1988-08-19

Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Valcourt, for Mr. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Jelinek, moves that Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: From a procedural point of view, I do not want to anticipate what Hon. Members may want to do,
a (1010)
Neither do I want to plunge ahead of the wishes of some Members. Is the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary seeking the floor?


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House to move from second reading to Committee of the Whole and perhaps complete this Bill in all stages relatively quickly.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I am not not aware of any such discussions that have gone on leading to that kind of agreement. It is customary, Sir, to have the Government explain why it is bringing in such a Bill, and it is usual for the Opposition Parties to take the opportunity to make a few comments. That is the normal practice.
It is true that we want this Bill to pass quickly. It is an important piece of legislation which corrects a mistake we made. However, we do want a few minutes of House time to deal with it.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my understanding that we are going to go through all stages of Bill C-150, the
death rule, but there is one amendment in relation to the Bill which I believe will have all-Party support in a moment. Perhaps we could make our remarks at third reading.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are two suggestions. Remarks at third reading comes from one Party. I think, if I can translate what came from the Official Opposition, he would like some explanation of the Bill at the second reading level or at the beginning of Committee of the Whole stage. The Government is very flexible on this. If Members would like the Minister to introduce the Bill and make a few remarks with respect to it, I am sure there will be no problem.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to my colleagues in the House that we want to facilitate the passage of this Bill. The only point I was making on behalf of the Official Opposition was that there were some points my Party, the Liberal Party, want to put on the record with respect to Bill C-150. That can be done at the second reading stage or it can be done at the third reading stage, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The only point I make is that we want some remarks on the record.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think there is a consensus in the House, Mr. Speaker, to move through second reading, Committee of the Whole, and the three Parties would make appropriate remarks at the third reading stage.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that while I am often called upon to read minds here, it is not always easy.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification) moved: that Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. 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. Redway in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Redway):: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules).

August 19, 1988
Indian Act
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, we think we can move through this stage quite quickly. The Opposition has one main concern with respect to Bill C-150, and that is simply: Do we have it right this time? The Assembly of First Nations has looked at it and my office has looked at it and we think we do. However, we were fooled before. Therefore, we are seeking your guidance, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend and colleague from the New Democratic Party has consulted with the Law and Government Division in the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament and we think that if there were a small improvement made to the accompanying note, we might both then be satisfied.
I will not try to intrude on his territory in this respect because he has done the background work, but I would like your advice, Mr. Chairman. Can we now, under Clause 1, make a modest clarifying amendment to the accompanying note. If so, I will yield to my hon. friend to make the appropriate motion.


Alan Redway: Subject to whether or not the motion is in order, most certainly the Member can proceed to introduce that amendment at the present time.


James Ross Fulton: The difficulty there has been is well known across the country. The Bill, as it was originally drafted, under Clauses 6 and 11, inhibited certain people whose parents died prior to April 17, 1985, and another case is in relation to entitlement from 1987. The intention of the amendment which has been drafted by a legal counsel to our committee, Bruce Carson, has been shown to the Minister and to my hon. friend from Cochrane-Superior. I believe it is in order and acceptable to the Government and to the two opposition Parties.
Page la of the Bill under "Explanatory Notes" states:
This amendment, which adds the underlined words, would modify the rules respecting entitlement of persons to registration so that the date of death of a parent or other ancestor would not be a factor in determining such entitlement.
To ensure that we do not run into the problem with justice or departmental interpretation, as we have found over the past more than a year, which affected many women and their children, we would add these words following the word "entitlement":
-as it is not the purpose of this Act to erect barriers to entitlement to registration.
That simply adds clarification in terms of departmental officials and others interpreting what our intentions are in adding the words "(f) or subsection (2)" and "provision". It will make it abundantly clear, for interpretation, that it was not the intention of Parliament previously to bring in a death rule and that it is certainly not the intention of Parliament now, nor of any of the Parties in this House, to prolong or carry on with the death rule. Therefore, I would so move, and I
believe my friend from Cochrane-Superior would second this amendment. The Minister has a copy, as does my friend.


Alan Redway: As I understand it, the Table Officers will be checking the amendment to see that it is in order. However, they do advise me that if this is an amendment to the explanatory notes as opposed to the Bill, it will create some problems.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I understand the approach. There is always some problem. There is always something in the way, some reason that one cannot do something. We get so weary of living with that.
However, there is a way in Parliament in which we can get around that. That is simply if you, Mr. Chairman, will seek unanimous consent to proceed to modify the explanatory note as suggested by my hon. friend, we could then proceed with dispatch. We do not need to search, then, through Beauchesne's and all manner of precedents. I think that we can do this, provided that the Government is willing and there is no Member of Parliament who objects. I think in this way we can proceed expeditiously.


Alan Redway: I do want to hear from the Minister. Perhaps, just before he comments, I can say that my advice is that what we are doing and what Parliament always does is adopt the various clauses of the Bill and adopt the Bill itself but not adopt the explanatory notes. Therefore perhaps counsel can make some modifications in them, but this House does not adopt the explanatory notes themselves. With that, perhaps the Minister has some comment.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Chairman, I am no expert on procedure. I do know one thing. When the courts have to interpret the statute they do not look at explanatory notes. However, I understand the position of both my colleagues. We have no objection to giving unanimous consent to agree with this amendment to the explanatory notes, because what it purports to do is exactly what this Bill attempts to do. We have no objection. If in order to avoid the problems of the Table we have to give unanimous consent, I am sure that Members on this side of the House will give that consent.


Alan Redway: Once more, if I might just comment, my advice is that the explanatory notes are not printed in the Bill which is passed by the House aqd sent on to the Senate. In interpreting the Bill it may be that the judge will look back at some of the comments that have been made here, or whatever. My advice is that at best what we might be able to do is, by unanimous consent, recommend this to the parliamentary counsel and that perhaps in some way they might be included in some fashion.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that for the purposes of the record it will be shown that when this Bill was sent back for third reading the explanatory note had been
August 19, 1988

amended to incorporate that change. It will be a matter of record. I guess that is all my hon. colleagues are looking for. Hence, I do not see any problem for the House in adopting this amendment, with unanimous consent, and when we go to third reading we all know very well that we do not incorporate the explanatory into the final Bill but that it will be a matter of record.


Alan Redway: If that is agreed, then, we will carry on on that basis. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: When shall the Bill be read a third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Hon. Bernard Valcourt, Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today, and my comments will be brief, to ask the House to consider and provide quick passage of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act. It is understood that with the consent of the two Opposition Parties, we shall proceed with all stages of Bill today.
This Bill will eliminate from the present Act a number of provisions that would otherwise unfairly deprive certain persons of their entitlement to registration as Indians.
The proposed amendments are directly connected with major progressive changes introcuced by this Government in 1985 with respect to the Indian Act, changes that were subsequently adopted by Parliament. These changes, known as Bill C-31, were aimed at bringing the provisions of the Indian Act into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by eliminating discriminatory provisions, restoring Indian status and band membership and increasing control of Indians over their own affairs.
As a result, we have ensured that men and women receive equal treatment, that children are treated fairly, whether or not they were born out of wedlock, that people who lost their Indian status as a result of discriminatory measures or enfranchisement could recover their status, and finally, that the direct descendants of such persons would also have registration entitlement.
Indian Act

Bill C-31 was a major step forward in the history and progress of Canada's Indian people. The response to the opportunities afforded by these amendments has been heavy.
To date, more than 45,000 Indians have been registered under the new provisions, and applications are still being received at the rate of some 35 per day. In the initial stages, some backlog in processing applications occurred, but this backlog is now being eliminated.
The Government, of course, is committed to provide additional funding to Indian bands as a consequence of the increase in membership and the social and other needs these increases engender. The commitment has been met, although some say partially. Funding for the implementation of Bill C-31 has nearly doubled in the past 12 months, from $40 million in 1987-88 to some $72 million in the current year.
In general, the provisions of Bill C-31 are working well and have been well received by native Canadians.

However, although this Bill was carefully drafted, after thorough consultation with the groups concerned, the Government was advised that a provision of the present Act might have the effect of excluding certain persons we had no intention of excluding.
This technical error arises basically from the so-called "death rule" which adversely affects requests for registration based on the initial right of the person's granparents. More specifically, it affects applicants if one or both parents were deceades before April 17, 1985. This was clearly a mistake, and we acted as quickly as possible to draft the requisite amendment.
In the process, we received the positive and unanimous support of the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, the Native Women's Association and other native groups.
Members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, on both sides of the House, also agreed this matter should be dealt with as soon as possible.
The changes proposed today will correct the situation.
They have been made retroactive to April 17, 1985, to ensure justice and fairness, not only to future applicants but to those whose applications are now before us.
The total number of individuals directly affected by this measure is relatively small. However, that is not the main point. The entire purpose behind Bill C-31 was to eliminate discrimination and ensure fairness in the Indian Act. Even if only one person was unjustly denied status, it would be one too many. It is for that reason that I urge all Members in all

August 19, 1988
Indian Act
Parties, and we have their co-operation, to give speedy passage to the Bill in order that it may be enacted into law at the earliest possible date.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible in order to facilitate quick passage of Bill C-150. However, I need to take a few moments because some of the things the Minister has said, as my hon. friend from Skeena has noted in side-long glances to me, have been, to say the least, provocative.
What the House is doing with Bill C-150 is once more amending the Indian Act. We are amending the Indian Act this time to correct a drafting error, or what the Minister called a "technical error", from a previous set of amendments to the same Act, a series of amendments presented by the Government in a Bill known as Bill C-31. That is a rather famous Bill among the Indian people of Canada. That Bill provided that persons who had lost their Indian status because of marriage or some other antiquated reason could now apply to have that status restored, and in some cases they could also have their membership in a band returned to them.
For a very long time in Canada the aspirations of governments was that somehow we do away with this special status that has been ascribed to Indian persons. We wanted to assimilate them and make them part of the nation in a way that ran counter to their own cultural aspirations, to their own view of themselves as nations who had entered into a treaty relationship with the Government of Canada. For at least 20 years that idea has been abandoned, although it keeps cropping up again. We are always nervous about this attempt to fail to recognize the special place that Indian people have in the Canadian nation.
In response to what the Minister said on Bill C-31, I want to say to the House that almost everything connected with Bill C-31 could be described as a litany of bungling. There has been goof-up after goof-up like a parade of clowns. First, the commitment from the Minister of the day, the predecessor to the current Minister, was that as a result of Bill C-31 "no band would be worse off'. Despite what the Minister said this morning, that commitment has not been lived up to. It has hardly been partially lived up to. There has been a monumental failure on the part of the Government to live up to its obligations under Bill C-31.
The costs that the Minister mentioned this morning that have gone to Indian people as a result of Bill C-31 have meant that there has been a curtailment in other areas. For example, the housing programs on Indian reserves have not been touched at all. The backlog has not been dented at all since 1984, not at all.
In addition, the Government has decided to put a cap on educational assistance for Indian young persons who are seeking entrance into universities and colleges. As of last September, because of the Government's action, 1,000 of these young people who qualified and had a place at a college or
university ready for them were denied access because the Government refused to fund them.
Despite pressure from the opposition Parties, an obligation in Bill C-31 for a parliamentary committee to review the impact of Bill C-31 was delayed and delayed and delayed. Now, Sir, at long last we have a report that is ready for the printer. However, why has that report not been presented to Parliament? It is because it is locked up in the chairman's office. Repeated telephone calls to the chairman's office have not brought any response at all. We do not even know where he is. Presumably he is out campaigning for re-election, which raises an interesting question: "Why would you want to seek re-election when you have not yet completed the job from the last time you were elected?"
When the legislative drafters put together Bill C-31 they erred in Clause 6(3) and Clause 11(3). Under those clauses it became possible in some cases to deny registration to an Indian person where an applicant's parents had died before April 17, 1985, or to deny band membership where an applicant's parents has died before June 28, 1987.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), in speaking at the committee stage, indicated to the House that that never ever was the intent. It was not the intent of the Government. It was not the intent of the committee which examined the Bill that that restriction should be there, but that is exactly what happened. In fact, the provisions of the Bill were to ensure that no applicant would be disadvantaged by parental death. That was the real purpose. It was meant to be inclusive and not to be exclusive. What went wrong?
What went wrong, Sir, was that someone in the Department of Justice-and one can only imagine what went on, whether the cribbage tournament had come to an end or all the crossword puzzles had been completed-picked up Bill C-31 and said: "Here is a way in which we can create a new obstacle to the registration of Indian persons". I am sure there must have been glee and jubilation in many of the burrows, hollows, and cubby-holes of the bureaucracy because a new obstacle had been discovered.
That always reminds me of the classic description of the difference between a bureaucrat and a public servant. A bureaucrat will always give a hundred reasons plus why something absolutely cannot be done, and a public servant will search diligently for a way to solve a problem and improve the life of a citizen.
However it happened, the death rule created an obstacle. Cooler heads realized that this had to be corrected. It was an injustice against Indian people. It was an interpretation of the Act that was never intended.
I want the House to know, both the government side and the opposition side, that there is a lesson here for all of us to learn. We should never, ever have blind faith or total trust in those who draft the Government's Bills. There is a tendency around here to think that anything that arrives out of the dens,
August 19, 1988

burrows, and hollows of the bureaucracy has to be letter perfect. There is a tendency to believe that. There is also a tendency to believe that parliamentarians are just a bunch of amateur lawmakers, and how could they ever conceivably correct something that has come out of the Department of Justice. Why, it is insulting and arrogant of parliamentarians to think that they could ever do that! Well, if that were so, I wonder why there are so many times in which we have to amend Bills in this House. It so often happens, Sir, because in many cases the law is in fact an ass. The law is an ass because it has been badly drafted. It has been drafted in a confusing way so that it creates enormous problems for some of our citizens or all of them, as the case may be.
We now have Bill C-150, and it is taking up important time of the House. Why? It is because there was careless drafting in the first place, and then, to add insult to injury, Justice decided to put its own twisted interpretation upon the drafting that it had done. It is causing a lot of difficulty for the House, but leave the House aside. I want you to know how much hurt has resulted from this for many Indian persons who have been seeking reinstatement, seeking to have their status restored, and have run up against this particular brick wall.
I thank you, Sir, and I thank the House for allowing me to get that grievance off my chest. I feel a little bit better for having done so. I want to say that we want this Bill to proceed quickly. My only concern is: Have we now got it right? My confidence obviously has been shaken. Have we now got it right, or will my hon. friend from Skeena and myself be told some time next year that as a result of Bill C-150 no one at all can apply to be reinstated, or of all those who have been reinstated, all those reinstatements are null and void? I know, Sir, that that is unlikely, and I am expressing my concerns in an extreme way. We have had our fingers burned here. I say to my friends in the House that we have to be cautious.
As a general rule, almost all Indian legislation that has been passed by this and successive Parliaments has been bad legislation, and most agreements that this Government and previous Governments have negotiated with Indian Nations have always been subject to those kinds of interpretations in which the Government of Canada comes out the winner and the Indian nation or the group of Indian nations that have involved themselves in that agreement have come out the losers. That is why Indian people have so much suspicion about the whole legislative process. That is why they pause and hesitate and delay when they sign agreements. They are always looking for that hook which will pull them down. They are always looking for the trick, for the con. There has been too much of that by Governments of the past.
Recently, a document came to my desk which contained a check list to be followed by those negotiators who wish to see issues resolved between the Government of Canada and Indian nations. There is no time for me to review that list and I do not intend to do it, but I want to make the point, briefly and
Indian Act
simply, that if Government-Indian relations in Canada are ever to improve, it is absolutely essential that we begin with a change in attitude, particularly on the part of those on the government side who are in face-to-face contact with Indian leaders, whether it is at the negotiating table or elsewhere. The so-called trust responsibility, which is so often referred to, has a variety of meanings and a variety of implications, but an elemental aspect of that is that we establish a climate of trust. Only in that climate can there be good and progressive and helpful work which can be done to improve Government-Indian relations.
I will conclude by saying that Bill C-150 has been examined-and the Minister mentioned this-by the Assembly of First Nations, by the Native Council of Canada, by my office, by our parliamentary counsel to the committee, and by my hon. friend from Skeena. It appears to be satisfactory, but, as that line goes in a play by G. B. Shaw by the very same title, "You never can tell, Sir. You never can tell".


