1989-11-01

Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I draw to the attention of this House an event of historical importance in Banff, Alberta, today. November 1, 1989, marks a significant step forward for the town in its advancement toward municipal government.
Starting today the mayor-elect, councillors, and school district trustees will join with the Banff Municipal Committee to facilitate the orderly transition of authority, for on January 1, 1990, through the co-operative effort of the Hon. Lucien Bouchard, the local authorities and the provincial government of Alberta, Banff will become a town with an elected mayor and council.
I am sure that my fellow members here in this House of Commons will join with me in wishing the Banff town council every success in its future endeavours in local government.


FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I contacted the Minister of Finance about the $500 deduction allowed to volunteer firemen across Canada. This $500 exemption can only be called a pittance in light of the costs incurred by these volunteers for such things as car insurance, clothing, cleaning bills and cost of gasoline, not to mention the danger that these men and women put
themselves in the path of. All of this is incurred in the name of community duty.
The minister has refused to raise the exemption to a well deserved $1,000. A few days ago the Auditor General advised that the Minister of Finance is "letting hundreds of millions of dollars slip through his hands". Further, the Auditor General, Mr. Dye, points out that nothing has been done to close the loopholes which represent a loss of revenue to the government in the order of $350 million a year.
I suggest that the minister's mistake is being compensated for at the expense of a fine group of people, a group of people that I think deserve our respect and, at this time, at least a little more in the exemption that they can claim. These are the very proud volunteer firemen of Canada.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27 the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas reported to the Minister of Finance and recommended that he initiate massive cutbacks to a program which until now has tried to address the economic needs of Canadians who live in northern and isolated areas. Those cuts will disqualify 150 Saskatchewan communities and thousands of Saskatchewan families from appropriate tax breaks and discourage future community investment and development in these important parts of our province.
On behalf of my colleague, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and my other Saskatchewan colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I call on the Minister of Finance to immediately reject these recommendations which do not address the needs of northern people. I ask that he make a real commitment to reform the northern tax benefit program so that he provides a fair and equitable response to the economic realities in these communities.

November 1, 1989


TRAVEL EXPENSES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since the Auditor General's press conference, federal Liberals and New Democrats have constantly denounced the air travel expenses incurred by Members of our Government. Of course, they overlook the sound expenditure cuts made by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to save Canadian taxpayers' money. For example, I would like to give the details of my latest trip in the North, where our Minister sent me to open the airports in Salluit and Kangirsujuaq from October 19 to 21. I went to Quebec City to take the Quebec Government's F-27. In two and a half days, I covered over 5,000 kilometres and my expenses were only $662.35 in all. This includes accommodation at the Confortel Motel in Quebec City for $47, lodging in Salluit and Montreal for $164, four meals for $32.35, two taxis for $15 and airfare of $404.
Mr. Speaker, this trip is the third of its kind that I have made at the Minister's request and we thus saved over $75,000. I congratulate the Minister and thank the Government of Quebec.


SOUTH AFRICAN DEBT
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on September 28 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that major banks co-ordinating South Africa's debt "agreed that they would be seeking the highest possible interest payments and the fastest possible repayments". As we all know, this did not materialize. In fact, South Africa won more favourable terms on its agreement with the banks for debt rescheduling. In light of the propaganda victory for South Africa, the words of our Secretary of State for External Affairs have become an embarrassment.
The strategy failure of this government with regard to South Africa demands that the Prime Minister immediately commit to his four-year-old promise made to the United Nations where he stated: "My government has said to Canadians that if there are not fundamental
changes in South Africa, we are prepared to invoke total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime".
Although we can hope the present government in South Africa may reconsider its apartheid policy, we know that it is increased sanctions, not hope, that will influence the required changes.
Lest the Prime Minister lose all credibility nationally and internationally with regard to his stated position to mount the necessary anti-apartheid policies, sanctions against South Africa must be increased today.


FINANCE
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks, Opposition Members have denounced the proposed goods and services tax and claimed that all Canadians are against it.
I am now consulting my constituents in Montmorency-Orleans on the GST and the comments I receive tell me that when they are well informed about the deficit, a large majority of people in my riding support the GST in principle.
For example, a businessman in Sainte-Famille on the Isle of Orleans, Georges-Henri Blouin, wrote to me: "I do not like the GST, but we have no choice, the deficit must be reduced. The debt did not start yesterday. Governments have come and gone and the debt goes up all the time. This must stop and I hope that you will stand firm."
Mr. Blouin adds: "It is the same thing for VIA Rail. People want the train but do not take it. This has gone on far too long already. Sincere congratulations."
Mr. Speaker, Canadians appreciate the strong action taken by our Government to ensure their future and their children's.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27 the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas reported to the Minister of Finance and recommended that he initiate
November 1, 1989

massive cutbacks to a program which until now has tried to address the economic needs of Canadians who live in northern or isolated areas. These cuts will disqualify many communities in northern B.C. and discourage future community investment.
On behalf of the member from Skeena, and presumably the member from Prince George-Peace River, I call on the Minister of Finance to immediately reject these recommendations which do not address the needs of northern people. I ask that he make a real commitment to reform the northern tax benefit program so that it provides a fair and equitable response to the economic realities in these northern communities.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, the FTA panel reported its conclusions on the B.C. salmon and herring issue. Canada is not bound to accept the ruling.
The decision to accept or not to accept would seem to pit the interests of fishermen against the interests of plant owners. One thing that is unclear is the implications of the panel decision for the Atlantic fishery, particularly in view of the Americans' apparent predisposition to apply the principles of the decision to the Atlantic fishery.
Seafood producers in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland fear that land-based processing jobs could be imperilled if the implication of the decision is that over-the-side sales could become rampant. On the other hand, fishermen could be short-term beneficiaries of higher prices.
Failure to accept the ruling would likely bring about immediate retaliation against east coast fisheries, particularly Nova Scotia lobsters.
I urge the government to use all the time available before making its decision. Possibly the best solution for all concerned would be to set the decision aside and to seek to negotiate an alternate agreement with the United States. In either case, full consultation should take place with all affected sectors and parties before any decision is taken or announced.


SARNIA PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 31 to draw to the attention of the House that Polysar Limited of Sarnia, Ontario, was established by the Government of Canada during World War II. It has become a world class international petrochemical company operating in all global geographies.
It has provided employment opportunities to all production and corporate levels in the Sarnia-Lambton area over many years. This company has pioneered new technologies from its highly skilled research and development laboratories.
I bring to this House today my deep concern about rumours of impending layoffs in the Sarnia based operations of Polysar by Nova Corporation which acquired controlling interest in this company in 1988. This Sarnia operation is a world scale plant and has operated profitably over the years and, in several cases, employed technologies developed and introduced by Polysar.
There are early indications that the research activities are being curtailed. The consequences are serious for Canada in terms of our international competitiveness and the loss of opportunities for the graduates of our colleges and universities.
I call upon the government to investigate and report to the House on the impact of these cutbacks in the petrochemical industry and its research capabilities in this major and only Canadian owned petrochemical industry.
This government has a responsibility in this matter because it was through its policy of privatization that Polysar was purchased by another company, the priorities of which may not be research and development on a world scale. This company has been consistently profitable and it will be a major setback to Canada, and the Sarnia-Lambton region in particular, if these cutbacks take place.


ELK ISLAND SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Housing has shown his commitment to the riding of Elk Island with support for senior citizens' housing. Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal government will be

November 1, 1989
Oral Questions
providing an estimated subsidy of $243,515 per year for the next 50 years to Elk Island senior citizens at Lakeside Legion Manor in Sherwood Park, Alberta. This financial support will continue throughout the amortization of the mortgage in order to assist with operating costs.
Our senior citizens are important and this support from the housing minister is solid evidence that the Government of Canada is committed to our seniors. Let us work together in Canada to continue to support housing for the people who built this country. Let us work together to provide a brighter future for our senior citizens. Let us all work together for a better Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since the Conservative government has come to office, the opposition has been raising questions about the way in which this government conducts public business. Whether it is privatizations, whether it is the awarding of defence or Air Canada contracts, whether it is the construction of public buildings or the leasing of space in private buildings, whether it is getting funds for government programs or loans from government sources and whether these transactions in the end are legal or illegal, there are two constant themes which emerge. Friends of the Prime Minister are making lots of money, usually public money, and the awards are made without respect, in fact with nothing but contempt, for the taxpayer.
I want to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday it was shown that Senator Cogger's firm was getting money from the Federal Business Development Bank. Today it is revealed that he received $2,500 for getting a $340,000 grant from the department of energy.
Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us how, after departmental records show that the ministry's Enerdemo budget was exhausted and the applicant for funds was informed that it was exhausted, Hydromega was able to obtain the largest grant made under the program, ten times the average? What role was played by
Senator Cogger in finding this money that made Hydromega feel obligated to pay him $2,500?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this morning when I heard the first allegations on morning television I asked the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to prepare for me every bit of information relating to the Hydromega application, as well as a chronology of the events surrounding Hydromega. Approval, subject to funding approval, was granted to Hydromega on the basis of project criteria in 1987 and funding approval was granted January 26, 1988.
With respect to the allegations that the hon. member made at the end of his question, I am advised that there is no record within the department of any representation that Senator Cogger made, either verbally or written.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we have it on the record that he received a $2,500 payment for his work in connection with that matter.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the answer given yesterday by the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank. He said that he saw no difficulty with the bills being sent by Senator Cogger being paid. Yet the law makes it very clear-and I will read from the Parliament of Canada Act-that:
No person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or
indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in
any contract under which the public money of Canada is paid.
It is not argued that Senator Cogger did not send in the invoices for payment, nor that the payments made by the corporation were mailed to Senator Cogger.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister to direct the minister responsible for the bank to review the safeguards which the bank has in place to assure that the law is complied with, to bring those safeguards into compliance with the law and, in particular, to get back that money for the taxpayers of Canada paid to the Senator's firm.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, on receipt of the information yesterday respecting this matter, of course we checked with the Federal Business Development Bank and were assured that in- every case the decision to hire Lapointe Rosenstein was taken by FBDB. In every case the legal
November 1, 1989

services contracted for were provided. In every case the invoices which asked for payment to Lapointe Rosens-tein were examined by the comptrollers within the corporation. The whole receipt of invoices and payment has been audited. There is no evidence whatever of wrongdoing on the part of the Federal Business Development Bank.


Ms. Copps:: What about the senator?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing about whether work was done by the law firm. I listened to the statement made by the senator in the other place yesterday. The burden of what he had to say was to confirm the charges we were making in the House. In particular, the senator did not deny that he did part of the work and he did not deny that he may have benefited from the payment that was made by a corporation of the Crown to that law firm contrary to the section of the act that I have just read.
I therefore want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is at least prepared to take the advice of his colleague, the MP for Megantic, and agree that the senator should resign from the caucus.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the hon. member ought to be and I understand are being dealt with in the other place, most appropriately. Nothing the hon. member has suggested has anything to do with the administration of the Government of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on.


Harvie Andre: In terms of the administration of the Federal Business Development Bank-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did he break the law?


Harvie Andre: I hear the hon. member from Hamilton East shouting from her seat again.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Wrong member.


Ms. Clancy:: She's not alone.


Harvie Andre: I and my colleagues are prepared to answer for the administration of the Government of Canada in terms of the Federal Business Development Bank. I am convinced, on the information it has provided, that its
Oral Questions
behaviour is unassailable, that, in fact, it paid for legal services it has been acquiring from this firm for decades.
If the hon. member has an accusation to make against the senator, it should be made in the other place by himself and by his colleagues in the other place. It does not deal with the administration of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that the answer we just heard is totally inadequate and that the people of Canada expect answers to be coming from this House and from the government across the way. Concerning the issue of the energy department, can the Deputy Prime Minister, he who is the administrator of the conflict of interest rules, tell this House how the firm Hydromega GP Incorporated got the $340,000 grant from the federal government, a grant that just happens to be 10 times what it usually is? Was it because Senator Cogger had lobbied on behalf of the company? Is that the reason, or is it just a coincidence that the right conservative is there at the right time to collect the cash?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, and going back to the question that was asked by his colleague, I say to him there is not a record of any payments that have been brought to my attention, any information brought to my attention, with respect to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of any payments being made by the department to anyone but Hydromega which, on July 10, 1985, made its first application for approval of a grant.
As I said to the House earlier, I asked for a chronology record. I have asked for every piece of information. I have been advised that the record is as I have given it, the requests were made, the approval was made prior to January, 1988, and the funding was approved in January, 1988.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the questions are not being answered.

I would now like to put the following question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for monitoring compliance with our conflict of interest legislation. In 1974, Mr. Jean-Claude Boutin, a lawyer and Quebec MNA, had to resign his seat because his law firm had

Oral Questions
received payment for fees billed to the Crown while he was an MNA. Considering this precedent, what steps does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take to deal with this new crisis of confidence within his government? What specific steps? Will we get an answer?
f.English\


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard in any of the questions asked by the opposition, where, in fact, the administration of the Government of Canada is being called into question. The opposition members keep asking about the behaviour of a member of the other place. The proper place to raises those questions is in the other place.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. But I say to the minister who just answered that the Senate of Canada happens to be part of the Parliament of Canada and we have a responsibility here to make sure justice is done.
I listened with care to what the minister just said, and he was taking care with what he was saying, I noted, from his notes. The senator in question himself is quoted as saying, and these are his words: "I like to think that I have been helpful to Hydromega". He says he has been helpful; presumably not washing cars for the building or doing something like that. The private citizen involved, with reference to the senator said, "He was asked for a favour and he asked for one in return". The minister knows this is extremely serious. In the United States this would be an indictable offence if this were the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, what it might be somewhere else is one thing, but if the suggestion is being made that it is necessarily an indictable offence here, that suggestion-.


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute.
I think that hon. members will agree that the Chair is trying very hard to make sure that proper inquiries are made, but the Chair is not interested in allegations being made with reference to somebody else's law in another country. The hon. member will continue his question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy has quoted officials who said that they were not approached by Mr. Cogger. Mr. Cogger has said publicly that he was doing something on this deal, and the man on the business side of it says the same thing about Mr. Cogger. Has the Minister of Energy directly put the question to Senator Cogger himself and, if so, what did he say?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the Leader of the NDP that information was given to me respecting the work that was done this morning. I think I was very clear when I answered the first question. I said that when I heard the allegations on public television this morning I asked for all the information. The information that I have been given is the information that I have given to the House. I have not asked Senator Cogger directly or indirectly for any verification of the allegations.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say candidly to the minister that that is totally irresponsible. The senator in question is a member of the minister's own caucus and if he were interested in public probity he would have put that question directly to the senator before Question Period today.
Could the Solicitor General inform the House if there is an investigation under way in this very, very serious matter of public policy?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP says that these allegations on these matters are serious. I take them very seriously. I do not think there is any great point in the hon. member making some of the allegations without substantiation.
I want to say this to him. He said that it was irresponsible on my part that I "had not asked the senator directly". I refer the hon. member to a statement which was made by the senator today regarding the matter in which he places disclaimers that he has not either received money or made representations to the department.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say through you, Sir, to the minister that we all hope, frankly, that what the minister has just said is the case. The public information that has been given, as the minister knows, is to the contrary. There was a cheque for $2,500. I ask not the
November 1, 1989

Minister of Energy here again but the Solicitor General whose department has direct responsibility for this matter.
In view of the fact that the public has a major interest in the confidence that the administration of public funds is being done with full regard to the law, will the Solicitor General now tell the Elouse whether his officials are investigating this, including having interviews with the senator and all those others who are involved?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues already answered those questions a few minutes ago-


Some Hon. Members:: Not so!


Pierre Blais: The matter is before the other place at this very moment, and it should be dealt with internally. It is not the first time this sort of thing has happened-


Some Hon. Members:: It certainly isn't!


Pierre Blais: As far as I know, this is not the first person to be involved in this sort of thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Blais: The matter should be dealt with before the appropriate forum, in the other place, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I want to direct him to Section 16 of the Parliament Act.
Section 16(l)(b) states that no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person, for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House.
According to The Gazette of Montreal it was reported today that Senator Cogger admitted setting up a luncheon for representatives of Hydromega with two conservative members of Parliament following which he sent a bill for professional services to Hydromega and was paid in return $2,500.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Solicitor General, is he investigating whether this conduct could be a breach of Section 16 and what, in general, is he doing to see that this section of the Parliament Act is being enforced?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question a few minutes ago.


Mr. Robichaud:: No, you didn't!


Some Hon. Members:: That's not true!.


Pierre Blais: I said the matter was raised yesterday in the other place, and I think we should let the other place proceed-and see whether the question was properly dealt with, Mr. Speaker.
For the time being, I have no intention of making any commitment whatsoever in this respect.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General should read section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act which speaks in terms of offence and punishment if a senator does anything "for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House".
I want to ask the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice what they are doing to enforce compliance with this section of the Parliament of Canada Act. This is not the responsibility of the Senate but of the ministers responsible for the administration of justice.
Why won't these ministers answer the question and discharge their responsibilities?

Why do these two ministers not accept their responsibilities under this law of Canada?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, speaking of discharging one's responsibilities, it is certainly up to those who make charges to make them where they should be made. If you have any specific charges to make- If there are people representing you in the other place, it is up to them to do the job.
These are allegations, and if you have any charges to make, you should make them in the proper forum, and that forum is not the House of Commons.
Oral Questions FISHERIES

November 1, 1989


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. The situation of the fishery industry in New Brunswick, and especially in the Acadian peninsula, is deteriorating rapidly.
Several plants have already shut down and several hundreds of working men and women have been laid off. If there is no crab fishing next spring, between 7 000 and 8 000 more jobs will be in jeopardy.
My question is simply this: What special attention will the Minister give to the crab fishing problem in the gulf?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister of Fisheries for New Brunswick last week to discuss this matter and other matters in Saint John, and also with groups of fishermen's representatives concerned about the crab fishery and other related fisheries in the southern gulf region.
With regard to the future of the snow crab fishery, I should tell the hon. member that we are carefully assessing the state of that important crab stock which has been a source of abundance to the fishing industry in the southern gulf these past several years. We do not yet have a scientific report on the extent to which we will have a quota available to the crab fishery in 1990. As soon as that evidence becomes available, the hon. member will be so advised.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has done absolutely nothing to correct the situation. The Provincial Government has already put a plan into action in the form of an intensive diversification program for the crab industry and its workers.
Is the federal government or the minister willing to participate immediately in such a diversification program, in order to have it in place before the crab fishing season, next Spring? Is he ready to get involved right away?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that earlier this year a special federal-provincial program of assistance was announced to assist the fish plant workers and reorient them by my hon. colleague, the Minister for Employment and Immigration.
When we are looking to 1990, the hon. member knows there is a process of consultation with the industry based on scientific advice. We will establish quotas and determine what additional forms of assistance might be required in the months ahead.



Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with the Solicitor General. He has now had two chances and I am going to give him one more. Because he has not answered the question on the two previous occasions, will the Solicitor General stand in the House now and tell this House that he has launched an investigation of the allegations that have now been current for the last two days in respect of the hon. Senator Cogger?
[Translation\


Pierre Blais: If necessary, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to repeat two, three, or even five times that these are mere allegations. The appropriate forum to deal with this matter is the other place. It is there that they should decide whether charges should be laid or considered. I suggest this is not the responsibility of the House of Commons.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is responsible for the RCMP and for the administration of justice. Will he stand up and tell this House that he will no longer neglect his duty and will launch an investigation right now?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues have already replied several times to these questions since the beginning of the Oral Question Period. These are simply allegations dealing with a member of the other place. A reply was made in the other place yesterday and I suggest it is the responsibility of their members to deal with these issues.
November 1, 1989

The House of Commons is not the proper forum for this.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Agriculture) and involves dairy producers in my constituency, in Quebec, and in Canada, who are concerned about the GATT negotiations, especially after the recent ice cream and yogurt ruling which is harmful to their interests and could jeopardize our marketing boards. Can the Minister assure the dairy industry that they will be well represented and that our negotiators will be well informed so as to defend the interests of our dairy producers next week, at the coming GATT meeting of November 7?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question from the Hon. Member, and indeed the current GATT negotiations are very important for Canadian marketing boards. For that reason, we are pleased that the Chairman of Quebec's milk producers sits on the Canadian strategy committee, in order to ensure that Canadian interests, the interests of producers and the dairy industry in general are well represented. We believe the dairy industry is vital for Canada, and the Canadian Government will do everything it can to protect the interests of Canadian farmers, as we have done in the past.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Imre Pozsgay, Minister of State for the Republic of Hungary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to also draw members' attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Zigmas Vaisvila, Deputy in the Congress of People's Deputies in the U.S.S.R. and Deputy in the Republic of Lithuania, Supreme Soviet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Cogger affair.
I would like to say that the Solicitor General of Canada has claimed that this matter was discussed yesterday in the other House. The revelations regarding Hydromega were only announced this morning, so it would have been pretty difficult for them to have been discussed yesterday.
I want to ask the Solicitor General, and I trust that he will give us an answer, does he intend to do his job under Section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. This matter is in the other place, and the other place should deal with that.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it is a hard life for lawyers in this House but this time I will try the Minister of Justice.
Under an act respecting the Department of Justice, Section 4 states: "The minister is the official legal adviser of the Governor General and a legal member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law".
I ask the Minister of Justice, will he perhaps do his job?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made it very clear that this is a matter for the Senate. That is where the job should be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood.


Mr. Milliken:: This man should be in jail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: That allegation was clearly heard by every member in the House and across the country. The difficulty is that it was probably intended to be heard, and that is not satisfactory in this House. That is the very thing that while there has to be inquiry and there has to be answers, that kind of allegation is, if anything, at very

Oral Questions
worst, terribly immature but yet it is also not proper to be made.
I would ask hon. members to refrain from making comments like that. The Speaker is making every effort so that proper questions can be asked. I am laying down a line beyond which it is not appropriate to go because it is not fair. I ask hon. members to co-operate.
The hon. member who was asking the question, will continue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if I said something over the microphone that should not have been said I apologize and withdraw the remark. I can discuss the matter with Your Honour later and deal with the matter at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not single out a particular member. The hon. member has risen and apologized. I appreciate that. We shall proceed with questions. The hon. member has the floor.


MULTICULTURALISM
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have always believed that we are a multicultural nation. We have always defined multiculturalism as meaning that no one culture is any less or greater than another.
Last night in our committee on multiculturalism the minister refused to give a definition of a multicultural society. In the absence of the minister responsible for multiculturalism and the Prime Minister, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is what is this government's view of a multicultural society and a distinct society?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking for an opinion, I think that is an inappropriate question.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with this government. They do not seem to like to define things. They refuse to define things.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put the question and we will see what the answer is.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own press release last night he states, and I quote:
- the Department of Communications is grappling with how they
implement multiculturalism.
If the Department of Communications is grappling, what are other departments doing? Who is responsible in this government for multiculturalism?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the party of which the hon. member is a member is wrestling and grappling with the issue of multiculturalism. They really do not know where they stand. I will tell you where the Conservative Party of Canada stands. We stand foursquare behind the multicultural mosaic which has been an important feature of Canada. It is part of our strength and part of our heritage. We will continue to defend it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I have here a letter from the Federal Business Development Bank to the Hon. Michel Cogger:

Dear Sir:
Please find herewith a cheque for $27,000 covering your invoice
for professional services rendered in reference to your file number
17615.
Yours truly,

It is signed by S. M. A. Desjardins. That is a letter that went from the Federal Business Development Bank to Senator Cogger. It seems to me that the FBDB is clearly in violation of the act as well because they participated in an illegal contract.
I want to ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared now to deal with and investigate the role of the FBDB in the payment to Senator Cogger.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made the accusation that the FBDB participated in an illegal act. That comment is totally out of order and if you were not being diverted by the hon. member-
November 1, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lapierre:: Are you the Speaker now?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt made the accusation that the FBDB participated in an illegal act. I think that statement is out of order and he should withdraw it.
In any event, I want to point out to the hon. member that the cheque in question for $27,000 in payment of that invoice was made out to the law firm of Lapointe Rosenstein which provided the legal services for which FBDB paid.
If the hon. member would like to make that accusation again of illegal behaviour, perhaps outside where he does not have immunity, we could then deal with him.


Some Hon. Members:: Outside the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, if I said they participated in an illegal act, I withdraw that and I will put in "they may have". I am not afraid to apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I wish other people around here would take their responsibilities as seriously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wants to answer questions, I will put this one to him.
My question is this. When the bank's comptroller questioned the payment of the invoice, he was not given the reasons for the payment. He was told in fact "You pay it".
I want to ask the minister: Why were the reasons withheld? Is it not the practice that in fact these fees from law firms have to go before some sort of arbitration process to weigh the accounts? I want to ask him: Why were these reasons withheld from the bank's comptroller on the instructions of the bank's president? Is this just another form of what the Prime Minister says "You dance with the ones who brung ya"?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for a couple of decades at least the FBDB has been contracting with the law firm of Lapointe Rosenstein for legal services. They did it before 1984. They have done it since. They will undoubtedly do it in the future.
As usual, when the services have been provided an invoice is sent and the bank pays it. I have asked the FBDB whether in fact these services were contracted for, whether they made the decision to hire the firm, they said they did. Were the services provided? Yes, they were. Was there anything irregular? There was nothing irregular. That is what they tell me.
If the hon. member would have the courage to make a charge to back up his implications and live with the consequences, he would be showing a lot more character than he is showing now.


SKYLINK AIRWAYS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Recently, Transport Canada cancelled the operating licence of Skylink Airways for safety reasons. It is now my understanding that they may now be taking reservations again. This concerns some of the consumers in British Columbia.
Could the minister clarify for the House today just what the status is of Skylink Airways?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TYansport):: Mr. Speaker, the licence for Skylink was cancelled a few weeks ago for safety reasons. I do not know if the company is making reservations. There is something I know-the licence will not be given back to the company.


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the Cogger affair.
I have in my hand a letter from SMA Desjardins of the Federal Business Development Bank. I am going to quote the letter verbatim in its original French. It is addressed to:

Honourable Michel Cogger, Q.C.
Lapointe, Rosenstein
Montreal

Oral Questions
Please find herewith a cheque for $27,000 coveringyour invoice for
professional services rendered in reference to your file.

I want to ask the minister if this was just a normal account reflecting professional services rendered by Lapointe Rosenstein, why was the covering letter for the cheque addressed specifically to Michel Cogger, talking about payment for "your account" and "your file"? Can the minister explain that, even though it is impossible to explain the unexplainable?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, from the documents released by the FBDB under access to information, there is, as the Senator indicated, a letter from Senator Cogger to FBDB enclosing an invoice from Lapointe Rosenstein for services provided. The FBDB returned a letter to Senator Cogger stating: "Enclosed is the cheque in payment of the invoice". If the hon. member has that letter in his hand, he will also have a photocopy of the cheque for $27,000 to the law firm of Lapointe Rosenstein.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemental^ question for the hon. member. Can he tell us whether or not any of that money ever went to Senator Cogger? If he cannot tell us, does he not think he should get us the answer in view of the fact that it is his responsibility as minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank to ensure that the agency respects Section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which states that no person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid?
Let us have some straight answers for a change.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the question which is quite properly the jurisdiction of the other place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: If the hon. member is a lawyer, I would like him to reread that section and find in there any condition, any indication that the FBDB is responsible to see that every cheque they send out in answer to an invoice does not indirectly end up in the hands of a senator or a
member of Parliament. I want him to point out where that legal responsibility rests. He knows that is absurd.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.
At a press conference this morning the CLC stated that there will be an emergency meeting on November 16 with the council of governors of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety to discuss ways of restoring this great organization.
My question is, will the government not only listen to the proposals that will be forthcoming, but will the government take these proposals seriously?


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant discussion with CCOHS. They are anticipating a new plan to be brought forward to look at their future and how they will economically facilitate the carrying on of that very important centre. The task force, members of the board of governors, along with the chairperson are working toward the goal of bringing that plan forward by January 31.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, if it is found that more time is required to secure alternatives to maintain this centre as a world leader, will the government agree to continue full funding for at least two years as has been requested already?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, the chairperson of CCOHS has come forward with a request for extended time. The minister has responded that we would like to have a plan back to the minister by January 31, 1990. Funding of $5.1 million is going to the centre next year, 1990. The following year the centre will be fully cost recovered and the government will then not participate any longer directly through funding.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins - Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
November 1, 1989

The Minister admitted yesterday that Pearson Airport is not able to meet present needs. More than 13 airlines, including Intair of Saint-Hubert, have reportedly been refused the additional slots they need.
Will the Minister now admit that his decision to cut VIA Rail has only worsened the situation?
Mr. Speaker, his department's incompetence in planning is obvious.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau had listened carefully to what I have been saying in the House for the last three weeks, he would know that transferring passengers from VIA Rail to air transport does not require any more flights: there are already enough. So I do not see how this can upset the Toronto airport.


POINT OF ORDER
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a clarification of the answer I gave about Skylink in Vancouver. As far as I am concerned, the licence will not be given back before an appeal is made by the company to the Civil Aviation Tribunal. If its decision is contrary to the decision already made, we will reconsider at that time.



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 1(10)(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Routine Proceedings COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


BILL S-5-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on 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, without amendment.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Translation\


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, I made a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31, reported on page 5351 of Hansard. I should have used the past instead of the future tense of the verb. I should have said:
-	went on strike on Monday morning -
instead of
-	will go on strike next Monday morning -
The verb was in the wrong tense.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion to be put immediately without debate. I move:
That up to five members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade representing each of the recognized parties in the House be authorized to travel to New York and Washington for the period Sunday, November 12, to Thursday, November 16, 1989, for the purpose of studying the international debt problem; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Petitions


The Chairman:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from the province of Quebec. It is a petition against the GST, the goods and services tax in Canada. It says that the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation, that it does not take account of taxpayers' ability to pay tax in this country and, Mr. Speaker, it also says that the House of Commons should reject the proposed goods and services tax.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is a petition signed by many people in your province, Quebec, and as you know, almost everyone is against the Finance Minister's proposal.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today it is my duty to table ten petitions from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier which I represent in this House, in which your petitioners say that since September 1984, the government has inflicted at least 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadian taxpayers; that since September 1984, the present federal manufacturers' sales tax has gone from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent; that the Conservative Government wants to saddle Canadians with a new universal 9 per cent tax on goods and services; that this tax will be hidden in the sale price and will apply to practically anything that moves; that imposing this new, universal tax on goods and services will create serious hardship for low- and middle-income Canadians; and that the tax will put a severe financial burden on small businesses.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, your petitioners strenuously object to this tax and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the new goods and services tax.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders of this House, I am tabling petitions with over 4,000 names. The petitioners hold the legitimate and honest view that the RCMP uniform is a secular uniform accepted by our many cultures and religions and they wish it to remain that way.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, many petitions containing over 13,548 signatures of concerned citizens from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value to this country. The pride and esprit de corps should not be jeopardized by any concessions to religious or ethnic minorities which result in changes to this truly great police force and its proud traditions and uniforms.
These petitions have all been duly certified as to form and content. This now brings the total of petitioners to well over 103,000 that I have presented to this House.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present two petitions signed by about 100 people in my riding, York West.
They argue against the GST because they are getting far too many taxes from this government. They think the GST will be very negative for Canada's middle-income families in my riding, for small businesses and for middle-income Canadians across the country.
I hope the government will take the advice of these people and reverse the government's decision on the GST.


M. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr
Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling a petition today which asks the government to reject the proposed goods and services tax and demands that the government
November 1, 1989

cancel its plan to implement a goods and services tax that will shift the entire tax burden to middle-income Canadians by imposing a regressive consumer tax, and that it undertake a genuine reform of Canada's tax system.
Mr. Speaker, this petition was signed by residents of several towns in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty on behalf of a number of farmers in Meadow Lake and other Saskatchewan towns to present a petition which reacts to the removal of oats from the Wheat Board. The petitioners suggest that, in the future, the government take action to make sure that oats and barley cannot be removed from the Wheat Board, that they be kept in that organization so that the farmers and their organizations have to be consulted before changes are made in the marketing of these products.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to present a petition signed by more than 1,200 residents of the riding of Carleton-Gloucester. Your petitioners humbly state that since September 1984, the federal Conservative Government has inflicted at least 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadian taxpayers; that since September 1984, the present federal manufacturers' sales tax has been raised from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent by the federal government; that the federal conservative government wants to saddle Canadians with a new, universal 9 per cent tax on goods and services; that this new tax, which will be hidden in the sale price, will apply to practically everything Canadians buy; that this new, universal tax on goods and services will cause serious hardship for low- and middle-income Canadians; that the tax will create a severe financial burden for small businesses; that the Liberals, speaking on behalf of all Canadians, strenously object to this new goods and services tax which constitutes an unprecedented attack on the incomes of Canadians and, in addition to forcing them to pay higher taxes, will also expose them to increases in inflation, interest rates and unemployment.
Petitions
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this new tax.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a community service centre in the west end of Ottawa which works regularly with low income families and the unemployed. The petitioners are reminding the Prime Minister and the government of its statement during the last election campaign that there would be no cuts to unemployment insurance and they are challenging the government's withdrawal of $2.9 billion from the fund, thereby abandoning any responsibility for unemployment in this country caused by its fiscal and monetary policies. The petitioners pray that the government not change the Unemployment Insurance Act as proposed.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions to the House this afternoon. One deals with the government's cut-back and gutting of VIA service. Thousands of people have pleaded with this government to rescind its action and to restore VIA to its rightful place in our Canadian history.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, thousands of people have petitioned this government to scuttle its proposal for the goods and services tax as it will be harmful and detrimental, not only to individuals, but to the economy of this country.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a number of petitions to the House today. They have all been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
The first one is signed by 506 customers of Creative Croissants on South James Street in Thunder Bay, who point out that the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay. They call upon Parliament to reject the tax.
The second petition is from 388 customers of Grewins Variety Store in Northwood. They point out that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place that permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing

November 1, 1989
Petitions
lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden. They, too, call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 1,726 Canadians from one end of this country to the other. The petitioners are very concerned about the government's decision regarding VIA Rail. They point out that it is an essential service for many Canadians, it has been part of Canada for more than 100 years, and that these cuts will result in a serious reduction in railway passenger service and threaten maintenance, safety and jobs. They call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment, and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a number of petitions on a variety of issues, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from Kamloops, British Columbia. The petitioners are disillusioned, disappointed, and distressed over the government's decision to tax almost everything that moves now as a result of this goods and services tax. They ask the government to rethink this whole matter, go back to the drawing board, and come up with serious and fair tax reform.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, another petition refers to the decision of the government to reduce passenger rail service. The petitioners point out at some length all of the reasons why the government should not curtail VIA Rail, but should invest in modernizing VIA Rail so that it is not only an economically sound method of transportation, but environmentally sound.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Finally, Mr. Speaker, a large number of British Columbians, I could not begin to even mention the number or the communities from which they come, point out that British Columbia now has a new Minister of Forests, Mr. Claude Richmond, from Kamloops. He should sit down with the federal minister and begin renegotiating the federal-provincial
Forest Resources Development Agreement because of the tremendous importance this agreement is to the province of British Columbia and actually right across Canada. The petitioners are asking that FRDA be renegotiated, that additional funds be included, and that the present minister of forests and the provincial minister of forests in British Columbia sit down and renegotiate it as soon as possible.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by Canadian residents in the province of Quebec, who humbly point out that the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation, since it does not allow for the taxpayer's ability to pay. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand that the government cancel its plans to implement a goods and services tax that will shift the entire tax burden to middle-income Canadians by imposing a regressive consumer tax. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto who are concerned about the government's intention of building a NATO base for extended low level flights in Goose Bay, Labrador, to extend over Labrador and eastern Quebec. They demand that the government listen to the Assembly of First Nations, as well as the Innu of Labrador, and end all NATO-NORAD low level flight training in Canada, oppose the NATO establishment proposed, and redirect the funding for that to the well-being of the Canadian NATO people and their land claims and the promotion of sustainable development.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto who are concerned with the government's decision to cut VIA Rail. They demand that this Parliament reject any proposed reductions or elimination of VIA Rail service, modernize the existing equipment so that VIA Rail could provide a world-class service to Canadians, and
November 1, 1989

build a high speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting petitions from my riding, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, in which thousands of citizens express their profound opposition to the goods and services tax.

The petitions come from service stations, retail outlets and manufacturing outlets, both large and small, and they are unanimous in their condemnation of the proposed tax measure.
The signatures are from places like Antigonish, Inverness, Baddeck, Arichat and Canso, to name a few. They join millions of Canadians in calling for the government to withdraw this cruel and unfair tax.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have another large number of petitions from people of Canada protesting the confiscatory, regressive, unfair, burdensome, and disgraceful goods and services tax.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from a number of citizens of Revelstoke, many of whom are meeting tonight to protest the closing of the very VIA line to which this petition refers.
These petitioners from the city of Revelstoke, which is a major rail centre, call on Parliament to maintain VIA Rail's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, and to give VIA Rail sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service. They feel this is particularly important since they have 200 kilometres to travel to reach an airport, and their bus services are interrupted by snow and avalanches more than any other community in Canada.
Petitions


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition to the House from a local retail outlet in my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap located in the Vernon area.
The petitioners have signed this petition because they are most concerned about the Draconian measures that this government has taken with the introduction of its goods and services tax. The petitioners are asking the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, and to reform the tax system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
They also ask to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this type of reform not simply be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab on the Canadian taxpayers.
I also have another petition of similar nature and concern presented to this House from another local retail outlet in the Vernon area in the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap. These constituents also feel compelled to request the government to reject this Draconian tax measure.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Quebec residents who state that the GST in an unfair form of taxation; that the government allows corporations or wealthy people to pay little or no federal income tax; and that the government seeks to tax many basic goods and services. Canadian men and women humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the GST, and to reform the tax system with a view to making it more equitable.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to introduce two petitions. I am pleased to see the Minister of Justice in the House while I am presenting this first petition because it deals with a matter that comes within his

November 1, 1989
Petitions
jurisdiction, that is the proposed changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of sexual orientation.
In 1986, the government accepted the report and said it would take whatever measures that are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. The petitioners call upon the government to introduce legislation in respect of this matter as soon as possible.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the other petition is in accordance with Standing Order 36 and relates to the GST. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax and to reform the tax system.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present two petitions bearing duly certified signatures and concerning the Conservative government's proposition aimed at levying a goods and services tax beginning January 1, 1991.
The citizens of the riding of Hull-Aylmer want to say to the government that they totally disagree with the imposition of this new tax on goods and services, and they call upon Parliament to reject this tax.
Today, more than 10,000 residents of the riding of Hull-Aylmer have caused to be presented to this House a duly signed petition asking Parliament to reject this tax.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions from various communities in my riding of Northumberland, such as Port Hope, Colbome, Hardwood and Roseneath.
The petitioners are all consumers of goods and services and they ask and petition that this government withdraw any proposed legislation on a goods and services tax. They sign their own names, but many have spoken to me individually. Municipal leaders and members of community groups all feel that farmers, families, and independent businessmen in my riding are going to be very negatively affected by the proposed goods and
services tax. They petition and beseech this government to withdraw any proposed tax.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions from constituents of the Prince Edward-Hastings riding who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by over 2,500 Canadians, some of whom are from my riding, and others across the province of Alberta.
These petitioners believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, and believe that there is a duty to protect that life and preserve its well-being. They are calling upon Parliament to formulate a law which will protect and save the life of both mother and child.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today from residents of Prince George in northern B.C. who are concerned about the renewal by this government of the Forest Resource Development Agreement. In light of the appointment today of a new forestry minister in the province of B.C., they urge the minister of forestry in this House to move immediately to ensure that we get a new FRDA agreement signed as soon as possible.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Sainte-Thecle residents who humbly sheweth that the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation, for it does not take into account the tapayers' capacity to pay. Wherefore they humbly call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax and to reform the tax system so as to levy a genuine minimum income tax on rich people, individuals and corporations.

I also have a petition on behalf of some 60 senior citizens who reside at 217 Pine Street North in Timmins
November 1, 1989

asking the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, and to ensure that there is no taxation on goods and services such as loans, the arts, and other non-luxury items.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-38, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset how pleased I am to have the opportunity to bring forward this bill which contains amendments principally to the Federal Court Act and also to the Crown Liability Act. The over-all purpose of this legislation is to give the ordinary citizens who wish to sue the federal government
Government Orders
easier access to the Canadian courts and to reduce or eliminate the legal barriers and the inequities that a citizen now faces in such litigation.
First, I want to deal with the Federal Court Act proposals. It has been almost 20 years since the Federal Court was established. It was established to replace the old Exchequer Court and, although much of the jurisdiction that was conferred on this new court reflected the jurisdiction of the predecessor, there was also quite a bit that was new in this legislation. For example, the Exchequer Court at that time, as it was constituted, was only a trial level court and appeals from the decisions of the Exchequer Court were made directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. The act in 1971 established a new Federal Court of Appeal to hear the appeals from the decisions of the court's trial division.
Second, the Federal Court was granted an entirely new jurisdiction to supervise or review the activities and decisions of federal boards and tribunals. Generally I think it is fair to say that the establishment of the Federal Court a generation ago can be characterized as a bold and far-sighted experiment in reforming the federal civil justice system on behalf of all Canadians. It has proven itself to be invaluable to the Canadian system of justice, and it serves a number of special purposes that provincial courts cannot adequately fulfil.
First, the Federal Court is a Canada-wide court which has national jurisdiction. As a result it is not impeded by any territorial limitations on jurisdiction and on process to which the provincial courts are necessarily subject. The nation-wide quality of the Federal Court has proven essential for example in cases of admiralty and intellectual property, patents, copyright, trademarks and industrial design.
Second, the Federal Court is a court with specialized knowledge in a few specific areas. These include the Income Tax Act and other federal revenue laws, intellectual property and admiralty law.
The importance of the Federal Court to the Canadian legal system is evidenced by the fact that although the court and the provincial courts both have jurisdiction with respect to matters such as intellectual property and admiralty matters, most matters of this type are brought in the federal court.

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
Third, the Federal Court helps to ensure that the federal tribunals operate effectively, efficiently, and fairly throughout Canada under federal legislation that applies uniformly across the entire country.
I think it is appropriate at this time to pay tribute to the present Leader of the Opposition who as the Minister of Justice of the day in 1970 introduced legislation that established the court. Since that time there has been an opportunity for assessing the results of that experiment. I think it is fair to say that the Federal Court has proven to be an over-all success. But our assessment-and I think it is fair to say the assessment of the bar and others-has revealed a number of areas where improvements could be usefully made to the Federal Court Act and the related legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the major objectives of the proposals contained in this Bill are to facilitate access by individual Canadians to the federal civil justice system, to make that justice system fairer, to improve its efficiency and effectiveness and to improve service to the public provided by that system.
The first objective is that the Federal Court in particular and the federal justice system in general should be accessible to the ordinary citizen.
For example, a person should be able to sue the Crown in a suitably convenient court for breach of contract to purchase goods or for negligent driving by a Crown employee that causes injuries to another motorist. At the moment, such actions can only be brought in the Federal Court. However, it is not as available as provincial courts.
The Federal Court only has offices in the larger centres and judges of the Court, based as most of them are in the National Capital Region, are not as readily or as frequently available throughout Canada as are judges of provincial courts.
Moreover, for both citizen and lawyer alike, provincial courts, including their procedures and personnel, are much more familiar.
Therefore, the Federal Court is often not the most convenient one for the private litigant. With this in mind, the government has proposed that both the provincial courts and the Federal Court share jurisdiction with
respect to such actions, thereby generally giving the plaintiff a choice of forum.

Another example relates to the court supervisory jurisdiction. First of all that jurisdiction is now split in a confusing way between the trial division and the court of appeal.
Second, at the moment the Federal Court Act defines the court's general jurisdiction to supervise federal boards, commissions, and other tribunals solely by reference to the traditional common law remedies, many of which have Latin labels and are loaded with arcane technical baggage.
For example, among the remedies that are available in the trial division under the present provisions of section 18 are certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and no one other than a person knowledgeable in administrative law or in Latin would probably have the remotest idea what sort of relief is offered by this language.
The bill deals with both these matters. The jurisdictional split between the two divisions of the courts will be removed, and everyday language is used to describe relief that the court can order, the grounds for obtaining that relief, and the procedure available to the individual for applying for that relief.
A second objective in the amendments is fairness. Fairness, with the powerful voice of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in support, strongly suggests that distinctions between litigants should be kept to a minimum and any that exist require a rational justification.
To illustrate this point, I would point to the present legislation which confers a number of special privileges and immunities on the Crown that no longer have quite the same justification as they once did. Of particular interest are the special notice requirements when the Crown is sued, and the immunity of the Crown from paying prejudgment interest. The bill will remove or modify these specific privileges and, in doing so, continue the trend of placing the Crown on a footing of greater equality with the ordinary citizen.
A third objective is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the federal civil justice system. As I already mentioned, there is a confusing split in the supervisory jurisdiction of the trial division and the court of appeal. The bill clarifies exactly what remedies are
November 1, 1989

available, on what grounds, and where a citizen goes to obtain them, thereby reducing confusion, needless delay, duplication and expense.
A second area of inefficiency relates to the constitutional limitation on the federal court's jurisdiction in the field of Crown proceedings. The Crown can be sued but cannot sue in tort and contract in that court. The result has been that when an action is launched against the Crown in the Federal Court, the Crown must bring separate proceedings against the plaintiff or some other person in a provincial court. That is known as a counterclaim in third party proceedings. Remedies to eliminate this inefficient and wasteful method of disposing of Crown litigation is also addressed in the bill.
The fourth objective is to improve more generally service to the public by the federal civil justice system. In support of the objective to improve access to the public, the government proposes in this bill to transfer to provincial courts full responsibility for compensation appeals under a number of agriculture statutes. In addition a number of provisions, which provide for an absolute bar to a suit against the Crown if certain notice requirements are not fulfilled, will be repealed.
Moreover, the review of decisions and activities of federal administrative bodies will be conferred on the trial division rather than the Court of Appeal. Since matters at the trial division are reviewed by a single judge as compared to the three judges when an appeal is heard, litigants will have more flexibility and improved access to the court.
This proposal will also enable members of the Appeal Court to devote more of their time to considering cases of broad public importance.

Proceeding to the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, and before giving detailed consideration to its provisions, I believe it may be useful to list, briefly and generally, the reforms the Bill contains.
First of all, whereas at present ordinary common law and civil law actions for relief against the federal Crown can only be brought in the Federal Court, as mentioned
Government Orders
earlier, under the bill that jurisdiction will be shared with provincial courts.
Second, an entirely new regime for supervising the validity and legality of the activities of the federal government is being established.
Third, the provisions of the Federal Court Act that govern appeals from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court of Canada are being transferred to the Supreme Court Act.
In that way, appeals from provincial courts and the Federal Court to the Supreme Court of Canada will all be dealt with together in the same statute.
Fourth, drawing on the experiences of some of the provinces, a representative rules committee composed of Federal Court judges and representatives of the legal profession and the Attorney General is being established to make the rules of the court.
This Committee will include judges of the Federal Court, representatives of the legal profession and the Attorney General, who will work together to improve court proceedings.

Fifth, modifications to some of the procedural advantages now enjoyed by the Crown are being made. These include the repeal of some of the special notice requirements in the Crown Liability Act and the imposition of responsibility on the Crown to pay prejudgment interest.
Sixth, consequent upon the increased role of provincial courts in the area of Crown proceedings, it is necessary that there be legislation dealing generally with practice and procedure when the Crown is a party to litigation. At present such matters are duplicated by the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act simply because the latter is restricted in scope to actions against the Crown in tort, that is, civil wrongs of a non-contractual nature. All such provisions are being consolidated and are retitled Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The Federal Court Act itself will no longer provide specifically, as it does now, for such matters.
Seventh, a few minor changes to the admiralty provisions of the Federal Court Act are being made. The definition of "ship" is being updated to bring it in conformity with recent changes to the meaning of that word in the Canada Shipping Act.

Government Orders
As well, authority is being conferred on the Federal Court to improve the scope of remedies available to the owner of the ship which has suffered damage.
That, in a nutshell, is what the bill proposes to do. In summary, this proposed legislation is going to improve access by Canadians to the courts. It is going introduce greater fairness into the federal civil justice system and will enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of that system.
We think that this measure is a step forward and will provide Canadians with a more rational, comprehensible and open process for litigating matters with the federal government.

Consequently, I urge Members of this House to give this Bill their full support.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity today to speak to this badly needed and long awaited reform to the Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and several other federal statutes, generally all pertaining to the federal court procedures and technical requirements which our members of the public must follow or endure as they involves themselves in litigation or contest with the federal government or federal interests.
One of the outstanding issues surrounding this particular set of reforms is the length of time that it has taken to reach this stage. I practised law for approximately 15 years prior to being elected to this House.
I want to set out at this time my view that the delay of many years, about 10 years, in putting these reforms in place has cost all of us as taxpayer who pay for the government and individual litigants millions of dollars in terms of costs, being the costs of the inefficiency and duplication that were found in the federal court system and procedures.
For example, an individual litigant who found himself or herself on the losing end of an administrative decision would be forced to take a decision as to whether or not an appeal was appropriate. Even if that person had the finest of cases and could see the error in judgment of the tribunal of first instance, that person was usually faced with a trip to the downtown of one of our major cities and a potential retainer of $2,000 to $5,000. That is a
huge hurdle in attempting to achieve the justice that our litigation system and our federal tribunals initially set out to achieve.
The reforms that have been proposed now are just not for lawyers, but they are for the public as well. They remove ambiguity, they broaden jurisdiction appropriately, they remove some technical limitations, and they streamline procedures. I know those are probably the words of the hon. minister and the government, but as a practising solicitor prior to arriving here I concur that these technical changes are long overdue and they will produce real savings and efficiencies in the cost of litigation.
Up to now it has been common to commence litigation by issuing a filing process in both the Federal Court and the superior court of the province. Not only was it a wasteful duplication, but it also required the lawyer and the support staff to devote resources to the avoidance of technical or other obstacles in both courts. There is a veritable mine field of obstacles out there from the legal point of view. That this relatively non-controversial set of reforms remained unrectified for so long is I think a bit of an embarrassment to this Parliament.
The purpose of our court system is to provide a means of dispute resolution for our society, generally between persons and organizations, persons and government, and to provide a system of disclosure and balance of interest within a democratically constituted legal framework.
But other barriers remain in our justice system now, and the average person out there is very aware of it. The initiative for reform was on the table at least five or six years ago. The list of housekeeping chores that had to be accomplished, which was brought forward by the legal profession, by people in government and by judges, was on the table. We were all well aware of them. There are still inefficiencies and other outstanding business in the field of justice that we must look at.
One of the areas that we should be aware of is the cut-backs recently to the federal government program to support litigation on public issues. These cut-backs affect litigation that pertains to what I would call the leading edge of development of legal principles in our society. That leading edge is very important in securing a balance of interest between the people of the country and the government. To the extent that these cut-backs
November 1, 1989

retard the development of this leading edge of litigation, all of our society will pay the price for the delay.
Another matter we should recall is one that I have raised in this House previously. It is my sense that the government for many reasons has acquiesced in a nondisclosure on the part of institutions or publicly elected officials in areas where the public has I think rightfully asked questions about the appropriateness of conduct, the appropriateness of spending of tax dollars. I think of plea bargaining which in some courts will prevent the public from knowing the factual basis for charges. That is in the criminal court. In the civil court there is bargaining in settlement of litigation which will prevent disclosure of the real issues lying behind the litigation.
We heard today a suggestion that because a public official sits in the other place there is some general immunity from the laws of this land, that perhaps those laws do not apply through our government quite the same way as they apply to members in this House. From the point of view of the citizen and the taxpayer I have to ask the question: Where is the balancing of interest? Where are the mechanisms to achieve that balance of interest?
Procedural obstacles and conflicts between our immigration laws and our extradition laws are again another problem. I know the Minister of Justice recently carried out his administrative or quasi-judicial function in dealing with the matter under the Extradition Act involving an individual by the name of Charles Ng. Almost every day there is an article in the paper about some alleged killer from another country who is here illegally. He is staying in custody at our expense. He does not want to go back to his or her country to face the music. I ask: Where is the justice there? I think I read yesterday that we had one of these individuals actually attending school, taking a course, I guess at our expense.
The conflict here is that our Extradition Act and our Immigration Act have been developed separately in terms of procedures. As a result, the citizen of this country, the taxpayer, is unable to pursue directly the course of justice that should be there. It is perhaps unfortunate that the burden of that lies upon a minister
Government Orders
of the government as opposed to a tribunal or a procedure already existing in government. That is an area that also requires attention from the justice point of view.
Another matter involves the decision of the Supreme Court in The Queen versus Morgentaler. In that action an entire provision of the Criminal Code has been removed. If there was justice for the unborn, for the life that lives in the womb in the days or weeks prior to birth, where is it now with that provision removed?
It has been approximately two years since it became clear to most of us in the country that the Young Offenders Act was failing to adequately serve some interests of society. I think it is inappropriate for this government to permit us to continue with a statute that treats a killer like a child. I think most of us would agree with that without too much argument. I know this Parliament will have an opportunity to look at reforms, but those reforms are long in coming and we must address them quickly.
My hope from this side of the House is that the government will acknowledge that matters of justice are just as important as other matters of government. They are just as important to the citizens of this country as old age security, environment, trade, taxation and other matters we deal with in our federal government. I hope that with the government's magnificent success in achieving these existing reforms in this Bill C-38, achieved after 10 years of thinking and paper pushing, this success will spur this government to improve its record in the field of justice.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on the proposed amendments to the provisions of the various acts, both the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act dealing with the Federal Court.
I listened with care to the comments of both the minister and my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River. I am not going to canvass the waterfront of justice issues in the very limited time I will be taking to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this important legislation. I did note, however, that the hon. member made some reference to the provisions of the Criminal

Government Orders
Code on abortion and suggested we should recriminalize this area of the law.
I must ask: Who is it that speaks on behalf of the Liberal party on this very important and difficult issue of abortion? Is it the hon. member for Scarborough- Rouge River? Is it the leadership candidate from Scarborough West? Is it the leader of the Liberal party? Is it the member for Halifax, the spokesperson on the status of women who says we do not need a new criminal law? Who is it today that speaks for the Liberal party on this very important and sensitive question?
We have heard the call from the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for new criminal law in this area. I say on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe that there is no need whatsoever for recriminalization of this area of the law. Indeed, changes to the Canada Health Act are necessary to ensure equitable access. It is an insult to the women of this country and to doctors in this country to suggest that we have to go back to those dark days of criminal sanctions in this area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Mr. Jordan:: Mr. Speaker, if this is supposed to be a debate on abortion I think we should have had some notification that we are having a debate on abortion this afternoon. I am critically interested in the topic. I think we should get back to the bill at hand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was merely picking up the theme that was introduced by the hon. member's own colleague during the debate. I would welcome the views of yet another Liberal member on this question. I am sure we will have yet another variety.
The hon. member also spoke on the question of the Young Offenders Act. We all recognize the deep concerns that exist about the quality of the delivery of justice in the area of young offenders. I would, however, remind the hon. member who was so critical of the Young Offenders Act that that piece of legislation was introduced by his own colleague, the member for York
Centre. He may want to have a word with his colleague about the provisions of that legislation.
TUrning to the provisions of the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act, I note that Bill C-38 is legislation which represents the first major change to the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act since the Federal Court Act was introduced in 1971. For those Canadians who are not familiar with the Federal Court, perhaps it is appropriate to comment briefly on the jurisdiction of that body.
The Federal Court, which includes both the Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal, was established by Parliament in 1971 to deal with, among other things, lawsuits against the federal government, cases based wholly on federal law, patents and copyright for example, maritime law, interpretation of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and challenges to decisions by federal tribunals, the Tariff Board and the Pensions Appeal Board, for instance.
In the area of access to information and privacy, I might just note that the current conservative government has displayed utter contempt for the parliamentary process in rejecting the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General to strengthen the provisions of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Promises were made by the late Walter Baker to strengthen this legislation which, after all, is at the heart of our democratic system, the right of citizens to have free and open access to the information which forms the basis for government decision-making. This government has failed miserably in making information available to Canadian citizens.
There have been a number of concerns arising about the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. It is an incredibly complicated area of law. A lawsuit, for example, which involves claims against both the federal government and private individuals, corporations or other governments can be very, very complicated. In some cases, such a lawsuit cannot be disposed of in one court alone. It actually has to be taken in a number of different courts.
One example of this was the litigation that arose from the 1978 crash at the Cranbrook airport. In that instance, the plaintiff airline brought action against the federal Ministry of Transport, various Crown servants, the city of Cranbrook, various city employees and the manufacturers of the airplane and the plane's thrust reversers. The

Trial Division of the Federal Court decided that while the Ministry of Transport had to be sued in Federal Court, ministry employees, like other defendants, had to be sued separately in the B.C. Supreme Court since their liability was governed by common law.
There are many other examples of a similar nature of the confusion in jurisdiction between the Federal Court and provincial superior courts.
As well, the second major area of difficulty was with respect to the division of responsibility between the Trial Division of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal in challenges to the decisions of tribunals. That has been an area that has caused difficulty and confusion for some time. Indeed, lawyers would frequently file documents in both the Federal Court Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal just so they would not make a mistake or miss out on a limitation period. Obviously that kind of situation is one that is not only unfair to the legal profession but ultimately is unfair to Canadian litigants generally who have a right to clarity in the law. I want to say, on behalf of the New Democrats, that we certainly welcome the general thrust of the amendments that have been brought forward by the minister in this area.
I want to raise an issue of concern with respect to process. The minister received on October 6 last, a little less than a month ago, a letter from the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia, Bud Smith. In that letter, the Attorney General of British Columbia indicates that following consultations with provincial and territorial Attorneys General they were unanimous in their view that the issue of the continuation of the Federal Court of Canada as presently constituted was a matter which they all felt merits further consideration and study.
We all know the position of the Attorney General of British Columbia. It has been his position for some time. I have a paper here that was prepared by Bud Smith in which he states that the long-standing position of British Columbia with respect to the Federal Court of Canada has been that the establishment of the Federal Court of Canada is wholly unnecessary and is not only a wasteful expenditure of public funds but has resulted and will yet
Government Orders
result in practical disadvantages and inconveniences to the citizens of Canada.
That is the position of the Attorney General of British Columbia. I do not think it is fair to suggest that that is a position shared by the colleagues of the Attorney General of British Columbia from other provinces or the territories. I certainly would not suggest for a minute that that is the case. What is clear is that all Attorneys General at the recent meeting in June of this year in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, directed their deputies to study this possibility. That study is under way. At the same time, as I understand it, the Federal Law Reform Commission is looking at the whole question of the role of the Federal Court and the jurisdiction of it.
The Canadian Bar Association decided just a month ago to reactivate its committee of the 1970s on the matter of the Federal Court and to prepare a report by December of this year in order that the council of the Canadian Bar Association might take a position at its mid-winter meeting in February, 1990.
Speaking on behalf of the Attorneys General, Bud Smith urged the Minister of Justice to postpone the introduction of this bill, or at the very least, to postpone debate at second reading, until the Canadian Bar Association report had been considered by the council of the CBA and until the Law Reform Commission had made its views known on this important question as well. I regret that the Minister of Justice has refused to heed this call not only from the attorney general of British Columbia but from attorneys general of at least eight other provinces and territories as well.
This is an issue which obviously has to be moved on, but it has now been many years since the original proposals were made. I think it has been over 10 years since the Canadian Bar Association's study in this area. I would have thought the minister might have waited just a few more months before proceeding in the rather highhanded way that he has proceeded.
The government has claimed to be concerned about consultation with the provinces. Here is an illustration where provincial governments, through the attorneys general, have asked for consultation and have asked for delay. The federal Minister of Justice says, "No, I am going to proceed without agreement".

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
So I wanted, both as a member of Parliament from British Columbia and as the spokesperson on justice for the New Democratic Party, to raise that concern about process and to urge the minister to consider the possibility of delaying any further proceedings on this legislation until such time as both the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Reform Commission have been given an opportunity to make their views known.
At the very least I am pleased to have received an earlier assurance from the minister that in committee proceedings there will be full opportunity for representatives of the Attorneys General, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Reform Commission and others to voice their concerns at an appropriate time. I would hope that perhaps there might be some delay in this area.
Naturally, a number of the proposed changes flow from recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association from 1977 and from the report of the Law Reform Commission issued three years later.
I referred earlier to the two main areas of confusion about the Federal Court, the distribution of jurisdiction between the Federal Court and the existing provincial superior courts and the division of responsibility between the Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal. I am not going to summarize the jurisdiction of the Federal Court at this time. That has been done by the minister in his comments. To the extent that Bill C-38 attempts to resolve some of the confusion, uncertainty and difficulty that has arisen with respect to jurisdiction, those are changes that we in general terms support.
We welcome as well the changes in the bill that would abrogate certain long-standing advantages enjoyed by the Crown such as not having to pay interest on damages for the period before judgment. That was always unfair. I am pleased the minister has brought forward changes that will ensure the Crown does, in fact, pay interest on damages before judgment as well as post-judgment.
I am not going to go through some of the key areas that are covered by the bill because, once again, that has been touched on. There is a requirement now that parties before the Federal Court give notice to the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of each province when a constitutional question is to be
argued. In general terms, once again, that is not something with which we would have any difficulty.
There is a provision in the bill that removes a requirement that litigants give the Deputy Attorney General of Canada advance notice of a legal claim against the Crown. There is a new remedy that will allow the courts to issue an order declaratory of the rights of parties in certain proceedings. While injunctions and specific performance are not to be granted against the Crown, at least there is the opportunity for declaratory relief, and that is a step forward.
The amendments, as I say, in general terms are amendments which we welcome. The removal of the dilemma in having to choose between the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal is welcome. I know that the hon. member for Halifax, a distinguished legal counsel with extensive experience in the Federal Court, will be sharing that with us at an appropriate time. I am sure she would agree that her experience in the Federal Court would lead her as well to support these amendments which have given rise to such confusion and such uncertainty.
I want to raise a couple of other areas of concern, while I am on my feet, with respect to access to justice. That is part of what this whole process is about. We know, of course, that in the area of judicial appointments unfortunately the history of the Federal Court is not a happy one. In fact, in the report of the Canadian Bar Association on the appointment of judges in Canada, it was noted that political favouritism has been a dominant, though not sole, consideration in appointments to the Federal Court of Canada.
Too frequently the Federal Court has been a repository for friends of the government. I am speaking of both the Liberal government, which engaged in that orgy of excessive patronage in June of 1984 including appointments to the Federal Court, as well as the current government. Let us hope that this history of patronage appointments to the Federal Court will soon be a thing of the past.
We are watching with interest the new appointments process.

And I must say that I am very happy to see the role played by several conservative members from Quebec that have long been looking for ways to improve the
November 1, 1989

system whereby judges are appointed. Mr. Speaker, the new system should hopefully curtail patronage appointees, both conservative and liberal. Time will tell! There are always problems in this regard, but we want to see the best men and women appointed to courts of all levels in Canada.

I mention as well the importance of appointing women. While certainly it is true that this government and this minister has appointed a number of women to the bench, there is still significant work to be done in that area. Given the history of the previous conservative governments, I would note that prior to 1984, no conservative government had ever appointed a single woman to the federal judiciary. That is slowly changing and I certainly welcome the recent improvement in the number of women who have been appointed, but further work remains to be done in that area.
Certainly recent commissions of inquiry in the area of access to the law by native people have demonstrated glaring problems in this area, including the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia, the inquiry into the delivery of justice to native people in Manitoba and the inquiries in Alberta, British Columbia and elsewhere. Our treatment of native people in the law has been shameful and I would appeal to the minister to examine far more seriously than he has done the proposal for a justice system which would be a parallel justice system for native people. It has been a recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association and it is one that the minister should not reject out of hand as he has done.
We want as well to ensure that our bench more accurately reflects the multicultural nature of this country. Again, there has been small progress but not nearly enough, there is deep concern about the level of the government's commitment in this area. This is a government which is still not prepared to allow our national police force, the RCMP, to reflect that multicultural heritage, a government which has a minister who refuses to accept the recommendation of the commissioner of the RCMP to make this very reasonable change in the uniform, a government which is still listening to the Neanderthal voices of certain members of the Alberta caucus on this question, stirring up an atmosphere that unfortunately has led to badges with symbols of banning turbans. That has got to change and an important part of
Government Orders
reflecting the multicultural reality of our country is to ensure that it is reflected on the bench as well.
Speaking as well of such a fundamental question as access to the courts, I must underline my concern and the concern of my colleagues at both the provincial and federal levels about the serious under-funding of legal aid programs, a terribly difficult problem. Those who want access to the courts, not just federal courts but to courts at all levels, are too frequently denied that access particularly in the area of civil litigation, because they cannot afford to go to the courts. I would appeal to the government and to the Minister of Justice to show leadership in this area and to ensure that legal aid programs receive significant increases in funding.
Another area in which the federal government must show leadership with respect to access to the courts is in renewal of the funding of the Federal Court challenges program. The minister spoke of the charter and some of the new challenges facing the judiciary under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Litigants who cannot afford to bring their cases before the courts are obviously denied that element of justice. As Frank Scott said, the trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic. It is so true, and if the court challenges fund is not renewed, then those individuals who want to have access to the courts to pursue charter challenges will be denied that access.
I want to emphasize again that certainly in principle we support this legislation, and the changes that have been proposed in many instances are long overdue. The bill will introduce an element of equity and fairness into a system which is too often confusing and unfair. It is legislation that will require careful study in the legislative committee which has been appointed to consider it.
I would hope as well that there might be an opportunity for us to call some of the witnesses I mention, the representatives of the attorneys general, the law Reform Commission, the Canadian Bar Association and others. There is still much work to be done in this area; the gain in terms of general concerns in the judiciary area, the whole concept of citizenship court judges. We know that the Canadian Judicial Council in its recently issued first report has recommended changes in this area. No longer will these people be considered as judges but rather they ought to be considered for what they are a type of commissioner. Obviously this is another area which has

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
been rife with patronage but it is one in which we hope there will be changes.
The law of contempt of court is an issue that must be addressed as well. Again, we have to ask ourselves whether we should not consider the recommendations of a number of distinguished Canadians, including a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Willard Estey, who suggested that there should be a role for Parliament in the appointment process of federally appointed judges. As he points out:
- the closed circuit system we use in Canada doesn't allow much
input by the democratic basement of our community, the electorate.
It's all based upon the theory that you elect good people who in turn
appoint good people. That's a debatable formula.
Fortunately, we have in general terms been well served by our judiciary in this country but much work remains to be done, work with respect to access to the courts and to the justice system for Canada's first nations, for native people, ensuring that women are appointed to the judiciary and ensuring that judges are sensitized to the concerns of sexual equality in this country. Too frequently we see examples of an absence of awareness of the importance of equality in sexual assault trials. For example, comments are made which are not only offensive and sexist but completely unacceptable in this country.
In closing, I once again want to emphasize that we do support in principle Bill C-38 which is before the House. We will be urging in committee a number of improvements to the bill and particularly urging that those witnesses from the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Bar Association and the Attorneys General be given an opportunity to appear before the committee. Let us hope that these changes will ensure more justice in the judicial system in this country.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some concerns regarding this bill, but in general, I can say it certainly is an idea whose time has come. In actual fact, its time had come a number of years ago.
I also want to commend my honourable colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway for his very kind mention of me and my experience in the Federal Court, but I must give over to him because I do understand that his
experience in the Federal Court is far more extensive than my own and I understand that it may possibly be even more extensive than that of the Hon. Minister of Justice across the way.
However, I do want to make a few points in particular with regard to the topic that we are addressing today, namely, amendments to the Federal Court Act. It may not be the most riveting and the most exciting legislation for members of this House. It may not make it to the national news, the local news or indeed any news. But it is terribly important in the over-all legal scenario that we as legislators and as lawyers attempt to create in this country.
There are many problems with the legal system in this country, but I believe the major problem is the mystification of the process. Those of us who are legally trained, who practise law and have now turned to a second avocation of the lawyer, that of a legislator, realize from our past experience the fear and trepidation with which many Canadians go to law. It is a system that seems burdened with its own language, its own shibboleths and its own difficult and tortuous paths which are completely unintelligible to the vast majority of everyday people. Consequently, anything that helps to demystify the process is to be appreciated and perhaps from time to time even applauded.
For lawyers, the proposed amendments will surely be welcome. Changes in the Federal Court Act pertaining to judicial review will eliminate the dilemma in choosing between the Trial Division or the Court of Appeal. Experienced lawyers are, at the present time, filing two requests, one before each court, in order to get around the limitation period and to be sure that at least one request will be fully heard and not rejected on a preliminary motion.
In cases against the Crown, these changes will make it much easier for lawyers to take the proceedings before the superior court in their own provinces where they generally have more expertise. Ultimately this will benefit people who sue the Crown.
The problem again is the one of burgeoning legal class in this country, the inability of our government or indeed our system to provide a judicare system anywhere close to our medicare system for reasons that are obvious to

anyone who has ever had to go through the trauma and the costly experience of going to court.
There are several questions with regard to these amendments that I would like to bring forward today. Bill C-38 and its amendments to the Federal Court Act follows recommendations long put forward by both the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Reform Commission. As a matter of fact, some of these recommendations go back as far as 1977.1 have here The Federal Court Act, a Study of the Court's Administrative Law Jurisdictions, which is of interest to me and to others for a variety of reasons. One reason is that it was written by a well-known legal scholar in this country, David Mullen, a former professor of mine. Even more so, and I would draw this to the attention of all members of the House, footnote No. 187 in this brilliant work of legal scholarship mentions my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa South, who unfortunately is not here today. The erudition and the ability as a legal scholar cited by my hon. colleague is one that would be of benefit to all members to take under advisement.
With regard to the bill itelf and the amendments, in 1983 the Law Reform Commission issued a report which ostensibly recommended the amendments that are being brought forward today. I know that all of us are experienced with, in the Shakespearean phrase, the law's delays, but six years is a little excessive. I think that the people of Canada might want to know what took so long in getting these amendments, laudable as they are, finally to the floor of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Trying to get up the excitement level?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Chill out, Mr. Minister, it gets more exciting as we go on. I have more questions for you, none of which you are prepared to answer but I will certainly give it a try. Unfortunately, I may not be at the committee, Mr. Minister, and I have you here as a semi-captive audience and I will attempt at least to plant the seeds of these questions in his mind where I am sure they will find fallow ground.


Mr. Arseneault:: There's no problem, he's open-minded.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Do you think? Those people from New Brunswick are so idealistic.


Marlene Catterall: Seeds don't sprout in the dark.
Government Orders


Mary Catherine Clancy: Now, now, heckle him, don't heckle me. You're on my side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Catherine Clancy: At any rate, in 1983, the report of the Department of Justice allegedly has been put to a study and has been reconsidered. If this is so, I wonder why the Minister of Justice has not at some point revealed the results of such a departmental study or the examination thereto to the public at large. I should not suppose, given the subject matter that it probably is anything of great embarrassment to the government, but it might perhaps increase the demystification of what is ostensibly a fairly mystifying process to people in general.
Some of the changes in Bill C-38 grant to the Federal Court jurisdiction concurrent with that of provincial superior courts. I am wondering if there was consultation with provincial counterparts of the Minister of Justice in order to obtain their opinions on these changes as some of the provincial courts are already overburdened. I perhaps could be suggesting that the Minister of Justice get on with it and appoint more judges in certain provinces. Certainly some of the appointments he has made I have already congratulated him on privately and I will now do so here publicly. Some changes, note that, some. Can the Minister of Justice explain when the significant part of the Federal Court's jurisdiction is concurrent with that of these provincial superior courts why he did not take advantage in the reforms in Bill C-38 to reduce the concurrent powers of the Federal Court? Would not this reduction of the Federal Court's jurisdiction have allowed the federal government to reduce expenditures required for the administration of the court and do what it wants to do so badly in every other area of Canadian life, reduce the deficit?
Perhaps if it had reduced some of this concurrent jurisdiction and the expenditures thereto we would not be sitting here mourning-certainly the way they are mourning in my region of Atlantic Canada-by the cutting off and the strangling of the unemployment insurance program. I merely say that as a suggestion to the hon. minister because I know that underneath that cruel exterior there is a soft heart.


An Hon. Member:: I would sure like to see it.

November 1, 1989
Government Orders


Mary Catherine Clancy: Aha! Now we have heckling from the minister's side. There is a light at the end of this tunnel.
The provincial superior courts as well have long experience in matters involving suits against a provincial Crown. I wonder again why the provincial superior courts could not have been given exclusive jurisdiction as well over actions against the federal Crown.
The Law Reform Commission and the Canadian Bar Association have been lobbying for a time, and indeed I have mentioned this to the minister, to have some of the peripheral criminal matters that are currently in the Federal Court's jurisdiction with regard to certain federal statutes transferred. From my own experience as a provincial and municipal prosecutor in the past, I recall that there are criminal sanctions, not just attached to the Income Tax Act but to various acts such as the Small Birds Act, the Customs and Excise Act and a number of other federal statutes.
These are recommendations of both the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Reform Commission to ensure that the Federal Court is not, with the greatest of respect to that court, getting involved in criminal matters which in the opinion of both of these august bodies are better off in the other court system.
Prior to considering any amendments to the judicial review of administrative tribunals, can the Minister of Justice tell us if he has reviewed the provisions of the provincial statutes in this regard? Can he also explain why he did not refer more to the pertinent provisions in provincial statutes which are simpler and more comprehensive?
Again, it is a question of demystification of the legal process. The people of Canada are basically suspicious of and live in a certain amount of fear and trepidation with regard to the legal process. I do believe that it is our duty as legislators to in every way make this process more comprehensible to the people of this country. I am sure that the minister does agree with me and that these oversights will be corrected at the earliest possible date. But then again, I always was an optimist.
With regard to the amendments in general, I can say that they are long awaited, and while we do not feel that they go far enough, they do make in the long run an honest effort to begin a process long needed, not just in
the Federal Court Act and the other statutes pertaining thereto but in the legal system generally.
In closing, I would like to refer to a quote from political scientist Peter Russell. In his recent book, The Judiciary in Canada he said:
Rather than simply adding judges to the (Courts) to cope with this expansion in administrative law cases, the government should pursue the proposals set out in the 1983 MacGuigan paper and reduce the court's role in fields where it has no special expertise and which overlap with the jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. In this way, the benefits of developing a court with a special competence in some complex area of federal law (like the judicial review of federal authorities) can be realized while curtailing the drift toward a dual court system.
I think that these sentiments add to those sentiments expressed here today of the need to make the legal system in this country more relevant to the people and more comprehensible to the people. In this particular area the government has made one small step. Perhaps, in the words of Neil Armstrong, it should look toward making one giant step.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 27, 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, although we have the assurance that this Bill will be passed unanimously on third reading, I would still


November 1, 1989

like to submit a few comments to the House, to highlight the amendments passed in the legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-29, an act to establish the department of forestry. I feel that this particular bill has been rushed through its stages, but by no means should it be interpreted as a non-controversial or unimportant piece of legislation.
The creation of a forestry department is a step in the right direction. After hearing time and time again the same complaints from witnesses before the legislative committee, the press and the opposition, I do believe that the government is starting to get the message.
I must reiterate, as I have done in previous speeches time and again, that the forestry industry provides one in ten jobs in Canada directly or indirectly. In fact, close to
800,000	people work in the industry and 350 communities depend on it.
I am very pleased to say that there was a certain amount of flexibility that took place in the legislative committee. There were a total of five amendments passed. This shows that the government realized that the bill could be improved and it has put forth certain efforts to try to correct certain aspects of this bill.
To the preamble my colleague from Restigouche- Chaleur introduced an amendment which was accepted unanimously. The definition of sustainable development proposed by my colleague echoes the one devised by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister and Chairman of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. "The defining of sustainable development in law, as a development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, is a very significant step", the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur said. Many environmental groups have criticized the federal government for using a term which lacks a standard definition and which may be easily misconstrued.
"This definition ensures that the forestry department will play a key role in the preservation of Canada's valuable woodlands. Moreover, it clearly establishes a
Government Orders
term that the government has been recklessly brandishing about", the hon. member further stated.

On a more personal note, I also wish the minister would do what he suggested last July, when he said:
We should send an offer to the Americans, to sound them out
before sending them a termination notice.
To my amazement, nothing has been done so far. That is really too bad!

On October 27, in the House, the minister's answer to my question was very disappointing. At one point he stated that the 15 per cent surtax on softwood lumber was a minor factor. I found that incredible. He categorically stated in July that the 15 per cent surtax has had an effect on the Canadian softwood lumber industry. If it is so minor, why is he planning to send a termination notice? On the other hand, I was pleased to hear him say that he is constructing the evidence that would provide him with the necessary authority and jurisdiction to renegotiate the MOU. I might add, if he needs any help in expediting the evidence, I have numerous files on the subject.
I would like to explain to Hon. Members the amendment I proposed to this Bill, concerning clause 6(c) which stresses the development and application of forest management codes and standards, which were not adequate.

It was obviously not enough just to promote, we needed muscle in there. We needed government presence in there to monitor and ensure that the codes and standards were being followed. I hope that the government will go forth and carefully monitor, without impeding on the provincial governments' jurisidiction. It should be stressed that this monitoring be done in harmony with the provinces as well as the industry.
In the forestry sector the government seems to be very concerned about endangering its relations with the provinces. It is afraid to jade the provinces. I would like someone to indicate to me what is wrong with showing some direction. What is wrong with working with the provinces? By "working", I mean negotiate the strict

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
enforcement of quality reforestation, integrated forest management and do more research. Those provinces which do not comply will simply not have their forest resource development agreements renewed. In the same process, let them answer to their constituents. I am certain that both governments have the same common goal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the working paper prepared on September 8 this year by Dr. J.S. Maini, Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy), which deals with my amendment to clause 6 (c).
On page 7 of the working paper he mentions the following, under the heading: "The Challenge".
First, to make proper use of available knowledge to provide for integrated management of resources and create a national network of demonstration areas dedicated to integrated forest management.
Second, to intensify research on the potential impact on the forest environment of disruptions due to natural causes and human activity and to transmit the knowledge thus acquired.
Third, to enhance the productivity of woodlands in selected regions and increase the yield per hectare through improved management and enhanced protection of our forests, in such a way that multi-use of woodlands is possible.
Fourth, to reduce the waste produced by forest operations and wood processing. To rationalize the use of wood in various manufacturing processes leading to finished products.
Fifth, to undertake a systematic policy analysis, so as to better understand the decision-making process in the forestry sector and harmonize the various timeframes involved, bearing in mind economic, ecological, political and program considerations.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the forestry sector is almost entirely a provincial responsibility. The provinces own about 80 per cent of our productive woodlands, the federal government only 12 per cent, while 8 per cent belongs to private landowners.
Although the vast majority of these lands belong to the provinces, this does not mean the federal government should renege on its responsibilities and leave everything up to the provinces.

My second proposed amendment was, as I expected, ruled out of order. I still wish to press the point that the forestry workers be protected. I am very concerned about the layoffs in the industry. Not enough is being done to retrain these people. I had proposed that training programs in co-operation with other departments be established for laid off workers.
We also need people in the forestry sector who have first-hand knowledge of the industry needs toward initiating training programs that would have a much higher rate of success than the current general programs offered. Taking into account the reason why my amendment was inappropriate, I caution the government that we on this side of the House will be vigilant in order to ensure that forestry workers be given the most chances to either recuperate their job or to have access to a training program geared to accommodate their talents and aptitudes.

I felt that adding "in co-operation with the other departments" to the amendment would have been enough. However, I hope the government will consider suggesting that the department in question propose a job recovery program specifically for workers who have been laid off in the forestry industry.

The third amendment that I proposed to this bill, I am pleased to say, received a favourable response from the government, so favourable I might add that the government proposed an identical one in substance. This clause deals in essence with exports and the competitiveness of Canadian forestry products on a global scale. It was mentioned briefly in clause 7(b) of the bill, but in a vague and unspecified manner. I had proposed to strengthen this.
When you take into account that the forest resource has an annual value of about $33 billion in goods shipped, the industry is also Canada's leading export sector, accounting for an annual net trade surplus in this sector of around $16 billion. As a result, the government
November 1, 1989

added section (e) to clause 6 stating "to seek to enhance the utilization of Canada's forest resources and the competitiveness of Canada's forest sector domestically and internationally."
I would like to say a few words on the interesting comments made by a witness who testified before the legislative committee on this bill. The witness, Mr. Leslie Reed, professor in industrial resources, faculty of forestry, University of British Columbia, stated five possible elements in a strategic plan. The first element was production targets that are doable and measurable. How much timber and non-timber do we want to have in the year 2000, 2020, 2050 and so on? It is pretty hard to talk about policy in a vacuum. We must think in terms of targets of predictable capacity.
On this I would like to point out that Canada's productive forests cover a total area of 220 million hectares or approximately 50 per cent of the area of this country. Over the years 12 per cent of those lands have not been satisfactorily restocked. We are looking at an increase of 240,000 hectares or nearly a 1 per cent per year increase in unforested land. Granted 88 per cent has been restocked. However this means that this year it may be 13 per cent, 14 per cent next year, and 15 per cent the next year.

We cannot let this kind of situation go on. Furthermore, according to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1988, at section 7.7:
Lack of adequate forest management in the past has resulted in depletion of the forest resource. Significant shortages of wood are now reported at the local level in every province. Restocking of productive forest lands has not kept pace with the harvest, and this threatens future forest productivity. Given the importance of the industry to Canada's economy and social structure, it is clear that any significant decrease in the supply of wood will have a serious impact on all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I may also add that since 1903, Sweden has had its "one for one" law which says that for every tree that is cut down, another one has to be planted. In Canada, similar legislation was passed for the first time in 1987, by the province of Quebec. In fact, there is a lot of catching up to do, and we must start today and take the lead.
The second point raised by Mr. Reed was priorities. There are a number of things we want to do. These
Government Orders
priorities should be ranked carefully. Our first priority should be silviculture and reforestation, as I said earlier.

His third point was an action plan that says in effect this is what we are going to do and these are the time frames we are working in. In 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years from now, this is where we expect to be. Too good to be true.
His fourth point was about accountability. We have to make someone accountable, someone to whom we can come back and make sure that the mandate indeed has been fulfilled.
I questioned Professor Reed on this point. I agreed with his term "accountability". I then asked how the federal government could be involved in such a process in perspective with the provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution. He replied that most reports talk about responsibility. This is a soft word. I prefer talking about accountability and enforcement, supervision, inspection and reporting. I think there is an easy way for the federal government to exercise leadership in a way that will soon have teeth. This goes back to my amendment "monitor and promote the development and application of forest management codes and standards".
His fifth and final point dealt with the monetary aspect. This is where the feedback, updating and change come in. Again this refers to my amendment which aims at supplying the necessary funds to guarantee the viability of our largest industry in Canada. This is where we will reap the benefits or, hopefully, not the disaster of our efforts.
I want to refer to comments by another witness who was invited to the legislative committee. Mr. Jim Cay-ford, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, gave a very good definition to the meaning of integrated management which was inserted as an amendment in clause 6, section (d).

By integrated management I mean, first of all, the management of Canada's forestry resources in terms of various products and services, and second, management in terms of lumber, fauna, environmental values, water, woodland areas and recreation. This is a very complex field, I have no doubt about that, and I would say that in

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
most cases, one use should take precedence over other uses in a particular area.
Increasingly, we will be faced with the following dilemma: Should governments promote the interests of industry or the environmentalists? Many misconceptions and misunderstandings are created by lack of direction and information. Elowever, I am convinced that in the long run, both parties will understand each other's values and will be able to reach a compromise.

Mr. Cayford went on to suggest several very good points. I will not state them all but I would very much like to quote the following:
We propose that the duties and functions of the minister should include specific reference to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on forestry. This committee should be chaired by the Department of Forestry and have the responsibility to review all forestry programs of the federal government and to prepare an annual federal forestry budget.
I spoke to Mr. Cayford abut this suggestion. He indicated a requirement long overdue, that all the various national and provincial forest industry associations meet once or twice a year for information sessions. Government officials from the department and the minister's office would be present to listen to their concerns and proposed solutions to the different problems facing the forestry sector of our economy. Their contribution is extremely valuable because they deal with the forest on a daily basis.
What better way for the federal government to acquire all the current, up-to-date information and suggestions from the various sectors of the industry across the country. On this point, I have heard that the minister is very much in favour of such a conference. I would like to attend such a meeting, which I hope will take place in the very near future.
In conclusion, I would like to quote the words of Professor Reed:
Let us not kid ourselves. Either we have a commitment to forestry, either the provinces put up long-term strategic plans that have substance and then follow through in a courageous way, or they are not entitled to the federal sharing of funds.
This statement is in total agreement with what I have said earlier about the conditions that should be attached
to the federal contributions in the Forest Resource Development Agreements.
In closing, on September 26, at the second reading of this bill I said that under the Constitution Act, 1982, natural resources including forests are a provincial jurisdiction. From an environmental point of view, this does not mean the federal government should divest its responsibility for the forest sector. The industry needs us and national parks need the federal government. We should take our responsibilities and show strong leadership.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in third reading of Bill C-29, the long-awaited legislation to establish the department of forestry. As all members know, third reading is generally an opportunity to wrap up the discussion and debate and to review some of the amendments that have been made both in committee and in report stage to this most important legislation.
I say it is important because we heard a great deal in committee and in this House about just how much forestry impacts all of us, whether we live in northern British Columbia, northern Ontario, or in fact in downtown Toronto where a number of people depend on the forest for their cheques because of the wealth that our forests generate.
It would help us to remind ourselves of the over 300 communities that depend on the forest industry for their livelihood. It is the number one industry in this country, with some $38 billion generated annually. Some 840,000 Canadians are employed in all of the various forestry sectors. This bill and this debate is very important to many people in this country. It is a credit to this House that we have come to this point with this bill.
We have come to this point not without some work. The Prime Minister had promised this legislation some five years ago and we are finally just about there.
During discussion in committee, we pursued a number of the different clauses of the bill and questioned the minister who appeared on a number of occasions, and we thank him for that. We asked him if there was going to be more. This was housekeeping legislation, the government said, it was basically administrative in nature. Members on our side presented a number of amendments and, to use the words of one of the members, the
November 1, 1989

government liked the flavour of our amendments but chose at this time not to adopt those amendments or to support all of the amendments that we put forward.
You may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there have been discussions and the standing committee on forestry may be approaching yourself, Your Honour, and the important committees that decide these things to review the mandate of the department to talk to Canadians about forestry issues. Let us do that, and when we do and we hear from Canadians, let us be prepared. Let us get the commitment from the Prime Minister to enhance and strengthen the minister of forests' hand as is needed so that he can ensure that Canadians know that our forests, our national heritage if you like, are being well protected.
Just before I go into a couple of points specifically on the legislation, I want to read from a couple of letters from some of the people to whom I wrote and have been keeping up to date on the progress of this legislation. Let us hear what they had to say.
I am particularly pleased, for example, with a letter from the IWA of Canada which recently passed a new environmental policy. The IWA is aware of the importance of forests, not just for jobs but also with regard to the role that forests play in the environment and in our recreation. The letter is from Ms. Claire Dansereau, their environmental planner, commenting about our proposal for an annual forest ministers' conference and also for a conference every five years of the first ministers so that they can talk about our number one resource in this country.
They also supported our recommendation for a forest trade commissioner so that we would not get into the bind that this government has us in with the memorandum of understanding on the softwood lumber tariff. I will comment on that a little later.
All of the Canadians we know who live in our ridings and our communities talk to us about their jobs and the forests. They talk about the debate in the newspapers and on the radio and TV between environmentalists and the loggers, and ask how we are going to resolve this. They ask are we going to be able to use some of the responsible suggestions such as the one put forward by the leader of our provincial party, Mr. Harcourt, who has proposed a sustainable development policy so we can resolve those disputes.
Government Orders
I just want to read into the record a letter from Colin and Nelia Barnfield from Victoria. I extend my thanks to the member for Victoria who assisted here on Friday in the report stage of this bill. The letter states in part, "In order to be truly effective, we believe that a federal Department of Forestry should have the authority to stipulate precise management procedures for the sustainable development of the forests and lands over which it has jurisdiction and to be required to take appropriate legal action against any party which fails to follow these management procedures."
I know my friends in the Liberal party will support that because we have talked about it in committee. I know that when we get into the debate about our forest resource development agreements and how important they are to the replanting of our harvested lands, the intensive silviculture that has to take place, we will see that those standards are in place.
I am pleased that we did have an opportunity to present some amendments to this legislation that received the support of all parties and were passed. One that I am particularly proud of was the amendment I proposed that strengthens the minister's hand when it comes to the development of a public awareness program as it relates to our forests.
I think the polls are showing now that Canadians are aware more than ever of the importance of our environment. Of course, that goes hand in glove with the importance of our forests.
I suggest that we do not need a public awareness program that basically pats us on the back, that is just more rhetoric or pits the loggers against the environmentalists. I know the minister will certainly pay heed to a public awareness program-a national education program perhaps-that ensures all components of forests are considered when developing this awareness, most importantly for our young people.
I am also pleased with the amendment to clause 10 to the annual report provisions. When this legislation was first introduced in the House one of the first comments I made was that an annual report to Parliament should be an important event. It should not just go into the pile that ends up in the recycling bin. The filing of an annual report by the minister of forests should be an important event in this Chamber and give us the opportunity to debate some of the expanded areas that our amendment proposed. We talked about the need to have information, but it should not be restricted to information on

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
forest employment, which is often forgotten, as well as an inventory of Canada's forest lands.
In British Columbia we are talking about most of our province where we do not even know what is out there in our forested land. An inventory has not been done for 20 years. Our Ministry of Forests in British Columbia does not know what there is to cut out there. So that inventory is critical. It is important that we hear about that in this House.
A survey of the environmental standards should be applied by the forestry industry. All we have to do is to have watched the news last night and the headlines today. "Ottawa Condemns Alberta Pulp Mill Proposal". If this government and the provinces got their act together, then we might not run into this situation where we have projects proceeding. The federal official quoted in this article suggested that, "We"-meaning the federal government-"could not stop the project". This is a pulp mill proposal. We know the haste with which the provincial government in Alberta is proceeding on this matter. He stated that they could not stop the project from being built, but once built we could shut it down if it contravenes federal regulations.
If that is not an indication of the problem that we have with this government's inaction in putting together an environmental assessment procedure that is fair, that works with the provinces, industry and all concerned people, we are going to have ridiculous situations like this. We are going to continue to have these federal-provincial conflicts.
I should comment, while discussing the inventory of our old growth forests in our province and some of the new species that are becoming valuable as a resource now, that today there was a cabinet shuffle in our province and a new minister of forests was appointed. My colleagues from British Columbia would probably agree with me that anybody would be better than the last one. The last minister, frankly, was giving forestry a bad name. It is early, of course, to judge the new minister.
The message I have for the federal minister is that as quickly as possible he should meet with the new provincial forest minister to ensure that especially the discussions and the negotiations, whatever have been taking
place on the Forest Resource Development Agreement with B.C., get under way immediately.
One of the provisions in the legislation that gives the minister some authority to do some work-and this is a proposal I have that I think I would like the minister to consider-has to do with a lot of the resource use conflicts that we are hearing about. I think there is a certain degree of frustration, if you like, on the companies' part, on the part of people who work in the woods, the environmentalists, those concerned with native land claims, and, frankly, with the provincial governments. I am referring to the clause in the legislation where the minister is able to appoint committees.
It is my suggestion that he consider as one of the first actions to take a measure to appoint a committee upon the voluntary referral from any of the interested groups in these resource conflict areas that they sit and consider, collect and collate much of the federal information that is available from the federal government, its expertise in the forest research area and the economic development areas and, of course, the work that we hope is being done to settle land claims. I suggest we attempt to provide some outlet, if you like, for the frustration that I know is out there.
I think this would be a way for the federal minister to show his concern in this field and to give us an opportunity to work with those interested groups to ensure that these resource conflicts are resolved. We are respectful of provincial jurisdiction, but I think it is important, as the Minister of the Environment here has already offered to the province of B.C., to have assistance and research in the old growth when it relates to the Carmanah Valley. That is the kind of co-ordination I think we need.
I have not heard much yet about the department's work in single industry towns. My brief message there is to the minister and his department. Let us not just restrict it to sitting down and going through a few Statistics Canada reports and regurgitating information that has already been there. Let us get a chance to go and talk to some of these communities that are suffering now from a lack of wood supply. There are a number of mills in my home town that are suffering now. I would ask the minister and the government to consider much more seriously some of the work in the single industry
November 1, 1989

towns, a section of the Estimates that they have mentioned.
A lot of these communities are suffering. I was lucky to be in northern Ontario just a short time ago, in Thunder Bay and Kenora, where we talked about the forestry issues there and, in particular, the memorandum of understanding, the softwood lumber tariff and, of course, how this government sold out Canada's forests with that deal. As I said before, I hope Pat Carney is listening today because her government sold it out, with the help of the Prime Minister who said it was a good deal for Canada.
His own minister now recognizes, some couple of years later, that maybe we made a mistake. We are going to revisit the issue with the United States. I said: "It is about time". I said it in stronger words than that, but the editors at The Toronto Star edited out a few of the words. It is about time this government paid attention to the issue that the memorandum of understanding and that tariff is causing us.
In our province alone, the reporter mentions British Columbia accordingly jacked up its stumpage rates.
I managed to do a bit of research this morning with my colleague, the provincial member from Prince Rupert, Dan Miller, our provincial forest critic, to talk about what this has meant in B.C.
What has it meant in my part of the province? From the information I have prepared, basically because of the effect of the MOU by this government and by that crazy government in British Columbia, we have seen stumpage rate increases in northern Ontario of over 56 per cent. There is no flexibility built in. It is a hard and fast method. Obviously the social credit government and the Conservative government are in collusion on this. It is obviously one of the first issues that the federal minister should deal with, in consultation with the new minister. Let's get a move on. It has been too slow already.
The forest resource development agreements are dealt with in the legislation. We have spent a good amount of time in committee and in this House debating those agreements. The reason we are doing that is because they play such an important role for the federal government and the provincial governments to get together and help manage our resources.
Government Orders
This government has allowed these agreements to expire; six of them expired at the end of March. The minister is making his way along. We learn a little bit here and a little bit there about what the criteria is going to be. Who knows if this government really knows exactly what it is doing. The provinces, at least in western Canada, have identified some $400 million of their needs for forests. Yet we hear from this government that there might be $242 million available for all sectors, for all provinces.
I remind the minister that when he was on this side, as reported in the April 18, 1984 Hansard, of a question he put to the then Minister of the Environment. Of course the Liberals at the time were not sure just what to do with the minister of forests. At least the government across the way has agreed to create a full department of forests, not like the Liberals whose leader came to Prince George in the 1984 campaign and opposed a full department of forests.
The current minister, in a question to the then Minister of the Environment asked: "Is it really because the minister does not have the money to take to the bargaining table?" Well, I think the same comment could apply today. I think the minister responsible for western diversification who was here earlier will have to be held accountable sooner or later for the lack of help to our forests in western Canada.
In the few minutes I have left I want to wrap up about the importance of forestry to this country and to all members of Parliament, whether we are from urban or rural ridings. It is the minister of forests who should be the minister for sustainable development. Let us get his annual report on recycled paper. He should be the number one environmental department. As he says, the trees are the lungs of the earth. Well, our lungs work too.
The point I am making is that people have a livelihood from our forests and this minister should be responsible for that. He should be given the resources for that and the strength to do that.
In closing, I just want to say as a member of the committee I know that we are all sincere in our debate on this matter. I want to wish the staff of the new department well, because often they are the ones who do a lot of the work. I want to wish the minister well-not a lot-and we will see them all in committee.

Government Orders


Ms. Hunter:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and comment on my colleague's address to this motion. I know that my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley was responsible for the amendment to a motion increasing the public information component to this ministry.
As a member of the environment committee of this House I think it is crucial that there is more public information. We have heard very worrisome testimony in the environment committee about the kind of degradation of the forests and the relationship of that to the global warming, the phenomenon that is threatening us all.
I have a question for my colleague. The new minister of forests I trust will actually be the minister for sustainable development, particularly for the resource provinces like British Columbia from which we both come. How does he feel that that is actually going to be realized with this new ministry of forests?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands who I know from our discussions has a great deal of concern over forests not only in the country and internationally but also in her own riding.
The first way to get that awareness out there, one simple way, is through the minister's annual report. It should be on recycled paper. It should be made available to schools across this country and to as many people as possible so that they can see what is taking place across the country.
He should sit down with his provincial forest ministers and provincial education ministers to see that the informational material on our forests is available to our schools. Even Adam Zimmerman thinks that we should get together and find that common data base so that we know what we are dealing with.
If we do not get that information to young people I think we may be doomed. I thank the member for her concerns in this regard. It is an excellent point. The way to hold the government accountable is in this Chamber and in the forestry committee where we will see that he gets the work done we want done.


Mr. Funk:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words of praise to the work that the hon. member has done on this particular bill. I think he has done an excellent job of alerting the forestry community, certainly in western Canada and even in my province where I do not think he
has even visited the forests. However his name is certainly known there for the good work that he has done on this legislation.
I had the opportunity to work with the member on a proposal to the minister calling for the creation of community conservation brigades which would be groups of young people. We had proposed 12,000 from Canada who would be taken on as conservation brigades to fight fires, to plant trees and so on in the forested communities of the country.
I would just like the hon. member to comment on what prospects he might see for that kind of initiative being adopted.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He is right, I have not visited his province yet. I hope to do that soon. I fly over it on the way home, so I have seen the big picture from time to time.
The member is right. He presented an excellent idea to the minister and to provincial ministers. We have received some favourable comment from some of the provincial ministers. I believe even the federal minister gave a little bit of a nudge and a wink in that direction.
As we work in developing these forest resource development agreements, I think that is a method and a way to deal with it. When the legislation is passed, it gives the minister the mandate to get on with the job. If he likes the idea, let us work together. I cannot think of a better way to do the public awareness that the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands talked about than through a conservation program that works with young people.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and pride that I have participated in the debate on Bill C-29. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all individuals who participated in the process for their valuable contributions. I wish to congratulate the opposition for its fine performance.
I would especially like to highlight the important contribution of my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, his very valuable amendments, especially those dealing with the monitoring and promoting of the development and application of forest management codes and standards. I would also like to congratulate the member for Cochrane-Superior for his persistent fight against the 15 per cent export surtax on softwood lumber. My hon. colleague will certainly
November 1, 1989

agree that it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity of improving the government's legislation.
Last week, the Minister of State for Forestry expressed his appreciation for the amendment concerning the definition of sustainable development which I proposed during the committee deliberations. I would like to thank the minister for supporting my amendment. I am extremely pleased that he is finally beginning to see things my way.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of this expression in a bill, namely, that sustainable development means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, is a very significant step in dealing with the environment. Bill C-29 is the first piece of legislation in Canada to contain this definition.
As you no doubt know, Mr. Speaker, several groups have criticized the federal Government for using an expression that has no current definition and that can easily be misinterpreted. From now on, the Government will no longer be able to bandy this expression around thoughtlessly. Furthermore, my amendment will ensure that the Forestry Minister will play a key role in preserving Canada's precious woodlands.

The term sustainable development was originally coined in 1987 by the United Nations Royal Commission on Environment and Development chaired by the former Norwegian Prime Minister Dr. Gro Harlem Brund-tland. Indeed, the Brundtland report must take a great deal of the credit for the current and apparently high level of public concern about pollution and the global environment.
The report's main recommendation called for the international adoption of the concept of sustainable development, a blend of strong economic growth and environmental regulations aimed at preserving the planet as a hospitable habitat for mankind.
Government Orders
With respect to the forestry sector, the inclusion of a definition of sustainable development in this legislation will ensure that the forestry department will have regard to the conservation and effective management of our country's valuable forests. As the minister said in a CBC interview in Edmonton last week, and I quote: "Forests do more than sustain an industry; they sustain our environment". With that in mind and with a definition in law the foundation has been laid for the effective management and conservation of Canada's forests.
Although the forestry bill has been improved and strengthened by the diligent work of the opposition and the co-operation of the government members of the legislative committee, it still has several shortcomings. During committee deliberations many witnesses testified that the forestry sector was of such vital importance to Canada's economy that it needed a strong department to represent it.
The executive director of the Canadian Forestry Association, Mr. Glen Blouin, stated categorically that the mandate given to the forestry department ought to have been stronger and more all encompassing. "Such a mandate", he said, "would have reflected the significance of the forests to all Canadians in terms of the environment, balance of payments, employment, tourism and recreation".
Unfortunately what we have is a department with little clout. Mr. Blouin asked for the government to give the forestry department control of the vital forest resource development agreements, a mandate to provide leadership in all matters relating to forestry, along with a budget to reflect the importance of this new department. Instead, the department suffered a $28 million cut and a personnel reduction of 47 person-years in the budget tabled last spring.
Moreover, the minister still must run to other government agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, western diversification and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology in order to obtain the money to fund forestry agreements with the provinces. Is that what you would call a strong department? Definitely not.
As I said earlier, the creation of a forestry department is of considerable importance in the recognition of the importance of this sector. Unfortunately this bill does

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
not provide the forestry sector the representation it needs. How could it, after all? The government is creating a department, yet it is reducing its resources.
In fact, forestry suffered an 11.9 per cent cut in the 1989-90 budget while all other natural resource based programs received budget increases. For example, the environment department's budget 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.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Where is the government's commitment to forestry? It cannot go on setting up a department and then pull the rug out from underneath it. That just does not make sense.
If this new department is going to represent Canada's forestry sector effectively, it must receive a budget increase similar to those received by natural resource based programs.

Mr. Speaker, during the deliberations of the legislative committee on this Bill, the executive director of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, Mr. Jim Cayford, also said that the Government does not specify the new department's role clearly enough. He stated that the new department should have national responsibility, in that it should play a leading role in forestry, promote research and technology transfer, conclude federal-provincial agreements on forestry resource use, compile data on forest resources, conduct studies on the industry, marketing, trade and forestry economics, promote international forestry relations; set up programs concerning human resources management, employment and education; and, finally, make the public fully aware of this new project.
Talk about a tall order! However the new department will never be able to assume the leadership role described by Mr. Cayford unless its budget is geared to that kind of challenge.
The Minister told us that forests are among the priorities of his government, yet the only natural resources component has been downgraded. Why such disparity? Why would the government claim it will do more for the forest sector when in fact it will be doing less?
Our forests deserve better treatment. To a large extent, our country's growth can be traced back to this sector. It has been the foundation of our economy. Today still the forest industry remains one of the cornerstones of this nation. Nobody should underestimate the significance of the forest sector in our economy: Canada has 4.31 million square kilometres of forest, or about 176 square metres of forest for each of our 25 million inhabitants.
Close to 300,000 people earn their living directly in the forest sector, and it provides indirect work for about
750,000	other Canadians, including railway workers, truck drivers and heavy equipment operators in related fields.
Last year, productive forests made it possible for us to ship in excess of $30 billion worth of goods. One seventh of manufacturing revenues comes from a forest-related sector, and our forests account for more than $17 billion of Canada's net trade balance, more than agriculture, fisheries and mines put together.
Mr. Speaker, the great importance of the forestry industry for the Canadian economy requires much government leadership so that the Government can promote and enhance the health and viability of this sector. However, this Bill gives no weight or importance to the Department of Forestry, since it will have to obtain funds for forestry development agreements from other departments and agencies of the federal Government.
The federal-provincial forestry agreements with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta expired on March 30. In addition, the agreements with Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia will lapse next March 30.
It is inconceivable for a government that says it supports the forestry sector to allow such a situation to occur. To date, these agreements have not been renegotiated. The Government must rectify this situation, because these agreements are vital for the future of Canada's forests.
Federal-provincial forestry agreements have provided over $1.1 billion for reforestation and management since 1985. More than 50 per cent of these funds come from the federal Government. These agreements will encourage increased forest management activities by providing

funds for ground preparation, tree-planting and plantation maintenance.

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers issued a document in 1987 entitled "A National Forest Sector Strategy for Canada", calling on the federal government to improve and continue the forestry agreements. The federal government must take the upper hand in order to ensure that forest resource development becomes the cornerstone of Canada's forestry industry.
Although this bill as amended and reprinted, following the recommendations of the opposition, is much improved, it still provides the minister with responsibilities for the forestry agreements. Indeed, the minister's commitment to the agreements is somewhat shaky. When he appeared before the legislative committee, he expressed his reservations with respect to the forestry agreements. He said that whether or not the federal role in the forestry sector is best served by the agreements is an open question. He also said that the forestry agreements were, in his view, not the most effective way to manage the resource.
The Canadian Institute of Forestry has said that forest renewal must remain the essential element in future agreements, and that the agreements were very crucial to the future of the industry. Moreover, the Canadian Forestry Association has also said that the agreements are critical to the future of forestry in Canada.
How can a minister deny the importance of these agreements, while everybody agrees that they are extremely important? Does the minister know something we do not? If that is the case, I would appreciate him sharing that information with us.
The necessity of these agreements becomes even more clear when considering that world consumption of forest products is expected to increase substantially within the next 20 years. Without sound agreements to ensure the future of Canada's wood supply, there is no way that this country will be able to meet the demands of the future. Is that what the minister means by sustainable development?
It is very interesting to note that a study which was commissioned by the Canadian Forestry Service, the
Government Orders
Woodbridge-Reed report, neither addressed the environmental ramifications of forestry practices in Canada nor the urgent necessity of implementing adequate reforestation. All this study mentioned was that the forestry industry's output would increase over the next 20 years. Without adequate reforestation and without a continued commitment from this government to forestry agreements there will, quite simply, be no usable wood supply left in the next 20 years.
Why is the government establishing a forestry department? More importantly, is this government not taking the future of Canada's forestry sector seriously? Canada's forestry sector needs to be improved if it is to remain competitive with the rest of the world.
The 1988 Auditor General's report stated that 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. The only way it can do this is to provide the minister with the responsibility for the forestry agreements. It must renew its commitments to these forestry agreements.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although we of the Liberal party support the principle of a full-fledged forestry department and agree that Bill C-29, as it now stands, is much improved because of the interventions of the opposition, we are duty bound to express many reservations which we have in regard to this legislation. The government is not out of the words with this one yet. It has voiced its commitment to the forestry sector. It has set up the department, although it has actually reduced its resources. It must now provide the strong leadership needed to ensure the health of this sector.
The opposition will be diligent and unrelenting in its endeavours to ensure that the government will give forestry the support which it needs and that it will live up to its commitments.

Government Orders


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to have a chance to speak on this bill. I had hoped to be able to speak on second reading, but it ended fairly abruptly last week. It was with some pleasure that I realized I would have a chance to express a Saskatchewan perspective on the question of forestry.
It may come as a surprise to many members of this House and the people of Canada, if like my esteemed colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, they have not visited the forests of Saskatchewan or flown over or driven through southern Saskatchewan, have the perception that there is not a tree in Saskatchewan. I know there are trees in Saskatchewan. I have planted about 2,000 of them on my farm. My family now has to look after those trees and they know that there are trees, at least on that patch of ground.
It is a little recognized fact, and one of the problems that the Saskatchewan forest industry faces, that 46 per cent of the land area of the province of Saskatchewan is in forests and 20 per cent of that is commercial forests. If you contrast that with 40 per cent in agriculture you realize that the commercial forests are half the size of the agricultural portion of Saskatchewan.
In my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River, 90 per cent is forested. It is a major issue in half of the geographic area of Saskatchewan. Through the years, it has been very difficult for that fact to be recognized, especially in our own province. Forestry is the second leading industry in Saskatchewan; 10 per cent of the gross provincial product comes from the forestry sector, both direct and indirect. In 1985, $290 million and probably more now, of income to the province was generated by the forests. As well, 8,000 people are employed in the forestry sector.
What happens in forestry is very important to the people of Saskatchewan, although it admittedly has not been a leading player in the forestry scene in Canada historically. Since agriculture is so dominant in Saskatchewan, that tends to be the leading economic debate. The population of the forested areas is sparse, therefore it does not have the numerical or political representation on the federal scene. It is a mere 6 per cent of the forests of Canada, and although it is a very significant land area and income generator that often does not get recognized.
It was, however, recognized by my predecessor, a former member for Prince Albert, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, who took a major initiative in this country by bring in the ARDA program in the late 1950s as an attempt to bring to life the economy of those communities that relied both on agriculture and forestry. That was a pioneering step, one which we should re-examine and perhaps consider reintroducing. In the context of the new department, some of those ideas might well be brought back.
I personally became involved with the forestry sector in Saskatchewan in 1982 when there was a major forestry congress in Saskatchewan. It was a very successful congress. The Saskatchewan Forestry Association, the industry and the unions, the IWA, the CPU, felt it was time that we as a sector in Saskatchewan took a hold of the situation, put our views on the record, analyzed what we had, and charted a common game plan.
At that time, the first round of FRDA agreements were in the process of negotiation and a large part of our intent was to create some kind of vehicle for input into that process. It turned out very well. The awareness within the province jumped to another level. Coupled with the activities that occurred as a result of that FRDA agreement, in many ways forestry has experienced its best seven years in the history in our province.
I would very much like to second the motion of my colleague for Prince George-Bulkley Valley that public information be a significant portion of the new department. It was an amendment that was adopted. I think activities like the forestry congress to launch the new FRDAs-and hopefully there are FRDAs-or to acquaint people with the activities of this department might well be a route to go. A congress like that every five years or so in every province is an excellent way to get the sector in thinking on the same wavelength.
FRDA had a funding level of $28 million, $14 million from the federal government, $14 million from the provincial government. It did some significant things. In firefighting, it allowed the development of a computer and a detection system that Saskatchewan did not have before. They purchased inventory and new equipment, trained people, and so on.
November 1, 1989

I have to confess that when the Auditor General said some provinces skimmed the FRDAs to carry on activities they should have been doing anyway, I thought that that applied in Saskatchewan, especially with reforestation. In 1982 the Devine government gutted the reforestation program. I know that because I live two miles from the forest nursery where they were burning trees and little seedlings because they did not have the money to plant them. Nevertheless, through this FRDA agreement, we are back up to the 10 million seedlings a year level. We need 20 to 25 million, however, to catch up on the backlog, because only half of our annual harvest is being reforested.
Also we started some initiatives in Indian forestry. A good portion of the land area in commercial forestry is either now on Indian reserves or potentially so if the claims are settled. As well, the Indian communities that are not reserve communities obtained some benefit from the fact that the Indian forestry was recognized as a sector with a training institute. Farm woodlots were also introduced, going back to the old ARDA idea.
The most critical aspect was the introduction of technical expertise to the province which we never had because we were a small industry. We did not have the personnel in many of the technical areas. FRDA brought together a critical mass of expertise that has been of tremendous benefit not only to the public sector of the communities, but to the private sector and the province as well.
We were disappointed when that did not come through. We were disappointed when we saw that there was only 28 per cent of the money available under the new regional development agreement in western Canada compared to what it was under the old ones, $242 million instead of $870 million. If that equation, 28 per cent, applies to the new FRDA in Saskatchewan, that would be a $4 million agreement, which would really be a pittance.
However, I have made representations to the minister of WDO. Somebody criticized the current structure, saying the ministry of forestry has to run all over to get its money. I think that is a valid critique, not to diminish the role of the minister of WDO, but it would be nice if forestry had its own money here. I have indicated to that minister that the two main priorities under the new
Government Orders
ERDA agreements, or children of ERDA, need to focus, first of all, on renewable resource sectors with forestry as the leading renewable resource sector. Second, we need the the development of organizational capacity at the community levels so that people can organize businesses and contracts to take advantage of opportunities and create opportunities for small businesses that utilize wood products. Third, we need to retain that expertise in the province that is so critical. We cannot do with any less. Even in that context we are happy that there is a department at least to relate to, and to start focusing some of that thinking.
Hopefully it will give some focus to the whole notion of sustainable development and the very critical role that the forest areas play in that. The vast majority of the land mass of the country is forested. How we treat that land mass is a very critical part of any attempt on our part to control climate change and to do our part to stop soil erosion. I think we have a real opportunity there.
Although we are supporting this legislation, perhaps we could offer some words of criticism with regard to the government's fundamental direction as is indicated here. The government ran on a platform, until it got sidetracked by free trade, of managing change. That is a very legitimate challenge for any government to take up. But I do not think, in all honesty, that this challenge is being met, certainly not in respect to the forest when only half of the reforestation is taking place that should be. Also, there is over-investment in capital in many cases for pulp mills. There has been huge private capital investment in plant and equipment that will not have the forest to process, or the wood product to process in a very few years. There has been a misdirection of resources. No matter what is the ideology of the government in something like forestry, it is its responsibility to make sure the investment is made in the right places. With all due respect, I do not think that this bill reflects the fact that the government realizes that.
There has not been nearly enough emphasis placed on benefiting the people who live in the forest, the communities of the forest. That is not only their physical environment, but their economic environment. I think that has often been lost.
In that context, I would like to mention that it has become widely noted that the hinterlands of Canada, the resource producing areas are being ignored. Even Ma-

November 1, 1989
Government Orders
clean's magazine saw fit to devote a cover story to the fact that the resource producing areas of this country, the hinterlands, and the people who do not live in big cities, are being ignored by this government. That is partly the result of 85 per cent of the land mass being represented by the opposition, and only 15 per cent by the government. It is starting to be reflected in the policies of the government.
For example, when one considers changes to the UI, increasing rates on fly-in food by 30 per cent, charging people $16,000 to $20,000 to get a private line phone, taking away the northern allowance, and what is happening to agriculture which often interrelates on the fringes of forestry, the communities of the forests are really hurting, in many cases, as a result of government policy. If there needs to be money invested, it would be best if it came from the people who actually lived there, but because of many of the government's actions they are not having the opportunity to do that.
In closing, I do appreciate the fact that we now have a department. I would again like to put on the record that the resources are woefully inadequate and that the forestry community, both the professional as well as the community at large are very disappointed. It has not been seen as a victory by people who are interested in the forests. It points out again that what this government has is not so much an image problem as a substance problem. This sums up as well as anything that all too many times we are getting an awful lot more image than we are substance. I challenge the government to take that into account as the process of evolving this department into full reality takes place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Buckley Valley on a question or comment.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated the contribution the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River made to the debate on this legislation. I know his concern for his riding and his province with regard to forestry. We have had many discussions on this topic. I take up his offer to visit Saskatchewan sometime rather than just flying over the province and get a chance to see some of those forests first hand and maybe even the nursery near where he lives. The hon. member is shaking his head in agreement, I am glad for that.
The member raised a question, and I am pleased to see that the minister responsible for western diversification is actually in the chamber right at the moment. The member mentioned that from what we have been able to glean so far, there appears to be a lack of funds available not only to forestry but other sectors in western Canada, as well as the funds that have to be shared with the provinces. The part of this that we often forget is the role that the provinces have in designing their priorities so that when they sit down with the federal minister, or federal counterpart, that they can work out some kind of priority listing. In B.C. we have already talked about our new forest minister and our hope that the federal minister and the new provincial minister will get together quickly.
I am interested in knowing if the Saskatchewan government puts a high priority on forestry. Do they see it as a sunset industry like some provinces do, as many Conservative provinces have, or are we looking at a government that is going to try and use this federal money to win a few more seats or buy off a few more people? Does the Devine government really care about forestry?


Raymond John Funk: There is quite a difference between what one hears and what one sees. One hears a fair bit from the provincial government about its commitment to forestry, but really it has pretty much been restricted to helping companies like Weyerhaeuser which has turned out to be not a bad corporate citizen. Nevertheless, the energy has gone toward helping the corporate sector gain greater control of the forestry industry, with some modernization. They have really neglected reforestation, the community end, and the training end. In fact, what they have done has often been, quite frankly, at the expense of the forestry agreement. It was money they should have been spending anyway. In fact, covered under the agreement I think that it is a legitimate critique.
I might also reiterate that it is part of the problem of the Minister of Forestry having to go all over the place for money. For example, in the conservation brigades which we suggested, I thought it was a great idea to hire and train 1,000 young people in Saskatchewan in a constituency where $35 million a year is paid out in welfare. Approximately the same amount is paid out in unemployment insurance. We had fires burning out of control, and half the forests that should be replanted not being replanted. I thought devoting $6 million in Sas-
November 1, 1989

katchewan, a federal contribution, putting 1,000 young people to work accomplishing those tasks would surely be a good use of money. I think the government should have spent money on that, but as is so often the case everybody said it was a good idea but bureaucratically impossible.
We have to use this department. We have to give it enough authority to make sure that we can shake some of those bureaucratic trees so that what actually makes sense actually gets done.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the members of the House for their co-operation. We have no further business to call at this time so I would call it six o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on that statement. I think the government realizes today that with co-operation, understanding, and good relations the House deals quickly and efficiently with subject matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 2,1989