1989-09-25

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which both my House Leader, the member of parliament for Windsor West, and I have given you notice.
I wish to deal with a contempt of the House, a matter which under our proceedings as described in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Chapter 12, is properly brought before the House as a question of privilege.
On August 26 of this year the Department of Finance placed two full-page ads in each language in major newspapers across the country. The type face was so large that it jumped right out at you. These Tory ads in big type were paid for by the people of Canada and read: "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change. Please Save This Notice". It explains the changes and the reasons for them.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the same text appeared in French in French newspapers across this country, reading as follows:
On January 1, 1991, Canada's Federal Sales Tax System Will
Change. Please Save This Notice.
It explains the changes and the reasons for them. Now on the second page, we see a full page indicating the
main changes that are being proposed, in detail, with the text of the amendments to the Act, and all this in the same ad, in the newspapers and in both languages.

Mr. Speaker, because you will need these before you in order to deliberate, I will at the conclusion of what I have to say to the House deposit these through you with the Clerk of the House, as I believe the rules require. It may be that at the conclusion of what I want to say the Clerk will want to read these into the record. That will be his and your judgment.
I intend to outline at the outset why I believe that these advertisements constitute a contempt of the House of Commons. I submit to Your Honour that the advertisement not only misrepresents the substance of the text but the procedure to which it is subject under parliamentary rules. It prejudices the proceedings that are now before a committee of the House, the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as prejudicing future proceedings and decisions of the House itself.
Your Honour, I will expand upon this point and if you find that a prima facie case of privilege has been established, I am prepared to move at the convenience of the House, under your order, the appropriate motion.
The wording "Please Save This Notice", followed by chapter and verse of the alleged tax changes, constitutes a basis for a question of privilege. Those words "Please Save This Notice" constitute a contempt of Parliament, constitute an intimidation of Parliament, because the only inference to be drawn from the words "Please Save This Notice" is that it does not matter what members of parliament do in dealing with these taxes. It does not matter what the committee on finance does with respect to these taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 25, 1989
Privilege


John Napier Turner: It does not matter what the people of Canada are saying with respect to these taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It does not matter whether the hon. member for Mississauga South decides in his good judgment that it does not work. It is not worth the public money, the public purse, he says, to take this committee to Newfoundland. He has since recanted, but it does not matter what the people of Newfoundland say, the people of Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. "Please Save This Notice. You are wasting your time. Do not bother to appear before this committee", that is what the government is actually saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: "Please Save This Notice". According to these ads these are the proposed changes which are going to come into effect. That is it. That is contempt of Parliament by those who write these ads. That is contempt of Parliament by those who authorize these ads. That is contempt of Parliament because only this House can authorize tax changes, only the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This is the fundamental basis of the question of privilege before you. "Please Save This Notice". The ad states that specific measures will come into effect on a specific date-t does not matter what parliament does-when in fact no such tax legislation has been passed by the House of Commons. Nobody except perhaps the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance wants to see any such legislation introduced into the House of Commons. Certainly not the Tory back-benchers who have had something to say about it this week.
The House of Commons committee on finance is going across the country seeking the advice of taxpayers on a technical paper to decide whether or not to recommend to the Minister of Finance whether or not to introduce legislation, which this ad says is already written in stone, because "Please Save This Notice"; nothing is going to change.
These ads are a flagrant circumvention of a fundamental parliamentary principle that it is the House of Commons, the representatives of the people from every province and territory in this country; that it is we as
mandated by the people of Canada; that it is we the fiduciary of the people and only we on behalf of the people of Canada, who will have full control over what the taxes in this country are going to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That right rests with parliament. It does not rest with a few slogan writers in a Tory advertising agency.

These advertisements violate our parliamentary tradition in two more ways. They prejudice the proceedings that are now before the Standing Committee on Finance as well as prejudicing future proceedings of the House itself.
Mr. Speaker, these ads constitute a breach of the rights and privileges of all Members and a contempt of Parliament.
A government that wastes millions and millions of dollars on newspaper ads not even a canary would want to see on the floor of its cage, and keeps saying that it is trying to cut spending in order to reduce the deficit, that Government is both hypocritical and utterly ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is not just a flagrant breach of parliamentary privilege but a flagrant case of government stupidity.
The harebrained scheme proposed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is a contradiction of every word they ever said about tax reform, both in the House of Commons and across the country.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is not just an obvious case of a breach of the privileges of this House, it is a flagrant case of breach of good faith.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are backing a ridiculous proposal which is not only not tax neutral, as they promised, but is in fact the most flagrant tax grab in this country's history. It does not reflect the simplicity promised by this Government and would in fact create an administrative nightmare we would not wish on our worst enemies. It does not provide for provincial participation, as promised, and will make Canada the only nation in the world saddled with two entirely different sales tax systems: a federal and a provincial system.
September 25, 1989

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is not just a flagrant violation of parliamentary privilege, it is also an obvious case of political fraud perpetrated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in the light of these facts, you would kick these scoundrels out the door, if you could, but I also realize you have very little leeway since you can only apply the Standing Orders as they concern questions of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you an important citation from page 543 of Bourinot's second edition, a quotation which will be of importance to you in your decision and of no interest to any Conservative cabinet minister because it was not made up by some Tory slogan writer at some Tory advertising agency. It represents the historic traditions of this House.
The principal purpose of the House of Commons, in fact, is the consideration and criticism of the Estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures and the committees in question are the parliamentary machinery by means of which the House chiefly exercises its political and constitutional functions.
That is the citation from Bourinot.
When the House of Commons committee is currently conducting hearings on a technical paper on the proposed sales tax, how can it expect to get a complete range of opinions from Canadians when millions of our fellow citizens read these two-page newspaper ads which state blatantly that certain tax changes are going to come into effect? Many Canadians who might otherwise be prone to submit a brief to the committee have taken the conclusion and taken the message from this ad of why bother. We have read the ads that say no matter what we say the Department of Finance has said changes are coming into effect, no matter what any individual Canadian may think. I would go on to cite for you, Mr. Speaker, Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, a citation at page 192 which reads as follows:
While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of obstruction are constantly being devised and parliament must be able to invoke its penal jurisdiction to protect itself against these new forms.
Mr. Speaker, the none too hidden message of the ads is we are doing what we like whether you like it or not, whether your members of parliament like it or not,
Privilege
whether the House of Commons likes it or not, or the members specifically on the committee of finance like it or not. "Please Save This Notice", no changes allowed. I know that is what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance really believe.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the definition of contempt contained in the twentieth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Chapter 10, page 143:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and their Conservative propaganda gurus who come up with new forms of obstruction obviously believed when they inserted this ad that they did not need to wait for any final parliamentary approval. They did not even need to wait for approval on second reading. They did not even need to wait for the parliamentary committee to report. They did not even need to wait for the act to receive first reading in the House of Commons as a bill. They ran the ads. They ran the ads not in order to help Parliament but to obstruct, impede, and threaten Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have read some of the citations from the authorities and I now want to give some references from leading members of parliament over the years within our lifetime. There are hundreds of quotations I could cite on the basis of the tradition that the House of Commons and only the House of Commons can pass upon a tax measure or an expenditure measure.
I will cite a few of these important historical references because I know, Mr. Speaker, that you share my concern and my understanding that the rules which we apply today rest upon our traditions and our history even though the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have no belief in history. Their motto is: "Why worry about history or traditions of the House of Commons when a good advertising copywriter can write one for you?"
I quote the late John George Diefenbaker, cited in Hansard on page 189 on December 11, 1947. It was a debate about tax changes announced over the radio by

September 25, 1989
Privilege
then Finance Minister Doug Abbott. Here is what Mr. Diefenbaker had to say in this House:
When a government utilizes powers-in a way never contemplated by Parliament, we have a right to ask that Parliament and the country be given an explanation.
Mr. Diefenbaker went on to ask whether there is, and I cite him again:
-in any country-an occasion where taxation has been imposed by
a minister by Order in Council.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Diefenbaker would be stunned.
This government has not only the arrogance to contemplate taxation by Order in Council, it contemplates taxation by newspaper ads. Mr. Diefenbaker would roll over in his grave if he saw his successors on that side of the House consenting to this kind of action.
Later on March 9, 1948, on page 2028 of Hansard, Mr. Diefenbaker had this to say:
The statutes of the realm provide in most emphatic language that no tax should be levied on a subject without the consent of Parliament.
In no way, shape or form has parliament given its consent. Mr. Diefenbaker, as partisan as he was and as partisan as he could be in this House, would be appalled that our current Prime Minister and Minister of Finance run ads purporting to say and suggest that parliament has given its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I now draw your attention to Hansard for April 20, 1961, where we see that a pamphlet published by the Department of Agriculture-and I do mean a pamphlet and not a massive advertising campaign for the reform of our tax system-led Walter Pitman, who was then the New Democratic Member for Peterborough, to raise a question of privilege. In his statement, Mr. Pitman asked, and I quote page 3825 for April 20, 1961: "How can the people of Canada be told how A.R.D.A. will operate when this bill has not received second reading? Is there a suggestion that second reading has no effect? Is it the contention that a debate in this house amounts to nothing more than the rubber-stamping of a measure?"
I draw the attention of this House to the fact that this question of privilege concerned only an agriculture bill
which had not yet been presented to the House for second reading but which had already been tabled for first reading. But the question that concerns us today has not even been presented to Parliament for first reading. The question that concerns us here is the publication of advertisements in newspapers for a bill that has not even been drafted yet.
Mr. Pitman's position was supported by the late Lester B. Pearson, who said that the publication of the pamphlet indeed constituted an example of contempt for the House of Commons. Mr. Pearson said: "The question dealt with the circulation of a pamphlet dealing with an act of parliament before that act was passed. Therefore, undoubtedly, that action on the part of the minister is treating Parliament with contempt."

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor at that time was the Right Hon. Roland Michener. He did not have to rule on the issue because no formal motion was submitted, but he nonetheless took the trouble to address the House on this issue of contempt. Mr. Speaker Michener stated at page 3826 of Hansard on April 20, 1961 the following:
There is a point that no one should assert that Parliament has acted before it has done so, particularly a Minister. If it is borne out by this document, I think the Hon. Members would have a point to deal with by Motion.
In other words he conceded the prima facie nature of the case. The ads run on August 26 of this year by the Department of Finance which said "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change. Please save this notice", meet the criteria set down by Speaker Michener because they implicitly assert that Parliament has acted before it has done so.
I fear that this intellectual discourse goes beyond the contemplative powers of Conservative members opposite. What do these modem masters of our destiny care what John Diefenbaker thinks or Roland Michener thinks?
Perhaps I can quote some of their most recent contemporaries. The instant copywriters of the Conservative party with their instant preachers, the ministers of the current government, might be interested in what some of their recent contemporaries had to say.
September 25, 1989

I want to quote from the now Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, representing the Crown and a province that the member for Mississauga South did not want to waste public money out of the public purse to visit so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could give their submissions before that committee.
In any event he is the Hon. James McGrath, known to yourself Mr. Speaker and me, formerly the hon. member for St. John's East, and the person responsible for some of our most recent procedural reforms. During the debate on the propriety of constitutional ads placed by the government in 1980, and by the way after debate had taken place in the House of Commons, Mr. McGrath stated his views on such government advertising on page 3528 of Hansard dated October 9, 1980:
The purpose of such advertising can only be to inhibit the Opposition in its attempt to debate government policy or the assumptions on which it is based.
Of course the current situation is far worse than anything Mr. McGrath could have been contemplating, because we are not yet even debating a bill in the House of Commons but the government is calling it a fait accompli. The now Lieutenant-Governor must have seen what was coming when he referred to, and I quote him again, on page 3528:
- the modem equivalent of the corruption and intimidation which contaminated the House of Commons at an earlier stage of its development.
Mr. McGrath has been gone from the House for a few years. Perhaps I should cite a more recent departure, a former Conservative Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, who has been gone for only 10 months. He is still actively practising law in this city. I would like to quote Mr. Hnatyshyn. He said at page 3529 of Hansard, October 9, 1980, during the same debate, and I quote him:
A multi-million dollar advertising campaign-is contrary to every fundamental principle upon which Parliament has been developed and fought for over the years.
I can only say to him, through you Mr. Speaker: "Well said, Ray".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: We are going to miss him.
Privilege


John Napier Turner: Now out of respect for the Prime Minister, although heaven knows why, I will restrain from quoting the former member for Yukon, the Hon. Erik Nielsen.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Napier Turner: I would be willing if Your Honour and the Clerk wish that I deposit those citations with you, but I do not want to trespass on the goodwill of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman has referred to a recent book and the Chair of course would be interested in knowing which quotes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Erik Nielsen has enough ammunition that he could run a loose-leaf service. I am not citing his book, which I do not expect you to read in the course of your duties. I am just saying that I do have citations from Hansard attributed to the former hon. member for Yukon, but I will not, as I say, trespass on the goodwill of the House here.
Let us just talk about some contemporary members of the House, some ministers who have been in the House for some time. Let us hear what they had to say during the same debate about those constitutional ads. The current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources must have had his own Prime Minister and his own colleague, the Minister of Finance, in mind when he said on the same day, October 9, 1980, at page 3531 of Hansard:
What the government is attempting to do is-make the point-to
everyone outside the House that no matter what argument is raised,
legitimately or otherwise, that argument is not valid and that the
plan of action has been completed.
Another minister who believes in taking the high road must have been in High River the day the cabinet authorized these ads, for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say in the same debate, at page 3534:
I think that an attempt to spend public money, to manipulate public opinion on public questions that have not yet been decided is an improper practice that offends the rights of the House of Commons.
In the same debate, the Secretary of State, at page 3532 of Hansard, had this to say:
What the Government is trying to do is suggest that its advertisements reflect a decision that has been taken. That is false;

Privilege
that decision has not been taken. Those advertisements cannot be justified as being in any way a reflection of a decision taken here.
In 1980, the now Secretary of State for External Affairs flew into a rage in the House of Commons over one single ad proposing constitutional change which had been debated in the House of Commons, which he and his Party later voted for and which became the Constitution Act, 1982. He was furious at that one single ad which portrayed Canada geese floating across a Canadian sky. To him, that was a most dangerous type of ad.
I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that what was sauce for the goose in 1980 is sauce for the gander in 1989.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the ultimate authority here. I want to quote the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: For once in his political career, he was not throwing around red herrings.
I challenge him to appear in his full academic regalia and repeat the words he spoke in the House of Commons on October 9, cited at page 3537 of Hansard. I am sure he has memorized what he said. He memorizes most of what he says.
He said:
My privilege, my reputation and my honour as a member of this House have been degraded because members of the government have been proclaiming around the country, in my name, and in the name of all members of this Parliament, slogans and view points that I believe not to be merely misleading but in many respects to be downright dishonest.
There are days I wish cabinet ministers would get up under the rules in Question Period and put a question or two, because then the Minister of National Health and Welfare could repeat his famous question of October 22, 1980, and pose it to the Minister of Finance. This is what the Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare said then.
May I ask the Minister how he can justify this double standard of exempting the Government from provisions regarding false and misleading advertising, where false and misleading advertising by the private sector would result in criminal charges being laid by the Government?
If private citizens can be prosecuted for misleading advertising why not the government of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in on the decision to place these ads because we all know that he has to be part of every important decision. The only thing to change faster than the views of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was the decision to nuke his submarine plan. The only reason I have to feel sorry for the Minister of National Health and Welfare is that I understand he recently went to see the movie Batman and found that the role of Robin the Boy Wonder had been scrapped from the latest version of it.
What happened to all those criticisms, to all those objections that members of Parliament, now sitting on the government side of the House, now cabinet ministers of the Crown, must have raised to this advertising campaign about the goods and services tax proposal? Did they raise the same objections in Cabinet that they raised in the House, or were those objections lost in the panelling of the cabinet room? Did they simply fall on the deaf ears of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, a Prime Minister, after all, who doesn't really care too much about the fundamental principles of parliamentary practice and prefers a presidential stance.
Perhaps the Prime Minister himself dreamed up that phrase: "Please save this notice". The only reason people will save this notice is because they will want it as a reminder to vote against the Conservative government in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I move from quoting certain honourable hypocrites to the serious ruling of a serious person. The then Speaker and now Her Excellency the Governor General, Madam Speaker Sauve, outlined to the House how advertisements such as the one in question may be seen as a contempt of the House. She said that the advertisements would constitute contempt of the House if there was, and now I quote her, "some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious
September 25, 1989

reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons". That is found at page 3781 of Hansard of October 17, 1980.
I submit to Your Honour that the present case clearly meets the criteria established by Madam Sauve and clearly constitutes a contempt of this House. What could be more false, perverted, partial or injurious than to place advertisements in daily newspapers across the country implying and saying directly that certain tax changes would come into effect when such tax changes had never been considered in any proceedings of the House of Commons?
The advertisements are not partially false, they are totally fiction. If publication of any partial proceeding of the House constitutes contempt, then fabrication of tax changes which can only be made by proceedings of this House must also constitute contempt of this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, Madam Sauve, when she was Speaker, continued as follows:
-when a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case.
That was on October 17, 1980, as reported on page 3781 of Hansard.
The advertisements in question today bear the following headline, I remind you:
On January 1, 1991, Canada's Federal Sales T&x System Will Change. Please Save This Notice.
These advertisements contain several paragraphs on the other side which precisely and concisely describe and explain the tax changes which are supposed to take place. These advertisements, Mr. Speaker, are a breach of the privileges of the House, not only because they present an erroneous, distorted view of our deliberations, but also because they state that the tax system will be changed and that it will be changed in a very specific way.
Under the Finance Department's imprimatur, which any right-thinking Canadian would take to be true, we find sentence after sentence containing flagrant untruths.
Privilege
How can one publish such notices announcing that certain changes will be made when no bill to that effect has yet been presented to the House of Commons?

Madam Speaker Sauve said this in another related ruling found at page 4213 of October 29, 1980:
In the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of Members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue, improper and import a ring of deceit.
It is with great regret that I must state that the advertisements placed by the Department of Finance under the authority of the Minister of Finance do indeed import a ring of deceit. The advertisements were knowingly placed by the very people who were best placed to know that they were untrue, who knew they were misleading, who knew they smacked of nothing but deceit and who knew that there was nothing that Parliament had done in any way to validate the statements in the advertisements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the only possible serious purpose of the advertisements was to attempt to influence the Canadian public not to bother attending committee hearings, not to bother giving their views to members of Parliament, not to bother with the reports of the Finance Committee of the House of Commons, but to believe what was in those advertisements was the truth, even though it was not the truth.
It was an attempt to influence the Canadian people into believing that the ads represented an alleged fact, a parliamentary fact, even though they did not, and that the ads constituted the will of Parliament and expressed in the text a decision of the will of Parliament even though there had been no decision, no bill, no deliberations, no debate and probably not even a drafted text. That is only possible argument to be offered for placing those ads.
This is not only a breach of members' privileges, it is a contempt of Parliament. It is a fundamentally dishonest move to deceive the public by people who should know better.

Privilege
The House of Commons has not considered any bill on the goods and services tax. The Department of Finance which placed these ads is responsible for drafting any such bill. The Minister of Finance, who is responsible for introducing the bill, is the same minister who is responsible for allowing the ads to be placed, knowing that no legislation has been drafted, knowing that no legislation has been presented, knowing that the committee of finance under the chairmanship of the member for Mississauga South is seeking the opinions of Canadians. All of that is a flagrant contempt of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As manipulative as it would have been for the Minister of Finance to place ads stating what he would recommend to Parliament, that is not what he did. He went one step further. He allowed ads to be placed which indicated in specific terms that his recommendations had already become law. As misleading as it would have been for the minister to place ads stating that the tax system would change in some way or other, that is not what he did. He placed ads saying that the tax system would change in a specific manner, and in the ad he lists proposed changes in specific terms, pre-empting the work of the House of Commons, pre-empting the role of members of Parliament.
Now, the minister cannot claim that the ads merely provide information to the Canadian public about his proposals because, according to the ads, it is not a proposal, this is law. "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change," and he lists the specific changes. And, "Please, save this notice," because nothing is going to change, nothing that members of Parliament can say, nothing that Canadians can say, nothing is going to change, so please, save this notice.
The minister cannot claim that he is merely giving notice to the Canadian people of future tax changes. The Standing Committee on Finance, acting on Standing Order 108 (2) of this House is conducting hearings to advise the minister whether he should draft legislation on any goods and services tax. Until such time as he hears from the committee, the Minister of Finance is not in a position to give any detailed notice unless he is
willing to admit contempt for the veiy House of Commons committee set up to advise him.
In our submission to you, Mr. Speaker, misrepresentations contained in the ads prejudice in a fundamental way the proceedings of this House of Commons. We have offered to you detailed precedents on the question of privilege. My colleagues will offer parliamentary analysis of the specifics contained in these newspaper advertisements. I put before you and submit to you, Your Honour, that this is a significant question of privilege covering the issue of contempt, under which it has always been placed. If you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Now, you do not need a precedent on the issue of contempt, but I attempted to outline for you earlier parallel proceedings which support our claim. Again, I am prepared to submit the appropriate motion, if you should so find.
Thank you for your indulgence and for the indulgence of the House. Nothing is more fundamental than for members to stand on their feet to defend the issue of privilege of the House, because only when we do it on behalf of the Canadian people can governments be held to account. This type of presidential largesse, this type of contemptuous treatment of the people's representatives on the fundamental issue of Parliament, the issue of taxation, the foundation of Parliament, cannot be tolerated by you, Sir, or by any of us who sit in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: policy that has not yet been approved by the Parliament of Canada. That is the point that is at stake here.
I want to say in making this point that I listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition and support almost everything he had to say, but I also note that he said at one point that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He was quoting the Conservatives at length in their criticism of such action in the past. What he did not point out, of course, is that the Conservatives, when they were critcizing this action, were criticizing the Liberal government that was performing in precisely the same manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there has been an evolution toward this kind of advocacy advertising on the part of governments that was opposed by the New Democratic Party when it was done in 1980 by a federal Liberal government following a referendum in the province of Quebec, a referendum, the federal side of which had been supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, and the government and the New Democratic Party. We believed that advertising that advocated a certain policy before it was approved by the Parliament of Canada, even if it was a policy we advocated, should not be supported by the spending of public funds. We said it in 1980; we repeat it now. I just wish the Liberals were a little more consistent.


Mr. Simmons:: I cannot take it.


John Edward Broadbent: No, the Liberals cannot take it. They have trouble with the truth. The Liberals have a lot of problems with that.


Roger Simmons: What would you know about that?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that not only has the government proceeded over the summer in utter contempt of parliament by saying that changes are going to come into effect in 1991, but it has in the same ad listed a whole number of alleged elements of this change, the factual claims of which are totally at variance with the documents that were produced during the summer pertinent to the 9 per cent increase.
I want to deal both with the matter of parliamentary legitimacy which is being violated by the Government,
Privilege
and, in that context, with the misleading nature of the ads themselves in terms of what the government claims it is doing with this 9 per cent tax. It is full of outright misstatements, to use parliamentary language, that outside the House might be called by ordinary people, lies. Let me say it is misleading in terms of what is in there.
The ad says that this change that will go into effect at the beginning of 1991 is going to, among other things, help low-income Canadians. The reality is that some 300,000 families at or below the poverty level are going to be paying more taxes, not lower taxes, as a result of this 9 per cent change. So the government is misleading the people on that claim itself.


Mr. Oberle:: Be honest!


John Edward Broadbent: I am, and the minister should be honest. He should go through these ads and listen to the interest groups who have appeared before the parliamentary committee, not supporters of the opposition parties, stating their views. He would then find out the truth about what is involved.
Not only is it inappropriate for the government to be spending money in advance of Parliament taking a stand on a policy matter, whether it is a tax matter or any other, but it is also the case in the given instance that the government, having done this, subsequently agreed with changes proposed by opposition parties to have hearings outside of Ottawa and even to have these hearings televised so the people of Canada can have their views known. If all these changes that the government asserts in its advertising are going to take place with the considerable detail outlined in the advertisements put in the papers, what, we ask, is the relevance of the hearings.
Does it make sense to go to the people of Canada? According to a decision reached, the committee is going to eight provinces as well as to Whitehorse. There surely is a contempt of Parliament by proceeding with these ads before Parliament has agreed. Beyond that, there is a contempt of the people of Canada if they say they are going to have hearings across the country and not pay the slightest attention to what the people of Canada have to say.

Privilege

that almost all groups that have attended the hearings here in Ottawa have clearly indicated that they are against this sales tax. Groups, corporations, poor people's groups, women's groups, all groups here in Canada, are against this sales tax.

The other day, the Prime Minister was seen on television saying that he speaks for the people of Canada, while these people only speak for interest groups. When you have interest groups from Newfoundland to British Columbia representing women, the poor, large and small business and virtually all of Canada, we in this party say that it is the interest groups in this instance who speak for the people of Canada and not the Prime Minister, and he ought to listen.
It seems to us that in terms of parliamentary tradition, whether it was your predecessor or Mr. Roland Michen-er when he was Speaker of the House who spoke on this, the principle is very clear. The government ought not to be using the funds of the people of Canada for a political, partisan position of the government of the day in advance of a parliamentary agreement. This process started with the previous Liberal government, and to be fair, it was not used widely then, but it was started then. It was the beginning of the view that the government of the day can use the people's own money to advocate essentially political policies before they are approved.
If it was started by the Liberals in the 1980s, the practice has been extended and multiplied almost ad infinitum by the Conservatives on almost every major issue that has come up since the Conservatives were elected in 1984. They have used the people's money to do through public expenditure what they ought to have been doing as politicians, which is to persuade the people of Canada directly themselves. This process has got to stop.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In rising in support of this question of privilege, I repeat that the point is of fundamental importance, but it has been something that other governments have pursued. If we are to put an end to it, Your Honour, there can be no better time than when there is a
tax proposal that is unfair, inequitable and counter-productive in terms of economic growth. In almost every aspect, the tax proposal is not desirable.
What is at issue is the right of Parliament to decide and, after a decision has been reached, then it is permitted for a government to use its offices to declare in an informative way what a factual situation is in terms of the law of Canada.
Your Honour, you have the right, and some of us believe the obligation, to rule against the government on this particular occasion. In so doing, I say not only would you be taking a major step in the process of stopping an inequitable tax to be brought in by this government, but more fundamentally, in reaching such a decision, you will be reasserting the basic principle of parliamentary democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing from the Hon. Minister of Justice, I think it is necessary for the Chair to say for the record that the debate which is taking place is on the question of whether or not the publication of this ad and its contents constitutes a contempt of the House. It is not a debate on the relative merits, whatever they may be or not be, with respect to a proposed piece of legislation. I think that has to be carefully kept in mind and that is what I have to keep in mind in making the decision which is sought in this chamber.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I start out by welcoming the comment you just made and indicating that I will deal with the argument put forward. However, I would appreciate the same latitude that was accorded to my colleagues who spoke earlier. I do that because I appreciate that they feel it is a serious matter.
I want to preface my remarks by welcoming the House back. I know that members have had an active summer and are anxious to get back to the business of government. We, as you know, Mr. Speaker, wanted to start off today with debate on the bill to establish the Ministry of Forestry. We informed the opposition of this two weeks ago and our speakers are ready. I am not sure whether this is a delaying tactic because their speakers are not ready, but ours are ready, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 25, 1989


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister tells us he is ready to debate the bill.


John Napier Turner: So what!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: So what! We have before us a question of privilege, a question of contempt of the House. I think it has precedence over the minister's disposition to debate a bill. We are ready, too, to debate any bill he brings forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is always nice to know when you have struck a nerve, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help but notice that that brought my friend to his feet. I regret the delay just as he does and his members who want to debate this very important bill on the ministry of forestry act. I appreciate that as Whip he has brought his members back and they are now cooling their heels.
I cannot help but in opening my remarks refer to the fact that my hon. colleague, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, made liberal reference to Mr. Diefen-baker. There is one other quote that he should remember. Mr. Diefenbaker said: "When you are hunting bear you shouldn't be distracted by the rabbit tracks". I think what we are seeing here today is two parties distracted by the rabbit tracks, because the essence of the GST debate should be handled elsewhere.
I think it is fair to say that the replacement of the present federal sales tax with the goods and services tax is a fundamental change in the way sales taxes are applied in Canada. We appreciate that. We felt it was our job and our responsibility as a government to see that all individual Canadians, whether they are employers or employees, understand the changes that we are proposing.
When one places ads one always wants to know that they are being read. I appreciate the publicity that my hon. colleagues have given this issue by referring to the ads that were placed across Canada. We are pleased that they have had that impact on the Canadian people and on my colleagues in opposition.
Reading the text of the ads has never been a great strength of my colleagues opposite. So if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out one thing. I do not want to read the entire ad. I could go on to say that it is a major program to reduce the deficit. I could say that it will strengthen our international competitiveness, but
Privilege
what I would like to focus on are the words "proposed changes".


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the comments of my hon. friend and I listened with interest. I just want to bring to his attention that it says in the headlines that the federal sales tax system "will" change. There is no proposed. There is no maybe. There is no likely. It is "will". It is very clear.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend only reads the left side of any newspaper. This is on the right side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Minister would read the article or text we are talking about, I may remind him that Citation 83 of Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, reads as follows:
Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the
article in question must be submitted and read at the Table.
It makes no difference to us whether the Minister wants to read the right side or the left side of the ad. If he doesn't want to read it, he should ask the clerk to do it for him. We read the ad, and we say it is unparliamentary and undemocratic.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: While my hon. friend was out rounding up his critics on the forestry act, his leader made liberal reference to the advertisement in question. I was just picking a point out that perhaps my hon. friend had missed.
I think that what we have here is an effort by the government to inform Canadians about proposed changes. It has resulted in a great number of calls from interested Canadians, many of whom I understand are supportive of the act and the suggestion. We have had a flood of requests for overview documents and technical papers, and I know that right now the department is anticipating another flood of requests for information as a result of the fact that this has been raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
There is a bit of a contradiction here. My hon. friend says on the one hand: "You should not distribute material, you should not advertise it is available for distribution", and at the same time members of the committee last week were calling for further debate and further hearings. You cannot have it both ways. He either wants full and open hearings with full and open

September 25, 1989
Privilege
advertisements as to proposed changes or he does not. What we have to do is decide that.
In the interest of exposing this issue to the House and enabling you, Sir, to make your decision, I would point out that on March 16, 1988 there was a report of the finance committee which recommended unanimously that if the government were to proceed with a value added tax it should publicize the details of that tax and the relevant social policy transfers.
It is hard to say who was the finance critic for the Liberal Party at that time, just as it is today. In any event, that committee when it reported said to publicize the details, so we are taking that unanimous recommendation and we are publicizing the details. I think that is in the interest of what we are trying to do.
Great comment has been made here today that the House has never made any decision on whether or not to go ahead with the goods and services tax. I realize that the opposition was distracted last spring. Last spring we brought in a budget and the opposition was distracted for about six weeks or eight weeks. How long was it? They completely missed the fact that in that budget there was a goods and services tax. I am sorry that they missed that. The quotes in there are: "These measures will be replaced by the new sales tax to be implemented on January 1, 1991".
I would also refer my hon. friend to the fact that on May 15 of this year the House approved in general, and I quote, "the budgetary policy of the government". The goods and services tax is included in the budgetary policy of the government and therefore has been approved by the House.
I know that my friends will not be persuaded by that political argument, so let me move quickly to the procedural argument. This is a political argument and I do not have any difficulty with that. We will make the political argument. We are making it in committee, we are making it in the House, and we are making it in the country. Let us look at what the well-known experts say about parliamentary privilege, and I shall read from Erskine May, page 143, where it states:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The committee is sitting. The debate is going on. Nobody is impeded. Nobody yet in this debate has suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, they are impeded from doing what they should do as members of parliament.
The same point is made also in Abraham and Hawtrey on page 80. It has to impede the member and the member's abilities.
Let us talk about advertisements. We are fortunate in this to be able to produce some comments from a well-known Canadian presently listed as a three to two favourite, the Hon. Jean Chretien. I know that members of the House who are at five to one, ten to one, and twenty-five to one, the hon. members for Hamilton East and Gloucester, will be interested in these comments. This is not post time. Post time is on a weekend in June, but that is where they are.
Let us deal with what Mr. Chretien said. He said that it was the goal that the House of Commons was pursuing at that time in order to have constitutional reform come quickly and effectively to Canada. He said: "I do not think that the privileges of the members have been affected". He is referring, of course, to an advertising campaign put on at the time by the government of the day to promote constitutional reform just as we are promoting tax reform. That was defended vigorously- and I notice he stepped out for a minute-by the present member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold. He said, and these are great words: "There is a need to achieve understanding of Canada's evolution, the integrity of the federal system of the Government." This is on page 16839 for my colleagues who will want to read those citations in full. I have other citations, but I want to close.
My colleagues made great reference to the arguments that we made in opposition. I want to close with the ruling of the Speaker of the day. Let us get to the issue of advertising in advance of a parliamentary decision was
September 25, 1989

decided. What is the precedent that the House is looking to? What is the precedent, Sir, that you will look to in making your decision?
Let us look at the precedent at page 3780 on October 17, 1980 of Hansard. Madam Speaker said:
On Thursday last the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a question of privilege, the gist of which is set out in his proposed motion where he asked:
That the matter of the financing of public advertising campaigns at taxpayers expense on behalf of a partisan policy or opinion, before such policy or opinion has been approved by the House of Commons, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The Speaker dealt with it in a very well reasoned judgment. I remember thinking so at the time. She said in brief that the issue is whether that allegation of using public funds to publicize a matter is a breach of privilege, prima facie I might add. She commented that the privileges of Members are: freedom of speech in the House and the right to attend their parliamentary work without being subject to subpoenas to be a witness in other arenas, without being called for jury duty, without being subject to civil arrest.
She said:
In addition, the House itself has the power to provide for its own constitution, its own procedure, to discipline its members and to punish for contempt.
Those are the privileges that my hon. friends claim are breached. They are certainly attending their parliamentary work. They are at committee. They are here in the House. Life goes on. We tried to get the forestry act on but we were impeded. I guess if there is anybody being impeded it is the members who support a department of forestry. Those are the people who are being impeded. Those people who depend on the forestry economy are being impeded, not the members here.
The Speaker concluded:
The spending of public money cannot be the issue, but when a person or government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case. However, the inference must be such that the member or the House is truly hindered or intimidated.
I say this to my friends opposite. None of them are intimidated. None of them are hindered. They are all here.


John Edward Broadbent: I am.
Privilege


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The hon. member for Oshawa is intimidated. Nonsense. There have been things a lot more intimidating than this.
This is public debate and I close by submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no prima facie case of privilege. The ads were for proposed changes. They were for informational purposes. In fact they have done their job and we have hundreds and thousands of requests for information. We are trying to inform the people. As a result they are going to the finance committee. There is debate at committee. There is debate in the country. That is what we wanted.
This is no quickie through the night. This is reasoned debate and information. I say to you that that is where the debate should take place. It should take place at committee, in the country and in the House of Commons when the bill comes forward, but not under the guise of a prima facie case of privilege, which it clearly is not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation this House is asked to consider is important, but even more important is the very concept of the House itself and its ability to do its duty in a free, fair and untrammelled manner. I say this not simply in conjunction with its debates but in terms of the interaction between the members of this House and the people of Canada.
I think it very wrong for the government through the Minister of Justice not to recognize that when members of this House raise a question of privilege they are not impeding in any way its process but are making sure this process can operate in the most fundamental and beneficent sense in terms of the interests of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This House cannot function if its privileges are not respected. This House cannot function if the government of the day treats it with contempt as we submit it has done by putting these misleading and inaccurate advertisements in newspapers across this country.
The Minister of Justice came here crying crocodile tears about the fact that in an effort to preserve the foundations of our parliamentary system we are raising this question of privilege and asking you to rule as to whether there is a prima facie question of privilege

Privilege
before we get on today to the matter of the setting up of a department of forestry.
The Minister of Justice said that he had told us in our House Leaders' meeting two weeks ago that this bill on forestry was to be the first item of business called. I want to remind the Minister of Justice and this House that well before that, on August 28, we gave formal notice in writing to you, Sir, that we intended to raise a question of privilege about the advertisements that the Department of Finance put in a number of Canadian newspapers on August 26, 1989.
The Minister of Justice talks about the well-known saying of the late Mr. Diefenbaker with reference to distraction by rabbit tracks. I say that when one looks at the flimsy and superficial argument offered by the Minister of Justice he is really giving rabbits and their tracks a bad name.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice, in a desperate attempt to find some hook on which to place its justification for the ads in question, says: "Let's take a look at the ads". He notes that in very small print in one spot the word "proposed" occurs. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at the advertisement as a whole and the over-all impression conveyed and I think intended to be conveyed by the advertisement.
One of your distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker, has already been quoted here. Madam Speaker Sauve in her ruling of October 17, 1980 said, and I want to quote this again:
The fact that certain members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege unless such advertisements themselves constitute a contempt of the House, and to do so there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House -
Madam Sauve, a few weeks later, on October 29,1980, giving a ruling on a related question said:
My role is to interpret the extracts of the document in question, not
in terms of their substance, but to find whether on their face they
represent such a distorted interpretation of the events or remarks of
our proceedings that they obviously attract the characterization of
false.
It does no good for the Minister of Justice to desperately dredge out from the bowels of this ad, buried somewhere in it, the word "proposed". When one looks at the ad on its face one is drawn irresistibly to the conclusion that it is false in the sense referred to by Madam Speaker Sauve.
Now we look at the ad itself. It covered two full pages in the newspapers and on one page we found only these words: "On January 1, 1991 Canada's federal sales tax system will change. Please Save This Notice." Then the ad on the same page goes on to say: "It explains the changes and the reasons for them".
It does not say it explains the proposed changes. It does not say we are giving you some ideas to help you come before the finance committee. It says in effect: "This is it. Do not bother expressing your opinion. This is the message. Do not bother expressing your opinion to the finance committee. Do not bother expressing your opinion to your members of parliament". Canada's federal sales tax system, the ad says, will change. It explains the changes and the reasons for them and says: "Please Save This Notice".
I do not think it helps the government in any way to have been able to find the word proposed, as I have said, buried in the bowels of this ad, this abomination of an ad. I do not think it helps the government at all to say that a parliamentary committee two years ago, or a year and a half ago-anyway before the last election-talked about the goods and services tax because there is nothing in this ad on its face or in its substance that says its purpose is to tell people about the parliamentary committee report.
I do not think it helps the Minister of Justice to say that the government presented a budgetary statement to this House which made some reference to a new sales tax. It does not help the government to say that this House, or rather the Conservative majority in it, adopted a motion approving the budget in general terms because the budget statement in question did not contain the information purported to be conveyed by the advertisements in question.
For all anybody could know from reading the budget statement, what was going to eventually come forward would have been a 1 per cent tax on caviare or a 2 per cent tax on stock exchange transactions. Because every time we asked the government what was going to be in
September 25, 1989

this tax, because we said we could not get any information about it from the budget statement, the Minister of Finance said: "Well, you will just have to wait for the technical paper, wait for the technical paper", which did not come out until months after the budget statement was presented, after the House was adjourned for the summer.
I respectfully submit that it is not an answer to the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition today to say that there was some reference to a new sales tax in the budget statement, because the details of the government's tax which were contained in the ad we are talking about today were not in the budget statement.
On the contrary, the government went out of its way to write its budget statement in a form which hid the full, devious, unfair and harmful intentions it had about its new goods and services tax.
The fact there is a budget statement and it was approved by the Conservative majority in this house is not in any way an answer to our concern that this advertisement is a contempt of the House, because on its face it is false in that it conveys to the public the idea that a decision has been made which is final and irrevocable and all that people are now supposed to do is save the ad so they will be able to know the awful fate in store for them through the Conservatives' goods and services tax.
I might say that the government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, at one point in his remarks the Minister of Justice was saying this ad was simply designed to tell people about the report of the finance committee in 1988. In the next breath he says: "Wait a minute, I am not certain about that. What I am really trying to say is that this ad tells people what was in the budget". He cannot have it both ways. The fact is it does neither. It is intended to convey on its face, by people who obviously knew what they were doing, that there had been a final decision which the people of Canada would have to submit to.
It might be asked whether the people of Canada, in reading this advertisement, understood that it was conveying the impression there was a final decision which involved this House of Commons. I am not suggesting that every Canadian is an expert in parliamentary proce-
Privilege
dure, but I am sure that Canadians generally, if we asked them how a tax like this comes into effect, would say this happens because the House of Commons votes in favour of it.
Therefore, when this advertisement in question says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1,1991, and that is it, the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly a contempt of parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House in this matter at the time the ad was presented and even today as we speak.
We know that at the time the advertisement was presented no bill for adopting this tax had been approved by the House. No bill for that purpose had been even given first reading. In fact, in the technical paper that appeared a few weeks before the ad, the Minister said the bill had not even been drafted yet. There was not even a Ways and Means motion which, if adopted, might have given some foundation for an ad of this type, but even that had not happened. I submit what we have here is a case that falls squarely within the principle enunciated by Madam Sauve. We have in this ad a misrepresentation of the role of this house.
Next we ask: Was this purposeful, was this intended? We are not dealing here with an offhand comment made by a minister facing a group of reporters in a scrum outside this House after Question Period. We are not dealing with an offhand comment by a minister in a quick radio or television interview. We are dealing with what is obviously a very fully thought through and deliberate act by people who are in many ways the elite of the Public Service of Canada, the officials of the Department of Finance acting on behalf of one of the senior ministers, the Minister of Finance, and therefore on behalf of the entire Government of Canada.
An advertisement of this type does not slip out without thought and reflection. It is not an accident. On its face it is a purposeful and deliberate act. Clearly, what we are talking about is the situation contemplated by Madam Sauve when she laid down her very useful principles with

September 25, 1989
Privilege
respect to what, when it comes to an advertisement, would constitute a contempt of this House.
I want to deal with one other point. The Minister of Justice attempted to enumerate what constitutes the privileges of this House. He said, "Well, nobody has suggested yet that anything involving this advertisement affects one of these enumerated privileges".
We are dealing with something more serious and more profound than what is ordinarily considered under the heading of privilege. We are dealing with the matter of contempt, contempt of this House. It is true that when one asks the Speaker to deal with the issue of a contempt of this House it is raised through the vehicle of a question of privilege, but contempt is not exactly the same thing as the privileges of this House. It is something that goes further. It is more profound. It is more substantial. To quote Madam Speaker Sauve in her ruling of October 29 she said:
I can assure all hon. members that the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of members or of the House.
This is precisely for the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is totally irrelevant for the Minister of Justice to enumerate what has commonly been defined as being among the privileges of this House because we are dealing with something, as I have said, more broad, more profound, and which is not required to fit into existing definitions of privilege that is the matter of the contempt of this House.
Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that while on the one hand what we are talking about here-this abomination of an advertisement that appeared in newspapers across Canada last August-falls within what Madam Speaker Sauve has said would constitute a contempt of this House, it is also open to you-and I invite you to do so-to look at this advertisement and the arguments made about what is wrong with it and find that it is a contempt of this House because it is within your power to define, in terms of new situations and new circumstances, what constitutes a contempt.
I stress, Mr. Speaker, that if you would prefer to deal with this on the basis of precedent in terms of previous rulings, then you have that opportunity clearly in terms of the language of Madam Speaker Sauve. What we have here in this advertisement is something which is false on its face in terms of of what purports to be a report of the proceedings of the House of Commons or representation of what members have done. I repeat, the only way that the statement on the face of this ad, which reads: "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change, please save this notice"-it explains the changes and the reasons for them-the only way it could have meaning is if it is intended to convey the idea that this House has acted in a way which would make the changes in the ad possible, and we know this has not happened. Therefore I predict that if this government has the interests of this country at heart and listens to the Liberals and to the New Democrats, but above all listens to the people of Canada, these changes will not take place and in fact they must not take place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to assist members by indicating that I have been listening very closely. As the members will notice, I have been taking notes. I think I have the arguments. The Hon. Member for Kamloops is rising. I will hear him briefly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do have some brief comments to make, to add to points already put forward by members of the opposition and the hon. member from Oshawa.
I want to begin by suggesting that what we see before us when we refer to the advertisement that is being discussed here today, is something that I think we must also recognize as being libellous and defamatory against the House of Commons and against the members of the House.
When a government department does not accept a decision made by Parliament, the ultimate form, if you like, in our decision-making, the question is: Does it have a right, then, at the urging of their minister, to use taxpayers' money to challenge the decision of Parliament? I will use an example. If the Minister of Justice did not support or would not accept the decision made by the House of Commons on the decision of reproductive technology, would he feel it appropriate, then, to use taxpayers' money in his department to take out full page
September 25, 1989

ads condemning the House of Commons, condemning the decision made by the duly elected members in the House?
I think we would agree as parliamentarians that that would not be appropriate. It would not be an appropriate use of the authority given to the minister. It would not be an appropriate use of taxpayers' funds allotted to that department. Have we not had exactly the same situation occur here? The ad in itself, as others have pointed out, indicates that there will be a tax change. There is no question about that, if you look at the ad.
Recognizing that this ad was taken out by the Department of Finance, presumably with the authorization of the Minister of Finance, it points out a number of items. It points out that the federal sales tax has been pushed beyond its limits. Therein lies the criticism, that, presumably, this ad is suggesting that the House of Commons, in its wisdom, in terms of amending the tax legislation, has increased the tax system, in this case the federal manufacturers' tax, to such an extent that it has been pushed beyond its limits, that it becomes meaningless, that it is not functioning appropriately. Is that, then, not a question about the decision-making of this House? While we in the House would disagree, when the decision is made, when the vote is taken, and time after time when the government has increased the manufacturers' sales tax- and since 1984, it has increased it four and a half percentage points to 13.5 per cent-that was, whether we in the opposition liked that initiative or not, a decision of this House.
Here we have the Minister of Finance criticizing that decision. We have the Minister of Finance, as a result of this ad with the support of the Finance Department, saying that that decision was wrong-headed, that that decision was a bad one, an inappropriate decision.
We go on in this advertisement. It comments on the tax system as being structurally weak. The House of Commons, over the years, has determined what kind of tax system we have. Is it the right, then, of the Minister of Finance, after he or she has been a part of that decision-making, to condemn the decisions taken by that government, by using taxpayers' money in terms of a propaganda machine to achieve another agenda item.
Privilege
He goes on in this advertisement to suggest that the tax system is unpredictable and unreliable. Again, what he is doing is criticizing the decisions of his government. He is criticizing the decisions taken by this House. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that while many of us may agree that the decision itself was that this is the tax system we have, here we have the Minister of Finance condemning the decisions of the House of Commons, and using taxpayers' money on top of that.
I think we all agree that if a particular political party wishes to launch an advertising campaign to promote a certain idea, they have a right to do that. I think it is perfectly clear, if the Conservative Party of Canada, who presumably wanted to introduce this tax, and if that is part of their political agenda, then they should be using party funds to promote this idea. But that did not occur, Mr. Speaker. That is why we believe that there has been an act towards contempt of this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: In a previous decision on this matter Speaker Sauve in her explanation of her decision pointed out that for her to find a prima facie case of privilege it would only exist if there was a publication of false material. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that that has been the case, on two counts.
First, it is impossible at this point for the government to say that there will be a tax change. The government has no right to suggest that until the documentation has been properly introduced in the House of Commons. I want to refer specifically to some items that have not yet been introduced.
We recognize that our fundamental right as a House is to grant money and to impose taxes. This right, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, is the prize of centuries of struggle and even wars against monarchs and governors. In Canada, this important democratic right and privilege has been cemented right into our Constitution. The Constitutional Act of 1867 reads under section 53:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for
imposing any Taxor Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

September 25, 1989
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, when it says "originate in the House of Commons", it does not mean originate in a government advertisement using taxpayers' money to suggest that there will be a different tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the next section of the Constitution is also relevant to this discussion. This is a balance, if you like, which ensures that the House does not grant or tax without recommendations of the Crown. Again, I quote from section 54 of the act:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tkx or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
As previous speakers have indicated, the Governor General has not recommended to this House that such an initiative be taken. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, ought to encourage you to recognize we have sufficient evidence for a prima jade case of privilege. I do want to suggest that we are not asking you to decide if the matter that is raised before us ought to go to the committee for consideration. We are simply asking you to determine whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence about the question to permit a motion to go before this House so that the House of Commons can decide whether or not this item should go to the appropriate committee. I think it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker; we are simply asking for the opportunity to have the question placed before the House.
When one goes on and looks at the precedents before us, I want to simply draw to your attention Standing Order 80 as it presently reads. It states that:
(1) All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants which are not alterable by the Senate.
Again, this has not been done. The House Leader for the government indicated that it had been indicated in the House that this would be an intention of the government as a result of a finance committee report. We all remember well the contents of that report and the recommendation. The recommendation was simply if
the government proceeds with a consumption tax of some sort that it should make every effort to inform the public as to its implications. There was no mention that this is a 9 per cent tax; no suggestion that it would be a multi-level tax; no suggestion that there would be rebates and exemptions. I think we have to simply clarify the point that the government House Leader made in his argument.
Clearly, the House has not received any Royal Recommendation that such a goods and service tax be imposed. I think that is fundamental, Mr. Speaker. For years and years the tradition of this House has been that no initiative would be taken unless a Royal Recommendation was received in advance, and such has not occurred.
I want to quote a recent parliamentary counsel who wrote the following, "When by some act or word a person disobeys, or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt by the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be".
On two counts, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Finance had no authorization by which to proceed with this advertisement suggesting to Canadians that on January 1, 1991, a federal sales tax system will change. There is no authorization, again, because of the lack of any royal initiative.
Second, the Minister of Finance was acting in contempt of Parliament, again, for suggesting that there were all sorts of problems associated with the existing federal manufacturers' tax, when it was in fact his Government that is responsible for the nature of that tax as it is today. In a sense, it was the Minister and his officials publicly condemning outside the House of Commons actions and decisions taken by this House. For that reason I believe that we do have a prima facie case of privilege before us. If you would find that to be the case, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in an earlier letter to you, it would also be my intention to move the appropriate motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to reiterate that the Chair has been listening very carefully, and I think I probably have most of the points.
September 25, 1989

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has a brief matter which I am prepared to hear, and then I will hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate this morning, and I would now like to explain very briefly why this ad, published at great expense in newspapers across the country, in English and in French, is open to a very specific interpretation, at least in the French version.
I want to go back to the text of the ad which appeared in the newspapers on August 26 this year. In French, it reads as follows: "Le ler janvier 1991, le regime de la taxe federate de vente connaitra des modifications. Veuillez conserver cet avis" So far, I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and others said what needed to be said. However, the ad goes on to read as follows: ''II explique les modifications apportees et les raisons qui ypresident
In the French text, the word "apportees" indicates that the changes were made, were adopted. That is not the case in the English text.

It explains the changes made. We do not say that in English. We say that it explains the changes and the reasons for them. But in French, Mr. Speaker, it says the changes "made". It seems to me a very clear point of intent. If that is true, then it changes the whole dynamics of how one speaks to Canadians in one's language.
I will send you the appropriate text, Mr. Speaker. I think you have the French text, but I will send it to you.

Mr. Speaker, I could mention Maingot's comments on contempt and privilege. I think Hon. Members already heard my leader and my parliamentary House Leader speak with considerable eloquence on the subject. My point is simply that this Government cannot use its majority to make Canadians believe that they and they alone can change taxes in Canada. Parliament, Mr. Speaker, has that authority. I maintain it is a violation of
Privilege
the privileges of Parliament, of this House of every single Member, both on the Government and on the Opposition side, to have paid the princely sum of $800,000 for a newspaper advertisement which says: The changes in the Income Tax Act have now been made. Make way for the 9 per cent tax!
Mr. Speaker, my Leader in the House reminds me that both languages, both in this advertisement and according to our custom here in the House, are equally valid. If I look at the French text, it is clear we have no choice: The die is cast. The tax will become effective on January 1, 1991, come hell or high water. Mr. Speaker, I object to this practice, and I am absolutely against an interpretation that is not reflected in the other language.In fact,only one message should be given here, and that is a message from the House to Canadians who are listening, a message which I think must be clear. The Government has violated the privileges of this House by going to great expense to place an ad that is false and inaccurate and conveys a message that is entirely incorrect.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated to the House that I think I have probably heard sufficient argument. If the hon. member is rising because he feels that there is some point that has not been touched upon, I will hear him very briefly, but I think we should move on.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will respect your clarification at the beginning as to just what we are debating. It is not the content of the tax bill, but just the contempt of Parliament.
I rise to add something that has not been stated in this debate. Prior to making your decision, Mr. Speaker, I request that you or your staff walk across from your office to the parliamentary reading room. You will see that the same ad has been put in all of the major ethnocultural newspapers in Canada. I just had an opportunity to look briefly yesterday at the same ad given in the Novy Domov, the Czechoslovak bi-weekly; the Zwjaz Kowiec, the Polish bi-weekly; Meie Elu, Our Life, the Estonian weekly; Latvije-Amerika; Kanadsky-Slovek, the Canadian-Slovakn; Homin Ukrainy, the Ukrainian Echo; the Teviskes Ziburiai, the Lithuanian weekly; the

September 25, 1989
Privilege
Corriere Canadese. These are just a few that I looked at. The same ad appeared in all of these major ethnocultural newspapers across Canada.
When Canadians who subscribe to these newspapers see an ad from the government, they believe it is fact, that it is already legislation. And it is not. If the ad would at least read, "federal sales tax system may change" or "the government is proposing changes", I would accept it. I would have no argument. But the ad said: "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change." And because it will change, "Please save this notice." And this ad explains the changes and the reasons for them.
Why are we wasting all the money sending a parliamentary standing committee across Canada? Why are we getting our salaries here? Why are we going through this fiasco, Mr. Speaker? Let us respect authority, the authority of this House of Commons which the government has lost. It has lost all respect for the authority of Parliament. That is exactly what we are debating. That is exactly what I would like you to add to your decision because I know, Mr. Speaker, you are going to be looking for precedents. You may not find any.
No other government in the history of Canada would dare pull such a stunt when they are bringing about a major tax change in this country. It is a heavy burden on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker. You may be the one who may have to set a precedent to protect the authority of Parliament; to protect my individual privilege and work as a member. The hon. House Leader said we are free; our privileges as members have not been affected. Yes, my privilege has been affected. Sixty per cent of my constituents are Canadians who read these newspapers. They are saying, "Mr. Flis, we thought we elected you to parliament". They are saying, "But decisions have already been made. Why did we send you there?"
So, yes, my privileges as an individual member have also been denied and tampered with. But the major debate here-and it is a very heavy burden we have place on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I am adding this additional information-is that we must protect the authority of the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will need to take more than just a couple of minutes to make a couple of points that I think are important. I do
not want to get involved with much of the debate that has gone on because I think it is largely political in nature and dealing to a certain degree with the substance rather than with the question of privilege that is before us.
The point I want to make is this. First, the opposition seems to have tried to make a case of the distinction between a case of privilege and a case of contempt. I want to deal with that very quickly because I think it is important that we look at that.
First of all, the question that is before the Chair at this point really is, very essentially: Have the privileges of this House or an individual Member been tampered with? If we look at Erskine May, at the beginning of Chapter 5 it states, "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers".
The question we have to ask ourselves is: Does this advertisement in any way infringe upon Parliament's absolutely necessary powers? No, I think it is very obvious that that has not happened.
Secondly, it states, "They are enjoyed by individual Members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members".
Are the Members in any way impeded from appearing in the House or in committee? Obviously, they are not. So the definition of privilege has obviously not been met in any way by the presentation that has been made by either of the opposition parties today.
But let us look at the question of contempt. According to Abraham and Hawtrey's definitions, the parliamentary dictionary, we see it states on page 80:
Contempt of either House of Parliament-Any act or omission which either directly obstructs the due proceeding of that House or has a tendency to produce that effect by bringing its authority into contempt, e.g. the publication of reflections on the character or conduct of a member in his capacity as a member.
Whether they guise it in the words "privilege" or "contempt", the bottom line is that nothing has been done in these advertisements that would in any way directly or indirectly obstruct the due proceedings of this House. It is obvious-we are doing it today. A committee of the House of Commons continues to look into the subject. The process is ongoing. It has not in any way been impacted by those advertisements. So it is very
September 25, 1989

clear that in fact we have neither a contempt nor a case of privilege.
Finally, I want to say this. I think Madam Sauve's ruling on a case very similar to this is in fact very pointed. I would like to refer to one quotation at page 3781 of Hansard. She said:
Rather, the advertising referred to by Members seems to deal with the issue of the constitution rather than the proceedings of the House.
We could take exactly the same words here, changing one. Rather, the advertising referred to by members seems to deal with the issue of the GST, as opposed to Constitution, rather than the proceedings of the House. In other words, Madam Sauve found that the issue that she was dealing with at that time was not a contempt, was not a privilege; and, of course, we are in exactly the same situation today. Our proceedings continue whether they be here in the House of Commons or whether they be in committee. Our individual Members have not in any way been hampered or tampered with or intimidated in any way to prevent them from participating in this debate. The debate continues today. The debate will continue for some time to come, and the House will come to its decision. There is in no way either a privilege or a contempt. I think Madam Sauve's ruling applies very specifically.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the closing of CFB Summerside is one of the most callous moves that the Conservative govemment has ever made. It is devastating Summerside and, indeed, the economy of Prince Edward Island.
I had an opportunity first hand on Friday to visit the town council and the people of Summerside and found jobs are disappearing; homes, savings, tax base, merchants, and young people, will all disappear from Summerside and leave Prince Edward Island.
The Prime Minister's refusal to consider other military uses for CFB Summerside displays an astounding disregard for the people of Prince Edward Island. Summer-side is not a "bullets and bombs" operation. It protects our country's sovereignty: surveillance of overfishing, surveillance of environmental danger, surveillance of the importation of drugs.
Premier Ghiz and the citizens of Summerside are working to find an alternative use for the base. I urge the Prime Minister of Canada, just for once, to stop and listen to the people of Summerside. Let us give them some help.


FINANCE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the greatest challenge faced by Canada today is the annual deficit and the accumulated national debt. Balancing the books needs exactly that, a balance. Our nation needs to balance incoming revenues with outgoing expenditures.
Many Canadians in my riding of Macleod tell me that we need to go further on both accounts. They say we need to balance the proposed GST with the kind of spending restraint started by this government.
The following are a few examples of recent achievements: selling off 18 Crown corporations raised more than $3 billion; new or increased user fees recover some $300 million annually; and cuts in spending for defence, the CBC, VIA Rail, FBDB and other programs, grants and contributions will save billions.
No one likes taxes, no one likes cutting services, but friends and colleagues, Canadians with common sense know that Mike is right.

September 25, 1989
5. O. 31 VIAL RAIL


REDUCTION OF SERVICES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance announced the five-year $1.2 billion cut to the operating budget of VIA Rail, Canadians have strenuously expressed their opposition to any reduction of VIA Rail services.
To date, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have received, been made aware of, or will shortly receive over 300,000 cards, letters, and signatures on petitions of Canadians who support VIA Rail. These are just the ones we know about.
My colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, and I have also received notice from over 300 municipalities that have passed motions supporting VIA Rail. Many of these motions have been passed unanimously, showing the depth of support Canadians have for VIA Rail.
In light of this massive outpouring of support for VIA Rail, I call on the Minister of Transport to recommend to cabinet that support for VIA Rail not be cut and, in fact, assistance to VIA Rail be raised to a level suitable to bring VIA Rail into the 21st century.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, the new fall season on television has produced one genuine surprise for Canadians. CBC's all-news channel, Newsworld, has been up and running, occasionally stumbling, since July 31, but one can only marvel at how professionally a staff of 190 people has mounted an ongoing newscast from Newfoundland and Labrador to the west coast and, next month, Yellowknife.
Despite technical growing pains, Newsworld is providing national programming done by the regions, from the regions, and that is certainly a change from the southern Ontario based networks.
The viewer is electronically whisked across several time zones for live coverage of inquiries into the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland, the Dryden air crash in Thunder Bay, Ontario, to the tragic J. J. Harper slaying in Winnipeg, to the Pattie Starr scandal in
Toronto, and, of course, to this place, Mr. Speaker. It is happening now, it is exciting, and it is addictive.
Newsworld is showing Canada to Canadians, and as a former private broadcaster I am proud to salute the CBC for this truly national service.


FINANCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago some 100 small business people in the city of Windsor, Ontario, got together and of their own accord paid for a full-page ad in the Windsor Star opposing the Conservative government's goods and services tax. The ad had coupons in it which people could send to the government in the form of petitions. These coupons read: "Mr. Wilson, we the undersigned are strongly opposed to your new 9 per cent goods and services tax. Stop Wilson's added tax. Where will the taxes end?"
I received, to deliver to Mr. Wilson, in the course of only three or four days, some 2,400 coupons, as did my colleague, the member for Windsor-St. Clair. Unfortunately they are not in a form that could be tabled in the House as petitions. However, I ask the government to treat them as such petitions and to respond to them favourably. I will be delivering them to the Minister of Finance and I ask the Minister of Finance and the Government to listen to these voices of the Canadian people, listen to these voices of Windsor and Canada, and withdraw this tax before it does irreparable damage to this country.


ABORTION
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Elk Island, and indeed across this country, Canadians have expressed a view that Canada must have a law that restricts abortion. It is our obligation as members in this parliament to take a common sense approach in dealing with the abortion question.
In order to pass in this House of Commons a successful abortion law must include two fundamental elements: Number one, a genuine concern for the health of
September 25, 1989

Canadian women and, number two, protection for unborn children.
Canadians from sea to sea demand an abortion law. Canadians will accept nothing less than a law that significantly reduces the number of abortions performed in Canada.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the House's attention another sell-out by the Conservative government in its inadequacy in dealing with the resources of Canada.
In the federal government's attempt to protect west coast fisheries it made a ruling that all salmon and herring would have to be landed in British Columbia, inspected and then sold. GATT opposed that agreement. We lost at GATT, and what did the federal Government do? Instead of going back to GATT, it went to the free trade panel and said that this will be solved there as promised by the Prime Minister.
We know now that we have lost again. This government has sold out British Columbians. This government has sold out Canadians. Our fishing industry is threatened and they are gutless to do a single thing about it. Scrap the free trade agreement. Save Canadian jobs. That is what needs to be done.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my feelings of revolt and sadness concerning the remarks made recently by a Member of the Opposition who criticized a fellow Canadian running in an election and called him a black man just released from a psychiatric hospital.
I feel personally involved because my husband and children are of Haitian origin, therefore black. The black community of this country-4 per cent of all Canadians-and all Canadians have been insulted and humiliated by the irresponsible remarks of the Hon. Member about Mr. Jean Alfred.
By remaining quiet and silent about such undignified behaviour, do Members of the Liberal Party of Canada not endorse this statement?
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge the Leader of the Liberal Party to repudiate immediately in this House the racist statement of one of his colleagues.


FINANCE
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, "While a balanced federal budget is desirable, what good is a balanced budget to the next generation if they inherit a dead planet?" These are the words of Mark Cullen to the Minister of Finance on behalf of
3,000	concerned Canadians.
We ask you: Does it make sense, considering that all the oxygen we breathe is produced by green, living plants, that landscape plants and indoor plants will be taxed at the same 9 per cent rate as many pollution producing products? Does it make sense that the home composters will be taxed, while it is proven that home composting can reduce residential curbside garbage by 30 per cent?
Does it make sense that a head of lettuce from California will be tax-free at the supermarket, while Canadian produced lettuce seeds and transplants will be taxable?
We believe that the exemption of these and many other environmentally friendly products from the proposed federal goods and services tax is a serious oversight.
Please say no to tax on plants and encourage Canadians to take an active role in cleaning up the environment.
The undersigned have said: "please, say no to tax on plants."


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform this House about outrageous remarks made by an hon. member when he referred to a fellow

September 25, 1989
Canadian as a noiraud qui revient de I'hopital psychiatri-que.
It is simply not acceptable to sink to this level of personal attack on a man seeking elected office and it is not acceptable to refer to any Canadian in this cruel manner. This is the language of apartheid and of fear and ignorance. This is the language we might expect from other elements of society, not from a man to whom Canadian people have given their trust.
We in the Conservative party are serious about combating racism. Let us see whether the members opposite are serious about eradicating it as well, wherever it is found. Let us see whether the Liberal Party has the courage to stand for human dignity, or whether it encourages such excesses.
We as parliamentarians have to stand up and be counted. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to take strong measures and remove the member for Hull-Aylmer from his caucus responsibilities.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Government of Canada to provide a real commitment to the Cape Breton Development Corporation and in particular its operations in New Waterford, namely, the Lingan Mine.
Some months ago the Government of Canada entered negotiations with the province of Nova Scotia to provide moneys to a Pictou county coal mine. I am informed that these negotiations have progressed to the point whereby the Government of Canada will be providing money to that particular operation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation will be in direct competition with this particular facility. As a result, 275 jobs will be lost at the Lingan Mine in New Waterford, Nova Scotia.
The municipal council of the town of New Waterford and all of its citizens, as well as the local MLAs and the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, have come out in support of the longevity for the Lingan Coal Mine.
I ask that the Government of Canada, through the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, provides a clear and unequivocal commitment to the Cape Breton Development Corporation but, more important, to the Lingan Mine, its viability, and the protection of some 1,200 jobs in a small mining town in Canada, namely, New Waterford. I seek that commitment today .


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues from southwestern Ontario, I rise at this time to remind the Minister of Transport and our cabinet colleagues of the particular importance of local passenger rail service for our area.
On a number of occasions our message to the minister and the cabinet has been clear and concise. Passenger rail service is very important to our area and must continue to be a component of the local transportation fabric. Our residents count on the train. Ridership and revenue statistics clearly reflect that people in southwestern Ontario have and will continue to use it rather than lose it.
Two other facts are equally evident. First, there are opportunities for further improvement in ridership and cost recovery through administrative and scheduling changes and fare increases. Second, the less than adequate condition of local on-road and air transportation networks preclude these from being viable alternatives for increased volume.
It is for these reasons that the particularities of southwestern Ontario should be taken into full consideration prior to any decision being made on changing the north and south lines of passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all are aware that a tidal wave of opposition is sweeping across the country against the government's proposal for a goods and services tax.

Oral Questions
For example, some of those groups include the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Organization of Small Business, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Home Builders Association, Wood Gundy, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens, the One Voice Seniors Network, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Canadian Association for Universities of Continuing Education, various groups in the reading industry, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian food industry, the Conference Board of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Institute for Policy Analysis, the Canadian Bankers' Association, an increasing number of Conservative back-benchers, and the New Democratic Party.
Not only do we oppose the tax; we have an answer: tax those individuals and corporations that are not paying their fair share of tax today.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the government has created a serious problem in my riding. There is a shortage of workers in my riding.
In the Fort Erie Times Review, the headline read: "The boom is on: employment galore". There is a tremendous demand for construction workers, for electricians, industrial personnel, hospital personnel, word processor operators, payroll clerks, technical writers, and financial managers.
To alleviate the shortage, Manpower Temporary Services is assisting seniors, UIC and welfare recipients, by teaching them new skills and upgrading old ones.
The success of these programs is evidenced by the fact that 80 per cent of the temporary positions lead to full-time work. These are the kinds of problems we need.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we commence Question Period I want to draw to Members' attention the fact that today we welcome 42 new parliamentary pages to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Again this year more than 500 young men and women from various regions of the country applied under this program. We are very lucky to have these young Canadians with us.

I know Hon. Members would want me to wish them the very best, both here and as they study at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. Merci bien.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister intends to impose the largest single new tax in Canadian history since the creation of the personal income tax. It is a new sales tax of billions upon billions upon billions of dollars.
With one tax this Prime Minister is setting a record for broken promises. He promised that the tax would be fiscally neutral. It is not. He promised the tax would be simple. It is not. He promised the tax would be involved with provincial taxation. It is not. He promised the tax would be visible on sales slips. It is not. He promised the tax would be brought in at the same time as the personal surtax was dropped. It was not. He promised the tax would be fair and he, above all, knows it is not fair.
I put to the Prime Minister, why is the Prime Minister bringing in this sales tax which is in violation of every single principle he described as being essential to tax reform?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things in the preamble to that question which are quite inaccurate. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put them individually, I would be happy to respond to them one by one. I do want to deal directly with his question. He asked why are we bringing this in?
I want to quote Mr. Wolfe Goodman, QC, who is one of the pre-eminent sales tax experts in this country, a

September 25, 1989
Oral Questions
man who was asked by the previous government, the Liberal government, to do a study on sales tax reform at the request of Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Lalonde who knew that the sales tax had to be changed.
He did refer to the technical paper that I released a month ago as "a virtuistic triumph, an extraordinary piece of work, a major contribution to Canadian tax policy". Now this gets to the point that the Hon. Member has raised. "We can only look at the existing sales tax and say it must go. It is a thorough bad tax and, in fact, the Minister of Finance is being far too moderate in his comments about it, in my view. It is a vicious tax, one that has no place in a democratic community and I am grateful that the glacier is finally beginning to move, that we are approaching an era of major sales tax reform."
That says it as eloquently as I can as to why this sales tax must go.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, any member of the House could quote from hundreds of briefs that are being amassed before the committee on finance chaired by the hon. member for Mississauga South which are unanimously against the tax that was just praised by the minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. John N. Tbmer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Prime Minister would rather stay quiet and keep some room to manoeuvre just in case he might have to get rid of his current Minister of Finance. Again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His Government is waisting millions of dollar in a publicity campaign which it intends to pay for by imposing a national sales tax: A tax on learning, a tax on illness, a tax on child education, a tax on staples and a tax on death itself.
How can the Prime Minister justify such a spurious publicity campaign before the Canadian public?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the Minister of Finance's future. He wonders
whether I intend to fire my Minister of Finance. I can tell you that the only Minister of Finance ever to be fired in this House was the Liberal Party critic who was fired by his Leader because he was essentially in favour of the policies put forward by the Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister takes the usual high road and we will try to follow his example.
Here is a Prime Minister who has raised the taxation 31 times since he was sworn into office. The total amount of personal income taxes collected by all 10 provincial governments plus the two territorial governments combined is less than the amount contemplated to be collected by the federal government under this new sales tax. It is the largest single tax grab in Canadian history, and the Prime Minister is trying to pretend to the Canadian people that it is really a tax cut.
Why does the Prime Minister not recognize that it is so flawed that it does not respond to his own criteria for fair taxation? Why does he not go back to the drawing board and begin all over again in a spirit that is fair to the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just in case there is any doubt or mystery as to why the member for Etobicoke North, the finance critic, was fired by the Leader of the Opposition-


An Hon. Member:: He quit.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You had seven or eight ministers who quit on you, too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The member says that he quit. If he quit, or if he were fired, I can say in respect to the member for Etobicoke North that he is a great loss to the Liberal party because they need sane voices in matters of finance and taxation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Last year the position of the Liberal party was this, and I quote:
In short, a single-rate value-added tax on the broadest possible base is a desirable objective-in the context of the Canadian tax and social welfare system, it can be an important source of revenue without distorting economic decisions and with rather low administration and compliance cost.
That was their position last year. That is what the Minister of Finance is attempting to do. If they were
September 25, 1989

consistent, they would be giving the Minister of Finance the same kind of support now that he obviously deserves.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER WITHDRAW HIS TAX PROJECT AND CO-OPERATE WITH THE PROVINCES
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian men and women by the thousands are against this tax as proposed by the Minister of Finance. Business people, boards of trade, small and medium-sized businesses, consumers, students, senior citizens, trade unions, everybody in Canada is concerned about the enormous consequences of this tax. My question is very simple and it is directed to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that we have two parallel tax systems, something which had not been foreseen in the report he has just mentioned and which had been approved by the Liberal Members sitting on the Finance Committee, could we have today a commitment from the Prime Minister that he will get off this terrible tax which threatens all Canadian citizens and do what he had promised to do us first place, namely, to cooperate with the provinces and set up a national sales tax in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we promised a national sales tax. He knows that that is not correct. He knows that we put in the White Paper of June 1987 three options. One of them was a national sales tax and the two other were federal only options. One of those federal only options was put forward to the Canadian people in the last budget and was amplified in the technical paper.
The hon. member asks why do we not go back to the provinces. The simple fact is that our tax, as I indicated from the comments of Mr. Goodman, is a very bad tax and there is general agreement that it must be replaced. I think that the hon. member would agree with that. He stated on August 8 that it is replacing a bad tax. I think most people understand that the manufacturers' sales tax was not a very healthy thing for the country.
The hon. member himself says that we must make a change. We must and we agree with that. The provinces do not have to make a change to their sales taxes, as I think a former politician from a province will understand
Oral Questions
because there is not the same necessity. We have to move ahead. They do not. That is why we were not able to get this federal-provincial agreement.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and every man and woman in small and medium sized business know that the goods and services tax that he has proposed creates an administrative nightmare both for the government and for business: two separate taxes applicable on two separate sets of goods in at least nine provinces of this country.
If he is not going to listen to us, I suggest the Minister has to listen to the Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce.
My question is: Will the Prime Minister order the Minister of Finance to recognize his obligation to have a fair and equitable tax system in this country that can be supported by Canadians, withdraw this tax, and go back to the drawing board?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I acknowledge what the hon. member has said. I would have preferred not to have had the two levels of sales tax.
The simple matter is that we were not able to get together because the interests of the provinces were not such that they wanted to do that. I have said to the provinces that we are prepared to sit down at the table, if they can come up with a proposal that their governments support and that they agree to, including their Premiers. I think that if they do that then we can sit down.
I am not hopeful of this because of the attitude that they have demonstrated in their comments in August where they had lots of things to say in criticism of this tax, but they had no alternatives and no other options that we should be prepared to consider. That is why I do not think we can achieve that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who just a minute ago was quoting Mr. Goodman on tax policy. As is frequently the case, it was selective quotation.
I want to remind the Minister that the same Mr. Goodman had this to say about his tax: "It takes money from the poorest and most vulnerable people in Canada. It is shameful".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 25, 1989
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister of Finance this. Considering that this regressive tax has its most negative impact on the poorest people of Canada, and considering the government took months to indicate that its original plan was not to put a tax on food, and recently both the Conservative chairman and vice-chairman of the committee looking into this issue have talked about reimposing this tax on food, will the Minister give unequivocal assurance to the House of Commons that the government has no intention of making a bad tax worse by broadening it to include food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is very clear. It does not tax food and it does not tax basic groceries.
What I do want to say to the hon. member is that when he says the proposal that we have on the table is very damaging for low income people, I point out to him that he is very, very wrong and he is misinterpreting and misrepresenting what the tax system said.
The goods and services tax itself would be a regressive tax. It would hurt the poor. But we have attached to the goods and services tax the low income tax credit which provides an offset. It keeps low income people whole so that families who are earning less than $30,000 will be better off after tax reform and they will pay less as a result of tax reform. That is a fundamental element of this tax which has been widely acknowledged as being a major step forward and will make sure that this sales tax system as a whole, will be one of the best in the world today.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister I was quoting his expert, not mine. The expert was talking about the inadequacy of the compensatory measures to which the minister has just referred. The reality is that even after these changes are made in tax credits, 300,000 families living at the poverty level are going to be worse off, not better. That is the reality and he said it.


IMPOSITION OF TAX ON FOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has not answered the question concretely. The question concerns suggestions made by the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Committee on this subject and they raised the problem of imposing this tax on food. I repeat: Would the Minister assure Hon. Members of this House that the Government does not intend to impose this tax on food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote Mr. David Perry, who says: "The refundable sales tax credit system that he has outlined in the paper is probably the best system that any country has come up with to produce a sales tax that is not horrendously regressive".
That is exactly what we are proposing in this paper. We believe that the combination, not just of the sales tax credit but the combination of the exemption on basic groceries, the reduction of the middle-income tax rate, the rebate for housing, the payment we are making to small business people to offset the impact of the compliance cost for them, all of these produce a very solid fairness package that we have put before the committee. Now it is up to the committee to listen to the views of Canadians. We heard some last week. We are going to hear views from all sides of the question as the committee completes its work over the course of the next six weeks.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister having selectively quoted from one expert has now switched to another. We will follow that up. In neither case, in the answers he has given so far, has he answered the question. The question is straightforward and what he implied by his last answer is that the government is in fact considering once again putting the tax on food. If it is not the case, I want the minister to come to the House of Commons and make it clear today that whatever the government plans to do with this tax, he, the minister, will guarantee us unequivocally that this tax will not be put on food. Will he say it or won't he?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear. We are putting forward a package, a fair and balanced package, a package that provides a number of very important fairness elements. This government has stated that it is very firm in the support that it provides for the package that is on the table today. That package includes the exemption of taxation for basic groceries.
September 25, 1989


IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL SALES TAX-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon, Jean Lapierre (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since he claims to promote national reconciliation, how can he justify his unilateral action in imposing a federal sales tax? How can he justify this action faced with the unanimous opposition of the provinces and how can he explain this action to us when all experts agree that without the provinces' involvement, this new tax will be an indescribable administrative mess?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues met for about two years to find a way for both levels of government to agree on such an important tax. It became obvious that the provinces, for their own reasons, could not deal with such an important subject, in view of certain time constraints they were under.
Therefore, the federal Government, based on the options outlined in the White Paper, decided to proceed with an option in the national interest.
The Government and Parliament of Canada make every effort to reach agreement with the provinces in important areas of our national life, but ultimately, it is the federal Government and federal Parliament that speak for the national interest. Here in this House, we speak for the Canadian interest and we acted according to what Canada needs.


COLLECTION OF TAX-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that the interests of Canadians and the interests of taxpayers will be served by the fact that anywhere between 5,000 and
10,000	new public employees will have to be hired to collect his famous tax?
Is it in the interest of Canadians to set up a new parallel tax collection system when the provinces already have 50 years of experience in that field? Does the Prime Minister think that is showing respect for the taxpayers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the figures may need official confirmation. Contrary to the administration to which my friend from Shefford used to belong, since this Government took office the number of federal public employees has been
Oral Questions
reduced by roughly 12,000. I would suggest this is a significant achievement.
If over the coming years we should need a heavier tax to promote Canada's economic growth, we will not hesitate to do just that. Our responsibility is to protect the national interest and promote the Canadian economy, and since we took office we have brought renewed prosperity to this country. We want Canada to remain competitive in the next century, and this can only be done by getting rid of a harmful tax and replacing it by another one which will make us more competitive and be fairer to all Canadians.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE WITHDRAW HIS TAX PROJECT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In the course of its work, the Liberal task force on housing met with builders, landlords, tenants, co-ops, unions, municipal authorities and bankers, all of whom vigourously condemned the new sales tax on housing.
Six months ago, the Minister promised the tax would not have a negative impact on rental prices.
Mr. Speaker, my question is-the Minister did not keep his promise and the consequences will be disastrous. Is the Minister willing to go back to the drawing board? Is he prepared to withdraw his tax? In other words, will the Minister keep his promise?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that rentals would not be taxed under this proposal.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister. The reality of the situation, according to the Canadian Home Builders' Association and other experts, is that the cost of the average house in Canada will increase by $3,000 due to the goods and services tax, even after the rebate. This represents an increase six times larger than the minister's own figures.
Will the minister finally admit that he has failed in his commitment to Canadians not to increase the cost of home ownership because of the ill-conceived, irresponsible and hurtful tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make two points. First, when I made the commitment on housing in Saskatoon last year, I said that the impact of the goods and services tax would not adversely affect the

September 25, 1989
Oral Questions
affordability of housing. I believe that we have met that commitment.
As far as the numbers that have been produced by the Home Builders' Association are concerned, the proposal that we have put forward is based on the largest data base in the country today, the data base of Canada Mortgage and Housing. It sets out very clearly with a very careful analysis what the impact in the price of a house today, what the effective tax rate in the price of a house today is and we have based the rebate program on this, taking into account the effective tax on a house today. It is on that basis that we feel that the impact on housing, quite unlike what the hon. member has just quoted, is going to be marginal one way or the other in most markets in the country.
We do acknowledge that in the city of Toronto and to a lesser extent, Vancouver, it is a somewhat larger amount but it is about 1-1/2 per cent of the price of a house.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance about his grief and suffering tax as well.
I have here a copy of a document that we obtained under the access to information legislation. This document says that the Treasury Board has approved spending in this fiscal year some $5.1 million to advertise the GST and another $2.5 million in the next fiscal year to advertise the GST.
How can he justify spending $7.6 million of the public's money to advertise a proposal that is a partisan proposal of the Conservative party when there is no bill before Parliament, no program passed by this House? It is only flagrant propaganda for the Conservative party. How can he justify that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me quote the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle. He said: "Our existing sales tax is a total mess. I do not have to be convinced that the sales tax regime which now exists is in need of reform. It is as I mentioned, very arbitrary and confusing". Clearly, the New Democratic
Party and the government are in agreement that there must be reform of the sales tax system.
I can tell from the nodding that the Leader of the New Democratic Party agrees with the conclusion that I have just drawn.
Now, why are we budgeting moneys to make sure that Canadians understand what we are doing with this proposal? A year ago February the finance committee of the House of Commons went to New Zealand and one of the conclusions that they came back with was "make sure that you explain to the Canadian people why you are changing the sales tax system and how you are going to change that sales tax system". Mr. Speaker, that involves brochures. It involves advertising. It involves a wide range of the various tools that have been used by government from time to time to enhance the understanding of Canadians about government policy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is how the minister can justify spending $7.6 million of the public's money, of the taxpayers' money, on a proposition that has not even passed Parliament?

How can he justify spending as much as $800,000 for the ad that appeared on August 26, Mr. Speaker? Is the Progressive Conservative Party prepared to reimburse the Treasury for this expenditure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, governments for a number of years have used brochures; they have used technical papers; they have used a wide range of publicity tools in order to provide understanding and information to the Canadian public. What the hon. member has just held up is an advertisement which draws from the overview of the technical paper, which draws from the brochures that we have used to help Canadians understand this.


Mr. Tobin:: Tory propaganda. Shameful!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The members opposite are bleeding about this. Let me remind hon. members opposite that Liberal governments as well as Conservative governments have used brochures and other forms of material, with budgets, many, many times to do one thing: to make sure that Canadians understand what is the nature of budget policy. We are following the same process with our sales tax reform.
September 25, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week we were told by the food services industry that the cost of restaurant meals and basic food services would increase by at least 8 per cent and that other foods would have little change in price.
Given that the average Canadian family spends 39 per cent of its food dollar on meals outside of the home, this means that the over-all impact of the goods and services tax will increase the price of food. Why does the Minister of Finance not come clean and admit to Canadians that the goods and service tax will increase the price of food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have made quite clear that prepared foods such as would be served in restaurants will be subject to the tax. There is no surprise there. It is very clearly set out in the technical paper. But what we also said in the technical paper was that we were going to sit down and consult with the food industry to discuss with them whether the line between taxed and non-taxed foods should be based on the type of preparation, the type of foods they are, or whether it should be based on the establishment where the food is acquired. Those consultations still must continue and once they have been completed then we will have a response on that.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own staff and his own department cannot tell us the definition of a basic grocery. Regardless of where the government decides to tax food based on where it is sold or what kind of food it is, there is no doubt that the tax will be unfair to Canadians and a nightmare for store owners. Will the minister agree to scrap the tax and come back with a proposal that is fair to all Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have considered all of these aspects and we have put the proposal to the Finance Committee. We believe very firmly, very strongly, that that proposal is a balanced proposal, a carefully calculated proposal, in terms of its impact on various people in society and that is why people have said that it is one of the fairest forms of a sales tax system that is available in the world today.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Who has said that?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says who. I just quoted someone who said that. There are many others too. I will give the hon. member more quotes.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. This summer the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Fisheries have all failed to convince the European Community to stop their overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Our fishermen are now without fish, stocks are depleted, workers are unemployed and plants are closing. How critical must the situation be for people in Atlantic Canada before this government takes decisive action to protect our fish stocks?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious problem in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. That is why the government of Canada has entered into extraordinary negotiations with officials of the European Economic Community. That is why we have taken our case to NAFO, to the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization and where we have had some success in terms of quotas not with the European Economic Community, but with others. That is why the Prime Minister has established a committee which he has asked me to chair, to look into questions with relation to cod stocks and to also consider other questions in the fishery.
We have enjoyed, I might say, very constructive co-operation from provincial governments in Atlantic Canada who realize the seriousness of this matter and who realize that it is too serious to be treated as simply a matter of partisan accusation and debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are dealing here with a matter which goes to the heart of the livelihood of Atlantic Canada. That is recognized by provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. That is recognized by this government. That is why we are acting in ways that are unprecedented in Canada, and we hope to be able to make some progress.

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ATLANTIC ECONOMY-$1 BILLION SALVAGE PLAN
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we want to do: protect the interests of the people of the Atlantic provinces. All sectors in the fisheries industry are stagnating. There is no more cod, no more lobster, there are no more markets for our herring, and fishermen and plant workers will not even be eligible for unemployment insurance. When a situation as serious as this occurs in any other sector of our economy, a rescue plan is brought in immediately. My question is: Where is the billion-dollar rescue plan mentioned by certain ministers last spring? How much longer do we have to wait for the billion dollars?

Where is the billion dollar program for the fisheries of Atlantic Canada. Where is it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis, perhaps an unprecedented crisis, in the industry in the Atlantic Region. That is why the Canadian Government supports the initiatives, the steps that were not taken by any previous govemement to cooperate with the industry, to cooperate with the provinces, to negotiate with the European Community, to seek a long-term solution to what is really a crisis. It is not a partisan issue; it is a matter of policy. It is a major crisis. It affects the lives of Canadian citizens in the Atlantic Region. It is an issue that we are.taking seriously and I hope that the Hon. Members will offer us the same sort of cooperation that we received from the governments of the Atlantic Provinces.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
In discussions with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Organization of Small
Business and other business persons throughout Canada it has become clear that small business is diametrically opposed to this goods and services tax. Why is that? Because it will be disastrous for them. Will the Minister of State for Small Business tell his government colleagues that this tax will be devastating for small business and will he tell them to withdraw and go back to the drawing board?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not tell my hon. colleagues this. I have been working with the small business community and the various organizations that speak for small business. I have been working with them from day one on this and they have asked for the following things: They have asked for help with the compliance costs. They have received that. They have got a capital cost allowance which gives them 100 per cent write-off in the first year. That is the first thing.
They have also asked for an exemption for small businesses and small traders. They have got that exemption for those who earn under $30,000 a year. Five hundred thousand small businesses will not have to participate in this tax. Small business organizations have also asked for streamlined accounting that is simple and straightforward. We should continue discussions on this. We have brought in two proposals in the technical paper for streamlined accounting. There are many other things that I could mention. Small business organizations have asked for these things. They have received it. The Hon. Member opposes everything and proposes nothing. We have got constructive proposals and we have acted on them.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, what this tax does is effectively turn every small business into a tax collector for Revenue Canada. It is forcing the small business community to carry the enormous burden of the financial administration and implementation. When is the minister going to listen to the community he is supposed to represent? When is he going to speak up for small business in Canada and demand his cabinet colleagues withdraw this tax?


Thomas Hockin: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first thing the small community understands is that if they ever elect an NDP government centuries from now the taxes will be so high there will be no small business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 25, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. minister complete his answer.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question of collection of the tax. Under the sales tax now, small businesses have to collect it. It is very biased and unfair the way it is applied. We are going to broaden the tax, lower the rate and simplify things.
But I also want to tell the hon. member that on the cash flow side for small business there are great improvements in this scheme under cash flow. I want to make this very clear to the House, that under this particular scheme you get your credits back on your inputs very, very quickly before you sell your inventory. That is a great improvement over the present method.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT POSITION ON ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Leader, leader!


Lloyd Axworthy: The last thing I need is a Tory endorsement. I have a question for the Prime Minister if his members will allow him to answer.
I understand the fear and trembling of the Prime Minister over the tax pratfall by his Minister of Finance but I would like to draw attention to another serious economic problem and that is the unravelling of the free trade agreement. We have had the worst trade figures in 10 years. The regional subsidy program is being threatened by the pork decision; fishing is threatened by the west coast processing decision. We have serious dairy problems. We have just had 300 workers laid off that the Outboard Marine plant in Peterborough as a direct consequence of the free trade agreement.
I ask the Prime Minister, when is this government going to wake up? Does he understand there is a lot of human suffering being felt because of the free trade agreement. In particular, when does the Prime Minister intend to live up to the commitment he made seven months ago when he said that Canada would have the most massive, largest, best adjustment program? We
Oral Questions
have no adjustment program. I ask the Prime Minister, when will you live up to at least one of your promises?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that one way the opposition often measures the efficacy of government action in the economic field is by the job creation numbers. I think that still remains a fairly objective barometer. I know that my hon. friend, having predicted there would be serious job losses on January 1, will be pleased to know that since January of this year, 209,000 new jobs have been created in Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and that 95 per cent of those jobs have been full time. That is very important for my hon. friend to remember, because in the previous Liberal government 89 per cent of jobs created under his administration were part time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared, because none of his ministers have been prepared so far, to give us the figures of how many high-paying industrial jobs for technically skilled workers of this country have been lost as a direct result of this government's programs and the free trade agreement. Will the Prime Minister gives us those figures? At the same time, will he also tell us how many more jobs will be lost as a result of the secret negotiations that are continuing on the accelerated tariffs where all kinds of companies are asking for new deals on the free trade agreement that will bring about more lay-offs, more closures of the kind that we experienced in Peterborough this weekend.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman as usual is one election too late.

Here are just a couple of stories from the Financial Post of the weekend: "Signs point to trade upswing"; "Ontario's vintners confident they can thrive on free trade, surprised to discover that almost a year into free trade their sales are running ahead of 1988's. So far so good." That is Chateau des Charmes' manager and I hope the messenger is as charming as his report. The International Monetary Fund said that the free trade agreement, planned reforms to UI and the finance minister's proposed goods and services tax should help bring about a significant improvement in economic

Privilege
performance over the long run. As well, new plant and equipment investment is up 13.6 per cent in all industry and up 27.9 per cent compared to last year in the manufacturing industry. Still the hon. gentleman weeps and moans and complains.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Nova Scotians welcomed the announcement last Friday that three more co-operative agreements have now been signed with the province of Nova Scotia, for which I commend the minister. Notwithstanding the allegations made last spring by members opposite that there would be no money for co-operative agreements because of the reprofiling of ACOA, can the minister advise us that co-operative agreements have now been signed with all four Atlantic provinces? Can the minister tell us if he anticipates more agreements with Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: The best question today.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. I might say that we have made substantial progress in reaching co-operative agreements in all of the Atlantic provinces. Some have been signed, some will be signed soon and others are under negotiation. This is contrary to the gloomy prognostications that, as my colleague said, have been constantly made by the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 34(a), the House will now proceed with the daily routine of business until the completion of all items under Introduction of Government Bills, after which the House will proceed to Orders of the Day. Before that, I have to advise the House that I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Skeena.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to a press release in a householder provided to the offices of all members of parliament here on the Hill today from the Minister of Supply and Services. It is both false and contemptuous of the House. It says: "SSC minister's householder first to be printed on recycled paper. The Hon. Paul Dick, Minister of Supply and Services announced today that the latest edition of his constituency householder is the first MP householder to be printed on recycled paper."
Frankly, all of us should be very proud to see this. The problem is that it goes on to say: "As part of a pilot project launched co-operatively by the House of Commons and the Queen's Printer, the householders, newsletters sent to constituents from their Members of Parliament, have been printed on Canadian made de-inked recycled paper."
I have contacted the House of Commons distribution and printing. This recycled paper is not available to Members of Parliament. It has only been made available to the Minister of Supply and Services. In fact, the members of the Board of Internal Economy have not dealt with this issue. This press release goes on to say: "Approximately 900 householders are printed annually on behalf of the House of Commons, and using this format will result in a 30 per cent cost savings."
Again, it is very nice, but the minister has pointed out a variety of other falsehoods within the householder itself.
The point I would like to make is that this recycled paper, which is a good idea and I am sure is supported unanimously by the House of Commons, is not available for any other member to put out a householder. We cannot get it for letterhead, we cannot get it for our business cards and we cannot get it for anything else.
It is very good that the minister is promoting something that is environmentally sound, but as we in this place know, the kinds of services available on the Hill for
September 25, 1989

letters, householders, et cetera, must be available to all members of the House, not just to a minister of the Crown.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join in for a very brief moment to inform the House that on Friday last, I had asked my staff to submit my householder to the print shop in the Confederation Building. We were advised at that time that it was not possible for me to have it printed on recycled or non-bleached paper. We reconfirmed that at 12.55 today in a call to the print shop in the Confederation Building.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that over the last period of time, a number of members of Parliament have made inquiries as to whether or not they could have their printing done on recycled paper. A pilot project was undertaken. I used my own print plant to try that. We had to make sure that we could get the proper level of de-inked paper.
I am very pleased that we were able to find a source in East Angus in the province of Quebec. Cascade Paper Company has now provided that. We anticipate that this ability will be open to all members of Parliament who would like to use this. I am looking forward to that and I congratulate the other members of Parliament who made this application to use recycled paper. I know that many will want to use this in the future.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. minister has missed the point completely. The point is surely that if a householder printed by the House of Commons says in it that something is a policy that has been adopted by the House of Commons, namely that the document itself can be printed on recycled paper for anyone who wants it, which is not true, is, I would respectfully submit, contemptuous of the Board of Internal Economy of which you, Sir, are a member. On behalf of all of us, you are the chairman and the custodian of our rights in that regard.
If the Minister wants to say that his own department made a special tiy-out in order to see whether or not his householder can be printed on recycled paper, that is fine. He has the right to say that. He is the Minister of Supply and Services. Of course, we could demand at that point to receive equal treatment. Because he is the
Privilege
Minister of Supply and Services does not, however, give him the right to pretend that something is a policy when it is not. In that regard, I believe that the document printed under the name of the Minister of Supply and Services, printed under the auspices of this Parliament, was done in a manner which is inappropriate.
I would ask that you, Sir, and the Board of Internal Economy examine this and report to the House as to whether or not the minister has abused his privileges in making that kind of a claim and to ensure that if such a policy is going to be the policy, then all members be notified of it and, of course, more fundamentally, that it be true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to argue with the minister's intention to conduct a pilot study to encourage all members of Parliament to use unbleached letterhead or recycled paper. The point that my hon. friend from Skeena made was that this was a householder, a member's householder. In the letter to his constituents, the minister points out that this is in fact a pilot study and that he plans to encourage all members of Parliament to do the same as him. We cannot do the same.
As you have heard, members of Parliament who have wanted to do this cannot do this. Presumably the Minister of Supply and Services is in a position to enact a policy to enable us to do this. To suggest that this is something that any member of Parliament could have done had he or she wished is mis-stating the fact. The important thing is that this is a householder and if the householder is going to be made available on recycled paper, surely it is in the interests of all of us who will want to do that to have our next householder published using such paper.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to recycle an old argument. In this particular case, the reason I would like to speak to the issue of the householder is that I think we should give credit where credit is due. Undoubtedly, the Minister of Supply and Services wants to latch on to what is a very good idea. I think he should have at least acknowledged the fact that the reason for this was that the Speaker of the House of Commons, in a non-partisan fashion last spring, upon consultation with the Environment Committee, moved to make the House of Commons an environmentally friendly place.

Government Orders
One of the things that the Speaker did-and since he cannot speak for himself, I will speak on his behalf-was to write to Supply and Services and ask if it would please change its insane policy of not making environmentally friendly products, including recycled paper available. I am glad the minister has got the word out via his householder. Certainly the claim he makes in the House may not stand up to the light of day. It may be transparent and bleached white.
However, I think it should be pointed out for the benefit of all in the House and in the country that the person who is really moving to make this Parliament an environmentally friendly place is the Speaker of the House of Commons, and for that he should be getting the credit and we should be getting off our partisan high horses.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I naturally thank the hon. member for Hamilton East for her very cogent intervention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There are other members seeking the floor, but I do not know whether I dare, after that, let anybody take away from the stirring phrases which all members of the House have heard.
I will take this matter under advisement and report back to the House as soon as possible.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rose on the point of order prior to other speakers, and I guess it was just an oversight on your part that you did not recognize me.
On the same point of order, prior to seeing the minister's householder, I advised my staff to check to see whether or not our next householder, which is going to print very soon, could be printed on recycled paper and we were told yes. Today I hear that that is not so. Therefore, it would be of great help if we could get a clear answer very quickly as to whether we can use this paper. The same privileges should be extended to all members of this House, not only to the Minister of Supply and Services.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park. I did not realize he was rising on that point of order. I thank the hon. member for his intervention.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-5, an Act to authorize the Safeguard Life Assurance Company to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Government's response to petitions. I will not read the numbers because the list is obviously fairly extensive. There are some 400 petitions, and I would be happy to table them.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Frank Oberle: that Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very pleased to be able today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-29, the bill which establishes a federal Department of forestry.
The introduction of this bill today as the first item of business is perhaps a statement of the importance that our government attaches to forestry generally and in all its manifestations.
This is not entirely an historic event. Perhaps it should be pointed out that in fact what I am doing here this afternoon is not new. In June 1960, the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, rose in the House to introduce a similar bill which also established a federal department of forestry. He said at the time that if we are to increase our production and if forest devastation is to be overcome, research will be needed.
On July 11, 1960, 29 years ago, the House gave second and third readings to the bill which was, incidentally, passed unanimously. Royal Assent was given on August 1, and almost 29 years ago to the day, on October 1, the bill was proclaimed and the department began functioning.
Forestry was not a partisan issue then and ought not to be today. That is perhaps another reason why it is introduced as the first item of business. It is intended to establish the atmosphere that will be required by this House over the next few months as we deal with other equally important and critical issues.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to review what happened subsequently, since I assume that some of my opposition critics will be responding to what I am saying. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson spoke strongly in favour of the bill in 1960. He said that there can be no question about the importance to this country of forestry and the forest industries, or indeed of the desirability of the government doing everything it can to support and strengthen that industry. Yet, tragically, six years later when he was Prime Minister, he and his ministers began to plan the demise of the new department of forestry, and they effected the near demise of the once proud Canadian forestry service.
It started by moving forestry to a new department called rural development. I suppose that set in motion the kind of attitude that you and I, Mr. Speaker, found when we came here in the early 1970s; namely, that
Government Orders
forestry was an activity like agriculture, that it was a sort of rural unsophisticated kind of endeavour, that it ought to be transferred to the Third World and that we were, after all, a nation in search of a much more modem image, so forestry needed to be relegated to something else.
In 1968 it was shunted off to the department of fisheries and forestry. Finally, two years after that, in 1971, forestry disappeared altogether into the bowels of a newly formed Department of the Environment. In the years that followed, 50 per cent of the entire person-year strength of the Canadian forestry service was phased out. I will speak a bit about the earlier history of the Canadian forestry service and forestry generally, but this more recent history is important to place in proper context what I am sure my friends in the opposition will be saying here today.
There is little to record in the way of forest management in Canada up to the time of Confederation. Shortly thereafter, a forest conservation movement began to organize itself in our country. The forests of eastern Canada were being subjected to devastating misuse, and these are words that were used by some eminent spokesmen of the time. By 1883, the loss of beech, maple, oak and basswood was so shocking that the Ontario government commissioned a report entitled "The Necessity of Preserving and Replanting Forests". John Croumbie Brown wrote in 1884 about the injurious effects on the Canadian climate which he attributed to the excessive clearing of our forests.
In the same decade a century ago, William Saunders was advocating reforestation, warning of the disastrous consequences of a dearth of timber in Canada. He said it would be difficult to describe. Saunders said that at first sight, forests appeared to the settlers of a wooded country as obstacles to advancing civilization, to be removed as rapidly as possible, with unwearied zeal and persistence in the use of the axe and fire to remove these encumbrances at a rapid pace.
Saunders described in eloquent terms 110 years ago what now seems to be clear to everyone. He described the effects of deforestation. Shelter against storm is lost, he said, temperature and moisture are not moderated and the air is not purified. Winds are not arrested, forests exercise a governing and conservative influence

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
on the humidity of the atmosphere, and of course, forests therefore influence rainfalls.
These voices, Mr. Speaker, as you and I both know, seemed slow to be heard. Heavy cutting had taken place for nearly a century before Canada's first forestry congress was called in 1906. It was at about that time as well that the University of New Brunswick and the University of Toronto established their first forestry schools.
In 1907 in British Columbia, the Hon. Frederick Fulton, who was incidentally the father of the Hon. Davey Fulton who carved such an important niche for himself in this place, was appointed to the royal commission on the conservation of our forests.
The reason for this slow progress was explained in more recent time by H. R. MacMillan, one of the great foresters of Canada, in an address that he gave on the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the faculty of forestry at the University of Toronto. He said that Canadians still believe today that the forest is inexhaustible and self-perpetuating. It is expected to continue automatically performing its role as inevitably, as cheaply and as dependably as the tides. Canadians do not yet fully recognize that the forest as a crop is continuously most productive only if there is investment in silvicultural management.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that it is important that these facts be seen in light of the history of the Canadian forest products industry. Industry began, of course, at the earliest time of our history in Canada. The early settlers needed trees to build their homes and their bams and then made masts and timbers for sailing ships.
Our modem industry began writing its history perhaps back in 1803 when the first Canadian newsprint was made in Quebec. Groundwood paper was made for the first time in the western hemisphere in Halifax in 1841. In 1864, soda pulp was being made in Sherbrooke. The year before confederation, Canada's first groundwood pulp mill was erected in Valleyfield. Up to this point, all that happened, of course, without anyone giving any thought to forest management.
Perhaps it can be said that any government relation to forestry had its beginning on July 24, 1899, when an Order in Council created the post of Chief Inspector of
Timber and Forestry. That was the first evidence of any federal initiative in this important area.
That modest move was the forerunner of the Canadian forestry service. The chief inspector called a meeting in 1900, the turn of the century, a meeting which gave birth to the Canadian Forestry Association which still thrives today. I know that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone deserves credit for what we are doing here today from outside this place, it is the Canadian Forestry Association. Throughout our country, it carries on youth programs, and I want to attest to the fact that I have received no better advice and no better counsel from anyone than my friends in the Canadian Forestry Association.
The next milestone in Canadian forest history, I suppose, came during the Second World War when forestry matters across Canada came under the so-called federal timber control board. In 1949 the Canadian Forestry Act was passed. In 1955 we hosted a Commonwealth Conference on Resources which gave impetus and produced a call for urgent action, a call, which of course, as I already said, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, answered in 1960.
I think there is hardly an argument that it is once again time to address this important issue of giving forestry in Canada the attention it must be given, the attention it merits, as a driving force in Canada's economic, social, environmental and ecological future.
We can no longer be complacent and feel that Canada is somehow exempt from events which have devastated other nations that did not manage their forests properly. In fact, the history of some nations is often the history of their forests. Fertile lands in the Middle East, flowing, as it is said in Biblical poesy, with milk and honey and favoured with a pleasant climate, were stripped of their forests. It did not take long before life-giving rivers became insignificant streams and valleys were washed away leaving an arid and a desolate land.
A similar fate hit portions of Sicily, Greece, Italy and Spain, to name but a few. Even in central Europe, there were threats. In the 1600s a Frenchman by the name of Colbert cried that France would be lost if the forests were not saved. "Franceperira enfaute des Bois, " he cried. France passed the celebrated Forest Ordinance Act in 1669, an Act which was so far-sighted that every modem
September 25, 1989

system of scientific forest management shows signs of its influence.
Will we have to suffer from failure to learn these lessons of history? Will we here give added weight to Hegel's maxim, we learn from history that we learn nothing from it? Well, Sir, I say not. Looking around the world today, one cannot be entirely sure. Just listen to this. During the last 10 years, the area of our planet which was populated by trees has been reduced from 25 per cent to just over 20 per cent, in just 10 years. If these trends are not arrested and reversed, our children will ask why we permitted their lives to be jeopardized by our failure to protect our forests which sustain our lives.
Those who understand global ecology understand that our planet cannot survive itself nor can it sustain the life which we enjoy without our forests being in good health. That is what this bill before us is all about.
The bill before us would require the minister to report to Parliament annually on the state of Canadian forests. Having reviewed the history, and contemplating a situation where today I would have to make such a report, I would have cause for concern. At the same time, I would be able to report significant progress in the steps that we have already taken to put things right.
I could report that forests occupy 40 per cent of the entire Canadian landscape. They are stocked by 130-odd different species of trees of which about 30 or so different species have any kind of commercial value. Below the 60th parallel, in fact, the total area stocked with trees is 68 per cent. Only about 60 per cent of that land base is capable of producing any kind of commercial timber and only 85 per cent of that, through our best records that we have today, would be economically accessible or would lend itself to industrial conversion.
Canada's forests represent 8 to 10 per cent of the entire forest reserves in the world, some 864 billion cubic feet of wood and fibre. Although on the one hand this appears to be a considerable resource my report would also have to include the fact that not sufficient care was taken so far to make sure that all of the areas that we have harvested over time have been properly restocked. As a result, in some regions of our country we are experiencing shortages of raw materials today, some-
Government Orders
thing, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that I predicted in my publication in 1983 to happen within this period of time.
About 7.5 million hectares of productive land is not properly restocked and we have been, over the last few years, adding to this backlog at the rate of about 300,000 additional hectares every year. In the past we would have relied mainly on natural regeneration and, of course, that worked. We were careful, I know in our province, in leaving seed blocks to allow natural regeneration to take place and it all depends on the rate of cutting and the rate of conversion to allow nature to do this work for us.
But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the rate that we are cutting today, the way we are allocating our fibre, our only hope of a solid future is to practise more intensive forest management based on sound silviculture practices taking into account ecological and environmental concerns and other non-timber values which are becoming so important to most Canadians. That again is what this bill is all about.
It is a further step in the process which we began five years ago to return to traditional, conservative practices of exercising custodial responsibility, not only on behalf of future generations of Canadians and our own children but also in a global sense. I alluded to that earlier. Naturally it has to be recognized the provinces have an exclusive right to own and to administer the forests which are located on public property within their boundaries, and this is clearly laid out in section 92(5) of the Constitution Act.
Mr. Diefenbaker recognized this as well in 1960 when he said, "Not for a moment would I countenance any interference or invasion in the constitutional responsibility of the provinces". But we can respect provincial jurisdiction and have a federal act and a federal role in forestry as well. In fact, I say that it is critically important that we do because diminishing forests in any region of our country affects the health of all of us.
So initially we worked, of course, to establish the necessary partnership with our provincial colleagues together with the important linkages and the strategic alliances that were necessary with the private sector, private woodlot owners and the industry. We offered our resources, we offered our national perspective, we of-

Government Orders
fered our international contacts and we offered leadership.
From this position we can reconcile and manage all aspects of our forest heritage, be they industrial, environmental or social. We entered into forest resource development agreements with the provinces which were designed to begin the costly and painful transition to much more intensive management of Canada's forests. These agreements called for long-term planning and forecasting for the production of better data using the very latest in geographical information systems. And this is where the federal government can play an important role because we cannot have every province equipped with a satellite that would send back important data or high altitude remote sensing facilities.
The agreements established principles and they established targets. These targets are consistent with new environmental standards, they are consistent with new ethics and they are consistent with some of the new demands the Canadian public is making on our forests. Of course they are based on the overriding principle which we now call the concept of sustainable development.
Over $1 billion, Sir, was spent during this initial period. Thousands of jobs were created; satisfying, rewarding jobs. Do you know that we discovered that silviculture and forest farming is in itself a very exciting, highly productive and wealth generating industry? Hundreds of businesses throughout our country were created. Contractors did the silviculture work for integrated businesses and for provincial governments.
We have achieved impressive results, results in improving our forest inventory. Equally as important are results which can be measured in terms of more enlightened public and more enlightened corporate attitudes, attitudes which we now hear expressed every day. As we all know, the environment is now the key issue and the first priority that Canadians have identified for us.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we will see the best demonstration of the reflection of these kinds of attitudes right here in this place after I sit down. The opposition will get up to berate us for not doing more, scold us for not establishing another stronger mandate for the new minister of forests, demand that we spend even more on
forestry than we do now or than we intend to spend in the future.
As I said, this is reflective of the new attitudes toward forestry that Canadians are expressing. Of course, Sir, I can say to them in return how happy I am that belatedly both the opposition parties have discovered their interests in forestry. I can also say how sad I am that we have wasted all those years when governments and administrations previous to ours made it a practice to play fast, loose and liberal with Canada's most precious heritage.
It is perhaps a coincidence of history, or perhaps there is some significance to the fact, that when the department was established in 1960 there were prospects that the Canadian industry could double its production in 15 years .That would be by the year 1975. Of course, always having been a strong Conservative, Mr. Diefenbaker's predictions were too conservative because the industry did much more than double its output in that time.
The coincidence or significance is that Canada faces the same opportunities, the same challenges and the same prospects today. As you know, my department has just published a report that gives an outlook to the year 2010. World pulp consumption is expected to increase by over 60 per cent in the next 20 years. Canada's forest industry has a clear opportunity to double its output of paper and paper board, high value added products. By the year 2010 all of this is possible to meet the anticipated increases in global consumption.
Now, Sir, that would put our paper exports alone well over $30 billion annually. This is nothing less than spectacular, particularly when one considers that already our forest products industry sustains a $30 billion to $40 billion a year manufacturing sector which contributes over $18 billion a year to our balance of trade.
Just contemplate this; compared to the total of Canadian exports to Britain our forest products to the United States are seven times greater. Our exports to the United States alone are 15 times greater than all our exports to France, and they are about equal to the total of all Canadian exports to all of the rest of the world. Thirty per cent of pulp and paper sold internationally comes from Canada and so does 22 per cent of the world's solid wood manufactured products. Forest products as a whole make up 30 per cent of the value of Canada's shipments to other countries. In fact, the forest products sector contributes more to our positive balance
September 25, 1989

of trade than does the combination of agriculture, mining, fishing and energy.
All this activity supports some 350 cities and towns throughout our country. Whole regions of the country depend on this industry, having less of an opportunity to strive for a more diversified economy. Expanded markets and intensive management offer the exciting potential of new employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. But, Sir, there will, of course, be new pressures and new demands which the industry will be placing on the available fibre. There will be more demands for feed stock for an industry which is already among the most efficient in the world.
These demands will be strong because we want to capture these new opportunities, these new markets and create these new jobs. Dealing with these demands today against the new demands which will have to be met, which are even more insistent, more imperative and more compelling, will be very hard, and I speak here, of course, of the demands that the environmental movement is making.
Until now the industries using trees have held primary claim to our vast resources, but it is no longer a matter between industry and the trees. Forest users are being held accountable today for the environmental effects of their own operations. They are having to share the forests more and more with other users and to take into account the impact which their forest operations have upon the environment. A multi-billion dollar tourism sector is supported by our forests.
I only cite these facts to point to the tremendous pressures which our forests must face, not only to maintain the strong contributions, but in addition to respond to new demands, new opportunities, and to do so meeting higher standards.
Now how are we to cope with these pressures? How are we to take advantage? What choices are we to make and how do we cash in on these opportunities? Well, hon. members would have discovered this morning when they came to work that they had a blue basket next to their desk. We had an argument just before I started to speak, about recycled paper. We have to find the best of
Government Orders
all of these ideas to stretch the resource. The industry has to adjust to more value-added products, increase and broaden the milieu of their products which are sold throughout the world so that they can get the proper returns and pay for the costs that are associated with getting into intensive silviculture.
Well again, Sir, this is what this bill is all about. The bill before the House calls for expanded forest research. Now research has always been, as you know, a federal responsibility. We fund almost all the research that goes on in universities. My department has six research stations which have earned themselves a reputation throughout the world, and they are strategically located throughout the country.
We intend to give the research we are doing new direction. The first thrust, of course, would have to be in technology transfer, more site-specific research, transferring the ideas to the field. Our research would have to concentrate, particularly in the universities and in other centres, on the area of the environment, creating and producing new products, organic products that will help us replace in the forests the harmful agents which we had to use in the past to spray against insects and disease. Our research will be targeted at improving the efficiency of our mills, increase their utilization and the utilization of the resource. And of course, as we all know, some of these efforts are already under way. We are building a new foreign tech centre at the University of British Columbia and we are contributing to that facility in a respectable manner.
Other mandates in the 1960 bill are once again introduced here in order to promote development of national principles and policies for forest conservation. Another one is to generate federal-provincial co-operation in forestry and I have talked about that.
Finally, the bill calls for the new department to educate and to inform Canadians so that public opinion will support integrated balanced forest management of the highest order. This is a very important aspect of the work that I anticipate doing in the coming months because, unfortunately and tragically, public opinion is misinformed and some of the public attitudes are formed from a basis of poor information.

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
The experience in other countries shows that such kind of management regimes I have outlined could produce much higher yields and much higher earnings for our industry. In fact, in some areas of the United States, and in Sweden and Scandinavian countries generally, well-managed commercial forests produce up to three times more the volume of fibre from a certain area of land.
I should point out here that in the United States and Sweden it is the practice to engage one professional forester for every 15,000 hectares of forest land while in Canada we have one for every 450,000 hectares of forest land. That points to yet another urgent necessity; the training of highly qualified people and the experts we will require to do the work.
This is something the opposition might like to keep in mind, particularly those people who always thought that all we have to do is throw money at a problem and it will go away. Even if we did have $5 billion to do the work which perhaps needs to be done on the forests, we would not have the people who could direct this work properly. Money is not a good nutrient by itself. In fact, when the Liberals managed our money it was biodegradable but that didn't make it a nutrient for our forests.
In the manifesto which I published in 1983 entitled "A Green Ghetto" I promoted the concept of putting more emphasis on private management of small woodlots. I promoted the concept of community forests, and I hope that the new department, together with the provinces, can give impetus to that objective as well.
The fact is that it will take the combined efforts of private and public sectors, federal and provincial governments, universities and labour, the mobilization of a national thrust and a national commitment to meet the challenges of simultaneously increasing the annual allowable cut for our industry-and some say it can be doubled with intensive management- supplying more fibre for the industry so that they can meet the opportunities and challenges that offer themselves in the national market-places, regenerating the forests, accommodating new demands for multiple use, even setting aside pristine areas for wilderness preserves, and doing all this in an environmentally sound way.
Provinces, I can report today, are spending more. Nine of the ten provinces today spend more on silviculture and forest management than they take in as revenue from the forests. They need our help and I am here to commit our help to them.
In some parts of our country it will take some time for us to correct the sins that we have inflicted upon our forests in the past. There are some regions in the country where it is too late. In most of Canada, particularly in my part of British Columbia and the west generally, we have the good fortune of being able to exercise all of the options that are still available and cash in on all the exciting opportunities. But we also must exercise strong federal leadership, particularly in developing and implementing creative national strategies which sense new trends, respond to new standards, meet strong challenges and realize attractive opportunities. As we deal with these realities in keeping Canada healthy we must be conscious of a rapidly shrinking globe. Every 10 years 100 million new souls are added to the population base of the planet; that is a new Mexico, a new Bangladesh every year. All of these people will be putting their demands on the scarce resources that are available.
Our Prime Minister has emphasized that all our national policies and strategies should henceforth be built on the principles of sustainable development. If there is any sector which lends itself to sustainable development it is forestry. We can exercise world lead-erhsip with a policy framework designed to meet the requirements of our own generation without depriving future generations of the opportunity to meet theirs.
So, Sir, I invite my friends opposite, and I invite all Canadians, to join us in mounting the effort and the thrust which is required to meet all the objectives in Canadian forestry. And I ask the opposition to join me in giving this Bill passage, in correcting the sins of the past that led to the demise of a department in the past. To do that we will need a federal department of forestry which is described in this bill. Again I ask this House to give this legislation speedy passage.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the forestry minister told us that his new department will give the forest industry the cabinet clout it deserves. Not only does he believe that it will provide national leadership in the development and co-ordination of forest policies and programs, he actually thinks

that it will help him promote sustainable development and that it will help him conduct the research and development that the forest sector needs and deserves. I only hope it will.
The minister also went on to tell us that it was first on the Order Paper today and, as such, that is how important it was to the government. He also went on to give us a history lesson. The only problem with it, Mr. Speaker, is that he stopped a little short. History goes a little further than that. He forgot to tell us the history of the Wilson Budget last spring. I am going to tell you that history right now Mr. Minister and Mr. Speaker.
Last spring the Budget presented by Wilson cut the forestry department. Does a budget reduction of $28 million raise forestry's profile, I ask you, Mr. Speaker? Definitely not. Does a minister running to other departments to beg for money to fund the foresty development agreements confirm the sector's profile? Definitely not .Does a reduction of 47 person-years help the forestry department fulfil its mandate? Definitely not.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to believe that the Government is serious when dealing with the forest industry. The Department of Forestry suffered an 11.9 per cent cut in the budget 1989-90 while natural resource based programs have received increases. On the other hand, the staff of this very department has suffered a reduction of 47 person-years. Moreover, the Department has no control over the agreements concerning forest development. This is not a department which I would call very vigourous.

Canada needs a strong forestry department, there is no doubt about it. Although the Constitution grants provincial legislatures the exclusive power to manage and tax their public lands and forests, a strong federal presence is needed to provide leadership and service in many important areas such as regional forest resource development agreements, market enhancement, international trade intelligence, policy analysis, support of national forest research interests, statistics, pollution control, conservation, parks, recreation and public awareness.
Government Orders
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide the forestry sector with the representation it deserves. It is nothing more than a cosmetic and superficial move. Some people would probably say, "Where's the beef?"
The government is creating a forestry department yet it is reducing its resources. In fact, this new department is the only natural resource-based program to have seen its budget dwindle. Forestry suffered an 11.9 per cent cut in the 1989-90 budget while all other programs that are based on natural resources grew. For instance, the environment department grew by 9.4 per cent; energy, mines and resources received a 22.9 per cent increase; fisheries and oceans had its budget raised by 6 per cent, and agriculture received a 21.5 per cent increase.
Why the double standard? The minister tells us today that his government puts an importance on forestry. That is the only sector based on natural resources that was cut. Why the double standard? Why does the government claim that it will be doing more for forestry when it is actually doing less?
Forestry deserves better. It is the industry on which much of our country was built. It has been the backbone of our economy. To this day it remains a cornerstone of our country as well. The importance of the forestry sector to Canada's economy is undeniable. Canada has 4.36 million square kilometers of forest, or approximately 176 square meters of forest for each of our 25 million inhabitants. Its forested territory is more than twice the size of the European Economic Community, nearly double the surface of Mexico, and it accounts for 15 per cent of the earth's woodlands.
The industry employs nearly 300,000 people directly and approximately 750,000 others indirectly including railworkers, truck drivers, and machinery operators that are employed by associated industries. Last year productive forest lands yielded more than $30 billion in the value of goods shipped. One out of every seven manufacturing dollars in Canada is forest-related and the sector contributes more than $17 billion to Canada's net trade balance which exceeds a net trade balance from agriculture, fisheries and mining combined.
Forestry is larger than the auto and petroleum sectors. Moreover, the foreign and domestic sales of forest products means close to $25 billion annually in trade for our country. On top of that Canada has the second largest stock of softwood in the world, after the U.S.S.R. It is the third largest producer of softwood after the

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
United States and the U.S.S.R., and it is the largest world exporter of lumber products. It produces one-third of pulp exports and 63 per cent of all newsprint.

Because of the major contribution of the forest industry to the Canadian economy, the government should demonstrate much more leadership in promoting and enhancing the development and health of this industry. But this bill provides the Minister of Forestry with no power or weight, since he has to beg for money to find the forestry development agreements by running to other federal departments and agencies. As to the agreements concerning Quebec and Ontario, he must call upon the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. As to the agreements concerning Western Canada, he must seek funds from the Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Agency. In the case of the Atlantic provinces, he must beg for money from the department responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you again, can this new Department have give the forest industry the importance it deserves? Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial forestry agreements expired on March 30 of this year in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
On the other hand, next March 30, the agreements with Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia will also expire.
It is inconceivable that a government which claims to support the forest industry should allow such a situation to exist. To date, only one agreement has been renegotiated. Yet, such agreements are vital for the future of our Canadian forests.
Forestry agreements have provided more than $1.1 billion for forest renewal and management activities since 1983. More than 50 per cent of this funding comes under the federal government. These agreements have helped to increase Canadian forest management activities by providing the resources to promote site preparation, tree planting and tending of stands.
The agreements have had resounding success. In 1977, for example, their treatments were applied to 350,000 hectares, and by 1987 this figure nearly tripled to more than 1 million hectares.
Moreover, the agreements fund many related activities. Approximately $70 million has been provided to sponsor forest research and technology transfer in areas including control of forest pests, silviculture, timber supply modelling, forest inventory and tree improvement. For instance, the agreement with the province of Alberta has been very successful in developing new products and uses for species commonly thought of as useless, particularly poplar and aspen.
The agreements have also helped create the Maniwaki Technology Transfer Centre in Quebec which disseminates fire research information and technology.
In most other provinces the agreements have promoted the use of computer-based geographic information systems. Moreover, forest seedling nursery facilities have been improved considerably. Funds have also been dedicated to national and regional public awareness.
In 1987, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers issued a document entitled the National Forest Sector Strategy for Canada. This called for the improvement and continuation of the forestry agreements, these veiy agreements I just finished speaking about.
In fact, the 1988 implementation progress report pertaining to the 34 recommendations of this very same strategy clearly outlined that the provinces, territories and industries strongly urged the federal government to renew the forest resource development agreements. However, and this is a very crucial fact, in determining the future of our resource, the progress report determined that the federal government was not very strongly committed to establishing a second round of forestry agreements. They were not seriously committed.
As you and my hon. colleagues will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, forest renewal necessitates a long-term commitment since programs cannot be sustained without continuity. For instance, the reforestation stage may take up to 10 years. Obviously, five year commitments are a
September 25, 1989

beginning, but a more comprehensive and pervasive strategy needs to be implemented.
The federal government must take the upper hand in order to ensure that forest resource development becomes the cornerstone of the forest industry in Canada. Agreements in the future must continue to promote and ensure the health of Canada's forests for all concerned.
Moreover, the agreements must ensure that the resource is sustained. The Canadian Institute of Forestry has said that forest renewal must remain the essential element of future agreements, and that the federal government should ensure that funding is available for forest inventory and land classification, multiple-use management, forest research and technology, transfer and public awareness. Funding must not only be made available to promote sound management practices on provincial and Crown land, but also for private lands as well as aboriginal lands and municipal lands.

Since this legislation does not give the Department any financial control over federal-provincial agreements, the new department will certainly not be in a position to coordinate the application of these valid methods across Canada in order to improve and increase our resources.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that in the past, forestry methods have had a serious negative impact on Canada's forests, and that the Government needs a department with sufficient clout to do something about this problem. Since our forests were first put to commercial use, they have been exploited mercilessly. Canada is now facing a very serious timber shortage.
One of the objectives of our federal-provincial agreements is to reduce the number of forests that are not satisfactorily restocked. The Government's statistics confirm there is a problem in this area.
The number of lands that are not adequately reforested continues to grow.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's forests, formerly considered to be an unending resource, are disappearing at an alarming rate. According to statistics published in 1985 by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Economic Union, approximately 25 million hectares of land formerly
Government Orders
covered with abundant forests now lie bare, and between 25 and 50 per cent of the 770,000 hectares of forest cut each year does not regenerate.

The urgency of dealing with Canada's timber supply problem becomes apparent when we consider that world consumption on paper and paperboard, wood-based panels and lumber is expected to increase substantially within the next 20 years.
Surprisingly enough, the Canadian Forestry Service commissioned a study, the Wood-Reed report, designed to forecast the performance and output of the forestry sector over the next 20 years, which neither addressed the environmental ramifications of forestry practices in Canada nor the urgent necessity of implementing adequate reforestation. All it mentioned was that the forestry industry's output would increase over the next 20 years. That is all fine and dandy. However, if we continue with the present rate of harvesting, there will be no usable wood supply left in the next 20 years.
Consultation involving the federal government and many groups involved in forestry has taken place over the last few years concerning such issues as timber supply and market potential, as well as research and manpower issues and needs. The urgency of forest renewal and a formulation of new forest strategy has also played a great part in these discussions. The basis of these consultations pertains to the application of intensive forest management, with the federal government being urged to provide the leadership necessary for permitting Canada to remain competitive in the forest industry.
The only means to improve our sorry record in the forestry area is through the implementation of intensive forest management. This form of management needs a strong hand at the helm, which means that the federal government could do more for this vital sector. Experience suggests that gains of between 50 per cent and 100 per cent in wood volume can be obtained by applying intensive forest management practices, including improved site preparation, the use of genetically superior planting stock, fast and efficient planting after harvest or natural loss, thinning, fertilization and weed control.

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
If intensive forest management is to be practised in Canada, the Department of Forestry must exercise a much stronger role in co-ordinating, managing, controlling and implementing the forest resource development agreements.
At present, intensive forest management is not being strongly encouraged. Only one of the six forestry agreements which expired in March has been renewed. This has caused numerous headaches for the provincial reforestation programs which have had to cut back and eliminate replanting programs. Some provinces have even had to destroy or have come very close to destroying their seedlings because of flaccid commitment by the federal government.

The Liberal Party supports the renewal of federal-provincial forestry agreements. We urge the federal Government to transfer control over these agreements to the Minister of State (Forestry) (Mr. Oberle). Quite frankly, the forestry sector needs strong representation within Cabinet, not just cosmetic representation. Furthermore, if the Government takes the trouble to create a department of forestry, it should be given the necessary resources instead of having its budget cut.
The government claims that it is providing the forestry sector with the leadership it needs, but its words and actions do not necessarily correspond. Last May, the forestry minister indicated during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries that his government will be reducing its share of the federal-provincial forest resource development agreements.
Canada's forestry sector is at the crossroads. It can continue with present harvesting techniques and witness the depletion of its timber supply, or it can ask its government to take the lead by providing it with a strong department complete with the manpower, financial resources and the resolve to repair the damage already inflicted upon the environment. This needs courage, it needs commitment and determination on the part of the federal government.
However, the budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance show a drop from $1.4 billion for regional
development spending during the current fiscal year to about $1 billion annually for the next four years. That is hardly the courage, the commitment and the determination needed to ensure Canada's future.
Everybody agrees that the forestry sector needs to be improved if it is to remain competitive with the rest of the world. According to the Auditor General's report, three considerations directly affect decisions involving investment in reforestation. First, the vastness and great dispersal of the forest demand necessitates large expenditures for forest management. Second, federal investment in forestry usually also involves the provinces. Third, the growing cycle for mature forests involves a time span of between 40 to 80 years. If the government claims that it wants to take the lead in the forestry sector, then its decision to manage and invest in forestry must reflect a commitment to a long term view of the resource.
Not only is the government's commitment to forestry agreements somewhat shaky, current program planning and delivery procedures do not ensure that funds are being spent according to the guidelines in the agreement. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, each agreement contains guidelines which describe methods for carrying out various types of forest development work.
The Auditor General's report of 1988 reviewed five agreements and determined that these guidelines are not consistently followed. For example, between 1985 and 1987 the Canadian Forestry Service found that $10.5 million of the $15 million in plantation expenditures under one agreement was spent on sites not in compliance with distance guidelines.
Moreover, the Auditor General noticed that only two of the five agreements surveyed contained local and regional plans needed to outline the work to be done under the agreements and how this work related to over-all forest development strategies. In short, implementation guidelines do not provide an adequate mechanism for national control purposes; and this is more proof that the forestry department has to be given the responsibility for the forestry development agreements.
Moreover, forest resource development agreements do not contain clear standards for collecting data on reforested areas or for the follow-up work. If proper care is not provided as a result there is a high risk that seedlings planted during the agreements will not survive.
September 25, 1989

This could have a substantial bearing on the future of wood fibre.

During the 1984 election campaign, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party promised to acknowledge the tremendous importance of the forestry industry to our economy and to raise the subject in the House, with a view to appointing a minister of forestry. His government stated that a department of forestry would provide the national leadership required to develop and co-ordinate forestry policies and programs in line with its commitment to durable enhancement, to promoting research and development in the forestry sector and to promoting federal co-operation with industry, the universities and provincial authorities in a wide range of activities related to forest management and protection.
That is what this Government should have done. However, instead of setting up a department with the resources and authority that would enable it to exercise real leadership, the Government preferred to cut the department's budget by $28 million. It cut the department's personnel, and failed to give the Minister of Forestry control over federal-provincial agreements. Mr. Speaker, again I ask you: is the new forestry department more than just a fagade?

Given the government's commitment to this industry, and given the need for strong national leadership in the area, the federal government should at the very least provide the new forestry department with a budget increase similar to those given to other national resource based programs.
The new department should undertake a stronger co-ordination role in managing, controlling, and implementing forestry agreements to ensure that improved forestry practices are implemented more consistently across Canada, thereby improving and increasing the resource base.
Forestry Canada must address the backlog of unsatisfactorily restocked forest land in Canada which continues to increase by 200,000 hectares per year.
Adjournment Debate
The department must also revise program planning and delivery procedures to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with agreement guidelines.
Finally, forestry Canada must address the need for a complete national data collection system to monitor and report the status of Canada's forests. It must review its role in the area of information with particular emphasis on the use and dissemination of research findings.
The future of Canada's forestry sector is at stake. I beseech the government to reconsider its lack-lustre commitment to this area. Bill C-29,1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is not strong enough.
We support the formation of a department of forestry. We want a department of forestry. Industry wants a department of forestry. But we want one that is going to work from day one, not one that has to be amended and amended.
I propose to you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, that we will be looking at the bill in some detail and in an objective fashion to try to improve it. We will be making recommendations. You were trying to give the opposition in your speech some hints for co-operation or whatever. I submit that you will need to have some of your own co-operation in looking at some of the amendments that the opposition want to put through. We feel that C-29 is just not strong enough.
The future of Canada's forestry sector is at stake. I beseech the government to reconsider its lack-lustre commitment. Canada's forests will only be able to respond to the challenges of the 21st century if the Canadian government provides the leadership and coordination which the forestry sector deserves.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Drummond-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-War against drugs; the hon. member for Surrey North-Housing-Personal housing costs-position; the hon. member for The Battlefords-

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
Meadow Lake-Canada Post Corporation-Remarks of constituents-Minister's position/Public relations activities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to be able to speak on Bill C-29 as my party's forest critic, and to speak today about forest issues as they affect this particular bill, and our country. Also, I would like to be able to make some comments on forestry and, perhaps, being from what many of us from British Columbia talk about as the number one forest province, and also being from the area of that province that I represent, the Prince George area, the riding of Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley.
It is an honour to be here today and to speak on this bill because, as all members of this House know, it has been a long time coming. I intend to make some specific references to the bill and then to make general comments on some of the forest issues that I believe we are facing today.
I think it is important for all of us who are debating the issues today, such as the goods and services tax-the grief and suffering tax-to note its impact on forestry.
When we go to our ridings, those of us who are in the chamber today who are lucky to be members of Parliament and to have this platform to speak about important issues in our country, what is the issue that we face and talk about all the time? I venture to suggest that forestry, if not the first issue, as well as the demands on the resource, is certainly the second or third issue that
commands the time of members of Parliament in our ridings and in our discussions with our constituents.
While we are supporting support this bill at second reading, I am pleased that there is a good contingent of New Democrat members who will be speaking on this bill. Members of our party represent many of the over 300 communities that depend solely on the forest industry for their survival. I think it is good to speak of our caucus in the sense that we will be presenting a number of speakers on this particular issue. While not all members of the public are with us today, some are watching on TV at home. In our communities people are paying attention to what forestry means at the national level. We want to take that message to Canadians.
I said at the outset that this has been a long time coming. Indeed it has. It was first promised by the Conservatives in the 1984 federal election. Of course, prior to that the the Canadian Forestry Service acted under a number of different departments, primarily agriculture and environment. The minister said that as an early framework we can do more. We will be tabling amendments in committee that will strengthen the mandate of this bill.
We have waited, Mr. Speaker. Some members have been here longer than I. Some time before 1984 there was debate about such a bill. In fact, in the August 30, 1984 issue of the The Prince George Citizen the member who is now the Minister of State for Forestry is quoted as saying: "There is no doubt there will be a department of forestry immediately". I do not know the Tory definition of "immediately" but we have learned that it must be about five years in the Tory sense.
While this bill is here today and we are pleased with that, we want to not only speed things along, but add to that as well. Reasoned debate does not mean delay. Reasoned debate and suggestions to improve this bill will we hope improve the process and the federal mandate in forestry.
We are concerned, of course, because now in our country and all across the world forestry is perhaps the number one environmental concern. If there is an issue, department of government or resource that should be considered along the framework of sustainable development, it must be this department and this industry. Forestry is critical to our environment and the lives and jobs of the many people who depend on it for their future.
September 25, 1989

We are starting to see some of the Conservative government's approach to forestry, and there are some concerns. I noted a recent article in the Financial Post hinting at a market-driven approach; that the Minister of Finance will be bringing in new policies in the new year regarding the government's approach to the environment and the economy. But I am concerned over some of the comments around that area when one particular group suggests that the answer is to privatize our forests. I suggest that is not the approach to take. The approach to take is to ensure that legislators, members of Parliament, MLAs and MPPs ensure that when they represent their area, their government, they represent the interests of our forests.
The minister talked about wasted years. Perhaps it is when we talk about the Liberal record we see the wasted years,the wasted time of the Conservatives since they promised an immediate department and the wasted time under the Liberals. In that same election in 1984, the current leader of the Liberal Party came to the home town of the minister and I, saying that there was no need for a full department of forestry. We in this country have grown accustomed to the Liberals shifting their positions from time to time. In this case, in the sense that they are supporting this bill, we are pleased that they have had a shift in opinion and are joining our party in supporting this bill, I trust we will see further amendments to strengthen the department in the committee.
I want to touch on some of the proposals and ideas that our party and I have that I will be bringing before the committee. I am pleased to, on an historical note, point out my own personal involvement in this. At the 1983 federal New Democratic Party convention in Saskatchewan, I presented a resolution from my riding, which passed unanimously at that convention, for a full department of forests. I am pleased that now in 1989 we are debating that bill. We are not pleased at the time that it took for the government to bring in this legislation.
At the 1985 convention, we reaffirmed our commitment to a full department and promised to provide an active forest industry and department in the last election campaign. We will be presenting some amendments to strengthen the mandate of this department. I think it needs strengthening to give that voice for forestry that we have all talked about. I propose to add to the annual report provisions of this bill. I think we must lay out in the legislation some of the concerns and issues that must
Government Orders
be dealt with on an annual basis in a report to Parliament.
We will also be moving amendments in co-operation with my colleague, the Member for Skeena, our party's environment critic, relating specifically to sustainable development as it relates to the forest industry.
We will also be moving amendments that enhance the role of the federal government in co-operation with the provinces and the forest resource development agreements. I will be making some comments on that later.
I also propose legislating an annual forest minister's conference and a First Ministers' conference on forestry every five years. I think for the number one industry, the number one environmental issue in this country, we must ensure that our First Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Premiers, meet on this and are aware of the critical concern this particular resource area has to our country.
We will also be proposing amendments for the establishment of a forest trade commissioner. The concerns that we have had in British Columbia and other parts of this country in terms of the Conservative government's sell-out to the Americans on the softwood lumber tariff means we feel that there must be a more ongoing presence in forestry in the trade area. In light of the fact that forest trade in Canada brings in such revenues to this country, it is our view that it requires a permanent official to follow along in that process; and we will be providing amendments to that effect.
As well, in discussions with some of the witnesses that we hope will appear, we will move provisions to create more employment. That was commented on by previous speakers. We can do better. We intend to bring amendments to the legislation to see that that happens. These and others, we hope, will help strengthen the mandate of this department.
We have also called for this committee in dealing with such a critical issue to have the opportunity to travel through the country and hear Canadians' views on forestry. I have on a number of occasions advised the chairman of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries of that. Within the last two weeks I have written to Canadians, groups, individuals, unions, industry and environmental groups inviting them to make submissions to the committee so we can discuss these issues. I suggest if there is not a willingness on behalf of the Conservatives to have this committee travel, I sense an obligation on the part of our party to travel across this country to hear the views of Canadians on forestry. We have to be realistic in that this is likely the last significant

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
forestry-related legislation that we will see for some time. If it has taken five years for a bill that is comprised of 10-15 paragraphs, how much longer will we have to wait for a bill that really addresses many of the needs and concerns of forestry all across the country?
We have been joined by a number interest groups that support the call for this committee to travel; the Canadian Institute of Forestry, for one, and the International Woodworkers of America, have also made representations.
That is the general framework that I see for this bill and some of the discussions that we are going to have in the committee when this legislation gets there from this chamber.
But before that, if we go on to some of the specific issues in forestry that should define a bit what we are talking about in terms of the forests what they mean to our planet and to our country. We should, of course, refer to some of the figures about what forestry means to us in economic terms and also to touch on some of those issues that we have to deal with when we talk about forestry in an environmental sense.
We checked to see what would be a good definition of a forest. The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, provided a descriptive paragraph on forests. They were talking about forestry in a global sense, and when we talk about the definition of a forest I think that is how we have to think. There is an old phrase, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, about "thinking globally and acting locally". Well, locally for us is our country, our provinces, and our ridings. But let me read this into the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important to give us a sense of what we are dealing with. "Ranging across some 30 per cent of the planet's land surface forests have been described as the climax ecosystems of a green and flowering world. The most exuberant expressions of nature, forests perform protective, productive and regulative functions. They play a vital ecological role in the planetary recycling of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. They influence temperature and rainfall. They act as enormous sponges, water and wind
erosion is protected. They maintain biological diversity and they actively contribute to economic development. "
That shows just how critical our forests are, not just to us, but to the world. I think there is a new awareness of forestry. There is a short note in today's Globe and Mail, where it states that the former President of the United States thought that trees actually contributed to pollution. Now, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the new President and his awareness of forestry gives us some hope in that there is an awareness at the highest level of our adjoining nation, the United States, of the importance of forestry.
What does it mean to us in the chamber today? Before we started this debate, there was a brief discussion about having our householders through which we communicate with our constituents printed on recycled paper. That is something that all members in this House would like to do.
Let us take a look at how else people read and hear about what we do. With the co-operation and the quick action on behalf of the Hansard staff this morning, Mr. Speaker, I asked just how many copies of today's speeches as printed in Hansard will get out to Canadians. We are looking at roughly 10,000 copies. I did a quick calculation. How many trees have to be cut down today so that our words in this chamber can be read by Canadians? My calculation, as we speak, is that some 35 trees will have to be cut down to ensure that today's English and French Hansard is printed. That means that our words should be economical and to the point. But there is also the hope that the words we say in this chamber today can help replant those forests and plant some additional trees for those wide areas of some of our provinces that need to be reforested. Let us think about that in our proceedings, about the 35 trees that will be used for today's Hansard.
Of course, that gets us into what are our forests: the products that they provide and the coverage they give. Half of the total land area of Canada is covered by forests; 79 per cent of the area within the 10 provinces; 60 per cent of forest land is productive, some 243.7 million hectares, by comparison to agricultural land of some 67.8 million hectares.
September 25, 1989

Let us take a look at some comparative figures that forestry relates to in our trade figures, something I referred to earlier that we will be presenting and dealing with in the legislation when it comes to the committee with some amendments.
Forest products provided a net balance of trade of $18.3 billion in 1987. Following are comparative figures: Farm products, $1.4 billion; fisheries products, $2 billion; energy exports, including natural resources like petroleum and natural gas, $5.5 billion. Now, that is not to belittle the contribution to the economy of those other resources, but it is to point out just how important our forests are to us. For example, the number of people employed in this industry, the workers who help to produce the wealth so that we can be here today and talk about the generation of tax revenue, dollars and wages that are created. Over 800,000 Canadians are employed in the industry, over 300 communities depend on it for survival. What does that mean in terms of the demands on that resource?
Previous speakers have referred to the Woodridge-Reed report commissioned by the previous government in its time, but pointing out some of the significant demands that there will be on our resource. For example, they calculated all of the particular products that would come from the forest industry, an increase in output of 55 per cent over the next 20-year period. Quebec, for example, ranks highest of all regions in Canada in terms of the value of its forest products output, heavily oriented to pulp and paper.
Not everyone agrees with the outlook that this report provides, but even, Mr. Speaker, if you have what they are suggesting will be the increased demand on our forest resource, you can see that we are going to face incredible demands on our industry and on our resources to provide that demand in the economy.
How are we meeting that? We have talked earlier, as all members have, about the provisions of funding toward the forest department. Is this government really giving this new department the dollars to match its words? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the work that our committee will do will ensure that that message gets across to the government. We will ensure through our debate, our amendments and our discussions that that message is delivered to the highest levels so that they are aware of how important this legislation is.
Government Orders
One of the chief vehicles for delivering forest services, the administration of forests between the federal and provincial governments, is the Forest Resources Development Agreements. They are critical, I would say, in terms of the contribution of the federal government to forestry between the provinces and the federal government. We have already outlined some of the concerns we have had in this House over the current level of support to those agreements by this government. To date, we are concerned, and I think there is evidence to show that that concern is real. For example, in my own province of British Columbia, there is a request for a new agreement when the current one expires at the end of March of next year.
Right now, despite all comments by the minister and staff, it would appear that negotiations at best are at a snail's pace. This government is placing tremendous effort and value in these new agencies that it has created. For example, the Western Diversification Fund and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I suggest that what we have ended up with and what has been created is a second level Treasury Board. The major funding decisions that must be made in forestry to renew these agreements is not going to be made by the Minister of Forests. The minister in western Canada for Western Diversification is going to make those decisions. We have called for the Minister of Forests to have that independence to ensure that the minister deals alone with Treasury Board and with cabinet for forestry funding; that it does not have go to through another level. One of the concerns expressed by the forest community is that it is always second rate with this government when it comes to forestry. That is not good enough. That is why we will be moving those amendments in committee to enhance and improve this legislation to give it the clout that we feel it needs.
I do not want to belittle those agreements or carry on with them, but I want members to know just how important they are to the provinces and to work with the different areas of our country to see that forests are reforested. They are critical. I know you know, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to press in the House to see that those agreements are signed.
What about trade? We have talked already about the forest product shipments and the amount of dollars that they provide to our country and the need, for which we will be bringing in an amendment to the legislation, for a full-time forest trade commissioner to ensure that that

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
particular area is protected. I refer, of course, to the decision by this government to sell out to the Americans on the softwood lumber tariff, the Memorandum of Understanding, as it is known.
That has created havoc in the forest industry. Perhaps something is getting through over there because in the summer 1989 issue of the Weststar Timber Magazine the Minister of State for Forests said: "It is not at all a desirable situation that a foreign jurisdiction would determine whether or not we are properly managing our forests or charging an adequate economic rent". I wonder if Pat Carney is listening today because of what that has done in our province in terms of the additional measures taken by the province of British Columbia. I guess we will see if the current government is still in office in the near future. In any case, that Memorandum of Understanding has dealt a stealthy blow to our industry in Canada.
After spending some time thinking about this issue and researching it, it is my view that if we believe in this country that we are right, that we have managed our forests as best we can, and we have acknowledged where we have had problems, then we should rip up the Memorandum of Understanding and be prepared to defend our forest practices at whatever level is needed so we do not sell out our forests, like the Conservative Party did, again. We must ensure that we manage our forests and not someone else in another country telling us how to run our forest policy in this country.
The Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group met last June, discussed some other trade issues and the plywood standards dispute .1 gather some progress was made. No progress was made in the softwood lumber tariff which shows that more work must be done. I know members will likely support our amendment to have a full-time forest trade commissioner deal with these issues to ensure that our forests are represented properly at the trade level.
Just recently over the summer, on the decision that was taken by the Los Angeles City Council on our cedar shakes and shingles, where were the government members? Perhaps they were on holiday somewhere. It took four weeks to finally get a word from this government about its intention to assist the industry in this area. Now workers are helping to contribute to a campaign to ensure that our cedar shakes and shingles go into that American market, a major market for our shakes, that
the decision can be overturned, and the product that our people ship into the United States is recognized to be the valuable product that it is.
Earlier this summer, my colleague and I travelled into the Maple Ridge area and visited a shake and shingle mill. It was educational. In fact, my colleague suggested that the Minister of State for Forestry join her in a tour of one of those mills so he could get a first-hand understanding of what the decisions and the lack of direction by this government has done to the people who work in that industry. He has gone as far as to say that we do not have the people, if you can just throw money at problems. We are not suggesting that we throw money at problems. I suggest that we have many people prepared to make their contribution to forestry in this country. With proper spending, with proper and adequate information and decision-making early we can do something about it.
Given the incredible demand that we will have on our forests for the various products we produce, we face an incredible demand for increasing the annual allowable cut in our provinces .The current debate in different parts of this country is over preserving parts of our forest to ensure that they are there for future generations and to meet, where we can, the challenge that the Brund-tland Commission on sustainable development identified which is the 12 per cent needed. They are major challenges which can be met with this legislation and with the debate around this department.
I am concerned over a recent interview with the minister stating that the Minister of the Environment can intervene in his department. Let us see what that means. I am concerned that if we do not have the debate about forestry on the Forest Department's terms in our legislation that we are talking about today-and will be dealing with in the committee-who knows what this department is going to end up as? It will not have the strong mandate that I think it needs.
We will have these incredible conflicts. Many members know that the debate is ongoing now in terms of our old growth forests primarily on the coast of British Columbia. There is a debate in northern Ontario. What we can do is to assist and provide the leadership and the opportunity where possible at the federal level to work with provinces and with those groups involved to ensure that proper decisions are made. These decisions involve process. Often one will hear politicians talk about process, because it is a convenient way to avoid taking a
September 25, 1989

stand on something. In terms of resource conflict, process is important.
In our province there is currently no policy in place that can resolve these resource conflict differences. When my colleague from Esquimalt was the premier of the province, we had a process in place, but it has been emasculated by the current government. I have not checked the clock or the news today. I assume that the minister is still in charge in British Columbia. If he has not been changed yet, he certainly should be. He gives forestry a bad name, and I think a new attention, a new direction, to forestry is needed at the provincial level as well.
I said at the beginning that we will be proposing a number of amendments to this bill. I have also said that we will be calling for this committee to have an opportunity to travel through the country to give Canadians a chance to talk about forestry at a national level. If we do that, it will be the best show in town. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will have an attendance at those meetings because people are so concerned and interested in our forests that they want to have a say and present their views.
I want to wrap up on an international approach, a global approach. We have read in all of the magazines, or heard on the news, of rock stars and others who have travelled primarily to South America where the rain forests are being threatened. Obviously, we have a concern to protect our forests and work on our rain forests, but we also have to think about the concerns we have about those forests in other parts of this world of ours.
They are, Mr. Speaker, to use the words of the minister, "perhaps the lungs of the earth". We have to ensure that we have those lungs. If we can help our forests at home here, we can ensure forests in other parts of the world are protected as well. We will be calling on that in the committee when we are dealing
Government Orders
with this legislation so that we can give this department the strength and mandate that I think it needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I liked the idea of the Hon. Member that the shorter the speeches, the less trees we will cut, which is going to be very fine for the Speaker in the Chair.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Canadians from coast to coast are glad that the Government has decided to create a Forestry Department. I rise not only to speak in favour of the Bill but also to exhort my colleagues on both sides of the House to pass this legislation quickly and enthusiastically.
The Minister gave the background of this Bill. He also described in detail the challenges and opportunities which show convincingly why Canada must have a Forestry Department without delay.
Quebec is one of the major forestry provinces of Canada. About 229,000 people work in fields of activity directly or indirectly related to forestry; that is one worker in thirteen. Forestry is the leading industry in more than 120 municipalities in the province. Forest products are the province's largest export. For example, exports of forest products in 1987 amounted to $49 billion, 25 per cent of Quebec's total exports.
I am therefore particularly proud to show you, Mr. Speaker, how the new Department will keep Canada a world leader in forestry, how we will remain among the leaders in forest products and conservation and how this new institution will maintain our world reputation as a people who cherishes and knows how to administer this vast resource of which we are the guardians and beneficiaries.
Indeed, given the importance of forests for our country, it seems almost inconceivable that we do not yet have such a federal Department. I think that the Department should have six main tasks. I give considerable importance to the first one, which is to lead the nation to an awareness of the value of our forests and to educate the public about this.

September 25, 1989
Government Orders
Canada is becoming increasingly urbanized. It is therefore urgent for Canadians to understand the economic, environmental, ecological and even social importance of the forests for every one of us, whether we live in a large city or one of the 350 communities in Canada for which forestry is the main livelihood.
At a time when other countries are losing their forest heritage and Canadians are expressing new concerns about theirs, we can expect vigorous debates over the next decade. In this context, it will be important for Canadians to reach conclusions supported by logical arguments after weighing all the known facts. Only in that way will passion and concern result in practical and productive policies and programs.
I see a federal Department of Forestry which will be a leader in deepening this national awareness, a leader in informing everyone of the necessary facts in order to reach consensus nationally and regionally.
Canadians insist more and more that their forest heritage be used for a variety of purposes. This is very positive and it is most encouraging.
Our country, Mr. Speaker, stands out because of its concern for the environment. And in Canada, this concern applies especially to the forests. Many businesses and governments and even forestry professionals took time to recognize this reality.
Increasingly, Canadians are stressing the need for recognition of the many ways in which our forests can be put to good use, and not just logging. Our new department of forestry will help us give this factor serious consideration as part of the forestry equation.
Perceptions are also important outside politics, Mr. Speaker. I hope that creating a department of forestry will also help get rid of two erroneous ideas that are prevalent among Canadians. In fact, these preconceptions are related and persist, despite a heightened awareness of the importance of our forests.
The first erroneous perception is that our forests are in decline and represent an interesting aspect of Canada's past, a past we are leaving behind us as quickly as progress permits. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Competent management of our forests is not only essential to our future as Canadians. It is also consistent with our responsibility to other nations and to mankind.
The second perception is prevalent among Canadians who would like Canada to have a high tech image. These people see our forests as a sector overrun by poorly-trained loggers whose saw and ax are the embarrassing relics of a distant past.
The proposed department of forestry will be in a position to change that perception. It can show the public and even politicians that they have a unique opportunity to combine advanced technology and modern science in meeting the challenge of managing our rich forests.
We are doing so already, Mr. Speaker. However, very few Canadians are aware of the tremendous progress we have made in applying biotechnology, communications techniques, computer programming and lasers to the forestry sector.
Mr. Speaker, the most important task of the new department will be to play a leading role at the national level, in order to heighten our awareness of the forestry sector and make us more knowledgeable on the subject.
The second task of the new department of forestry, Mr. Speaker, will consist in forging links between the various partners, organizing concerted action and co-ordinating resources.
To meet the challenge facing the forestry sector requires a range of resources that are beyond the capabilities of the individual entrepreneur.
It is only by combining the know-how and resources of the Federal and Provincial Governments with those of the private sector, that we may achieve that goal. This is the necessary condition which we must meet if we are to remain in front or even part of the pack.
The Federal and Provincial Governments are well aware that we must all act together and that if we want to take up this challenge, we will have to seize every available opportunity.
Through the Canadian Forestry Council, Governments have made their relation official. They have created a framework which will make it possible for universities, the private sector, trade unions and vested interests to co-operate towards a common goal.
The Federal Government should be able to communicate efficiently with the other industries. It should give Canada the impetus it alone can provide. To achieve this purpose, we need a full-fledged department with a full time Minister.
September 25, 1989

For us to act otherwise would be to demonstrate that we do not fully realize the importance of our forests for the future of our nation.
How could the Federal Government manage otherwise and fully participate in this country's major industry?
The major steps which the interested parties can take under the direction and with the participation of the Department include the development of higher standards for the intensive management of productive forests in Canada. Such standards would permit the development of management plans integrating the important ecological role of the forests, good conservation practices and a diversified utilization of this resource.
The Department should play a determining role in the establishment of a consensus between the partners on the manner to achieve the sustainable development of all our regions.
The Department may contribute-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 11 minutes left in his speech plus 10 minutes questions and comments when we start debate the next day.

It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
Private Members' Business
She said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in anticipation today that my colleagues on all sides of the house will agree with the spirit of the motion that I present today.
Motion M-254 reads and I will repeat it even though the Speaker has spelled it out for us:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
I want to speak today about the intent of this motion. During the remaining four hours of debate on this votable motion, my New Democrat colleagues will expand on our position on a comprehensive bill of rights for children. In the world view, Canada is a country without equal when it comes to a tradition of social justice. Canada has always been a leading nation in speaking out for human rights, the dignity of the person and on behalf of democracy.
Canada has seldom been found wanting in speaking out for the protection of the world's children. Our reputation is outstanding. Our own social contract within our own boundaries is the envy of the world. Indeed, Canada is one of the leading countries of preference for those wishing to immigrate. For these reasons I ask members to give favourable consideration to the motion.
In the past, a number of private members' bills have been presented which wanted to establish federal-provincial task forces in order to negotiate legislation. They were never fully debated. The bills either languished on the Order Paper or were referred to committee where they stayed in limbo.
Events are now overtaking us. It has been 65 years since the League of Nations first adopted a declaration concerning children. It has been 30 years since the United Nations adopted its declaration of the rights of the child. It has been 10 years since the International Year of the Child.
Later this year the United Nations General Assembly, following long and difficult negotiations in the UN Commission on Human Rights, is expected to examine and hopefully adopt a convention on the rights of the child.

September 25, 1989
Private Members' Business
Canadians can be proud that we have played a role in the drafting and negotiating of this convention. It is imperative that we ensure that our own house is in order so that the rights guaranteed by this international charter are available to all Canadian children. It is important to clarify that this motion does not suggest a specific Canadian charter of rights for children. I am well aware of the jurisdictional problems involved in the detailed negotiations that must go on between the federal government and the provinces to achieve such a charter. It is imperative, however, that we begin negotiations with the provinces to pave the way for Canada to become a signatory to the United Nations convention when it is presented to the UN and for Canada to subsequently ratify the convention.
One of the difficulties we face is that in Canada, among the 10 provinces and two territories, there is a wide range of legislation for the protection and administration of children. Often the legislation varies, sometimes minimally but often substantially. For example, Canadians would agree that a child has a right to an education but education services and educational standards vary from province to province to the territories and falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial legislatures. In Ontario, children's programs are delivered by three different levels of government. They involve eight administrative bodies located within six government ministries with different criteria determining who gets what from whom. It is not the intent of this motion to provoke a debate on when a child exists. The Prime Minister has promised Canadians a debate on that question and it should quite properly be discussed at that time. In this and any following debate on this motion attention must not be diverted from the needs of Canadian children now.
In putting this discussion in the correct context, we must discuss the draft convention on the rights of the child that is expected to be adopted by the UN General Assembly at its forty-fourth session. In so doing, it is necessary to discuss the situation of children around the world.
It has been widely recognized that children have special needs during their physical and mental development and therefore require special care, protection and their own rights.
The family plays a fundamental role in the education and development of the child. It is appalling that more than 40,000 children, primarily in developing countries, continue to die each day from common childhood diseases which we can prevent. It is of deep concern to all Canadians that millions of children live in extreme poverty, suffer from malnutrition, hunger, illness, maltreatment, environmental pollution and lack of social provisions for their physical and mental development.
We as Canadians should also be concerned that they are also the victims of war, are refugees, are homeless and that they suffer as a result of apartheid, other racial discrimination, or of colonial or foreign domination, that they are subject to neglect, physical abuse, abduction, illegal trafficking, drug abuse, or are exploited for the purposes of labour, prostitution or pornography. Even the most basic needs of children for food, clothing and shelter are not guaranteed anywhere in the world.
I mentioned earlier that 40,000 children a day die from starvation, diarrhoea from polluted water, and disease that could be stopped by a single vaccination. UNICEF calls this the silent emergency of 15 million avoidable child deaths each year. It is of particular concern, because the money required to provide adequate food and water, education, health and housing for everyone in the world has been established at $17 billion. It is a huge sum of money. It is as much as the world spends on weapons every two weeks.
We in Canada cannot afford to be too smug or too complacent about conditions here at home. In Canada it is estimated that one child in five lives below the poverty line. One child in five lives in poverty in this great country of Canada. That is surely preventable.
The recent report of the Canadian Council on Social Development in its 1989 fact book on poverty pointed out that the poverty among young Canadian families has doubled since 1973. The report found that 30 per cent of those living in poverty in Canada are children. That is approximately 1.12 million Canadian children.
There is probably not a community in Canada where children are not among the largest users of food banks.

There is probably not a community in Canada where a good number of children are not going to school hungry.
Recently a report from the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. noted that using Canada's food guide, B.C. welfare rates would only allow a parent to feed a child properly for two and a half weeks each month. Surely since much of the administration of social service assistance is within the purview of the provinces, indeed in some provinces the municipalities, it is imperative that there be some standardization required to ensure that children under their jurisdiction be maintained in such a way that they are able to rise above the poverty line in their lifestyles.
Currently Canadian children are guaranteed certain rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under federal and provincial legislation, policy and procedural manuals, standards, contract for services and through the adherence of rules of natural justice and administrative fairness as interpreted by the courts, or through the office of the ombudsman in those provinces where there is an ombudsman.
Attitudes about children and youth have progressed in our society, from a view of the child as a chattel to his or her parents, to the more modem view of a child as a person in his or her own right. Canadian laws, policies and practices have reflected this historical evolution while maintaining a recognition of the family, however defined, as a primary unit responsible for the care, nurturing and development of the child.
On April 27, 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. While the charter was intended to apply to all Canadians, it has been used most often in cases involving adults. The Canadian Youth Foundation has observed that society has recognized that the needs and capacities of children and youths differ from those of adults. Although children and youths are individuals entitled to constitutionally protected rights, these rights must be defined somewhat differently for adults. The courts will have to define these rights and interpret the charter in a manner that will benefit the children and youths of this country.
The federal government, on behalf of all Canadians, has responsibility to all children of Canada and the
Private Members' Business
guidance required by the federal government is considerable. It is not good enough to leave the equitable administration to the provinces. Other federal responsibilities include a universal affordable child care strategy for all children in Canada who require child care, taking into account all options that will fill the needs of the family and the child, a national child abuse strategy that will include the proper funding and will include a child protection commissioner and a federal commitment to support the Kids Help Line.
Let me be more explicit about the areas I have just mentioned. A growing crisis in child care in Canada was first acknowledged by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970 which pointed out that parents require supplementary child care to allow them to fulfil both work and parental responsibilities. The commission pointed out that society had a role to play in providing these services and without provision of these services the equality of women would be meaningless.
In the 1984 election even the Conservative party recognized there was growing demand for action in the area of child care. Then opposition leader Brian Mulro-ney responded by making a a commitment to a national child care program. Again, during the 1988 campaign, this government pledged its commitment to the caring of Canada's children. We are still waiting. As recently as July the Prime Minister told Conservative party faithful that: "We recognize for many Canadians, especially single mothers and fathers, getting child care spaces is not just a question of lifestyles or personal fulfilment but of basic economic necessity. For working mothers proper child care is an essential investment of economic fairness and equality". And for children it is an absolute must.
This commitment, it seems however, only comes during election campaigns. By the time Michael Wilson presented his Budget the Tories had shelved their child care promises.
Canadian families will be hard hit by the government's failure to fund new spaces and the Conservatives have displayed a total lack of understanding for the real needs of parents and children in this country and for the real needs in terms of the rights for the children of this country to be protected. Working families and their children will suffer, particularly in households headed by

September 25, 1989
Private Members' Business
single moms and those single moms who earn only two-thirds of the wages earned by men.
In my call for a national child abuse strategy which includes a child protection commission, I want to draw attention to the deplorable situation that exists in Canada with regard to child abuse. It is appropriate to know that September has been designated Child Abuse Prevention Month. Daily we hear horror story after horror story about child abuse in this country, particularly about child sexual abuse. The Metro Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society reported last month that the number of child sexual abuse cases has risen by 59 per cent this year.
As recently as June 20 the government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare, rejected criticism that this government is not moving fast enough to counter the growing problem of child sex abuse. The minister said that there is no cure to protect children from sexual predators. The minister indicated that the government has acted on the majority of recommendations contained in the 1984 report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths. There were 52 recommendations in the report and I would be interested to have the minister report to the House which of the 52 recommendations have been implemented.
We do know that recommendation one, which calls for the office of a commissioner, has not been implemented.
The report puts it very clearly:" The problem of child sexual abuse in Canada is so pervasive and deep rooted that in its response to our recommendations we believe that the Government of Canada must establish a means to deal adequately and on a co-ordinated basis with these issues.
The problems identified and documented in the report are so far reaching and complex that they extend well beyond the jurisdictional authority of one or two federal departments or one level of government alone. In relation to several significant issues pertaining to sexual offences, the committee found that many of the well founded recommendations of earlier distinguished advisory commissions had never been implemented."
What is required to bring about the reforms that are needed is an administrative mechanism which co-ordinates the efforts of federal, provincial and municipal governments. In our judgment it is unlikely that this
work can be achieved within the existing organization of public service.
I agree with the call for a commissioner. The report suggests that the commissioner should report directly to the office of the Prime Minister and that the commissioner should initiate and co-ordinate the work of various federal departments, work in conjunction with related departments at the provincial level, and establish the means needed to assure the full participation of non-governmental agencies in these activities.
Our governments in the past have, when special need has been recognized, established special bodies which were assigned special responsibility to respond. That surely is needed now. The problem of sexual abuse in Canada is so pervasive and deep rooted that the only way to begin to address the problem, much less the consequences, is with a commissioner. It is time to recognize that these problems are real and to address them.
On the matter of the reference in the motion to an emergency hot line which children can contact in times of crisis, let me refer the hon. members to the Kids Hot Line.
It is a national bilingual telephone counselling and referral service that has been operating for just four months. It was launched by the Canadian Children's Foundation, a national non-profit fund-raising organization concerned with the health and welfare of children. It has handled over 30,000 calls in just over four months, averaging 650 per day from children across the country, including the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Four hundred of these calls have been suicide calls. The callers range from four years old to 19.
Preliminary statistics show that 10 per cent of the callers were francophone; 48 per cent of the calls concerned interpersonal problems, family and parental conflict, peer relationships, isolated and lonely children, those with non positive relationships in their lives and kids in rural and remote areas. Twelve per cent of the callers are abused. For many it is the first time they have talked about their abuse. The majority of these cases are serious in nature. Counselling and referral to community organizations is imperative in these cases. Five per cent are related to alcohol and drug abuse. Other issues

include health, sexuality, legal rights and helping kids who are suicidal.
Initial funding came from corporate sponsorship. However, the kids' help line has applied to the Department of Health and Welfare for aid and discussions have been held directly with the minister. Still, there is no announcement. Organizers have expressed their concern that without federal dollars the project is in jeopardy.
We can spend $2.7 million to advertise the budget, but the government will not come up with the funds for kids' help line. What are our priorities in this country?
Canada will soon have the opportunity to join other member nations in ratifying the proposed convention on the rights of the child. This document is currently being reviewed by Canada and its provinces. By signing the convention, a state signifies its intention to comply with the provisions and obligations contained therein.
The proposed convention recognizes the special vulnerability of children, their needs for special safeguards, protection and care. In reality, the children do not have political rights or influence.
The proposed convention also recognizes that the family is the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, particularly children, and should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.
Canadians can be justly proud of the role we have played in the development of the UN code. But if it is adopted, there will have to be some changes made to some of our own laws so that we too can sign the convention.
The convention sets very high standards. The articles in the convention cover three areas: survival, protection and development. This document emphasizes children but is directed at adults and makes the statement about adult responsibilities.
One might wonder why it has taken so long to legalize the rights of children. The answer is very simple: Children, regardless of where they live, have no political power. They cannot vote; they cannot organize resources in their own defence; they are extremely vulnerable to
Private Members' Business
exploitation, and almost entirely dependent on the good will of adults for their well being.
The bottom line is that there is no effective, international court of law. There is only the court of public opinion and I appeal to my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan), who moved a Private Member's Motion and made disturbing statements that the Progressive Conservative Government does not give children priority. Let me say that this accusation is rather simplistic, moving a Private Member's Motion and using a trick like that to say that the Government has done nothing. I can say that the Government is very interested in children. I can also tell you that the Members on this side, the Government Members, and the Minister responsible are very active on children's issues.
Obviously, do we think there is a group in society that is more vulnerable and needs more protection than children, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. I too have nephews and nieces and my friends have children whom I like a lot and I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how I would react if someone hurt these children. I can understand the great sorrow and suffering of parents whose children are mistreated by neighbors, relatives or friends and I think that if I were in their place, I would surely feel terrible. Ensuring that every child grows and develops in a healthy way is our commitment to the future and also a very challenging and complex responsibility.
Concern for children and their well-being is an issue that cuts across many jurisdictions and disciplines. All levels of government, educators, service providers, professionals and volunteers have a role and responsibility in providing for the needs and well-being of children.
In 1979, The International Year of the Child, helped Canadians to focus on opportunities for action on behalf of our children. National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, coordinated the federal response to the report

September 25, 1989
Private Members' Business
of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child.
Currently, National Health and Welfare is actively involved in the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Working Group on the United Nations draft convention on the Rights of the child. This working group is an example of the wide recognition that is being given to the needs and rights of children, in Canada and throughout the world.
The Department has a direct and ongoing impact through income security programs, such as family allowances, and cost-sharing of eligible provincial expenditures on child welfare services through the Canada Assistance Plan, among others. More specifically, National Health and Welfare has taken special measures to pinpoint and begin the fight against the serious problems of mistreated or negleted children, including those who are victims of sexual abuse.
In the last ten years, Mr. Speaker, and this is quite overwhelming, Canadians have gained an awareness of the sexual abuse of children. In 1980, National Health and Welfare, in cooperation with the federal department of Justice, established the committee on sexual offences against cheldren and youths. This committee's work, now known as the badgley report, described, in startling terms, the real and potential extent of childhood vulnerability. It is not rather unbelievable when you think about it, Mr. Speaker!
It reported that 42 per cent of the population have been victims of unwanted sexual acts at some point in their lives; One in two adult females and one in three adult males. Eighty per cent of these incidents took place before the age of majority and 25 per cent involved a family member or guardian.
To state it mildly, these revelations, combined with the fraser report on pornography and prostitution, heightened public awareness and created a demand for action.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has taken specific action to deal with child sexual abuse. Among other things, Bill C-15 became law in Januaxy of last year. The purpose of this project is to reduce and prevent the secondary victimization of children by the court system.
This project bears witness to the special dimensions associated with a problem like child sexual abuse.
The child sexual abuse initiative launched by this government in 1986 included $25.1 million over five years, to address the problem. Of course I think that is not much. We would need twice that amount, Mr. Speaker.
The Government is confronted with budgetary problems. National Health and Welfare, through the Family Violence Prevention Division, is responsible for the administration of $20 million to develop innovative projets that will help us to prevent and treat child sexual abuse. Mr. Speaker, need I insist on the need to work on prevention, since a child who has been abused sexually or otherwise has a hard time readjusting to normal life. That is why we must focus on prevention.
Mr. Speaker, since 1986, the Department has funded more than 170 projects across Canada in awareness, training, prevention education as well as research and evaluation. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the eradication of child abuse is our main goal. More than 10 national youth serving organizations are working with the Canadian Council on Children and Youth on a National Health and Welfare funded project to develop a national training program for the prevention of child sexual abuse. I could elaborate on that project but it would take too long; I only want to mention it so that the Hon. Member can find out more from the Department.
The Canadian people are concerned about the abuse, exploitation and neglect of our children, Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members are aware.
Since 1987, Mr. Rix Rogers, a well-known volunteer, has been serving as the Minister of National Health and Welfare's special advisor on child sexual abuse. Mr. Speaker, I took the time to read the report and I can tell you there were some incredible things in it. I told the Minister that, as Parliamentary Secretary, I would devote most of my time to trying to help him and his provincial counterparts- The issue was raised last week at a meeting of federal and provincial Ministers of Health which took place at Meech Lake. Of course, it also concerns provincial Ministers responsible for enforcing health legislation. But Mr. Rodgers' report is alarming and I would encourage the Hon. Members to read it to
September 25, 1989

become more aware of the serious problem of child sexual abuse, Mr. Speaker. I gives me the shudders just to talk about it.
I know that my time is limited. The Hon. Member's motion proposes the establishment of an emergency hot-line for children. I would like to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to address the matter of telephone hot-lines. Many provinces have now recognized the need and are offering this type of service, as the honourable member, who is from British Columbia, must be aware. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has a network of telephone lines. There are a number of hot-lines and crisis telephone services for children in Ontario. Alberta offers a 24-hour child abuse and neglect hot-line. Quebec also has a province-wide child abuse line.
By now, Mr. Speaker, members of this House and the Canadian people will be aware, or will learn if they don't already know, that the Canadian Children's Foundation has launched the "Kids Help Phone" to reach out to chilren in distress. With sponsorship from the corporate sector, this toll-free, national hot-line offers 24-hour a day, year-round service to children who don't know where to turn for help. The child's anonymity is preserved, and the Foundation is working closely with the provinces.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the federal government is currently taking action to develop measures to protect Canadians from abuse and neglect. In June of 1988, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women announced the $40 million family violence initiative. Again, Mr. Speaker, the ministry is cooperating with the provinces and the territories. A lot has to be done. Right now, we are trying to develop a long-term action plan and to make sure we all agree that sexual abuse and family violence must come to an end. It will take money and efforts, but you can be sure that I will pay special attention to this matter. I want to thank the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear the response of the government to this private member's motion. I listened very carefully as she ignored the essential point being raised; that is, will Canada lend support to the UN
Private Members' Business
General Assembly debate on a bill of rights for children this fall. The response of our party today and for the last several years is that we will support the UN resolution and we ask the government of Canada to take the initiative in working with the provinces to see that this happens.
I would just take us back a little bit to understand the genesis of this debate. The Liberal Party has for years worked within the General Assembly to assure that children's rights are promoted and protected. It comes as a great surprise, though perhaps not, that this government chooses to talk about anything else except its international responsibility in a matter so fundamental to the future of our country as children's rights.
Back in 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration of the rights of the child. Included in this declaration were the right to affection, love and understanding, the right to adequate nutrition and medical care, the right to free education, the right to a full opportunity to play and recreation and the right to a name and nationality. That takes us back 30 years of fighting for this basic principle.
Canada was a signatory to this bill. However, the UN lacks the legal authority to enforce the principles enshrined in this bill. Hence children's rights in Canada were nothing more than a statement of principle. This is not to say, however, that policy and law-making in Canada did not take into account the welfare of children. We all know of the progressive legislation presented by one Liberal government after another since that time to promote the rights of children.
A private member made an effort in 1979 to present a piece of legislation. James McGrath, a Progressive Conservative member from St. John's East presented Bill C-204, which was then sent to a committee and was never enacted. This party across from me has some semblance of conscience but has not been able to pull itself together to do anything as the government.


Mr. Friesen:: Who killed it?


David Walker: It was killed by your party. The Canadian Government should take the responsibility in three ways for enhancing the rights of children. First, it should take the responsibility for working with the UN to ensure that this piece of legislation gets through this fall. The bill of rights for children has a number of principles which are

Private Members' Business
absolutely important for Canadians. Elere are some of the highlights from it.
Every child has the inherent right to life and the state shall ensure maximum child survival and development. Children shall not be separated from their parents unless competent authorities are there for their own well-being. Parents have the primary responsibility for the child's upbringing, but the state shall provide them with appropriate assistance and develop child care institutions. The state shall protect children from physical or mental harm and neglect. Disabled children shall have the right to special treatment, education and care. The state shall ensure health care is provided to all children. Primary education shall be free and compulsory as early as possible. Discipline shall respect the child's dignity. Children should have time to rest and play and equal opportunities for cultural and artistic activities. The state shall protect children from the illegal use of drugs. Capital punishment or life imprisonment shall not be imposed for crimes committed before the age of 18. Children of minority and indigenous population shall freely enjoy their own culture, religion and language.
Although in Canada we have often talked about these objectives as a country, we have also had a great deal of difficulty reaching these goals. Part of the problem, and I think this is the origin of this particular private member's motion, is the fact that so many of our responsibilities dealing with children are in fact split between the provincial and federal governments.
Think of the way we have distributed responsibilities. Family allowances are federal; child welfare is basically provincial. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is federal; education is provincial. The Criminal Code is federal. Income support is both provincial and federal, depending on the particular piece of legislation. Municipal services which affect children in areas such as recreation are under the umbrella of the provincial governments. Housing can be either federal or provincial. Disability assistance can be either provincial or federal and child labour laws are provincial responsibilities. For this reason, it is important for the federal government not to sit back but to take the initiative to ensure that the provincial governments which must assume responsibility for this international piece of legislation understand the importance of it for all Canadians so that we do not get locked into a Balkanized state and have one or two recalcitrant ministers refuse to sign.
I think of some of the pressing problems facing us with our children. Let us just go through the list quickly. It is enough to disturb any Canadian. There is the plight of native children, particularly in western Canada, on reserves and off reserves, and little action is being taken there. In the native community, the baby boom has come later and these problems will only get worse and worse if we do not act. The plight of young prostitutes in our cities, the emergence of street gangs, crime and drug-related activities, ethnic and racial tensions, the problem of homelessness among youth who have no place to go and wander the streets night after night. There is the impoverishment of families, particularly since this government took control. There are the single-parent families and the problems they have dealing with the responsibilities of their children. There is sexual abuse, which was already mentioned by previous speakers.
For these reasons we think that the government should not sit back and make speeches about what it has been trying to do but should admit, as all clear-thinking Canadians would admit, that in fact a great deal has to be done in the near future to protect our children.
This motion represents but one small step in the activities that the Canadian government could be taking, and in fact will represent a first step in a very, very difficult process of ensuring provincial co-operation. We have seen that the strategy of this government in one domain after another has been to allow the provincial governments to do whatever they want. This is not a time to wait for the provincial governments to do what they want but in fact is a time to establish federal authority, federal leadership, and ensure that Canada becomes a signatory to this agreement as well as the provincial governments.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this debate. No political party has a monopoly on what is best for the children of this country, but all of us as legislators have a responsibility to understand that for years, there has been neglect in this field and it is within the power of this small chamber to affect the lives of over 1,200,000 children in this country who do live below the poverty line.

My reason for coming into politics some 30 years ago was that I am a social worker. I worked with the Children's Aid Society in the city of Vancouver and also in correctional institutions. When I first started as a social worker, case loads were 78 children per worker. Now case loads average 250 to 300. We have not made progress, Mr. Speaker, we have lost ground. We were putting children as young as 12 years of age into prisons, known as training schools in this country. Mercifully, in the last 30 years some of that attitude has changed, but it has not changed on racial lines. There are still indigenous peoples in this country whose children are placed, on the basis of the fact they are indigenous people, far more readily than the rest of the population into child care in provinces right across this country.
Furthermore, when we talk about children's rights we must understand that they are part of families. Essentially the poverty end of those families is the single parent family. We can all make pious statements and platitudes about the necessity of caring for children, but the bottom line is sufficient money for a family to survive and provide the necessities of life for every child who should be given equal access to every necessity in this country. I do not blame the government for this situation, or the opposition, or our party. We talk about the necessity for these things, bringing a sense of unanimity to our concern for children. The facts is that there is only one body in this House that has the authority at this moment, delegated by the citizens of this country, to do something about it and it is that government over there.
It is not good enough to blame it on the Liberals. It is not good enough to say we hope to do better. What is good enough is to stand up and say that we, the Government of Canada, supported by the two opposition parties, intend to make right that which has for so long been wrong.
During my administration in British Columbia, I was attacked for being a social worker. I was attacked for being concerned about the rights of children. I was told that I was spending too much money on welfare. I will never apologize for upping the budgets for the care of children that we were responsible for as a government of the province of British Columbia.
Private Members' Business


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: I deeply regret that the succeeding government destroyed initiatives in the province of British Columbia parallel with some of the provinces, including the province of Quebec, that were innovative, new and daring in preventing problems with children rather than institutionalizing them and paying for the problems afterwards.
My colleague, the Member for Mission-Coquitlam, has made an outstanding statement here in this House, delineating through hard facts the passion and the anxiety of people in this country who do work with children every single day. We will not get another chance, perhaps, in the very short time of this parliament to discuss an issue that is as important as this in my opinion, and we do have a chance to vote on it today.
There are voiceless people who expect and hope and dream that somehow a good government will do something decent. This is a chance for all of us to participate in good government and in doing something decent, but it means backing it up with money.
My colleague spoke about the need for a hotline for children. The hotline is operating, Mr. Speaker. What is missing is the money to keep it going. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the way government chooses to spend, but surely a little bit from travel budgets could drift down to this kind of program. Surely a little bit from advertising budgets could drift down to children. Surely a little casual knocking off of some of the spendthrift attitudes of some of the ministers would trickle down to this problem.
Kids do not have a chance to speak. Kids do not have a chance to stand up in this House and ask for the things they want. Indigenous children who are the victims of inherent and incipient racism in this country do not have a chance to speak. We used to grab kids simply because they were indigenous kids and they were better placed in white homes than they were in the indigenous people's homes. Fortunately, that practice is almost gone in this country, but it still exists.
There is a need for standards to be set, as my colleague said. There should be basic minimums. The tools are there to do it under the Canada Assistance Plan. If this government really were concerned about children, it would say no money under the Canada Assistance Plan

September 25, 1989
Private Members' Business
to any province that cuts down in terms of education, health care or social services for any child.
A similar experience happened in the United States when singing Jim Folson, the governor of Tennessee, decided that he was going to use welfare money for children for other purposes. The federal government in the United States had enough guts to cut off the money and force him to meet the standards. We can do the same thing with reluctant premiers here in this country. They are not reluctant because they are mean people, Mr. Speaker. They are reluctant because they are largely unaware of how serious the problem is for children in this country.
I want to comment about some of the changes that I have seen as I conclude my remarks. Some of the changes are in the use of alcohol and other drugs.
I hear pious words about a war on drugs. The most serious drug affecting children in our society and almost condoned by many parents is alcohol. There are some parents who actually believe that they are relieved that their kids are drinking beer or booze and not using drugs. Alcohol is a drug and it is a violently abused drug here in this country simply because in many instances it is pushed on kids through some of the advertising that is subtle but direct.
The last comment I want to make is about child sex abuse. The Badgley Report initiated by the Liberal government is a masterful example of the use of the House to bring information to legislators. The government is to be commended for releasing the Badgley Report, an outstanding piece of work showing unanimity about gathering facts. The Badgley Report, after gathering facts, is now gathering dust.
The statistics on increasing sexual abuse of children in this country are alarming and inexcusable and regrettably have reached into institutions where we never expected to encounter such behaviour. We have never as a nation made a commitment to ensure that a whole range of services are available for every child in this country regardless of race, creed or colour and that the services are available on the basis of the needs of the child rather than having the child fit into the services that the state thinks it needs. That means flexibility. It means some caution, some prudence and some understanding that at the bottom of all of this is money and a commitment.
I will be the first to go public and praise the Tory government if it accepts this motion, passes it and puts its money behind it. But if this is just to be another exercise for an afternoon, all of us being good and talking about the needs of children, then forget it. It will go down as another cynical and hypocritical afternoon. This is a rare chance in the legislative process to do something that means something for all of us and to back it up with money. I beg the government to take the chance.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam for placing this motion before the House because it gives us a chance to visit a subject sorely in need of greater attention. I rise to speak because I share her concern that we must do all that is possible to protect children and ensure their rights.
There are a lot of things that have happened in this century that would make us wonder whether civilization is advancing. But one of the marks of civilization perhaps is the extent to which we take care and consideration for the weaker, the more vulnerable, the voiceless, be they minorities, individuals with disabilities, the environment, animals, and most of all children. An effort to curb the strong is sometimes needed but efforts to uphold the weak is very much always there. A mark of how we can make progress on that is perhaps more than anything a mark of how civilized we are.
A comprehensive Canadian bill of rights for children is an admirable concept. But, in fact, there is a more immediate and practical alternative before us to accomplish the very same objective. I refer, as the hon. member herself did, to the United Nations Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child. This important international convention is expected to be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly later this year. Once adopted, the convention will be open to ratification by all countries, including Canada. States that become party to that international convention will be bound by the specific provisions, as the hon. member has pointed out, and the obligations that are contained in it.
September 25, 1989

How does that convention affect the debate within Canada? I think it is precisely that way. The hon. member herself referred to the high standards that are in that draft convention. I believe, to answer my own question, that this instrument developed through the comity of nations can serve as a bill of rights for children not only internationally but also domestically. We will go through the process to which she referred of seeing that all Canadian laws and policies reflect the new rights and obligations set out in that charter.
In the thirty-third Parliament I chaired a committee of this House on equality rights that went through essentially the same exercise dealing with Article 15 of the Charter. We looked at existing Canadian laws and programs to see that they in fact comply with the guarantees of equality enshrined in Article 15. A similar process is contemplated here.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, unfortunately, put a negative cast on his remarks in referring to the government because the reality is that this country has taken a very active role in the development of this convention. He also gave a list of issues that affect the position of children in our society indicating which fall under federal and which fall under provincial jurisdiction. We are not hearing of that for the first time. Our government is more than mindful that these are mostly shared jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction issues. That is why for some many months now the Government of Canada has worked closely with provincial governments to see that in the drafting of the convention itself their interests and concerns were adequately reflected. This is something that has been proceeding with care, pressing on toward this goal of having an instrument that can serve both the international community and, most assuredly, our own domestic situation with the best possible statement of the rights of children.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, we may ask here whether it is really necessary to have an international or national charter of children's rights. After all, children are human beings and as such should enjoy the rights provided in international instruments and national charters like our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some states expto have an international or national charter of children's rights. After all, chilldren are human beings and as such should
Private Members' Business
enjoy the rights provided in international instruments and national charters like our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some states expressed this opinion when the question of a convention on the rights of the child arose in the late 1970s.
Although we all agree that children enjoy the same basic rights as adults, we must still admit that they cannot exercise them all in the same way as adults and that furthermore, children require special protection much more than adults. The international community has recognized this fact since the beginning of the century. For example, The Hague Convention on the Laws of War adopted in 1907 is one of the first international instruments to deal with children's rights. This document and those that followed it set forth what protection must be given to children in wartime. The signatory states are required to provide this protection. The standards were considerably improved after the horrors of World War II, when the international community, meeting under the auspices of the Red Cross, wrote the four Geneva Conventions in 1949.

Outside of those specific areas of protection of children during armed conflict to which I have just referred, the international community took an early interest in the broader rights of the child. For example, in 1924, it was the League of Nations that adopted the first declaration of the rights of the child which, in these circles, is commonly referred to as the Declaration of Geneva. Although its content was only declaratory in nature, it did provide a necessary focus that has since guided the international community's work in this field of children's rights. It is worth noting that back in the mid-1920s a statement was made which says-and I think back to what the hon. member from British Columbia just said-that mankind owes to the child the best that it has to give-a simple, but a high standard. Sadly, in practice, that duty has often not been fulfilled.
It was because of those failings and the failings that other hon. members have documented here, Mr. Speaker, that the international community recognized it was necessary to ensure better protection for children. That is why in 1959 the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child went some way toward achieving the goal of setting standards. Still, by the 1970s, as new issues affecting children came to the attention of all of us, it was recognized that a number of those provisions were

Adjournment Debate
simply out of date and that we had come to an era where a legally binding instrument was the order of the day.
It has been 10 years since then that this UN convention has been in the making. There have been countless difficulties and problems that probably would have derailed a less noble venture. There was the early problem of skepticism. Drafting this new convention was also plagued initially by cold war ideological disputes, not to mention the cultural differences of participating states which periodically resulted in quite a strong difference of opinion.
The working group in which Canada was very much an active participant persisted. This perseverance has resulted in a remarkable document that itself is testament, I believe, to the international community's continuing concern for the rights of the child. That is our closest, best hope to move forward because it already represents a strong response by Canada, both federally and provincially. If we get that convention ratified this year, and Canada becomes a signatory and we bring our domestic laws into line with it, I think that a great distance will have been covered to bring the aspirations expressed here this afternoon into a reality.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, as did the Hon. Members who just spoke, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan) for presenting this motion.
However, Mr. Speaker, I doubt I will have much time to speak in this debate.
I will give it a try, Mr. Speaker, because if any vulnerable group in our society needs the Government's protection, it is our children.
This Government, through various departments including National Health and Welfare and the Solicitor General's department, continues and will continue to live up to its commitment to protect and provide for the welfare of Canadian children.
Our commitment is straightforward and simple, Mr. Speaker. Every Every child in Canada should have a chance to grow up and develop into a healthy individual.
This is a very stimulating and also a very complex responsibility.
The challenge becomes even greater when we consider the needs of those who may be handicapped or otherwise disadvantaged. Everyone, Mr. Speaker, has a responsibility and a role to play: all levels of governments; educators; professionals; suppliers of services; and so forth, to ensure that our children's needs will be net.
Mr. Speaker, earlier we heard the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) explain the various programs provided by the Minister of National. In fact, I would have liked to expand on the measures proposed by the Solicitor General's department. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time.
Nevertheless, I may recall, Mr. Speaker, that there are some veiy important measures in this area and that this is a responsibility not just of the government but of society in general.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I did not see both members rising but the next time the bill comes in the House the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the hon. member for Winnipeg North will be recognized.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to standing order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
September 25, 1989

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that today's question was postponed several times, although on several occasions I stayed in the House as late as ten o'clock at night, hoping to express my views on the very important subject of drug trafficking.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank you for this opportunity to pursue the subject raised in the House on May 31 in a question to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Blais) about the war against drugs, further to the national annual report on drugs for 1987-88, published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The report showed that enforcement techniques had improved and that international co-operation and the passage of new legislation on the profits of criminal behaviour will have a severe impact on major drug trafficking organizations. In the Western world, the RCMP has a solid reputation for its drug awareness programs.
Compared with 1986, the RCMP seized 41 per cent more cocaine and 94 per cent more cannabis in 1987. In Quebec, as part of its campaign against the profits of crime, it confiscated 25 per cent of those profits in the form of money and goods. These seizures concerned a total of $18.6 million, of which $4.8 million in Quebec. International trafficking in illegal drugs has increased spectacularly over the past few years, and apparently, drug profits are being used partly to finance terrorism.
The major organized groups that control the drug trade in Canada have established elaborate money laundering systems and are thus becoming increasingly powerful. In Canada, drug imports and sales generate between $5 and $10 billion annually. Montreal, where the number of users has tripled in the past two years, has confirmed its position as a focal point for the drug trade. Mr. Speaker, Montreal has between 10,000 and 15,000 of Canada's 25,000 heroin adddicts, while their number was estimated at only 5,000 at the beginning of 1987. Drug-related problems, including daily stress, personal and family problems, a higher incidence of criminal offences and traffic accidents as well as the rising cost of enforcement and health care, are a major social concern.
According to the Drug Addiction Research Foundation, the cost of drug abuse in Canada in 1984 totalled $11.5 billion. From 1976 to 1986, the number of viola-
Adjoumment Debate
tions of the Narcotics Act totalled 691,713. The number of persons convicted of these offences totalled 561,248.
The number of young people charged with a criminal offence under federal drug legislation was 4,767 in 1986 alone. More crimes, deaths, and disease will be inevitable in most Canadian cities if the expected increase in cocam and crack in the 90's materializes, since a report published by the mayor of Ottawa in June, Drug Abuse: Not my kid, revealed an increasingly serious problem with drug abuse.
Worse still, there is a shortage of treatment centres for youngsters under age 16. They must be sent to the United States, and that entails astronomical expenditures. Every day we can read newspaper articles on drugs and their devastating effects. Proliferating drug use creates a new threat to national security: the value of life is minimized, crime soars, and youg people ruin their lives for ever.
Police forces in the riding of Drummond have given priority to the fight against drugs. I am proud indeed to say that a commendable effort is being made in schools and within the whole community under the supervision of Director General Marcel Lefebvre and constable Remi Thibault.
Training programs have also been made available to the Drummond Penitentiary staff, and theirs is the most elaborate drug addiction program in Quebec.
In 1987 the Solicitor General of Canada announced the adoption of measures aimed at putting an end to drug trafficking. The Government has earmarked $210 million for this new strategy.
The Department of National Defence will provide more direct support in operations against drug dealers by making Canadian Forces aircraft and ships available to the RCMP.
The Minister of National Revenue announced that beginning last May 9 civil sanctions would be applied to discourage drug smuggling.
Other measures are to be taken to promote co-operation and an approach which reflects the national antidrug strategy.
Awareness and prevention programs alone however will not put an end to the availability of drugs and the dependence they create.

September 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, here is my question to the Solicitor General. Is it the Government's intention to introduce a stricter policy to fight against this insidious threat to our collective well-being by implementing strong measures to thwart drug dealers and users whose ranks have tripled over the past two years? All the more so because of the fact that, since President Bush unveiled his new antidrug program last September 5, drug dealers have been using Canada as a back door to gain access to the American market.
Considering that our media regularly report drug-related incidents, we have to come to the conclusion that we are before a fait accompli, an everyday occurrence.
In light of such deep concern, does the Government expect to increase border surveillance in an all-out antidrug war?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to compliment the Member for Drummond for his consistent and his persistent interest and concern about the plague that has hit Canada and western countries, indeed around the world, and that is the drug abuse that is going on that is killing, injuring and maiming children all around the world.
I think the member will recall that a few years ago our Prime Minister spoke in Vancouver about the epidemic proportion of the drug problem in Canada. He was criticized and lampooned by editorial boards across Canada for his alarmist statements regarding this problem. I think Canadians now realize that he was right and that the hon. member for Drummond is correct. I listened carefully to the remarks he made in his statement just now. He has done careful research on this subject. It is indeed a war that we are engaged in. The member has shown concerns in various levels about the welfare of children.
I have a letter from a very articulate mother regarding the plight of her 14-year old child whom she had cared for carefully. But she did not realize that in a matter of four months the child had moved from the use of marijuana, unknown to the parents, to the use of hard
drugs. Not even her best friends knew that the child was using this drug. This is the kind of a war that we are into.
The government is concerned that we attack it from every area we can. That is why the Department of Health and Welfare has initiated the national drug strategy and invested $210 million to educate young people and to attack this problem. That is why we have passed legislation, I think it is Bill C-61, whereby the government is now entitled to confiscate the profits from crime and in the first six months that that bill has been invoked, law enforcement officers have been able to confiscate $20 million across Canada from the profits of this crime.
That is just the beginning. I am sure that that is just the tip of the iceberg. The federal government is working with the provincial governments, through the RCMP, through the various agencies all across Canada, to educate, to apprehend and to confiscate. Those are the areas that we have to deal with and make sure that all levels of the government are co-operating in this war.
Again, I compliment the member for his intense pursuit of this subject because it is only if we in this House and people across the country take this same kind of intense interest in this subject that we will beat this war on drugs.


HOUSING-PERSONAL HOUSING COSTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expand on my question to the minister responsible for housing that I asked last April, and that was why he abandoned his position of principle and why he was no longer holding out the 30 per cent ratio of personal income as a realistic figure for housing. I think over the last number of years we have seen an increase in housing problems in this country, particularly in affordability.
I want to make it very clear when I express concern about the 30 per cent guideline that has been in place by CMHC as a maximum amount that a family should be spending on shelter, I am not in the least bit worried about the family that has an income of $6,000 a month and is spending $3,000 of it on a quarter of a million dollar home. My concern is for the woman who is looking after two children on an income of $1,000 a month and is
September 25, 1989

spending $600 a month or 60 per cent of her income, leaving the family with only $400 and living in poverty because on $400 she cannot buy the basic necessities of food, clothing and medical care.
We have seen in the last years a number of things happening in housing in this country. There has been a sharp increase in the price of housing, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver. However, the real estate board, last Thursday, at the finance committee said there are 22 markets, not just two in Vancouver, where a serious problem has arisen because of fast escalation of housing prices.
We have seen since 1980 a decline in real family income. Sixty per cent of all single parent families now are headed by women who live in poverty. One point two million children in this country are now living in poverty. The number of two parent families that live below the poverty line has doubled since 1973. What we are facing is a growing number of Canadians, not the wealthy but middle and lower income Canadians, who because of poverty cannot afford housing or because of the high cost of housing are being driven into poverty. They have always had at least the federal government saying you should not be paying more than 30 per cent. Some hope. And the minister has backed away from that.
This federal government has done a number of things that almost seem to be designed to take a bad problem and make it worse. Let me just list a couple of them. They have continued with their high interest rate policy. Every increase in the interest rate of 1 per cent adds $100 per month to the mortgage payment on a mortgage of $150,000. The other thing that they have done is they have backed away from social housing programs. They have reduced their commitment to provide non-market housing. We have seen that in the reduction in the number of units that they are willing to build under co-op housing and the doing away with the rental RRAP program. Rental RRAP was a significant program for the poor in some cities. It did not work universally well. We have an increased problem of poverty with renters in this country. Forty per cent of all renters now start with an income below the poverty line.
In my riding, in the last six months, as vacancy rates have gone down developers have taken over peripheral housing rental units, given them a coat of paint, put cheap carpets on the floor and have increased rents
Adjournment Debate
anywhere from 30 per cent to 50 per cent to 70 per cent, taking them totally out of the ability of people on fixed or marginal incomes to pay.
Now we have probably the most devastating blow on housing that anyone could take, and that is the GST. The government said it would give a rebate that would make housing not change in price. It estimated that there would be a net increase of only $480. Nobody believes that. The Home Builders Association has done its own independent calculations and it shows the price on a typical house costing $150,000 will increase $3,025, an increase over what the government said of 630 per cent.
I have had a tax firm, Oates Anderson, do some calculations for myself, considering not only the increase on the cost of housing, but the impact of inflation on the GST and the driving up of interest rates by GST. What Oates Anderson show is that it is not going to be the $480 that the federal government says, it is not even going to be the $3,000 that the Home Builders say, the increase could be as high as $14,000 on an average house in Vancouver, which means an increase in down payment of $3,600 and an increase in monthly mortgage payments of $230 on the average price in Vancouver.
So, I ask the minister again: What hope does he hold out? Instead of simply saying, "If the goal is not attainable, let us move the goalpost", I think he has to hold out some hope for Canadians for affordable housing, particularly those in the middle and lower income brackets .


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to make it quite clear that neither I nor the government have backed away from anything as far as helping Canadians with their housing problems.
I think the hon. member referred in his original question and has referred this evening to this 30 per cent figure. I would like to make it quite clear what that 30 per cent figure is all about.
There really are two aspects to the magic number of 30 per cent. First if a Canadian goes out to apply for a mortgage to a bank or a trust company, he or she will not get that mortgage unless his or her income is in excess of the total principal interest payments that that Canadian will make on the mortgage plus municipal taxes. That is one part of what the 30 per cent figure means.

September 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The second relates to the question of assisted housing. That means you are not eligible for assisted housing under the rules and regulations in place unless your income exceeds 30 per cent; unless you are paying greater than 30 per cent of your income for your housing needs. Those are the two aspects referred to and to which the Hon. Member has been referring as far as the number 30 per cent is concerned in relation to housing.
I was quoted in The Globe and Mail back on April 24, with respect to this as follows: First, that Canadians can no longer assume 30 per cent of their income will buy reasonable accommodation. Second, that 30 per cent of income for housing is no longer realistic for many Canadians. I do not really believe that the hon. member can quarrel with those two statements. In fact, that is the case. Today, many Canadians have to spend much more than 30 per cent of their income on affordable housing. We need to tiy to make sure we can house as many Canadians as we possibly can. There is no question of backing away from the 30 per cent figure whatsoever.
What the government did when it came to power in 1984 was to put in place a new policy, a policy whereby all government housing money was directed toward the neediest, those who were spending in excess of 30 per cent of their income on housing. In fact, that was not the policy of the previous government. In fact, it has meant that about 40 per cent more needy people get housing assistance from that government funding than got assistance under the previous government's policy.
That sort of policy and the money that is spent by the government at the present time on assisted housing means that some 600,000 units or homes across the country receive assistance with housing. It means that this year will add something like 45,000 more assisted housing units to the total inventory of housing across the country.
That is the sort of thing we need to do. Unfortunately, that is not enough, obviously, and we have to do other things as well. Some of the things that the hon. member is aware we are trying to do at the moment are, first, make some more surplus government land available for housing that is affordable to Canadians. Hopefully, we
will be doing it in the Vancouver area. We have done some in the Toronto area. Hopefully we will be able to do more.
Second, we have put in place some tripartite committees, federal, provincial and municipal. There is one in Vancouver. It met on September 12 and it is aimed at getting more land in place to produce more housing that is affordable to Canadians.
Third, we hope very shortly to have in place a regulatory reform process aimed at cutting the cost of housing through cutting the red tape involved in putting housing on the market and also in trying to improve the zoning regulations so that the housing being built will not be monster houses as are many of the homes in Vancouver, but starter ones affordable to Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister's time has expired.
CANADA POST CORPORATION-REMARKS OF CONSTITUENT-MINISTER'S POSITION/PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTIVITIES


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 21,1 rose in this chamber during Question Period to ask the minister responsible for Canada Post about newspaper advertising carrying the signatures of community leaders from across Canada, including one from my own constituency.
What prompted me to rise was that preceding that date, on June 15, the Minister had quoted from this advertisement in this House of Commons naming my constituent and identifying his community of residence. I later contacted my constituent to find out more concerning the Canada Post ads of which the minister was most proud. To be clear, the ads in question state: "People in my community are benefiting from this postal service. It is good for the community". That statement is followed by 80 signatures of reeves, mayors and councillors from across the country.
Before proceeding with the problems with the specifics of the ad itself, I would like to mention the context in which that ad occurred. That context is an odious one. The advertising campaign of which this ad is a part aims to convince rural Canadians that Canada Post is in rural Canada to stay. As rural Canadians with whom I am familiar know all too well this is not the case.
September 25, 1989

Canada Post and the federal government along with it is pulling out of rural Canada. Why, Mr. Speaker? Canada Post and this federal government are using rural Canadians as scapegoats in their single-minded pursuit of profits for Canada Post at the expense of service, at the expense of jobs for rural Canadians, and at the expense of the communities themselves.
My constituent named in this House of Commons, Mr. Edward Kjargaard, is listed from Alticane, Saskatchewan, where some changes in postal service have taken place. What used to be a thriving community with three grain elevators is now just a hamlet with maybe 15 people. Mr. Kjargaard is not the reeve of Alticane, he is the reeve of the RM of Douglas in which the hamlet of Alticane is situated. He lives 30 miles from Alticane and gets his mail not from outdoor boxes at Alticane but from a rural route delivery service which originates in the urban centre of North Battleford. Mr. Kjargaard made this all very clear to the Optima Research employee who visited him to discuss post office services in Alticane. To make a long story very short, my constituent said he had a good conversation with the person from Optima, but had he known it would turn out the way it did, he never would have signed the release they gave him to sign. In fact he admitted it seemed that Canada Post was more interested in his signature than in his opinion.
To substantiate his words, Mr. Kjargaard has sent me a letter in which he states:
Canada Post published my name in an advertising campaign but
they never mentioned my concerns.
While all this was going on media reporters and politicians have called others quoted in that advertising campaign. As many as 10 of those 80 people have said that their signatures were used in a manner different than what they expected.
I asked the minister to apologize to my constituents, and to all of Canada, for allowing Canada Post to cany an advertising campaign which misrepresents the truth. I asked the minister to explain how Canadians could be expected to trust him and Canada Post in the future if this is the way they conduct their public business.
The government has chosen to place the interests of big business and the Conservative quest for privatization at any cost before the day-to-day needs of all Canadians for an efficient, reliable, accountable postal service. This government has chosen to condone Canada Post's ill-conceived attempt to fool all of the people all of the time with its multi-million dollar advertising campaign and to
Adjournment Debate
condone Canada Post's misrepresentation of rural Canadians as they have done with this ad in question.
Therefore, I call on the government to listen to rural Canadians, to listen to the communities of Elbow, Lintlaw, Dubuc, Denzil and Wilkie, Saskatchewan as well as all the other rural communities across Canada including those in Prince Edward Island where this summer municipal leaders across the island said "no" to retail postal outlets.
I call on the government to listen to these Canadians, to put service and jobs before profits, to fulfil the mandate of Canada Post to provide service and, therefore, to put an end to costly ad campaigns which misrepresent Canadians and to insist that Canada Post get back to providing and expanding service to all. [Translation]


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat strange that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Taylor) would seem fit to raise this question again, since it already was put in exactly the same terms and the Minister gave a very clear answer, both as to the procedure followed to canvars luminaries or municipal elected city officials as to whether they supported an advertising campaign, whether they were willing to have their names published during an advertisement campaign they were very clearly informed as to the nature of what that campaign, its theme and advertisement contents. They were asked in the questionnaire to sign a release for their names to be published.
Although unhappy if someone mistakenly signed such a simple statement, I can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the statement on which the ads were based reads: "People in my community are enjoying this new postal service, it is good for the community". They were asked to sign the following form: "I basically agree with the above statement and I hereby authorize Post Canada to use my name as a municipal representative who believes that people in my community are benefitting from the new postal service". That very simple form was indeed signed.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to understand. His question was duly answered. Now he raises the matter again. Now, his statement includes a number of unsubstantiated allegations. We had a scientifically-made survey, the data are available, it was done by Gallup-97 per cent of rural Canadians are satisfied with the Canadian postal service and the reform of the postal system. Let me now repeat what the Minister told him.

September 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Presumably he represents the other 3 per cent, which would explain his question, but our policy is based on the other 97 per cent of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted, Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 26,1989