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to put a few remarks on the record in relation to Bill C-150. As the Minister said, it is true that the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, and the Native Women's Association had a chance to look at the draft of this Bill, but not because of anything the Government had done. I sent a copy of the draft over to them on Monday so that they would have an opportunity to have a look at it before it came before the House this morning.
It is true, as my friend from Cochrane-Superior and the Minister have said, that it appears to meet the test of allowing those who have been denied the opportunity to be reinstated to have that done now. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it is fully retroactive to April 17, 1985. Those who are now allowed to have their registration process go forward here in Ottawa will have all those benefits and entitlements that they have been denied these past three years given to them in one lump, once they are registered and have their status returned.
The registration entitlement was first consolidated in the Indian Act in 1876, and here we stand, 112 years later, adding one more chip to the pile of problems and complex rules that are very, very technical. My friend from Cochrane-Superior and I, heard evidence on Bill C-31 for many months, beginning last September until June, indicating that there are probably very few, perhaps only a handful, of Canadians who actually understand all the highly technical and complex rules that apply to women and to those who have different blood quantum, those second generations rules and all those things the Government of Canada has seen fit to bring in over the last 112 years.
I hope that this is a stepping stone, that Parliament will soon listen to what the First Nations have been saying and give serious and determined consideration to the concept of selfgovernment and self-determination, so that it is the First Nations that decide citizenship, status, and band membership,

August 19, 1988
Indian Act
rather than Parliament continuing to bring forward ever more complex, highly technical, legal language.
Those applying for reinstatement or first time registration face an unbelievable bureaucratic nightmare, as we have heard from the witnesses who came before our standing committee in relation to Bill C-31. Everyone recognizes that the death rule that we are amending today is a legal defect, that it was not the intention of this House or of any Party to bring it forward. As my friend from Cochrane-Superior stated so well, there is a distinct difference between bureaucrats and public servants and between interpretation by the Department of Justice and the interests of those who want to see Parliament act. First, Clause 6(3) results in a denial of registration for an applicant whose parents died before April 17, 1985, or, second, Clause 11(3) results in a denial of band membership for an applicant whose parents died before June 28, 1987.
We must keep in mind that these amendments came into force in 1985 in order to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to a great extent thanks to the work of Miss Lovelace who took this matter all the way to the United Nations. Bill C-31 did not come in of its own volition. It was only under international pressure that Canada brought it into compliance with international human rights standards.
The Government originally estimated 65,000 applicants for reinstatement between 1985 and 1990. Now, 118,000 are expected, according to government estimates, and we have heard evidence before the committee that it may run far higher than that, up to 130,000 or more.
We do not know how many individuals are blocked by the death rule, but we do know that the Minister and the Government have known for more than a year and have done nothing. Bill C-150 should have been before this House a year ago. Applications have been simply held in limbo, kept on ice across the river in Hull.
By May of 1988, over 100,000 applications had come in. Some 54 per cent were from adults and some 46 per cent were from minors. Likely hundreds are held up by the death rule because only 52 per cent of the over 100,000 applications have been completed by the Government. Some 74 per cent of completions have resulted in new registrations with 26 per cent disallowance. The applications by region were the highest from Ontario with 29,000. British Columbia was second with 18,000 and Alberta was third with 13,000; then came Manitoba with
12.000,	Quebec with 11,000, Saskatchewan with 10,000, the Atlantic region with 4,000, the Northwest Territories with
2.000,	and Yukon with 2,500.
Registration delay has had far-reaching impacts on thousands of individuals in terms of health care, education, housing, residents taxation, and, in particular, participation in culture and membership in their home communities and
nations. This amendment has been a long time in coming, and it is shameful that once again the First Nations are treated to such second-class treatment by any Government.
I want to touch briefly on a comment made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). He quoted David Crombie when he was the Minister responsible who said: "No band would be worse off'. We have heard evidence from across the country, including both Yukon and the N.W.T., and we have been unable to find a band of the close to 600 bands in Canada that is not worse off. It is a tragedy that a promise in relation to something which came about because of the good work of the United Nations could not be lived up to by a Government of Canada.
I want to conclude by referring to the Bill C-31 report of the standing committee which relates directly to the death rules. We have the draft, as my hon. friend pointed out, and it has been locked up in the chairman's office for two months now. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, myself, and two members from the government side have now taken the extraordinary measure of invoking Standing Order 92(2) of this Chamber to order the chairman to come back to Ottawa to do what he is paid to do. Beyond his pay as a Member of Parliament, he is paid to chair the committee.
I have been trying to get a return call for a long time, as I know has my friend from Cochrane-Superior. I would hope that the chairman of the committee would find some way, either with a road-map, on an aircraft, or some other way, to get back to Ottawa and make the report which is required by statute.
As of June, 1987, our standing committee was required to report to Parliament forthwith under a statutory requirement. How many Canadians have been dragged before the courts for not living up to a law? Here we have a standing committee with seven Members of Parliament including five government Members, one Liberal Member, and one New Democrat, who have been unable, in 14 months, to live up to a statutory requirement to report forthwith on the impact of Bill C-31 on the First Nations of Canada.
I would hope that as a result of this debate, and perhaps with the assistance of the Minister who is here today, a call might be made to the chairman of that committee to return to Ottawa. If he does not comply, he will be dragged here pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), being in flagrant violation of the wishes of the standing committee, to report on Bill C-31 which has extensive technical information on the death rules and on the over-all impact of Bill C-31 on the First Nations.
In the interests of the more than one million first citizens of Canada and members of the First Nations, I would hope that the Minister would take just such action today to ensure that the Member from Cape Breton returns to Ottawa and does what he should with regard to the death rules and Bill C-31, that is, report on that Bill to Parliament and the people of Canada.
August 19, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I think you would find a predisposition in the Chamber to attempt, in relatively expeditious fashion, to finish report stage of this Bill and then to go immediately to third reading stage.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point or order. We agree that Bill C-123 can be dealt with expeditiously. Speaking for this Party, it is not even necessary for there to be any speeches at the third reading stage. The Bill was extensively debated at second reading and has been before the committee.
I will be satisfied if I have at least the opportunity to submit for consideration one of two amendments. I understand that my first amendment was ruled out of order, and I understand that the second one has been ruled in order. If there can be consideration by the House of this amendment and an explanation by myself about why I introduced it, that will suffice and I think we could conclude consideration of this Bill very quickly.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like just a few moments to put some remarks on the record in relation to Bill C-123. It does involve trust accounts that are being held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada involving over $900 million. I think it is important that some concluding remarks in relation to Bill C-123 be put on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: I assume that those remarks would be put at third reading. I have a ruling by the Speaker with respect to Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share).
There are two motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-123. Motion No. 1 causes the Chair some difficulty because it seeks to amend the original Act, contrary to Citation 773(8) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads as follows:
(8)(a) An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the committee. Journals, March 28, 1969, p. 862. Journals, June 11, 1970, p. 993.
(b) An amendment may not amend sections from the original Act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee. Debates, December 15, 1977, p. 1909.
Therefore, I must rule that Motion No. 1 is out of order, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior indicated.
Motion No. 2 is in order and I will now put Motion No. 2 to the House.


B. Keith Penner: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-123 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"and who the council determined to be the parent or person to whom the payment is to be made or, if so requested by the council on giving its consent to that distribution, to the council to be held in trust and paid for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child to a parent or person who is responsible for the care and custody of the child and who the council determines to be the parent or person to whom the payment is to be made."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment moves to delete certain lines in Bill C-123 and replace them with the motion before you. The purpose of this is simple, that is, to provide for the exclusion of provincial social services in the distribution of minors' trust funds.
My hon. friends in the House ought to be aware that there is a very deep and abiding resentment on the part of Indian nations toward direct interference by a provincial jurisdiction in their affairs. At every opportunity they attempt to make it clear that their relationship is a special relationship with the Government of Canada, a relationship underscored by treaties which have been entered into and by the fact of our Constitution itself, namely, Section 91(24) which says that Indians and lands reserved for Indians are an exclusive federal responsibility-
This amendment simply says that minors' trust funds which now go to parents, guardians of Indian children, or band councils, may not be grabbed by provincial agencies. That is the purpose, Sir, and I would like the House to give serious consideration to that motion to improve Bill C-123.
OO)


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should tell the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) that while we now have to move on to Statements by Members and Question Period, if the Hon. Member would wish to speak further, of course I would recognize him after Routine Proceedings, and that would also apply to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and others.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has peculiar ideas on the environment and the economy. Its priority actually seems to be

August 19, 1988
pollution. Look, for example, at the way in which the Western Diversification Fund is spent.
From a memo released by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) summarizing projects funded so far, we learn that Vicell Canada Tissue Limited in Delta, British Columbia, receives $4.6 million of taxpayers' money "to manufacture dry formed tissue for sale to paper converters who will produce end products such as wipes, disposable towelling, and serviettes". From the same memo we learn that ISCA Management of Vancouver gets $21,000 "to market a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy for a $1-million research and development project on acid rain control systems".
What a strange sense of priorities for this Government, spending 200 times more on the production of more litter than on the prevention of acid rain. Would you not agree, Mr. Speaker?



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on August 20, 1968, Czechoslovakia's hopes for freedom and independence were crushed when Soviet troops invaded the city of Prague. The invaders came to crush the Prague Spring, a brave experiment in independence. Soviet troops occupy Czechoslovakia to this day.
Canada was the beneficiary of this sad episode. Thousands of Czechs and Slovaks emigrated here and have since made enormous contributions to their new home. Let us not forget the terrible price that the people of Czechoslovakia paid for the attempts to reform their society.
Today, when so many of the rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy are denied to the Czechoslovakian people by a Soviet puppet regime, let us join together with Czechoslovakians in commemorating the twentieth anniversary of their brave attempt to restore freedom and justice in Czechoslovakia.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Hamilton has one more example of the disastrous corporate plans that are so characteristic of Canada Post. Not only is this government corporation jeopardizing Canadian jobs and cutting back essential services, it is also potentially responsible
for the demolition of an historical building in downtown Hamilton.
Canada Post announced plans earlier this month for a new postal plant to replace the present antiquated facilities. It plans to do this by demolishing a building of historical importance. The local architectural conservation advisory committee cannot give the building historical designation without Canada Post's approval. This just shows how little this corporation cares about the communities it serves.
There is unfortunately little hope that Canada Post will listen to the concerns of Hamiltonians. After all, it has not cared about the women and men who have lost a decent living wage because of privatization. It has not listened to the citizens of rural Canada who have fewer and fewer postal services, and it certainly has not listened to the seniors and the disabled people who no longer get door-to-door service.



ENTREPRENEURSHIP


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "as a nation we rely upon the ability of Canadian entrepreneurs to identify new business opportunities, to respond to them, and to convert a creative idea into a prosperous business".
These were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in introducing the new national policy on entrepreneurship on August 16, just three days ago. Of the 1.25 million new jobs created since 1984, 80 per cent have been in the small business sector. This only goes to prove that in Canada, small business is big business.
The new national policy will create the right climate so that Canadian entrepreneurs can be even more successful in the future.



AIRPORTS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, when will Conservatives realize that Hamilton is not just the receptacle of the country's garbage? The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) actually accused Hamilton of "holding the country to ransom" yesterday.
Meanwhile, where are the Conservative Members from Hamilton? I have not heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson), the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) or the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) speak out to defend Hamilton. Why elect Conservatives in the
August 19, 1988

city of Hamilton when they will not defend the interests of the people of Hamilton when the federal Government tries to use us as a receptacle for their garbage?
The odyssey of the garbage is not over. They are now planning to send it off to Gatineau. I guess Quebec is good enough for their garbage. What is good enough for Hamilton and Gatineau is not good enough for the city of Toronto or the garbage facilities at the airport.
The federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is responsible. He created this situation and he should resolve it. The Hamilton Members should speak up for Hamilton.



REVIEW OF NATIONAL POLICY

Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Government received a long-awaited report entitled "Energy and Canadians into the 21st Century". This is the first thorough review of national energy policy in 30 years.
The report indicates that by virtually any measure one might wish to apply, Canada is rich in energy. However, energy wealth does not guarantee a secure future. The luxury of having options carries the need to make difficult choices.
The report recommends that Canada's energy should be used to its economic potential, that environmental goals should have the same importance as economic and social goals, that energy resources should be developed because of market mechanisms, and that commitment to research, development and management of technology is critical to enhancing Canada's energy choices and environmental quality into the next century.
The report paints a future that is challenging and optimistic. It also concludes that Canadians will receive substantive national economic and regional development opportunities through enhanced energy trade. Furthermore, the report concludes that the proportional access clause in the trade agreement can be implemented in a way which does not prejudice Canada's energy security interests.



PORT OF CHURCHILL-IMPORTANCE FOR EXPORTS

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Port of Churchill's fate is before the federal Government. Rarely has a shipping season gone by when Manitobans have not had a fight on their hands to see that the port remains alive as a shipping centre and a vital part of our nation's sea port system. This year is no exception.
My letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in June calling for a full commitment to the port has yet to be answered, even though it was written some two months ago. Almost one month ago the Prime Minister gave Manitoba's Premier a commitment that he would personally look into the matter of the Port of Churchill and provide action. What is the Prime Minister waiting for? Even his promises of fast action to the Premier of Manitoba seem to be meaningless.
Manitobans want fairness. The Port of Churchill is crucial for farmers in its catchment area, and it represents substantial savings for those who use it. The potential for a longer season grows as the port is used, not only for the products of other western producers but for other products such as lumber from Manfor in The Pas.
It is a shame that politics is ruining Churchill. The one thing that is required to keep Churchill's potential alive is political will, and I call upon the Prime Minister to keep his promises to the people of Churchill.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, while speaking to a group of people in my riding, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) made some erroneous statements regarding the free trade agreement with the United States. The fact is that he failed to tell the people that Canadian control of unprocessed fish is fully protected by the binational dispute settlement process. He failed to tell the people that the tariff elimination for crab products over 10 years will allow Canadian crab processors to remain price competitive in the U.S. market should the significant Alaska crab fishery become a factor in the U.S. market.
We respect the Hon. Member's right to be opposed to free trade, but we also expect him to have the decency to tell the people the truth.



CHILD CARE


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, there is disappointment for Canadian families with the proposed, poorly conceived Tory child care plan. It fails to understand that adequate child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
Canadians now know all too well the market driven Tory philosophy that promotes profits first and policy charades next,

August 19, 1988
For what you see is not what you get. The old shell game is how they play the policy game. While the Tory plan talks about 200,000 spaces, it forgets the need for fully accessible and affordable child care for one million Canadian children awaiting spaces.
[DOT] (mo)
How can Tories defend their child care plan? It says nothing about lower or middle income families being helped. It forgets latchkey children. It makes less spaces available, compared to the old plan. It fails to ensure quality standards across all provinces. It is silent on workplace standards, workplace child care, and extending parental leave. It is a closed program.
What happens after seven years? The Conservatives expect Canadians to be pleased about the increased child care expense deduction. It gives a larger tax break to the well-to-do while costing millions to the Treasury. It does nothing for lower income families who cannot afford to pay taxes.
This tax break is no help to those who need it. Tax credits would have been a fairer way. Canadians will not forgive the Tories for their four-year, too poor, too short plan for children. Liberals consider child care a basic building block.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on July 14, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) gave a very important press conference in Beauharnois. In front of more than more than 400 people, he announced that the federal Government, in particular the Department of Transport, would take part in the regional development of the South Shore of Montreal, called "Monteregie" in French.
The federal Government made it clear that Highway 30, like other expressways, is a provincial responsibility, but that since this highway crosses federal property, the federal Government will connect the two shores with no mechanical hindrance. This commitment from the Minister is worth nearly $100 million.
This positive initiative has been demanded for 25 years and the South Shore of Montreal is very proud of this announcement. The mayors have understood that it is the result of the cooperation of the South Shore mayors with their provincial MNAs and federal MPs, the leadership of the Beauharnois-Salaberry Regional Municipality at the Monteregie Summit and of the Committee to Complete Highway 30 chaired by Beauharnois Mayor Claude Haineault.
At last, Sorel will be connected to Valleyfield and to Highway 20, which passes it, via the Trans-Canada Highway, the Eastern Townships Autoroute and the highway to Saint-Jean.
On the eve of the election, there is much talk about election promises. We are accused of merely making election promises. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, we are not in an election campaign; this is a commitment by the Minister and it is worth at least as much as the written promise or letter that the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to make public during the election campaign for the same thing. This is only an election promise while ours is a commitment.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that yesterday the Bank of Canada increased interest rates to some 9.8 per cent. In Saskatoon, all the Premiers condemned the Government's high interest policy, including the Premier of Ontario, the province that has benefited most from economic growth in the last year.
In addition, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has condemned the high interest rate policy of the Government, saying that it is hurting the farmers of the country. In addition, the National Farmers Union has condemned this high interest policy. As well, Roger Phillips, President of IPSCO, has made the same kind of statement.
On behalf of Canadians, particularly farmers from western Canada, I want to plead with the Government to come to its senses and bring down interest rates before it throws a lot of people out of work and hurts exporters, hurts western Canadian farmers, and indeed farmers across the country.



CHILD CARE


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, almost four years have passed since the Government came to office. During those four years many very exciting things have happened. We have the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. During each of those four years we had the greatest economic growth of any country in the world. We had the greatest job creation of any country in the world.
On top of that, we have the first ever agreement with respect to reducing acid rain emissions in this country. We have the
August 19, 1988

first ever employment equity legislation. Now before Parliament we have the first ever national child care legislation.
Many of my constituents believe that the child care program is the most important thing Parliament has dealt with and should be dealing with. In fact, contrary to the assertion by the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), many of my constituents are telling me not to hold an election until we have passed that child care legislation.



CHILDREN


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of Parliament that obscene bubble gum cards were being sold to the children of Canada. These are known as Garbage Pail Kids cards. As I indicated previously, they depict babies and small children in the form of dolls being mutilated.
The American company involved, trying to justify this grotesque sale of products to children, is reported as saying to the Canadian Press:
''Kids have always liked gross", said Norman Liss of The Topps Company.
''And this is a gross product."
Mr. Liss is certainly correct in his last statement. This is a gross product. To be selling us this kind of garbage is a gross abuse of their privilege of being able to sell in this country.
Again I call upon the Government to utilize the provisions of Section 159 and Section 160 of the Criminal Code of Canada to stop the importation and sale of these kinds of products. For my part, I have referred the matter to the Crown Attorney here in Ottawa and have asked him to look at the situation with a view to laying charges, so that our children are not polluted by this kind of nonsense.



THE SENATE


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, today in Saskatoon at the annual Premiers' meeting, Premiers will discuss Senate reform once again. At least eight of the Premiers will be concerned about the suggestion that the Upper House might adopt the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to block the free trade Bill.
That is an insult to all Canadians. That request is a desperate act by a desperate man seeking publicity. It is harmful to western Canada and all Canadians.
Oral Questions
I call on the Upper House to carry out its responsibility, exercise its independent judgment and pass the Bill, until such time as we are able to reform the Senate and have an elected Senate rather than a bunch of unelected people from the Liberal Party.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns a very serious matter.
For the first time, a Conservative Member of Parliament, a member of the Privy Council and former member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet, has stated that the Conservative Government is involved in a kickback scheme.
The Conservative Member acuses the Conservative Government of routinely resorting to a system that according to her, violates the Criminal Code of Canada.
Yesterday in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that his colleague's statements were, to use his own words, half-truths, falsehoods, innuendo, distortions of facts and smear.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister make such a statement? Was there an investigation by the RCMP? The Deputy Commissioner said there was none.
In the circumstances, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the RCMP will conduct an investigation to clarify the statements made by Conservative Member for Rosemont?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that we as a Government have no information whatsoever to substantiate the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Rosemont. I am also advised by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that at no time has the Hon. Member for Rosemont ever spoken to the RCMP with respect to those allegations.
Notwithstanding that, I can advise the Right Hon. Member that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be interviewing the Member for Rosemont with respect to those allegations.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. On February 3 of this year the Prime Minister said, and I use the Prime Minister's words: "The integrity of this Government

August 19, 1988
Oral Questions
and all its members is the responsibility of the Prime Minister".
Yesterday when the Prime Minister was in Waterloo, Ontario, when he was asked about the statement made about criminal activity by his own Member of Parliament for Rosemont-whom the Prime Minister once had in his Cabinet-the Prime Minister said: "I have no idea. What do you think?" That flippant remark by a Prime Minister is a dereliction of duty in the face of an allegation, a statement made by one of his own Members, relating to criminal activity.
This does not come from our side of the House. This comes from one of the Prime Minister's own Members. What is the Prime Minister actively going to do to deal with this situation in accordance with his statement made in this House on February 3?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman would agree that the Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has moved very quickly with respect to various charges of wrongdoing, such as the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry, ministerial dismissal, and investigations, and where there has been clear evidence that there might be wrongdoing or contraventions of the Criminal Code, immediate action was taken.
What we have here is a broad statement which is not substantiated-and I think the Hon. Member for Rosemont referred to that-vague charges which really cast an unfortunate shadow upon all elected Members of this House and that, I submit, does very little to enhance the integrity of public office holders.
I would also ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition what he intends to do with his justice critic who yesterday made a statement, and I will quote from this morning's Ottawa Citizen:
Jensen confirmed that the FBI had asked the RCMP for assistance in investigating whether payments had been made by an American corporation to Canadian politicians or Conservative Party officials considered to be lobbyists but not registered as such as required by U.S. law.
I am advised by the Assistant Commissioner, through the Solicitor General, that at no time did he ever state, confirm or imply that the FBI had asked the RCMP for assistance as stated by the Hon. Member. What we have here is this Member attempting to use the RCMP for political partisan gain, and it is a tactic I abhor and one which all members of this House should abhor. He should have the decency and fortitude to stand up and apologize and withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kaplan:: I will get up at twelve o'clock.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with that in just a second. Just for the moment I will conclude the exchange I had with the Hon. Solicitor General and the Deputy Prime Minister on the statements made by the
Conservative Member for Rosemont. I suggest that an interview by the RCMP with the Member is not sufficient. They should follow the Member's own suggestion and have a Royal Commission to investigate the whole course of conduct of the Government.


METROPOLITAN LIFE BUILDING-ALLEGED RENTAL KICKBACKS
John Napier Turner: The
Deputy Prime Minister referred to my colleague, the Member for York Centre. Yesterday, in response to that Member, inside the House of Commons the Deputy Prime Minister denied he had any knowledge of an FBI investigation, but outside the House of Commons he stated in an off-hand way that there had been an ongoing two year investigation relating to the Metropolitan Life Building. Right?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's right.


John Napier Turner: That's right. Then I asked-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: All right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Garneau:: They are very nervous out there.


John Napier Turner: Now we are getting down to the question posed by the Hon. Member for York Centre. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the nature of the FBI investigation, presumably in co-ordination with the RCMP, relating to the Metropolitan Life Building? Does that investigation relate to allegations of kickbacks for rental space? And does that investigation involve any Conservative Member of Parliament?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period I had difficulty in connecting the two situations, the FBI connection with respect to the investigation that was going on with respect to the Met Life Building. My understanding is that because the headquarters of Met Life are in New York, in order to complete the investigation, it was necessary to obtain documents from the head office in New York. That is why the FBI were brought into the act. But I was not aware of that at the time of Question Period yesterday. I was informed during the course of Question Period and I tried to make that clarification, as I always try to do. I try to provide the information as I receive it. I regret I did not have it at the time the questions were asked. I received it during the course of Question Period and I responded to a specific question at that time.


John Napier Turner: Can you respond to the question I am putting now?
August 19, 1988


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. It concerns the issue that won't go away. The Member for Rosemont is quoted in today's Toronto Star as saying:
Look, there are people who told me at a certain time they were aware that when you receive a government contract from Ottawa, you have to return a certain amount to the kitty.
Did the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Member of Parliament for Rosemont how she found out about these alleged kickbacks? If he has not done so yet, when does he intend to do so? And has the Prime Minister contacted the Member for Rosemont? It has been two days now since the Government has known about this.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House earlier, we as a Government have no information whatsoever to substantiate those allegations. At no time, I am advised, did the Hon. Member for Rosemont ever go to the RCMP with any allegations or complaints. Third, I think the proper course of action is the action that is presently being undertaken. The RCMP are going to interview her to see if in fact there is any substance to the allegations which have been made, and the RCMP will then do what is necessary following that interview. But I do not think that we should attempt to condemn people, ask for Royal Commission investigations or anything of this nature, until we find out whether or not there is any substance to the allegations.


PATRONAGE ALLEGATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr.   Don. Boudria@Glengarry-Prescott-Russell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Members of this House at least twice that the responsibility for public morality rested on his shoulders. I didn't say that, he did. Considering the fact that public morality rests on his shoulders, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he contacted the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and if he has not done so, will he do so today? And if not, why not? After all, it's his responsibility!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I considered that course of action. However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her, as the Solicitor General has indicated. I did not want to be seen as intervening in the process. I considered it on that basis. So the course of action which has been outlined by the Solicitor General, as far as I am concerned, is the proper course of action.
Oral Questions


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR DUVERNAY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday we heard of the serious allegation made by the Member for Rosemont and it was reassuring to hear that the Solicitor General has indicated that that is going to be pursued, if I understood him correctly, by the RCMP. But what is perhaps even more or at least equally serious is another contention made by another Member of Parliament on the Conservative side, this time the Member for Duvernay, who is also at present a Parliamentary Secretary. He has been quoted as saying the following: "What has been the most difficult thing in four years? It's been to stay clean". He then went on to say the following, which is truly alarming, if accurate: "I could put a dozen people in prison."
[DOT] (U30)
Those are the words of a Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Canada saying that. It is an extremely serious allegation. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Hon. Member for Duvernay has been consulted this morning as to what he meant.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no, but I will.


QUERY WHETHER MEMBER PROVIDED INFORMATION TO RCMP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed either to the Deputy Prime Minister-and I appreciate his answer-or to the Solicitor General.
Given the very serious legal implications of what has been said and, indeed, the moral implications of a Member who has been aware, according to his understanding if he is accurately quoted, of criminal wrong-doing, I would ask the Solicitor General if he would inquire of the Member to find out if he has already informed the RCMP of what he believes to be clearly criminal wrong-doing on the part of a number of citizens which he says could amount to at least a dozen people. Would he find out if the Hon. Member has talked to the RCMP? If not, would he as Solicitor General request the RCMP to have a serious discussion with this Member as well?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I do not have personal knowledge of what he has stated. But as a result of what the hon. gentleman has requested in the House, certainly 1 will look into it and pursue the matter. I think it is a reasonable course of action.


PATRONAGE ALLEGATIONS-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT TO HOUSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime

August 19, 1988
Oral Questions
Minister of Canada refused to comment on this very serious situation yesterday. However, 1 understand that on the weekend, he intends to have a discussion with the members of his Quebec Caucus and with the Hon. Member for Duvernay and the Hon. Member for Rosemont who are members of that caucus. Would the Deputy Prime Minister care to give the House the assurance that after the weekend the Prime Minister plans to rise in the House and explain clearly what is going on?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response, the Government in these cases has reacted with dispatch where there have been clear founded allegations of wrong-doing, by the establishment of commissions of inquiry, investigations, ministerial dismissal, and various other things.
When there is the kind of unsubstantiated blanket charges which have been referred to by the Hon. Member for Rosemont it is very, very difficult to find out. As a matter of fact, I think in her own comments, at least as reported in the press, she is not very specific in terms of this particular issue.


John Edward Broadbent: The Hon. Member for Duvernay is saying the same thing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I suspect that this will probably come up at the Quebec caucus-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They now think it is a laughing matter.
The Solicitor General has acted on this. I have acted on it. I undertook yesterday in the House to bring forth to the Chamber the information that I had. I assure the Hon. Member that this will continue. I will report to the House on any new information that I have.
I see the Hon. Member nodding his head in the affirmative. I hope he would give me that opportunity.


PATRONAGE ALLEGATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite serious, and I intend to pursue the matter.
Yesterday, we had the Hon. Member for Rosemont, a former member of Cabinet and still a member of the Conservative Caucus, who mentioned the existence of a kickback system as part of the way Government contracts were awarded to various entrepreneurs.
Now we have the Hon. Member for Duvernay who says that if he talked, he could send a dozen people to jail.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for many years, but I have never heard anything like these statements made by Government Members. We in the Opposition are accused of
proceeding by innuendo. Now, the Prime Minister's own colleagues are doing just that.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this: Considering that a few months ago, a new Member was elected to the House-he is the Minister, referred to as Mr. Clean, who was supposed to clean up the Augean stables-what has the Secretary of State done to shed some light on the very ambiguous matters being raised and accusations being made by a former member of the Conservative Cabinet and a current Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Duvernay?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that Members opposite, particularly the Hon. Member who has just posed the question, prompted by the justice critic of the Liberal Party, have conveniently ignored the profound error that he made yesterday. He is not prepared to stand up in the House and withdraw or apologize.


John Napier Turner: Wait until the proper time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact, he raised the issue-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will stand up at twelve o'clock.


John Napier Turner: You know the rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He raised the issue yesterday and now he is running for cover.


Mr. Allmand:: Give unanimous consent and he will do it right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If Hon. Members are so interested in preserving the morality and integrity of Parliament-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's not possible in your caucus.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -might I ask the Hon. Member to ask his Leader what he is going to do about the Liberal Senator in the other place who has been ripping off the system? Is he going to take any kind of action to clean up that mess and that rot in his own Party?


POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows perfectly well that according to our Standing Orders, a Member may rise after Question Period to raise a question of privilege. That is what my colleague intends to do later on, and he can stay and listen. I think he would find it useful.
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister evaded the issue and side-stepped my question. He did not answer my question at all and tried to attack my colleague, although he is aware
August 19, 1988

my colleague can rise on a question of privilege later on, and he intends to do so to set the record straight. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to answer my question: Since the Prime Minister of Canada stated that his new Cabinet colleague, the present Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, the Secretary of State, was appointed to clean the Conservative Party's house, has the Prime Minister of Canada given the Elon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean and Secretary of State, has he give the Lion. Member and Minister the responsibility for clarifying the charges by Conservative Members, by a former Conservative Minister, that a kickback system exists in the Conservative Party? And what about the other Conservative Member who said that he could send twelve people to jail if he talked? What is Lucien Bouchard supposed to do about all this?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is getting carried away. I have tried to respond to the questions that have been legitimately raised. He is now trying to broaden the scope of this in such a way that he wants to accuse everybody.
What the Solicitor General has indicated is that he has been advised by the RCMP that an interview will be conducted. He has also indicated to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that further action will be taken with regard to the revelations that have been quoted in the newspaper this morning. Certainly, these matters will be followed up.
The fact of the matter is, and 1 repeat once again, the Prime Minister carries ultimate responsibility for these kinds of matters. I think the record clearly shows that he has moved very quickly and with dispatch in terms of dismissal of Ministers, where there have been clear indications of violations, where there have been commissions of inquiry, and where there have been investigations. Where there is clear evidence that can be substantiated, and if the RCMP finds it is necessary to follow through, I am sure that that action will be proceeded with, and certainly not interfered with in any way, shape or form by this Government.


REQUEST FOR PASSAGE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGISLATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have heard the questions this morning about the alleged statement of the Hon. Member for Rosemont and also about the article in the newspaper this morning wherein the Parliamentary Secretary is reported to have said: "I could put a dozen people in prison." That is a very serious allegation.
Oral Questions
O)
In light of that, and in light of the promise made by the Prime Minister some time ago that there would be a morality package before the next election campaign, 1 want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can give us a guarantee that that morality package will pass through Parliament before the next election is called?
It was a promise made by the Prime Minister. Can we have that morality package now before the election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if that is an indication from members of the New Democratic Party that they would proceed with dispatch with regard to the conflict of interest legislation to bring it into committee very quickly, we would be very glad to call it. Hopefully, it can be done with one speaker from each Party, and we can get on with it. We would be glad to set aside a day next week.


PUBLIC MORALITY-REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE ADOPTED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we want the public morality Bill, and I am going to talk to my Party about adopting this Bill. Mr. Speaker, that also includes the bill on the Canada Elections Act.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of Canada, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, made a political commitment to have the public morality bill ready before the next federal election.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the Prime Minister opf Canada intends to break this public commitment. Are we going to have the Bill on the Canada Elections Act and the Bill on public morality before the federal election? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member states that he wants to see the legislation. It has been before the House since February. I am sure that there has been enough time to study it.


John Edward Broadbent: Election expenses are not in there.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have dealt with the lobbyist Bill. I am prepared to sit down with the opposition Parties on the election expenses. As a matter of fact, there has been correspondence back and forth.
If we can get a deal to get the election expenses into committee where there can be good study, and deal with those issues, we would be very happy to do it. We are prepared to sit down and negotiate some time frames, Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, before the election.

August 19, 1988
18568_____________________________
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ADJUSTMENT POLICIES-PREMIERS' REQUEST
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday Canada's premiers asked Ottawa to do what we have been asking for two years, and that is to reveal the plans for adjustment for industries suffering losses as a result of free trade. Both Premiers Devine and Bourassa stated that they wanted to see this strategy as soon as possible.
In its April report the Economic Council stated that 17 industrial sectors would suffer losses as a result of free trade, and that adjustment policies were necessary. This was also recommended by the Macdonald Commission, the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Canada-U.S. Committee, and many others.
When will the Government reveal its strategies for adjustment, as the Premiers requested yesterday?
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Premiers know and this House knows that Mr. de Grandpre is heading up an independent committee examining industries that could need adjustment, and examining programs of the Government to see if they are complete enough to fulfil the obligations of the adjustment that may be required. We feel very confident that there will not be a great deal of adjustment required.
I might remind the Hon. Member that New Zealand and Australia signed a free trade agreement. They speeded up the process of removing tariffs. One of the questions that was asked was: "What happened in adjustment?" It was stated that New Zealand felt it would be swamped by Australian competition. In the event that has not been the way it has turned out, and I believe also in Australia it has worked out extremely well. Trade both ways has expanded. In other words, New Zealand is sending more goods in absolute terms to Australia.
The same thing will happen between Canada and the United States.


ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Government states that it does not think that special adjustment programs are necessary, but all the experts that have studied this, including a standing committee in a unanimous report to this House, have stated that special adjustment policies are necessary. The 10 Premiers say that they are necessary, and they want to see those plans now. The de Grandpre committee is only supposed to report in June, 1989. That is too late.
What is the Government doing to ensure that special adjustment programs are not countervailable or in contradiction to the free trade agreement? Will it amend the free trade agreement and the legislation to make sure that whatever adjustment programs we bring in will be legitimate in terms of the agreement?
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it passing strange that the Hon. Member would mention the Premiers talking about adjustment policies when eight of the ten Premiers support the free trade agreement. The Hon. Member forgot to mention that in his question.


William Warren Allmand: They were unanimous on this one. Answer the question.


John Horton McDermid: I will answer the question.
Adjustment programs that are brought in to help those industries needing a period of adjustment will not be countervailable. The Hon. Member likes to put things in the agreement that are not in the agreement. I would like to see him draw up an offer of purchase for someone to buy a house. He would probably put in there that the wife and the kids are not for sale, and the car is not for sale. He would put all the things into the agreement that do not belong in the agreement. Neither does adjustment belong in the agreement. It is not there. Adjustment programs are outside the agreement. We have already proven with the adjustment program for the B.C. grape growers that this Government is prepared to help where help is necessary.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the rising interest rates which are a policy of the Government which has endorsed the actions of the Bank of Canada in taking the bank rate up to almost 10 per cent at the fixing that took place yesterday.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister implied that my Leader was not speaking on behalf of the Premier of Alberta when he complained about the rising interest rates. We saw on television last night that the Premier of Alberta was concerned about the impact of those interest rates on homes, on businesses, and on agriculture, and stated that now is exactly the wrong time to have that growth slowed down by increasing interest rates.
After the unanimous resolution of the Premiers meeting in the west, will the Government give a clear signal to the Bank of Canada that now is not the time to have rising interest rates, and those interest rates should come down?
August 19, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Premiers want is not a repetition of what had occurred during the late 1970s and early 1980s where there was high inflation and high interest rates. Interest rates hit 24 and 25 per cent. There was high unemployment, and high inflation. That was the result of a mismanaged economy.
What is occurring here is the necessity to strike a balance. As I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, the Minister of Finance meets with his provincial counterparts on numerous occasions. My understanding is that there is as meeting set up for later this year. I am sure that he would be very happy to deal with this particular issue with the Premiers at that particular time.


BANK OF CANADA-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Government rejects the demands of the Premier of Alberta and if the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government reject the requests of all the Premiers together, does it also reject the judgement of the Premier of Quebec, who notes that it is now time to reduce interest rates for excellent reasons: The federal reserves are at $16 billion, inflation is under control, the price of oil is low enough and lower interest rates would discourage speculation and improve the investment climate. For all these reasons, the Premier of Quebec says that now is the time to lower interest rates. Is the Government ready to give the Bank of Canada such instructions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must not lose sight of the fact that our over-all economic policy was enunciated back in November and was complemented with various budget actions taken by the Government in terms of scaling down the regulatory burden, improving the competitiveness of industries, allowing an investment policy that would encourage jobs, and encouraging the small business sector to create the type of jobs that it has created. This is all part and parcel of the over-all economic policy of the Government. Incidentally, it has produced one of the best job creation rates, one of the best growth rates of the OECD group of countries, and one of the best trade records in some seven years.
The economy is strong, and it is strong because it has been properly managed by a government that is in control.
Oral Questions
[DOT] (D50)


FORESTRY
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines. There was a report in the Vancouver Sun yesterday suggesting that the renewal of the Canada-B.C. Forest Resources Development Agreement may be in some difficulty. As a Member from British Columbia I am most aware of the very great importance of the forest industry in B.C. I would ask the Minister if he could advise this House what difficulties, if any, are being experienced in this regard.


James Ross Fulton: The Minister is not here.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: I would like to know through you, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister, exactly what the nature is of the negotiation and is the Government of Canada intending to pursue with vigour this renewed agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: I can only hope that the answer is worthy of that applause.
As the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich may be aware, earlier this week, during his visit to British Columbia, the Minister of State for Forestry announced a $12 million forest replacement fund under the South Moresby Park agreement. That funding will be used for planting and research and spacing in the coastal forest regions of B.C., outside the park area.
As well, the FRDA agreements over the past five years under this Government-they expire in 1990-are worth some $300 million in British Columbia and some $1.2 billion across Canada. So the track record is there. Renewal of those agreements, most of which expire in 1990, are under Cabinet consideration right now. You can be assured that when this Government has returned in a few weeks' time we will again renew our commitment to the forests of British Columbia and indeed all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REDUCTION OF LEAD IN GASOLINE-REQUEST THAT TIMETABLE BE ADVANCED
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and

August 19, 1988
Oral Questions
Welfare. It has to do with lead in gasoline and its impact on health. In view of the fact that the previous Liberal Government launched a program whereby lead was cut by 62 per cent, and in view of the fact that the present Government is in the process of moving ahead with further cuts in lead by 1993, and in view of the fact that the Minister himself a few days ago recognized that the evidence is quite clear that lead is damaging to human health, will the Minister indicate to this House when he will stop using the Department as an excuse and find the courage to make a political decision, and indicate that he is prepared to advance to 1990 the deadline for further cuts in lead in gasoline? When will he do that?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the Hon. Member and to the House earlier on this issue, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I as Minister of National Health and Welfare are re-examining some of the evidence that we have received in the last period of time. That answer does not change from the answers that I have given the Member this last week. As I have indicated to him, if there is a change in policy, I will announce it at that time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the evidence that has emerged in recent weeks is accentuating the necessity for urgent action on the part of the Minister. This is purely a political decision that must be made, not a departmental one. When will the Minister stop hiding behind the Department?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not hiding behind the Department at all. It is not a purely "political" decision.


John Napier Turner: He is the Department.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The fact of the matter is I have not disputed the health evidence that has been presented. I have not disputed it in this House today, I have not disputed it when I received that evidence, nor has the the Minister of the Environment disputed it, nor has any member of Cabinet disputed it. As well, we have asked our respective Departments if in fact changes can be made to the present policy. If they can and there are conditions, we will announce those conditions at the appropriate time.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ATLANTIC FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries because of an article appearing in today's
Globe and Mail pertaining to remarks made yesterday by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Yesterday, while in my riding, the Hon. Member stated that the Atlantic fish processing industry could be threatened by the U.S. interpretation of the trade agreement. I would like the Minister of Fisheries to tell us if there is any validity to the remarks made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding that agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Issue a press release.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Leader of the Opposition was in Newfoundland earlier this week. Unfortunately, that is the only truth associated with his visit. The Leader of the Opposition untruthfully attempted to arouse the fishermen-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is a legitimate one and the Hon. Minister can deal with it. The Hon. Minister is going to have to put his answer in such a way that he is not accusing the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition of intentionally saying something that is not so.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the situation is, as I have discovered in my travels throughout fishery communities all across Canada this year, that the free trade agreement is very positively welcomed and 100 per cent beneficial to the fishing industry.
The truth of the matter is that the free trade agreement in no way jeopardizes the processing regulations applying at present in Atlantic Canada. The U.S. statement of administrative action confirms not only that the free trade agreement grandfathers existing Atlantic processing regulations, but that the U.S. administration will not take these regulations before the GATT.
The truth of the situation is that there are not 7,500 fish processing workers unemployed in British Columbia this summer; there is full employment in that processing sector and they are having a very abundant year.
The truth of the situation is that crab plant operators in Atlantic Canada will not be jeopardized by the free trade agreement. They will win the benefit of a lowering and ultimate removal of tariffs up to 10 per cent on the processing of crab, which is a very productive and very beneficial industry in Atlantic Canada.
We are seeing a desperate, disorganized Party as it slips in the polls, stooping to the depths of deceit to mislead Canadians. I think it is reprehensible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
August 19, 1988


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I have a document here from the Cape Breton Development Corporation, sent to me this month, to the National Transportation Agency. In the letter, DEVCO asked that foreign flagships be allowed to operate strictly within Canadian waters, from Sydney to the Canso ports, and use foreign crews and not pay Canadian taxes. The names of the ships involved are the MV Ambassador, the MV Pioneer, the MV Innovator, the MV Hon. Paul Martin and the MV Atlantic Superior. Why is it Canadian Government practice for a Crown corporation to allow these foreign flag groups deny Canadian jobs? Why are we not having Canadian ships, Canadian flags, Canadian staff operating in Canadian waters?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend opposite. I am not able to give him a detailed answer to that. Had he let me know the question before, I would have made every effort to have the information for him. In any event, I will have the officials take it up immediately and we will get a response to him early next week.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: It is not a matter of the specifics in this case; it is a matter of the general government policy. Why are we allowing Canada Steamship Lines Inc. and U.L.S. International, both Canadian companies, to flag their ships offshore, hire foreigners, avoid Canadian taxes and have a Crown corporation have those ships operating in Canadian waters?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it relates to the fact that the general law is determined by the Canada Shipping Act. We have a Coasting Trade Act. There are laws set down by Parliament. Until this Parliament changes those laws, they will remain the law and should be interpreted and acted upon accordingly. If the Member wants the law changed so that Government has the power to dictate that type of detailed thinking, he would have had the privilege to put forth a Private Member's Bill and indeed could still do it.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. The Acting Minister will no doubt be aware that the Member for Etobicoke North has accused the citizens of Hamilton of holding the country to ransom because we refused to accept garbage from the Toronto International Airport. Will the Acting Minister repudiate the comments of the Member for Etobicoke North and demand an immediate retraction?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as was explained during the course of Question Period some days ago in this House, the federal Government, particularly the Department of Agriculture, is concerned about the manner in which garbage coming into Canada on international flights is dealt with in order to guarantee that there is absolutely no risk whatsoever to the agricultural industry in Canada, whether that be livestock or plants.
Our primary concern is to ensure that the airline companies work out an agreement with some appropriate municipal body to ensure that that garbage is dealt with in such a risk-free manner.
As was indicated earlier to the House, there was a proposal by the airlines that the garbage would be moved out of the Metropolitan Toronto area, in fact outside the province. I understand that that proposal has not been approved by the relevant municipal authority in the Province of Quebec. We are left, therefore, encouraging the airlines and the provincial Government of Ontario to exercise their responsibilities to ensure that this garbage is dealt with in as efficient and riskfree a manner as possible.


COMMENTS MADE BY MEMBER FOR ETOBICOKE NORTH
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Ontario is not responsible for enforcing a federal Act dealing with federal garbage coming off international flights.
Will the Member repudiate the comments made by his colleague that Hamilton was holding the country to ransom because we would not accept garbage from Toronto? Gatineau does not want Toronto International Airport's garbage either. Will any Conservative please stand up and repudiate the statements by that Party that Hamilton is only fit for Toronto's garbage?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, the other day in the House an Hon. Member indicated that he personally had a suggestion as to how this problem might be dealt with. As I indicated earlier, however, the Government is concerned that the garbage coming in on international flights be handled

August 19, 1988
House of Commons
in such a manner that it not be a threat to Canadian agriculture.
If I understand correctly, it is a provincial responsibility to direct, if necessary, some municipal authority to accept that garbage and to deal with it as necessary.
We have a couple of things to consider now. First, the garbage is being separated as between garbage resulting from international flights and garbage resulting from domestic activities. As a result of that the volume is being reduced. We are also looking in the long term at the installation of a heat sterilizer on site which would effectively deal with the garbage. I hope that in the meantime, however, the airlines will be able to find a resolution to this problem. I hope some municipality will assist them in that.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. One of the things upon which interest rate policy impacts is, of course, the exchange rate on the dollar. Some weeks ago I pointed out to the Minister of Finance that in Windsor a number of parts manufacturers have indicated that they may move to Michigan if the value of the dollar continues to increase.
Now steel analyst J. Gordon of McLean McCarthy Limited has said that if the dollar goes to 90 cents it will wipe out a major portion of Ontario's auto industry.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. What action is the Government going to take to prevent that eventuality which poses such a threat to the automobile industry in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as speculative as the Hon. Member. I would not want to be associated with the suggestion of that sort of hypothesis.
I have indicated here before that the exchange rate, interest rates, and inflation are all very important components of economic policy. The fact of the matter is that our economic policy has produced very credible results. We have the second best job creation rate and second best growth rate of all the OECD countries. We have the best trading surplus.
I know that the Hon. Member does not like success. He and his colleagues simply want to preach doom and gloom. What really bothers me is that they think they are so dead right on everything. Once in a while they are wrong.



GOVERNMENT POLICY

Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this Member does not like is stupidity. Moe Closs, President of Chrysler Canada, says that the Government's auto policy is stupid and needs to be changed or the domestic manufacturers will be severely threatened. The fact of the matter is that the inflation rate has gone down, yet the Government persists in a high interest rate policy which impacts on the exchange rate and the dollar.
What action is the Government posed to take in the eventuality of an increase in value of the Canadian dollar which threatens the automobile industry and so many other Canadian manufacturing sectors, particularly in the context of a free trade agreement which assumes a lower level for the Canadian dollar?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will not establish a policy which will bring back inflation rates of from 13 to 15 per cent accompanied with interest rates of 23, 24, and 25 per cent, which were part and parcel of the former Government's policy supported by the New Democrats in the late 1970s and early 1980s.



TRIBUTE TO PAGE STAFF

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order with which I am sure all Members of the House will agree. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, today is the last day that the pages, with the exception of two or three, will be with us. I think this is an opportune time to thank them for their work here over what was an unusually long session. I would like to thank them for all they have done and to wish them well. I hope that, despite us, they have learned a lot about the parliamentary system and the political system of our country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone good luck. Most of them will be students, and I want to wish them success in their careers. I am sure that we have some future Members of Parliament among this group of pages. Good luck!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and very happy to say that we are very pleased with the work of this group of pages, given the length of the current session. We want to salute them and wish this group of pages good luck for the future.
August 19, 1988



The Official Opposition wishes to extend sincere thanks to the current group of pages, especially because of the extra work they have had to do as a result of the extension of the session. We hope they have had a useful and enlightening experience which will lead them to continue to have a positive attitude toward the public life of this country. We wish them the best for the future and again extend our warm thanks to them for their help over the past months.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government, and all colleagues on the government side, I want to associate myself with the words of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
I think it is fair to say that we have been treated by a group of outstanding young Canadians who have served us very well.
I know that we have enjoyed their fellowship and companionship. I join with my colleagues in thanking them for all their efforts and also in extending, on behalf of all Members, our appreciation for their devotion and skill. We wish them well in their further duties and hope they will find the opportunity to come back here on frequent occasions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. During Question Period it was alleged by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that I had misrepresented information given to me yesterday by Deputy Commissioner Jensen of the RCMP. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record exactly what happened, because I did not misrepresent the discussion I had with the Deputy Commissioner and I think I can make that clear.
At 12.30 p.m. yesterday the CJOH midday news report broadcast statements attributing certain confirmations to the RCMP. A member of the staff of one of the Liberal Members of Parliament took down what was said, transcribed it, and presented it to me at around a quarter to one. I would like to read into the record, and would ask for unanimous consent to table, that transcript. This is the broadcast:
The RCMP confirmed that it made an official request for FBI assistance through the US Embassy in Ottawa. The investigation follows allegations that politicians and PC party officials may have personally benefited from the awarding of federal contracts. It also said that the FBI is trying to determine if the US firm broke any American laws by not returning payments paid to lobbyists from another country, mainly in Canada.
There is confirmation that an FBI probe comes in the wake of the statement in today's LA PRESSE which quotes former Tory Cabinet Minister,
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan
Suzanne Blais-Grenier as saying "She knows personally that there exists a system of kickbacks on Federal contracts."
When I received this, I was surprised because it is not usual for the RCMP to confirm ongoing investigations. There are circumstances and reasons why this is sometimes done by police, but I was surprised so I telephoned Deputy Commissioner Jensen. I read him the entire piece and I asked him if in fact the RCMP had confirmed that. He said: "I confirm the first part but not the last", and I said: "The part about Suzanne Blais-Grenier". That was the end of the discussion dealing with that.
I took from that discussion that in this case, the RCMP was prepared to confirm and had and that the CJOH midday news report was accurate so far as it referred to the RCMP, but there was nothing in that report in which the RCMP confirmed anything to do with Suzanne Blais-Grenier. I understood that and I indicated that in my press conference in the scrum outside following Question Period. I think that that clears the air.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It does not. It certainly does not.


An Hon. Member:: It certainly does. You are distorting the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member not to give rise to another point of privilege, quite unnecessarily? I was not referring, by the way, to the Hon. Member for York Centre. I was referring to another Hon. Member who knows who he is, and I will spare him the publicity.
The Hon. Member for York Centre has made a statement. I would think that he is rising on a question of privilege. I have heard the statement, and unless other Hon. Members feel it absolutely essential to make a further comment-the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the statement that was made in The Ottawa Citizen today which I quote:
Kaplan also said that Jensen confirmed that the FBI had asked the RCMP for assistance in investigating whether payments had been made by an American corporation to Canadian politicians or Conservative Party officials considered to be lobbyists but not registered as such as required by U.S. law.
I think that my information and the information that has been supplied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) is that that is categorically wrong, and the Hon. Member has not commented on that at all. Here the Hon. Member is dragging the RCMP into a political issue, something which as a former Solicitor General he should know better than to do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is an accurate quotation in The Ottawa Citizen of what I said. I was explaining to Canadian journalists my understanding of the meaning of this sentence-

August 19, 1988
Tabling of Documents


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it right or wrong?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is correct, the statement the FBI is trying to determine if a U.S. firm broke any American laws. I have a certain understanding of what those laws are relating to foreign lobbyists, and I explained that to the media. I thought that was exactly what Deputy Commissioner Jensen was confirming. In other words, this was not the part about the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), which I understood it was not confirming, and I was explaining the part as best I could.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, he has not explained it. As a matter of fact, he has confirmed the point that I made earlier in Question Period. I am advised by the Deputy Commissioner, through the Solicitor General, that at no time did he ever state, confirm, or imply that the FBI had asked the RCMP for assistance as was stated by the Hon. Member, and as he just now confirmed, in The Ottawa Citizen. I would rather take the words of the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP than the Hon. Member. If that is right, he should withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre has risen on what I would take as a personal question of privilege, and I, as have other Hon. Members, have listened to him. There has been a further exchange. There has been some disagreement on facts. However, I think both sides have had a chance to express their points of view, and I will go on to other matters.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to fifty-four petitions numbered as follows: 332-5039 and 332-5042 to 332-5094, inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [English]


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During my intervention I sought unanimous consent in order to table the transcript so that the House could see exactly what I read to Deputy Commissioner Jensen-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to inform the Hon. Member for York Centre, as I am sure he well knows, being an experienced Member, that without unanimous consent he cannot table the document. I think he, of course, has other ways to bring it to the attention of Hon. Members.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the honour to present, in both official languages, the twentieth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House petitions certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners are concerned that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services.
Whereas it has been repeatedly recommended that to make these services available for families the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive, non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada, the petitioners suggest to the House that the child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women or families in Canada, and therefore they pray that Parliament withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, the attached petitions are certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners, of which there are many hundreds, wish to bring the following to the attention of the Government and the House. Whereas the Romanian Government is presently engaging in certain acts which violate basic human and minority rights, such as destroying more than one-half of the 13,000 villages in Romania to build agro-industrial centres resulting in the loss of a culture and historic heritage which will deprive not only Romania but also future generations of a priceless heritage by annihilating magnificent examples of Roman, Gothic, and Reform period architecture; whereas the same government has decreed that all geographic designations be changed from the Hungarian and Saxon languages to Romanian, thereby seriously violating minority rights; whereas
August 19, 1988

the Romanian Government's current harassment through interrogation and house searches of the clergy will result in the destruction of both Protestant and Catholic religions, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to express the concern of the Canadian people over the aforementioned actions.
I hope this matter will be taken seriously. We in Canada are most fortunate not to have to live under these kinds of regimes. We are fortunate that these hundreds of people have brought this very serious matter to our attention.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition to the House with regard to child care. I recognize, with the diverse communities in my riding, the need for national standards to help areas, especially communities like those of Indian bands and so on in remote areas, to be able to provide non-profit child care systems.
This petition specifically calls for a comprehensive nonprofit child care system that is accessible to all Canadians, therefore I am proud to present it. I hope that the Government will withdraw the legislation it presently has before the House and provide a child care Bill forthwith which would have those national objectives and would provide standards for all Canadian children.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to file the attached petition concerning child care.
Whereas the Canada Child Care Act proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith. In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally is indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 395.
Order for Return

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS-METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Canada Harbour Place Corporation make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: The
Canada Harbour Place Corporation advises as follows: no.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 362 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I think it exemplifies some of the difficulty in responding on time. It is a single answer and, as Members can see, it is quite large in terms of its response.
If questions were more targeted to Departments, I do not think we would get into the problem of delay in answering.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 3612 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus: In each year since September 4, 1984, have any government departments or agencies spend money in the (a) constituency of Thunder Bay-Atikokan (b) community of Thunder Bay, Ontario (c) community of Atikokan, Ontario (d) area made up of the constituencies of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Kenora-Rainy River and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (i) in what amounts (ii) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Indian Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Penner (p. 18559).
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, when we moved to Question Period I was in the midst of explaining to the House why an amendment which I have proposed to Bill C-123 should merit the consideration of the House and inclusion into this statute.
I want to explain to the Minister that this particular amendment, which has behind it the consent, authority, and wishes of the Indian Association of Alberta, was not introduced before the legislative committee at the appropriate time simply because there had been a communications gap; that is to say, legal counsel for the Indian Association of Alberta, Mr. Mandamin, had indicated in his appearance before the committee that he had such an amendment and felt that it was an amendment that was in keeping with the intent of the statute but would deal with one flaw that they regarded as being serious.
On the day the amendment was to be received, the committee delayed its proceedings, hoping to receive it by fax, but as a result of a misunderstanding about when the committee was to sit that particular day, we never did receive the amendment. However, I made a commitment to Mr. Mandamin that I would introduce this amendment at report stage.
Therefore, I want the House to know that this is not a matter that has been dealt with at the committee stage. It was part of the brief presented by the Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations who represents the Province of Alberta.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude any right of provincial authorities to the trust moneys that are now going to be under the authority of the band or of the parents or guardians, up to the limit of $3,000 or more if that is agreed to by Order in Council.
The Indian Association of Alberta takes the position that the authority of the province into matters of First Nations is an unwarranted authority. I believe that when they make that assertion they are on very sound constitutional ground.
I believe the Government of Canada would probably lean in the direction of that kind of interpretation. I do not need to quote to the House Section 91(24), the first part of our Constitution under the British North America Act. Certainly that federal authority was reasserted again in Section 35 of the most recent changes to the Canadian Constitution.
August 19, 1988
There is clearly a federal authority and clearly a relationship between the Government of Canada and the First Nations. In other words, the relationship that was described in treaties is a relationship between the First Nations and the Crown. The interpretation is that the Crown is resident in the Government of Canada and has not been distributed widely across the country, so there are Crown rights giving authority to provinces or territorial Governments over Indian people.
That is exactly the rationale for establishing what we call Indian child welfare agencies. This has been done in the Province of Manitoba. Quite properly, the Indian leaders in Manitoba recognized at the outset that in establishing child welfare agencies it was very advisable to receive as much expertise as they could from the provincial authorities because child welfare as such is not an area that belongs to the federal Government. Therefore, we do not have the depository of expertise.
In the Province of Manitoba, a tripartite agreement was the first step toward establishing a child welfare agency. That was done more than five years ago by an agreement that was negotiated between Canada, Manitoba, and the Indian leaders in that province.
During the five to six year period that has intervened up to the present, a body of expertise has developed in Manitoba for child welfare agencies. They are now seeking a new bilateral agreement, with the transfer of funds, so that they can entirely take over this responsibility.
There has been a problem. This new agreement has not been reached. The Government of Canada is delaying. There are a number of difficulties. I will leave it to the Minister who was present in the House today to explain exactly why that is happening. However, I do not want to make that the point of my argument.
The point of my argument is that we are moving in the direction of establishing child welfare agencies for Indian people. The reason for that is that Indian leaders find it abhorrent that provincial agencies, using provincial Child Care Acts, should move in under the provisions of those Acts, take children out of Indian homes, and place them in non-Indian foster homes. In some cases they were adopted by non-Indian people. These youngsters, therefore, lost their culture, tradition, background, and heritage. In fact, there were a great many cases where these children were not only adopted into non-Indian homes but were adopted right out of the country altogether. They were adopted into American homes and only discovered many years later, in some cases, that in fact they came from Canada and that their heritage and ancestry was Indian. This caused enormous distress, psychological, spiritual, and personal. That is why we are moving away from that kind of situation. The Government is sympathetic and accepts that premise, but we are just moving much too slowly.
August 19, 1988

That is the background for the amendment. The amendments I am proposing to the House will simply say that in transferring to bands the authority over minor trust funds, the band wants to be in the position of saying with authority who can have access to those funds. Of course, the statute with which we are dealing says that authority can be with the parent or with the guardian. The statute is of particular interest in the Province of Alberta where there are large amounts of money in the trust funds because of the oil and gas revenue. Mr. Mandamin, legal counsel for the Indian Association of Alberta, argues that where a child is taken into custody by provincial authorities, that custodian should not have the authority to cease the trust funds. The amendment I am proposing will simple make it clear in law that it cannot be done.
I want to repeat again that we have to understand in approving this amendment that the provincial authority, vis-avis Indian people, is at best ambiguous and uncertain. It is an area in which we still have a great deal of work to do. It is part of what those First Ministers' conferences were about, to try to define and clarify aboriginal rights, to describe with some degree of accuracy what is the status of Indian people within Canada. This still remains an uncertain area, an area in which academics and learned legal counsel become involved, but we cannot leave it to those people. It is in the political arena, the realm of politics, that we can solve this problem. We can solve it at the negotiating table.
We cannot bite off all that today when dealing with Bill C-123. I ask the forgiveness of the Minister in reaching rather far with a matter that will have to be faced some day. Meanwhile, here is a small gesture, a small movement in the right direction.
1 understand the Government's opposition to the amendment because it has already looked at it. I have a memo from the special assistant to the Minister in charge of legislation. The argument is one that I simply cannot accept. The argument, very briefly stated, is that it is imperative that Indian children be treated in a manner consistent with the law affecting all other children in Canada. That is precisely the point. The Indian leaders are saying that their status is a special status, confirmed now in the Constitution. They have a relationship to Canada. Therefore, this equality of treatment which would involve a provincial jurisdiction on First Nations is not acceptable.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to take a look at the amendment. Unless he finds it exceedingly offensive in some other way I have failed to take due note of, I ask, speaking on behalf of the Indian Association of Alberta and its legal counsel, him to give serious consideration to incorporating this modest amendment into Bill C-123. It would still not make the Bill entirely and completely satisfactory to the Assembly of First Nations or to the Indian Association of Alberta because there are a few other flaws, that I will mention at third reading.
Indian Act
However, by and large we accept the Bill. It moves in the right direction. We are not in any way raising obstacles to the Bill. Here is one gesture, one movement, which will go a long way in recognizing what ought to be done in Canada; that is to say, First Nations have a particular kind of relationship with Canada and that has been gone into at great length in other forums. Certainly, it is demonstrated in no other way better than by the fact that these people have treaties with the Crown in the name of the Government of Canada. That is not a claim that can be made by any other group of Canadians of which I am aware.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to the motion presently before the House. I think the Minister has to give it very serious consideration. Frankly, I can think of no reason why in good faith the Minister would not agree to have this amendment brought forward.
To give a bit of coverage as to what has happened to date, I think it is necessary to expand on the remarks of my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). As the Minister will know, on July 28, the legislative committee hurried that morning to go through Bill C-123 while we were waiting for Mr. Mandamin's amendments to arrive. They were coming from Alberta to the AFN offices, and then they were going to be brought by some kind of messenger service to the committee. Through a series of unfortunate delays, they did not actually get to the committee. If the Minister or any member of this House would like to review the public record of the legislative committee, they will find that while we were examining Bill C-123, members who were there from all three Parties gave a commitment to look at Mr. Mandamin's amendments as soon as we could obtain them. We were going to get together and do that. I know the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and I and our offices have attempted to get government Members who were on the legislative committee at that time together right up until today, and that has not been possible.
We promised on the record in the absence of Mr. Mandamin, who appeared as witness with the Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations on this very important Bill, that we would look at those proposed amendments. The Speaker has already ruled out the first amendment since it touches on another piece of legislation, but I think there is a responsibility of the Minister to accept this proposed amendment. If he looks carefully at the words to be added, he will see that is a very small part of self-government. It is a very small part of determining the future of many children.
My friend touched upon the severe problem that has plagued aboriginal people in Canada for more than a century, and there have been the more recent developments of provincial apprehension laws. We know that not just hundreds and thousands but tens of thousands of the children of first citizen have been apprehended. I know from personal knowledge, having been a probation officer, that in many cases they have been apprehended on the flimsiest of grounds and not just put

August 19, 1988
Indian Act
into another home or adopted but, as my friend pointed out, many have been taken into the United States and elsewhere.
We encourage the Minister to look very carefully at the wording of the amendment wherein it states:
"and who the council determined to be the parent or person to whom the payment is to be made"-
That refers directly in most situations to the superintendent of child welfare in most of the provinces or territories. The amendment goes on to state:
"-to be held in trust and paid for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child to a parent or person who is responsible for the care and custody of the child and who the council determines to be the parent or person to whom the payment is to be made."
What that does is very clear, and I think the Minister should understand it. It is an attempt to provide back to the council some greater potential for protection and for the benefit and future of the child. I think the Government would be remiss in terms of the promise of the legislative committee to deal with this in report stage. We are doing now what the committee proposed could and should be done. I think it is very important that this proposal be in the legislation because just as Mr. Goodwin, who appeared before the committee pointed out, there is extensive study being done within the Department on how to provide for mechanisms to return a large amount of funds.
I remind the Minister that in terms of minors' trusts there is over $135 million, and in terms of estates and minors' trusts combined there is over $900 million presently under the control of the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Finance. Surely, if we are moving toward what I think Mr. Goodwin in good faith said the Government was doing, which is returning complete jurisdiction and control of those type of trust accounts to first nations, then it is extremely important.
Let us be frank with respect to how long it has taken this Bill to get here. It required investigations two years in a row by the Auditor General. It required all kinds of other investigation. In fact, we know from officials of the Department that there has been widespread lawbreaking going on in the Department in relation to minors' trusts and to estates for many years.
I think this small step at least in terms of children in relation to the bands and the parents having more direct guardianship control and trust control of those funds is what Mr. Mandamin is suggesting. He has canvassed the working group. I confirmed that with him again yesterday. This is a very important amendment for more than just the moment 20,000 children who are directly affected at the present moment.
I urge the Minister to be flexible and to agree, as I do for my Party and I know the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior does for his Party, to have this rather small but important protective amendment included in Bill C-123.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I want them to know that we have looked carefully at the proposed amendment.
As I was listening to the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior talk about child welfare and explain in a few words how difficult it was, how big an issue it was and how much more work was required to be done, he said, and I quote: "We can't buy that off in this Bill"; that is to say, resolving the whole question of aboriginal rights and constitutional protection of those rights and recognition as to what they are.
The Hon. Member for Skeena says that this amendment would be a gesture of good will, a first element of selfgovernment. I have a great deal of sympathy for that argument because I believe that aboriginal Canadians should have the right of self-government. However, if we accept this amendment today, without these other issues being resolved, it will mean that we allow a band council at its discretion to refuse to make the payment of moneys belonging to a minor. That is what we would do. Until these other important questions are settled, I do not think it would be prudent to give that power to the band council to achieve this other objective with which I have sympathy. Then we would allow a band council the power to refuse the payment of money to a minor or to the person who is in fact responsible for that minor. That is what could happen.
For that reason and that reason alone-and it is a good enough reason because I believe that an independent child is entitled to expect that money to be paid to the person who is responsible for his care and custody-I do not think that this Indian child should be prevented from getting payment because the band council would prefer it or does not like the fact that the person actually having care and custody is not a person of their liking.
For that very good reason we cannot accept the amendment. We have given it serious consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: Is
the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


James Ross Fulton: On division.
Motion (Mr. Penner) negatived.


Bernard Valcourt: that Bill C-123, an Act to amend the
August 19, 1988

Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bernard Valcourt: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because we want this legislation to go forward. There are a couple of things that I do want to point out to the House and a few things I want to mention to the Minister because there are still some actions that he can take that would help immensely in what has transpired with respect to Bill C-123.
The first point I want to make is that when Bill C-123 was being contemplated, and here the Government was looking for legislative authority to pass over minors' trust funds to parents or guardians, or to bands, without putting themselves in the position of liability-in other words they do not want at some later time to be brought before the courts-it had been in fact giving these moneys to parents and guardians but there was always the threat, the concern, the danger that there could be some liability against the Minister or the Government. I understand why they wanted to proceed in a proper way. I can only commend them for that.
I can also commend them in the fact that in developing Bill C-123 they established a working group. That is always the right way to go. The Indian Association of Alberta, a number of bands, and the Department of Indian Affairs were involved in this working group. From the Indian point of view there was some really outstanding legal counsel that the Indian Association of Alberta engaged to assist. That was in the person of Mr. Mandamin.
One of the difficulties was that the Department of Indian Affairs encouraged this working group activity. The Indian Association of Alberta co-operated. It got legal counsel and, obviously, the Minister will see in a moment that this was not without costs.
The Indian Association of Alberta which is not flush with revenue and which is not well off incurred extensive costs. It was working to help the Government because Bill C-123 really, if one wants to be very frank about it, does more for the Minister than it does for any minors, guardians, parents, or band councils. It really does more to help the Minister.
In the presentation of the Indian Association of Alberta before the legislative committee, it reminded the committee that no compensation at all had been received as a result of
Indian Act
being involved in this working group. I think the Minister will want to examine that and find out if there is still not some way to help out in allaying those legal costs that were involved.
The other points that I want to make are brief and only three in number. The first is that the Government still resists in allowing Indian bands to establish independent trust funds. In saying why the Government could not accept the amendment that I proposed, the Minister used the word that I think describes exactly why this further bolder step of allowing independent trust funds in the name of first nation Governments cannot be taken. The Minister states that it would not at this time be prudent. Large revenues are involved that come from resources on Indian lands, but we are not yet at the stage where we can say with confidence: "Yes, we can trust these first nation Governments to be responsible for their own revenues'". In the Minister's words, it would not be prudent.
I would like to debate that point at some length with the Minister, and perhaps we could find another occasion and another forum in which to do it. However, I am troubled by the charge that it would not be prudent. It leaves the impression in the minds of people who hear it that while we can extend authority to non-Indian business people to establish large independent trusts and it is prudent to do so, when First Nations people are involved there is some imprudence in doing so. In other words, in one case the confidence factor is there and we can have all sorts of trust companies in Canada either under provincial authority, or in some cases under federal authority or charter, but it would not be prudent to allow First Nations to have similar trusts.
I do not think anyone in the House needs to be reminded that some of those non-Indian trusts have hardly shown that they were in a position to look after other people's moneys properly. The evidence given in the hearings regarding the Principal Group is shocking in the extreme. If ever there was an example of imprudent behaviour, to put it mildly, in dealing with other peoples' moneys then there is a good case.
I hope that somehow the Minister will be able to leap this hurdle of saying that it is not prudent at this time and begin to exercise what is a trust responsibility, which means that we establish a climate or atmosphere of trust in which responsibilities that properly belong to First Nations can be removed from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in the name of the Minister, and go to the authority where they belong.
My second point is simply to repeat how much I regret the provincial authority could not be excluded from a call upon these trust moneys, but that argument has been exhausted for the moment and the House has made its decision, and so it will be.
My final point is that the Indian Association of Alberta, and many bands in Alberta still regret that there has to be a limit prescribed in the legislation. There is a $3,000 limit which they

August 19, 1988
Indian Act
find to be very restrictive. The Minister will be quick to point out that that amount can be increased by Order in Council, but he will also recognize at the same time that that is an awkward and cumbersome way, and it still means that all of the strings are attached. In Government-Indian relations we must start cutting those strings. I do not believe at all, as the Minister seems to think, that it would be imprudent to do so. If we believe in self-determination for our First Nations, if we believe in self-government, as we repeatedly say in all our rhetoric, then when are we going to begin to demonstrate it by cutting some of those strings and saying that, yes, within the context of our federal system our First Nations do have status, they do have authority, and that authority is unencumbered by obstacles, monitoring devices, and means and methods to keep a watchful eye, all because we say if it were otherwise it would not be prudent.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make in relation to Bill C-123, a Bill of considerable importance to minors, families, and surviving spouses of First Nations.
In the Consolidated Revenue Fund there is presently between $900 million and $1 billion held by the Minister under discretionary authority for (a) minors under Section 52 of the Indian Act, and (b) estates for surviving spouses' preferential share in the estate under Subsection 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act.
Paragraph 64(1) (a) provides that the Minister with the consent of the band may authorize a per capita distribution to the members of a band of an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the band's capital moneys derived from the sale of surrendered lands which, according to interpretations by the Government of Canada, includes oil and gas revenues.
In 1986-87, 13 bands all in Alberta made distributions. Sadly, the Government and the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) refused to accept the proposals put forward by the working group on Indian minors' funds as presented by Tony Mandamin and moved earlier today by my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). In my view, those amendments are entirely proper and evidently related to selfgovernment. My friend tabled these for consideration and we heard from the Minister why we have to wait for some more global breakthrough in self-government before any of the smaller things can be done. It seems to me at every opportunity every Member of the House should be supporting those incremental moves toward self-government, rather than waiting for panaceatic move which may or may not come in the next few months or years.
We have certainly seen the failure of the First Ministers' approach to attempt to get some type of better definition of self-government and some movement on the evolution and implementation of the full box of Section 35 of the Constitution. Frankly, I find the response of the Minister on the amendment, and the response in relation to self-government,
albeit he believes in it, somewhat shallow and hollow when an amendment such as that put before the House could not be accepted.
The amendment we were considering that the legislative committee had promised to look at seriously and deal with at report stage would, first, permit a band to name a person or corporation to act as a trustee for the funds of Indian minors. Second, it would allow a band to set by regulation distribution for an infant child for maintenance and benefit of the child. That wording is very clear in the motion we have just disposed of on division. Third, it would give band councils the right to determine who is the parent or guardian to whom a payment is to be made something we covered in debate on the amendment, or for the council to hold such distribution in trust. That is a very important point when one thinks of the degree of funds, close to $ 1 billion between the minors and the surviving spouses estate trusts.
On these principles First Nations are told that they must wait. I am advised that the Department, in fact the federal Government, is and for sometime has been involved in widespread lawbreaking in this area. The amendments found in Bill C-123 patch up a few legal holes and complications but fall far short of allowing First Nations the responsibility and authority of self-government.
This legislation should allow First Nations the right to establish trusts independent of government, to manage Indian minors' trust funds, but we are told again today by the Government that they must wait. These hundreds of millions could provide the base capital for leverage on myriad developments for First Nations.
First Nations should not in any way have to deal with provincial legislation in this field. That was made abundantly clear by the witnesses in the evidence they put before us. First Nations should be provided the authority to determine to whom the distributions are to be made. In no other sector, in the provinces or where trusts are set up for families, or in any other way, is there this type of intervention.
Fortunately, on both the $3,000 per annum ceiling on minors' trusts, and on the amendment to raise from $2,000 to $75,000, the surviving spouse's preferential share is also given some room to be increased without having to return to Parliament. This is a principle for which I wish there had been another way to do it, but at least that window was opened by amendments moved in the legislative committee so that this Bill would not have to be amended a year or two down the road and actually brought back to the floor of the House to do so.
There are presently approximately 1,000 estates awaiting settlement. For example, there is one in Ontario where a widow has been waiting some 20 years for the Department to settle. I think that various Ministers and bureaucrats should make the commitment with the passage of Bill C-123 to clear up those types of situations, not within a matter of months, but within a matter of weeks. I hope to hear from the Minister
August 19, 1988

with a commitment that that kind of authorization will be sent to the Department to get cracking, particularly on surviving spouses' preferential share.
Once again, it is sad to see that what actually brought about the movement on Bill C-123 was the pressure of the 1984 Supreme Court ruling on fiduciary responsibility, and the 1985 and 1986 reports of the Auditor General which have forced the Government to move-rather than any kind of serious goodwill-jurisdiction and authority to First Nations. Perhaps the Minister could direct some of his remarks to the matter of trusts. What is the breakdown on those trusts? We have rather scanty information. We know that it is somewhere between $900 million and $1 billion. We know that around $135 million of that is in minors' trusts, but if the Minister has the information, perhaps he could touch on how the rate of interest is paid on the trust funds, what the size of those trust funds are and what kinds of special efforts will be made to settle the surviving spouses' estates. Can he give the House some idea as to how quickly the proposal touched on by Mr. Goodwin in committee to actually establish those trusts under the control, administration and jurisdiction of First Nations will actually get under way? We might hear some kind of an announcement on that.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest to the Hon. Member that I would be pleased to attend before the committee to answer all those questions, if we can find the chairman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: I think that would be the proper forum. I will be brief because we want this to be passed rapidly. I do not mind people disagreeing with my opinions. I believe in the right of every individual Member of Parliament and, indeed, of every Canadian to have the right to his own opinion. I do not like, however, having people put words in my mouth or imputing motives or other things to me. When 1 said that it would not be prudent, it was portrayed as if I consider aboriginal Canadians or Indians as people who cannot take care of their own business.
It is significant because I believe that the Department of Indian Affairs, or even matters affecting aboriginal Canadians should not be in the realm of politics, and we should try, as Members of Parliament, to address them without partisanship. It is significant in that regard that this Government is being accused of all sorts of things.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada of 1984 that led to this. Obviously, the problem had surfaced before. I do not think that this Government was in office. So I do not think that assigning partisanship or motives to these important
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
issues solves anything. When I said it was not prudent, it was because of the unsettled state of law and provincial and aboriginal opinions in the Department and in this Government on the issue of child welfare. I said it is not prudent-given the unsettled state of that

to allow a band council to refuse a minor or the guardian of that minor, because of the present state and the unsettled questions that are there. It would not be prudent for the kids. If I could be assured that by exercising that power I would have no responsibility left as a Minister of the Crown for those Indian children, I would not hesitate. But the law is not such. I guess in the end that both Members will acknowledge that this is not a major step but it is an important step and one which is welcomed by those Indians who are concerned by this.
The Government has moved. I want to thank both Members for their work in the committee. They have made a significant contribution. This being said, I invite my colleagues to give approval to this Bill at third reading.


B. Keith Penner: We certainly will give approval. I just noted in the Minister's remarks that he did not comment on the question of compensation to those who were involved in the working group. The costs were large and it was the Minister's Department, of which he is the Minister of State, which encouraged this activity. Did he purposely neglect to comment on that or was it just an oversight?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: The
Minister may wish to respond.


Bernard Valcourt: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I always stay as far away as possible from making commitments that I cannot keep. I will look into the suggestions of the Hon. Member. I will want to know how the group was brought about and what kind of arrangements have been discussed, if this has been discussed at all, and I will get back to the Member on his question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN CENTRE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there have been prior consultations among the Parties. Our Projected Order of Business today included five Bills. The next one is Bill C-143. In the remaining three cases, the motion read: "Second reading and reference to a legislative committee". I think that we would find a general predisposition in the House, through unanimous consent, to change the wording of the motion to, "reference to

August 19, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
Committee of the Whole". At the appropriate times I think we would also find willingness in the House, through unanimous consent, to continue to move through all stages. 1 point out to Members that we have about 52 minutes left. There was a general feeling that these are three important pieces of legislation that help in terms of substance abuse, human rights and taxpayers in the country. Members might discipline themselves to make sure that we try to get as much of this accomplished as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: The
House has heard the suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary. Is that agreed?


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, certainly, there has been agreement to move as quickly as possible on all Bills, but there has been no agreement to have them all go through three stages today. In fact, I have a number of people who want to speak to the issue of drug abuse.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Government simply suggests that we move as rapidly as possible. I did not say that there was an agreement to move through all of them. If several Members want to speak to the issue of drug abuse, perhaps they could speak as briefly as possible, for five minutes, and three-minute speeches sometimes are adequate and serve to get the principle out, and then we could get on to the human rights and to the help for the taxpayers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: Following that explanation, can I assume that there is consent to move to Committee of the Whole by the House today?


An Hon. Member:: On this particular Bill?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa

Carleton)): On
this particular Bill. Yes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have to see how many people want to speak to it. I will not be governed by the time. We will have speakers who will speak as long as they so choose.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Just on the point of order, I would like to have clarity. I thought that there was agreement among the three Parties to change the motion. Let us just deal with Bill C-143, the Bill before us at this point. There is unanimous agreement to change the motion to read second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole. That was going to be done on the understanding that it would get through all stages today. If Members opposite are not prepared to agree to a change in the motion, if we do not have unanimous consent to finish at least this Bill today, perhaps we would be well advised to move to the next Bill on which there might indeed be unanimous consent to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: believe the Parliamentary Secretary is inquiring whether, if we complete second reading of the Bill today, there will be unanimous consent to go to Committee of the Whole and third reading today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking was to move as quickly as possible. There was no agreement to move to Committee of the Whole and complete this Bill today. I therefore leave it to the discretion of the Government. If it intends to withdraw this Bill and introduce another one, so be it, but we have a number of Members who want to speak to the government strategy on drug and alcohol abuse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: might suggest to the government side that negotiations could take place in the next few minutes, but I think we should proceed. Is that agreed?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think we should then proceed with the motion as contained in the Order Paper and at some later time, by unanimous consent, we may want to move to Committee of the Whole. We will have to see what is being produced.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for this opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-143. With respect to proceeding through various stages of the Bill today, I was under the impression that we would be able to conclude the Bill today, and I have constructed my remarks in reference to that understanding which I believe had been reached.
I will not go through the various aspects of the national drug strategy, even in light of the discussion which just took place, in the hope that we can move forward with the legislation in the time remaining today prior to the adjournment of Government Business. I would like Members opposite to note that I will restrict my comments on the Bill to that very specific issue rather than giving an over-all view on the national drug strategy as I would do if a greater amount of time had been provided for.
Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, was introduced on July 21, 1988, and will establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. The purpose of the centre will be to promote increased awareness and participation of Canadians in matters concerning substance abuse and to support the better use and effectiveness of the programs of excellence that exist both within and outside of government in this country.
Introduction of the Bill followed a commitment which I made in May, 1987, when I launched, on behalf of the Government and under the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the national drug strategy. "Action on Drug Abuse", as it is called, was designed as a $210 million initiative through 1991-92 to reduce the harm to individuals,
August 19, 1988

families, and communities from abuse of alcohol and drugs through a balanced approach to the problem.
I need not remind Members of the Elouse of how correct the Prime Minister was when he made the statement in Vancouver that we had a drug epidemic. There were many who said at the time that the Prime Minister had exaggerated. Surely events since that have affirmed the veracity of his words. One has only to think of the recent and tragic death of young people and, in particular, Benji Hayward to know how serious the problem of drug abuse in our society really is. Benji was a 14-year-old North York boy who drowned in Lake Ontario in the early hours of May 14, reportedly after taking marijuana, LSD, and alcohol.
This Bill and the creation of the centre will provide a national focus for these efforts and reinforce emerging partnerships at the community, provincial, and national levels of the country. The concept of the centre precedes the national drug strategy although, clearly, it has been in the process of consultations over the past year that the idea has actually taken shape.
Let me elaborate very briefly on three of the processes as each has shaped the concept of the centre and this Bill which is now before us.
First, in the course of developing the national drug strategy it became clear that there exists a wealth of experience and expertise in the alcohol and drug abuse field, both within and outside of government, that could be used for the betterment of all Canadians. I called, therefore, on one of Canada's most respected addiction professionals, Mr. David Archibald, the founder of the Addiction Research Foundation and past president of the International Council on Alcohol and Addictions to examine this matter and to recommend how these disparate resources might better serve the country as a whole.
Second, in a related development my Department launched a national consultation on substance abuse in the workplace last February to gain some insight into appropriate policy and program direction in this area for the future. These consultations, which involved a representative and impressive crosssection of Canadians, confirmed the desirability of an independent, federally funded and regionally responsive national centre on substance abuse.
Third, I am indebted as well to the valuable contribution of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare in this area. That committee, in late 1986, undertook a study of alcohol and drug abuse in Canada and reported its findings in a report entitled "Booze, Pills and Dope: Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada". One of the major recommendations of that committee was for the creation of a national centre on substance abuse to promote and facilitate the development and exchange of information on alcohol and drug abuse and to engage in public education and prevention activities.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not only a member of that committee but one of the chief architects of that report. I
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
am pleased that you are in the chair today to observe that from time to time committee reports do find fruition in legislation.
The legislation provides for the establishment of a separate corporation to operate at arm's length from the Government and to provide analysis and informed comment on alcohol and drug abuse matters, promote the development and exchange of information, encourage improved standards of service and professional training and education, undertake research, and co-operate with Governments and others in developing improved programs in such areas as alcohol and drug abuse prevention, public education and treatment, and rehabilitation.
The legislation provides that the management of the affairs of the centre be vested in a board of directors consisting of up to 15 members. These persons will be chosen from Government, the business community, labour, and the voluntary sector-effectively all walks of Canadian life. Their leadership qualities and sensitivity to regional, ethnic, cultural, social, and health issues associated with substance abuse will be critical to the success of the centre. The legislation provides that the work of the centre will be directed by a chief executive officer who will be appointed by the board. He or she will be assisted by a small staff of professionals, some of whom might be seconded from the provinces, the business community, and/or labour for a specified duration or assignment.
I am reminded of a businessman who approached me not many months ago and told me of the tragic occurrences in his family. Instead of hiding the information or trying to live with the reality behind closed doors, he told me that if we ever have a centre, drug strategy program or project we should count him in as a volunteer because of his experience, that he would like to help. He said that although he may not have a lot of professional experience or training, he had a lot of personal involvement. It is also that type of person that we are looking for to sit on the board of the centre.
Finally, the legislation provides for a degree of accountability by the centre to Parliament and the people of Canada. While the centre is neither an agent of Her Majesty nor is its staff members agents of the Public Service of Canada, the corporation will be financed at the outset exclusively by public funds. Accordingly, the corporation is to report annually to the public and the Minister of National Health and Welfare in turn shall table such report in Parliament. A more comprehensive evaluation of the centre will be taken in its fifth year.
On the matter of funding, I would add that the Bill is structured to facilitate and accommodate the centre's receipt of financial support from sources other than the federal Government. The Government has committed up to $2 million each year for this centre, to be paid out of moneys appropriated annually by Parliament. The committee also looked at the amount of funding. At that time, we had in mind a figure of approximately $1.4 million per year. The committee thought that a little more should be considered, though the report

August 19, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
indicated that the amount should be excessive. We believe that this figure is very much in keeping with that recommendation as well.
In summary, I believe that Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, represents a very important step in Canada's action on drug abuse. It will contribute to improved awareness and knowledge of substance abuse while building on current expertise. It will point to new directions for action while reinforcing co-operation. I would therefore urge all Hon. Members to support the initiative and to move this legislation ahead as quickly as possible so that the centre can become operational at the earliest opportunity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) raised the issue of the committee's report entitled "Booze, Pills and Dope". He is quite correct in suggesting that one of the recommendations of the report was to seek the establishment of a national centre on substance abuse. What the Minister fails to say and what should be part and parcel of the discussion today is that there were 31 recommendations in that report tabled unanimously by all members of the committee and the Minister rejected 29 of them. Out of 31 substantive recommendations, the only one he has seen fit to move on is the recommendation to create a national centre.
There were many, many other extremely serious concerns elucidated in the report, concerns that the Minister has either ignored, failed to act on or is afraid to act on. I would like to spend some moments outlining the over-all thrust of the Minister's so-called drugs strategy as well as the findings of the committee.
The Minister began this afternoon by reiterating the statement which was made by his leader, the day after a similar statement was made by the President of the United States, that there is a drug epidemic in Canada. In fact, the committee that studied the so-called drug epidemic determined quite substantively that the problem in Canada was quite significantly related to the abuse of legal drugs like alcohol more than to illegal drugs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare himself, in a press release he issued on December 30, 1986, after the statement of the so-called epidemic, said that there was a 12 per cent decrease in the number of convictions under all federally related legislation in 1985.
We heard time and again that the overwhelming majority of Canadians who abuse drugs abuse alcohol and prescription drugs, legal drugs that are available to be purchased at pharmacies or at liquor stores, most of which are government run. While the use of illegal drugs is certainly still of concern to every Canadian, particularly the use among teenagers as we learned in the very tragic case that occurred in the City of Toronto, in actual fact the number of people using illegal drugs in Canada has been on the decline when it comes to marijuana. The number has been holding level for drugs like cocaine and crack. The overwhelming message of the report
tabled in the House was that we had to develop a strategy to deal with legal drugs.
I would like to take a moment to quote an article which appeared in The Vancouver Sun which is headlined "Lame excuses from Mr. Epp". The article reads:
So much for the great Canadian Drug Epidemic.
It was of immense concern to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in September 1986, when he declared in Vancouver that "drug abuse has become an epidemic that undermines our economic and social fabric".
By coincidence, it was on the same day that his good friend, President Ronald Reagan, launched a crusade against drugs in the United States.
A House of Commons committee was given the task of drawing up a plan of attack on alcohol and drug abuse. It held 11 months of hearings and delivered a report to Parliament last November with 31 recommendations, including prevention and treatment programs, tougher drinking-driving laws, warning labels on alcoholic beverages, and mandatory educational messages in liquor advertising.
But it seems the Government no longer considers the problem an urgent one.
Health Minister Jake Epp has delivered a response to the committee's report that accepts only two of the recommendations: establishment of a clearing house on information on drugs and alcohol and a treatment program for young drug abusers. Total cost to Ottawa in the first year of operation: $22 million.
Mr. Epp offered some pretty lame excuses for rejecting the other recommendations.
On the question of warning labels, the Minister said that he had asked the producers of alcoholic beverages to carry them voluntarily and they had said no. As a result of that, the Minister backed down in the same way he backed down on the food labelling issue. If the industry says no, the Minister jumps. Besides, the Minister said that there is no consensus that labels will help, and they might violate international trade rules.
In California, as of October 1 of this year, all alcoholic beverages will have to carry warnings including the message that they can cause birth defects, and in Massachusetts, the State House of Representatives has passed a similar law. Obviously the much-touted Americans who will be entering into the trade agreement think they can carry warning labels without violating any international agreement.
This recommendation would not have cost the taxpayers one penny. A variety of warning labels could have been affixed to alcoholic beverages. One could warn pregnant women that consumption of alcohol during the period of pregnancy can lead to birth defects. Another could warn that excessive consumption of alcohol can lead to cirrhosis of the liver and other extremely damaging illnesses. However, the Minister decided not to follow that recommendation.
As Hon. Members know, the advertisement of spirits is forbidden on Canadian television as a result of CRTC regulations, some legislation and a voluntary ban. At the same time, the television advertising of so-called soft alcohol like beer and wine is permitted. The committee heard suggestions that all advertising for all alcoholic beverages should be banned. The committee considered that recommendation but determined that in the shorter term, it would be more effective
August 19, 1988

if these companies which spend literally millions of dollars advertising their various brands be required to set aside 15 per cent of their advertising budgets to promotional health advertisements relating to the sale of alcohol. That could include messages like the don't drink and drive message we see from time to time in various magazines.
Again, since spirits are not allowed to be advertised on television, the brewing industry is in a somewhat unique position along with the wine industry in so far as advertising requirements are concerned. We did not want to ban advertising but felt that a 15 per cent set-aside for positive advertising would be sufficient. I am advised by the Brewers Association of Canada that it has voluntarily moved on a set-aside of 10 per cent for positive health-related advertising in the area of alcohol abuse. However, the Minister ignored that recommendation.
There were a number of recommendations relating to specific target groups. The Minister mentioned Benji whose name has become synonymous with the need of families and society to deal with the issue of drug and alcohol abuse, not only by older citizens but also by young people.
One of the problems that was repeatedly cited in this report was the fact that treatment centres are not available for young people who seek help. In most cases, treatment centres are targeted toward older citizens. Even in the cases where there are very positive programs working to get people off illegal drugs or legal drugs, those centres are struggling simply to survive.
When the Minister announced his famous drug strategy, I think many organizations that are specifically delivering treatment programs, like the Stonehenge Rehabilitation Centre in Guelph, Ontario, felt they would be able to benefit from the Government's program. Unfortunately, we discovered very soon after the drug strategy was announced that, according to the Minister's own interpretation: "The federal drug strategy funds cannot be used to pay per diems or any other form of billing for client costs in existing treatment centres". Therefore, a place like Stonehenge, which was in dire straits and appealed to the area Member of Parliament for assistance, was on the verge of a real financial crisis and could not get the help that was required through this so-called $210 million program to combat drugs.
One of the points made by the committee was that we have tried over the generations to inhibit the supply of illicit drugs being made available. In other words, there was an effort to get the pushers, traffickers, and the people coming in by the ports. We heard from the RCMP that this is a never-ending battle because of the line of drugs coming from the Bermuda Triangle and the Middle East.
We must take the approach of encouraging people to take control of their own lives and turn away from the use of drugs. That includes the use of treatment programs and prevention
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
programs. Therefore, another of the extremely important recommendations we made, but was ignored by the Government, dealt with the issue of federal Government and federal Crown corporations offering employee assistance programs. Presently, if someone working for a federally regulated company comes forward to admit they have a drinking problem, or it becomes evident that their performance shows they have a drinking problem, and that person would like to deal with it, it may cause a situation where they may face firing or retribution.
Our committee recommended that the federal Government do everything possible to encourage federal Government employees and employees of federally-regulated agencies to have access to employee assistance programs. We thought that was a reasonable request, yet it was refused by the Minister. Therefore, a federal Government employee who is having serious problems relating to the consumption of alcohol or other drugs and may even be threatened by the loss of his or her job, is not afforded the opportunity of participating in an employee assistance program.
That contrasts very poorly with the record of companies like Dofasco in my community which, in fact, works very closely with employees. When a problem is identified, that employee can voluntarily enter a drug rehabilitation program that is funded by the employer. The employee can take leave from work under the employee assistance program that is available take control of his or her life and deal with the problem, and come back to the job without facing a possible firing or demotion. We thought that recommendation was reasonable, but it was ignored.
We also recommended that the federal Government make available assistance programs in the case of spouses and family members of federal employees who are specifically located in remote areas. 1 think of some of our military members whose families may be stationed in very remote parts of the country and may be subject to undue pressure of isolation and find themselves in a situation where their consumption of alcohol increases as a result of that isolation, frustration and lack of back-up. We recommended that the federal Government make available to the spouses and family members of employees who are located in remote areas the opportunity to benefit from employee assistance programs offered under the auspices of the federal Government. That recommendation was refused.
There are a number of other recommendations that the Minister of National Health and Welfare chose to ignore. I hesitate to say it, but I think one of the reasons is that his Department's record of expenditures in the area of alcohol and drug abuse generally has been abominable.
I have been studying this issue for a number of months, and the vast majority of federal Government funds that have been funnelled into the so-called national drug strategy have been funnelled toward the so-called area of interdiction, whether it be through the Solicitor General's office or improved staffing requirements of the RCMP. The funds have been funnelled

August 19, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
toward the area of preventing the drugs from getting into the country, but even the RCMP told our committee that any strategy should deal with education in the schools and on cutting down on the demand side. The supply side will always exist. If it does not come from the Far East, it will come from the south and elsewhere.
Let us look at the figures. The most recent figures that were made available to us about specific spending by the Department of National Health and Welfare services and promotion branch reveal some rather staggering negative statistics about the amount of money the federal Government has been spending in the area of alcohol and other drugs, specifically in the health and welfare branch.
The figures speak louder than words. In 1984-85, the last year for which the Liberal Government was responsible for the funding of alcohol and drug treatment programs under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the total amount spent was $2,322 billion. That included approximately $1,114 billion in the Department of National Health and Welfare in the area of alcohol abuse, and $816 million to deal with programs relating to the abuse of other drugs. There was a subsequent total package of $390 million, for a total of $2,322 billion. These are figures from the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Let me cite the figures for 1986-87 for the same Ministry. In 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said we had a drug crisis and the Minister said it was an epidemic. The actual spending in the Department of National Health and Welfare, excluding the other Departments that deal with the interdiction and cutting down on the supply side, was $1,529 billion. That was a decrease in spending of $800 million over that three-year period in the Department of National Health and Welfare on the question of drug and alcohol abuse.
I certainly agree with the Minister and applaud him for moving forward with one recommendation, a Canadian centre on substance abuse. It is a centre which was endorsed by all three Parties. I am sure all Parties will support the legislation. However, I must ask the Minister to put the facts on the table as they relate to the whole area of substance abuse. Given that this is the only Bill we have seen in the House as a result of the work done by the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, I could not permit this opportunity to go by without putting the Government and the Minister on notice that we do not see a Bill representing one recommendation out of the 31 brought before us as a positive response to the crisis in the abuse of legal drugs in this country. We certainly feel there are a number of other areas where the Minister could move expeditiously. He would certainly receive our full support and I believe he would receive the full support of members on the government side of the House, to move on labelling, to move on employee assistance programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If we could trust your word.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sure the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) does not support employee assistance programs for federal government employees, but it was an all-Party unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee. We are going into the private sector and telling federally regulated companies to give their employees a chance to come forward and acknowledge a drinking or drug problem and to deal with it in the context of treatment rather than dealing with it in the context of being thrown out of their job and being another unproductive Canadian. We think the federal Government could show the lead in the area of employee assistance programs. We feel that the federal Government should also show the lead in employee assistance programs when it relates to the Armed Forces and to the RCMP. Those are areas where family members, in many instances, are required to live in far-flung places.
There was another very great shortcoming in the Minister's recommendation, or lack of recommendation, as it relates to the native population. I think the Member, who sat with us on the unanimous committee which looked at the issue, was well aware of the fact that we have a very difficult situation in relation to illegal substance abuse in the native community. There has been a government program brought forward to deal with it under NAADAP. That is fine for those natives who happen to live in an area where they qualify for a NAADAP program, specifically those Indians or aboriginal people who are living on reserves.
In my riding of Hamilton East I happen to have a very large population of native people who would like to benefit from time to time from the programs being offered. We heard representations from Thunder Bay and many areas in Saskatchewan and Manitoba where the native person who seeks some help from the federal Government by way of a treatment program is told: "Well, you do not live on a reserve. That is a provincial problem".
They go to the provincial Government and ask for help for a problem-perhaps the community would like to launch a program in an urban area-and the provincial Government says: "I am sorry, that is a federal problem. You are covered under NAADAP". So we have a situation where these individuals and community groups are seeking solutions to problems which have resulted in the destruction of some of the social fabric of their communities and they are essentially caught between a rock and a hard place, if I can use a colloquial expression. The provinces say it is the federal Government's responsibility and the federal Government says it is up to the provinces. Meanwhile, people are hurting. People are reaching the point of suicide because they cannot get the answers they need when it comes to specific treatment programs.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not deal with that when he launched his national drug strategy. In fact, when the national drug strategy was originally announced, it did not even mention the word "alcohol" until some of us on the committee rose up and said that while we can talk about cocaine and
August 19, 1988

crack, which makes a lot of headlines, the reality is that the most serious and pressing problem that touches every family and every community is one of alcohol abuse and we have to address some very specific recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. Our committee made 31 recommendations, good recommendations that would not cost Canadian taxpayers a cent, including a decision to put warning labels on bottles, indicating, as is already being done in California and Masscachusetts, that continued use of alcohol by pregnant women may cause deformations in the fetus. The research is not very specific, but in any case, we know that if a mother drinks too much alcohol, there is a certain syndrome called the alcohol syndrome which affects the fetus.
All we wanted was a warning label, indicating the kind of problems that might occur. The Minister said no. It wouldn't cost a cent, but he refused just the same.
We made another recommendation. It is a fact, and the Speaker knows better than anyone else, that today, although alcohol manufacturers may not advertise on television, beer and wine producers do have that right. We asked, and there were even witnesses who asked, to prohibit all advertising. The committee said no. We don't think all advertising should be prohibited right now, but we want to ask companies to set aside 15 per cent of their advertising budget for advertisements on health and alcohol problems. I think this is already being done by the National Canadian Brewers Association, up to 10 per cent. So we asked the Government to ask companies to set aside 15 per cent of their advertising budget. The Minister refused.
We support this Bill which would establish a centre on substance abuse, but we challenge the Minister's right to say, as he just did, that he followed very closely the recommendations made by our committee, because in the final instance, he rejected 29 out of 31 recommendations. He accepted only 2, one of which we are considering today in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) should realize that, as our committee concluded, federal funding should focus first and foremost on the issue of treatment. Even representatives of the RCMP who appeared before our committee told us: If we try to spend all our money and effort on prohibition, in other words, on preventing drugs from entering the country, if we cut off one route, they will find another one. It's up to the federal Government, through education . . . Even the RCMP said that, for instance, they were starting to visit elementary schools to explain, to educate people so they don't get involved in drugs, whether legal or illegal. And that is where the federal Government should put the emphasis when it launches a so-called drug strategy.
The Minister announced a program worth hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with drugs, but if we look at his Department's figures, there has been a drop of almost 30 per
Canadian Centre on Substance
cent in spending in the area of treatment for alcohol and drug abuse since he took over the Department.
I said earlier, and I find it somewhat surprising, that since the Conservative Government came to power, that part of the Department's budget that deals with alcohol and drug issues dropped from $2,322,000 in 1984-85 (the last period for which the Liberals were responsible) to $1,529,000 in 1986-87. So when the Minister refers to a so-called drug epidemic, we first have to realize that he is not referring to an epidemic of illegal drugs, because the Minister himself said the use of illegal drugs was decreasing in Canada. In any case, the Department must focus its spending on treatment, on programs and on the problems of Native people and youth. Unfortunately, the Minister turned down 29 of the committee's 31 recommendations. So it is easy for him to say: Fine, we are going to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. That will make a nice headline just before the election. As for a realistic approach to dealing with the problem of legal and illegal drugs, he didn't even mention the issue of prescription drugs, because this is another area, Mr. Speaker, where there is incredible abuse. We suggested, for instance ...
Another recommendation which was rejected by the Government was that the Canadian Government could take a page from the book of the Alberta Government, which has introduced a method of controlling by computerization the distribution of legal prescription drugs across the province. The pharmacare program of that province is computerized in such a way that it eliminates the practice that we have seen in many provinces where a patient moves from one doctor to another to obtain multiple prescriptions. We made a recommendation in that regard which was ignored by the Government as well.
We do not have time today to get into the whole area of prescription drugs. One of the frustrations that we felt in the committee was that the whole area of legal and illegal drug abuse and substance abuse is so widespread as to make it extremely difficult to zero in on the key areas. However, we agreed unanimously that the very key area was in the area of alcohol abuse. Unfortunately, the reaction of the Minister to date to the committee report has been to ignore almost every single recommendation dealing with abuse of alcohol.
While we intend to support the specific legislation dealing with the creation of the national centre, we would also like the Minister to come forward with some specific legislation before the election. We would certainly give him our support if he could move in the areas of publicity and labelling, two areas which would not require the expenditure of a single cent of the taxpayers' money. We would give him our support if he would also move in the area of employee assistance programs for federal government employees so that we would actually be in a position to start attacking the problem at the root.

August 19, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
Unless we can do that, we will continue to see people turned away from treatment programs as they have been at Stonehenge in the Guelph region. We will continue to see young people who do not get the message early enough to save lives. We will continue to see the escalating difficulty faced by a society that is bombarded by all kinds of advertisements illustrating the glamour of the beach beer party. We have all seen it and probably we have all participated in it. Unless we can counterbalance that with a responsible, reasonable message about a mature way of integrating alcohol into one's life as one is growing up, we will see a continuing escalation in the problem of legal drug abuse, not illegal drug abuse.
My Party and I will certainly support the legislation. However, we would like to see a response from the Minister to the 29 other recommendations that have thus far been ignored, in particular on the issue of funding for specific treatment programs and for native populations and our young people.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-143. I am sure that you, too, Mr. Speaker, feel a sense of gratitude that at least one of our recommendations has been attended by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). On that basis we welcome it. We will do what we can to facilitate and expedite the passage of this legislation. It does not seem to me to be in the interests of what we intended in our recommendations, or in the interests of doing something about the substance abuse problem to delay this Bill simply because we see failures on the part of the Government to adopt all our recommendations, although we take seriously on this side of the House the failure to deal in an explicit and productive way with the entirety of the 31 recommendations that we made.
I know that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the investigation by our committee, the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, was precipitated by a series of events, culminating in the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicating that there was a drug crisis in Canada. This of course was motivated by the statement in the United States by his close buddy and confidant, Ronald Reagan, that there was a drug crisis in the United States as there indeed is in a certain sense. It is my view and continues to be my view that there is not a drug crisis in the United States. There is a social crisis in the United States, a crisis of great disparities in income, great deprivation on the basis of racism, great problems on the basis of emphasis on market philosophy that moves in the direction of sloganeering and easy solutions to complex problems which will not be solved simply by confiscating cars at the border because they have single cigarette papers detected in them.
It was an unfortunate thing that the Prime Minister would have become a copycat in those circumstances because it was misleading in a number of respects. First, it was misleading because Canada is not comparable to the United States. It is true that in certain parts of the country, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver, the appearance of crack concerns us.
We are concerned about the fate of Benji. That is certainly true. But even there one can draw certain relationships between social circumstances and social conditions and the appearance of the more dangerous drugs of abuse.
I am saying that the social problems in the United States that have made hard drug abuse such a concern there have not attained in Canada. I thought it was misleading and an unfit description of our country to say that there is a drug crisis of the nature that exists in the United States.
However, this is not to say that there is not a crisis of substance abuse in the country. The only difference between what we found and what was alleged or implied by the Prime Minister is that while there is a problem and, indeed, perhaps in a certain sense, a crisis with respect to substance abuse, the dimensions of this consist in a large part of the abuse of alcohol and in an additional large part the abuse of prescription drugs. Of course, one could not fail to be conscious of the serious conditions on Indian reserves, native reserves, caused by the abuse of substances such as propane and glue and there, too, the tremendous level of alcohol abuse to the extent that in some reserves the level of phenylalcohol syndrome reaches 50 per cent.
There is a problem of substance abuse in Canada. The failure to address it properly does indeed make it a matter of critical dimensions. Whether or not it is an epidemic is difficult to say. I think we would be more inclined to say that it is endemic, that it is a situation in which we have a large-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)):: regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being 2 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   FOOD AND DRUGS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Ms. Copps that Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (list of ingredients), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my remarks to Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. This Bill has drawn the attention of the House to problems faced by many Canadians who suffer from various food allergies. Bill C-289 would require the mandatory listing of ingredients used in restaurant food.
It is important to make the Canadian public more aware of this issue. I want to mention one fact that is very important as
August 19, 1988

a first step in this area. Recently the Searle Drug Company of Canada announced that it was going to be listing nonmedicinal ingredients in its drug products, both over the counter and prescription. This has never been done before, and it has been a problem to people who suffer from allergies from non-medicinal ingredients. I believe that that is a very important step in the similar problem that we face today.
Many Members of the House have spoken to constituents who suffer from food allergies and who say it is very important to list food ingredients in restaurants. I believe that the Government and the House of Commons can find a solution to this problem.
The statistics are quite frightening to anyone with a serious food allergy. In the past two years 24 Canadians have died, and 25,000 others are at risk every day. These numbers indicate quite clearly that food sensitivity is a real and serious problem, and one that we as legislators cannot ignore. Similar problems in the areas of food allergies and adverse reactions have been successfully addressed in the recent past.
In the early 1980s sulphites, which are a group of substances that have been widely used as preservatives for years, received a good deal of public attention as a possible cause of a number of allergic reactions suffered by persons eating in restaurants. In some cases, the allergic reactions were severe enough that people were required to seek medical attention or even hospitalization.
Health and Welfare Canada's health protection branch held consultations with many experts on the issue, including groups such as the Allergy Information Association, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the medical community, regulatory agencies from other countries, and the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association. A much clearer picture of the problem resulted.
The most common source of problems was narrowed down to the use of sulphites on fresh fruits and vegetables in salad bars in restaurants. Further meetings with the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association resulted in that organization taking voluntary steps to discourage the use of sulphites by its members. In addition to the voluntary measures, the health protection branch enacted regulations prohibiting the use of sulphites. Consumer education programs were also carried out. Based on all the available information these measures have been effective, and the problems with sulphites have been minimized.
I have discussed sulphites at some length because there are many similarities between the way that issue is handled and the manner in which a solution is emerging to food allergies in restaurants. There have been a number of unfortunate and even tragic incidents, and the various media have given this issue their attention.
Members of the House know that we are now in a period of consultation and discussion. Bill C-289 presently before the House is in some measure responsible for that. The Standing
Food and Drugs Act
Committee on National Health and Welfare of which I am a member, has held extensive hearings on the subject, during which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) indicated very clearly his resolve to go forward on the issue. Officials of both Health and Welfare Canada, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are actively seeking an effective solution to the problem. Extensive consultations are being held with the allergy associations, the medical community, and the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association. Bill C-289 is a commendable effort aimed at eliminating severe allergic reactions to food in restaurants. It is a step in the right direction, but the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) can certainly be improved.
Bill C-289 could better address the realities of the food restaurant business. Large chains may use highly standardized menus and even centralized food preparation, but the Bill is aimed at all restaurants. Restaurants, in particular non-chain restaurants, must be flexible. Various ingredients may be available to a chef today, but not tomorrow. Some restaurants change their menus on a daily basis. It would be next to impossible for a restaurant, even an establishment with its own printing facilities, to provide clients with a full list of ingredients used to prepare daily menus. For example, let us think of the main ingredients that go into a complex sauce. Menus could become bulky and impossible to read. Ethnic restaurants would have to translate the names of exotic ingredients, and still would not be able to guarantee that an allergy prone customer would be protected against unknown ingredients.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that customers with food allergies may get a false sense of security from such a list. One single lapse in concentration on the part of the restaurant and an additional ingredient in a recipe could have an unfortunate result. Under Bill C-289 not even a minimal substitution or change would be allowed. In view of the very nature of the restaurant business, Bill C-289 is not completely realistic. However, it is an attempt to deal with the problem that should and must be addressed. We must ask ourselves if it represents the very best way to solve the problem.
For example, some people believe that restaurant owners should be required to provide a verbal list of all ingredients used in food preparation, upon request, to customers suffering from food allergies. This method would be effective. It would relieve restaurant owners of the obligation and expense of a printed ingredient list, and could be more responsive to day to day changes.
I also understand that the food industry itself has come up with voluntary proposals for quick service food chains to provide lists of their ingredients in their food. Although these proposals are promising, they would not conform to Bill C-289. Something must be done to afford better protection to Canadians who suffer from food allergies when they dine out in restaurants. There can be no disputing that they need better information so as to avoid substances that are problematic for them. The question is how best to convey that information.

August 19, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
What is the proper vehicle for the job? Promising suggestions have been made by the food industry, the allergy associations, and others. Our task is to take Bill C-289 and improve it in order that Canadians with food sensitivities will receive the type of protection that they deserve.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon. I believe that this is the third day we have had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-289 presented to us by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has proposed this Bill to us for very good and proper reasons. As our colleague from the Conservative Party stated moments ago, we know that there are a number of people in Canada who suffer from drug and food allergies. Sometimes these allergies can range from a minor inconvenience, and on other occasions they can be deadly.
I have a daughter who has allergies. In her case it is something that could be considered minor. She is allergic to cats. However, if she is beside a cat for any longer than five or ten minutes, her face swells to such a point that she is almost unrecognizable. It only takes a matter of a few minutes, but obviously it does something to her system that makes it such that she cannot be near that type of animal.
We understand that for a little girl it is sometimes difficult for her to understand why she cannot go near an animal, especially when it is an animal that kids generally like. I have had to deal with that myself. However, the parallel is not totally just, of course, because in the case of my child, I do not think that what she has could be deadly. Mind you, if she were in the presence of such an animal for a long time, it could have probably more serious consequences, but it is avoidable because it is not an allergy to something that she physically ingests. In the case of people who are allergic to certain foods, of course, the matter is even more serious.
When I was a member of the legislature some years ago, one of my colleagues had a secretary whose daughter was allergic to peanuts. I remember seeing the young lady. She was 16 years old. She otherwise felt fine, and she was fine. She went for dinner at someone's house one day and unfortunately consumed a dessert or something that contained peanuts. She died at about 16 years of age.
I heard last night a television report of similar incidence where a young man of 17 or 18 years old died. He was allergic to nuts. In his case, he ate an apple turnover which contained ground hazel nuts, ground walnuts, or something like that, at a fast food restaurant. It was enough that it killed him. So foods that certainly would not do any harm to most of us can be deadly if ingested by some people, if those people are allergic.
My colleague is asking that restaurants label the food that they serve. I must say that there are provisions of the Bill that I am not totally comfortable with. The main thrust of the Bill, particularly as it pertains to legislating the fast food chains- and I am speaking here of McDonalds, Burger King, Harvey's and Arby's and other such restaurants-to put on their packages the products that are inside. It surely is not all that complicated. If someone can put the word "Whopper" on a cardboard box, one should also be able to put underneath the word "Whopper", "this package contains-" and then describe the contents. Surely that is not unreasonable because those foods do come in packages and there would be very little additional cost.
In the case of smaller restaurants, of course, that would be an onerous task. One cannot ask the local mom and pop restaurant to start giving a list of what is contained in their bacon and eggs and this sort of thing when you buy breakfast there. Under this Bill proposed by my colleague, the way that I interpret it, particularly as it pertains to the franchise restaurants, the Minister would have the authority under regulation to designate which chains would have to comply with the regulations. For instance, the Minister could state, well, chain X, McDonalds-that is a very large chain-can obviously afford to do this, so that one shall be designated as one of the chains that will have to comply with this rule, and so on, and describe the other restaurants which prepare packaged hot food, have a limited menu and sell food in large quantities.
That does not seem to be very complicated. There may be provisions of the Bill which would have to be deleted as they pertain to smaller stores. We can do that in the parliamentary committee. I would suggest that my colleague from Hamilton East, who is a very reasonable Member of Parliament, would probably be most co-operative if another Hon. Member proposed that kind of an initiative.
The Member for Hamilton East has a very good idea here. We should not think that she is the only person who feels that way. We know of Canadians who have had the misfortune of losing family members, we know of people who have died tragically and needlessly as a result of eating foods to which they were allergic.	'
Over recent months my colleague has received petitions, which I have in front of me in this folder and which she intends to table in this House in the days to come. She now has 4,000 signatures of people wanting this kind of legislation. They are coming in at the rate of hundreds every single day from people supporting this kind of initiative.
I trust that Members will not use up much more time in this House and that at the end of today, or before, they will allow this Bill to go to a parliamentary committee, where we will amend it if that is necessary in order to ensure that it does not create any hardship for small business and so on. I do not want that to happen either. But let us do it now. Let us send it to a parliamentary committee today. If we could protect the life of only one young person in this country-and I know that there
August 19, 1988

are a lot more than that who can be protected by this measure-then let's do it.

So, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues, Hon. Members on both sides of this House, to let this Bill go forward, to let it be studied by a Parliamentary Committee so that it can be considered in detail and that a final version can be passed, after certain amendments are made.

I trust that my colleagues on all sides of the House will cooperate, send this Bill to a parliamentary committee and ensure that it is adopted for the benefit of many, many Canadians.
I said moments ago that there were something like 4,000 signatures here. That was an understatement, I am afraid. I am told that the actual number of Canadians who have signed these petitions is 20,000. I ask my colleagues to bear that in mind, and I ask for the co-operation of all Members of the House.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I recognize that this is the final hour of a long, extended week of work in the House of Commons. It is the first opportunity that I have had to speak while you have been in the chair, so I hope that you will find the comments and the subject interesting until the final hour is reached.
I would like to comment on Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, which has been introduced by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Bill C-289 is concerned with the problems of Canadians who unknowingly consume restaurant foods containing ingredients to which they are allergic. The Bill before the House would require all restaurants to make available to the public a list, in French and English, of all ingredients used in the food that they sell. The Bill would also require every restaurant chain and every branch restaurant, or any food services facility-


Don Boudria: That is not what it says. It says either language, not both.


Clement George Minaker: -in either language. I would think, because of the seriousness of this, that this would be in both languages because of our country and the travelling of citizens across our country.
It would require that all restaurants or services would provide a packaging, a list of the ingredients used in the food that they sell. Bill C-289 seeks to deal with a problem that has become acute in Canada. Many people suffer allergic reactions to food and food products or ingredients within food. Tragically, some even die from severe allergic reactions to the food that they eat.
I might point out that the CBC has reported that some 24 Canadians have died from allergic reactions to food eaten in restaurants during the past two years. The Hon. Member for
Food and Drugs Act
Hamilton East has identified a very real problem and should be thanked for bringing it to the attention of the House of Commons for debate so that we can get opinions and the public attention to this problem that exists not only in this country but in all parts of the world.
As I have indicated, many Canadians are at risk because of food allergies. The numbers have been estimated in the tens of thousands, although it is very difficult to say with certainty just how many Canadians suffer from this problem. However, by being extremely careful when shopping and cooking, these Canadians can be reasonably sure of controlling what they eat at home and can, therefore, dine at home with some security.
I attended a restaurant equipment show in Las Vegas in 1975 where it was stated that in the United States two of every five meals consumed by the average American were consumed in restaurants or otherwise out of their own home. I would think that by now in Canada at least half of the meals of the average Canadian are consumed outside of the home. This increases the threat to people who may suffer from allergies without necessarily being aware of it.
I can understand that it is very difficult for restaurants to guarantee all the ingredients they include in their foods. As the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) indicated earlier, there are many ways that that could fall asunder when people have come to feel fully confident that the list on the wall contains all the ingredients in a meal.
This is a very complex situation. A person may be allergic to the flour in a particular sauce on a meal without being aware of it because the ingredients of the flour had not been listed. To what degree would restaurants be responsible for identifying all the ingredients in the foods they serve?
Without particular reference to the subject, I would like to commend the Searle drug company which announced last week that all of the non-medical ingredients in the products it sells will be identified. This is a step in the right direction. Some of the drug companies are doing this on their own. I foresee that companies supplying food will also do this voluntarily for the public interest. Discussions are now taking place between the Department of Health and suppliers of food, preservatives, and ingredients.
This is a very complex problem, and I would not want this Bill to be passed in its present form. While it attempts to deal with this problem, I do not believe it goes far enough. They have not studied all the implications which would result if this Bill did become law. However, I very strongly support continued discussions with the proper authorities and the bringing forward of a proper Bill to the House of Commons as quickly as possible to try to cover all the areas which I believe this Bill has not covered.
I commend the Member for Hamilton Copps) for bringing forward this first initiative through a Private Members' Bill in

August 19, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
order to bring it to the attention of the public and before this House for discussion. After proper discussions have taken place, the Government will bring forward a Bill which will encompass in a more complete fashion the problems which exist.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as we are all aware, it is the official mandate of certain Departments to be concerned with the health of Canadians. Together, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs work to ensure the development and adoption of legislation designed to protect the Canadian consumer, keep Canadians informed, and ensure their fundamental well-being. It is in that same spirit that the Food and Drug Act regulates the labelling of drugs to ensure that users are aware of the quantities of all medicinal ingredients in those products.
Similar rules are also applied to the packaging and labelling of numerous consumer products that Canadians purchase in grocery stores and put on the dinner table every day. It is not only a matter of ensuring that Canadians eat well and take safe and effective medical products when they are needed, but of respecting their right to be well and properly informed about what they consume. Further, it is a matter of making it possible for those who suffer from allergies to know precisely what substances and ingredients make up the drugs they take and the foods they eat.
Bill C-289 directly addresses the concerns of those Canadians who may unwittingly consume foods containing specific ingredients to which they are allergic or whole foods that bring on allergic reactions.
Under the provisions of this legislation restaurateurs would have to make available to their clientele a list of all ingredients used in the preparation of the foods offered on their menus. Similarly, restaurant franchises and chains would have to list the ingredients they use on their product packaging. Of course, Madam Speaker, this should be done in both official languages.
Let me expand upon this matter further in order to show clearly that the problem addressed by Bill C-289 is of real and pressing concern. For example, diabetics and those suffering from celiac disease must exercise great care in finding out the ingredients of all foods which they themselves have not prepared. If in doubt, these people must simply avoid the food product.
The same holds true for those who suffer from food-related allergies. They must be ever cautious in asking restaurants for complete details on the ingredients and makeup of the food in the meals being offered. For people in both these categories, as well as for many others too numerous to mention here today, it often comes down to their very survival, a matter of life and death.
Since October, 1986, at least three people have died as a result of allergic reactions brought on by foods eaten in restaurants where the ingredients were not known to them. Of those, two were teenagers. Had better and more complete information been available, these tragedies might not have occurred.
It is true that the concept of allergic reaction and its relationship to food is, in most cases, poorly defined. We are all aware that certain foods and certain drinks may lead to upset digestion or allergic reactions and that these reactions, although fortunately mild for the most part, are nonetheless unpleasant.
We also know that the effects of these same irritants can be exacerbated when we are worried, over-tired, ill, or subject to great stress. Finally, we know that in facing all these allergic reactions the medical community seems singularly perplexed and at a loss when it comes to quantifying the incidence, gravity, and growth of these problems. Certainly science is evolving rapidly along with new and improved techniques and we remain hopeful that effective solutions will be found.
However, we must take steps to avoid the death of other children who may suffer for simply having a snack after a hockey game, a swim meet, or a general get together. So, too, we must act on behalf of those consumers who, for reasons medical, religious, or personal, must avoid certain foods or ingredients and be made aware of their presence. We can no longer remain indifferent.
It should also be noted that the foods we eat today undergo complex processing and are made up of numerous ingredients. Most restaurants make use of an incredible number of ingredients in preparing their products. Even those establishments with limited menus and fast food outlets can use up to 1,000 ingredients. In the vast majority of cases these restaurants are at the mercy of suppliers who themselves can alter and substitute ingredients without notice.
Faced with the complexity of this situation, something must be done. We must determine the nature of the problem from a medical standpoint; identify the allergies, the foods involved, the groups exposed, and the treatment for those who suffer; and carry out the necessary research. We must increase awareness within the restaurant industry in order that its members can fulfil their duty to advise the public as to the ingredients they employ. Finally, we must protect the health of all Canadians who are vulnerable and who need not take chances when dining in restaurants.
As a result of Bill C-289 we have the chance to take a step in the right direction by proposing a solution, however imperfect it may be. I am convinced that the authorities within the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Consumer and Corporate Affairs will undertake a detailed examination of all that it entails and continue to ensure the safety of Canadians so that they will be able to enjoy eating outside the home without fear of allergic reaction.
August 19, 1988


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in private Members' hour and in the consideration of Bill C-289 which is a proposed Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and concerns the listing of ingredients contained in restaurant food. The Bill would compel every restaurant to make available to the public a list, in English or in French, of all the ingredients in any food it sells.
This is certainly a sensitive issue that has received a great deal of attention from health professionals, food regulators, the media and the public at large. Certainly this attention is well justified. Tragic deaths have resulted from allergic reactions to restaurant food, particularly in so-called fast-food restaurants. According to various news reports, some 25,000 Canadians are at risk every day because of their food allergies, and some 24 people have died in Canada over the past two years alone because of allergic reactions to food eaten in restaurants.
It is heartening to note that the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is well aware of this problem. I had the pleasure of attending a committee meeting at which he was present and at which this issue was discussed. The Minister is also very concerned about this problem. He has already issued instructions to his Department to determine how much if any of an increase in food sensitivity reactions there has been, whether a perceived increase might be due to the availability of better instrumentation and diagnosis and whether the population as a whole is becoming more sensitive for one reason or another. Certainly the media attention that has focused on this issue in the last year or so could be a factor in that.
In addition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and Welfare has held hearings, one of which I was present at, on the feasibility of mandatory labelling for food products sold in restaurants and fast food outlets. The Government is determined to find the best solution to the problem. It is likely that a large proportion of food sensitivity reactions are linked to relatively few foods or food components. On the other hand, almost any food has the potential to trigger a serious allergic reaction in a particular individual who is perhaps more than generally sensitive.
This problem is complex, and it is vital, therefore, to solicit input from all parties concerned. Officials from Health and Welfare Canada and from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have consulted with both the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association and the Allergy Information Association. Consensus has been reached that a chart identifying foods served in an establishment and an indication as to whether or not they contain substances for listing on a so-called priority list was perhaps the most suitable mechanism for providing the information required by consumers with food sensitivities.
In this context, I think it is appropriate to quote from a letter from Mr. Douglas Needham, Executive Vice President
Food and Drugs Act
of the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association. Mr. Needham writes that his association:
-supports the consumer's right to know the ingredients used in restaurant
meals, and that his Association continues to work with all concerned groups
to identify and implement measures that will decrease the likelihood of more
tragic deaths.
I think Mr. Needham and his association should be applauded for that stand.
In fact, according to a recent report by the Canadian Press, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association is strongly encouraging a voluntary program among its 6,800 members. Industry spokespeople such as Mr. Needham have said that restaurant menus should warn consumers of ingredients that could lead to allergic reactions before they order meals. The association has suggested a system of warning charts that could be introduced in quick service restaurant chains because these establishments have a highly centralized control over ingredients.
The consistency of the menus in chain restaurants combined with the limited choices that are normally available make the charts a manageable idea. According to the same report by Canadian Press, the association has talked with 24 quick service or fast food restaurant chains, and of those 24, 22 have voluntarily agreed to take part in such a plan. This is good news. It shows that the food industry is well aware of the problem and is more than willing to take some steps to resolve it. It further shows that the idea of an ingredients list, if it can be adequately fine tuned and made manageable and practical, is indeed a good one.
It is quite possible that the best way to protect Canadians with food allergies as they dine out is through the use of an ingredients list. If this is the case, then every effort should be made to adopt the very best listing system possible. In this light, it seems quite probable that Bill C-289, effective as it has been in focusing attention on the problem, can be improved. It is essential that consumers get the information they need to protect themselves in the market-place and to make intelligent choices. This applies as much to allergy sufferers who dine in restaurants as it does to anyone else.
The Government is determined to bring about an effective solution to this issue. If that solution is found to centre upon ingredient disclosure lists, then the House can be assured that the listing requirements will be applied in a manner that is effective, fair and as cost-efficient as possible.
Fast food and quick service restaurants are popular among Canadians for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is that in large measure, quality control is strict, consumers know what they are getting with a great deal of certainty when they buy a product and the prices are reasonable and generally affordable. We want to make sure that it stays this way.
We must adopt a system that affords the best possible protection to the Canadian consumer and at the same time allows greater freedom and safety for those who suffer from food allergies. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for permitting me

August 19, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
to have the opportunity to speak on what is obviously a very important issue.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill C-289, a Bill to amend the Food and Drug Act put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
This is a very topical Bill. It is topical because of some of the incidents that have occurred recently, one of which occurred right here in the City of Ottawa. It is because of those incidents that the spotlight has focused on this situation and has brought to our attention this health concern, a health concern which relates particularly to those who suffer from allergies to various foods and who have a problem when they eat out and are not able to identify the ingredients in the food they eat. This problem was highlighted by an incident which occurred a short time ago here in the City of Ottawa, and it is a problem that also relates to many, many people.
A week ago today, I believe, I had the opportunity to raise in the House the concerns of those who suffer from environmental hypersensitivity, which is a similar kind of problem to the one we are discussing here. In fact, many of those who have this problem could be put in one category, that of those with environmental hypersensitivity.
Constituents of mine, the Black family, came to me a few months ago with this problem as it relates to another aspect, the whole issue of the tax deductibility of the medical expenses that people suffering from this kind of problem have to incur.
I am interested to see the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in the House. He will know that I had correspondence with him, his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and their colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) on this very topic of the deductibility of prescriptions to treat people with environmentally hypersensitive health problems.
For instance, the Black family pointed out to me their great difficulty in having to actually modify and change their entire way of living. They had to make drastic changes in their household and, in doing so, incurred enormous expenses in making actual physical changes to their house. This included removing the rugs and making changes to the rooms. They incurred $15,000 to $20,000 in expenses that related to environmental health problems.
They tried to deduct these expenses from their income tax as prescription health expenses. They were successful in their first year. The Department of National Revenue allowed them to deduct these expenses from their income. However, the next year, when they submitted a similar tax return, the same kind of expenses were disallowed. When they appealed their income tax assessment on the basis of what had occurred the year before, the Department went back and reassessed them from the year before and, in fact, found that all of those expenses
were not deductible under the Income Tax Act because they related to environmental health problems, not the average health problem.
Consequently, I have made representations on their behalf to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. I am hopeful that eventually they will see the light of day and understand that there are many people in this country who suffer from environmental health problems.
It is interesting to note as well that there is a lobbyist on behalf of people with environmental health problems, Mr. Chris Brown, who is making representations in Ottawa all the time. He is trying to get some changes in this regard. It is another example of what is being dealt with in this Bill.
This Bill is aimed particularly at restaurants. By virtue of this Bill, restaurants would be obligated to make available to the public a list, in both official languages, of all the ingredients contained in the foods they sell. The Bill would obligate suppliers to print in French and English the list of all ingredients that are used in the preparation of those meals. Today, the number of Canadians who are eating in restaurants is increasing by leaps and bounds.
Madam Speaker, if you were to cast your mind back a few years to think about the number of times you and your family ate in restaurants, it would probably have been rather minimal. Today, all of us are spending more and more time in local restaurants or fancy restaurants rather than preparing our own meals. This trend seems to be on the increase. I know that in our household we seldom seem to use the stove. We may use the microwave oven or barbecue, but seldom do we use the traditional stove.
Families are getting away from eating meals that are prepared over a long period of time at home and are concentrating more on quick meals. If they want to have a more leisurely meal, it is done as part of an entertainment package. Rather than going to a movie, they will spend the evening at a restaurant, as a form of recreation. This may even have replaced a visit to the shopping plaza as a form of recreation.
The point is that an increasing number of people are eating at restaurants and it is becoming a more significant problem because there is more opportunity for exposure to these problems as Canadians eat out more.
The objective of this Bill is to protect consumers who are affected by food-related allergies, while protecting all Canadians whose right it is to be made aware of the contents of meals served to them in restaurants. Just as they have the right to know the contents of a prescription and over the counter drugs they purchase, they should have a right to know the ingredients of these foods, particularly if they are in any way sensitive to some of these ingredients.
Consumers are faced with the same problem when they purchase foods in stores, but in this case the problem is at least partially solved by the fact that the Food and Drugs Act has
August 19, 1988

certain requirements for spelling out on the package, in both official languages, a list of ingredients in those foods that we buy off the shelf in food stores. That is not so with respect to restaurants.
I have much more to say on this subject because it is as important and one that I feel strongly about. I know my constituents feel very strongly about it, particularly those who suffer from problems of food sensitivity or other environmental food sensitivity. Having said that, I know there are others who are anxious to speak in relation to this legislation and I know that they, as I, want to urge passage of this legislation to ensure that we have some action for all the people who need it. I certainly commend the legislation to the House and when the time comes I know that you will support it very vigorously yourself, Madam Speaker.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the Private Members' debate this afternoon on Bill C-289.

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk to you about Bill C-289, which requires Canadian restaurants to list, in either official language, the ingredients used in the food they serve their customers.
Highly complex, to be sure, and difficult to apply, such a law nevertheless satisfies Canadians' rights to be informed accurately and effectively about the nature of the food they eat in a restaurant. I refer more particularly here to the many Canadians with food allergies who cannot take any food without knowing what is in it.
But to get an overview of the problem, let us first try to put it in a larger context. This is not the first time that the question of food has arisen. Our laws and institutions already seek to ensure the protection, welfare and health of Canadians. The Food and Drugs Act, for which Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada is partly responsible, has prudently set a whole series of regulations with which all suppliers who sell their food products in stores, whether a corner grocery, specialty shops or major food chains, must comply.
Madam Speaker, the regulations that I am talking about here apply to any food product, foreign or Canadian. On the package must be shown information in both official languages concerning the nature of the product, its usual name, the name and address of the company responsible, the net quantity, the ingredients used, the last date for storage and how to keep the food.
Since Canadians regularly eat most of their meals at home, the measures of which I speak here give them reassuring protection. Also, many foods are prepared in large quantities with unchanging recipes, and this gives us a further assurance. This law, Madam Speaker, has already been in effect for many years and experience shows us that suppliers have in general learned to comply with it strictly.
Food and Drugs Act
But more and more Canadians are eating away from home, from children who eat in school cafeterias and the snack bars of community centres to patients served on a tray in their hospital room and Members of this House who often eat on the run as they go about their business.
And not only restaurants are involved in this matter, Madam Speaker. People also eat in hotels and on board planes and ships. They pick up all kinds of food from carts and vans in the street, from fast food outlets and from caterers.
In fact, in Canada there are 72,000 commercial establishments in which one can procure food, which sell hundreds and hundreds of meals every day composed of over a thousand ingredients.

How can we resolve this situation effectively without violating anyone's rights, Madam Speaker? Well, I believe that it must be done in an orderly way, with a concern for fairness for the whole community.
In the vast empire of fast food, the answer to dealing with the problem of allergic reactions would seem to be more straightforward. Why? Because in most cases, these enterprises have built their reputation on a limited, specific and uniform recipe, so much so that what you eat tomorrow at the Royal Burger in Montreal is what you ate last week at the Royal Burger in Vancouver. That is typical of the franchise system. We know that some of these huge enterprises have already drawn up a list of allergens and are preparing to deal with the situation on a regular basis.
The problem is more acute in conventional restaurants. In this case, we are dealing with establishments that are much smaller and with a kind of cooking that depends on the personality of the cook. The cook or chef makes up the menu according to the preferences of the customers, according to what is in season, or to meet special requests, and may change the menu or modify a recipe if he runs out of one of the ingredients he usually uses. His cooking basically depends on his creativity and inspiration, which forms the basis for his gastronomic and financial success.
We must be careful not to frustrate thousands of Canadian, restaurateurs who would be hard pressed to provide a daily list of the ingredients they used that day, attached to the menu. In that case, their menu would become rigid, and every time they changed the menu they would have to publish comprehensible lists in French or English, when many seasonings have no equivalent in those languages?
But on the other hand, how can we respond to the complaints and apprehensions, which are justified, of thousands of other Canadians who have allergic reactions and, every time they go to a restaurant, run the risk of going home with an upset stomach or becoming very ill? So far, Madam Speaker,

August 19, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
the wisest approach has been to ask the restaurant owner, to warn him and to trust him. However, this approach has not always had the desired effect, and there have been some tragic incidents, Madam Speaker.
In the modern and open world we live in, we can no longer expect Canadians with serious allergies to eat only and always the food they themselves have prepared. These people also live active lives, and I think they have a right to participate in all the various activities that make life enjoyable. We must also ensure that they do not run any undue risks when they decide to eat food they are convinced not do them any harm.

If my time has expired, Madam Speaker, I will accept your injunction and call it three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Cossitt):: The period provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. Accordingly, the item has been dropped from the order of precedence.
It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, August 22, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers