, but if we were to translate the name of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) into English, we could end up with something like "bad pig". Unfortunately, there are certain things which can be translated and others which cannot.
Then, there is our friend, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), whose name could be translated as "A day was just born". Naturally, we can all play these little word games, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that, as everyone knows, this Bill has been before the House four times without being approved. I believe that this fact by itself is an indication, and I shall come back to it. Since it has already been before the House three times, the Members who were there had the opportunity to hear many arguments for or against the Bill,
Nova Scotia
and those who were not always have the possibility of reading Hansard.
As we know, this Bill is quite simple. Its purpose is to ensure that the official designation of Nova Scotia remains "Nova Scotia" in legal acts in both French and English. The reason given by the sponsor is quite logical. When King James I gave that land to Sir William Alexander in 1621, the act of transfer designated the land under the Latin name of "Nova Scotia". The Hon. Member pointed out that, while official bilingualism leads us to translate certain geographic names from French to English and vice versa, we have no reason to do so for Latin names, no more than for the many native words which are so characteristic of the geographic designations in this country.
In terms of linguistics, since this is really what concerns us here, I would first like to mention that when the term "Nou-velle-Ecosse" is used in French, it is not meant to be a Translation of the term "Nova Scotia". Rather, I would say that it is the manner in which the French language refers to the same reality, just as it does in the case of many other realities, geographic or other. For example, when one uses the term "Germany", also of Latin origin, in English, or the term "Allemagne", which is also derived from Latin, in French with the same meaning, one does not usually stop to think that the Germans themselves call their country Deutschland. Obviously, the same can be said of a great number of other countries and regions of the world. What would be at the root of such a strange phenomenon? I cannot really say and in fact I would rather leave that to linguists and etymologists. However, I believe that even a layman can draw a few useful conclusions in terms of this debate.
The example I have just given shows that if geographic names can be so different from one language to the next it would seem to be mainly for historical reasons, given the fact that the terms "Allemagne", "Germany" and "Deutschland" have absolutely nothing in common except that they refer to the same reality. It seems also that the strength of usage and tradition as well as a certain emotional dimension, which may of course vary from one culture to another, also play a major role. I would even go further and add that the various designations which have stood the test of time are often the mark of the historical fame which those territories have gained. It could be said that cultures acknoweledge one another in this way. Even if we are dealing here with proper nouns, these terms have become part and parcel of a language.
It may also be noted that this is often explained for strictly phonetic or graphical reasons. To use a striking example, the great country that we call in French "Espagne" and in English "Spain" is being called "Espana" by its own citizens. The same thing for "Italie", "Italy" and "Italia".
Coming back home, I was suggesting earlier that "Nouvelle-Ecosse" was the French way of designating the beautiful province of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. Secondly, the terms "Nova Scotia", although originally latin, certainly are no longer perceived as such, so much so that latin

November 26, 1987
Nova Scotia
is a "dead language", but rather as the English name of the same province. Would it be that such a difference between the two languages stem from historical and emotional reasons, or simply from phonetic reasons as I just explained? I am not quite sure about that. But I have a feeling that it is both, which is healthy in a country that is committed to bilingualism.
Official bilingualism indeed is one of this country's basic values and features, and in order to be practical, it implies that all Canadian men and women, with the highest respect for the cultural nature of our two official languages, can make compromises that at times may appear acrobatic if we are to survive as a bilingual nation.
Therefore, I would urge all Members in this House to think about all the implications of this measure if it were enacted. I remind them also, as I said at the beginning, that this House has already considered this Bill on three previous occasions, each time the debate giving rise to an impassioned discussion but the House has fortunately approved a time-honoured use and has thus avoided a storm in a teacup.
We always try of course to be quite rational, but we are politicians by profession and we know very well that in such instances we have to take into consideration human feelings and emotions. Otherwise, it would be useless to convince our fellow citizens to send us here to deal on their behalf with all kinds of issues and reach all sorts of decisions, since we could quite easily today have machines do the work.
Mr. Speaker, this Government four years ago entered into an important process of national reconciliation and the recent Meech Lake constitutional agreement is undoubtedly the most significant phase.
With respect to the proposal made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, I would say that it is infinitely more important at present to see that the newborn child will survive rather than fight about the name which we would have liked to give him, since it could seriously affect its psychological development.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak on the Bill of my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). He knows as well as I do that usually in this House when a Member of Parliament rises to ask for a change of name, it is the kind of thing which passes very quickly. The Hon. Member has been working very hard on this Bill, I know. I have been in this House not quite as many years as he, but I have watched him raise the subject matter of this Bill a number of times with much sincerity. I have reread those debates with interest.
The Hon. Member has tabled a proposal which would ensure that the current English designation for the Province of
Nova Scotia would also be the official French designation. Without a doubt, the Hon. Member is sincere. Hon. Members recognize that sincerity. He has made many contributions to this House as well as to his constituents and to Canada over the years. I have no doubt he proposes this Bill as a concerned and dedicated Canadian. I am sure that he followed his conscience and put forth this idea because he truly believes that it would be in the best interests of his home province.
While I do not wish to go on record as proclaiming that I am not against the proposal-being from Alberta I am not totally understanding of the full reasons behind the Hon. Member's Bill-I do want to enter into the debate. I am opposed to change for change's sake. It is useful sometimes to allow certain changes to go on in society with proper and good reason. There are many reasons for changing the names of places. What we are trying to ascertain here is the nature of the Hon. Member's reason for proposing the said Bill and whether he provides a sufficient case for changing the official name of Nova Scotia. In order for this name change to be accepted in the House there must be a very compelling reason behind it. Canadians will demand a logical and convincing reason to justify the amendment proposed in the Bill.
I fully realize that the Hon. Member has put forward a number of examples. He has attempted to demonstrate that the purpose of his proposal is to deal with the important process of using proper nouns to designate places in Canada. Furthermore, he has argued that his Bill has nothing to do with the bilingualism question, although the Hon. Member has claimed that Nouvelle Ecosse is a misnomer. I am sure that many Hon. Members would agree that the term, which has been used for some 300 years, is indeed the proper use of a proper noun.
I would like to review the reasons which the Hon. Member has given to justify his proposal. More specifically, I wish to determine whether they provide a convincing argument in support of his Bill.
The Hon. Member has asserted that Nova Scotia is a Latin term and therefore is not translatable into either French or English. He has also said that if Nova Scotia had been called "New Scotland" under the British North America Act and under its original charter, then in our day of bilingualism the appropriate Translation would in fact be Nouvelle Ecosse. Although the Hon. Member's logic flows from the very best of intentions, I am not so certain that it is consistent with historical facts.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that a people, French Canadians in this case, had used a proper noun to designate a certain location for some 300 years and that this name had become an integral part of their history and culture. Let us assume further that this people had a copious quantity of official documents which used that particular expression- the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 and the Constitution Act, 1982,
November 26, 1987

among others. Would it not therefore be fair and reasonable to assume the name of that place to be legitimately what a people have always called it?
My colleague has also drawn our attention to the Cities of Trois-Rivieres and Sept-iles. Hon. Members will recall that both municipalities had certain problems dealing with the appropriate designation of their towns. Back in the mid-1960s when the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants was a rookie, and I cannot quite remember that because 1 came here in the 1970s when he was a veteran, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Mongrain, would rise on a point of order and bring proceedings to a standstill every time an Anglophone Member of the House referred to his home town as "Three Rivers". Similarly, the Hon. Member from the riding which encompassed Sept-iles at that time, Gilles Gregoire, would also rise on a point of order every time his town was called "Seven Islands". Those points were made and subsequently accepted.
Although Trois-Rivieres and Sept-iles both benefit from the appropriate designation now, the Hon. Member fails to mention that there was strong support in favour of using those designations within the respective constituencies. People from both towns demanded that the proper designation be used. We have heard a number of Members who come from Nova Scotia speak on this matter. They have said that they see no demand either on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia or from the Legislature for changing the province's official designation.
Another thing we must ask ourselves is whether it is within the jurisdiction of the House to impose such a change on the people of Nova Scotia.
The Hon. Member supports his argument by pointing out the designation of other places such as Manitoba, Quebec and Saskatchewan. He quite rightly says that these names are neither French nor English and as such are not translatable. However, he fails to recognize that these names have remained that way because of their widespread use. Would it not be safe to say that Nouvelle Ecosse has also benefited from widespread use and that therefore it is perfectly legitimate? After all, the expression does go back nearly 300 years.
The Hon. Member has said before in this House that he takes great pride in Nova Scotia. The province, he says, has a fine Scottish heritage as exemplified by the celebration of the Meeting of the Clans and by the province's own distinct tartan and kilt.
Another reason which the Hon. Member has given for putting forward this Bill is the profound respect he holds for his province. It is my understanding that the Hon. Member thinks that the use of the expression Nouvelle Ecosse makes a mockery of bilingualism. My colleague feels that the expression translates a proper noun, which has the strength of history behind it, and that it does so without the popular consent of the people who believe in their heritage, and that it is therefore are improper use of a proper noun. He uses as examples to support his allegation the Charter of 1621 by which King
Nova Scotia
James granted Nova Scotia to William Alexander, and the Proclamation of Queen Victoria which brought Canada into nationhood. Both documents referred to the province as "Nova Scotia" exclusively. I believe, as I have already said, that such arguments fly in the face of historical facts which support the legitimacy of Nouvelle Ecosse as a proper designation for the province.
The only practical benefit, I suppose, that the Hon. Member brings forward might be the administrative simplicity of using a single standardized name such as we do for Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba. But it is easy to see that all administrative benefits would be lost when we try to change documents in the future such as maps, legal documents and so forth.
I have very much enjoyed the debate of the Hon. Member on his Bill. I have listened to it a number of times. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to his Bill because I know that he feels strongly about it and that he represents his area and his people very well.
[Translation\


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) did not hear and I should like to give her the floor.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the official designation of the Province of Nova Scotia, and I want to thank the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for tabling this Bill. The Hon. Member has given us a clear demonstration of the fact that in this Chamber, as in the rest of the country, we are entirely free to express our own views and opinions. I am sure Hon. Members realize how important it is to give this proposal full and fair consideration and to do so as quickly as possible.
In my mind, the purpose of this Bill could be defined as follows: Every time the words "Nova Scotia" appear in any act, regulation, legal document, report, contract, lease, licence or other document, the proper designation of the province in both official languages should be "Nova Scotia". More specifically, the purpose of the Bill is to maintain officially the Latin words "Nova Scotia" in all documents, whether drafted in English or in French.
Although the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants stressed the fact it was a matter of semantics, not of bilingualism, I hardly see how the latter issue could be ignored in this case. Any change in the official designation of Nova Scotia, as proposed in this Bill, could be construed as a discourtesy to that part of the population of this province that is of French ancestry.
Mr. Speaker, the question before the House today goes straight to the heart of Acadian history. To state that the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is not proper, is to ignore the
1 1240

November 26, 1987
Nova Scotia
political, social and historic reality of Canada. It could also be seen by some as a symbolic affront to Acadian culture.
Furthermore, substituting the words "Nova Scotia" for the words "Nouvelle-Ecosse" could be seen as an attempt to rewrite history. If this proposal were approved, French history books containing the words "Nouvelle-Ecosse" would become obsolete. Historical, legal and geographical texts would also have to be changed, and the cost would be prohibitive.
There are many considerations justifying the French designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse". It is the name we find in the Treaty of Utrecht-my hon. colleagues mentioned this earlier- under which France ceded the province to Great Britain in 1713. In fact, the province was a French colony from 1667 to 1710 and was originally called "Acadie". A Frenchspeaking community still exists and prospers to this day.
I realize the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has some very sincere and legitimate reasons for tabling this Bill. It is clear this Bill is a pet project. In fact, I believe he initially tabled the Bill in 1977, and did so several times subsequently.
While my colleague is undoubtedly sincere, I would like to bring to his attention that one of the strongest arguments against that proposal is the existence of a large francophone minority in Nova Scotia. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the French were expelled from their homeland, Acadia, in the 18th century and it was only with the greatest difficulty that some of them managed to come back. As I just said, the French language and culture have managed to survive in spite of all difficulties in what was left of Acadia. Although I recognize that the Hon. Member supports the efforts to maintain the French culture in Acadia, changing the official name of Nova Scotia would make things even more difficult in that regard.
I am sure the Hon. Member has some very good reasons to put forward his proposal. For example, a single designation would have obvious benefits in terms of streamlined administration because it would be immediately recognizable by all and would not have to be translated. However, there is a problem as I have already mentioned. If that proposal went through, one of the official languages would seem to be neglected. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been in official use ever since the King of France gave away Acadia to the British. In the end, what might at first seem to be a good idea would raise more problems than it would yield benefits. I believe it is futile to bring in a legislation in order to change the official designation of a geographical area and to ignore history and traditions.
I feel it is my duty to tell the Hon. Member-and I do not question his sincerity or his motivations-that there is no reason to believe that the designation "Nova Scotia" will be willingly accepted. The French name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been fixed by usage and is now part of the linguistic heritage that is shared by all francophones across the country.
Over the years, the expression "Nova Scotia" came to be the English designation of the province. It was accepted by the English because of its cultural connotation and also because the Latin language was predominant in the English court in 1621 when King James the First granted William Alexander the Charter for Nova Scotia. Since then, the name of the province could have been changed for New Scotland, but that has never been done and Nova Scotia has remained the official designation of the province in the English language.
Francophones surely prefer to continue using a clearly French name which, as it happens, has been in use for centuries.
I should like to remind the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that some people do like the French name of his province. It has a familiar ring in all regions of Canada where people speak French, and they certainly would not understand why only the Latin name should be kept. Besides, the French name gives the province a double appellation, English and French, so that Canadians of both cultures feel at home there. Not only would the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants give rise to unsatisfaction in his province, but it would also create a saddening impression among francophones.
For some time now Canadian citizens have been showing signs of a new spirit of agreement and expressing their desire to coexist in harmony. Innocuous though the proposition under study may seem, changing such a magnificent French name as Nouvelle-Ecosse might be misinterpreted by certain inhabitants of the province who bear it, not to mention the rest of Canada. I would therefore advise my colleague to reconsider seriously his suggestion to change the official name of the Province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly sensitive to the cause of francophones outside Quebec and I think they might feel harmed by this measure. As I see it, there are enough reasons to reconsider this proposition and withdraw the Bill. Our magnificient country owes its heritage to more than one community, as evidenced by the presence in this House of French- and English-speaking Members, and we must become aware of our cultural diversity and the distinctive character it gives our country. So let us acknowledge the wealth of this heritage and take it into account so that together we may better prepare the future of this country.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes remaining to say a few words about Bill C-217 standing in the name of my colleague for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). Many things have been said about names that were changed to make them bilingual, but the hon. Member hit a very sensitive chord when he spoke about Roch La Salle and John Wise.
November 26, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I have the same problem as my colleague who finds it difficult to live with the term "Nouvelle-Ecosse" instead of "Nova Scotia". For my part, as a francophone, I prefer "Nouvelle-Ecosse", but that is the opinion of a francophone. As for my own name, it changes according to where I am at the time. When I am in Quebec, I am called "Vincent Della Noce". When 1 am with English-speaking people in the United States or in Quebec, I am called "Vince", and in my own community, I am called "Vincenzo". At times, and this is what I dislike most, often in my own community-


An hon. Member:: Vinny.


Vincent Della Noce: -in certain places, I am called "Vinny", and at my parents and grandparents-I never knew why-1 am called "Jimmy". It sometimes is a problem for me to know which name to use. However, I must point out to my hon. colleague that there is a body in Canada which deals with geographic designations, and this matter should be left up to them, because to change a name, you need the permission either of the province or of the federal Government.
I know that I have no time left, Mr. Speaker, but I preferred to let my colleagues speak. I would have liked to say more because 1 had made some notes, but it is now 6 o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
TRADE-SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX/CLOSURE OF SAWMILLS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to have the opportunity today to raise, under the provisions of this Standing Order, the reply given to me on a question that I asked regarding the softwood lumber tax on October 14, 1987. I am pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), who made the initial attempt to answer my question, is again in the House. I find that one always gets a better response from a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary who is forced to come back a second time and defend what he said or avoided saying the first time around.
Adjournment Debate
There were really two parts to the question that I asked on October 14 which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade did not address. I want to give him the opportunity to address those points clearly and succinctly today and I intend to give him adequate time to do it.
Let me speak about the 15 per cent softwood lumber export duty which the Government agreed-let us use the polite form-with the U.S. Government to impose on Canadian exports of softwood lumber. This was done without any rhyme or reason in the legitimacy of such a charge but simply because this duty was being widely demanded within American lobbying and business circles and within the congressional institutions of the U.S. The 15 per cent export tax that Canada agreed to impose was, as I understood it at the time, imposed as a result of a protectionist measure. It was implemented in Canada at the behest of the U.S. rather than in the United States at the behest of that Government. I understood that the Government had implied clearly to Canadians that the duty would be abolished when a free trade agreement was reached with the United States.
I want the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown to be perfectly clear for the people of Canada, many of whom depend on softwood lumber, which is part of our largest industry, the forest industry, and say whether or not the Government told Canadians at that time that the 15 per cent duty would be removed when a free trade agreement was introduced. That is the first point on which I would like the Member to be very clear with Canadians.
Second is the point raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in a speech outside this place concerning adjustments for areas which are negatively affected by free trade. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether areas that depend on softwood lumber, some of which have been affected by the 15 per cent tax-I am sure the Hon. Member will grant me that-are going to qualify for the adjustment program to which the Prime Minister made a reference in a public speech.
Finally, there is a matter which concerns the accuracy of the record of the House. I am, therefore, somewhat reluctant to mention it but I feel it is essential to do so in the interests of clarification. I understood, although Hansard does not show, the Hon. Member to have stated that 14 mills have closed down as a result of the softwood lumber export tax. I do not wish to presuppose his analysis, as a result of something or another. If there were not 14, I would like the Member to say so and if possible tell us just how many there were.
I had the opportunity on November 17 to list some of the mills which had closed down and which, in the opinion of the management of the mills, had been forced to shut down largely because of the impact of the 15 per cent export tax. Those mills are the Terrace Bay mill; the Longlac mill; the Spruce Falls Power Paper mill; the Smooth Rock Falls mill; the Ainsworth Lumber Company in Savona, B.C.; the Kimberly-

November 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Clark mill in Nakina and the McKenzie Forest Products in Hudson.
There was a clear imputation of inefficiency left on the record by the Hon. Member. I want him to confirm it or to withdraw it. He said:
Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were fair and looked into the mill
closings, of which I have a record here, he would learn that the mills which
have closed down had been operating for quite a period of time at a loss. They
were inefficient mills.
1 just want to have the assurance of either a confirmation or a withdrawal of that statement, in addition to the clarifications mentioned previously.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has brought some new wrinkles into the original question which he raised in the House of Commons on October 14, 1987. I am glad that he finally got around to continuing his question so that 1 might briefly answer it.
To my knowledge there was nowhere that anyone at any time said that the free trade agreement, which we were negotiating with the United States, would wipe out this tax. This was a memorandum of understanding which was written back in 1986 and negotiated in late 1986. To my knowledge I do not know of anyone who said that the free trade agreement would wipe out this 15 per cent tax.
Let me refer to what has been said, since the free trade agreement was reached, by legal experts both in Canada and the United States. This matter came up again with the free trade agreement in the binational arbitration or appeal committee, and on a decision of Commerce it was indicated that it would be thrown out, that it would not happen. The Hon. Member knows that the memorandum of understanding was brought about because the United States softwood lumber industry had laid charges against Canada, the same charges which it laid in 1983. The same people made the decision based on the same facts. The only thing is that they made a 180-degree turn, a different decision. The decision at that time was against Canada.
What had changed? It was only one thing-the political protectionist winds in the United States. The Government negotiated a memorandum of understanding where, instead of a tax or a duty being placed in the United States and it getting the money, the money was kept in Canada and returned to the provinces that owned the resources. As a matter of fact, it was a considerable amount of money. That money could be used by the provinces at their discretion. It was our desire that they would use it to enhance the forestry industry with reforestation. If in fact mills were closed down, they could use the money for adjustment purposes to help the workers.
The Hon. Member talked about mills which had closed down. He said that there were some 14 or 15 mills. I know that the records are kept in the Department of the Minister of State
for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). I have seen the latest list recently, and I do not remember 14 or 15 mills. However, when we analyse those mills that have closed down, we find that it was not because of the 15 per cent export tax. That may have been a very convenient excuse for some of them to use, I do not think there is any question about that.
If he takes a look at the reasons they closed down, I think the Hon. Member will find that they closed down for a number of factors-adequacy of supply, corporate rationalization, and internal reallocation of manpower. All these decisions took place in the closures.
Let us take a look at the statistics, at what has happened in the export of softwood lumber in Canada. We have had a record in exporting softwood lumber around the world. In the United States it has dropped about 3 per cent to August 1987, but it has increased 25 per cent to Japan and 60 per cent to the European Economic Community so far this year.
Over all, our exports are up over last year so the softwood lumber industry is having a record year and doing extremely well. It has not lost its place but has gained. Ontario is exporting more this year to the U.S. than it did in 1985 by some 30 million board feet. The softwood lumber industry in Ontario has not been damaged. Our exports have increased. The opposition Parties are always saying we should broaden our exports. We are doing just that, both in Europe and Japan. The Hon. Member should be up on his feet congratulating the Government for the action it has taken in promoting exports around the world.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT-GOVERNMENT'S ALLEGED FEAR OF BACKLASH IN WEST-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to ask the Government when this House will be discussing Bill C-72, legislation dealing with the order of the House that proposes significant amendments to the Official Languages Act.
It will be remembered that on March 20, 1987, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) whether the Government intended to come up with a firm, specific timeframe concerning appropriate amendments to the Official Languages Act.
That question was following up on the numerous promises made by this Government, the Prime Minister and his ministerial representatives. It will be remembered that in the November 5, 1984, Throne Speech, the Conservative Government was committed to enforcing equality of the official languages and recognized the need for progress within the shortest timeframe.
Also, the October 1st, 1986 Throne Speech told us that the Government would be tabling a bill to amend the Official
November 26, 1987

Languages Act enacted by this Elouse in 1969, in order to bring it in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, as we know, was dealt with and enacted in 1982.
After all those nice promises, Mr. Speaker, in March 1987, as I said, I asked the Government: What is your time frame, what are your proposals?
At that time we still had no actual legislation before us, but there was a certain degree of impatience at the official languages committee level, and some of the Members in this House suggested they were not only impatient with, but perhaps inconvenienced by the lack of action.
However, in June 1987, on June 25 to be more specific, the Government finally came up with a bill, and the three Parties in this House agreed that it was rather positive, that surely some improvements were needed, but generally we were all in support.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, that is since June 25, 1987, we have seen no action whatsoever. Why? There may be reasons. On March 20, when I asked my question, it will be remembered, 1 referred at that point to Conservative Members, and I had in mind the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Conservative Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) who was reported in La Presse as having said that the delay was due, to quote him, to "barbarian and dynosaurian reactions" of some Members.
Whether that annoyed some people or not, my friend Charles Hamelin no longer chairs the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He was replaced. All I know is, he and many others in this House are concerned with the delay.
Mr. Speaker, things have to be done, and they must be done with all possible speed.
There are federal-provincial memorandums of agreement that have to be signed with the provinces by June 1988 on educational matters.
Hon. Members will recall that Bill C-72 includes a very important and very well-written preamble which provides, and I shall summarize it very quickly, that the official languages will be not only protected, but also promoted, which provision the Government would not entrench in the Meech Lake Accord. We were told at the time: "Do not worry, the Bill will correct this deficiency by including the obligation to promote for the federal Government." Federal-provincial agreements representing several hundred million dollars are scheduled to be signed before the end of June 1988. These agreements deal with education in the official languages and are important for the minority groups, French-speaking outside Quebec and English-speaking in Quebec, and for all those who take French or English as a second language in primary or secondary school. These agreements are supposed to be signed by next June. Federal-provincial negociations take a long time, Mr. Speaker! If the new Official Languages Act does not receive passage before the end of December or the beginning of
Adjournment Debate
January, how can the provincial and federal representatives at the bargaining table come to an agreement?
I suggest that it is important for the Government to announce its schedule, not only because of this very important question of the federal-provincial agreements, but also because of the fact that the experts have to prepare the related regulations after any bill is passed. The regulations related to Bill C-72 will have a very important impact on the behaviour of certain federal agencies and departments.
God knows, Mr. Speaker, that we have discussed this issue at length in this House and that the Committee on Official Languages regularly examines the inertia or lack of positive action on the part of certain departments and agencies in putting the Act in practice. They keep telling us to wait for the new legislation. Not much can be done for the time being because, after all, everything is going to change. Mr. Speaker, patience has its limits. I say to the Government: Do something! Get down to brass tacks! Bring Bill C-72 before the House for second reading so that we can get it over with, get down to the nitty-gritty, establish regulations, and tell the Departments, the agencies and all those people who are marking time to get moving, because something has to be done.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary-I am not sure who is going to answer for the Government but, in any case, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to give me the assurance that the Official Languages Bill, Bill C-72, is not being stonewalled by certain groups in the Conservative Caucus that are opposed to the new legislation, and I want him to give me the assurance that because of its concern for Canadian unity and for bringing in amendments that are absolutely essential, this Government will table the Bill for consideration between now and the end of December. I can give him the assurance that after thorough consideration, we in the Opposition will be prepared to expedite the passage of this Bill-I suppose that may sound rather surprising-and to offer our co-operation in helping the Government adopt this legislation as soon as possible, after, of course, giving due consideration to the amendments we wish to propose.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Government this evening to give me the assurance that it intends to see to it the Bill is adopted soon.
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) alluded in the House during Question Period on June 2 to possible amendments to the Official Languages Act and the process initiated by the Government to renew Canada's linguistic policy. The Hon. Member wanted to know when the Bill would be introduced in Parliament and whether the Government's alleged delay stemmed from fear of some sort of backlash. I can assure him that that was not the case.

November 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I was asked by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to provide further explanation in relation to the questions raised by the Member of Parliament about the future policy on official languages in Canada.
I may first say that following the establishment of the committee of Deputy Ministers, including representatives of Treasury Board, Secretary of State, and the Department of Justice, a great amount of work was done. The current official languages legislation as well as related policy and programs were studied in light of the evolution and needs of Canadian society and of the legal consequences of the new obligation prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ministers responsible for the renewal were regularly informed of the results of the undertaking.
Before adding final touches to the Bill, in-depth consultations were held in January and February with members of the groups representing the linguistic minority communities, the Commissioner of Official Languages and others closely interested in linguistic matters. These persons were witness to the progress that has been made.
Following these very fruitful discussions, some time was needed to look at the comments and proposals with all due care and attention. We pursued this work in a most diligent fashion in order to be able to get on with the renewal, and as the Hon. Member knows, the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons not long after his question in June, 1987.
The Hon. Member knows that the Government's schedule has been extremely busy. The House has been seized with many Bills over the last number of months since this Bill was introduced, including emergency legislation and other very important legislation, as this is.
1 am sure the Hon. Member knows full well that the Government timetable is negotiated between all Parties in the House through our House Leaders. They meet regularly, as often as twice a week, to discuss the timetable. I suggest that the Hon. Member contact his House Leader and ask that this be placed on the agenda of the next House Leader's meeting so they can discuss a timetable as to when this Bill might be brought forward in the House.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-SALE OF CANADIAN COMPANY TO AMERICAN CORPORATION/TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, I posed a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) with respect to the sale of Cimtech, a small high tech subsidiary of Bata Industries Limited, to Microdynamic of Dallas, Texas.
At issue was the fact that Cimtech had received approximately $1.7 million in support of the development of two kinds of CAD-CAM technology consisting of Digiton and Dexkon technology for the purpose of designing shoes.
The first device is very unique because it permits the three dimensional duplication of shapes and forms. That is not just applicable to the shoe industry but to a number of other areas as well.
Since this research was supported by the I RAP program, we have a situation in which technology developed at Government cost is now being sold to a foreign interest which, under normal circumstances, is excluded by the conditions which pertain when an agreement is entered into between the Government and a recipient of an I RAP grant.
In posing the question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology we were informed that the technology and associated software would remain in Canada, but production would go to Dallas. In spite of the fact that we were told negotiations were still taking place, at least nine people were laid off by Cimtech in connection with this acquisition.
Of course, a number of questions arise. While the conditions do limit the transfer of the technology for a period of time, it does not directly address the issue of a sale to a corporation located in another country. As well, there is the specific question about what conditions have been implemented in respect of this acquisition and whether the manufacture as well as the technology and software remain in Canada. Obviously, it makes little sense for the Government to support the development of technology if that technology, which is presumably intended to produce jobs, is transferred to another country.
Incidentally, IRAP has produced quite a number of jobs at the comparatively small price of $1,500 per job. I should note that Cimtech has over a period of time sold some portions of its CAD system to other manufacturers, three in the United States, one in Japan, one in West Germany and one in Canada, So the serious question is raised of what utility is IRAP if the conditions imposed are not sufficiently secure to ensure that if we develop a technology, theoretically for the production of jobs, these jobs will not be ultimately in another country? What good does it do?
Of course, this raises the general question, what is to be the fate of Government supported technology development and the commodities produced therefrom in the event, under the new investment rules, it is acquired by, for example, U.S. firms? In particular, when one looks at the free trade agreement and finds vastly relaxed acquisition rules, are we not opening up a situation in which the Government invests in technology and the technology is sold to the United States or elsewhere for jobs to be produced there?
It occurs to me as well that there are two still broader issues that should be questioned. First, under the free trade agreement, is an IRAP grant to be considered a subsidy? Is it going to be an acceptable subsidy? And what regulations are going to obtain under that agreement in respect to government support for science and technology? Of course one of the great
November 26, 1987

deficiencies we have to address with respect to the development of manufacturing in Canada is a vastly increased investment in science, research and technology. What are we going to do to protect its growth here? What mechanisms are going to be available to us? How is it going to be possible under the agreement to ensure that whatever technology, however supported, is not merely going to be transferred to the United States? These are quite significant questions, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate. These are questions that must be addressed.
Let me reiterate and summarize the questions asked. What exactly is going to go on with respect to Cimtech, not only with respect to the technology, the software, but also the actual production of shoes? Are we not in danger of having supported technology development for the production of jobs, and those jobs, as a consequence of the acquisition by Microdynamics, being transferred to the United States?
In general terms, since there does not seem to be a specific rule or regulation applicable, how do we address the situation in which we make an investment to encourage the development of technology only to have that technology acquired by a U.S. firm when it is supported, for example, in this case by I RAP? How are such subsidies for the support of science and technology to continue under a free trade agreement in which subsidies, by and large, are to be removed? Finally, in general, how can government under the free trade agreement ensure science and technology development is going to occur in Canada within a context where all of it can be purchased, and the industries that produce it can be purchased, by the United States firms which will consequently deprive Canada not only of the technology but of the jobs that can be produced from that technology?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) for raising this question, for it gives me an opportunity to reassure him and describe the guarantees provided under the Industrial Research Assistance Program-IRAP-to protect the interests of the country.
IRAP is a very effective $75 million program administered by the National Research Council of Canada, and $28 million more have been added for the next four years under the InnovAction program. It offers both technical advice and research funding to Canadian businesses, particularly small-and medium-sized. When research work is involved, IRAP pays only part of it.
When a company, including a multinational company, asks the NRC for support, it must ensure that the technology is marketed in Canada. Contribution agreements include several clauses to that effect. Generally, beneficiaries agree that the technology will be used in Canada for at least five years after the end of the research project and that they will have to seek
Adjournment Debate
permission from the NRC if they want to market the technology elsewhere. Also, it is indicated in the agreements that the NRC will consider granting an exception only if it is in the best interest of Canada to do so.
Cimtech was owned by a Canadian concern, namely Bata, and has received a grant for a research program for the development of computer software and hardware that could be helpful in the design of shoes; in other words, it was a computer assisted design project.
The project went very smoothly, but ultimately Bata decided not to build the new computer assisted design work stations. Rather, it sold Cimtech to a Texas firm, namely Microdynamics, in return for shares of the latter corporation. Microdynamics is a world leader in the area of computer assisted design work stations for shoes and also has expertise in the area of clothes computer assisted design.
Officials from the NRC have been in contact with the three companies from the start. They have ensured that everybody understand the demands of Canada regarding the development of this technology that was made possible by funding from IRAP. As was agreed, the NRC will examine the matter together with Microdynamics before any final decision is taken as to the production site.
Althought the matter is not yet completely settled, the broad parameters have now been defined and illustrate the advantages yielded by IRAP in the Canadian interest. Cimtech will remain as a distinct subsidiary located in Canada. Its software capacity will be increased and in this area it will take up some of the work now being done in Texas. Cimtech will continue to produce some hardware although the bulk of this activity will now be done in the United States. When customers buy work stations, they buy both hardware and software and Cimtech benefits from the sale of its computer programs. In other words, Cimtech's strong point-its software capacity-will be increased and its capacity to sell that software will be considerably increased thanks to its relations with an efficient hardware manufacturer with an international sales network. The software is not a small addition to these work stations, it is the very heart of the project. So the number of jobs will increase at Cimtech.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, even though the Hon. Member is extremely concerned about the effects of the free trade agreement on the IRAP program, one only has to consider the other side of the issue to see that the IRAP will be beneficial to Canadian industries in enabling them to better compete with their competitors in the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers