1988-07-15

Hon. Perrin Beatty (for the Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved: that Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the amendments before us today regarding Bill C-92 are designed to improve the efficiency of the Wheat Board. They are amendments which are suggested to the Government both by the Board itself and by producers. There are six amendments in total. They have been discussed in considerable detail in committee and in the House at various stages. Thus I will spend only a few moments on them this morning. I believe they have the support of the House in general.
The first amendment would ensure that quota and other delivery provisions under the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system would fairly apply to deliveries of grain to railway cars as well as to those who are delivering to the primary elevator system. That is designed to ensure that there are no special provisions given to users of producer cars that are not intended.
The second amendment would enable the Canadian Wheat Board to take advantage of a broader range of financial markets for borrowing and investment purposes. Up to this point in time the Wheat Board, which is a major borrower, has been borrowing almost exclusively from chartered banks. We believe it would be to its advantage to give the Wheat Board the prerogative to borrow in a wider range of markets if it so desires.
The third amendment would add Canola to the definition of grain for the purposes of this Act. This is simply a reflection of
showing the importance of Canola within the world community and, of course, is of extreme importance to producers in western Canada.
The fourth amendment, which is the amendment that has received some considerable attention throughout the country, would permit the Canadian Wheat Board, subject to Governor in Council approval, to adjust payments to producers who deliver grain to a railway car instead of to a primary elevator to reflect reduced carrying costs incurred in the handling of this grain. At the moment the situation is that users of producer cars or railway cars are paying for services which they do not receive, that is, storage costs and interest costs that are applied, assuming that the grain would be going to the country elevator system when in fact it is not. It is bypassing the country elevator system and going directly into the railway car.
The fourth amendment would permit the Government, upon the advice of the Wheat Board, with the concurrence of the Minister through Order in Council, to reduce a portion of those costs currently paid by producers for services they do not receive. In times where we are trying to reduce the operating costs of the farm community, we think that it is only logical to do everything we can to assist to make this amendment possible to permit the Governor in Council to pass on a share of those savings to the users of producer cars.
The fifth amendment would permit the board to pay advisory committee members a per diem, a relatively minor sum, one would assume, for the role that they play in advising the Wheat Board.
The sixth and last amendment would provide that the Act or any of its provisions would come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation. Essentially that is a housekeeping item.
The committee held hearings on Bill C-92. A number of witnesses appeared. There is general support for the amendments. Certainly the users of producer cars who represent a small percentage of the population on the prairies, but an important one, are happy with the amendments. Barley growers in western Canada are happy with the amendments. Western Canadian wheat growers are very supportive of the amendments.


Mr. Benjamin:: Fifteen hundred farmers. They don't amount to many.

July 15, 1988
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: 1 see that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who is anxious to become the agriculture critic for his Party is present and making his usual interventions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have been around that business longer than you have.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The key thing in the amendments is that up until this point in time farmers have been charged for services which they have not received. We simply do not feel that that is a philosophically sound position. We feel that it is appropriate that those who use the services should pay for them. If we establish in the future that users of producer cars are receiving services for which they do not at present pay, then it would only be appropriate at that time to pass those charges on to them. At the moment it is very clear that the users of producer cars or railway cars are paying for services that they would use if they used the country system. Therefore, it is only appropriate that they should not pay the total cost currently charged to them. I would point out that under the amendments they will continue to pay a certain portion of the costs which would be incurred if they were to use the service. In that sense, we feel that they are paying for a share of the line elevator company expenses, and we think that it is just.
On behalf of the Government we are happy to bring Bill C-92 to third reading. We believe that it has had an extensive debate and we hope that it receives the concurrence of the House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-92 contains a number of provisions, most of which are technical and not controversial. The provision to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to borrow in foreign markets, from provincial governments, and a whole variety of agencies, provides additional flexibility. I would caution the Wheat Board that other Crown corporations have found themselves in serious difficulty. For instance, Eldorado Nuclear borrowed some $500 or $600 million in Swiss francs. It has borrowed United States dollars in overseas markets. It has lost something like $190 million on foreign exchange trading. The Wheat Board deals with much larger amounts of money than Eldorado Nuclear, but it is still a Crown corporation, and great caution should be exercised in this regard. Obviously we want to see the Wheat Board borrow its money as cheaply as possible, but great caution has to be observed by Crown corporations when borrowing in foreign exchange markets, particularly when the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar have lost ground in foreign exchange trading. That caution should be put in place in passing Bill C-92.
The most controversial part of this legislation is the producer car provision contained in Clause 8 which provides for the Canadian Wheat Board to pay a sum to the users of producer cars to cover those services they do not use, that is,
storage charges, interest and carrying charges because they load their own cars. This issue has been very hotly debated. The Prairie Pools Incorporated are opposing it.
In committee, the concern of most people was what impact that will have on the maintenance of the country delivery points if producer cars were to assume a very large percentage of the shipments, because there are certain costs involved which are not storage or carrying charges relating to the costs of country delivery points, for example, the maintenance of infrastructure, and so on. This Bill simply deals with the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It does not deal with the Western Grain Transportation Act which is covered.
I thought that the Government made a mess of things because it would not provide the documentation and the information. We wrote to the railway companies and their response was that they did not know what it cost to maintain a rural delivery point, and they could not give us those figures. We could not put forward amendments relating to the Western Grain Transportation Act because Bill C-92 only relates to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I put forward an amendment which was promptly voted down. If the Government is defeated in the next election, it will be because of its overwhelming majority and its assumption that everything that the Opposition puts forward is wrong and does not deserve any consideration. The government Members vote by rote. They automatically vote it down.
My amendment simply stated that the sum refunded to those who use producer cars shall reflect an equitable allocation of the costs incurred by the board to maintain the country delivery points. The wheat pools are not saying that there should not be some reduction related to the storage and handling charges. Obviously, those people are not using the storage and handling charges. They are saying that the maintenance of those rural delivery points is something that comes under another Act and cannot be amended in this Bill.
That is why I put forward an amendment which would have relieved some concern. We do not know, but perhaps those storage, handling, and elevator charges are identical. If the Government had come forward and stated that the cost for charges which are not used is much more than the cost of maintaining the rail sidings and the country delivery points, there would have been some balancing. But the Government did not do that and, of course, it did not accept the amendment. I do not understand why the Government did not accept the amendment. I hope that the Senate will consider it. Apart from striking the whole clause which is proposed, it seems to me that it strikes a balance that we tried to reach, that people who use producer cars pay their fair share of the country delivery points and still may be eligible for some reduction in those costs which they do not use, but the Government did not accept it.
July 15, 1988

I would like to read a most urgent and telling communication which members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture have received, signed by Bill Strath, the President of the Manitoba Pool Elevators, who acts as the person responsible for Prairie Pools Inc. As well, it is signed by Garth Stevenson, the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and by Mr. D. E. Livingstone, the President of the Alberta Wheat Pool. This came from an urgent message on July 8, the day that we dealt with report stage and concurrence. It was addressed to all Members of Parliament, and it said:
The Board of Directors of Prairie Pools Inc., meeting in Calgary today, reiterates its strong opposition to inclusion of Clause 8 of Bill C-92, amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Prairie Pools Inc. is a western based farm organization with a membership of 130,000 farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Clause 8 would allow the Canadian Wheat Board to waive interest and storage charges on grain shipped in producer cars.
The farmers' right to use a producer car must be maintained. However, the only savings that should be deducted are elevation and handling costs. Any further deduction of storage will likely add to the costs of those farmers using the country elevator system. The infrastructure costs of western Canada's grain handling system are not charged to the users of producer cars.
That is the point I have been making here this morning. The whole section of the infrastructure relating to the country delivery points is not covered in this Bill and cannot be covered because the Bill does not provide amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act. The letter continues:
There is clear evidence of extra costs associated with the producer car since these costs are attributed to the railways and are paid for by all producers in the costing process.
You are aware of direct expressions of concern from large numbers of grain producers in the Prairie area. We urge you to take all possible steps to remove Clause 8 from Bill C-92.
That is the nub of the problem. They are not arguing about elevating charges; they are arguing about the storage and interest of carrying charges.
I think that this issue was really brought forward by the Prairie Pools Inc. It is opposed strongly by them because they see a number of straws in the wind against the whole idea of the Canadian Wheat Board. They know that its powers and prerogatives will be reduced by the Canada-U.S. trade deal, that there will be provision for grain to come in from the United States, and they will not be issuing end-use certificates. They know that feed grain will come in and be denatured, which will cost an extra $7 or $8 a tonne, I am told, and that that grain in the end can be used illegally for planting. Many producers in western Canada see the powers and prerogatives of the Wheat Board and the whole system of marketing run down by the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They see the whole country elevator system being destroyed or weakened by this, because the producers using producer cars will not be paying for their fair share of the infrastructure for country-delivered points.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I think that these matters should be taken into consideration by the Government. It did not come forward with a Bill with the whole range of western grain transportation aspects of it. It did not come clean with the exact information. If it had come forward with the data, proving that the storage and interest charges and carrying charges were much higher than the infrastructure cost of maintaining those country delivery points, I think that it would have had a much more telling argument before the committee and before the House, but it did not bother.
Those are the issues which are still with us in this Bill and on which the Government is really missing the point. I hope that when this matter is before the other place it will get more thorough study because, although there was some concern when it went through the agriculture committee several months ago, the intensity of the concern in the prairie regions is much stronger now. At that time we asked for information from the two railway companies. I believe we asked for information as well from the National Transportation Agency as to the exact costs, so that when dealing with this at report stage we would be able to compare. We do not have that information. The situation is no better now than it was at report stage when the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and I put forward amendments to Bill C-92.
I hope that more information can be garnered, if not here at least in the Senate, so that they can deal with this in an effective way. Clearly, there is a lot of concern in the prairie region with this legislation, partly because of the other overriding concerns with the trade deal, and also that the Government has not come clean and has not provided the information. The railway companies have not provided the information. We have a situation where we do not know how much the Government is going to be giving back, whether there will be a tremendous incentive for the people who use producer cars. If we see that, then we know that the Government will be hell-bent on destroying the whole pooling system and the Canadian Wheat Board. There are certainly a lot of straws in the wind in that regard already. These are the concerns as we move to third reading of Bill C-92.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise again on the whole matter of orderly marketing, particularly the Canadian Wheat Board. This is probably the tenth or twelfth occasion in the last 20 years when there has been a further erosion and the whittling away at the whole principle of orderly marketing, single-desk selling, for all western grain producers through the Canadian Wheat Board and the marketing system which it entails.
The whole purpose and reason for the existence of that system of grain handling and marketing in Canada is to allow the grain producers to co-operatively pool, share the cost of moving the grain and share the benefits from that system. That has worked very well in practice as well as in principle since 1935, particularly since the start of the Second World

July 15, 1988
Canadian Wheat Board Act
War when the Canadian Wheat Board legislation was fully implemented and enforced.
This legislation has three items in it. One has to do with enlarged financial arrangements for the Canadian Wheat Board so that it can make more investments or whatever to benefit grain producers. Another has to do with some minor changes to allow for improvement in the very, very low expenses allowed for the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. We have no problem with those two provisions. They are relatively minor. But the fly in the ointment, the bug in the soup, is Clause 8.
Nobody is objecting to the producer having the right to have a producer car should he so choose. That has always been available. Even in years when I was on the railroad and we implemented the car order book, from time to time individual producers would come and order their own cars.
The principle of all of the producers sharing in the costs of the system cannot be and should not be departed from. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary saying how this makes the western wheat growers happy. I think maybe they have 1,000 or 1,500 members at best. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has over 70,000 members. The three prairie pools plus the United Grain Growers, all four farmer owned co-operatives, oppose this and represent something in the order of 150,000 grain producers. They do not want this clause. But it is there to pacify the right wing Tory minority, an extremely small minority on the Prairies and is pandering to those who have always opposed orderly marketing. It is pandering to the private grain companies and the Winnipeg commodity exchange as well.
In a letter to the Minister of State in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board of June 9, the three pools in a joint letter and in separate letters from each of the prairie pools made it as plain as the nose on your face that they were opposed to the Bill because of Clause 8. They asked the Government to reconsider. When they last met with the Minister-they were happy about the consultation that went on and everything else-they waited for the Minister to raise the subject of Clause 8. When he did not report to them about any reconsideration-obviously there wasn't any-the pools raised it as the last item on the agenda, and then followed it up with their letter of June 9 in which they outlined their reasons for the opposition. The item was discussed at every single meeting of every local and sub-district of the three pools in the three prairie provinces. It was discussed thoroughly by the farmers. There would be in total tens of thousands attending those local and sub-district meetings and there was overwhelming opposition to this measure.
I think it is logical that a farmer who ships a producer car is not charged the elevation and handling charges normally assessed at a country elevator since it did not go through that country elevator. That is fair ball. But to relieve that producer
from paying his share of all the other costs means that a smaller number of most of the producers have to pick up all the costs, which means higher costs for the larger number of producers. Surely that is unfair. There are costs that are not being accounted for in the handling of producer cars. The Canadian Wheat Board charges a nominal fee for producer cars mainly to cover the extra administration costs entailed. There are costs such as capital, maintenance, taxes, et cetera on many of the rail sidings in western Canada which are being used exclusively for producer cars. The three pools believe that is a substantial figure and they asked the Minister of State to demand that the railroads provide those figures. There is the extra switching costs involved in the spotting of producers cars at those sites.
One of the economic benefits of elevator rationalization is the least number of stops that freight trains have to make to spot and pick up grain cars. That benefit is lost when you have to stop a 60, an 80 or a 100 car train and switch off one car and then a few days later stop another train and pick it up. Those costs are additional. If there is a siding and no country elevator the costs are even higher. The benefit, of course, is lost and the rail costs are not reduced. They may even increase on a per tonne basis if the spot is for a single car or two, three or four. The railways have told the pools that if producer cars are not loaded in the allocated time the they must be picked up on the next train run. That adds to car turnaround time. A lot of fuss was made over the past several years about reducing turnaround time. At one time I think it was up to 27 days. Now I think we have it down to 17 or 18. When producers do not load their cars on time, it lengthens the turnaround time.
The grain companies, which are 80 per cent farmer owned, have spent tens of millions of dollars not only in rationalizing and modernizing their country elevator system but have spent many, many millions in addition by remodelling and putting the latest technology into their country elevators to provide for higher speed legs, longer car spots to accommodate a faster system for loading railway cars. By the way, this legislation will increase even more the number of producer cars and that increased use of producer cars will negate the investment, 80 per cent of it by the grain producers themselves.
A majority of producer cars conform to the shipments called for but there have been too darn many which are purposely or accidentally misshipped. The Canadian Wheat Board may call for a specific grade. If a country elevator manager ships No. 2 wheat as No. 1 wheat he is penalized two, three or four cars in the next round of car orders. But producers who ship the wrong grade, even if they do it innocently-there have been too many times when this was not done innocently-receive no penalty at all. Sure, there is the authority if they misship their grain for the whole carload to be returned to the shipper, but it is rarely done. In fact, I have never heard of it ever being done.
When the Canadian Wheat Board embargoed tough and damp grain in the fall of 1985, producer after producer
July 15, 1988

bypassed the country elevator system and the Canadian Wheat Board embargo and shipped grain that had a moisture content as high as 20 per cent in producer cars to Thunder Bay or Vancouver. Those are the kind of people who like this legislation. Those are the kind of people the Parliamentary Secretary says are satisfied. I guess they are satisfied.
All these extra costs that are incurred by producer-loaded cars are averaged into railway costs and are paid by all grain shippers in the freight rate. It would be grossly unfair to relieve producer-car shipments of their share of carrying the costs of the country elevator system and not charge them the extra costs that producer cars incur. I do not think anyone can argue with any kind of logic or facts and figures that producer cars do not produce extra costs.
The three wheat pools, the UGG and the National Farmers' Union, five of the major farm organizations in Canada, all oppose the Bill and they all say that the proposed change in Clause 8 is an increased incentive to the use of producer-loaded cars and a much larger percentage of them will be used. This will increase pressure on the rationalization of the country system and an over-all slowdown of the ability to service the export grain market. It would also increase the concerns of producers regarding undue shrinkage of the grain handling and transportation system. The culprit, as those five major farm organizations see it, is Clause 8.
These organizations say, and we agree, that because of the inclusion of Clause 8 in the Bill, and because of the narrow stubbornness of the Government, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Bill C-92 is bad legislation. On those grounds, they say that they will continue to oppose it. It is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of prairie farmers and, as well, it jeopardizes the orderly marketing system.
I find it incredible-I should not find it incredible. It is not unusual. I have heard the Tories say that they are in favour of the co-operative movement and the wheat pools and they support them and are in favour of orderly marketing. They say they are in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board and that they want to strengthen it. Yet every time they have made a move, they have weakened the Canadian Wheat Board and the orderly marketing system.
Clause 8 flies in the face of the whole principle of orderly marketing and of the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. That underlying principle is the sharing by all producers, cooperatively, in the benefits and the costs of shipping their grain to market, 80 per cent of which is the export market.
The Tories talk one way and act the other. Over the years, I have heard Tories say what great supporters they are of orderly marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. Then every year I find that the Tories are criticizing, complaining and legislating to weaken the system that they claim to be such great supporters of.
The fact is that the Tories are pandering to, at best, 3,000 or 4,000 grain producers who belong to the barley, flax and
Lobbyists Registration Act
western wheat growers' associations and a couple or three other little outfits. They are pandering to them out of their narrow market forces, bottom line, private enterprise ideology at the expense of probably 90 per cent of the grain producers of western Canada.
We will be calling on all the farmers we can after this Bill passes, if it does. We will be going to see them by the thousands to show them once again how the struggle by the cooperative movement and by western grain producers through various economic and political actions to get the Canadian Wheat Board strengthened and orderly marketing from being undermined. We can win all the economic battles we like, but they can be done away with or weakened with the stroke of a pen by an unfriendly Government which does not believe in or support what obviously 90 per cent of the grain producers of western Canada want and demand.
This is just an attack on the Canadian Wheat Board and the whole concept of orderly marketing. I for one, and members of my Party as well, will not hold still for it. I know that tens of thousands of grain producers in western Canada will not hold still for it either.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock on Monday,


LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw to your attention, Sir, that I understand that it could be that the Chair may have some difficulty with the admissibility of some of the amendments I have proposed. As a matter of fact, in the unlikely event that you would rule that some of these amendments may be slightly out of order, I would like to take a moment to make a point to the Chair, particularly as it pertains to Motion No. 3 which would amend Bill C-82 to refine the definition of a public office holder. I would respectfully submit that this amendment would be in order.
We know, of course, that on page 555 of the latest edition of Erskine May, there are a number of examples set out to describe when an amendment is and is not admissible. I simply want to remind you of the parliamentary debates of the House of Commons of Great Britain in 1912 at page 2859.1 am sure you are familiar with the decision that was taken by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole at that time. Nevertheless, I think I should refresh the memory of other Hon. Members who may not be as familiar as you are with this issue.
It had been ruled at that time that an amendment to a tax Bill would be inadmissible because it changed the scope of the Bill. What happens is that amendment described at page 2859 of the House of Commons Debates of Great Britain in 1912 says that the particular tax was to be applied only to male persons. It was quite obvious that was introducing something to the Bill which went beyond the scope of the legislation the Minister had in mind. The chairman very ably recognized that and said the amendment was inadmissible.
I also want to refresh your memory about a decision taken at page 311 of the 1905 parliamentary debates of Great Britain which had a similar provision in it. Again it was ruled that a tax which was to apply to a particular class of person was foreign to the Bill because no class of persons had been identified in the original legislation.
I bring those two examples to your attention, and I have other similar examples which I could raise, to demonstrate that in my respectful opinion all the amendments that I propose are in order, in particular Motion No. 3 which says in part:
"public office holder in an attempt either to influence or to obtain
information for the use of a client who attempts to influence"
My amendment further refines the definition of when lobbying is lobbying. In other words, when a lobbying activity exists. It does not create a further charge upon the Government. It does not introduce a new class of person that is to be taken care of in this particular legislation, and of course it does not attempt to introduce something foreign to what was in the Bill to start with. One could even argue that the amendment I have proposed could narrow down, as opposed to expanding, the scope of the Bill already.
What we are merely trying to do with Motion No. 3 is to ensure that those who lobby government are required to register when they are lobbying for a change in legislation or, with my amendment, when they are attempting to obtain information to provide it to a client who will then attempt to lobby the Government. I know you have been giving my representations your undivided attention, as you always do, and I trust that the Speaker will allow my amendments, in particular amendment No. 3, to be dealt with and voted on.
In the National Insurance Bill of Great Britain of November 22, 1960, there was an issue which also created a precedent setting case. Because it was so precedent setting I am sure you are familiar with it as well. What happened there, of course, was that an amendment was introduced by a Member with regard to the National Insurance Act, or the National Insurance No. 2 Bill as it was referred to. The purpose of the amendment was to amend another Act, in other words, an Act different from the one that was originally being amended in the original Bill. Therefore, if my amendment was attempting to make a change to another piece of legislation, the Speaker would be quite correct in saying that amendment would be out of order. Of course, the Chair knows that is the last thing that I intend to do with any of my amendments, more particularly amendment No. 3.
Therefore, I ask that you consider very carefully the representations I have just made in order to ensure that this Bill is as good as possible. In my opinion, with the further refinement of Motion No. 3 the Bill will be better and will make better legislation. From the procedural standpoint as well it will better clarify the definition of when someone is in fact engaging in a lobbying activity. As such I submit that particular motion is entirely in order.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: On the
same point, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with care and attention to the representations of the Hon. Member opposite. Having had a chance to review Motion No. 3, I think we must always be careful about amendments which run against the principle of the Bill as approved by the House at second reading. In the case of this particular motion, I think you might indeed find it out of order. I think it is the insertion of the words "or to obtain information for the use of a client" which would be particularly hazardous for the House. With a little imagination that would include, for instance, all journalists-


Don Boudria: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -who come to us seeking information.


Don Boudria: That is a point of debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If I review my recent meetings in my constituency office, a great many involved people in someone's employ in some way, shape or fashion, who come to me for information may indeed use it in a way designed to try and
July 15, 1988

influence the Government. I had someone come to my office recently on behalf of organizations concerned about the abortion issue, as one example. Therefore, 1 suggest that you use your usual good offices to make sure that any of the amendments that would indeed change the principle of the Bill would be found out of order.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention in particular to Motion No. 2 which stands on the Order Paper in my name. Your Honour has indicated it would be out of order because it attempts to introduce a further element into Clause 5 of the Bill. That clause states in part:
Every individual who for payment undertakes to arrange a meeting or to
communicate with the public office holder shall file-
And so on. In fact, Motion No. 2 includes mass mailings and advertising. All of those are attempts to communicate with a public office holder with a view to influencing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take into consideration the representations made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and make a decision immediately after Question Period. I did not mean to cut off the Hon. Member. If he has further representations to make, he can make them after Question Period.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if one examines the Government's position on water exports and diversions the picture is far from reassuring. First, the Government decided not to exclude water from the trade agreement. Second, almost three years after receiving the Pearse Report commissioned by the Liberal Government, legislation is not ready to be introduced in this House. The federal water policy has no teeth without legislation.
Third, by contrast, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. MacMillan) recently claimed he did not need legislation, that a policy was sufficient to protect Canadian water. Fourth, the Minister of the Environment declared in this House that greater outflows of water from Lake Michigan have nothing to do with Canadian waters, as if the Great Lakes were not interconnected.
Unless the Government amends the trade legislation to exclude water Canadians will never be certain that water will not be one of the natural resources to be shared under the
agreement. We urge the Government to amend the trade legislation and to exclude water from it once and for all.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pornography is a multi-million dollar industry in Canada with the underworld as the main benefactor. It victimizes women, children, and innocent family members.
Bill C-54, the Government's porn Bill, was introduced for first reading on May 4, 1987, and the Justice Department has received overwhelming support for it from Canadians across the country.
Why is the Department continuing to listen to the vocal minority projected by the media as the vocal majority? Let's give this Bill second reading and get it to committee now where we can hear witnesses.
As a Government we said we would be bringing in legislation. I have to ask who is deep-sixing Bill C-54. The Government and the Department of Justice have brought forward strong juvenile prostitution laws and stronger laws against family violence. Let's be consistent and get on with Bill C-54. This is clearly the wish of an overwhelming majority of Canadians.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would make a half decent fire-fighter. Just when he puts out one caucus brushfire up pops another one.
This time it seems a growing number of his colleagues, both in and out of Cabinet, are opposing his plan to spend billions and billions of dollars to purchase a fleet of nuclear-powered hunter killer, attack submarines.
In fact the Conservative Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) actually defied the Prime Minister and wrote to his constituents that these subs were a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money.
A private poll just handed to the Government, which shows that a majority of Canadians are opposed to this plan, is bound to fuel the growing revolt in his caucus against his foolhardy proposal.
The Tories are having a hard time selling nuclear subs on doorsteps right across Canada. Canadians are asking why we

July 15, 1988
need to spend billions of dollars on a batch of nuclear subs. Well, the Conservative Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) has the answer. He says that we need the subs to chase after drug runners and fish thieves. With thinking like that, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that Canadians do not want these nuclear subs?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker,
historically and currently Canada has been blessed with an efficient, creative, and productive Public Service. No Government can function without an efficient and responsive Public Service and the present Government is no exception. True, the Public Service may be under stress, but we should not be surprised at this because of rapidly evolving circumstances.
The present Government has been a responsible employer. It introduced master bargaining, a fully funded dental plan, employment equity measures, additional day care centres, and a smoking policy for the workplace. It abolished mandatory retirement, and created a self-funded leave program and voluntary early retirement measures.
The Government also introduced a most successful workforce adjustment program, developed measures to ease the impact of privatization on employees; introduced performance pay and productivity bonuses for managers; and created the Canadian Centre for Management Studies which will bring together leading practitioners and scholars to contribute directly to new and improved management practices in the Canadian Public Service.

been without an industrial regional development program. The Government was very quiet about letting the industrial development incentive package drop and obviously wanted to play it low key.
We in eastern Ontario demand that the Government bring in a regional development and tourism program. If the Prime Minister can give $164 million to Lac St. Jean in a by-election, he can bring in an industrial and tourism incentive program for eastern Ontario for years to come.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: This morning, I feel I must bring to the attention of Hon. Members what happened to me last night at Ottawa International Airport, an incident that was very significant, especially after the passage of Bill C-72. In fact, I wanted some information, and I went to one of the Transport Canada employees at the airport and spoke to him in French. To my astonishment, he was unable to respond in French. I repeated my question but failed to get any results, so that finally, an RCMP officer stepped in and saved the day.
Mr. Speaker, this very ordinary incident made me think of how vigilant we will have to be about enforcing the Official Languages Act. Now that the Bill has been passed, I think we have a duty to ensure that all possible steps are taken to enforce the legislation.
I therefore urge all Ministers to ensure compliance with the legislation within their respective departments and within the Crown corporations for which they are responsible.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put the economy of eastern Ontario in jeopardy on the day he appointed the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) as the regional Minister to protect it.
As of June 30 the Government has cancelled all regional industrial development incentives for eastern Ontario. The Government is now in the position of having deserted regional development in this region of Canada.
When is the Government going to depart from its callous ways and bring in a new regional development program for eastern Ontario to support industry and tourism? This is the first time since 1970 that a large part of eastern Ontario has


INDUSTRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Government is allowing two grave threats to the Canadian trucking industry to grow and fester because of deregulation and the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal.
First, U.S. truckers are pouring into Canada supported by an American tax regime which gives them a tremendous advantage over Canadian carriers. It is only a question of time before Canadian truckers shut down in Canada and move south to take advantage of U.S. capital depreciation rules. The Canadian Government should level the playing field forthwith.

m

July 15, 1988

Second, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act has been the law of the land for six months and its implementation has created chaos in the trucking industry. Shippers and truckers both agree that there are serious problems with the regulatory process related to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. The provinces and Territories are each implementing the Act in their own peculiar way, leading to a complete lack of regulatory uniformity.
The present Government long ago let the trucking industry know that it is not interested in exercising its powers under that Act. Therefore, today's confusion is no surprise.
The Government must take steps to correct serious problems that have arisen as a result of the implementation by the provinces and Territories of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ONTARIO GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario Member of Parliament I understood the frustration of my western colleagues at the implementation of the National Energy Program. Because of the grave consequences to western Canada I fully supported their efforts to have the NEP scrapped. Therefore, westerners will understand when 1 speak of my concern for Ontario's grape and wine industry.
Mrs. Lena Byl of my riding has pointed out to me comments attributed to the Premier of Alberta who was quoted as saying that 150 grape growers in Ontario should not be allowed to put the free trade agreement at risk. Let me set the record straight on this.
My riding is one of at least ten in Ontario with grape growers. There are at least 240 grape growers in my riding of Niagara Falls alone. The Canadian grape and wine industry is unique to only a few parts of this country and contributes millions of dollars to provincial and federal tax coffers. It is an important industry to everyone in this country.
However, I agree that Premier Peterson and the Ontario Government have a responsibility to assist this industry as well. I look forward to both our federal and provincial Governments working together to help this important sector of Ontario's economy.


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) was to announce to the people of la Monteregie, the people of Beauharnois, that there would be a bridge. This reminds me of the fifties when Duplessis promised to pave road sections.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) promised there would be more developments in his riding. The Minister promised that the Quebec City area would get a centre ...
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers should be warned. Remember the false promises of the Conservatives and this Prime Minister, his promise about social programs which he never kept, his promise about the old age security pensions that were de-indexed.
Let the people of Quebec, around Quebec City and shipyards, remember the promise that the shipyards would have more work than they could cope with! Let them remember how they were cheated by this Government on the frigate contracts.
Mr. Speaker, broken promises won't go over well during the next election campaign.

[DOT] (mo)


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the deep, deep slide in Liberal fortunes as recorded in the polls can in part be attributed to the shocking and disgraceful behaviour of that Party's supporters at various Toronto nomination meetings. They kick and scream, stuff ballots, and spend tens of thousands of dollars buying phoney memberships. The police have to be called in to keep order.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is unwilling or unable to do anything about these ugly squabbles. No wonder Canadians have no confidence in him or his Party.
The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for turning Hog Town into "Eatanswill North".

July 15, 1988


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, according to the first report of the Special Committee on the Central American Peace Process, in line with the spirit of the Esquipulas II Accord and to encourage negotiations, the United States should end its economic embargo against Nicaragua and stop objecting to the granting of loans to Nicaragua by international financial institutions. Furthermore, the U.S. should be urged to maintain its decision to stop supplying military aid to the Contras.
The Committee recommended as a minimum solution to inadequate Canadian representation the appointment of a charge d'affaires in Nicaragua, because relations between Nicaragua and the United States have worsened and Canada's role has become very important.
I urge the Government to act quickly on the Committee's recommendations on the peace process.
* *
*



TOURISM


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, the federal Government's Industrial Regional Development Program, better known as IRDP, ended. This good program was established, naturally, by the Liberal Government in the early 1980s.
Mr. Speaker, there is therefore no remaining federal program to encourage industry to set up in the rural regions of eastern and northern Ontario.
Although it is true that Ontario is doing well, the situation in my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not so rosy. The Prescott area, for example, is still suffering from an unacceptable unemployment rate of over 12 per cent.
I know that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is now negotiating with his provincial counterpart from Ontario to draw up a master agreement for the regional development of Ontario.
Personally, I have already spoken to the Minister and I encourage him to set up such a program to develop the eastern part of the province. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell needs federal Government assistance and I urge the Conservative Government to restore a good program such as the Liberal Government set up in the past.



IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE SECTOR TRAINING

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, no nation has more splendour than Canada. The beauty of this magnificent land abounds in every region.
Moreover, each region presents a uniqueness of landscape and culture that causes our nation to be the most intriguing land on earth.
We have been blessed with rich natural resources and scenic countryside that are the awe-inspiring wonder and grandeur of the world. Our cities are modern, alive, and exciting. One-fifth of the world's freshwater is contained in our innumerable lakes and rivers.
Our country has what the world community wants to visit. Citizens of many nations yearn to explore our land of peace and beauty.
Yet, unfortunately, our capacity to serve tourists at a professional level of excellence is, at best, quite inconsistent. Therefore, I call on all levels of government to enhance and enrich their involvement in service sector training so that we might attain the volume and quality of tourists that this land so richly deserves. Our objective ought to be to make Canada the most desired nation on earth to tour and visit.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's senior citizens are one of our most valuable resources and, unfortunately, one of our most vulnerable. Having made an invaluable contribution to our country, many seniors are now threatened by growing incidents of elder abuse.
There have been cases reported where senior citizens have been mistreated by landlords, made prisoners in their own home or forced to turn over their small pensions to abusive relatives.
Last month in Toronto representatives of the Government and community groups met to formulate a strategic plan to deal with the problem. They proposed changes to the Criminal Code, expanded education of the public, and increased research and data collection on abuse cases.
I urge the Minister of State for Seniors (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to commit all of the resources required and to seek the co-
July 15, 1988

operation of all levels of government in order to eradicate elder abuse in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday the two Houses of the U.S. Congress endorsed their version of the legislation implementing the Canada-U.S. trade deal. In that legislation is a brand new power for the U.S. administration to harass Canadian exports and so-called Canadian subsidies.
After two years of negotiation, after all the promises raised by the Government, the end result is that Canada is being singled out as being uniquely subject to a brand new trade remedy law, a brand new power to harass and to penalize Canadian exports. That is the result of two years of negotiation.
Considering that the Derek Burney mission is a total failure, that Canada is now subject to a brand new trade power to harass our exports, what will the Government do? Does the Minister have some way to respond to this serious new invasion of Canada's trade rights by the United States?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: The hon. gentleman can splutter all he likes. It does not change the facts. There is no new trade remedy given or sought by the version of the U.S. legislation approved yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. All Members of the House should be pleased that both these committees have acted. The Chairmen of both those committees have assured the public at large that they believe it will pass in splendid style in the United States. I would have thought the hon. gentleman would have been pleased with that.
The so-called Baucus-Danforth amendment does not give any new trade remedy to the United States. It does not change the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement that we have entered into. As a result of our representations many changes in language have been made with respect to that amendment. While we still do not like it, and do not think it should be in the Bill or is necessary to be in the Bill, it only gives the Americans the same kind of powers to investigate alleged subsidies and the like as we have in our legislation. I can tell the hon. gentleman that he does not need to be upset, and his theatrical performance can be toned down somewhat because it is not the crisis he is pretending it is.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, he is the one talking about theatrical performances? You have to be kidding!


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF CANADIAN LEGISLATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it simply proves once again that the Minister has not read the proper documents. Again, his illiteracy is proving to be a disadvantage for Canadians.
Section 31 of the legislation endorsed yesterday by the United States gives the U.S. Administration new powers not only to monitor Canadian exports and determine subsidies, but to initiate actions unilaterally against those exports. That is a brand new power. It singles out Canada exclusively. It does not apply to other countries. Yet the Minister somehow has his head stuck in the sand or some other place where darkness prevails and does not understand that this is a clear violation of existing trade law. It is a brand new power. It makes Canadian exporters vulnerable to brand new trade actions. I want to know if the Minister is going to amend our Bill to give us the same powers the Americans are abrogating to themselves.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that the amendment known as the Baucus-Danforth amendment, in its final form, does not create any new remedies for American industries or for American interests whatsoever. It provides certain powers for the U.S. trade representative to investigate complaints if an industry believes it is competing against subsidized imports into the United States, it gives certain powers to investigate to try to establish what the facts are. It establishes no new remedies. It is not in conflict with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We don't think it is necessary. We don't think this is the proper place to have such a provision inserted.
It has been universalized in its application so it does not apply just to Canada. It will apply to any country that enters into a free trade agreement-


Lloyd Axworthy: There's only one, then.


John Carnell Crosbie: -with the United States. There may well be others, including Japan, where the Senate Finance Committee is now investigating and doing a study to see if there might be room for a trade agreement between Japan and the United States. So I can tell the hon. gentleman-


Maurice Brydon Foster: That we struck out.


John Carnell Crosbie: -there is no new remedy being provided for American interests under this amendment.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister says that Canada has not been singled out, there is only one nation that is proposing to sign a

July 15, 1988
Oral Questions
free trade agreement with the United States, and that is Canada.


An Hon. Member:: So far!


Lloyd Axworthy: Therefore, we are the only country to which these new powers will apply. I appeal to the Minister. As the Minister responsible for defending Canadian interests, he knows full well that Section 31 gives the U.S. trade office new powers. It will be monitoring exports to determine all the subsidies. It will be able to take unilateral action against those subsidies on the government level, not relying upon industry petitions.
Those are substantial new powers that are not in the U.S. trade law now. They are not in our laws. They are brand new. They will provide severe and very harsh new constraints upon Canadian exports. I don't understand why the Minister refuses to stand up for Canadian interests.
He has a Bill in front of the House. That Bill could be clearly amended simply to parallel, if he wants, what the Americans are doing to us. If we are supposed to have reciprocity, why don't we at least have reciprocity in protecting Canadian interests? Why are this Government and this Minister refusing to stand up for Canada once again?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every time the Opposition cries wolf, we are not going to respond "bah bah" as the hon. gentleman wants us to do. This is ridiculous. Just because the Hon. Member says something is so, doesn't make it so. I am going to read what the clause says:
An entity can make a complaint to the United States Trade Representative if the industry is likely to face increased competition from subsidized imports, with which it directly competes, from any other country designated by the President following consultation with the Congress as benefiting from a reduction of tariffs or other trade barriers under a trade agreement that enters into force after January 1, 1989.


Lloyd Axworthy: It sounds like Canada. It sounds like us.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no point shouting when I am trying to answer the question. I will outshout you if I have to.


Lloyd Axworthy: We know that. That's all you can do.


John Carnell Crosbie: What this means is that this applies not just to Canada but to any country that benefits from a reduction of tariffs or other trade barriers under a trade agreement. That could be the MTN agreement or any other trade agreement that lowers barriers with the United States after this Act comes into force. So it does not apply just to Canada.
In any event, the hon. gentleman is completely wrong as usual, wrong-headed and wrong.


APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN LAW
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. In the Bill agreed to
yesterday by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, they have kept in Article 3, the provision that says: "In the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the agreement, U.S. law shall prevail". In our Bill, Article 8 states that our Bill will override every other Canadian law whenever there is a conflict. How can the Minister tolerate such a flagrant difference between our law and their law? Is he now prepared to amend our law and either take out Article 8 altogether or make it the same as the American provision?
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is another little wolf on the wolfs hind legs again.


Lloyd Axworthy: Forget the insults, John. You're an absolute failure as a Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. sheep is pretending to be a wolf. That is the difference.


Lloyd Axworthy: Stand up for this country, you big fraud!


John Carnell Crosbie: You couldn't even gum anyone to death.
With respect to the question, this is a question of statutory drafting. Clause 8 of our Bill, which states that the Bill would override any inconsistent provision in other Bills relating to the same subject matter, is a common piece of statutory drafting in Canada. That kind of clause appears in many of our federal statutes.
In the United States there is a congressional system, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, but hon. gentlemen opposite have difficulty in grasping that. They have a President and they have a Congress which is independent of the President. The Congress doesn't trust the President, therefore, their habit is to say-


Maurice Brydon Foster: We don't trust you so it is all the same.


Mr. Orlikow:: We don't trust you.


John Carnell Crosbie: And the Canadian public doesn't trust any of you. That is why you are where you are and we are where we are.


Some Hon. Members:: Let's go! Let's go!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are going to have a election, don't you worry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is not just a drafting provision. This is a matter of substance. Clause 8 in our law, Bill C-130, makes the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in Canada sort of a quasi-constitution subject only to the Constitution of Canada, but able to override every other Canadian law whenever there
July 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
is an inconsistency or conflict. The provision in the American statute-and it has nothing to do with the American system- is exactly the opposite. It provides: "In the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the agreement, U.S. law shall prevail". Therefore, every other law to be passed by the American Congress can amend the agreement and their Bill. How can the Minister tolerate such a difference in provisions? Why doesn't he do as much for Canadians as the American Congress is doing for its people?
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Clause 8 in our Bill is a matter that has been dealt with before the present legislative committee. That is the proper place for this to be discussed. If the committee, for example, wanted to recommend a change, naturally we would consider whether or not there should be a change. But the committee has not recommended any change.


Lloyd Axworthy: You said we can't.


John Carnell Crosbie: All that Clause 8 states is that this particular piece of legislation will overrule any inconsistent other federal legislation that has not been amended in the Bill. Twenty-seven federal statutes have been found to have provisions inconsistent with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We are specifically amending them. But it is possible that in some obscure provision in some other piece of federal legislation, and God knows there have been thousands of pieces of legislation passed in the last 100 years, there happens to be something that has not been discovered, that we have not seen in our research, that it is inconsistent with this trade legislation, it will be overbound by this federal trade legislation. That is a common statutory provision in our Canadian practice and I see no reason at the present time-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


John Carnell Crosbie: But if the committee in its wisdom, in looking at this, makes a recommendation, then we will consider it.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Carnell Crosbie: Child care is needed over there, Madam, right next to you.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Child care is in far greater crisis than it was four years ago.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a crisis over in the Liberal ranks.


James Douglas Manly: The Tories think this is funny.
Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Child care is in a far greater crisis than it was four years ago, with long waiting lists, few services for children under three, day care centres closing, under-paid workers leaving, and working parents are very concerned about care for their kids. Despite four years of promises and press releases, the Government has not provided one new federal cent for child care services.
Since it is now obvious that there will be no shared funding available to the provinces before the next election will the Minister consider using part of the $1 billion that he found this week and allocate at least $320 million of it for direct good-faith grants to provinces so that they can begin to deal with our child care emergency? Will he do that?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, no, I will not do that, since it is less than what we are doing now. I know that that was the NDP policy.
The Hon. Member says that the Government has done nothing. She is wrong on that point. In the four years since we took office we have has done a great deal. There was the $6.4 billion program over seven years, not to mention the 200,000 spaces, not to mention that after seven years there will be $800 million per year for spaces only support, almost $1 billion a year.
Despite all that, since the Government took office that has been increased by 100 per cent in terms of expenditures under CAP. The Hon. Member says that we have done nothing. Like everything else, it gets tiring always to have to correct the Hon. Member. I understand her philosophy. While I disagree with her even on that, I always have to keep changing and correcting her position.


PROVISION OF FEDERAL FUNDS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had listened, I said that there was not one new federal cent for child care services. The money the Minister mentions was only in press releases. Of course he has done some things, but unfortunately they have been the wrong things, in our view.
This week the Senate Committee on Child Care joined many other experts across the country in pointing out the numerous flaws that there are in the child care strategy, including the inadequacy of funding, the need to ensure quality of care, the promotion of non-profit child care, and the need to expand services. Since the announcement this week corrects none of these flaws, and the Minister admitted yesterday that this $ 1 billion does not deal with these problems, would it not make practical sense to allocate good-faith grants now in order to have time to redraft the plan so that we can be proud of our first national child care program in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not admit anything of the kind. I did not

July 15, 1988
Oral Questions
say that at all. In fact I said that the $1 billion will increase quality. I said that it will increase the salaries of child care workers. I will explain it to the Hon. Member again.
The money for 1988-89 flows as of April 1, 1988-April 1, 1988. We are in July now and April was a few months back.
The point I make is that the provinces can sign on. It is more money for this year than even the NDP wanted.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can surely not deny that it is money on paper. There is no money in place yet. Again, I say that. It is not just New Democrats who are saying it but experts across the country are saying that the money is being used in the wrong way. The Minister has said in the House, when I questioned him before, that accessibility, affordability, and quality are important national child care objectives. We agree with that. However, he knows that his plan will not achieve these goals. Two hundred thousand spaces will not even begin to meet the need over seven years.
Will the Minister act on his child care promises to Canadian families? Will he show some good faith by putting some money in now before an election? Will he provide emergency funding while he redesigns a workable national child care program, and go to the electorate with it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have showed good faith. The money is available as of April 1, 1988. The money is there. The federal-provincial agreements will be signed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will be-not now. Not one cent has gone.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I finished saying that the money is available April 1, 1988. If the Hon. Member knows anything about social policy-anything at all-she will know how to take a look at the adjustment over each fiscal year to see how the adjustments are made. The money is available as of April 1, 1988.
The point we are really debating is this. We wanted to give Canadian parents a choice. What the Hon. Member and the NDP want, and something which the Liberals joined in yesterday, is for the Government to drive everything. They want the parents to be told by government how to have care and how to access it. We oppose that. We reject it. That is why we have a plan which was agreed to by other provinces, the federal Government, and by parents who want a choice.


ENTREPRENEUR IMMIGRANTS-MONITORING SYSTEM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Since the Government assumed office in 1984 not only has it doubled and tripled its levels of entrepreneurial immigration to the detriment of other classes such as the family and assistedfamily classes, but as Toronto newspapers have been demonstrating for the last several weeks, by failing to implement a comprehensive monitoring system and by lowering the standards, thereby making it easier for business immigrants to get into the country, the Government has created a huge incentive for widespread abuse.
Since the Government's own study in 1985 indicated that it could not even locate over 40 per cent of all business immigrants entering the country, or those who were supposed to have entered, why has the Government refused to establish a monitoring system that would ensure that promises for investment and job creation be fulfilled? If the Government is not prepared to do so now, will it at least re-evaluate the entrepreneurial program within the Government's immigration policy?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member of three things. First, this program has been in place since the late 1970s. Until we got here there was not a finger lifted even to review what was going on under this program, let alone monitor it. My predecessor introduced a review of this system. I said as soon as I took this portfolio that I would be instituting a monitoring system, and that there would be a private sector advisory committee on how to do it. I will be announcing that very soon.
It is this Government and this Party which have aggressively expanded the Government's sponsored refugee program, family reunification, and the independent immigrant program.


ENFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it was this Government that tripled the number of business immigrants, and expanded the program to make it easier to qualify. It is now being irresponsible in not following up and ensuring that, if there is a priority for rich immigrants, they at least be followed up on their promises to invest and create jobs for Canadians.
I ask the Minister again why she permits a double standard to continue whereby family or assisted-family class cases are meticulously screened and refused for the slightest of oversights while the rich are not only able to buy themselves into the country more easily but many of them who do so do so free of charge? Will the Minister apply the force of our Immigration Act equally to all its applicants without accounting for the size of people's wallets?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the important part about the lowering of the amount of investment required is because of a bilateral agreement with provinces that have very little capital investment. That does not apply all across the country. It applies in provinces that need investment and, indeed, it was at their request that we did this. So we are now balancing the business immigration program-
July 15, 1988


Sergio Marchi: No one is coming over.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It has just been put into effect. We are now balancing the program in a way that will spread that investment out across the country instead of just having it go to some of the richer provinces.
The cornerstone of our policy is that we do indeed apply the standards of the Immigration Act to everyone, and will continue to do so. We will be enhancing the monitoring and the standards around this program. For those who have been in office while the program was instituted with absolutely no monitoring, I find this remarkably hypocritical.


ADMISSION OF HONG KONG BUSINESSMEN
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In an article in The Globe and Mail today Victor Malarek documents abuses in Canada's immigration system that the Minister of Immigration and all her employees cannot document.
Can the Minister tell the House why it is possible that 18 Hong Kong businessmen admitted under the program promoted by the Government can supposedly live with their families in two houses in Metropolitan Toronto while continuing to live in Hong Kong, and still escape the detection of the Department?
Is this the type of monitoring the Minister meant when she told The Globe and Mail on July 5: "I told my officials that I really want this program monitored and very carefully watched"?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the case that is under way at the present time, except to say that even the story in the paper suggests that what is being investigated goes back for many years. It did not start last week, last month, or even last year. It goes back for quite a long time, and that is the only comment that I will make on this case.


CONDITIONAL VISAS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government has two immigration policies- Bill C-84 to slam the door on refugees, and Bill C-55 which lets this program be wide open for the wealthy.
Can the Minister explain why there is such widespread cheating, rampant among these wealthy immigrants, while only half of them have restricted conditional visas which require them to enter the country and establish the businesses that they promised to do under the terms of their entry, which they are not doing?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already suggested to the
Oral Questions
House that until this Party took office there was not even a review of this program.


David Orlikow: Four years. How many more years do you want?


Barbara Jean McDougall: There has been a review of this program. We are looking actively at how to monitor more effectively. Conditional visas do involve Charter considerations. That may or may not be the answer, but we are looking at it very actively and will be making some announcements soon.


IMMIGRANT DOCTORS-STAFFING OF RURAL HOSPITALS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Bearing in mind the alleged near crisis reported by some rural medical associations, as the result of the unwillingness of Canadian trained doctors and nurses to staff hospitals in rural Canada, would the Minister give consideration to allowing for a designated system that would appropriately label some rural communities as difficult to staff medically and allow those hospital administrators to apply in foreign lands, simultaneously with any advertisement with provincial and Canadian medical associations, and specifically without the requirement for the three-month waiting period while time is wasted in applying in the domestic market for medical staff?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is to be commended for his continuing interest in what is a real problem in the rural parts of Canada.
There is a program of co-operation between federal and provincial health authorities. In the Immigration Department we do expedite the entry of foreign doctors when the problem comes to us.
At the moment there are two log-jams. One is with the standards and interests reviewed by the medical association. The other is at the provincial level. To the extent possible, we are prepared to break the log-jam on the immigration side. We do process those applications very quickly.
I would be interested in helping out in other ways that might expedite the situation, and if designated areas are one of them I would be happy to do that. It will not solve the fundamental problem of foreign doctors coming and practising briefly in an area and then moving on, and that may create another source of difficulty in the future.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the

July 15, 1988
Oral Questions
desperate drought situation in many districts and counties of Ontario and in some areas of Quebec.
After the federal-provincial Ministers' meeting two days ago, the Minister announced that the same assistance would be provided in Ontario and Quebec as has been provided in the West. So far the only program is the livestock program in the West.
Will the same $60 per head of breeding cow be provided in the Ontario counties and districts affected? Will the same $15 per acre of assistance in tax deferral be provided for Ontario counties and districts affected? When will application forms be available? Will the funds be provided on the same date as they are being provided in western Canada, which I assume is using the starting date of July 1 with payments being made sometime in late August? Could the Minister clarify those issues?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for further clarification, although the message coming out of the federal-provincial meeting was very clear.
At the federal-provincial meeting in Toronto on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I said that the same process that we followed in western Canada would be followed in eastern Canada. As of last Tuesday we had already formed the federal-provincial drought co-ordinating committee in the East. One meeting had already been held.
What I said then, and what I am saying here today, is that the same process will be followed in the eastern part of the country that was followed in western Canada.


CORN PRODUCERS-CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide exactly the same assistance in eastern Canada as is being provided in the West. That is what farmers want to know. They are not so much concerned about the process as they are that the funds will be provided on the same basis.
I also want to deal with the question of the losses in wheat, soybeans, corn, and a number of horticultural crops. Those losses are estimated to be well over half a million dollars already. By the end of the month the losses could approach 80 to 90 per cent in corn alone.
Is the Minister prepared to accept the recommendation of the Ontario corn producers that the yield factor be raised from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, and that the pricing factor be raised to the current day pricing?
In co-operation with provincial Ministers is the Minister willing to extend the application date for crop insurance until September 1, provided that the producers enrol for a two or three-year period? Will that type of assistance that has been proposed by the Ontario corn producers cover other crops? Is the Minister willing to accept those recommendations, many of
which were contained in the federal-provincial review committee and were reported over a year ago? So far no legislation has been brought forward or policies adopted to implement those recommendations in the 1987 federal-provincial crop insurance review committee report.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for anyone who is paying the bill to accept any recommendations at this time. Any recommendations at this time are sheer speculation, and they will be speculation until later in the year when we are closer to harvest time, or at the normal harvest time, depending on the specific crop.
We will work jointly with the provinces and with the producer organizations to come up with recommendations to deal with the situation, exactly the course of action that we followed in western Canada.
We are interested in fairness and equity. We are interested in enhancing the crop insurance program. We are interested in encouraging a greater participation and a greater enrolment in the crop insurance program. But we are also interested in ensuring that there is fairness and equity in financing.
We are proposing to the provinces that we have a more equitable way of financing, more on a tri-partite approach. If the provinces would follow this, this would mean that there would be fairness and equity in crop insurance. It would also mean that Canadian farmers would pay somewhat less. That concept already exists in the Province of Quebec and in the Province of Newfoundland. If we get on with the job, if the provinces are prepared to pay their fair share, then we can make an awful lot of progress in the next week to ten days.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The Minister knows that despite the Government's employment equity program to increase employment of women in the federal Public Service, 232 scientific and professional jobs held by female public servants will be gone by 1991. Representing only 25 per cent of this group, women will lose 30 per cent of the jobs.
Will the Minister not admit that it is sheer hypocrisy to talk about increasing employment of women in the federal Public Service while making such disproportionate cuts in this very, very important category?


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Hon. Member has
July 15, 1988

not congratulated this Government for being the first one to accentuate employment equity and to set targets for the employment not only of women but also of the disabled, natives, and visible minority groups.
Yesterday we published a report called On Target which indicated that in the first three years of this very important program we increased the number of women in the scientific and professional groups. It is reflected in the report that the increase was from 5,305 in 1985 to 5,580 in 1988.1 think that should answer the Hon. Member's concern.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is what boasting does in refusing to deal with the fact that the numbers will be dropping back toward the levels they were in 1985. That is outrageous, Madam Minister.


REPRESENTATION OF VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister who knows very well that visible minorities are very seriously under represented in the Public Service, representing perhaps 3 per cent of the Public Service by her own figures, less than half of their proportion in the Canadian population.
How can the Minister reconcile the Government's supposed commitment to multiculturalism with a paltry 4.2 per cent increase in the numbers of persons from visible minorities who will be employed in the federal Public Service by 1991? At that kind of rate of increase, Mr. Speaker, it will take until the middle of the next century to achieve fair representation for visible minorities.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that our efforts to increase the employment of women, minority groups, the disabled, and natives are outrageous. They are without precedent in the history of any previous Government. We are the first ones to bring in a commitment to employment equity and we have delivered, as yesterday's report shows.
The Hon. Member should be aware that, of course, there may be a downsizing in this group as the Member suggests because we are devolving certain aspects of employment to the territorial Governments and to Indian bands, where nurses and teachers will be affected. That will be because their jobs are being devolved to other agencies. The Hon. Member should take that into account.
In terms of the other issues he raises, I suggest he both read the On Target report and the targets that we have set for the next three years. The Hon. Member should be aware that this Government has spent in excess of $30 million in order to ensure that special measures for employment equity are both in place and enforced.
Oral Questions ABORTION


PLANNED USE OF BRAIN TISSUE FROM ABORTED FETUSES
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, researchers at Halifax Dalhousie University plan to use brain tissue from aborted fetuses for transplantation, a practice that I am sure most Canadians will find clearly unacceptable and morally repugnant.
The U.S. Government in a move to to stop fetal tissue transplants is refusing federal funds to any institution that carries out medical research with fetuses. Can the Minister assure this House that there will be no federal funds awarded to any university, institution or organization which would try to carry out this despicable practice?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I too read the news reports with great alarm. I think that human life either in utero or in vitro, which is induced for experimental purposes, is both ethnically and morally unacceptable and wrong.
That does not relate, for example, to the spontaneous abortions and the medical and ethical procedures relating to organ harvesting and cadavers. There is also a very strong medical difference with respect to the fact that other options could not be used.
I say, as the Minister of National Health, that while there is review for any federal funding of medical research, this Minister will not approve such a procedure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. There has been a definite deterioration in the morale of the Public Service of Canada under this Government and there has been a total lack of constructive dialogue between the duly elected representatives of the Public Service of Canada and the Treasury Board.
Today, regardless of what the Minister says, we find that in the science and professional job cuts female public servants have been the hardest hit.
Why has the President of the Treasury Board chosen not to meet with representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada despite their many requests to do so over the past several months? Is the Minister prepared to commit herself to a meeting without further delay to discuss issues of pressing concern to its members and representatives?

July 15, 1988
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that I held a special reception in May in order to meet with union representatives and to get acquainted with them, because this is a year of tough negotiations. I explained at that time that I did not want to undercut the collective bargaining process that we have in place at this time.
I am quite willing to meet with the representatives at a time when my participation would be helpful, but considering the lack of progress at the bargaining table I do not see what point would be served at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister and the Government have adopted an increasingly confrontational and non-communicational approach to labour relations with its own employees.
When will the President of the Treasury Board and Treasury Board officials get their heads out of the sand, stop stonewalling the bargaining units, and start treating the employees with a sense of decency? When can we expect some action and not just the damning, the ignoring, the downsizing and the degradation of the Public Service of Canada? When will the Minister and the Government start treating them with some respect?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this Government has been a good employer of the Public Service. We have brought in special measures such as the self-funded leave provision which was introduced recently. We have brought in the employment equity scheme and we have brought in a whole series of special benefits and measures that will assist the Public Service.
In view of the Hon. Member's concern, possibly he could suggest that the unions involved should come to the bargaining table and accelerate their efforts to settle on these agreements.


TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last October Peter Pearson, Executive Director of Telefilm Canada, a $100 million Canadian cultural agency, made serious allegations about the Chairman, Mr. Jean Sirois, an appointee and friend of the Prime Minister. I quote:
No examination of the Chairman's expense account and billings could stand public scrutiny.. . The Chairman stridently intervened to help personal and political friends.
My question is for the Chairman of the Communications and Culture Committee of the House of Commons. On three occasions, March 1, March 15, and May 4 that committee promised hearings into these serious allegations but last night the Conservative majority overruled this commitment. Why this whitewash? Did the Chairman receive instructions from the Prime Minister's Office to bury these embarrassing allegations against a friend of the Prime Minister?


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the ridiculous premise to that question, I would offer two points in response.
First, the Member should recall that on June 22 the committee held a planning meeting and decided at that point to forgo the calling of witnesses and instead issue a written report. The Member was represented at that meeting of the committee.
Second, it is a tradition in this place that committees set their agenda and decide on the calling of witnesses in committee meeting. I would suggest that this Member continue that practice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a pretty lame excuse.

Mr. Speaker, they promised an investigation, but they will do nothing. Because Sirois is a personal friend of the Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson will not have an opportunity to defend himself.


DEMAND THAT MR. PEARSON BE ALLOWED TO JUSTIFY HIS POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: My supplementary question is: How can the Committee Chairman justify such an action and when will Mr. Pearson be able to tell his story to this House or a Committee of this House?


John Kenneth Gormley: Again, Mr. Speaker, without accepting the preamble to that question, I would suggest that the Hon. Member consult with those who represented him at the June 22 meeting when the committee made the decision to issue a written report on this matter and to forgo the calling of witnesses. I would suggest that the Member's actions have now jeopardized the tabling of that written report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be one question from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and one question from the Hon. Member for Don Valley East.
July 15, 1988


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The RCMP has cancelled its' water patrol units. The water patrol units of the RCMP have been responsible for patrolling and for matters relating to the Shipping Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It is the only agency patrolling for water safety and has been responsible for uncovering a great deal of illegal drugs coming into Canada, a racket which now amounts to $10 billion a year. In light of the good work these units have done, why has the Government disbanded them?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question and for bringing to the attention of the House the good work of these units. I would like to take notice of the question and have the Solicitor General respond to it when he returns.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There were press reports earlier this week indicating that he may be shelving the interim sales tax measure that was announced last February. Such a move, of course, would create a cloud of uncertainty for tax professionals and business people. What are the Minister's intentions in this regard?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the few months since we did release those proposals on the interim sales tax changes, we have had considerable consultations and discussions with members of the private sector, tax professionals and others who do have an interest in this particular issue. On the basis of these consultations, we are proposing to make some technical changes which will make the proposals more workable. I would expect to be introducing legislation into the House, based on these technical revisions that I have referred to, some time in the next little while.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Order Paper Questions
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to six petitions numbered as follows: 332-4756, 3324848, 332-4900, 332-4938, 332-5007 and 332-5014.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.)



HERITAGE RAILWAY STATION PROTECTION ACT


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, I have the honour to present a revised report on Bill C-205 to the House with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PETITION


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition from several hundred people representing many towns in Manitoba who are concerned that as a result of the Supreme Court decision, the unborn in Canada have no protection currently under Canadian law. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to protect the life of the child from conception until birth.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 344 and 367.


Mr. Gauthier: Are there employees of the Government now working in Vanier, Ontario and, if so (a) in which departments or agencies are they employed (b) for each department or agency, what is the number of employees?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am

July 15, 1988
Order for Return
informed by the following departments and agencies as follows:
(A) and (b)
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada 6 Economic Council of Canada 125 Energy, Mines and Resources Canada 110 Environment Canada	67
External Affairs Canada 24 Health and Welfare Canada	668
Public Works Canada 7 Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise 10 Supply and Services Canada	100


Mr. Young: 1.	Are deaf Canadian students currently enrolled in Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. and, if so (a) in what numbers (b) what are their annual (i) tuition (ii) residence fees (c) do they receive financial assistance from the Government or, to the knowledge of the Government, from any provincial Government to cover the cost of attending this institution (d) what is the total cost of their education there and from what sources does that money come?
2.	Are deaf students currently enrolled in Canadian universities and, if so
(a)	in what numbers (b) what kind of financial assistance is provided to them (c) does the government contribute to this support and, if so, what is the total cost per year to the government?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: 1.
Yes. (a) 134, (b) (i) U.S. $1,700 per semester, (average cost); (ii) U.S. $1,650 per semester, (average cost).
(c)	According to Gallaudet University, most of their Canadian students receive assistance from the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons Program (VRDP), a federal-provincial cost sharing program administered by Health and Welfare Canada. Also, students may receive assistance from the Canadian Student Loans Program (CSLP), provincial bursaries, loans and grants.
(d)	Total costs vary from student to student, depending on what course is being taken. An average amount would be $12,000. Sources of money are: own or family contributions, VRDP, Canadian Student Loans Program (CSLP) of the Department of the Secretary of State, provincial bursaries, loans and grants.
2. Yes.
(a)	Precise numbers on all deaf students have not been recorded. Canadian Co-ordinating Council on Deafness 1984 survey identified 35 profoundly deaf students studying fulltime in university who requested support services.
(b)	Financial assistance is provided by VRDP, CSLP, provincial loans, bursaries and grants.
(c)	Federal government contributes via VRDP and CSLP. Total cost has not been broken down to identify costs for specific groups.
N.B. The above information refers to students who require special services and does not include those who choose not to identify themselves as deaf or request special services.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 352 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 352 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Riis: In the past four years, have any Indo-Canadian organizations received funding from the government and, if so, for each year, which organizations and, in each case, what amounts of money?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period, I was dealing with Motion No. 2. I have been informed that Motion No. 2 will be ruled out of order because it adds something further to the Bill.

July 15, 1988

I cannot see how Motion No. 2 is different from Clause 5 of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the only difference I can detect is that there is in my motion the following subclause:
(v) the appointment of any individual to any body or office established by or under the authority of any Act of Parliament or by or under the authority of the Governor in Council,-
In fact, that particular subclause was in the original Bill when we debated it at second reading. In the legislative committee, the Government withdrew that subclause. I simply added it back in.
Right at the end of the motion, there is another part that is different. I have added such other information relating to the identity of the individual, the client, the employer or any corporation or subsidiary. I cannot see that my Motion No. 2 is any different from what is in the Bill now except for the addition of the appointment of any individual. In other words, those who lobby on the appointment of an individual are considered to be taking part in lobbying activities.
I cannot understand why the motion would not be accepted. As far as I can see, it does not go beyond the scope of the Bill which we debated in principle and which is before us today.
There is one other point I would like to bring to Your Honour's attention. It must have been an error in the printing of Motion No. 6 which has been accepted. It reads: "graphs 5(l)(a) to (g)," and it should be (f) rather than (g).


Don Boudria: That is what it says. Mine must be reprinted.


John R. Rodriguez: I am looking at the Order Paper of Monday, July 11.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct, of course, but I would like to inform him that on today's Order Paper, it has been corrected.
I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Hawkes) for their representations concerning the amendments at report stage. The Chair has taken the representations into consideration and is now ready to make a decision on Bill C-82.

There are eleven motions in amendment at the report stage of Bill C-82. These motions in the names of the Hon. Members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), and Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), cause the Chair some difficulty. The majority of these motions were dealt with in the legislative committee which studied the Bill.
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 attempt to introduce a further element into Clause 5. This is of course with respect to the
Lobbyists Registration Act
representation made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Clause 5 states in part that "every individual who for payment undertakes to arrange a meeting or to communicate with a public office holder shall file". Thus it appears that the principle or scope, and those words are used interchangeably, of Clause 5 is to restrict registration to items based upon arranging meetings or communicating with public office holders. In addition, the Bill makes no reference, among other items, to mass mailing, advertising campaigns, collecting information, or summary of costs. Accepting this point, that the scope of the said clause is as stated, then to insert additional items not previously covered would indeed take the clause beyond what was originally envisaged at second reading.
Accordingly, as paragraph 1 of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's states, an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. That reference is further supported by Erskine May, twentieth edition, page 555.

I thus find that the proposed motions numbered 1, 2 and 3 are beyond the scope of the clause and therefore are inadmissible and consequently will not be put to the House.

Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 were considered at length in the legislative committee. Nevertheless, after consultation, Hon. Members have made the case that this matter of requiring lobbyists to register certain items is of enough significance that it warrants further consideration as permitted under Standing Order 114(10). Accordingly, Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions numbered 5 and 9 were moved, debated but negatived at the committee stage. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 114 (10), they shall not be selected for the consideration of the House.

Motion No. 10 is similar to Motion No. 9 and as a consequence will not be put to the House.

Motion numbered 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) attempts to give the registrar more powers than those that were envisaged when the House gave the Bill approval in principle at second reading. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Beauchesne citation 773,1 declare it inadmissible.

To summarize for Hon. Members, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 are not admissible and will not be selected. Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 are in order.

July 15, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
[ Translation]
Therefore, I shall now put motions numbered 4, 6, 7 and 8 to the House which will be debated together but voted on separately.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 4:
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 11 and 12 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) the fee charged by the individual for performing the activities described in subsection (1); and
(0 such other information relating to the".
Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"graphs 5(1 )(a) to (0, that employee shall,".


Don Boudria: Motion No. 7:
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 38 to 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the name of the employee;
(b)	the name and address of the person or organization by whom the employee is employed; and
(c)	the proposed subject-matter of the meeting or communication, as the case may be."


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 8:
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"employed;
(c)	the proposed subject matter of the communication; and
(d)	the summary of the costs incurred by the person or organization while performing the activities described in this subsection."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just draw your attention to Motion No. 4. Looking at the lineage and the way it is worded, there are three words which complete a previous clause. I can see what the Hon. Member is intending but in the absence of those three words we would end up with a script which might not be what it should be. At least that is my reading of it. We can proceed with the debate but I think there is a technical problem which people might want to look into while we are proceeding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. On debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at report stage of Bill C-82. Of course, I regret that not all motions were acceptable to the Chair but of course I accept the ruling in that regard. That leads me to debate Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and
8, and I want to address my remarks principally to Motion No. 7. That happens to be the one I proposed.
Bill C-82, as we know, offers a two-tier system of registering lobbyists. It says that there shall be a category of consulting lobbyists and from them we should ask certain information. For another category, the Tier II or so-called other lobbyists, we should ask merely the name and address of the person or organization by whom the employee is employed, and that the employee who files a return referred to shall as soon as practicable in the circumstances advise the registrar of any change. That is the only thing we are asking of those people.
In my opinion we are asking far too little of Tier II two lobbyists. I want to remind the House that the whole purpose of having a registration system is to offer some form of transparency. Of course, as it pertains to Tier I lobbyists, we will be asking for a bit more information and that is good. I think we should have gone one step further and asked to register the fees that lobbyists charge as well. However, that amendment being inadmissible, we obviously will not be able to ask that.
Nevertheless, the whole purpose of the exercise is to provide a certain transparency. In the case of Tier I lobbyists one could argue that there is at least an element of that which will be required of those so-called Tier I lobbyists or, in other words, consulting lobbyists. When we talk about consulting lobbyists, we talk about the GCIs and Frank Moores of this world.
As we deal with Tier II lobbyists, we are talking about a different kind of person. At least, the Government thinks we are talking about a different kind of person. We are talking about someone who, let us say, is the vice-president of government relations for General Motors or Inco or another similar company. That could be the definition of a Tier II lobbyist but it is not necessarily so. Let me give you the following scenario.
For example, say that a company has one of its vicepresidents as a Tier II lobbyist but that company does lobbying work for another company. I will give an example. Say we have a large corporate entity by the name of Imasco. That, of course, is a large corporate entity and owns a number of subsidiaries, one of them being Imperial Tobacco, another one being a cookie factory and so on.
In that situation there may be no transparency at all because if the lobbyist is working for the parent company, it will not be at all evident which one of the subsidiaries he or she is lobbying for because we are not asking enough information of the Tier II lobbyists. We are not asking from them the same thing that we are asking of Tier I lobbyists, namely, the subject of what the lobbying activity entails.
One could even argue that in the case of very large multinationals, the parent company could in fact be lobbying two completely diametrically opposed things, depending upon
July 15, 1988

which one of its subsidiaries it is arguing for. In the case of the large multinational which I raised a while ago, if it were lobbying for or against a tobacco initiative, it would be totally different than if it were lobbying for or against something pertaining to its food production department.
I want to keep my comments very brief in this regard because we made the point at committee that we need a more transparent system. The Government has offered us a system of registering lobbyists after considerable controversy.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Conservative Government had some very serious problems and it still does, during the summer of 1985. Subsequently, and as I said, the problems are still with us, the Prime Minister made a statement in the House and sent letters to Hon. Members, dated September 9, 1985, in which he discussed the issue of public sector ethics, and Lord knows the Government certainly needed some ethics at this point. However, in this case the Government announced that it would draft a new code for public office holders. Furthermore, instructions would be given to Ministers, imposing specific limits on the hiring, on a permanent or contract basis, of members of their families. Lobbying legislation would also be forthcoming, Mr. Speaker. I just want to quote, very briefly, one paragraph of this letter to show that we need the amendment I am proposing to the House today, if we are to meet the objectives the Prime Minister set in his letter of September 9, 1985. He said and I quote: "The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date ... ", mark those words: "at an early date", "... legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists ..." Now listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, the next sentence is very important: "... we will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients." That does not apply to the Tier II lobbyists I referred to earlier. " ... This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation ... ", and finally: " ... I have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity "... "On an urgent basis", Mr. Speaker . . . that was September 9, 1985. It is now July 15, 1988, in a session extended by this Government.
I think it is clear that the Conservative Government has again failed to keep his word. In any case, I believe that with my amendment and the amendments moved by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), we could at least try to provide a measure of transparency throughout the system, something the Prime Minister himself had asked for. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members in the House to support the four motions before it today, and more specifically, a motion I
Lobbyists Registration Act moved myself, Motion No. 7, which is not very exacting but which nevertheless would be better than the system proposed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, can I get a clarification? Since I have three amendments, do I get 30 minutes to debate? Do I see you nodding? He is awake. The Speaker is always awake when I am on my feet. I don't get away with anything around here.
I want to direct my comments to the three amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper. Bill C-82 is the Government's response to the unanimous report of a standing committee of the House of Commons. The committee studied the issue of lobbying as a result of an open letter to Members of Parliament and Senators dated September 9, 1985, signed by Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada. Among other things that he said to Members of Parliament and Senators was the following:
The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date, legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients. This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation.
It was as a result of this letter that the committee studied the issue of lobbying and produced a unanimous report. In that report we recommended that lobbyists be registered. We recommended that the item on which they are lobbying be registered and that the client who hired them be registered.
The standing committee did not recommend a two-tiered system. Bill C-82 makes a differentiation. The committee has always held that a lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist and that whether lobbyists are hired by a private company or an association such as the Pharmaceutical Association, their activities are identical. The purpose of their existence is to try to influence the legislators with respect to regulations and/or laws.
Bill C-82 has attempted to set up a two-tier system, Tier I containing all of those who are identifiably lobbying consultants such as GCI, PAI, and a host of other lobbying consultants. Tier II would cover associations and unions. The Government proposes to require different information from the two tiers. The first group will be required to name their client and the issue on which they are lobbying. However, Tier II will be treated entirely differently. They need only declare who they are. In other words, all they have to do is hand over their business card. That is the only registration required.
I used to think that the most powerful lobbyists were the Frank Moores type. I thought those were the powerful lobbyists, the ones with clout. I have since had reason and opportunity to change my thinking on that question. In fact,

July 15, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
the most powerful lobbyists on the Hill and around the bureaucracy are the associations like the Bankers Association, the Pharmaceutical Association, and BCNI. They really have the clout around here. We have observed the influence that they have had on the Government with respect to legislation. They will escape, scot-free, from the network of registration.
Canadians have every right to know who is doing what to whom and, I would add in one of my amendments, for how much. That is absolutely essential in a democratic system. It must be totally transparent. My amendments seek to erase the difference between Tier I lobbyists and Tier II lobbyists.
Second, I want to ensure that the amount of money paid by the lobbying activity, or the amount spent on a lobbying activity in the case of associations, is on the public record. That amount indicates the importance of the issue to those who want to have the change.
Third, even the Tier II proposal of the Government would eliminate the registry of those who would attempt to get an appointment to a board or commission. That is maintained in Tier I but completely eliminated for Tier II so that all the hacks can continue to be appointed without any right of the public to know about the relationship between those making the appointments and those making the representations on behalf of the appointees.
That is not in keeping with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wrote us in 1985, when he stated in his letter that we would have a transparent system, that we would not only be registering the lobbyists but registering the particular lobbying activity.
It is absolutely essential that the public be aware of the particular issue. We know that there is direct and indirect lobbying. All of us are aware of the vast numbers of letters we received with respect to the tobacco legislation. While we have no proof, all the letters were the same and obviously some groups were spending considerable amounts of money to put out those letters and have people sign and mail them. I suggest that that is a form of lobbying about which the public has a right to know. Parliamentarians and bureaucrats have a right to know who was sending out this information and how much they were putting into the lobby. In fact, it was all done by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, who hired Bill Neville to make the big pitch. Canadians have a right to know that. Canadians have a right to know about the issue, who is behind it and how much they are paying.
Bill C-22, to amend the Patent Act, suddenly came upon the scene. Were the drug companies approaching the bureaucracy and, if so, those who were opposed to the changes ought to have been aware of it so they could mount their campaign as well.
Where did the question of free trade originate? I have no doubt in my mind that it originated with BCNI. I have no
doubt that Tom d'Aquino and BCNI were pushing the Government into adopting the free trade program. We have a right to know what those who lurk in the shadows and dark recesses of Government are doing. We should be able to put the light on those who hide behind the curtains and do their deals in the dark.
The Canadian public has every right to know, as the Prime Minister once said. That does not only apply to access to information, it applies to all things relating to Government, including influences on Government. It is extremely important.
The Government took the position in committee not to accept any amendments. It refused to accept any changes to the legislation in the committee. In fact, I got the distinct impression that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) was an unwilling sponsor of this Bill. He did not even want to have a lobbying Bill. The lobbyists have done a very effective job on the Government with respect to the lobbying Bill.
The Minister kept saying the Government did not want to register lobbying, that it wanted to register lobbyists, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister said lobbying activities must be registered. We supported the principle of lobbying but we cannot support a Bill that has turned out to be a powder-puff Bill. We cannot support that because it would be participating in a nothing Bill.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this Bill and the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). We are concerned about the issue of the public's right to know. That should not be confused with other issues that have been raised in the House.
The public has the right to know who is attempting to influence the decisions of Government. Not only should they know who is doing it, they should know the specific issues they are raising and how much money is being spent on it.
Let us consider the example of the submarine program, which is subject to millions of dollars of lobbying, and consider how that relates to the importance of this legislation. Yesterday there was a debate on the submarine program. Conservative Members spoke in favour of it and Opposition Members spoke against it.
Unfortunately, there are small groups of very powerful and influential people in this country who want this program to go ahead because of the large amounts of money they can make. These groups include the classical organized lobbying groups like Public Affairs International, Government Consultants International, Corporation House and a number of others.
Mr. Ouellette, who heads Government Consultants International, is a personal friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from law school days. He was a principal instrument in his leadership campaign. The same organization involved Frank Moores, a personal friend of the Prime
July 15, 1988

Minister. These people are not without influence and are the louder voices looking for a share of the spoils of the Government. The people have a right to know what they are doing in the Prime Minister's Office, how much is being paid and for what.
This program has attracted a very nefarious type of undertaking. The former Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Minister of Transport, Mr. Ramsey Withers, is now on the payroll promoting this program. He held a very important position in Canada as Deputy Minister of Transport and Chief of Defence Staff. He is being paid a pension by the Government of Canada and should not be lobbying for private groups for private advantage. That type of activity cannot be allowed to continue. It should be made clear in this House that Ramsey Withers has no business lobbying this Government on this issue.
We have the spectacle of a former Minister of National Defence, Mr. Jean-Jacques Blais, who served in this House as a Minister of the Crown, now lobbying as well. It would appear he is not only receiving money as a lobbyist but he is also receiving money from the Government of Canada, although indirectly. That is unacceptable. It should not be allowed to continue. This Government must take positive action to deal with these amendments and this legislation to stop this. The Canadian public is being exploited in a very serious way by these kinds of activities. People who have held strong positions of trust in the Government are now turning around and using those positions of trust for personal financial advantage, and in this case, for a very questionable program.
It even goes further than that. Lobbying is being conducted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty). There are reports in the newspapers that he is using officers of the Armed Forces to travel back and forth across this country promoting the submarine program. That is lobbying. It is absolutely unacceptable. It appears to be a politicizing of the Armed Forces, and we cannot tolerate that.
The Minister of National Defence has also used the resources of his Department to enhance the decision-making process around the nuclear submarine issue in the public eye. That is not acceptable. It undermines democracy. The particular issue of the submarines illustrates every negative aspect of the lobbying issue.
What it is is louder voices, smaller groups and louder voices. The Government is getting its message out by spending millions of dollars of taxpayers money. The submarine manufacturers in Britain and France are promoting this project using millions of private dollars. The defence contractors are spending millions of dollars in getting their message out. In short, there is a very small number of groups, who stand to make a very large amount of money, which are getting their message out.
Lobbyists Registration Act
What about the other side of the question, the fairness of the decision-making procedure, whereby these groups who are critical of this program do not have the resources to raise that that kind of money. When there are private interest groups, which stand to make a lot of money off the success of this particular program, having access to millions and millions of dollars to promote it, and when the prize is in the billions of dollars, they ought to be putting up an equal amount of money to be allocated to other groups so that these groups can campaign and give the other point of view. That would be a legitimate approach to this issue.
The citizens of this country would then have a fair chance. They would be allowed to look at advertisements not only of submarines and Soviet threats and all the jobs that allegedly will be created by this program, but they would also be able to look at such things as Canada being mortgaged for generations for a program in which the first submarine will not be delivered for 10 years. The technology in that submarine will be absolutely out of date by the time it hits the water.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton), wants to use these nuclear submarines to chase dope importers and fisheries violators. He is right on track. When the Minister of National Defence first raised this, he wanted to protect Arctic sovereignty. When that fell apart under the criticism of experts in the field who said there were more cost effective ways of doing that, then the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich stands and displays his incredible knowledge of this subject by suggesting that we can use nuclear powered submarines to chase dope importers and fisheries violators. I guess we can. We can probably use a sub to surface ship missile in Esquimalt to shoot them as they come out of the harbour in Colombia. But I would think that most people would find there were other more cost effective ways of handling that problem. We have a serious problem here.
The message from the other side of this controversy is not being heard. The democratic system and decision-making procedure should be made to work. People with good reputations say we are not spending $8 billion on this program. The Department of Supply and Services estimates it at $10 billion. The security adviser to the U.S. Senate estimates it at $12 billion. Other naval analysts are saying it will cost in excess of $16 billion. The security adviser for the Senate suggests that this will mortgage the defence budget of Canada for a complete generation. That $16 billion will not allow us to do anything else in defence, to take care of things like search and rescue and peacekeeping. The public should know that. The only way to let the public know is effective lobbying legislation. They should also know that this program will harm things like medicare and old age pensions.
Something else the Canadian public should know is that spending $16 billion on a submarine program that will be out of date by the time the first sub goes in the water is going to destabilize the world situation. It is going to act as an initiative for further moves in the arms race. It will undermine the

July 15, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
nuclear proliferation treaty. In all seriousness, we must give people in this society the other point of view in a fair and equitable way. This is what this Bill is for.
What about the lost opportunity costs of this Bill, the things we could do if we chose not to buy the submarines to chase dope importers and fish violators? If we did not want to use the money for nuclear submarines, our municipalities in Canada could create tens of thousands of person-years of work by improving municipal infrastructures. They have pleaded for that program. Health care in this country is in a crisis situation. Some of that $16 billion could be used to help people receive coronary bypasses in a timely way with elective surgery. Education is in chaos. The $16 billion could help there.
I know my colleague from the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, is getting more and more frustrated and wants to get up and speak on this issue so I will close by saying the situation is critical. Lobbying is the issue and the friends of the Prime Minister and the powerful interests should not be the only ones who get their message out.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forth by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has been discussed time and time again, most recently by the legislative committee. The motion requires the lobbyist to disclose the subject matter of his or her lobbying. As the Minister said repeatedly, the interests behind these lobbyists are generally long known.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that Mrs. Judy Erola, who is President of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, is interested in the pharmaceutical industry. That is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker.

In drafting this Bill, we had four guiding principles, openness, clarity, access to Government and administrative simplicity. What the New Democratic Party are proposing in its amendment will create what we call an administrative nightmare. It is unbelievable to think that the people who are doing the right thing, which is lobbying, will have to suffer an administrative process whereby it would be impossible to find the end of it.
I want to be brief in my comments because I am sure the Minister will at third reading of the Bill make the points about why we tabled this important legislation, Bill C-82. You may ask if this Bill is perfect, Mr. Speaker, I do not know. That is why we put in a three-year review, so we can find out if there are problems after that time and make the necessary improvements.
In summary, this Bill proposes a lobbyist registry with some basic, and, I think, important attributes. If we have not gone
far enough, as some critics suggest, then Parliament has a perfect opportunity in three years to revisit the system and make improvements. I call for the vote on the amendments now, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
July 15, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, July 18,1988.
National Parks Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raised earlier this day the fact that there was a technical problem with the wording of Motion No. 4. I assume that it will be reprinted in Monday's edition with the correct additions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member is correct as usual. That will be done.


THE NATIONAL PARKS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeds to consideration of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act, as reported with amendment by a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are 13 motions on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act.
After careful consideration, I am now ready to make my decision concerning the grouping and voting for the proposed motions in amendment.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes), and the Hon. Members for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), and Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), respectively, are proposing to amend Sections in the original Act and not clauses in the Bill presently before the House. Therefore they are out of order. The Members can be referred to many references in this regard.

Motion no 2 is admissible and will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 5 and 13 are acceptable and will be debated together with a vote on Motion No. 5 being applied to Motion No. 13.

I will now put motion no 2 to the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes) that the government amendments which were moved as they appear on the

July 15, 1988
National Parks Act
Order Paper were indeed discussed in committee. They come about as a consequence of activities which have occurred since the Bill was introduced. The option was to come forward with a new Bill with those items in it, or to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move those amendments at this stage. I think you would find, Mr. Speaker, a predisposition on the part of Members of the House to accept those amendments. Therefore they can be put before us at this stage. I would be pleased to move them on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In reply to the Parliamentary Secretary's intervention, and on the assumption that he is referring to Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, yes, we concur on our side.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I request that the House give consent to move Motion No. 10 and the subsequent motion thereto. That motion would be to delete line 5 and substitute the following: "Land Districts, and to include, subject to negotiation and agreement with the Government of the Province of British Columbia, that region of Renfrew".


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am wondering if we are not jumping ahead of ourselves just a bit in terms of the order. I do not have any objection at all to the proposal of the Hon. Member, nor do I have an objection to the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary in terms of unanimous consent to allow the motions in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes) to be considered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the bit of confusion may be that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) correctly identified that there is unanimous consent to move Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, but they happen to be standing in the names of different people at different places. Indeed, the Hon. Member is the sponsor of one of those motions.
Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent to accept those motions. Then, I think the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) wishes to amend Motion No. 10 which stands in his name. I think he has shared with the House the thrust of that amendment.
If Your Honour were to proceed and put the motions, then the Chair would find those people willing. In my case where the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment appears it would be my pleasure to take her place and move her motions on her behalf.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) to move his motion which the Chair will consider to be a new Motion No. 10?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In view of the unanimous consent given by the House to permit honourable members to move these motions in amendment, I am prepared to group these motions as follows:

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 11 will be voted on separately;
(b)	Motion No. 7 will be voted on separately with the vote being applied to Motion No. 12;
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the need to vote on Motion No. 10. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 necessitates the requirement of a vote on Motion No. 10.

Motion nos 3 and 4 will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 5 and 13 will be debated together, but voted on separately.

Motions nos. 6 and 8 will be debated together but voted upon as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will obviate the need to vote on Motion No. 8. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will necessitate the requirement of a vote on Motion No. 8.

I shall now put motions nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to the House.


Mr. Caccia:: I rise on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, to draw to your attention that in light of the subamendment put forward by the Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), it no longer follows that a favourable vote on Motion No. 9 will automatically dispose of Motion No. 10, because Motion No. 10 is now different from Motion No. 10 listed in the Order Paper. You may wish to reconsider that aspect of your judgment, Mr. Speaker.
July 15, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Both Motions Nos. 9 and 10 amend the same part of the same clause. Is the Hon. Member in agreement with the Chair on that point?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It being a Friday with all divisions deferred, we are talking now about the wisdom of the decision for deferral given the nature of the amendments. The Chair would certainly have the support of the House if the Chair decided to look at the division aspect of it and we could get on with the debate on the basis of the groupings. In fact, if we were to know by the time of the vote on Monday, it would certainly be clear to the House what the sequence of voting will be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since we will be voting for Motion No. 9 we could not possibly vote for Motion No. 10 if Motion No. 9 is adopted.


Charles L. Caccia: This is my point. By voting favourably for Motion No. 9 the Chair would still want to consider Motion No. 10 presented by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West who has today introduced a text different from that on the Order Paper. I am alerting you to this necessity, Mr. Speaker, and to the fact that in your ruling, paragraph (c), you indicated that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the need to vote on Motion No. 10. I would submit that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 will still require a vote on Motion No. 10 in order to take into account the substance of the subamendment of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands the point being made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). If the Hon. Member does not mind, and if the House agrees, we will proceed with the debate and take care of the vote a little later.


Iain Francis Angus: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It being a Friday and Members want to give the opportunity to all those who wish to participate, I wonder if, in light of the fact that the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West has to move westward, we could deal with the grouping containing Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12 first and return and go through the normal process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is what the Chair intends to do. The Chair will put the motions to the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 4 to 7 at page 1
and substituting the following therefor:
"1. (1) The definitions "park" and "park warden" in section 2 of the
National Parks Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
""park" means a National Park or National Marine Park described in
Schedule I;"".
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 5 to 8 at page 2
and substituting the following therefor:
National Parks Act
"2. Section 3 of the said Act is repealed."
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 10
(a)	by striking out lines 23 to 27 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The descriptions of Waterton Lakes National Park and Elk Island National Park set out in Part I of Schedule I to the said Act are repealed and the descriptions set out in Part II of Schedule I to this Act are substituted therefor."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 8 at page 13 the following:
"(8) The description of Kejimkujik National Park set out in Part VIII of Schedule I to the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following:
"And all that Parcel at South West Port Mouton, Queens County, shown on a plan of survey by David L. Crooker, N.S.L.S., said plan being recorded in the Canada Lands Survey Records on July 24, 1986 under number 70492;
said parcel containing 2218 hectares."
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-30 be amended by adding immediately after line 15 at page 14 the following:
"15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may, by a proclamation setting out the boundaries thereof, establish a reserve for a National Park in the Renfrew, Barclay and Clayoquot Land Districts on Vancouver Island in the province of British Columbia and in the internal waters and territorial sea of Canada adjacent to the coasts thereof, pending the disposition of any claim by aboriginal peoples of British Columbia to any right, title or interest in or to the lands comprised in the reserve and the establishment of a National Park therein.
(2)	A proclamation may be issued pursuant to subsection (1) where
(a)	the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has the administration and control of the entire interest of Her Majesty in the lands described in the proclamation;
(b)	the Government of British Columbia has agreed that the lands are suitable for a National Park; and
(c)	a notice of the proclamation setting out the boundaries of the lands has been published
(i)	in the Canada Gazette at least ninety days prior to the date of issue of the proclamation, and
(ii)	at least once a week for four consecutive weeks during the period of ninety days preceding that date in a newspaper or alternative medium serving the area in which the lands are situated and in two major daily newspapers in each of the following regions, namely, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, in both official languages and in any other language that, in the opinion of the Minister, is appropriate.
(3)	Upon the issue of a proclamation pursuant to subsection (1), the National Parks Act applies to the reserve established thereby as if it were a park within the meaning of that Act.
16. Following the disposition of any claim referred to in subsection 15(1) in respect of the reserve established pursuant thereto, the Governor in Council may, by a proclamation amending Schedule I to the National Parks Act, establish a National Park comprising all or any portion of the reserve under the name designated and having the boundaries set out in the proclamation."


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-30 be amended by adding immediately after line 15 at page 14 the following:

July 15, 1988
National Parks Act
"15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor General in Council may, by proclamation setting out the boundaries thereof, establish a reserve for a National Park in the Barclay, Clayoquot and Renfrew Land Districts,to include that region of Renfrew District commonly known as theCarmanah Watershed area,on Vancouver Island in the province of British Columbia and in the internal waters and territorial sea of Canada adjacent to the coasts thereof, pending the disposition of any claim by aboriginal peoples of British Columbia to any right, title or interest in or to the lands comprised in the reserve and the establishment of a National Park therein.
(2)	A proclamation may be issued pursuant to subsection (1) where
(a)	the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has the administration and control of the entire interest of Her Majesty in the lands described in the proclamation;
(b)	the Government of British Columbia has agreed that the lands are suitable for a National Park; and
(c)	a notice of the proclamation setting out the boundaries of the lands has been published
(i)	in the Canada Gazette at least ninety days prior to the date of issue of the proclamation, and
(ii)	at least once a week for four consecutive weeks during the period of ninety days preceding that date in a newspaper or alternative medium serving the area in which the lands are situated and in two major daily newspapers in each of the following regions, namely, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, in both official languages and in any other language that, in the opinion of the Minister, is appropriate.
(3)	Upon the issue of a proclamation pursuant to subsection (1), the National Parks Act applies to the reserve established thereby as if it were a park within the meaning of the Act.
16. Following the disposition of any claim referred to in subsection 15(1) in respect of the reserve established pursuant thereto, the Governor in Council may, by a proclamation amending Schedule I to the National Parks Act, establish a National Park comprising all or any portion of the reserve under the name designated and having the boundaries set out in the proclamation."
And:
To delete line 5 and substitute the following:
"Land Districts, and to include, subject to negotiation and agreement with the Government of the Province of British Columbia, that region of Renfrew" ...


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 16 to 31 at page 14 and lines 1 to 7 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"15. Section 10 of An Act to amend the National Parks Act, being chapter 11 of the Statutes of Canada, 1974, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"10. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Governor in Council may, by a proclamation amending Schedule I to the National Parks Act, establish a National Park, under the name designated and having the boundaries set out in the proclamation,
(a)	in the rural municipalities of Val Marie and Old Post in the province of Saskatchewan;
(b)	in the district of Thunder Bay in the province of Ontario;
(c)	in the county of Bruce in the province of Ontario;
(d)	in the districts of St. Barbe and Humber West in the province of Newfoundland.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), the Governor in Council may, by a proclamation amending Schedule I to the National Parks Act, establish a National Marine Park in the county of Bruce in the province of Ontario under the name designated and having the boundaries set out in the proclamation.
(3)	A proclamation may be issued pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) where
(a)	the Governor in Council is satisfied that clear title to the lands described in the proclamation is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada;
(b)	the government of the province in which the lands are situated has agreed that they are suitable for a National Park or a National Marine Park, as the case may be; and
(c)	a notice of the proclamation setting out the boundaries of the lands has been published
(i)	in the Canada Gazette at least ninety days prior to the date of issue of the proclamation, and
(ii)	at least once a week for four consecutive weeks during the period of ninety days preceding that date in a newspaper or alternative medium serving the area in which the lands are situated and in two major daily newspapers in each of the following regions, namely, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, in both official languages and in any other language that, in the opinion of the Minister, is appropriate.""
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-30 be amended in Schedule I by adding immediately before the description of Elk Island National Park at page 24 the following:


&quot;(3) WATERTON LAKES NATIONAL PARK
[Stage Direction]
In the Province of Alberta, all those parcels of land more particularly described under Firstly and Secondly as follows:
Firstly, commencing at the northeast corner of Blood Indian Reserve 148A (formerly Blood Indian Reserve Timber Limit A) according to plan no. 4513 in the Canada Lands Surveys Records at Ottawa, a copy of which has been deposited in the Land Titles Office for the South Alberta Land Registration District at Calgary under no. 1714 H.I., said corner being at the intersection of the northerly boundary of section 28, township 1, range 28, west of the 4th meridian and the left bank of Belly River according to said plan;
Thence easterly along the northerly boundaries of sections 28 and 27, including the road allowance, in said township to the northeast corner of said section 27;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of sections 27, 22, 15, 10 and 3, including the road allowances, in said township to the International boundary between Canada and the United States;
Thence westerly along said International boundary to its intersection with the Interprovincial boundary between Alberta and British Columbia;
Thence northerly along said Interprovincial boundary to its intersection with the height of land known as Avion Ridge which separates the waters flowing into Bauerman Brook from the waters flowing into Castle River according to the map of Waterton Lakes Park filed in said office under no. 7673 Book E.X Folio 203, a copy of which has been recorded in said Records under no. 40398;
Thence generally easterly along said Avion Ridge, on which are located Newman Peak and Mount Glendowan, to its intersection with Cloudy Ridge according to said map;
Thence generally northeasterly along said Cloudy Ridge to the headwaters of an unnamed small creek that flows into Yarrow Creek immediately west of Yarrow Cabin according to said map;
Thence generally northerly along the right banks of said creeks to the easterly boundary of section 16, township 3, range 30, west of the 4th meridian;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said section 16 and across the road allowance to the northeast corner of section 9, in said township 3;
July 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Thence easterly across the road allowance and along the northerly boundary of section 10, in said township 3, to the northeast corner of said section 10;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said section 10 to its southeast corner;
Thence easterly across the road allowance and along the northerly boundary of section 2 in said township 3 to the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of said section 2;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundary of the west half of said section 2 to the southeast corner of said west half;
Thence on a bearing of 180 degrees 07', a distance of 20.117 metres to a standard post on the northerly boundary of section 34, township 2, in said range 30;
Thence easterly along the northerly boundaries of sections 34, 35 and 36, including the road allowances, to the northeast corner of said section 36, in said township 2;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of sections 36, 25 and 24, including the road allowance, to the southeast corner of section 24, in said township 2;
Thence easterly along the northerly boundaries of sections 18, 17 and 16, including the road allowances, to the northeast corner of section 16, township 2, range 29;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of sections 16, 9 and 4, including the road allowance, to the southeast corner of section 4, township 2, range 29;
Thence southerly across the road allowance to the northeast corner of section 33, township 1, in said range 29;
Thence easterly across the road allowance and along the northerly boundary of section 34, in said township 1, to its northeast comer;
Thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said section 34 to tis southeast corner;
Thence easterly along the northerly boundaries of sections 26 and 25, including the road allowances, to the northeast corner of said section 25 in said township 1;
Thence easterly across the road allowance and along the northerly boundary of section 30, township 1, range 28, to the northwest corner of said Indian Reserve;
Thence southerly along the westerly boundary of said Indian Reserve to its southwest corner;
Thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Indian Reserve to its southeast corner, said corner being at the intersection of said limit and the left bank of said Belly River according to said plan no. 4513;
Thence generally northerly along said left bank, according to said plan no. 4513 in said Records and to plan 55466 in said Records, copy of which is registered as 6508 J.K. in said Office, to the point of commencement; as said parcel is shown on plan 50467 in said Records, a copy of which has been deposited under no. 171 J.K. in said Office;
Secondly, the whole of Parcel X and that part of Chief Mountain Highway right-of-way lying within the limits of said Indian Reserve according to plan RD 3817 in said Records, a copy of which has been filed under no. 2184 G.U. in said Office;
Said parcels containing together about 505 square kilometres (195 square miles)."
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West,


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my appreciation for the courtesy of the House in giving consent to consider my motion. As we discussed this among ourselves in
National Parks Act
the House, all members of the House of Commons are enthusiastic about the Carmanah watershed.
The Carmanah watershed partly in and adjacent to the boundary of the Pacific Rim National Park possesses the most significant ecosystem of Sitka spruce at least in Canada and perhaps in the world.
Sitka spruce are rare in Canada and they grow only on the West Coast. They present a majestic, striking example of Canadian forests. It is difficult to describe to you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone in the House a Sitka spruce tree of this nature. Perhaps I could suggest that Members look at the pillars in the Chamber and see that those pillars tower approximately 75 feet. If one were to put a Sitka spruce in place of that pillar, the pillar would only be part way up that Sitka spruce. If one were to take a Sitka spruce out to the tower in the Parliament Buildings that so many Canadians know and to the top of which they have gone, one would still look up to see the top of a Sitka spruce tree of the nature of the Carmanah giants.
Some people simply call them "big trees". To me they appear as living pillars holding up the sky; they are so tall as they reach forward and upward, there is no way to describe them. By this motion I want to be sure that all Members in the House of Commotis, their children, and their grandchildren might have the chance not only to see the Sitka spruce but to know and feel them through the experience of a visit to that area.
Unlike West Coast valleys which are short and narrow, the Carmanah watershed contains 600 hectares of flat alluvial river bottom in the shape of an oval. It is approximately .8 kilometers by 7 kilometers and it is formed by the meandering Carmanah River. Ecologists recognize the uniqueness of this river bottom which provides the large number of Sitka spruce groves that contain approximately 2,000 of those West Coast giants.
Individual trees average 8 feet in diameter and 250 feet in height. The largest tree recently identified measures 12 feet in diameter across the bottom and towers 315 feet into the sky.
I would like to begin by crediting MacMillan Bloedel for being the first to identify officially the tallest Sitka spruce trees on record, possibly the tallest in the world, on June 13, 1988. Frank Hastings of MacMillan Bloedel measured, recorded and publicized the tallest of these giants which lie less than a mile from the famous West Coast Trail in the Pacific Rim Park. It is important to point out that MacMillan Bloedel immediately put a stop to all logging roads in the Carmanah area, upon the request of various interest groups and their own recognition.
In fact, we need to recognize that MacMillan Bloedel has been a responsible corporate citizen in setting aside 14,000 hectares of reserve parkland throughout the Province of British

July 15, 1988
National Parks Act
Columbia for ecological, wildlife and recreational purposes. The size of the commitment that they have made, just to put it into perspective, is equal to more than 35 parks the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver. I give credit to MacMillan Bloedel for its initiative.
Secondly, I would like to recognize Mr. Clinton Webb of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, along with those individuals from the Heritage Forest Society and the Sierra Club of Western Canada, for their public awareness campaign. I was indeed impressed by their dedication and energetic commitment to the preservation of the Carmanah Watershed.
It is my understanding that MacMillan Bloedel is also committed to preserve and to protect the giants of Carmanah and is requesting reserve status for a portion of that area.
I am also pleased to report that the Government of British Columbia has responded positively to MacMillan Bloedel's initiative, and I am sure that it is now ready to begin discussions with the Government of Canada regarding lands that will have to be set aside to protect and preserve the Sitka spruce trees of Carmanah.
I want also to assure you that Members of Parliament from British Columbia, including the Hon. Member from Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), are strongly in support of this move. In fact, I know the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is strongly in support of this move as well, as are other members of the British Columbia government caucus. It is my understanding also that all members of all political Parties from British Columbia are in support of this move today, and I am sure that they will express that following my comments.
It is imperative that the watershed be saved. The land proposed to be in the amendment is to be included in the Pacific Rim Park, and it includes the streams and the run-off areas that contribute to the unique hydrological balance which allows these spruce trees to survive.
Since the valleys rise steeply to over 3,000 feet, disturbance of the valley sides by roads or logging would quickly alter the run-off patterns and cause erosion, which would rapidly change the valley bottom, making it unlikely that the Sitka spruce would survive. Together with hemlock, fir and giant red cedars in the valley, the Sitka spruce-dominated river bottom present the most significant and one of the few remaining intact ecosystems of its type in the world.
I would also credit MacMillan Bloedel with having identified other Sitka spruce groves on the West Coast that have considerable merit as well. As these unique forest areas of Canada disappear, so does the potential for long-term economic growth through tourism. Locally and regionally, preservation of the valley has strong support. A recently constructed non-ecologically damaging foot trail has provided passage for those who believe in the value of sustainable development. I hope that as summer recess looms on our Parliament many Members of Parliament would have an opportunity to share
my experience with the giant Sitkas in the Carmanah Valley by visiting it over the summer break.
I am reminded of my first visit to the forest with the youths who are working there to provide a trail through the trees. As I shared their last cream and coffee in their primitive campsite, I was encouraged by their fresh zeal and enthusiasm, which gives them the energy to open up this beautiful forest so that others might share this primeval experience. Our own insignificance is put into perspective against the silent giant trees which have presided over the history of many generations of our people.
Pacific Rim Park will preserve unique ecological areas of the West Coast of Canada that offer tremendous potential for human and tourism experience. The addition of the Carmanah watershed will preserve another unique ecologically-forested area for our heritage, enhancing the diversity of life and lifestyles that we struggle to maintain in our country.
I commend this motion to you and I express my appreciation to all Members of the House of Commons from all political Parties who have supported us.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this group, except for Motion No. 10, is housekeeping amendments, and we support them. With particular regard to Motion No. 10, the one that has been moved by the Hon. Member of Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), we certainly congratulate him on his fine initiative and we support his motion as well, in the hope that both the Government of Canada and British Columbia will come through and make what he proposes a reality, an enjoyment for generations of Canadians to come, and in that sense we are very glad to support him.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this motion put forward in the name of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). I would like to commend the Hon. Member for his initiative in two areas. First of all, he took the initiative to visit the area. He saw it, he was open to the beauty, the wonder, the awe and majesty of the area. Second, he came back and filed this motion. He not only filed it but he has talked about it with his colleagues in the Conservative Party and has received a considerable amount of support for it. I want to be very open in my commendation of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, Bob Wenman. Pardon me for being out of order in mentioning his name.
If rumours of a Monday election call are true, this might be the last speech I make in this Chamber, since my present riding, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, is going to be disappearing. If it is, there is nothing that I feel more strongly about than this particular issue. It is central to the work I have tried to do in the House of Commons. It is also very important to Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, which is a riding that will be disappearing at the time of the next election.
The fact is that politicians come and go, political boundaries come and go. This afternoon we have an opportunity to do
July 15, 1988

something that will last for all time. That is why I feel so strongly about this important issue. We have an opportunity to preserve a living forest, with the largest Sitka spruce not only in Canada but possibly in the world. As our world becomes increasingly urbanized, it is so important that we preserve places and spaces such as this that can still move us to a sense of awe and wonder and enchantment.
It is important to note that the motion specifies the region "commonly known as the Carmanah watershed". We are talking about the entire valley, 7,000 hectares, more or less. We are not just talking about a couple of groves of big trees on the valley floor.
The large spruce are found on the valley floor, while on the hillsides you will find decent sized hemlocks and some old large-sized cedars. It is important that we preserve the hillsides and not just the valley floor. This is not only for aesthetic purposes. To preserve the spruce on the valley floor, we have to preserve the hillsides as well.
Anybody who has driven through British Columbia's backwoods of Vancouver Islands will know that in some places we have clear-cut areas that should have never been clear-cut. I am not completely opposed to all clear-cutting, but in some places we have clear-cut very sensitive areas, very steep hillsides, so that, afterwards, there is nothing to hold the very thin layer of soil that is on those hills. Then the rains come and the thin layer of soil is washed away and, when further rains come, there is nothing to retain the water so that it can be gradually released to the valley floor. Instead of a gradual release of water, there is a flash flood which, in turn, creates even more erosion, and a beginning of the eroding of the river banks as well.
Each large spruce on the floor of the Carmanah Valley uses hundreds of gallons of water every day. If the rains come down and get washed away immediately, there will not be that gradual release of water for the dry period which occurs even on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Some people say we already have Cathedral Grove so why do we need something like Carmanah Valley. First, Cathedral Grove is fairly small. Second, it is composed of fir trees. I do not think there is anything more magnificent in the world than fir trees. I think they are even more magnificent than spruce. But fir trees are shade intolerant. They do not grow in the shade. They only grow in an area that has been cleared. That is why on Vancouver Island you can trace the growth of fir from the time of large fires. In Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island the fir trees will eventually die. When they do, they will fall and that will be the end of Cathedral Grove as we know it. But spruce are more tolerant of shade. They will grow as part of a climax forest. That means self-perpetuating.
In the Carmanah we can see spruce in all stages of growth, seedlings taking root in old logs, young saplings, mature trees and old trees ready to die that will soon fall, and the cycle
National Parks Act
continues. Trees die but the forest lives. If we saved only a few groves of particularly big trees on the valley floor, when they died-this would only be a matter of time-that would be it. We know comparatively little about forests and how trees reproduce themselves. It is important that we preserve a valley like this so we can study how the genetic imprint of trees is passed from one generation to another.
It will take much hard work and much co-operation by all parties affected, by members of all political Parties in this House, both the federal and provincial Governments, MacMillan Bloedel, the IWA, environmental groups and not least by the aboriginal people. I was pleased to see in the motion moved it says that this will be:
-pending the disposition of any claim by aboriginal peoples of British
Columbia to any right, title or interest in or to the lands comprised in the
reserve and the establishment of a National Park therein.
It is very important that the aboriginal people, in this case the Nitinaht people, be included. Carmanah, of course, is derived from a Nitinaht word. It is urgent that we take action because logging plans are moving. Logging roads have come right to the head of the valley. And there is an issue of jobs here. People are worried about the loss of jobs in the forest industry. This emphasizes the need for intensive forestry in the areas to be logged so there is a rapid turnover. There are jobs also in the tourist industry.
In conclusion, let me stress the need for the House to move today on this issue and to continue to move. Passing this motion is only the beginning of a negotiation process. We should see the importance of this issue not only to this generation, not only to the people of Vancouver Island but to future generations and to our world. We talk about the destruction of rain forests in other parts of the world. We also have a responsibility to preserve something of our own forests so that future generations can be moved, as the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) was, and as I was when I was able to visit the area. This is one of the heritages given to us by the Creator. We should not allow it to be despoiled.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like for a moment to comment on this matter. We have seen a number of projects come forward. In early times we saw the Tsitika watershed, the Tahsish watershed, Meares Island, Moresby Island and the Carmanah Valley. It is critical to remember that the people who will be displaced out of the logging operations in the Carmanah Valley live in Port Alberni. They are people who will be unable to put food on their tables or pay their mortgages. Compensation is a critical factor to the people who live there.
When the Moresby Island issue went through, loggers were to be compensated, but my understanding is they never got so much as a plane ticket home. Many of those affected are in Port Alice and other areas that I represent. When Meares Island was put into limbo, the Ucleulet operations, the Port Alberni operations were again suspended and there was a

July 15, 1988
National Parks Act
reduction of 6,000 people in that area. That community suffered grievously.
There will be more suffering as this project goes ahead. I do not speak against it but I speak for compensation. It must occur. The people in those communities must be supported. The preservation of the environment is a cost of doing business. It is an operating cost of the Government, something not honoured on the West Coast in Ucleulet and Port Alberni, or in the Moresby Island situation. I urge that this cost, which is of benefit to all Canadians, be calculated as a cost to all Canadians not just to the people who live in Port Alberni and Ucleulet.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment for people listening who might be concerned about the difference between Motion No. 9 and Motion No. 10. It is the Government's position that the passage of Motion No. 9 does include the area under discussion. It would indeed protect the valley. We are turning this area into a park reserve rather than a park.
There could be a problem if Motion No. 10 were accepted that the specificity of the valley itself might make it more difficult in a legislative sense to do some of the work, and the generality of Clause 9 is the Government's preferred option in relation to this. But I think both motions are trying to get at the same result. I just wanted to put that on the record.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to one of the motions. We are supporting all of them. I want to thank the Government for listening to the people who appeared before the committee and then seeking unanimous consent in this House to allow them to come forward.
The motion I want to speak to is Motion No. 11 which was in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary. That motion will give the Government the ability to establish new national parks in new areas of the country. We have long had a dream in Thunder Bay to protect a range of mountains known as the Nor'westers as a provincial or national park. The committee in its consideration and the Parliamentary Secretary in her wisdom have decided that there is a desire in a least four parts of our country for the establishment of national parks and have provided the tool to the Government to allow that to occur. In Thunder Bay we have talked about it.
Under the master planning process of the Thunder Bay Parks and Recreation Department we have a written desire to move toward the development of a wilderness park known as the Nor'westers encompassing parts of the City of Thunder Bay, parts of Reserve No. 52, and parts of the Township of Neebing. This motion allows the planning to commence. It sets out some rules that would protect the owners of the land, would protect the communities and the interested parties. We have had some controversy in Thunder Bay over this matter. The Parks and Recreation Department went to the city council and said, here is an idea. The department asked for permission
to meet with the band council and to meet with the neighbours to the south and west, the neighbouring municipality, to talk about the idea. Unfortunately, one of thp city councillors decided he would put out a press release which caused all sorts of bad reactions from those neighbours.
This amendment, on the other hand, ensures that that kind of consultative process will occur. It talks about ensuring that the lands are owned by the Government of Canada, that the Government will not arbitrarily draw a line around a municipality on land owned publicly, whether provincially or municipally.
The Government cannot automatically incorporate private lands and would have to use another process to obtain them before the lands could be declared a national park. The province has to agree that the lands are suitable for a national park or a national marine park, as the case may be.
Then there is a procedure to ensure that people are informed through Gazetting and four weekly ads in local and provincial papers in both official languages and in a language that is deemed appropriate. If it were a park in the far part of northwestern Ontario, for example, Ojibwa may be the appropriate language to advertise in so that the people there could have a chance to review it.
I am quite pleased to support this amendment as well as the others. I think it is an excellent bit of progress for national parks, and I compliment the members of the legislative committee, including the chairman with whom I had discussions about this very matter some time ago, for seeing this change implemented in order to give us the power to create those parks where they are needed and where people want them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 11 will be voted on separately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.
Motion No. 2 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.
Motion No. 11 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 7 will be voted on separately with the vote being applied to Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.
Motion No. 12 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.
July 15, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 will obviate the need to vote on Motion No. 10. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 10.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 9?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mrs. Browes) agreed to.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given your ruling and the fact that Motion No. 9 just passed, perhaps I missed something, but now what happens to the amendment to Motion No. 10 and what appeared to be a willingness of the House to adopt the proposal of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think we gave unanimous consent to the amendment being included as part of Motion No. 10 earlier this day, but the vote on Motion No. 9, following your ruling, obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 10. It is Motion No. 10 as amended that we are not voting on.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, in light of what the Parliamentary Secretary just said, it seems to me that you have to call Motion No. 10 because Motion No. 10 now incorporates Motion No. 9. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary indicated a moment ago. We concur with whatever is required to be done in order to support the motion put by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). It seems to me that you will have to call Motion No. 10.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair knows that everyone is in favour of the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), Motion No. 10. However, because Motion No. 9 amends Clause 5 at the same line as Motion No. 10, Motion No. 10 could not carry. We could not carry both motions. That is why the Chair indicated that if Motion No. 9 carried, the Chair could not put Motion No. 10.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering then if there would be unanimous consent to take the vote on Motion No. 9 again so that we could force a vote on Motion No. 9 and perhaps give time for the Government to consult so that when it comes to the deferred vote on Monday, the Government might have had a change of heart and would actually vote against Motion No. 9.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of progress and getting to another Bill this day, if we simply let things stand and if there are deferred divisions on Monday, there may be consultations and some way of working things out. However, at this point, the Government has indicated that Motion No. 9 is broader and should therefore be the motion which passes, and I think it has been passed.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity and brevity, unless you consider the subamendment by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) as a subamendment to Motion No. 9, then you would call that subamendment an
National Parks Act
amendment to Motion No. 9 and having then incorporated it into Motion No. 9, we will know that we have approved it. Is that acceptable to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared, with unanimous consent, to set that issue aside and continue on, giving us a chance to consult a little further, if that is agreeable.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will set aside the issue for now.
We will now deal with Motions Nos. 3 and 4 which will be debated together but voted upon separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 18
at page 2 the following:
"(2) Immediately following subsection 3.1(5) of the said Act the following is added:
"3.2.(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, designate a site containing a unique or rare natural feature of phenomenon, or a site of high scientific value and public interest, whose protection is feasible as a Canadian Landmark.
(2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, establish criteria for the selection, administration and management of Canadian Landmarks.""
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 18
at page 2 the following:
"(2) Immediately following subsection 3.1(5) of the said Act the following is added:
"4.(1) The Governor in Council may set apart any land the title to which is vested in Her Majesty, as a National Wilderness Park."
"(2) National Wilderness Parks shall be administered, managed and controlled in a manner consistent with sections 5(9) and 5(10) of this Act, and with preservation of the wilderness character of the Park as the only priority.""
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of brevity, I will explain only that it was Mr. Speaker, in his previous incarnation as Minister of the Environment in 1979, who approved in principle the Canadian Landmarks Program. This motion, therefore, takes into account the establishment of that program, and since authority at the present time does not exist in the present law, it seeks to introduce the powers for Cabinet, on recommendation of the Minister, to introduce the designation of Canadian landmarks in the future National Parks Act. In other words, we are taking one step further following a decision that was made by Mr. Speaker in 1979 by putting it in the Bill.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I want to indicate my Party's support for Motions Nos. 3 and 4. Clearly, as the Hon. Member has said, it is the next logical step forward and it is regrettable that the Bill was not changed before now.

July 15, 1988
National Parks Act


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motions Nos. 3 and 4, the Government agrees that the idea is a good one because we need to define ways to protect unique natural sites, but without the process of prior consultation with the affected communities, as we recognized in Bill C-30 that with respect to the heritage fund there was not enough consultation, the Government will not be accepting this motion.
The motion is also complicated by the fact that it would not provide authority for the Minister to acquire lands for the purpose of landmarks nor for the Governor in Council to establish regulations for their protection and control. Unfortunately, the Government will not be able to support Motion No. 3.
Motion No. 4 is opposed by the Government as to the rationale to focus on the national wilderness park. There is a clause in the Bill which the Government believes will cover that. It was passed unanimously. Therefore, the Government will not be supporting Motion No. 4 either.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 in the name of Mr. Caccia.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4 (Mr. Caccia).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 5 and 13 will be debated together but voted on separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 5:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 7 to 14 at page
12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule III to designate a portion of Banff National Park in the vicinity of Mount Norquay a commercial ski area, but that schedule is not subject to subsequent amendment by the Governor in Council."
Motion No. 13:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Schedule III thereof by adding to the
description under Banff National Park immediately after paragraph 1 at page
41 the following:
"(b) The whole of Parcel DD according to Plan 67271 in the Canada Lands Surveys Records at Ottawa, a copy of which is filed in the Land Titles Office for the South Alberta Land Registration District at Calgary under number 8011493, said parcel containing 918 hectares, more or less."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most controversial aspect of this Bill. Under normal circumstances it would certainly warrant a full intervention in the time made available under the rules. However, I will try to compress it for the sake of moving this Bill ahead.
The issue here is the Sunshine ski areas and the description of its boundaries in the Bill. When the Bill was introduced the Government was committed to define those boundaries in the Bill itself. The reason was simply the fact that there was already a ten-year old commitment to these boundaries as a result of a public planning process which took into account all considerations on the part of all concerned sectors. In other words, the Minister was introducing a Bill with our full concurrence because the boundaries he was proposing were the ones that were arrived at through public consultation and it was a good idea to have those boundaries entrenched in the legislation. Unfortunately, the Bill was held up for almost 16 months, I understand because of opposition from members of the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus who forced the Minister, so to speak, to retreat on this subject.
What we are doing with these two amendments is to bring back into the Bill what the Minister had in the Bill at second reading when it was debated in this House. It is extremely disappointing to see that the Minister could not defend his own Bill in committee. The Parliamentary Secretary also gave in. What we are doing here is putting some starch back into his
July 15, 1988

collar and some courage in his position by urging the Government to stick to the wording of the Bill on second reading so that it will contain the boundaries of Sunshine Ski Village.
We could go over a phenomenal amount of documentation submitted to us in committee on this matter, quite a number of press clippings that would make the debate very juicy and interesting. Elowever, the fact is that while on the first occasion when the Bill was introduced the Government was determined to define these boundaries, we now find ourselves at report stage facing a retreat on the part of the Minister in particular. As I say, the purpose of these amendments is to bring back into the Bill the definition of this ski village so it is well determined, defined clearly, and not allowed to expand into the national park in a manner that would be out of control.
I commend these two motions to the consideration of my colleagues in this House today and I thank you for your consideration.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I want to indicate that we support these two motions. I have always made the argument that when we have matters of environmental concern, particularly concerning parks under federal jurisdiction, we should try to ensure that the same kind of approach necessary at a municipal or provincial level through the planning act is adhered to. In this case the only way to do that is by fixing the boundaries of Sunshine Village ski area in legislation, so if someone in the backroom decides to redraw the boundaries to expand it or contract it, they cannot do it. It would have to be an Act of Parliament, and therefore the residents of the area will have a chance to put pressure on the Government, rather than a lobby group.
I just wanted to add those comments and say we support the amendments.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, those two motions would overturn a subamendment to a government motion which was voted on and passed by the legislative committee. I would like to add that the Minister has been consistent and emphatic that the boundaries of commercial ski areas within the parks must be legislated. He further insists that no new commercial ski areas are to be established within national parks. We therefore have a Bill that will clearly and explicitly transform these policies into legislation.
The Minister has not made a final decision on the boundary matter, nor has his Department. That will be made following completion of the environmental assessment and further public consultation. Then, and only then, will the Sunshine Village ski area boundary be legislated. Therefore, the Government will not be supporting these two motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
National Parks Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5 in the name of Mr. Caccia.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 13 in the name of Mr. Caccia.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now deal with Motions Nos. 6 and 8, which will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 12 the following:
"10. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or any rights conferred by land claim settlement with aboriginal peoples within a National Park."


Iain Francis Angus: July 15, 1988
National Parks Act
Motion No. 8:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line
42 at page 13 the following:
"(2) Nothing in this Act or the National Parks Act in any way derogates from or abrogates the aboriginal and treaty rights that are already constitutionally recognized in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982."


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion because it will determine the capacity of this Bill, once proclaimed, to function and not be stopped by very understandable and justifiable court challenges.
I will explain briefly what it is all about. It has to do with aboriginal rights and in legal terms is called the non-derogation clause. The matter was first brought to our attention by the witness from the Tungavik Federation of the Nunavut who made the point that there is in this Bill a potential conflict between the proposed amendments to the National Parks Act and Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.
This observation by witnesses was supported and reinforced by several other witnesses, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance. Professor Morse of the Ottawa University Law School pointed out that the conflict was not only limited to the matter of traditional subsistence, which had by that time been dropped, but applied as well to the issue of aboriginal rights as envisaged in our Constitution. Professor Morse pointed out that Section 6(1) of the National Parks Act could also conflict with Section 35 of our Constitution.
This amendment is taken word for word from the Petroleum Resources Act which was passed in the first session of this Parliament which the Government must be fully familiar with and, hopefully, supportive of.
In conclusion, this amendment is intended to avoid conflict between the National Parks Act and our Constitution as it concerns our aboriginal people. For that reason, and for the functioning of the law in the future, we sincerely hope that it will be accepted by the Government.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in support of the motions of the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). We must ensure that this kind of override is contained in the Bill.
A few minutes ago I spoke about Motion No. 11, which was passed, which provides for the potential development of a national park in the district of Thunder Bay in the Province of Ontario. Within that district, and in fact within the candidate park about which I spoke, the Nor'westers, there is reserve No. 52. While there is not necessarily an outstanding land claim in process, a determination may at some point in time when research is completed be made, first, to start a land claim and, second, be settled. That may have some bearing on a future national park.
We must assure aboriginal peoples who have treaty rights that nothing in this Act will force them to give up something which is their due. I encourage support for both amendments, realizing the ruling you have made.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to traditional subsistence activities which the committee discussed long and clearly with regard to hunting, fishing, and trapping. The committee, in fact, passed unanimously some changes to the Bill at that stage.
However, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed. Furthermore, Section 35(3) makes it clear that rights under existing and future land claim agreements have the same protection as other treaty rights.
It is felt, therefore, that the insertion of what is called a nonderogation clause into the National Parks Act at this point in time is not necessary given the overriding constitutional protection for native rights. The Government, therefore, will not be supporting these motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will obviate the need to vote on Motion No. 8. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 8.
The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded divisions on the motions stand deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until six o'clock on Monday, July 18, 1988.
July 15, 1988


INDIAN LANDS AGREEMENT (1986) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian Lands in Ontario, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Maurice Brydon Foster: That Bill C-73 be amended by adding immediately after line 8 at page 2 the
following:
"7. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms of Indian people in Ontario."


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the Parties and with the private Member whose motion is scheduled to be debated at two o'clock. I think you will find a general predisposition to move through report stage, and perhaps even third reading stage, of this Bill prior to seeing the clock at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73 provides a framework for negotiation between the federal and provincial Governments to implement the provisions of the 1986 Ontario-Canada Indian Land Agreement. This is an extremely important piece of legislation for 16 bands in Ontario.
One of the most important claims is that made by the Manitoulin bands which involves unsold surrendered lands of some 90,000 acres. The bands involved are the Sheguiandah, Sheshegwaning, Sucker Creek, West Bay, Wikwemikong, and Whitefish River. The bands in the North Channel area of Batchewana, Thessalon and Serpent River are also affected by this agreement. There are also other bands, such as the Garden River Band, which are affected.
The amendment provides that the provincial Government interests in these unsold surrendered lands would be able to be turned over, by a specific agreement, to the bands concerned. We are told that some $4.3 million is presently held in trust by the federal Government for the province in royalties.
More important, at second reading the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) indicated that funding would be provided for these bands to negotiate these agreements and finally get these Indian land claims settled. No one has any illusions that this will happen in a few months or even a few years, but at least we are putting in place a framework with the legislative authority to carry this out. I am especially concerned about the Manitoulin and those in the North Channel area because those negotiations have been under way for years and years. This will provide a legal framework.
Indian Lands Agreement (1986
Most bands and Indian associations in the province support this agreement which provides for opting in, that is, negotiations are not automatically required. It is simply a framework agreement which gives bands the opportunity to opt in. Those bands which are not involved in the 1924 Indian land agreement are concerned that there might be some impact of this 1986 agreement.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), proposes in his motion that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from
any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms of Indian people in Ontario.
There are bands like those in Treaty III and the members of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians who are very concerned that even though their bands are not directly involved, the precedent set by the negotiations between the federal and provincial Governments and the bands involved might have some impact on their future rights with regard to their treaties.
This is a non-derogation amendment. There are precedents for this kind of non-derogation clause. It does not in any way affect their treaty or aboriginal rights and freedoms.
We had hoped the Government would have introduced one of its own amendments, but I understand it will not do so. If this amendment is adopted by the Government, we believe it would satisfy the concerns of a number of bands who appeared before the legislative committee.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this agreement to those five bands in the Manitoulin Islands district who have been negotiating for many years. They have almost 90,000 acres of unsold surrendered lands on which the province has a claim because of the 1924 agreement. They want to get on with the settlement of those claims.
The Minister has made a commitment that he will provide the additional funding required for any research, especially for the negotiations that will take place under the framework of the 1986 Indian Lands Agreement.
I hope the Government will give further consideration to the acceptance of our non-derogation clause, but the Bill will ultimately be passed so that the economic benefits will flow to literally dozens of bands in Ontario for the betterment and improvement of the economic lot of the bands and communities concerned.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we support the amendment. There is a need to ensure that there is final protection and that nothing in Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario, be construed as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms of Indian people in Ontario.

July 15, 1988
Business of the House
We support that amendment and we will support the Bill at third reading.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, we have given serious consideration to this proposed amendment but we feel that given the nature of the Bill and its wording it is not necessary.
The concern that has been raised by both Hon. Members stems from representations made by concerned Indians who will be affected by this Bill. When asked for specific examples of potential conflict between Indian rights and the agreement, none were brought forward. It is dubious at best to include a general clause in the legislation where there is no specific problem to be addressed. By doing so, we would run the risk of frustrating the over-all intent of Bill C-73.
There is concern that a broad clause protecting all treaty and other rights of the Indian people of Ontario could be at odds with the terms of negotiated specific agreements. For instance, a specific agreement could provide that unsold surrendered lands now being used as municipal streets, provincial highways or other public installations, which have been occupied by non-Indians for many years, would remain as such but Indian bands would in return be adequately compensated. It is the case in this example that the rights of Indian bands to these lands come into conflict with the terms of the specific agreement. It is because of this potential conflict that we did not consider it wise to include such a general provision regarding the protection of Indian rights.
This is not to say that the agreement does not concern itself with, and that we are not concerned with, the protection of Indian rights. First, it is the case that an Indian band involved in negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a specific agreement must be satisfied that the deal is acceptable and does not unduly compromise its rights. They have that protection.
Second, several provisions of the agreement expressly state that Indian rights are not to be compromised. In particular, I want to refer to Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement which stipulate that neither the 1986 Indian Lands Agreement nor any specific agreement negotiated thereunder will affect the validity of any treaty or surrender, and that no federal-provincial agreement concerning any letters patent will affect any rights or the recourse that any band may have against any person or lands, including the Crown or Crown lands. Furthermore, in response to the concerns that the Bill could adversely affect lands that do not enter into specific agreements, Clause 12 of the agreement states as well that the specific agreement will affect any band unless that band confirms that particular specific agreement.
I believe the concerns expressed by the Members are fully addressed in the Bill itself. Furthermore, is it necessary to state
that aboriginal rights are protected by the Constitution of this country?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion (Mr. Penner) negatived.


Bernard Valcourt: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.


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

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have made amazing progress in the last 24 hours. We have passed seven Bills through a variety of stages.
Perhaps a representative of the Government could give us an indication of what we will be doing on Monday and whether we can go home on Tuesday?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Senate has more Bills before it than we have before the House of Commons.
On Monday, I believe, we will begin dealing with the ACOA Bill that has been reported back to the House by the Senate. It
July 15, 1988

is my understanding that the debate on Monday will commence on our message to the Senate about their behaviour in the other place.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising as the communications critic for our Party. I understand that my hon. friend's Party was able to get 100 telephones installed at their campaign headquarters. Given that information, I wonder whether the House of Commons will be sitting on Tuesday?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure it is a relevant question, but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I heard conversation in the lobby today about the difficulty in getting telephones for a number of people who intend to run again. It has been suggested it may take six weeks, a fair portion of an election campaign. I want to thank our Party activists who have had such foresight to make those orders such a long time ago that we are prepared for every eventuality.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Deputy House Leader indicated that ACOA would be up, but could he give us an idea of what other legislation is on line? There is nothing under Government Orders that is obviously going to come forward.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you can expect all the projected kinds of things. We do have a lot of votes at six o'clock on Monday. There seems to be a predisposition in the case of some of those Bills to move immediately after the votes, perhaps, to the third reading stage so they could go on to the Senate as well.
We have made commitments to members of the opposition Party to make sure that the ACOA discussion is still alive after Question Period on Monday, so I think that will take us very close to the votes and there will be negotiations on the Order, I think, throughout the day on Monday, if that is agreeable.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CULTURE

[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED REVIEW OF CULTURAL ASSISTANCE POLICIES Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of undertaking a review of its cultural assistance policies with regard to the funding of semi-professional and amateur organizations that are
Cultural Assistance Policies
exemplary of Canadian culture but which are ineligible for any federal
assistance program under the current criteria.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate this Private Member's Motion, M-171, today in the House of Commons. As you, Mr. Speaker, have just advised the House of the content and substance of the motion, I will not take the time of the House to read through it once again. As Hon. Members will note, M-171 calls upon the federal Government to reassess its cultural assistance policies dealing with semiprofessional and amateur organizations.
I have been a member of this place long enough to know that doubtless there are some here who would say that the federal Government cannot afford to fund every group that comes knocking with tin cup in hand. In case there are any of those Hon. Members in the House, I would ask that they hear my arguments and decide for themselves whether Motion M-171 is worthy.
The introduction and debate of this motion is really the culmination of a long chain of events that began back in 1983. I will elaborate on this in a moment or two. Naturally, when I undertook this project and began to look into the programs and funding available to amateur groups through the federal Government, I also did some research into federal initiatives for funding for similar professional groups and amateur sports. I should say that Canada should be very proud of its commitment to both our professional artists and to our young athletes.
The year 1987 marked the thirtieth anniversary of the Canada Council which was set up by an Act of Parliament in 1957 to "foster and promote the study and enjoyment of and the production of works in the Arts". That quotation comes from the object of the Canada Council Act. This Government increased the 1987 budget for the Canada Council to $98 million, a $5 million increase from the previous year. The Government has indeed demonstrated by its actions a deep commitment to fostering the arts.
In 1986-87, the Canada Council administered 100 programs and some 4,000 grants. This contribution to the development of the arts in Canada is significant and the Canada Council should be applauded by every Member of the House, and indeed, every Canadian, for its undeniable contribution. It is very difficult indeed to find fault or criticize the way in which Canada treats its professional artists. Like all things, however, those who are professional today were once children or young adults aspiring to be artists, musicians, writers and so on. At some point in their careers, these artists were once amateurs who, I am sure, found it very difficult to gain recognition, let alone be taken seriously as an artist.
I mention the professional artists in arguing for support for this motion because I think it is very important to note that Canada is very supportive of the arts as a profession. However, there is a void in our support for young people who wish to participate in an art form. By way of example I will explain my motivation behind introducing Bill C-171.
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1988
Cultural Assistance Policies
I have been contacted on a regular basis since early 1983 by the Hillsborough Girls Choir. Hillsborough is a small village in my constituency of Fundy-Royal. This choir, while it is considered to be an amateur choir, has performed all over the world and has proudly represented this country on many occasions. Apart from its local performing schedule, which is very extensive for an amateur group, the choir has performed across Canada in competitions and workshops. It performed for the Governor General in 1981 and for Prince Charles and Princess Diana in 1983. The Hillsborough Choir recorded an album in 1982 and on several occasions it has performed on both radio and television.
The choir's visit to Wales also in 1983 was the subject of a documentary produced by the New Brunswick Department of Education. This was broadcast locally as well as in the public network in Maine. The Hillsborough Choir has, to its credit, an impressive and extensive list of both national and international awards.
Besides the various things I have mentioned, I think it is important to know that the school choir was honoured by an invitation to the World Music Congress in Oregon back in 1984. It was at the opening ceremonies of the Canadian Music Educators' Conference in Sackville, New Brunswick, in May of 1983. It has been on two consecutive occasions the winner of the Leslie Bell Choral Award, both in 1981 and 1983, for the most outstanding choral performance. It has as well attended international competitions in Wales, as I previously mentioned, in 1983.
All one has to do is to look at what the Hillsborough Choir has accomplished since it was established in 1979 to admit that these so-called amateurs are just not simply a bunch of girls from Hillsborough, New Brunswick. This group has made a significant contribution to Canadian culture. The choir and its director, Mrs. Ruth Schiller, has displayed a dedication and professionalism which is, I believe, unprecedented for a school-based amateur choir. These are only a few of the reasons I have introduced this motion.
I find it particularly disturbing that the Hillsborough Girls Choir has been treated with, I must say reluctantly, such a small amount of respect by the federal Government. The choir has never once received any form of assistance from the Government, either the previous Government or the present Government, to pursue its goals. I have tried over the years to secure even the smallest amount of financial aid for the choir and every time, for one reason or another, I have run up against a stone wall. The federal Government policy simply does not support or endorse groups like the Hillsborough Girls Choir who ably represent Canada around the world.
I understand that the federal Government cannot become involved with funding every single amateur choir or organization that springs up. I am not suggesting that. I am, however, suggesting that organizations that are deserving of federal assistance should have it made available to them by some means. What is most perplexing about federal government
policy in the field of cultural assistance funding is the fact that there are amateur choirs, groups and organizations, which are actually receiving funding from the federal Government. Unfortunately, this funding is only available to groups that are considered multicultural. I find this a little unfair. Indeed, Canada is a multicultural nation, a fact we should be and have been promoting for many years. But there are a lot of people all over Canada who are losing out because their group or organization does not conform to the criteria for consideration under the multicultural guidelines. Many people simply do not understand why one group may be funded while another is not.
Members of the public often do not differentiate between one federal program or another. They see that the grants come from the federal Government and when one group appears to be favoured over another, the public has the impression that the federal Government is biased in its distribution of funds. This might not be the case but, certainly, the public perception in my riding tends toward precisely such a view.
As an example, the constituents who have contacted me quote the case of the Hillsborough Girls Choir, arguing that the group performs in both official languages of Canada and five other languages representative of a small part of Canada's diverse ethnocultural background. The choir itself is not a Ukrainian choir, or a Chinese choir, or an Acadian choir, nor does it purposely reflect any other visible minority group but, rather, it is representative of our unique "Canadian culture", and Canada's diverse ethnic and cultural roots through music and the languages in which they perform. Some of the group's repertoire has been composed in Canada by Canadians. This is Canadian culture. This is, to quote a popular phrase, "Canada's unique cultural identity".
The second point of contention I have with the present government policy is in its support of the performing arts. When the case of the Hillsborough Girls Choir was again brought to my attention in September of 1987 I wrote to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald). I would now like to take a moment to read from the reply. It says:
I fully recognize the meritorious achievements of the Hillsborough Girls Choir over the years and I am sympathetic to its needs. However, I must advise you that the cultural initiatives program administered by my Department is designed to assist the professional artist. Policy discussions took place in the fall of 1986 concerning the funding of amateur organizations between interested Departments and agencies at the federal level. Due to the number of projects submitted by professional organizations and limited financial resources, it was decided that the federal cultural bodies could not commit themselves to fund amateur groups.
I must reiterate that I do not believe that it is possible for the federal Government to fund all amateur groups such as the Hillsborough Girls Choir. I am merely advocating that some of the federal money spent to promote the performing arts should be going to encourage the development of young performers by sponsoring amateur or semi-professional groups, such as the Hillsborough Girls Choir, which do not have access to the
July 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
sponsorships and endowment funds more readily available to professional people.
Also, in the reply from the Minister she commented on the number of applications being submitted by professionals for consideration for funding. My first reaction to that particular statement was of shock and surprise. To such a comment I reply that certain amateur groups are as deserving of our support as the professionals, and that these groups should be considered under different criteria from that of professionals. What we need is a separate program from those which currently exist, similar to our support of Canada's various ethnic cultures through the policy of multiculturalism and the recent legislation passed in the House.
For a nation struggling to make its cultural mark in the world, Canada has in my opinion taken a rather narrow view. I am not saying that professional performers should be cut off because it is well known that carving a living out of the performing arts is a struggle. However, we must not, through our ignorance or devotion to a policy that has worked well, deny our young performers, who may very well be Canada's professionals of tomorrow, the opportunity of experiencing this profession firsthand. Of course, there must be specifications, rules and guidelines, but there also has to be a willingness to support the very serious and dedicated amateur performing artists.
In this respect I refer to Canada's policy toward the promotion of fitness and amateur sports. Again, Canada and Canadians should be very pleased with the commitment that the federal Government has made in this area. Under the Ministry of Fitness and Amateur Sports there are two divisions known as Fitness Canada and Sport Canada. Both of these federal government organizations are well equipped, amply funded, and have been given the policy direction to achieve very commendable goals. All one has to do to recognize this fact is to take a look at the success of the recent Olympic Winter Games in Calgary. The co-ordinated efforts of the federal government Department have produced world-class amateur Canadian athletes.
It is precisely this type of commitment that is required for our amateur or, more appropriately, semi-professional performing arts groups. I strongly advocate a further review of federal policy in this area. I am not saying that we deprive one area for the sake of another, but simply that we redirect our efforts and resources to accommodate a most deserving and worth-while part of Canada's expanding culture.
Motion M-171 simply asks the Government to take another look. One way of addressing this matter might be to establish a special task force or committee comprising representatives from Parliament, Government and the public to look into this matter with the purpose of making a constructive policy change. No matter how the issue is addressed, such an undertaking will require much thought and dialogue before any solution can be found.
Cultural Assistance Policies
It is time that we, the legislators of the country, give this issue some serious thought toward positive action. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to lend their support to Motion M-171.
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on the motion of the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett). I thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for his thoughtful remarks this afternoon. It is certainly evident that he is committed to the arts in Canada in their many forms of expression.
I would like to take a few minutes to clarify for the House what I think some of the principles, some of the notions inherent in the question the Hon. Member has put to the House, are. Some of the questions I will address are the following. For example, what is professional? What is semiprofessional? What is amateur? What are our expectations as Canadians?
In reading The Ottawa Citizen several weeks ago I came across three reviews, three opportunities for Canadians to understand and even attend live theatre experiences. The first play, The Jester and the Queen, was performed at the National Arts Centre in the Studio. It featured an international company from Czechoslovakia which performed six days in English and three days in French.
The second play Stealing Home, was performed by a professional Canadian theatre company in a tent on the grounds of the Victoria Museum here in Ottawa. Performing in the Ottawa-Hull Children's Festival, of which I had the honour of being a director for a number of years, this Caravan Stage Production has a cast, according to The Ottawa Citizen reviewer that is an "accomplished group", able to handle their many roles and musical numbers well", but adds that "at times the production strikes controversial chords ... and comes with a parental guidance rating". In both cases our expectations are high, and we recognize the professional techniques of trained performers.
The third play, a very well known one, The Miracle Worker, was performed in a new theatre here in the National Capital Region by an amateur theatre company, Nepean Little Theatre, in the newly constructed professional facility in Nepean, the Centrepointe Theatre, at the new City Hall in the City of Nepean. It is a building, I might add, and a theatre, built entirely with municipal, provincial and private sector funding, and not with one federal dollar. I will come back to this point later in my remarks. The Ottawa Citizen said that the actress playing Annie "gives the play a most convincing, subtle and rounded performance" and that the whole production is a "mostly successful one".
All three plays, the international professional, the national professional, and the regional or local amateur, are given equal play in the newspaper of the nation's capital, and the fact that

July 15, 1988
Cultural Assistance Policies
such a wide range of theatre experience is available to audiences is very important.
My point is that the issue is a complex one. A thriving arts scene requires the participation of amateurs, semi-professional-which I have always understood to mean "pre-professional'-and professional. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between them.
Let us talk for a moment about professional employment in the cultural sector. The term "professional" signifies full time employment at a high salary after a significant level of training and experience.
Does that mean that the Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver actor who is between plays and television commercials and finds work as a waiter is not a professional actor? Is "professional" defined as earning the wages of a doctor or a lawyer which are classified as professions by employment agencies?
A principal dancer in the National Ballet of Canada, and we are talking about household names here, in 1984 earned $573 a week, or approximately $30,000 per year, before deductions for rehearsal clothing, ballet shoes, and so on. Is the principal dancer of Canada's largest ballet company any less professional than the physicians of this country, especially after equal years of training and professional performance experience?
In the 1984 study: What Jobs Pay, by Paul Anisef and Etta Baichman, some very interesting statistics underline the point that, in the cultural sector, salaries are not reflective of professional training and experience in Canada, unlike our neighbour to the south where movie stars like "Rambo" Stallone are rumoured to make $20 million for one violent picture. In the report it states:
Of the 5,963 paid-up members in Actor's Equity, only 25 to 28 per cent are usually working at any given time. Only 15 per cent of ACTRA's 6,800 members (including actors and writers) are fully occupied in the profession. In March, 1983, 54.7 per cent of ACTRA members earned less than $3,900, 73.9 per cent earned less than $8,000.
In an average first year with Canada's major ballet company, a dancer earned a minimum of $311 a week. The minimum weekly salary for opera singers performing in town, with our largest company, the Canadian Opera Company, was $421 a week. The average annual income of dancers with modern dance companies in 1980-81 was only $6,000. Certainly, in recent years there have been some slight improvements to keep up with inflation, but the net disposable income has not increased.
One last example. Recently, a visual artist visited the Department of Communications and indicated that she had sold almost $60,000 worth of work in the last fiscal year, but her take home pay after deducting the costs for studio and supplies was only $6,000. What physician or any other professional would stand for that?
In other words, in spite of subsidy, because of the volume potential in the Canadian market-place, because of low ticket prices and fees for service, because less than 10 per cent of
Canadian businesses give to the arts, the word "professional" in the arts means paid somewhat, some of the time. This country has a lot more work to do here, and the Government is committed to help in this area.
What about semi-professionals? What do they earn? Or have they decided that, by choosing to be semi-professional, they can balance their regular income from more regular sources with the opportunity to express their creativity on a frequent part-time basis? Are they really apprentices, artists in training, not yet trained sufficiently to be able to earn full-time work?
Finally, what does amateur mean? It does not mean poor quality, that is clear. To me, amateur means joy, the joy that comes from volunteering one's time and talent, a passion for self-expression strong enough to compel participation.
Amateur cultural organizations are essentially volunteer organizations. The actress in a local amateur production may some day decide to work semi-professionally, but today she is volunteering in order to be able to participate in the performing arts and to experience the thrill of a live audience. Occasionally, there is a live audience in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, but it does not look as though we had one this afternoon!
Cultural activity is supported by all levels of government, some better than others. Traditionally, the federal Government has supported primarily, although not exclusively, the professional sector, as the Hon. Member pointed out. Through our support to cultural agencies such as Telefilm, the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to museums and galleries across the country, and through the many programs sponsored by government Departments, we provide close to $2 billion a year in support of our nation's culture-$2 billion is a significant sum of money.
We accept our role because of the value we place on Canadian culture. We encourage other players, particularly the private sector, to increase their participation and join us in promoting the development of the arts in Canada at both the amateur and professional levels.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak on this motion. It is a very interesting motion and I congratulate the Hon. Member for putting it forward, and for taking us away from the general to talk about a specific issue which is getting funding for the Hillsborough Girls Choir. As the communications critic for my Party I learned something in listening to the Hon. Member's speech on how he attempted to get funding for what is no doubt a very good cause.
Today I had a meeting with a young man who works for a band called L'lnsolite. In English it means "unexpected". It is a drum and bugle corps band from St. Jerome, Quebec. It is a world-class band just like the Hillsborough Girls Choir. The band has 65 youths age 13 to 21. In addition, the band has 20 young instructors who are not paid, and another 15 people who
July 15, 1988

volunteer their time as organizers. That is approximately 100 people associated with this cultural endeavour, this band from St. Jerome, Quebec. I talked to Mr. Norman Lalonde who works with the band. He is from St. Jerome. He told me how the band raises money. For example, a few weeks ago on a Saturday it had a benefit day and raised money from approximately 3,000 towns people who came to this fund-raising occasion. I guess the Hillsborough Girls Choir raises money in a similar manner.

I may add that Mr. Bill Clay, the New Democratic Party's candidate for Laurentides and, I hope, the new Member for Laurentides after the next election, introduced me to Mr. Normand Lalonde . . .

I am grateful to him for that introduction so that I could learn a little about the local band, and today I also learned a little from the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia who talked about his problem. I wish to deal with some of the remarks in his speech. Let me try to distil his speech down and he can correct me if I am wrong. What he is basically saying is that if you go for cultural funding in Canada you can only get it from the cultural initiatives program if you are a professional group. You cannot get it if you are amateur. If you are multicultural, you might be able to get the money from the multicultural program. If you are not multicultural, then forget it, you are not going to get it from that program.
He also said in his speech, I think, if you are a professional or amateur athlete, you can get funds. So amateur athletes get funding but amateur cultural initiatives do not get funding. I see what the Member was saying.
It is very interesting to note that the Member seems to support-and I agree with him-state initiatives and financing for the athletic sector, which, in his words, "produce class amateur athletes". If I might say so, as a socialist, it is good use of the state's power and money to produce a good in the end. I am glad that the Hon. Member agreed with that principle. He does not always agree with those particular principles and neither does his Party.
Let us talk a little bit about getting funding for cultural programs. I have also run into this with respect to professional groups from Vancouver, specifically a program called "The May Works" which is a cultural festival that is put in on May Day in Vancouver to celebrate with theatre, musical performances and so on. It is a workers' day, a May Day. We did get some money from the cultural program, the initiatives program, and I am very grateful that we got it. I think it was about $7,000.
I will tell the Hon. Member what I found out in pursuing that grant. There are two funds; the Canada Council and the cultural initiatives program. The cultural initiatives program gives about $17 million, I believe, in funds. I am talking off the
Cultural Assistance Policies
top of my head but I believe these figures are right. I was told by people who are administering the fund, when I tried to get money from them, that in fact they have about $100 million in applications. So there is quite a big demand out there, and there are limited resources. It is a profession, and I agree that they do fund professional groups.
We should look at this situation in the light of why we have a Canada Council and why we have a cultural initiative fund. As to why we have both, as far as I could determine, the Canada Council gave money equally to groups across the country. I am not sure I could say the same thing, although this is disputed, for the local initiatives fund. It is very open to being a political slush fund, where the Ministers can deal out grants.
We had evidence with the previous Minister that there was some mal-distribution, if you like, where some areas of the country got more than others. So I say that it is right in the sense that we have to look at the role of those two funds. Why do we have those two funds? Should we only have one fund, a Canada Council rather than a special initiatives fund? Could the Canada Council administrate that? Why should the Minister's office administer it? We should look into all of that.
The second thing we should look into is, should the fund, whether it is Canada Council or the cultural initiatives fund, or both funds, be giving money to amateurs as well as professionals? That is a good question, and I am not sure that I have the full answer for that. One of the problems that the amateur cultural initiatives have in getting funds is that they used to be able to get money from the federal Government. There used to be lots of money in the federal Government because the federal Government had the lottery funds.
I think in 1979 the Conservative Government gave over the money from the lotteries to the provinces. We might want to have another look to see whether we can get some of that back. Are the provinces funding properly? The band in St. Jerome were saying that they were having difficulty getting money from the province. Are the provinces using these lottery funds in the way that they are supposed to be using them? Are they just using them for sports and not for cultural initiatives? It follows from what the Member raised that we should look into that as well. So we should look into why there are two funds, should it fund amateur as well as professional, and what is the role of the provinces in terms of lottery funds and money that has been turned over to them?
Now, with respect to multicultural aspects, I would not want to say to those groups, "We are going to cut you off because you are getting an advantage that the others are not getting". I would prefer to put the multicultural aspect out here, if you like, to separate it, and to say, "We do need funding for multicultural groups", and that may include cultural funding, like a Ukrainian choir, a Sikh dance group and so on. I believe that there have been grants-you might correct me if I am wrong-I hope that there have been grants in the multicultur-alism area. I trust that the Member is saying that. We would

July 15, 1988
Cultural Assistance Policies
have to check with the multicultural people and take a look at their grants to see whether they have in fact given the cultural institutions. I think that they pursue different criteria, a multiculturalism approach. I would not want to end that because some other group was not getting it. I would prefer, in the case of the Hillsborough Girls Choir, to expand the funding in other initiatives.
If the Member is making the point that cultural institutions are equal to sports, then I think he is right concerning that. I do not think he can say that there should be funding for amateur sports and no funding for amateur cultural institutions. In some ways they are all part of Canadian culture, in a broad definition of culture.
The NDP, my Party, and I hope the Hon. Member, believe in a broad definition of culture, a culture for the people and not just for a few elite groups. The Member for Ottawa made some comments, as well as the Member from Nova Scotia, about the Government's deep commitment to helping the arts. I have two criticisms here that I want the Hon. Member to consider. The Government has underfunded the CBC and in fact politicized the boards of the arts, organizations like Jean Sirois and Telefilm and some of the other bad political appointments. I will finish by saying that the Hon. Member's point was well taken and worth considering and studying. I want to broaden the study to look at the things that I suggested, and I hope that the Hillsborough Girls Choir can continue to represent Canada both here and abroad and that the L'lnsolite band from St. Jerome can represent St. Jerome, Quebec, and Canada abroad just as successfully as before. I hope that we can find some additional funds for them and for the people that help them.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and respond to the comments of the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) concerning the Government's funding of various Canadian cultural groups.
In fact, this gives me an opportunity to focus on a vital aspect of one of our Departments, and I am referring to the Department of the Secretary of State. And speaking of the Department of the Secretary of State, I think I should say that the new incumbent is someone of immense value both to Quebec and to Canada. He has great credibility in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces, and even internationally. Mr. Speaker, I know to what extent the Department of the Secretary of State . ..


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Wait and see!


Michel Champagne: I know it hurts the NDP to realize that intelligent people, men of integrity and especially men of this stature, come to us instead of to their party. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in politics, intelligent people generally opt for parties that are doers, not dreamers. I think this was borne out by the election in Lac-Saint-Jean, and the Hon. Member should listen instead of making remarks.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the fact that the Department of the Secretary of State is a very important department, and that also extends to the riding level, in Champlain, among my constituents. The Department is very much involved in promoting the status of women and in helping and promoting the status of the disabled, and since the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Funday Royal is about multiculturalism, it is a Department that covers a host of different aspects and facets since it promotes the linguistic duality of this country.
This Department already offers many support programs for professional and semi-professional groups and tries to respond to their needs. The Department also encourages our cultural agencies such as the Canada Council to be more receptive to the needs of groups and performers in the multicultural sphere.
Mr. Speaker, in its structure, its range of activities and its staff, the Department of the Secretary of State reflects the regional, linguistic and cultural realities of this country. Many of its activities complement those of other departments. However, the Department plays a distinctive and important role within the Government in that it defends the interests of our socio-cultural communities.
In other words, its mission is to contribute to enhancing our national identity and to preserving the cultural heritage of all Canadians. It would be impossible for me to describe or even to touch on all the aspects of the programs offered by the Department of the Secretary of State in the areas of literature, visual arts, and the performing arts. But these areas are an inherent part of several large programs of the Department of the Secretary of State.
All those involved in the Multiculturalism Program, the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, the Women's Program, and the Native Citizens Directorate are firmly committed to promoting the interests of the groups that concern them. Literature, visual arts, and performing arts make up an important part of their activities in this regard. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism wants to ensure that all Canadian men and women will have the opportunity of participating fully in our national life.
The Minister strives to help them preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage. He is thus the advocate of multiculturalism within the federal Government and with the support of the Department he administers a wide array of national and regional programs. The Multiculturalism Program provides technical and financial assistance to hundreds of volunteer community groups and to the heads of various specific projects that are seeking to bring about a better understanding and a greater appreciation of Canada's cultural diversity.
July 15, 1988

The Program has for a long time provided considerable resources to the publication of literary works and to the visual and performing arts.
In 1986-87, the Multiculturalism Program provided more than a million dollars to assist 161 projects to publish literary works, and more than $2.2 million for 243 projects in the visual and performing arts.
Grants are available as well in the dramatic arts field, to those who wish to create or produce plays or to hold workshops. For instance, the Secretary of State recently subsidized the production of a play entitled The New Canadian Kid that explores the integration of immigrant children into Canadian society, and the production of a play entitled Skin, performed during the Children's Festival in Vancouver.
In the areas of Film and audio-visual productions, grants are awarded to encourage development, scriptwriting and production. For instance, the Department of the Secretary of State contributed to the presentation of a program of multicultural films in repertory cinemas throughout Canada and sponsored a part of the Toronto Film Festival called Cultures in Conflict. It also provided financial assistance for the production of a T.V. series entitled Inside Stories, which probed the lives of ethnic communities in Toronto. The scripts are the work of writers who live in these communities.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State provides funds for folk art organizations and for the training of artists. Those funds are also available to amateurs, both organizations and individuals. They are also used to finance the translation into English and French of Canadian literary works written in foreign languages.
Also worthy of mention, Mr. Speaker, are the funds provided to community and amateur theatre groups and to various special activities. The latter are extremely varied and include the following, for instance:
The Canadian Heritage Festival, an annual event of national scope that is held in a different province from year to year;
A heritage festival organized by the Moncton Multicultural Association, that calls on the talents of a large number of regional artists;
The re-issuing of a general guide published by the Sikh Education Society of Vancouver;
The organization of a cultural festival in London, Ontario, for the purpose of introducing the general public to Eritrean crafts, cooking and music;
An art contest and an essay competition for the children of Kelowna, organized by the multicultural association of that region.
The production of a pamphlet and a short Film on the experience of immigrant women in Prince Edward Island;
Cultural Assistance Policies
The organzation, this fall, by the Edmonton Chinese Multicultural Centre of a cultural presentation entitled A Duet of East and West, and the showing, every two weeks, of films on Chinese culture.
And finally, last March in Winnipeg the first national conference on folk arts was held. The Department of the Secretary of State was particularly proud to sponsor that important meeting which dealt with the future of folk arts in Canada and was attended by the spokespersons of various communities, artists, and public servants. Participants discussed the future of multicultural folk arts in Canada and the ways of promoting and enhancing them to best advantage.
I could go on and on and continue to list other similar projects.
The program to assist multiculturalism will provide $192 million in the course of the next five years to implement the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. This means $62 million in new money. Of these new funds, $14.5 million will be devoted over the next five years to the promotion of heritage languages and cultures. In 1991-92, the annual budget for that item will be $13.8 million.
Part of this amount will be used to finance activities aimed at promoting various cultures through literature, the visual arts, and the performing arts.
The Department of the Secretary of State has already created a multiculturalism secretariat to encourage federal departments and agencies to help implement the multiculturalism policy stated in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
The Disabled Persons Participation Program has a budget of $3.2 million. Again, Mr. Speaker, these funds are used to finance a wide variety of projects carried out by associations of the disabled, among other things.
We could mention the Insight Theatre Company, which received a $20,000 grant to produce a film with blind actors, and "A Show of Hands", the only Canadian theatre troupe made up of deaf and hard of hearing actors, which received $50,000 for a cross-country tour.
Among the activities of the National Week of the Disabled, let us mention the gala held at the National Arts Centre that brought together disabled artists, including actors, singers and musicians.
A resource centre for the arts in Newfoundland received $7,000 to produce the "Trawler Show".
The Women's Program has a budget of $13.2 million to promote women's issues. The visual arts, literature, theatre and film are indeed effective vehicles for this purpose.
Although it would be ideal to have more money to help all sectors of artistic activity more, our present granting policies and eligibility criteria are meeting Canadians' needs adequately-

July 15, 1988
Cultural Assistance Policies
I would not hesitate to add, Mr. Speaker, and I know that my time is running out, that we are and will remain attentive to all groups and individuals in these fields, in order to encourage the arts and interest all Canadians in them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired,.
It being three o'clock, pursuant to Order made June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Monday, July 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers