1989-05-25

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the midst of Question Period I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and on reflection, after reading Hansard, it was certainly not my intention to use unparliamentary language. However, after reading Hansard I can see where the Chair would perhaps come to the conclusion that in point of fact what I said was unparliamentary. That being the case, and my intention was not to use unparliamentary language, I wish to withdraw any intention that may have been said or otherwise concluded by the Chair as being unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member. I should tell the House that the Hon. Member extended the appropriate courtesies, called me personally and we discussed the matter. I did not want to raise it further yesterday. I appreciate the generous comments of the Hon. Member, which again are in the proper traditions of this place.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given Your Honour notice. The question of privilege which I wish to outline today arises from the reported conviction following a plea of guilty on Thesday last of the Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise).
Before giving an outline of the circumstances that led to that, I want to take a couple of minutes to remind Members of the House and Your Honour of the seriousness with which the House has historically viewed questions of privilege and of the nature of privilege.
Erskine May and Beauchesne's set out very clearly the nature of privilege. Privileges of Parliament are stated to be rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of the House, rights which are exercised by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. That is from Erskine May.
As well, each House claims the right to punish actions which, while not privilege breaches of a specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity. Such actions though often called breaches of privileges are more popularly distinguished as contempts. The powers and procedures of each House in dealing with cases of contempt are treated in subsequent chapters of Erskine May and, indeed, of Beauchesne, and I will make reference to those in due course.
I want to note as well that it is clearly pointed out in Erskine May, and again in Beauchesne, that alleged breaches of privilege or contempt which are committed out of the House or out of the precincts of the House may in fact be brought before the House in a number of ways including by a complaint of any Member of the House. It is on that basis that I rise this morning on this question of privilege which in fact constitutes a contempt of this House.
The purpose of raising the question of privilege this morning is to seek to persuade Your Honour that a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt of the House exists, thus ensuring that the subject matter of this motion could come before the House on an urgent basis. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will explain why I feel it is so important that Your Honour recognize that a prima facie case is made. Without in any way ruling on the substance of the question, it is important that Your Honour find that a prima facie case is made sufficient to

May 25, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
allow the matter to come before the House at the earliest possible time.
The circumstances which give rise to the question of privilege are well known at this point to Members of the House, but I will set them out briefly. They concern the Hon. Member for Chambly who was a Member of this House in the last Parliament. He was re-elected in the November 21 election as a Conservative Member of Parliament with the support of his Party and the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
In this context I would note as well that the Prime Minister, through his principal secretary, was aware prior to the election of certain allegations of impropriety. Indeed, the then principal secretary, Peter White, on November 8 last, wrote a letter to RCMP Inspector Berube in Quebec saying that he was concerned because the Hon. Member had apparently indicated that he had been involved in some improprieties in 1985 and 1986. That merely goes to show the knowledge of the Prime Minister and that the Member was in fact elected as a Conservative Member of Parliament.
Certain allegations were made concerning the activities of the Member, serious allegations of alleged corruption, breach of trust and fraud. Indeed, a sworn statement by an RCMP inspector indicated that contractors interviewed with respect to one particular matter acknowledged that they were asked to donate a certain amount of money to a federal political party to show their gratitude. These are allegations of serious offences.
On April 14 of this year, the Hon. Member for Chambly was in fact charged by the RCMP with a number of counts of breach of trust and fraud. The next day the Member did in fact resign from the Conservative caucus and chose to sit as an independent Member of Parliament.
The circumstances surrounding the allegations are very serious. The maximum sentence to which the Hon. Member was subject was 10 years in the case of fraud and 5 years in the case of breach of trust. I think it is important to note as well when reviewing precedents that the circumstances of at least a number of the counts involve a fraud directly touching on this Parliament and
directly touching on public funds which were appropriated to this Parliament.
The Member has pleaded guilty to those offences. He has pleaded guilty, among other things, to an offence which indicates that he hired a number of employees purportedly for his staff here in the House of Commons and allegedly to do work for him. He has admitted that that work was not done and that the funds which were paid to those individuals were subsequently turned over to him and split between him and the president of his riding association. Apparently $100 or $200 was received by the alleged employees, but the bulk of the money was split, and he has admitted that and pleaded guilty to that.
The nature of the other offences involve bribes and breach of trust. Contractors paid the Hon. Member in exchange for work building a community centre in his constituency. I might note that the construction of that community centre involved a federal grant of some $245,000 which the Hon. Member at the time bragged about having obtained for his constituents. We now learn that he has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from a number of contractors in connection with that matter.
The allegations in question are very serious allegations. The circumstances of the offences are very serious. Most important, the Member himself, through his plea of guilty, has acknowledged his wrongdoing. He had been scheduled to appear in court on May 31, but on Tbesday of this week, he appeared with his counsel earlier than anticipated.
I think it is of some interest to note the comments of his counsel with respect to the circumstances of these offences. His counsel indicated that these were grave offences and very serious offences. In fact, he said that the evidence was so overwhelming that he advised his client to plead guilty in the face of that overwhelming evidence.
The allegations and the circumstances have been clearly established. The Member in question was sentenced, and I do not think anyone in the House could suggest that in view of the evidence he was sentenced harshly or excessively. He was sentenced to one day in prison, though he actually served about four and a half hours, had lunch in prison and then left, a $20,000 fine and a three-year period of probation. This is in the face
May 25, 1989

of the admission of his own lawyer, Jean-Claude Hebert, that he looked at the evidence and it was overwhelming, and he suggested that he plead guilty.
I emphasize that the Member for Chambly pleaded guilty. This is important because in law this is clearly an admission of his wrongdoing. It is an admission that he took bribes. It is an admission that he defrauded this House and abused his office as a Member of Parliament. In light of those admissions, the suggestion made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) is ludicrous.
Of course, it is not up to the Minister of Justice, as Your Honour well knows, to decide what action this House may ultimately take. For the Minister of Justice to suggest that we wait for 30 days to see if an appeal will be launched is, with great respect, totally unfounded. The only possible appeal would be an appeal from the sentence by either the person convicted or the Crown. The Crown has announced that it will not appeal the sentence so the only person who could appeal the sentence is the Hon. Member for Chambly himself. No matter what sentence is ultimately handed down, the fact remains that he has admitted to the wrongdoing that was the basis for that sentence.
Some may say that he could always have a change of heart and change his plea, ask to appear before the court, saying that he really was not guilty and had made a terrible mistake. I am sure that the Minister of Justice knows that the circumstances under which such a plea are allowed would effectively rule out any serious consideration of that in this case.
The reality is that the Member made that plea through his lawyer. His lawyer has said that the evidence was overwhelming and that in the face of that evidence there was no alternative. I suggest that it is ludicrous to ask the House to wait 30 days, as the Minister of Justice has suggested, before we take action. It is an abdication of the responsibility of the Government to do so.
There are not an awful lot of precedents in this area. Your Honour is aware that in 1947 the then Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, rose in his place and moved a motion to expel Fred Rose who had been ajudged guilty of certain indictable offences. As he said, "the resolution speaks for itself". He said: "I have nothing to add".
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
I want to point out that it is particularly important that Your Honour allow the motion of which I intend to give notice to be put before the House in light of the circumstances of these offences and, if I may say, in light of some of the comments that have been made since the conviction, since the guilty plea, by Conservative Members of this House.
The message that Canadians are hearing is a mixed message. We as parliamentarians have an obligation, each of us, to uphold the privileges of this House. We are being watched by Canadians to ensure that those privileges are protected. Members on the government side of the House make statements, as did the Hon. Member for Beauce, suggesting that the fraud and breach of trust activities are anomalies and that they in no way detract from the qualities of the Member as a Member of Parliament. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Duvemay has said that we are being too harsh on the Member for Chambly, that the courts are imposing a double standard and that is tougher for elected officials.
He has indicated that it is becoming very nerve-racking, that we are all human, that all sorts of things can happen when one is an MP, and that an ordinary citizen does not have the same problem. An ordinary citizen probably would not get a day in jail for this kind of offence, I would note. He says that they do not have to face the music all the time like we do, that we are always in the spotlight, but that for ordinary people it never shows.
Those are extraordinary statements by Conservative Members of Parliament defending the conduct of one of their colleagues who was found guilty of breach of trust, of fraud, and who has admitted to that wrongdoing. Where do we go from here? The Crown prosecutor, when he was asked if justice had been served by a one-day sentence, said, and I quote: "That is up to Parliament. They are the ones who will decide if he can continue as an MP".

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) was a Member of some importance during the last Parliament. He was Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and chaired the Quebec caucus of his Party.

May 25, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a Member who pleads guilty to charges of fraud and breach of trust no longer has the right to sit in this Parliament.

I would note as well that if we were to accept the logic of the Minister of Justice and perhaps suggest that if in fact an appeal were launched this House would be paralyzed in inaction, let us consider the affect of that. An appeal could take years to wend its way through the courts-the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Is he suggesting seriously that this House would be paralyzed, that we would be unable to move, if in fact an appeal were launched? Meanwhile, September 1990 would roll around and the Member would become eligible for his life-time pension. That would be a discredit to this House.
I want to close by pointing out to Your Honour how profoundly important it is that Your Honour allow this motion to be put to the House, to recognize that indeed there is a prima facie case of privilege here, privilege that affects all Members of the House.
Unless a matter of this nature, admitted corruption by a Member of this House, can be brought forward in this way, what alternatives are left to Members of this House?
Effectively there are two. One would be to give notice of motion under Private Member's Business. I have done that, but Your Honour is well aware of the limitations, to say the least, of that approach. A motion goes on the Order Paper, but it cannot even be debated for one hour unless it makes the luck of the draw. If indeed it makes the draw, of course it can be talked out by any Member of this House. Effectively, obviously, that is not an appropriate or adequate mechanism to leave Members of this House to raise serious questions of privilege of this nature, to raise questions of corruption.
The other possibility of course would be to put forward a motion under Routine Proceedings. If that were acceptable, and given the urgency of the matter, it could be debated and could be the subject of a vote.
I thank the Clerk of the House for his guidance and his assistance. I have consulted with the Clerk and with the
parliamentary counsel. I understand that it is felt that a motion under Routine Proceedings in these circumstances would not be in order.
I have had drawn to my attention a decision of the Speaker of June, 1959. It has been cited as a precedent. It is important to distinguish very clearly the circumstances before the House today from the circumstances in the ruling of the Speaker in June, 1959.
That ruling arose because of certain comments made by Mr. Justice Thorson in the course of a judgment given in an action to which the Member of Parliament in question was not a party at all. During the course of his ruling the Speaker pointed out clearly that a breach of privilege could arise when a Member had used his public office for private gain, had compromised his independence by taking money, or had been found guilty of some scandalous crime. In the particular instance before the Speaker of 1959, that was not the case. In fact, the Speaker at the time said, and I quote: "Did the learned judge in commenting on the evidence say or imply that the Member for Peel had been guilty of a criminal offence?
Certainly not. He said: "The Hon. Member did not stand to gain or profit for himself by anything he did. No public funds were improperly paid out. The Hon. Member's conduct was not of that order".
This case is fundamentally different. In that case there was no abuse of public office. This case affects each and every Member of this House. It affects the privileges of each Member of this House, and it goes directly to contempt of this House.
We have the right as Members to put a motion before this House. I would plead with Your Honour to recognize that that right is a right which in practice is non-existent unless, in the serious circumstances which are before the House now, the Speaker recognizes that precedence must be given to this motion, that a prima facie case has been established and then leaves it to the House to determine what action it will take. It cannot be done under Private Members' Notices of Motions. I would argue, and I am not going to make the argument now, that perhaps it should and could be done appropriately under Routine Proceedings, but I have been advised that that is not the course which would be acceptable.
May 25, 1989

What else is left to a Member of this House? If in fact Private Members' Notices of Motions is the only alternative, then the governing party can quite clearly block, for partisan purposes if it chooses to do so or for whatever other reason, that motion from ever coming to the House for a vote. Surely that would subvert, not just spirit of the right of Members to bring a serious matter of this nature before the House, but that would subvert the privileges of all Members of this House. Most important, what message would that send out to Canadians?
Consider the circumstances. A Member of this House admits that he has been guilty of veiy serious criminal wrongdoing that involves funds of this House as well. Unless we as Members of this House are in a position at least to put before the House a motion that allows Members to debate the question and to subject that Member to our judgment, I think Canadians are going to shake their heads and say that this place is not doing justice.
I am not suggesting that the Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) should not have the right to appear before the House and to make a statement. Indeed, under Standing Order 20 of the Orders of the House, he does have that option if a motion of this nature is presented. I would invite him to take advantage of that. Standing Order 20 states:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct, election or right of any Member to hold a seat, that Member may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
That Standing Order is there for a reason. I would hope that Your Honour would recognize that I have demonstrated a prima facie breach of the privileges of the Members of the House; that Your Honour would permit the House to debate the question, and would obviously give notice to the Member for Chambly to enable him to avail himself of his undoubted rights under Standing Order 20 of the Standing Orders of the House.
Should Your Honour find a prima facie case of privilege in these circumstances sufficient to allow a motion to be put forward, following Your Honour's ruling on the prima facie case of privilege, I would move the following motion:
That Richard Grise, the Member of Parliament for Chambly, having pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and nine counts of breach of trust,
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
offences involving abuse of parliamentary funds and abuse of parliamentary privileges, be expelled from the House of Commons, that his seat be declared vacant, and that the Speaker do issue a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ for the election of a new Member to serve in the present Parliament for the constituency of Chambly.

Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the constituents of the Hon. Member for Chambly. They have not had an elected representative in this House since the Hon. Member was sworn in on December 5 last year. They are now represented by a Member who has admitted that he was guilty of fraud and breach of trust, who is no longer in his riding, who cannot serve its constituents, who may not receive public monies, and who does not have the right to sit here in this House as the representative of the constituents of Chambly.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Chambly are entitled to an honest representative, and they have the right to elect someone else to represent them.

I would note that whatever arguments the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) may wish to make concerning a period of appeal, and he is entitled to make that esoteric, legal argument, that does not go to the fundamental question which is before the House-and about which a 30-day or a 60-day appeal period is totally irrelevant- that is, what steps do we as representatives of the people of Canada have the right to take when a Member of this House admits to very serious criminal wrongdoing? That is the issue before the House. That is the issue before the Chair. I hope that Your Honour would allow that very fundamental question to be debated by all Members of the House.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, today a veiy serious matter has been raised. It is the question as to how the House should take into account the fact that the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) has pleaded guilty to a number of very serious charges, charges which relate directly, I would submit, to his work and responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) has pleaded guilty to several charges of breach of trust, fraud and influence peddling, and that these charges were connected with his work as a Member of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I think we must

May 25, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
consider whether this situation creates a prima facie case of privilege that should be brought before the House.

The first question before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether the conduct of the Hon. Member for Chambly, which has led to him pleading guilty to a number of serious charges, all of which I submit relate directly to his work as a Member, raises a prima facie case of privilege.
I have not had the opportunity to complete research I have undertaken in this matter, but I do want to draw your attention to Citation 16 of Beauchesne's which states:
Parliamentaiy privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
It might well be argued as to whether the House as a whole could function properly if, among its Members, there continues to be someone who has himself admitted guilt on and been found guilty by the courts of a number of serious charges relating, I submit, directly to his work as a Member.
One case has been cited in the House, and that is the case of a Member of Parliament by the name of Fred Rose who, after being convicted of treason, was, on resolution of this House, expelled from it. I would submit that this is a precedent for Your Honour to take into account, both with respect to the question of whether conduct by Members can be a prima facie case of privilege, and also whether the House has the power by resolution, where a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been found as the result of the conduct of a Member, to expel that Member from the House.
I would also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the United Kingdom Parliament, according to Erskine May at page 139, there is the power of expulsion from that Parliament. Erskine May states:
Members have been expelled as being in open rebellion; as having been guilty of forgery; of perjury; of frauds and breaches of trust; of misappropriation of public money; of conspiracy to defraud; of fraudulent conversion of property; of corruption in the administration
of justice, or in public offices, or in the execution of their duties as Members of the House; -
To the extent that the proceedings and rulings resulting therefrom of the United Kingdom House of Commons are a precedent for us, then we certainly have precedents which involve Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons being expelled from that House as a result of convictions for such matters as conspiracy to defraud, misappropriation of public money, corruption in the administration of justice, or in public offices, or in the execution of their duties as Members of the House.
I also wish to point out that as Beauchesne makes clear at page 27 in Citations 90 to 92, in the past this House has, in addition to the case of Fred Rose, taken action, I presume by resolution, to expel Members for their conduct.
I would submit that the House certainly has the power, if you should find a prima facie breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to adopt a resolution, the effect of which would be to provide for a Member who has been found guilty of offences of the type to which the Hon. Member for Chambly pleaded guilty, to be expelled from the House.
I also want to draw your attention to Standing Order 20 which states:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct, election or right of any Member to hold a seat, that Member may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
From that I would take it that it is certainly open to you to find that the matter of the conduct of a Member with respect to the issue of the right of that Member to hold his seat can be found to be a prima facie case of breach of privilege which can be the subject of a motion, which motion could not only be debated but voted upon.
I think that whatever else can be read into or taken from Standing Order 20,1 would submit that what I just said about the effect of the Standing Order being based on the presumption that the conduct of the Member can be linked with his right to hold a seat, and this can result in a motion which is debatable can be voted upon, and can result in that Member not being allowed to hold a seat as a result of the vote on the motion.
May 25, 1989

If one looks at page 149 of Erskine May and the words of the heading: "Corruption in the execution of their office as Members", there is no doubt that is something which can be found to be a misconduct by Members and, I submit, can lead to their being found to have breached the privileges of the House, resulting in their expulsion.
I think there are grounds for finding that there has been a prima facie case of breach of privilege arising out of the conduct of the Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise). If that is the case, of course, it would be open to a Member to present a motion to the House which would then be debatable and could be voted upon.
However, I think one has to look upon this in a realistic way, which is, that unless the Government itself agrees to accept the motion, or unless the Government proposes the motion, then it will not be adopted.
I think that in this case the Government itself has a particular responsibility. It has a responsibility because, first, the Member for Chambly was elected and sat as a Conservative until the charges were laid against him. It would appear from the press reports at least, that the incidents which led to the charges took place while the Member for Chambly was a Member of the Government caucus. I am not suggesting that other Members of the caucus knew about this, but he was a Member of that caucus.
Second, the Government, through its House Leader, has a special responsibility for the integrity and good name of this House. Of course, responsibility for the integrity and good name of this House is something in which we all share, but I say that the Government, especially through its House Leader, has a special responsibility. Therefore, I call upon the Government through its House Leader to accept that responsibility and be prepared to deal with this matter immediately through the appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Commons we all have a responsibility to protect the reputation of this House and its privileges. And I submit that the Government, through its parliamentary House leader, has a special responsibility for that reputation, for the good name of this House. Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Hon. Member for Chambly, it is a very special responsibility, because until the Hon. Member withdrew from the Tory Caucus, he sat as a Tory Member and he was
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
elected as a Member for the Conservative Party. The incidents that led to the charges to which he pleaded guilty occurred while the Hon. Member for Chambly was a member of the Tory caucus, and as I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to press the fact that members of the Tory caucus were aware of these events, but it is true that the Hon. Member, during this important period, was a member of the Tory caucus. And, as I said before, the Government, through its parliamentary House leader, has a very special responsibility for the reputation of this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House leader to take that responsibility and to move the appropriate motion in this House as soon as possible.

That is the kind of action we need in the interests of the good name of this House and our parliamentary system.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this discussion with regret as to the subject matter and with regret as to the timing of the suggestions made by my colleagues opposite.
My argument will be technical and it will be conventional. First, I want to say that there are not many precedents in this matter, but one of the precedents is that all steps of appeal should be exhausted.
The conviction was registered on Thesday, May 23, 1989,1 understand in the morning. It is now the morning of Thursday, May 25, 1989. I understand that the Member served a short time in jail vis-a-vis the sentence of one day. I understand that he can still appeal the terms of probation and the fine, as can the Crown. There are two appeals that can be lodged.
I take it as hearsay from my colleague, although I have no reason to believe he would mislead the House, that the Crown has said it is satisfied with the sentence. But I have no knowledge of that myself.
There is also an opportunity for the individual to appeal. All of our laws have appeal periods for a very good reason. That is to protect the rights of the Crown and of the individual. No matter what we may think of the sentence, no matter what we may think of the crime, no matter what we may think of the individual, I think it behooves us to respect that appeal period. It is due process of law. It is not always easy to defend due process

Privilege-Mr. Robinson
of law, but I think we all owe it to the administration of justice to allow for that due process of law to take place.
Having said that, I want to move on to deal with the individual himself. The individual has gone through a very difficult period, something that would not be easy for anybody in any walk of life, in any political Party, in any province.
It may be old fashioned, it is not partisan, but I happen to think the individual himself should be given an opportunity to consider his course of action. He pleaded guilty on Tuesday-not an easy thing to do. He has not been in the Chamber. He has not had an opportunity to take a course of action himself. I think he should be entitled to have that opportunity.
I know that my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, did not initiate this discussion. However, I think perhaps my hon. friend from Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson) has been a bit premature with the rights of an individual who has gone through a difficult time. I think we owe it to that individual to give him an opportunity to respond.
I want to make this point, too. We are dealing with this as Members of the House. This is not a Party matter. I do not think that it is partisan since this action affects us all.
The third reason I do not think we should proceed is because I understand that the practice is for the House to be informed of arrests of Members on criminal charges and of a sentence to imprisonment for criminal offences. I take that from Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot, page 134. I am not for a minute suggesting that we have not all read the newspapers. However, I am suggesting that we should await- and I imagine that the court will have noticed that we are discussing it today-a formal letter from the court, a formal notice which might perhaps shed some new light on whatever action we should take.
I also point out that in the same book, at page 181, Mr. Maingot states that the House of Commons only acts when all the evidence against a Member can be tabled and all avenues of appeal may be exhausted.
I quote from page 181 of the same volume:
In all of the instances both in Canada and in the U.K, the House will go to great lengths to have all available evidence, e.g., judgments sentencing the member and appeals confirming the sentence before it, prior to embarking on the serious course of expelling one of its members. In the case of Fred Rose, the House waited until all appeals were exhausted and until it was clear that the member could not fulfil his parliamentary duties because of his prison sentence.
I suggest that, on the third ground, it would be premature for the House to act.
My hon. friend from Burnaby-Kingsway has made in the course of his argument several connections between the Conservative Party and the individual in question. No one denies for a minute that the individual in question ran as a Conservative in the last election. That is a given. However, let us make sure of a couple of other things.
First, immediately the Privy Council found out about this, the RCMP was called in to investigate the allegation. The Prime Minister's Office acted immediately. The investigation was carried out. The House knows that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to see justice done. That is why we moved on it. That is why he and his office moved on it. We also want to see justice done now, whether or not it is on a technical matter, because we do not want to break the appeal period and create a precedent. We also want to see justice done to an individual. Without even talking to the Prime Minister, I know that he would want to see that justice done.
Quite frankly, I think my hon. friend has acted in haste and in a partisan way. I think it is unfortunate that he has acted in a partisan way.
Various comments have been made about my dual position as Government House Leader and Minister of Justice. I want to put on the record that in every case where my role as Minister of Justice comes into play, I intend to see, no matter what the case, no matter what the incident, no matter who is involved, no matter how odious the crime, that due process of law takes place. Every Canadian, every individual in Canada, in fact, is owed that by the justice system. We shall not abrogate that in any way, shape or form. I intend in this instance that the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) shall get that due process of law.
The oath of office that I carry tests me daily. There are some things I would like to do that I cannot do, but I

shall never break it. I think there is the convention, and I would like to go back to it, that we allow the Hon. Member an opportunity to take action if he wishes to take action.
I wish to close on this point before I sum up. There have been suggestions as to what the Government should or should not do, and the Government blocking actions of the House. I think it is clear that this is a case for the House. This is a case for its Members. I assure the House the Government will take the time to consider the matter. The Government will take its responsibility seriously, and the Government will accept its responsibility. But we will also do it with the law that exists in mind, for example, appeal periods. The Government will always do it with respect for an individual's rights as a Member of this House.
In closing I say this. I do not believe that there is a prima facie a case of privilege. Even if there were, I would say with respect that it is premature because the appeal periods have not run out and because the Chair has not been formally notified by the court of the situation.
My hon. friends may make light of that. They may sneer at those appeal periods, but I think they are important. It is important that we go through all the procedures when we are doing something as serious as this.
I close with this comment. The individual is owed a duty, a right or a privilege by this House to make up his own mind as to what course of action he will take. I would defend that with all my heart and soul, as I would his right to due process of law outside this Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kings-way in reply.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly in reply, I do not think any Member of this House disagrees with the suggestion that it would be desirable for the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) to do the right thing, the honourable thing, and to submit his resignation himself. He has not done that. That is the point. I had hoped that perhaps at 11 a.m. this morning he would in fact have been here. The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) suggested he was coming to the House today. However, he is not here. He has not done the honour-
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
able thing. Thus, we are left with no alternative but to move.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) suggests that the raising of this question of privilege is premature. Your Honour is well aware that one of the obligations of any Member in raising a question of privilege is to raise that question at the earliest possible opportunity. That has been set out clearly in the precedents and traditions of this House. Indeed, Citation 82 of Beauchesne's indicates clearly that this is an obligation on Members.
Had I delayed raising the question of privilege, waiting for the Member for Chambly to do the honourable thing, I assume that the Minister of Justice would have been on his feet saying: "No, no, no, it is not in order because he did not raise it at the first opportunity." There is no alternative in a serious situation of this nature but to raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. That is why I gave Your Honour notice yesterday that I intended to raise the question at the time that I did.
I might just note parenthetically that the Member in question for Chambly also acted as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for some two years, during the period of time when he has admitted he was taking bribes. I think that is a rather sad reflection as well.
With reference to the appeal period the Minister of Justice has said and I quote: "the precedents suggest that all steps of appeal must be exhausted." What precedents? The Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, has not cited a single precedent. The reason for that is because he cannot. There is no precedent. There is no precedent suggesting that all avenues of appeal must be exhausted before this House can move. What a mockery that would make of the power of this House to take action in cases of admitted corruption.
What the Minister of Justice is suggesting is that all a Member of Parliament has to do is launch an appeal after having pleaded guilty and effectively that this House is paralyzed, that we can do nothing, that we have to wait until the Court of Appeal has ruled, and that we have to wait until the Supreme Court of Canada has disposed of the matter. That does an incredible injustice, not just to each and every Member of this House, but to the constituents of the Member for Chambly who according to the Minister must continue to be re-

May 25, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
presented by a crook, by someone that has admitted his wrongdoing, and to all Canadians.
I would suggest that that argument, that somehow we have to wait until all appeals have been expired, is utterly without foundation. The Minister of Justice has no precedent for that. To the extent that there are precedents, I would draw to Your Honour's attention Citation 39 of Beauchesne's. I quote:
It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven.
A parliamentary committee, Mr. Speaker. They had not even ruled in the courts, and there certainly had not been a guilty plea by the Member of Parliament himself. I continue:
Mr. McGreevy meanwhile had submitted his resignation-The House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of a contempt-as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.
To the extent precedents exist, they state that of course this House is the master of its own proceedings and in certain circumstances could even move before charges have even been finalized, before a verdict. I am not suggesting that that is an appropriate course to take, but surely that effectively puts the lie to the suggestion that this House must stand impotent and paralyzed until the Member has exhausted every possible avenue of appeal.
There is no problem with the suggestion that the House must be technically informed, that the judge in question must technically inform the House of the conviction. The Hon. Member has an opportunity to appear under Standing Order before this House to make his case. If he wants to suggest that all of the suggestions that he has pleaded guilty are somehow a mass of fiction, he can do so at the time. If he wants to suggest that he did not plead guilty to fraud and abuse of trust, he can do so when he appears. That technical requirement clearly should not be a bar to the finding on the fundamental question of a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
In closing, I say yes, of course, I would have preferred and indeed all Members of this House would have preferred the Hon. Member for Chambly to do the honourable thing. He has not done that.
Our second preference, and I agree with the House Leader for the Official Opposition in this, would be for the Government, for the Prime Minister, to show leadership, to table a motion before this House calling for the expulsion of this Member.
We are left in a situation in which the Member has refused to resign so far, in which the Government has abdicated its responsibility in this area in terms of a former Conservative colleague. Unless in these circumstances Your Honour finds a prima facie case of privilege, we are not able to deal with a case of admitted corruption in this House of Commons. That would be to the discredit of this House. It would be to the shame of this House, and certainly the people of Canada would not accept that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to reiterate my argument but to expand on my citation if my hon. friend wishes. When I cited Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot and cited at page 181, I thought that would be sufficient for my hon. friend. Obviously, the citations are there and available if he wishes to pursue it.
I think the most relevant case that we have in this particular House of Commons is the case of Fred Rose, where the Speaker tabled court judgments in connection with the imprisonment of Fred Rose for conspiracy. That was after all appeals had been exhausted. That was the precedent that I was pointing to and referring to in the actual citation of Mr. Maingot.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kings-way has raised by way of a question of privilege the propriety of the House moving to expel the Hon. Member for Chambly.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West has intervened and assisted the Chair. The Hon. Minister of Justice has replied. I thank Hon. Members for their references which they have given me. It will not come as a surprise to Hon. Members to know that the Speaker has already considered a lot of the background material in this case. However, the arguments were nonetheless of help to the Chair. I thank Hon. Members for that.
May 25, 1989

The matter is grave, and I know the Hon. Members would understand that under the circumstances it is appropriate that the Chair reserve decision, and I shall return to the House as soon as it is appropriate.
Again, I thank Hon. Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. This was a reference to the committee on April 8 by the House of Commons and deals with the proposed CPaC-CBC joint venture in parliamentary broadcasting.
I would point out that this is a non-partisan committee with representatives from all Parties, and that the report is absolutely unanimous in what we have found and what we are reporting.
Briefly what the report states is that the CPaC-CBC proposal not be-I repeat, not be-proceeded with at this time. The reasons for the statement in our findings are clearly explained in the brief report which I submit to the House now.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition organized by the Victims of Violence Society. There are 1,150 names on this petition. They urge the Minister of Justice and this Government to change the extradition laws so that criminals such as Charles Ng cannot use Canada as a haven. Here is a man who killed several people in California, came to Canada,
Order Paper Questions
was convicted of armed robbery here, and who I think should be returned to California to face justice there.
He is one of, I believe, eight such criminals-at least eight in Canada who are using this country as a haven- and I am very pleased to be part of a group which is urging the Government to change the laws so that people like Ng will be returned to the justice system in their respective countries.


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified by the Clerk, pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition represents the signatures of over 1,000 people from across Canada.
The petition calls for the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws which would allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives either immediately or after being dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system. I join with these petitioners in urging the Government of Canada to make the necessary revisions to prevent Canada from becoming a haven for fugitives from beyond our borders.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of the half million Canadian seniors who are living below the poverty line.
It calls upon the Government to introduce reforms to our public pension system and to consider the advisability of ensuring that every elderly Canadian has an income at least equal to the poverty line through increases in the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement Program.
This petition has been certified.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 25, 1989
Radio Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean J. Charest: that Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Finestone:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like some direction from the Chair. This Radio Bill which you have just indicated was on the Order Paper is an important Bill in the history and evolution of our radio communications in Canada. I had perhaps made an incorrect presumption, but I did believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Edwards) had some observations to make and I was prepared, as was my colleague, I believe, in the New Democratic Party, to make some comment in this regard.
Could you perhaps enable us to understand just what has taken place that the House is moving to the next Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I put the
question to the House, I read the motion, and at that time no one rose to speak. The Parliamentary Secretary rose after that. I am quite prepared to revert to Bill C-6 should there be unanimous consent of the House. I did not in any way intend to have this important Bill go through the House without anyone debating it. The question was there but no one rose to speak. Obviously, I had to continue.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From my understanding of how the debate was to proceed, the Government is ready to speak on the Bill. My understanding is that there will be a speaker for the Official Opposition and a speaker for the New Democratic Party. We have no objection to reverting to the time where you, Madam Speaker, put the question to the House and, if there is unanimous consent to do so, I
think you will probably find that the Parliamentary Secretary is more than ready to speak on this piece of legislation.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister has just said. Our critic was having a discussion because of the events of this morning. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was right behind the curtains speaking with me. I am ready to take at least half the responsibility that the Hon. Member did not run fast enough to participate in the debate. There is agreement already and I hope you will recognize it, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I appreciate the comments made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. Even though I did see the Hon. Member for Mount Royal in her seat in the House, the Hon. Member did not rise at the time.
There seems to be unanimous consent. I am pleased to revert to Bill C-6 and I will recognize whoever rises to speak.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I think I have contributed to the problem in that when I do rise I have a long way to go.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: On April 12, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) tabled a Bill to amend the Radio Act. This initiative is required to ensure responsible management of the radio frequency spectrum. The radio frequency spectrum is an important limited international resource. No one nation owns the resource but it is necessary to every nation's economic well-being.
Radio frequencies provide the means to communicate by electromagnetic waves. They are the naturally occurring building blocks of communications devices, systems and networks.
In 1899 Marconi invented wireless transmission by radio waves. By 1905 it was obvious that international regulation was necessary to permit the orderly growth of radio communications. It became mandatory for all ships to carry radio equipment which met these regulations and would contribute to the saving of lives at sea. Because of the International Telecommunications Union, international standards such as distress frequencies and the famous signal for distress, SOS, were introduced.
May 25, 1989

In 1957 the Soviets launched the first Sputnik, a tremendous accomplishment at that time. Since then, several hundred communications satellites have been placed in earth orbits providing an increasing array of communications and broadcasting services. On September 29, 1962, Canada launched Alouette 1. We became the first western country to have its own domestic communications satellite.
In 1976, we launched Hermes, an experimental communications satellite, to demonstrate new broadcasting techniques. Our technical expertise was recognized when Canada received an Emmy Award for this achievement.

ITU regulations which govern the international use of radio have been updated 20 times since 1938 to take account of technological development and international demands for radio frequencies.
Every industrialized nation has a state-controlled spectrum management system. This fact alone reflects the tremendous value of the spectrum. Many nations in Europe still exercise proprietary control over the companies which provide telecommunications service. The spectrum manager and the manager user of the spectrum are also both government agencies.
In Canada, there has been a prosperous history of keeping the management of the spectrum and the commercial interests of the big spectrum users separate in order to encourage innovation in the marketplace.
The department of communications is the manager of the radiofrequency spectrum for all Canadians, for all interests of the country.
Competing applications of radio technology cannot contribute to a healthy economy unless the spectrum resource is properly managed.
In the case of cellular telephones or the broadcasting industry, for example, the existence of a healthy competitive industry which offers good service to the Canadian public is dependent on good management of the radio frequency spectrum by the department of communications to ensure this.
Radio Act
Effective and efficient management of the radio frequency spectrum is necessary to ensure that regulatory incentives are created which will foster the interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses.

There was a time when telecommunications was synonymous only with wire-line communications, telephone and telegraph. This is no longer true. The entire Canadian telecommunications infrastructure, one in which we can take great pride, is today critically dependent on the radio frequency spectrum. Indeed, without the radio links provided by microwave and satellite, the capacity and versatility of communications throughout all of Canada would be severely diminished.
Telecommunications, broadcasting, microwave systems, long distance telephone service, emergency services such as police and fire departments, aeronautical and marine communications, industrial machinery and consumer devices all must have interference-free access to radio frequencies in order to operate successfully. The importance of the spectrum in communicating culture, ensuring sovereignty and supporting commerce cannot be overestimated. The need for interference-free spectrum management is imperative.
Radio frequencies are public property and are a limited resource. Their application and use, to be of value, must be managed judiciously. This task is the responsibility of the Canadian Government and in particular, that of the Minister of Communications.
Two objectives are of primary importance: first, to ensure that the spectrum is made available to meet the needs of all Canadians for their social, economic, industrial, cultural and technical benefit; and also to ensure that any use of radio causes minimum interference to other radio users and to the public at large. To manage this valuable and fragile resource, we have relied on both technical and statutory tools.
Radio communications were first regulated in Canada by the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905. This provided the legislative framework until 1938 when the Radio Act which dealt specifically with spectrum regulation was proclaimed.

May 25, 1989
Radio Act

Since that time, the world of radiocommunications has evolved significantly. Both the nature and pace of change have been startling. The Radio Act has not kept pace with this progress. A revised act is therefore necessary to manage the spectrum environment in a way that truly reflects the new world of radiocommunications in Canada.
Since this spectrum 20/20 symposium, held in Montreal in 1987, a great deal of effort has been spent consulting with industry members. We have worked with them to develop and draft appropriate amendments to reflect the realty and needs of spectrum management into the 21st century.
Provisions of the radiocommunication bill tabled on April 12 serve to: repeal or revise obsolete provisions and definitions, and increase the flexibility of the act's application.
The amendments which follow are of particular importance in managing the spectrum. They would allow consideration of other than technical factors in authorizing radio use in Canada; considerations like the potential impact of a radio tower in a community; authorize the establishment, where necessary, of minimum technical standards for radio apparatus, for non-radio equipment capable of causing radio interference, and for radio-sensitive devices, to prevent interference with one another; require compliance to these technical standards, not by consumers who may have innocently bought substandard goods, but rather by the manufacturer, importer or retailer; Strengthen enforcement of compliance by providing for increased fines and administrative recourse rather than having to apply criminal code court procedures.

Much of this effort will seem banal to many. Managing the spectrum for the benefit of Canadians requires a great deal of behind the scenes housekeeping and maintenance. Keeping the airwaves clear so they can be used for economic growth, technological development, recreation, national security and personal safety is a demanding and often unappreciated task. The health and growth of the radio communications industry is vital if we are to continue building our economic prosperity
and competitive success among industrialized nations. The passage of this Bill by Parliament will ensure an environment in which communications will truly benefit all Canadians in every part of Canada.
I know that there is, as the Minister has suggested, some sense of support for the objectives of this Bill, it being of a very technical and non-controversial nature. I look forward to its referral to a legislative committee.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, although it was a long wait, I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southwest (Mr. Edwards), was able to rise to speak on this Bill. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary made a carefully crafted and well thought out presentation about what is essentially quite a dry, technical subject for the general population. I hope that people interested listened to the Hon. Member, and if they did not listen to what he said, I hope that they will read what he said and will learn about what we all take so much for granted. We have access to television sets, radios, car telephones, garage door openers, microwave ovens, the things that make life very simple to live.
There is a new way to sell real estate today. In some major cities you just drive along in your car, and there is a low frequency band that allows you to flick on a switch to be told the story of the internal layout of the home, the price, the description, et cetera. That does not happen out of magic. That comes from a carefully controlled, managed and very precious resource which is used almost to its fullest capacity. In fact, if I recall, when we were first looking at this whole issue we had some serious concerns about the CBs used by farmers and truckers. These all fall under this particular Bill. Even things that medical technology has developed fall under this Bill, such as heart pacemakers. That is why efficient and effective management of this spectrum is so valuable and vital.
I owe a measure of thanks to the Department of Communications and its very competent staff for knowing what is behind the complex language of this very technical 18-page Bill. I thoroughly enjoyed having it explained to me and to members of my staff. This side of the House is very supportive of the content of this Bill. It has been carefully considered. It has international and national implications. It has very important financial

considerations, which I know we would all be interested in seeing handled in the best way possible.
I am sure many of the Members of this House and the public who are watching have heard of HDTV, a new kind of television system that is coming. This television set uses more lines. It is a whole complex hocus-pocus thing that has to do with communications. As much as we do not understand it and as much as we do not know how it works, let me assure you that it is dependent on what is available on this radio spectrum. Even if we do not understand how it works, once it is available we will all go and buy it. It is important that this whole spectrum work well. It is also important that we catch up on the technology. Japan is light-years ahead of us. The Americans are dragging their feet but the Germans want to join the parade and I think Canada ought to get into the act.
It is my great pleasure to have been able to say a few words with respect to this sophisticated technology. In practical terms, it is very important.
There is one thing that I do not believe my hon. colleague addressed, that is, the important implications it has for the quality of life in the cities, in the small towns and villages in which we live. For the first time there is some clarity as to the role of management in the installation that is needed to use this very precious esoteric type of equipment. I am speaking of the towers and the antennae that you see out in the marshlands and fields, sometimes scarring the skyline of our cities. Municipalities have tried to deal with this issue. They have not been able to answer it. Citizens complained that their favourite park or walkland was being disrupted by the unsightly view of a tower or antenna soaring into the air. Nobody really had the proper kind of control. The original bill, written over 50 years ago, said that the Minister: "Shall regulate and control all technical matters related to the planning for and the construction and operation of broadcasting facilities. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Minister shall-" and 20 pages later, all the things that the Minister can do in great detail.
This Bill makes it clear that if you are unhappy with what your municipality is allowing to be built, if you feel powerless because there is no place to go, you can now go to your genial Oscar-winning Minister of Communi-
Radio Act
cations and through his department, you can get some exemption and some relief from the kinds of things that you do not care to have in your environment. If it meets certain standards technically, okay, but if it scars the environment-maybe the Minister of Environment will have something to say about that, too-but the Minister of Communications can say, under Clause 5, that the Minister may take into account all matters that the Minister considers relevant for ensuring the orderly establishment or modification of radio stations and the orderly development and efficient operation of telecommunications. He can take all these things into account, other than technical matters.
It is a tremendous improvement for our environment. We can go for walks. The birds can sing their songs and we can be at peace without the visual encumbrances that we often see today. With that, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear anyone who has something to say about this technical matter at legislative committee. We look forward to discussions with our colleagues on this particular bill, Bill C-6.

-Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof. The Radio Act is now called the Radiocommunication Act.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, as the New Democratic Party's critic for culture and communications, I support this Bill. As my hon. colleague, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) said earlier, this is a Bill to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof. I have a few comments about the Bill itself. I would like to say that the parliamentary secretary who spoke in both French and English, and in very good French, too, that-

Since I am going to deal with some details, I will switch into English, and fairly briefly on the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has covered it quite thoroughly. It is a Bill, as my colleagues have said, to amend the Radio Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. The Radio Act, as has been said, governs the use of radio frequencies in Canada. This Bill provides flexibility, as I understand it, in dealing with technological change which is long overdue from garage door openers to satellite communications, the malfunctioning of non-ra-

May 25, 1989
Radio Act
dio electronic equipment as a result of radio transmissions and clarifies the Government's right to administer the radio communications industry.
It seems to me to be strictly a technical bill, unless I have missed something. I know that the Radio Act has not been amended since 1938, and some housekeeping was in order. I believe that the cultural, social and political aspects of communications policy are unaffected by the Bill, although I will have something to say about that policy in a couple of minutes. I believe that the Bill is an improvement for consumers in that it shifts the onus from consumers to manufacturers and importers for ensuring that certain technical standards for radio equipment are met. That is good.
The Bill was first introduced last summer. I vaguely remember that summer, and I do not believe there has been any public criticism. We have canvassed the industry, and there seems to be wide acceptance of the Bill.
On behalf of the NDP, we can support this Bill here in second reading. The Bill represents an important updating of legislation which is somewhat out of step. The original Radio Act, as I said, was enacted in 1938. It has received some minor amendment since then, but it remains essentially the same Act. I do not think the original drafters of the Radio Act could possibly have imagined, even if they had let their imaginations soar, the explosion of activities that this Act must now administer. While this Bill is highly technical and noncontentious, it has a wide-ranging impact on various forms of communications in Canada. It governs sophisticated satellite communications and allocations of radio frequencies, both national and in conjunction with the member countries of the International Telecommunications Union. It also deals with somewhat bland every-day activities. I do not know if you have an instrument that opens your garage door, Madam Speaker, but that will be dealt with under this Act.
As I stated, the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the effects of the legislation as a whole. However, I would like to underline two points. First, this legislation does improve the lot of consumers. It shifts the responsibility for the control of sub-standard devices from the consumer onto the manufacturer or the importer. As it presently stands, Madam Speaker, if you have a defective
garage door opener which causes radio interference with a local radio station in the neighbourhood, you are liable. I do not know if many people know that. ITiis Bill places the onus on the business that sells those products. After all, those businesses are the ones with the engineers, and they are the ones ultimately responsible for ensuring that those products operate properly in an electro-magnetically cluttered world.
The Department of Communications will have the ability to ensure that standards are set and maintained for those products. This may all seem a little arcane but when one considers that radio signals can potentially interfere with such equipment as heart pacemakers and railway crossing gates, its importance becomes very clear.
I would also like to deal with the suggestion in the background papers to this Bill that the Bill will permit the Government to increase Canadian control over its radio-communications industries. It is true that the enabling power found in the Bill will allow the Government to do this, if it so chooses. I am satisfied that this provision is there. However, I am not confident that the Government will in fact use it.
The New Democratic Party has been fighting hard to ensure that the tools of communications in Canada remain in Canadian hands. This is where the Government has fallen down in the past. At the moment, the majority of radio communications, the majority of the industry in Canada, is in fact Canadian controlled. The question is, will it remain Canadian controlled? If one looks at our other instruments of communicating Canadian culture, a far different story will be seen. As a former television star, Madam Speaker, perhaps you will know that the film industry is 97 per cent foreign controlled. Let me give an example of how the Government has worked on this in the past.
The Government realized and commissioned studies, and also had reports from the Standing Committee on Culture about the situation of the film industry. The Government drafted a Bill in which it would take part of the market for Canadian film distributors. What happened? We had the free trade negotiations. Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion Pictures Association of the United States, who was very close to the then President Ronald Reagan, said that Canadians could not do that. Then people such as Mr. Gotlieb, who was our Ambassador and is now the head of the Canada Council, sent back
May 25, 1989

wires to the Canadian Government and said: "Don't do this. The Americans will get angry at us. We have to get the free trade deal through". What did the Government do? At the first big test in culture and the free trade deal, the Government hastily withdrew its Bill. In fact, it tabled another Bill that would subsidize some Canadian film companies and the Americans would not be too worried about that.
I managed to get a copy of the Government's Bill which I tabled as a private Member's Bill. It is exactly the same as the Government's Bill, and it was there for all Canadians to see what the Government was going to do before the trade deal and how the Government backed away from it after the trade deal, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that culture was not on the table in the free trade deal. I point that out as an example of how the Government can back away when it is under fire from the Americans or from its business friends.
As I said, 97 per cent of the film industry is foreign controlled; only 3 per cent of new video-cassette sales in Canada are Canadian. Canadian publishers own only 30 per cent of the Canadian market; 77 per cent of magazines sold in Canada are foreign. The Government has just slashed the postal subsidy which permitted many Canadian companies the chance to survive in a difficult market. Further, 85 per cent of records and tapes sold in this country are foreign. By the Government's own admission in a Department of Industry study, the record industry in Canada was sold out by the trade deal.
Madam Speaker, I am not advocating putting a curtain around Canada. We live in an international world and we have to communicate internationally. There is no country in the world that does not consider itself a colony of another country, no industrialized country certainly, that has let so much of its vital communications industry and cultural industry be controlled from outside. One cannot keep a culture if foreign forces are going to gobble up that culture. That is the great struggle in Canada, of course.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications on a point of order.
Radio Act


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The Hon. Member may have received my signal. I was going to request that he return to the subject matter at hand. He is making some very interesting points, and they are suitable subjects for debate in the House, perhaps at another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is very relevant. In fact, there is a clause in the Bill that permits the Government to retain control and keep the industry Canadianized. The industry is still Canadia-nized, thank God. But if one looks at the Government's previous record, it is to back off and not to take advantage of those particular clauses. Do not do anything about it, and back off when threatened by your American friends.
I suggest that action is required to ensure that our radio communications industry is not the next victim of American takeover. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we in the NDP will be vigilant in our efforts to make sure that the Government does not stand idly by while another sell-out occurs under this disastrous trade agreement. After all, as Karl Deutsch suggested, it is a fundamental test of nationhood that more communications take place within a country than between one country and another.
For the reasons I have outlined, we will let this Bill move forward today. I believe my hon. friend, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), wanted to add a few words on the Bill. We are then prepared to let the Bill go to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, there are two brief things I wanted to say in relation to the Radio Act. Part of this Act changes the requirement for ham- radio operators in terms of their qualifications. In some categories, they no longer need Morse code in order to qualify. As a former president of a ham radio club in my riding many years ago, who never got his ticket because he could not figure out Morse code, I appreciate that change.
Second and more importantly, I wish to use this opportunity to compliment ham-radio operators around the country who provide a great service to the country in

May 25, 1989
Museums
times of emergencies, providing communication services in times of disasters and the like. They perform a great service and I believe they should be acknowledged for that here in the House.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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.

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)) (for the Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again in the House today in support of Bill C-12. With the permission of the House I would yield the floor to the Hon. Member next to me who I am sure has a good deal to say on the subject. Perhaps we could have that consent, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, museums are an important part of our cultural reality which consists of our broadcasting system, cultural industries, a technological infrastructure including telecommunications, and last, but not least, performers and creative artists.
The latter, together with our researchers and scientists, help build the collective memory of Canadians by exhibiting their works in these institutions which as such provide a benchmark and promote and enshrine our
values for the greater benefit of present and future generations.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret that I have to interrupt the Hon. Member. While I explain to the public, perhaps she could move one row back. A Member cannot be recognized by the Chair when he or she is not in his or her assigned seat. Unfortunately, the Chair did not see the mistake at first. I am sure the House will bear with me as I give the floor back to the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau).


Marie Gibeau: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for excusing this procedural mistake.
In these times of media technology, museums have turned into cultural institutions responsible for preserving and putting on public view the artifacts that put their mark on an era, a society and the attitudes of that society. In doing so, museums reflect a way of life and translate values that bring us closer to our past and give us a better understanding of the present.
This function of collecting and preserving the signs and traces of humanity's relationship to its environment, an extension of the of encyclopaedic approach to knowledge, became a vehicle for communicating with the public when the museum, as an institution, opened its doors to the public in eighteenth-century Europe.
In Canada, this function developed during the last century, based on the concept of a museum as a public institution that has a duty to promote museum activities among all groups and all classes of society.
No longer catering exclusively to the academic constituency, as it did in its early beginnings, the museum has now become a vehicle for communication that ensures that references to skills, artifacts, and aspects of daily life of the Amerindian civilization, for instance, are preserved and indexed according to scientifically sound procedures. This guarantee of an authentic witness is the assurance that our cultural identity will be perpetuated and disseminated and that our knowledge will be maintained.
The importance of actual specimens to historical awareness is also revealed by the size and growth of Canadian collections. In 1985, the Canadian Heritage Information Network and the Museums Assistance Program surveyed the museum community and found 37 million artifacts of various kinds, from archeology to
May 25, 1989

history, from fine arts to zoology. Furthermore, 74 per cent of them were documented, which shows the high degree of professionalism of our curators.
In the past twenty years or so, the architecture of our museums has evolved, as it has in many other countries. We adapt it to take account of our new requirements, our dynamism and multiculturalism and the increasing number of forms of expression. Museums free us from the bonds of time and space and help us understand how a people came to be and help us to get in touch with other cultures. Their contribution to society is highly appreciated, if one goes by the number of visitors: 20 million annually, much more than the number of people who attend paying sports events.
For the Government, museums are essential for any society that sees culture as something as necessary as the right to health. This concept arose in western societies in the 1950s and since then, Canada has always been in step with it, giving culture a special place.
France, for example, has three public institutions and 32 state-run museums, most of which perform a scientific advisory role. The British Government is responsible for 19 state museums throughout the country. And even the United States, which has a strong private sector tradition, has entrusted the federal Government with maintaining the Smithsonian Institute.
By giving $5 to $6 per capita for our museum institutions and following the present trend to specifying the Government's role in their organization, management and financial support, we are acting like other western countries.
In 1968, Gerard Pelletier, then Secretary of State, brought forth a cultural policy that was to have clear objectives, the resources necessary to attain them and a timetable for implementing them. For Gerard Pelletier, culture was not just for the elite. It should be available to all Canadians, in both economically advantaged and disadvantaged regions. That same year, he gave us the National Museums Act, whose purpose was to present the work of nature and man, with an emphasis on Canada, but not to the exclusion of other societies, in order to interest everyone and to spread knowledge.
From the 1968 National Museums Act to the 1972 national museums policy, we came, after several steps, to this awareness of the role of the state. After 21 years, the Act needed revision to help us better meet contemporary challenges.
Because of the importance of museums in our society, in January 1986, we created the task force headed by Richard Withrow to review our museum policy. The Museum Bill was drafted after wide-ranging consultation with the special interest groups and government agencies concerned and after considering the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau) will be able to continue her speech as soon as the House resumes sitting later this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the Prime Minister declared that he was not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces.
Over the past few weeks the Government has launched an unprecedented assault on the people of Atlantic Canada.
In Summerside, P.E.I., the Tories shut down the Canadian Forces Base.
In Newfoundland, the Tories gave northern cod to the French and cut quotas for our own fishermen.
In New Brunswick, the McKenna Government has been forced to carry on regional development programs alone.

May 25, 1989
s. o. 3i
Under the guise of negotiations the Tories are dismantling regional development programs that mean so much to the communities in our region. However, the Tories are only just beginning.
In the Darmouth-Halifax region the cancellation of the At and East grain subsidy may toss 295 individuals out of work. The withdrawal of VIA Rail service will cost another 322 jobs. CN is also putting more maintenance workers in the unemployment lines.
The Government has done enough in its assault on Atlantic Canada. I call upon it now to halt this assault and stop the battering which has taken place over the last three weeks.



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, no regional development program over the years has even approached the success to date of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Furthermore, the kind of assistance available through ACOA is exactly the sort of shot in the arm that the Atlantic economy needs at a time when our fishery is headed for a downturn.
This fiscal year the Government of Canada will spend close to $500 million through ACOA. This assistance will greatly benefit the Atlantic economy. However, with the current downturn in our groundfisheiy we greatly need the diversification and job creation opportunities that ACOA can provide.
The Government has lived up to its ACOA funding commitment, and it should be applauded for doing so. However, right now, it is not enough. I urge the Government to consider making an additional sum of $300 million to $400 million available to ACOA to assist Atlantic Canada through its current economic crisis.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the House and in particular the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) that volunteers who helped clean up the West Coast oil spill have still not been paid for out-of-pocket costs, loss of wages, destruction of equipment, and personal things they purchased to assist in the clean-up of the oil spill.
The Minister of Transport and the Government have an obligation to compensate those individuals for their out-of-pocket costs. The Government, through the Minister of Transport, should be paying those costs and then collectively on their behalf suing the Sous brothers for the oil spill which took place on the West Coast.
I and others urge that the Minister of Transport and the Government call a public inquiry into that spill to determine more effective ways of dealing with it. On behalf of all those who are out of pocket it should launch a civil action. It should pay those individuals and launch a civil action to compensate them for the efforts they made on behalf of all Canadians to clean up those beaches.
Mr. Lindsay Armstrong is here today to present the Minister of Transport with his personal bills for that clean-up. Hopefully, that transaction will be completed.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the new United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is approaching the ratification process. The new convention will replace the 1959 declaration. The reference to legal protection of the unborn child has been deleted from the preamble and extends protection to children only after birth.
Save The Children Canada is presently engaged in a postcard campaign seeking Canada's ratification of the convention.
I urge all my colleagues in the House and the people of Canada to do everything possible to ensure that Canada does not ratify this document which so clearly excludes pre-bom children from legal protection.
Without the right to birth, the other rights contained in the convention have no value.
May 25, 1989



FISHERIES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries industry in the Atlantic provinces is in a full-scale depression. Cod, crabs and jobs are dwindling, and even heftier quota cuts are expected in 1990.
What is the Government doing about this disaster? It has created a cabinet committee to find out whether existing programs are adequate. Its members are the same people who sold out our fishermen in the Canada-France dispute, who cut federal-provincial fisheries agreements, who cut unemployment insurance benefits, who cut VIA Rail, who cut military bases, and I could go on! All in the name of reducing the deficit! This committee isn't worth a cent.
Communities are adrift, and the Government sends out the rescue team that chopped holes in their lifeboats!
Mr. Speaker, the committee must realize that it can only do one of two things: either reduce the deficit or help the fishermen, workers and communities that are facing the disastrous consequences of this crisis.



HOUSING


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of representing the Government of Canada at the official opening of two residences which were built thanks to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its Minister (Mr. Redway).
I would like to identify the residences. The first one is called La Colombe and the second one La Voie Lactee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of these housing co-operatives and their respective boards of directors.
Since the housing sector is very important to the Government of Canada and all Canadians have a right to decent accommodation, we are proud to be able to help get these projects off the ground.
These housing projects are good examples of what can be accomplished when people and governments work together to produce decent accommodation at affordable prices.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced in its Budget some drastic painful cuts in the proposed expenditures of the Department of National Defence over the next five years.
As a result of these cuts the Department and our Canadian Forces will have difficulty meeting the many challenges and commitments which Canadians demand of them. This is unfortunate but the Government's first priority is to the economic well-being of the nation. The dedicated men and women of the Canadian Forces recognize the importance of a healthy, well developed economy to the security of our nation and are prepared to shoulder their share of the burden.
The base closures and reductions announced will have a painful impact on the communities concerned. Nevertheless, the Canadian Forces must reduce the cost of their operations and personnel in order to be able to purchase the equipment necessary to allow them to do their job effectively in terms of the 1990s. The closures at Portage and Summerside regretfully reflect operations which have become militarily obsolete.
By contrast, Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw, where pilots receive their primary jet training, is not one of the 14 bases scheduled for closure or reductions. CFB Moose Jaw is alive and well. Operations there will continue. I asked officials of the Department of National Defence this morning if they had plans to privatize secondary flight training and they replied an emphatic: "No".
I remind the House that politics was not a factor in these decisions. The military base is in a constituency not represented by a member on the government side of the House.

May 25, 1989



S. O. 31 YOUTH PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UKRAINIAN EXCHANGE STUDENTS

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this privilege. We all know that the best purveyors of goodwill for any nation are very often the youth of that nation.
I want to draw the attention of all Hon. Members to a very special group of young people in the gallery today, a group of exchange students from the Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
This is the first time, I am told, that we have had such an exchange with Canadian students. They are in Canada for two weeks with some of their teachers at the initiative of the Leeds and Grenville Board of Education in my riding. They are accompanied today by Mr. Ken Robinson, the Principal of Rideau District High School in Elgin, Ontario.
I am sure all Hon. Members will want to join with me today in welcoming this group of young people to Canada, Ottawa, and the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CABA-INJURY OF KEN CASOLA

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of a constituent of mine, Mr. Ken Casola, who suffered a most serious injury while in training for Canada's national boxing team in 1982.
One can anticipate a black eye in boxing but not a blind eye. The Canadian Amateur Boxing Association did not cany liability insurance for participants and offered Mr. Casola $5,000 compensation for his loss of sight. His decision to pursue a suit against the CABA drew an unacceptable reaction. If he were successful in his suit, then the CABA would declare bankruptcy and he would receive no compensation.
Surely, this is an unacceptable response and practice from a nationally funded sports organization. Action has now been taken, most belatedly. As of April 1, 1989, boxers are now covered by liability insurance.
This is a positive step but, unfortunately, it leaves a bitter, frustrated young man with no recourse. The Government must assure that all funded national sports associations have adequate liability insurance for all Canadian athletes.
Ken Casola has won a war for boxers but he has lost a great personal battle.



FISHERY


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an issue of great concern to all British Columbians, that of salmon enhancement. The Scott Cove hatchery was established in 1983 with initial capital from a private donation totalling $50,000. It was originally operated by a group known as Mainland Enhancement of Salmonid Species and later given to local residents who volunteer their time to ensure its success.
Bill Proctor and his daughter, Jan Hoddinott, have given countless hours to this facility that has restocked 10 streams and creeks decimated by poor logging practices.
This year the hatchery will produce 250,000 fry to restock our precious salmon resource. Scott Cove received only $5,000 last year from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and has not received any assistance to date this year.
Enhancing our salmon stock is of vital importance to all British Columbians, and more funding must be made available for this important project. The future of Scott Cove and our fishery depend on it. I believe that we should support these volunteer efforts to the maximum.



CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY-EFFECT OF TREASURY BOARD POLICY

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety was set up in 1978 to provide accessible information on health and safety in the workplace. Since 1978 it has become
May 25, 1989

something of a national treasure, supplying crucial research and information that is duplicated nowhere else.
However, this Government has announced it no longer wants to support workers' and employers' right to information on health and safety. The Treasury Board is demanding that the centre begin a policy of full cost recovery within two years. This is unacceptable.
First, the Treasury Board has no absolute right to be dictating policy for the centre. Second, full cost recovery is completely out of line with the very principles the centre was founded upon. It will mean that workers will not have the information they need to maintain a safe workplace.
By unilaterally imposing full cost recovery, the Treasury Board has effectively sounded the death knell for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. This is a dangerous blow to health and safety in the workplace.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National Railways is planning to chop about 200 maintenance jobs in my province. Of the jobs to be lost, most will be in small rural communities; communities already experiencing the ravages of drought, low commodity prices and high interest rates.
The lay-offs proposed for the Hudson Bay line will have a severe impact on northern Manitoba. The area is already reeling from deep cuts to various economic development programs.
On a broader scale, there will also be a disproportionate number of lay-offs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and northwestern Ontario. This is another sign of the Government's lack of commitment to the people of western Canada.
The lay-offs will have a harmful impact on families and the western economy. In the longer term, there is fear that the branch line service reduction will lead to branch line abandonment, often the death knell for small towns on the Prairies.
Manitobans are asking the question: "How much more can we take?"



THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the second National Handicapped Access Awareness Week will be held from June 4 to 10.
It is meant to call on all Canadians to take time to show their support for the handicapped and to encourage their efforts to integrate fully into Canadian society.
Rick Hansen showed us his determination when he went around the world and he is the originator of this annual event. Throughout the country, we should be proud of what we have done to increase accessibility for the disabled. However, much still remains to be done.
Mr. Speaker, Access Week is an excellent opportunity to reflect on our achievements and on the challenges ahead of us. Let us be there with our volunteers from June 4 to 10.



FITNESS


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Friday, May 26, is Sneaker Day, the day when all Canadians including Members of the House are invited to wear their sneakers in support of healthy active living. Sneaker Day is the kick-off event for Canada's Fitweek, starting May 26 until June 4.
This country can take great pride in knowing that Canada's Fitweek is the largest celebration of physical activity in the world. This year, organizers expect eight million Canadians to participate in over 17,000 events taking place across the country.
Canada's Fitweek is jointly co-ordinated by the Government of Canada through Fitness Canada, the provincial and territorial Governments, and 20 national organizations.
At the community level, hundreds of thousands of volunteers contribute their time and energy to this

May 25, 1989
Oral Questions
annual celebration. Through their generous efforts, they are the key to the success of Fitweek. The growth of Fitweek can only be described as phenomenal.
Canada's Fitweek is an excellent example of government and the corporate sector working together to promote the message of active living to Canadians and to maintain the momentum of the fitness movement. During the next 10 days, I invite all Members to join Canadians from coast to coast in promoting and participating in the many events planned in their own constituencies as part of Canada's Fitweek.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Government has engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people of Canada and now it has been caught out.
At 1.30 p.m. on April 27, the President of Mutual Life informed the office of the Minister of Finance of the second budget leak. At 3.03 p.m. on April 27, one and one-half hours later here in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said that any new information would be reported to the House of Commons immediately.
When he made that statement, did the Prime Minister already have that new information in his possession? If he did, why did he not inform Canadians? If he did not, why was he not informed by the Minister of Finance?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question because I think it does require some explanation.
There has been some misinterpretation, I think, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and others with regard to what the Prime Minister said precisely. He was summarizing the words of the Solicitor General who on
April 27, at page 1031 of Hansard, in response to whether in fact there had been profiteering, said:
-and the Hon. Member, as soon as the RCMP was informed of these events early yesterday evening, a thorough investigation of the allegations was under way, and the securities commissions in the provinces concerned were contacted. I believe an investigation is now under way at the securities commissions of four provinces because we take this very seriously. When such allegations are made, I believe that either one should provide evidence, before the House or elsewhere, of the allegations, or else one goes to the securities commission or to the RCMP with the requisite proof.
Then this is the important part of the answer that the Solicitor General gave:
However, it would be irresponsible to speculate about facts that have not been corroborated. The investigation is under way, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts-
In the French version, and he was speaking in French, he used the word "conclusion".
-as soon as we have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them-
That is to the House. What the Prime Minister was referring to, at page 1036 of Hansard, was simply this:
The RCMP is conducting a full investigation. That investigation extends to the actions of presumably all of those involved in that part of it, and also extends to the stock exchanges to ascertain if anybody has profited in any way from any kind of information. Thus far there is no indication whatsoever of that. However, the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him he will report to the House immediately, and I know if my friend has any accusations or any specific information he will make it known to the RCMP.
That is the context of the response of the Prime Minister. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should take it in the spirit in which it was delivered in the House.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, The Prime Minister made two undertakings to the House, one just recited by the Deputy Prime Minister, on April 27, that the Solicitor General would present any new information to the House, which he did not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With regard to the profiteering.


John Napier Turner: There were no limitations put on that statement whatsoever.
May 25, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Then, at 3.03 p.m., an hour and a half after the Minister of Finance's office learned from the President of Mutual Life, he gave the same personal undertaking that any new information would be given to the House.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said this:
That information was made known to my office at 1.30-1.45 on April 27, the Thursday, and I became aware of it shortly after that.
Those were his words in the House. Later in Question Period yesterday, the Minister of Finance talked of knowing about this second leak:
Within less than an hour.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: That is not quite accurate.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Those are his words exactly. Then he started to jumble. He said: "We knew, my office knew, we told the RCMP, I learned after the RCMP".
Mr. Speaker, the issue is critical. When did the Minister know? When did he tell the Prime Minister of this second leak?


Mr. Andre:: It was released the night before.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: He saw the Prime Minister stand up in the House of Commons-the Prime Minister has the next seat to him-and say that any new information would be presented to the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is wrong.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: When did the Minister tell the Prime Minister? Did the Minister of Finance already know when the Prime Minister stood up? Was the Minister negligent in not telling the Prime Minister of that new information, or did he sit idly by when the Prime Minister of Canada made a false statement to the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said. The Deputy Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Shields:: They don't like the answer.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: We want the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all the Members would allow the Minister to reply to the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Deputy Prime Minister has quoted the Prime Minister where the Prime Minister refers to what the Solicitor General has said, and the Solicitor General when he made that comment made it quite clear that the information would be made known when the investigations were completed. I am quoting here from the Solicitor General:
The investigation is under way, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them.
That was precisely what the Solicitor General said and that is what the Prime Minister has referred to.
I said in the House yesterday that I found out subsequent to my office advising the RCMP. It was later in that afternoon.


Ms. Copps:: What time now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was after Question Period but it was later in that afternoon. I can't give the Hon. Member the precise time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I made reference yesterday to the fact that I couldn't give him the precise time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Budget had already been tabled.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was before 5.40 when I stood up to comment on the Budget that had been presented the night before.


John Napier Turner: I would suggest to the House that it is incredible the Minister of Finance wouldn't have been told immediately by his office about a second leak of the Budget.


Harvie Andre: He did not know there was a second leak. [Translation]


REQUEST AS TO WHEN MINISTER INFORMED THE PRIME MINISTER OF SECOND LEAK
Right Hon. John N. Timer@Leader of the Opposition: In any event, the Minister did not answer my question. He said that his office found out about the second leak at 1.30 p.m. on April 27. An hour and a half later here in the House, the Prime Minister, who was right next to the Finance Minister, said that if he obtained further information, he would tell the House. When the Prime Minister made that statement, at three o'clock, did he

May 25, 1989
Oral Questions
know that there was further information? Can the Finance Minister tell us and Canadians when he informed the Prime Minister of the second leak, of which his office had been informed an hour and a half before the Prime Minister's statement?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear that my office knew at 1.30. I found out later in that afternoon.


John Napier Turner: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Government knew of this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, he just told you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I answered that question about two minutes ago.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: When did you know?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I said I can't be precise about the time.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: That is incredible.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was after Question Period that day. The Government was aware of this information. The Government in the broadest sense was aware of this information prior to my standing up to present my budget statement later on that afternoon.


POSITION OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it also concerns the leaky Budget and refers to the second leak.
In referring to the second leak, the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on May 18, and I quote:
What we have here is the Opposition basing their questions on information that was contained in a CBC report which alleges that employees of an unnamed company somewhere in Canada had budget information.
Given that the Minister of Finance and the RCMP were aware since April 27 that the unnamed company in question was an $11 billion financial institution, that there had been five copies of the Budget in the public domain prior to the Budget being tabled in the House of Commons, and that the Minister of Finance knew about it at the time that he presented the Budget in the House of Commons, why did the Deputy Prime Minister not find out about these facts, or did he find out about the facts and simply not tell the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government was aware of only one leak which triggered the premature release of the Budget on Wednesday night, April 26. It was on that basis that the Minister of Finance took the necessary actions that he did. The matter was turned over to the RCMP. We contacted the opposition party Leaders and asked if they would consider convening the House on an emergency basis so that this could be presented.


Mr.   Dirner@Vancouver Quadra: You are caught dead.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Budget was presented on Wednesday, April 26. It was released to the Canadian people-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -in all of its detail, and it was on the basis of the one documented leak which was seen on television by everyone.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I asked what the Deputy Prime Minister knew on May 18, not April 26.


THE SECOND BUDGET LEAK-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. On May 23, the Minister of Finance said in the House, and I quote:
The first leak was a fact. It was there on television. It was there in black and white. Eveiything else has been an allegation.
Considering the fact the Minister knew all the details of the second leak 26 days before, why didn't he tell the House the truth on May 23 or before then?
May 25, 1989


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made that distinction very clearly. In this House, in public, I can talk about only those things that are patently in the public domain.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That are on TV.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In other words, the matter related to the Global Television program.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If it isn't on TV, it isn't real.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Until the Mutual Life brings their information into the public domain I am constrained from doing so according to a long-standing practice.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Government by Global.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote, if I can from Hansard of September 24, 1968, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Justice:
-I might say that investigations into suspected unlawful activity are continuously being carried on by the RCMP and by other investigatory bodies, but in the absence of charges being preferred it would not be proper nor would it be in the public interest to make the results of such investigations a matter of public record.
That was the principle in 1968. It has been restated on many occasions since then. That is precisely the same principle that we are following and that constrained me from referring on the floor of this House of Commons to the Mutual Life event until the people from Mutual Life came public with that themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY AS TO DIFFERENT HANDLING OF TWO BUDGET LEAKS-EXPLANATION BY MINISTER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and I preface it simply by saying that during the Sinclair Stevens affair, the Prime Minister, during the course of an RCMP investigation, commented in the House not once but a number of times and did so totally appropriately.
After the Minister of Finance discovered the Budget leak on April 26, he deemed it to be of such significance and importance, and he was correct, that he rose on a
Oral Questions
question of privilege in the House on April 27, even though an RCMP investigation had been launched the previous day. He rose in the House and talked about that Budget leak. He knew on the afternoon of April 27 that there had been another such leak, and he repeated today that he was aware of that. Even if there had been a simultaneous RCMP investigation launched in that case, why did he not report back immediately, at least at 5 p.m. when he gave the Budget address, on that Budget leak in the way he thought it was appropriate to do the morning of that day regarding the Budget leak of the night before?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it was a matter of wide public knowledge that there was a leak that was reported on Global Television that night. The reporter for Global Television held up a copy of the Budget in Brief and read from it. That was widely known by the general public. I can comment on the public aspects of that particular incident. I am not able to comment on other aspects that come to our attention later, that are not in the public domain, until those involved bring those matters into the public domain. Even at that stage, I have to be very careful, as do other Ministers, about what we say on those matters, as long as a police investigation is ongoing.


DEGREE OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that according to Parliamentary tradition in this country and elsewhere, the argument he has just made is totally, I repeat, totally bogus. The Minister has just said in the case of the evening leak, it was widely known. It is not a question of degree, whether it is widely known or not, it is a question of whether it is in the public domain or not, and both of them were in the public domain.
I want the Minister to answer again, without using that bogus argument, since he had the head of a reputable insurance company contact his office, and since the RCMP had been informed. He said it was the same summary of the Budget that had previously been on television. In short, the Government knew he had the information. It was not an alleged leak, it was a real leak. Why did the Minister of Finance, whose integrity is essential, try to cover this up instead of speaking frankly to the people of Canada and to Parliament?

May 25, 1989
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be very, very clear on this. The matter that was on the Global Television Network the night before was clearly widely known. It was not widely known, in fact it was known by a very limited number of people, that there was a leak to Mutual Life. When we found out about that leak, I believe we did the proper thing. We ensured that the RCMP were aware of this and included it in their investigation, but since that was not public knowledge that the material was in the hands of Mutual Life, we cannot make public comment on that. Perhaps I can quote again the Hon. Member for York Centre who, on April 28, 1983, in answer to a question about an investigation, said:
-I have no intention of answering it. I am surprised that the Hon. Member is asking questions and making allegations which might prevent a fair trial from taking place in the event that a decision to lay charges is reached by the RCMR I would ask him to respect the well established tradition of allowing the investigations to proceed on their own, without the direction or allegation or suggestion or improvisations of the Hon. Member.
That is precisely the principle that we on this side must follow, and if the Hon. Member thought this through carefully, he would understand precisely why that must be the case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should feel very, very reassured by this applause because the same Members of his caucus did precisely that for Sinclair Stevens a few years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa will please put his question.


Harvie Andre: Stick to the truth for one question, Ed. Try one question with the truth, just one.


An Hon. Member:: How would you know? Shut up and let him ask his question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa. [Translation]


REQUEST AS TO WHY MINISTER HAS NOT RESIGNED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Minister is as follows: Now we know that on April 27, when the Minister was making his Budget speech, he was aware of a second leak. However,
during the speech he suggested to Canadians that there had been only one leak. In other words, he misled the House. And that is entirely unacceptable.
Why didn't the Minister resign? That is the question. [English]


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred to when I stood up to make my Budget speech. I would remind him that my Budget speech was made the night before. The Budget was presented to the public the night before. This was in the public domain at that time. I remind him that when I rose in the House at I believe 5.40 on Thursday evening, I made summary comments referring to the various aspects of the Budget itself, but the purpose of that was to initiate the parliamentary process. The Budget speech had been presented the night before. When he says that I misled the House in a statement I made on Thursday, April 27, I would like him to show me where I misled the House, because the speech was entirely on the Budget itself.


QUERY AS TO OTHER MINISTERS INFORMED
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On April 27, on page 1034 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance said in response to a question regarding the Global Television leak the following:
When I found out the information, I first called the Prime Minister, I then called the Government House Leader and the Deputy Prime Minister and advised them of this.
That was in reference to the Global Television leak. Will the Minister of Finance now tell the House of Commons whether he immediately informed the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader of the second leak to the Mutual Life Insurance Company, an $11 billion financial institution? In other words, when the Minister decided to withhold information from the Parliament of Canada and from the people of Canada, was he acting alone, or was he acting with the advice and consent of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in response to another question from the Leader of the Opposition-
May 25, 1989


John Napier Turner: You have not answered it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that the Government was aware of this information. The Government, in the broadest sense, was aware of this information some time between Question Period and 5.40 that evening.


CONTINUED CONFIDENCE IN MINISTER QUESTIONED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance refuses to answer the specific question. Either the Minister of Finance fails to understand or refuses to acknowledge that what is at stake today is not the contents of the Budget, not the Budget leak or even the investigation of the Budget. Those questions are important, but what is really at stake is the ability of Parliament and Canadians to continue to trust the Minister of Finance. An American President was not destroyed because of a bungled burglary. He was destroyed because he did not tell the whole truth.
I ask the Minister of Finance, does he not agree that the only way in which necessary confidence can be restored to the office of the Minister of Finance is if he vacates that office immediately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Hon. Members opposite should make up their minds. The Opposition Parties walked out when the Minister of Finance rose to present and table the Budget documents. They just simply assumed, by walking out, that the Budget had been presented the night before, and that was not the speech that he made. You cannot have it both ways, my friends. You cannot have it both ways.


ALLEGATION OF SELECTIVE SECRECY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I was quoted earlier about an issue that took place in 1983 regarding what a Minister should say or what comment he should make about an ongoing police investigation, and that is a tradition that is designed to protect the privacy of an individual who might or might not be charged. That is not what is happening in this case. That is what I want to ask the Solicitor General about. In this case there is not a refusal to give information. What there is in this case is a selective leaking of information on a selective basis designed to protect the Government. The Government is giving us the information that it wants, to create the
Oral Questions
impression that the leak is very minimal, that no one has profited-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General this: The Mounties learned from the President of Mutual Life at 1.30 p.m. about the leak. When did the Solicitor General learn, and did he at that point advise the Minister of Finance that this information should be made public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member will not accept his own statements in the House relative to this kind of situation, maybe we should refer to Mr. Jean-Jacques Blais when he was Solicitor General. This is what he had to say in commenting on the same situation. This was on February 2, 1979.
Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. gentleman knows the reason why the replies I have furnished to him tend to be noncommittal; the investigations are ongoing. The hon. gentleman knows full well any comment that may be made by me or by him in any context which would tend to interfere with those investigations would be subject to serious review.
That is the position.


MATERIAL INFORMATION WITHHELD CONCERNING BUDGET LEAK
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it not obvious that during the afternoon, preparing for the delivery of the Budget in the House on the 27th, a calculated decision was made by this Government to withhold material information from the Canadian people about the extent of the leak of this Budget and the possible profiteering, about which the Government had no assurance at that point?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am also surprised that a former solicitor general should ask this kind of question. He ought to know that in order to protect witnesses and the reputation of all persons involved in an investigation, as everyone knows, we cannot publish the reports we receive from time to time in the course of an investigation. It would not make sense for the RCMP to reveal every inch of its investigations. The Hon. Member, who was solicitor general for some time, knows this perfectly well, Mr. Speaker. And

Oral Questions
in fact it has been a long-standing tradition in this House.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PARLIAMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the Government has been hiding behind the stone wall of an ongoing police investigation in relation to the second Budget leak, my question has nothing to do with that. In this House I am not interested in the police investigation. What I am interested in is the Minister's behaviour in terms of his responsibility to Parliament as a Minister of the Crown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Given that sense of responsibility to Parliament and to the people of Canada, why did the Minister not come clean with Parliament and tell us that in fact 20 people in three cities across this country had the information many days before the Budget was leaked to Doug Small?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making comments about things that I do not think he knows anything about. It is precisely-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is precisely because of this type of allegation that it is quite improper for people to make these comments in the House until an investigation is completed and these allegations can either be confirmed or denied. That is the long-standing tradition in the House, and that is the tradition that we must follow.


REQUEST THAT INFORMATION BE SHARED
John R. Rodriguez: Possibly, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had taken us into his confidence, we would know and we would not be asking what he considers to be questions that we do not have information about.
In light of the fact that during the time Sinclair Stevens questions were being asked in this House, an RCMP investigation was ongoing but we asked questions
and the Prime Minister responded in this House. What is so different now? Why does the Finance Minister not get up and share the information? Why did he not do that when he had the information and he had Parliament willing to listen to what he had to say?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am advised, contrary to what the Hon. Member has just said, or contrary to what his Leader said a few minutes ago, that the RCMP Commissioner says there was a public inquiry. There was no RCMP investigations launched in the matter regarding Mr. Sinclair Stevens. The Hon. Member is quite wrong on that, and I think that he should correct the record.


BUDGET SECRECY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. He stated on April 27 at 11 a.m. that there were two essential considerations underlying Budget secrecy, and I quote from the Minister his own words:
The need to ensure that a person does not profit or otherwise gain advantage from advance knowledge of the contents of the Budget.
Later that same day, Mr. Speaker, the Minister received information confirming that knowledge of the contents of the Budget had been released to an $11 billion corporate entity two days before being presented to Parliament. I want to ask the Minister of Finance, why the different standards? At 11 in the morning, Budget secrecy was paramount, but in the afternoon, when the Minister became seized of the issue and its ramifications, it no longer became paramount. Why the double standard? Why is the Minister misleading this House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Hon. Member stated that I was participating willingly in a cover-up to mislead Parliament. As long as the Member is going to leave that matter on the record, I am not going to answer a question.


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


TWO STANDARDS QUESTIONED
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister will realize-


Harvie Andre: Come on, Mr. Speaker, who is in charge here?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should advise the House that at 11 o'clock this morning the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond withdrew the remarks he made yesterday.


David Charles Dingwall: Will the Minister of Finance now stand in his place and explain to the people of Canada and to Parliament why two standards: one for everyone else and one for him? Why the two standards?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was not aware of the comments that were made earlier today by the Hon. Member, and I accept his withdrawal.
With respect to the question, are there two standards, let me repeat that at 11 o'clock we were aware of one piece of information that was in the public domain on Global Television the night before. At 11 o'clock that was the information that I was aware of.
Later on that day, as I have indicated, we became aware of the statements by Mutual Life to my office. But those were a matter for the RCMP to review and investigate. Until those matters are investigated by the RCMP, it is not possible for me to comment, without undermining the investigative process of the RCMP or the possible fair trial, if such a matter does come to a trial. That is the precise reason why we are not able to make those comments.


ALLEGATION THAT TAINTED BUDGET WAS PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister received information on Thursday which proved that the Budget was in the hands of an $ 11-billion corporate entity one day before it got to Global Television. Since this was known by the Minister, why did he not follow his own rule as set out on April 27 at 11 a.m. and pull the Budget to ensure that no Canadian citizen and no corporation would receive an advantage?
Oral Questions
Why did the Minister of Finance knowingly present to Parliament a tainted Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Budget had been presented to the Canadian public at around 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock the previous evening. It had been the subject of many decisions on the part of people in the private sector throughout the course of that day, throughout the course of Thursday, April 27.
It would have been quite improper, in my judgment, to have withdrawn that Budget because many people, if they had taken decisions based on the Budget, could have been disadvantaged. I believe it would have been quite disruptive and quite improper for us to do so.


HOUSING
Mr. Garth Tlirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, while one would not know it in the Chamber today, there are millions of Canadians who could not care less about the Budget leak.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Garth Turner: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing.
As the Minister knows, there is a housing affordability crisis in many cities of the country. Several months ago the Government announced that it would be releasing lands in the Downsview site. I have not heard very much about the development of those lands.
Would the Minister of State for Housing tell us exactly when we can expect some housing to come on stream?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, if we asked Canadians what issues should be discussed in the House, we would find that housing would rank much higher than most of the issues discussed here today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: Last fall, 135 acres of the Downsview lands were turned over to CMHC to develop affordable housing for Canadians. We are proceeding at the moment. We have appointed a project manager, we are

May 25, 1989
Oral Questions
choosing a planner for the site and we are presenting a plan to the City of North York.
When and if the City of North York is prepared to approve that plan, which will be a plan for affordable social housing and also for first-time home buyers' housing, then we will certainly have some housing on this site and have it fast.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On April 27, following the Global Budget leak, the Prime Minister provided the House with his assurance that any new information about Budget leaks would immediately be conveyed to the House by the Solicitor General.
It has now been 28 days and the Solicitor General has provided us with absolutely no information, while we continue to receive information periodically from the media, from newspapers, radio, and television. We continue to get our facts from those sources, not from the Solicitor General.
The only inference I can draw-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, please.


Derek Vincent Lee: When is the Solicitor General going to provide the House with this information, or is he going to continue to let the Press Gallery do his work for him?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Hon. Member was in the House yesterday when I clearly explained our Government's position. As I said on April 27, and I will recite exactly what I said at the time:
The investigation is under way, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we
have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them.
It's in Hansard, at page 1032. As I have said many times in this House, the RCMP is continuing its investigation and it would be entirely inappropriate to bring these facts on the floor of the House at this time.


COMMITMENT SOUGHT FOR INFORMATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Four weeks ago the Budget leaks occurred, and in four weeks or less I believe the House will rise for the summer recess and will adjourn.
Will the Solicitor General commit himself to providing the House with the Budget leak information we are waiting for now, instead of September? If he and the Finance Minister are planning to stonewall this until September, then the Solicitor General-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has put his question. The Hon. Minister.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. In fact, I can inform the Hon. Member right now that the RCMP will not interrupt its investigation during the Hon. Member's summer holidays.


MEMBER FOR CHAMBLY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. It is also about honesty and integrity in Government. It concerns the response of the Conservative Government to Tbes-day's guilty plea to charges of fraud and corruption by the Member of Parliament for Chambly.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the views of his Conservative colleagues who have defended this convicted criminal-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to caution the Hon. Member that the Hon. Member to whom he has referred is an independent at the moment, and unless the question goes to the root of some government responsibility it may be out of order. However, I will hear the rest of the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, to ask whether the Government's response to this question, and I recognize that we are dealing with an independent Member, is reflected by the position taken by Conservative Members of Parliament, including the Member for Beauce who has said that these are anomalies-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is straying too far. The Government may want to respond.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway may want to put his question in another way, and I will listen to the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry that I cannot ask a question about honesty and integrity on that side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Harvie Andre: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is now perfectly clear that when the Minister of Finance made his speech at five o'clock on April 27, he was well aware that his Budget had been leaked more than once. According to parliamentary tradition, he should not have tabled it. He should have resigned then and there. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is an experienced parliamentarian well-versed in parliamentary tradition, why, when he realized this, he did not ask his fellow minister to resign?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated earlier, and as I am sure the Hon. Member understands, the Budget was delivered on the night of April 26. When the Minister came into the House on Thursday, April 27, at 5.40, he
Oral Questions
merely tabled the documents so that it would start the legislative process. He made some comments, a summary of the contents of the Budget.
The Opposition vacated the House because they said it was a phoney Budget, that it was not a Budget. The speech was delivered the night before. They accepted it then. Why do they not accept it today?
I am satisfied that the Minister of Finance, given the circumstances, discharged his duties in a proper and honourable fashion. He did what was necessary. He sought the co-operation of the opposition Parties to summon the House back so he could present his Budget on Wednesday evening to the House of Commons. That was denied. He chose the only honourable course. He released the Budget on Wednesday night and everyone in Canada knew what the contents were. What he was doing on Thursday was simply going through the proforma routine to trigger the legislative process.


CABINET POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister just admitted in this House that not only did the Minister of Finance know there had been more than one Budget leak, the whole Government, the whole Cabinet was part and parcel of this unparliamentary and absolutely unprecedented action, which was to bring down a Budget that was already in the public domain, thereby possibly condoning that individuals who had obtained privileged information prior to the Budget speech were able to take advantage of that information. Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to run the risk of informing this House that the entire Cabinet preferred to save the skin of the Minister of Finance instead of respecting the integrity and traditions of Parliament?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is basically a repetition of the same question. When the information about a leak on Global Television was made obvious, the Minister of Finance took appropriate action: First, by ensuring that the RCMP conducted a full investigation; and second, by soliciting the support and co-operation of the opposition

May 25, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Parties so that the House could be called back to present the Budget.
That co-operation, for reasons known only to the opposition Parties, was not forthcoming. He chose the only option he had available. He released the Budget to the public on Wednesday night. There are precedents for this. In the days of Finance Minister Abbott, he made a budget speech over radio and then came into the House and proceeded with the legislation. This is not unusual.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Government House Leader for a statement of the business he intends to call for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-10, the debt forgiveness Bill and Bill S-2, the double taxation Bill, both at second reading. If there is time we will move on to Bill C-9, the Bill affecting the Bank Act.
Monday, May 29, will be an allotted day and on Tuesday, May 30, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-9, the Bank Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-3, and Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Langdon:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor;
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-3 because it fails to clearly define federal government responsibility for regional development, and specifically fails to reflect the requirement under s. 36(l)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that Parliament is committed to 'furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities' ".
Mr. Speaker:: It being three o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Langdon), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 19)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Anawak
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett	Bellemare
Benjamin	Berger
Bevilacqua	Black
Blaikie	Blondin
Brewin	Broadbent
Butland	Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Comuzzi	Crawford
Dionne	Finestone
Fontana	Foster
Fulton	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)	Guamieri
Harb	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hopkins	Hunter
Jordan	Kaplan
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan	MacWilliam
Maheu	Manley
Martin	Marleau
McCurdy	Mifflin
Milliken	Mills
Mitchell	Murphy
Nault	Parent
Phinney	Pickard
Prud'homme	Robinson
Samson	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)	Stewart
Taylor	Vanclief
Volpe	Waddell
Walker Wood-77	Whittaker
May 25, 1989

Industry, Science and Technology
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Boyer
Browes
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cole
Cook
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
DeBlois
Desjardins
Do mm
Duplessis
Epp
Ferland
Fretz
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hogue
Homer
Hudon
Jelinek
Joncas
Kindy
Landry
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mitges
Moore
Oberle
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
St-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vezina
Vincent
White
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjorason
Blais
Bourgault
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cooper
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Fontaine
Gibeau
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hockin
Holtmann
Horning
Hughes
Johnson
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Littlechild
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Mazankowski
McDermid
Merrithew
Monteith
Nowlan
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Sparrow
Tar d if
Thacker
Thorkelson
Thmer (Halton-Peel)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-126


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment negatived.
Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the yeas have it. Point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, to save time, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote in reverse with the additional votes of several Members including the Chairman of the Committee of Finance.


Mr. Blenkam:: The Government side.


André Ouellet: The Opposition side.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I side with my Whip, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the House agree to apply the division just taken in reverse to the motion for second reading of Bill C-3?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


MUSEUMS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums, be read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is only waiting for the House to calm down before recognizing the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau) who had the floor when the House took recess at 1 p.m.


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, I shall continue, by saying that from the moment the original National Museums Act was adopted in 1968 through the implementation in 1972 of the relevant national policy, we had come a long way in recognizing the important role of government in this area.
After 21 years, the Act needed some adjustments to give us the opportunity to better meet today's challenges. As a matter of fact, it is because of the major impact these institutions have on our society that in January 1986 the Richard-Withrow task force was set up to look into our policy in that area. It is therefore after extensive consultations with specialized institutions and interested Government agencies, and after a review of the recommendations by the Standing Committee on Communication, Culture, Citizenship and Multicultural-ism that this bill respecting museums was drafted.
On the one hand this bill provides for a more comprehensive political framework of operation and on the other hand it gives to the four museums under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Government greater autonomy. In line with the task force, recommendations September 1986 the bill grants Crown corporation status to the following institutions: The National Gallery of Canada, which includes the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography; the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which includes the Canadian War Museum; the
May 25, 1989

Canadian Museum of Nature; and the National Museum of Science and Technology, which includes the National Aviation Museum.
Granting Crown corporation status to our museums will increase their administrative flexibility, while taking into account the individual history of each of these institutions and the specific nature of their collections.
In keeping with recommendations made by the study group and the Standing Committee on Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism, the legislation provides that each of these museums is to be a Crown corporation; this confirms their public responsibility with respect to cultural matters and gives them operating independence to reach full development. Each organization will thus be able to assert its museographic and museologic role more forcefully. They will also seek different objectives which reflect their individual character.
Madam Speaker, this new legislation aimed at creating museums which will be better prepared to serve Canadians establishes the following organization structure.
First, a hierarchic framework which defines the responsibilities of each decision-making level. To that extent, each museum assumes its responsibilities but comes under a board of directors which reports to the Minister responsible to Parliament.
Second, the appointment of active board members who will establish a credible link between the hierarchic framework of responsibility of each organization and of the Government.
Finally, the board of directors of each museum is empowered to set a course of action which is consistent with its specificity, with reference to the over-all Gov-emement cultural policy. This course of action will be in accordance with the rules and procedures of a cultural
Museums
agency, but the Government will not interfere with its daily operations.
The new act also provides that they will not restrict their activities to the National capital area. They will be encouraged to develop their program of travelling exhibitions, artefact loans and professional service exchanges with the overall museum community. This will become a vital aspect in assessing their yearly corporate plan.
This structural change is significant, because the four new Crown corporations will be subject to part 10 of the Financial administration Act, while until now they were subject to the same financial requirements as Government departments. However, in order to respect the principle of administrative autonomy that should prevail in the case of Crown corporations with a cultural mandate, the measure establishes a special relationship between them and the Government, by providing that cultural activities, including the acquisition, maintenance, conservation and use of museum material are not subject to ministerial control. Neither are public-oriented activities and programs such as exhibitions and publications.
Each museum will be responsible for its own staff. Under part three of the Bill, and after consultation with labour unions and orgnizations involved, transitional provisions ensure that staff are transfered from the current system to that of the Canada Labour Code, while remaining subject to the Public Service Superanuation Act.
This measure recognizes and encourages the essential role of the four new Crown corporations in cultural matters. Our intent is to give more emphasis to the social mandate of museums in Canada in the context of the future pointed to by their recent developments, so much so that they play a significant social role in this country and have become a source of pride throughout the community.
Since the inception of a geological commission in Canada, in 1842, which was to lead to the establishment of the National museum of Canada, the erection of the new architecture of the National Gallery of Canada, and

May 25, 1989
Museums
that of the Canadian museum of Civilizations and the National Aviation Museum, a long scientific and technological process has endowed our institutions with rich collections and professionalized the services rendered to the community.
In that respect, they remain the gardians of our heritage and their function is to gather and classify art collections, heritage objects and techniques and scientific specimens. A number are research institutions that help widen our knowledge in various scientific fields. But it is through the dissimulation of that knowledge that museums are essential tools in shaping our Canadian identity. Therefore, through their collections and knowledge, they are also in many respects new places of learning, which puts them among social institutions of the future. Because they are not subject to a specific program, they have the flexibility to reach a number of publics through various modes of communication and learning and also to impact on all age groups in our society.
Since they are appropriate venues for recreation and culture, museums are entertainment centres that can provide a recreational dimension without neglecting their educational role in Canadian society. We know that they can now compete economically with other recreational destinations and focus public attention very effectively. A balance should therefore be sought between expanding their audience and maintaining the fundamental role we described earlier.
Madam Speaker, that is why government and museums must work together to provide a satisfactory framework for collecting, preserving, interpreting and enhancing collections that are representative of our Canadian and world heritage, for the benefit of present and future generations.
By tabling this legislation, we are providing the government and all Canadians with a cultural instrument that is effective, better adapted to present-day reality and better suited to the fundamental role society expects it to play. These museums will therefore be entering a new development phase in which they will be able to pursue their objectives, which are to preserve, to do research, to circulate and to educate, in terms of their specific mission and the responsibility they now have to the public under this legislation.
We are thus discharging our responsibility as defenders of our Canadian heritage and offering Canadian society the necessary tools to become acquainted with its own culture and that of other civilizations. These four new Crown corporations will be much-needed partners
in developing, with the museum community, the cultural policies of the future.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums. The purpose of this Bill is to dismantle the National Museums of Canada Corporation. May I assure Hon. Members that this decision was not lightly taken.
Under this Bill, the individual responsibilities of each board will be clearly outlined and their mission clearly defined. The effectiveness of the seven national museums' goals will be enhanced in great measure and it will be to everyone's advantage. The changes are designed to allow the national museums to serve all Canadians better. The responsibility, authority and accountability of the directors of the National Gallery of Canada, the National Museum of Science and Technology, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Museum of Nature as well as those three museums which fall under their mandate will be increased.
I believe that Bill C-12 is a living testament to the spirit of parliamentary reform. The process of a task force study followed by the Standing Committee on Communication and Culture's review which acted upon a consensus provided very sound advice to the Government. At this time, I would like to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary who is sitting in the House at this time. He chaired the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and worked very hard to enable a sense of commitment and consensus to emerge. I believe this allowed for a team response in the interests of the cultural communities of Canada. I take my hat off to the Hon. Member. I only wish that the new Standing Committee will learn from this experience.
As a result, we have before us a Bill that has been thoughtfully prepared. It was arrived at through consultation and consensus building. I hope that it will serve Canada's national museums well, and I trust it will serve as an important example of a solid, valuable process that will continue in this Parliament. From a management perspective, I believe we will be better served. Certainly architecturally, we will be better served. We have been enriched. Our cultural and collective heritage will be better housed, protected and displayed in the magnificent National Gallery in its new glass home, the exciting, expansive and yet to be unveiled Canadian Museum of Civilization, the dynamic mind-expanding Museum of Science and Technology and of Nature, the up and coming Museum of Contemporary Photography as well as the new modem home of National Aviation Museum.
May 25, 1989

The Canadian War Museum has been neglected, and I hope, will be attended to in the near future.
Madam Speaker, a people that is ignorant of its history and heritage cannot, in my humble opinion, fully assume its national identity. Granted, in this century of instant communication, when the day's events, whether they occur in Peking, Moscow or Montreal, are all projected on our television screens often live, we often have the impression that technology has taken the place of memory. However, that is certainly not the case for everyone. As in other areas, there is an increasing tendency to go back to the grass roots of our collective memory. Last year, more than 20 million people visited Canada's 846 museums. Now that is impressive! We think of the National Gallery of Canada, a truly brillant example of our Canadian cultural heritage, and the immense success it has enjoyed since its official opening.
I am sure that the soon to be opened Canadian Museum of Civilization will add a new dimension to our cultural network. Generations of Canadians will be grateful to Prime Minister Trudeau for having the necessary vision and determination to give this country these two masterpieces, the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
What also impresses me, however, is the fact that 60 per cent of Canadian museums are quite small and spread out over this vast country of ours. I wanted to mention this aspect, Madam Speaker, because it is essential if we want to ensure that our natural and cultural heritage is accessible to all Canadians and that Canada's regional and cultural diversities are adequately represented.
In the Bill before the House today, we are basically dealing with seven large museums which are the backbone, as it were, of our Canadian museum system. The National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Museum of Nature, the National Museum of Science and Technology, the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, the National Aviation Museum and the Canadian War Museum, as a group, provide a network of information, helping us to
Museums
understand the development of the universe and its inhabitants, from prehistoric times to the space age.
There is no doubt in my mind that in addition to preserving our natural and cultural heritage, museums remain an important link between generations, because they explain the past and project the future of the cultural mosaic that is Canada.

I would like to deal with some background, Madam Speaker. What were the issues that led to this Bill about our National Museums of Canada Corporation? I think it is important to focus on the question. We need to understand how it became a worth-while goal to amalgamate these autonomous museums and through that amalgamation the shared use of administrative and financial services. There is a common thought today that bigger is better rather than small is beautiful. This amalgamation make it possible to pool scarce resources and to avoid duplication. These centralized services were to reduce the burden of housekeeping for the four museums and to provide more cost-efficient services.
Furthermore, to those sponsoring the legislation, the combining of four separate institutions and the three subsidiary ones was thought to be more desirable since the resulting single museum corporation was likely to be more forceful in its dealings with the Government. While on paper it appeared to be a more effective structure, the system in practice was too heavy, inefficient, costly and some would say overly bureaucratized.
While the national museums are similar in that they collect, study and exhibit objects and are owned by the federal Government, that is where the similarities end. The museums actually collect and exhibit very different kinds of museum objects from different kinds of disciplines. These really need to be better focused and their efforts need to be better directed in order to get the best response for all our Canadian citizens. What was originally felt to be in the public's best interest led to much loss of autonomy and conflicting priorities. With

Museums
this ambiguity over lines of authority, the situation basically became unworkable.
In January of 1986 the Government appointed a task force charged with examining the federal policy concerning museums which reported back in September of 1986. The principal recommendation of that task force was the repeal of the National Museums Act of 1968 and the dismantling of the corporation. This was to be followed by new legislation to establish each of the four major federal museums as administratively autonomous, freestanding institutions.
The task force also recommended a restructuring of the museums assistance programs, the principal means of providing grants to museums outside of Ottawa. There is a world outside of this National Capital Region, as we all know.
The assistance programs were to fall under the direct responsibility of the Department of Communications and its Minister and to be administered by an Assistant Deputy Minister upon the advice of an advisory committee.
The Standing Committee of Communications and Culture undertook to review the task force recommendations. A series of most interesting hearings were held during the fall of 1986. Our committee was able, I believe, to hear the varying views from institutions and from individuals that supported many of the task force's recommendations. It enabled us in our January, 1987 report to the House of Commons to be fair and to show consensus along all lines.
On May 21, 1987, the Minister of Communications reported to Parliament that the Government was going to establish these separate national museums, abolish the corporation organization and place the granting programs which serve museums and galleries throughout Canada in the Department of Communications. The task force summed up the corporations' problems well when they wrote, and I quote:
Its centralization of functions, instead of facilitating the implementation of museum programs, the Corporation has enmeshed them in bureaucratic complexity, so that coping with that, is what consumes and exhausts staffs' energy, relegating creative work to a secondary role.
I was pleased that we moved ahead with this action. While for the most part I find that Bill C-12 is a really good piece of legislation, I would like to make some of the following observations. Let us get down to some of the nitty-gritty part of the second reading for which we have a very serious responsibility to this House as fiduciaries of the people of Canada.


Mr. Boyer:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Well, to my hon. colleague who writes all those wonderful books about how this House operates and who is really the master of the process in this House, we could have used your enlightened involvement in the debate which just took place recently. Notwithstanding that, I do respect your opinions in this regard. I forgot to mention the Hon. Member is from the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. We shared the equality task force report. That is a landmark report that I would appreciate adhering to all along the way. Disability week is coming up and we will remember that all over again as we roll with Rick Hansen.
Clause 23 provides for the appointment of a director for each museum by the board of the museum subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. I would have preferred to have seen the model used to appoint a director like that of the National Arts Centre. That appointment is made by the board and is not subject to Governor in Council approval.
When appearing before the Standing Committee on its Estimates the other day, the Secretary General of the corporation stated that the model used in Bill C-12 was not their favourite choice. He said: "It would not have been our original first choice. It is a move in the right direction but one could argue whether it goes as far as it should". I would suggest that in the end he was satisfied with the compromise. I still have to ask, is not the power and responsibility of the board diminished in this way? Can we expect them to act as a responsible body if they do not have the ultimate responsibility? Will not a director feel he must serve two masters? Finally, what is to be achieved by making an appointment subject to Cabinet approval?
The museums' relationship with Government is also of concern to me. For museums to function effectively, they must have the necessary autonomy and arm's-length from Government. The best formula is that recommended in the Applebaum-Hebert Report which stated:
May 25, 1989

"Large subjective decisions of an aesthetic, artistic, professional, subventionary nature are best taken collegially by a board of directors acting at arm's length from the Government of the day".
I note in Clause 27(1) that the Government cannot give directives to museums regarding:
(a)	the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities;
(b)	its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and
(c)	research with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
However, in Clause 27(2) there is to be no interference regarding the content of the by-laws of a museum with respect to its cultural activities. The question to be answered when the Bill goes to legislative committee will be: what is a non-cultural matter? I asked the museum corporations and the general public, if they are interested, to perhaps respond to this particular concern, if it is of concern to them.
Bill C-12 should provide no lesser independence from Government for museums than has already been established for the Canada Council, the CBC, Telefilm Canada, and the National Arts Centre.
The variations in the statements concerning objects, capacity, and powers of the four museums is quite interesting. Each museum essentially contributed to its own mission statements. Generally, the powers are similar, except for the Canadian Museum of Nature, which is the old Canadian Museum of Natural Science, and its well enunciated research mandate that one finds.
For example, the Canadian Museum of Nature is empowered to create new knowledge and synthesize existing knowledge into new patterns and models. It is to provide facilities to permit qualified individuals to use and study collections, to foster the co-ordination of collection-based data in Canada, to promote scientific literacy and a better understanding of nature by demonstrating the inter-relationship among all organisms including human beings and their environment. I find that a creative and a new approach. It defines where we are in today's evolving technology, whether related to museu-mology or any other aspect of our living, as was pointed
Museums
out this morning, when we debated the new radio-communications Act.
Through these clauses it would appear that research has been given a more powerful foundation at the Canadian Museum of Nature than at the other museums. With respect to the responsibilities to teach, to train docents, and to give courses, when I asked that question, I was told that Clause 6(l)(e) is found in the mandate of all museums, and is deemed large enough and comprehensive enough for both the museum activity within the museum itself in terms of teaching and training docents as well as it would be for Canada and throughout the world. I hope that the museum community is satisfied with Clause 6(l)(e) which states:
promote knowledge of and disseminate information about works of art and other museum material in its collection and art in general, throughout Canada and internationally-
It does not state in a city or in-house. I hope it is clear enough to give the mandate I know the museums presume they have and certainly need to have. I wish to bring that to the Minister's attention and perhaps it can be discussed.
I raised another issue during a briefing session with the museum people with respect to the Bill. That related to copyright. I am pleased to see many people who were responsible for the writing and the consultations around this Bill are present in the gallery. Welcome, and thank you for the job that you did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Bill C-12, through each of the museum mandates, provides the power: "to destroy or otherwise dispose of works of art and other museum material in its collection". In discussion with them I brought to their attention the problems that could be confronted under the Copyright Act. I raised concerns about the potential conflict with moral rights in this new copyright Bill that is presently in action. The museum officials have assured us, and I quote the Director General: "that museums will be bound by copyright law, and that any action to destroy would have to be governed by the provisions of the copyright law". Any artists who are worried about destruction of their works of art need not be concerned.
Under Bill C-12 the Canadian War Museum is a submuseum, if I may put it that way, although it should be a full museum in the fullest sense of the word, under

May 25, 1989
Museums
the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Concern has been expressed that, by falling under the Canadian Museum of Civilization and not having its own board of directors, it will get lost in the shuffle.
There are also concerns in the military community, particularly among veterans, that the War Museum has been downgraded through its loss to the National Gallery of 6,000 square feet, and an annual acquisitions budget of only $65,000. That is barely enough to keep it alive. This museum has a collection worth more than $500 million. It contains works by a large number of our Canadian Group of Seven artists. Because of a lack of space its holdings are not easily viewed. It is our heritage and contribution to Canada, to Canadians, and to the peace of the world that is hidden away from public view. Much of the collection is rarely seen, but it is worthy of being seen. I hope that something will be done. I also hope the aspiration of the veterans will be met for more recognition for Canada's military history and eventually more exhibition space to display those works of art. It is a worth-while goal and worthy of consideration.
When representatives of the National Museums Corporation appeared before us, I was very interested to hear about the whole question of multiculturalism which we address. I am glad the Minister is present. I hope he will read the transcripts. I think he will be very pleased as his mandate is being performed and outlined as we look at the evolving role of Canadian public policy, as well as the policy of the museums. He said that while the galleries are now very sensitive to aboriginal art and the history of our nations, and while our primary reliance on references in the legislation is to Canadian culture, it encompasses the whole spectrum of multiculturalism as experienced within Canada. I like that answer. The Secretary General went on to say: "I believe there is a strong commitment to exhibiting in a substantive way the multiculturalism richness of this country". We were pleased to have this confirmed through the director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Dr. George Macdonald, who outlined rather elaborate plans.
I believe it is important that the multicultural community knows about these plans, so I am pleased that the Member for Saint-Laurent (Mrs. Maheu) received very explicit answers for us to be able to share with the House today as we celebrate our approach to the realization of
the new museums mandates. We are seeing Museums being responsible for showing all the cultures of this country, in all their richness and variety, and in all of their Canadian diversity and dimensions. We were very pleased to read the five-point program outlined by the Museum of Civilization.
The establishment of five different exhibits, ranging from a children's museum to the electronic exhibit, is very exciting. I hope this commitment is not impeded by the Government's attempts to cut back. It is so concerned about the deficit that it forgets that culture is part of life. It cannot cut everything down to the size of a deficit. I hope this commitment will add to our understanding of Canada's evolving multicultural heritage. I quote Mr. Macdonald who explained:
First of all, there is the special exhibit that we will have on the Chinese in Canada as our first focus on a group from outside of Canada who brought a rich cultural heritage. This will open on June 29. We have involved Chinese communities right across the country in this exhibit.
The exhibit belongs to them as well as to us, and can be shared by everyone. He went on to say that they will come to Ottawa or send their representatives from their communities. The museum will also prepare for when the show travels across the country so that those residents in each area will be familiar with the exhibit. They can begin to involve members of their community and interface between their community and the broader community, using the exhibit as a doorway between their cultural heritage and the Canadian culture in general.
I hope this type of activity will be taken up by many other cultural communities who have come here to enrich Canada and provide the foundation that makes up the colourful and glowing tapestry of this country.
We have been producing material for the networks and television programs that are increasingly carried on the cable systems, servicing different language groups across the country. The fact that more than 200 hours of interviews have been filmed with the Chinese community is a very exciting and creative approach which I certainly hope will help increase our community understanding more. They have an equal amount of material on dance in the different ethnic cultures.
May 25, 1989

They are also developing concepts for exhibits in children's museums which will emphasize children reaching out to children. If our children can destroy those stereotypes that are often passed along subconsciously in the environment in which they live, we will live in a healthier Canadian society.
They have also developed the first in what I hope will be a series of films on the civilization of mankind. The first film is entitled "The First Emperor of China". It is a joint production with the National Film Board in the celebration of its fiftieth anniversary. This film has great potential both economically and technologically, and will be sold around the world. We can be very proud of what the museums are accomplishing through their very confident staff.
When we begin using the electronic highways in this creative way, we can cross the world with much greater ease and certainly cross the boundaries of Canada to display our ancestral home as well as our chosen home. This new creative approach is very exciting and dynamic.
I want to deal with the question of acquisitions. Our national museums have very shallow root systems. We have never had the great private collections or fortunes which created European and American museums. We did not get started in the second half of the 19th century when the museum movement hit its stride in those countries.
Objects are now so dear that it is utterly out of the question that we should be able to get sums of money that would get us anything that is worth while. Fortunately, that has not been the case, although we have been very lucky with some donors. It is clear that we have been quite successful in obtaining many valuable collections from some of our Canadian patrons of the art. However, this was with very limited Government resources, resources that unfortunately have not increased in many years.
The Cultural Property Review Act has provided not only our national museums but museums and galleries across the country, through tax benefits, a valuable method of acquiring art. However, massive increases in the value of works of art mean that there exists in this country numerous major works of art whose current market value would trigger tax benefits on gifting far
Museums
greater than the owner can use even with the five year carry forward provision of certification.
While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is so debt reduction conscious, it would be worth-while for him to give serious consideration to some action to allow a cultural enrichment approach in planning the Budget, and to balance our Canadian collective heritage with that of reducing the public debt. I suggest that our collective memories will stay much longer than the Minister of Finance.
It will be impossible for any public institution to acquire the works of art of this quality that we are missing if we do not do something about making gifts and bequests easier for the owners and Canadians to give to Canada.
I remind the House that it was under the Government's management two years ago that a major painting by Gustav Klint was lost to Canada because no museum could come up with the $2 million required to match the generous offer of the Cultural Property Review Board. This situation could have been avoided. This stingy short-sightedness has deprived our country of a few very valuable pieces of collective remembrance.
There is a concern over the Museum Assistance Program, the Canadian Conservation Institute and the Canadian Heritage Information Network Program. When the plan to dismantle the National Museums Corporation of Canada was announced, the previous Minister announced the devolution of these programs, and they were to fall under the Department of Communications. The Government also discontinued the mu-seumobile program. The $2 million from the museumobile program was to be added to the Museum Assistance Program. This commitment has not been put into effect despite repeated requests from the Canadian museum community.
The program was created in 1972 to help museums and galleries across the country improve their standards so that they may receive better, more interesting exhibits. Money had been used to upgrade exhibit space, humidity and temperature control, security, loading and unloading areas, workshops space, fire prevention systems, supplies and equipment. This program has been of great assistance to Canada's nearly 2,000 museums but unfortunately the $8 million allocation has not increased in 17 years, since 1972. We are all guilty of this neglect.

May 25, 1989
Museums
The Canadian Conservation Institute has ongoing facilities. The Canadian Heritage Information Network, with a little bit of foresight and money, could become a very important financing vehicle as it can self-finance and be sold across the world. The idea of an inventory of all heritage artifacts and artistic objects for all museums is an exciting idea.
I suggest that much is left to be done. There is a very dynamic and exciting project for museums outside the National Capital Region. We have a document that needs to be addressed. I hope that it is put into place shortly. We need to assure all Canadians that we are aware of their existence.
I find it rather ironic as I conclude my remarks that we are addressing the future of our national museums and their collections and yet we have not given the kind of attention to that group which makes much of this possible. I refer to our artists.
The 1981 census data indicates that there are approximately 135,000 professional artists in Canada who are responsible for plays, books, paintings, sets, sculpture, music, film, poetry, cartoons, advertising and images that permeate our daily lives, and that they not only contribute but are part and parcel of our national culture and heritage. Yet this is not reflected in their income levels, in their treatment by Government tax laws and policies, labour laws, working conditions, health and safety regulations, social benefits, business development assistance and so on. Nor has the Government done a great deal to improve their situation with the tax changes. Hopefully, we will do justice soon to this section of our society.
Our national museums are a source of our Canadian heritage, culture and pride, a visitor's delight that enriches all who visit. The mission statements are in place. Secretary General John Edwards of the National Museums Corporation did a fine job in devolving the corporation. He is out of a job and deserves a new one.
Let us hope that with the mission statement in place the mandates will be matched through public fiscal will, joined by private sector generosity, supported by dedicated volunteers, so that their life and purpose will grow and flourish. There is much more to museum life than just structural change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)-Canada Post Corporation-First-class mail-Report of possible pri-vatization/Fraser Institute's invitation to Minister-Government position; the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson)-Revenue Canada-Special audit of agricultural equipment trade-in allowances; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)-VIA Rail-PC Ihsk Force Report/Request for ministerial commitment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow the speakers from the Government side and the critic for the Liberal Party, my colleague and friend from Mount Royal. She spoke about the rights of the great many artists in our country. I invite her to support my Private Member's Bill which I will be introducing. It deals with the rights of artists. I think she will find it an interesting Bill. I would appreciate her support.
With regard to Bill C-12, I would like to make five points about the legislation. First, the process has been a good one. I want to indicate the nature of that process and say why it has been a good one.
May 25, 1989

Second, I want to say that on behalf of the New Democratic Party, for which I am the culture and communications critic, we support the Bill in principle.
Third, I want to say a few words about the adjustment procedures in the Bill. We want to ensure that all the employees who work for these museums, the hard-working people who keep the museums going, are well treated.
Fourth, I feel compelled to say a few words about the appointments to the various boards since this measure will be adding boards of directors. You know what happens, Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gets his chance to appoint a few people to boards of directors. He just cannot resist all those plums. I want to say a little bit about the plum pudding in this Bill.
Fifth, I want to point out in a positive way a criticism that this is only half a policy, that the Conservatives' long awaited national museums policy is still that-long awaited. It is time for the Government to deliver on an outstanding promise to Canada's museum community. We have not heard from it yet. I want to say something about that.
The process that has developed on this legislation over the past four years has been generally positive and worth while. It is sort of an exemption to the normal rules around here, and perhaps that is a good exemption.
First, we had the Richard Withrow Task Force which recommended in September of 1986 the dismantling of the Museums Corporation. Then, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, of which the Parliamentary Secretary sitting opposite was an outstanding chairman, supported unanimously the recommendation that four major federal museums be established as autonomous institutions, each with an explicitly stated legislative mandate and its own board of trustees.
I want to note as well the previous Member of Parliament from Broadview-Greenwood, the NDP Member Lynn McDonald, who was the culture critic for our Party and who did a lot of hard work in this area.
The Government gave a generally positive response to the committee recommendations in May of 1987. After consultations with the unions and museums, a Bill has
Museums
been produced which for the most part reflects the work of the last few years. It seems to me that it was a good process.
I said that we would support this Bill. The intent of the Bill is to dissolve the current Department of Communications corporation, the National Museums of Canada, and replace it with four Schedule I Crown corporations. They are the National Gallery of Canada, including the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography; the Canadian Museum of Civilization, including the Canadian War Museum; the Canadian Museum of Nature; and the National Museum of Science and Technology, including the National Aviation Museum.
As the task force suggested, and the standing committee agreed, this new arrangement should permit each museum and its own separate board to operate more independently and gain additional control over their own future direction. Under the existing structure, these federal museums all have to spend a much greater share of their resources on administration and other non-programming activities. Under the present arrangement, operating as a departmental Crown corporation, the National Museums Corporation board had some significant limits to its independence. As a Schedule I corporation, these powers will be broadened. Thus it can be a more active board.
In addition, the Government has been expressly forbidden from directing the museums on matters of a cultural nature. In other words, it has built into it an arm's length relationship with regard to Schedule I Crown corporations. That relationship is built in by the nature of its being a Schedule I Crown corporation.
A few years ago the House reformed Crown corporations. We created ones with different schedules which had different mandates and different set-ups. The Government has to keep its fingers away so far as that is possible from the directors running Schedule I corporations. The principle of arm's length has not always been respected by previous Conservative Ministers of Communications. I hope it will be maintained here. Of course, it is up to the museums themselves and their boards to ensure that with their new independence they respect their mandates as institutions respective of and responsive to Canadians. They should not become isolated from Canadians.

May 25, 1989
Museums
This leads to a problem as I see it. It is that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) will now have four boards to appoint members to instead of one. That raises the old problem.
I will give Hon. Members an example of what the old problem is. I have raised it in the House before. I refer to the previous Minister of Communications who is the Minister of Communications again. He was the Minister of Communications before he became the Minister of Energy. He is now Minister of Communications again. I refer to one Oscar Masse, as we call him over here, the great Oscar winner. I would like to look at some of the previous appointments.
I refer to one Denyse Patry, who was the Prime Minister's former secretary at the Iron Ore in Sept lies. She was appointed a director of the Canada Council. Louise Dionne is a dressmaker from Sept lies who worked on the Prime Minister's campaign in Manicoua-gan. She was appointed to the Canada Council. Rodrigue Trembley, who is the last of the Sept lies three, as I call them, was the Prime Minister's riding campaign manager. Where did he end up? The National Museums of Canada Board. Jean Lougheed, the wife of Peter, where did she end up? Canada Council. Thomas Assaly, a noted local Conservative fundraiser and Ottawa developer, where did he end up? On the National Arts Centre Board. When he was appointed to the Board he was furious because he thought he would get his parking paid for, and when he found out he could not, he demanded it. He thought he would get free parking, he thought that was what it was really all about. Finally he tried to make the Centre pay for his own parking tickets.
Then of course there is the famous Jean Sirois. He was the campaign manager of Michel Cote, a previous Member of this House and previous Minister. Mr. Sirois' spending habits were legendary. The other appointment was Pierre Boutin, who is a relative of Jean Sirois and he was also appointed. He became chairman of the-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that the Hon. Member is endeavouring to score some debating points and that is one of the ways this House works.
I would just remind him that there is an avenue and a vehicle for examining the qualifications of members of boards-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not a point of order.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: -and that he as a Member of the Standing Committee on Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism is at liberty, and has been at liberty to examine the qualifications of many of the individuals to whom he is referring.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not a point of order. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to take part in the debate, he should take part in the debate or have someone else take part in the debate.
The fact is that these were appointments made by the previous minister of culture who is now the minister of culture and communications. They were appointments made to cultural institutions in Canada. He now has the power under this Bill to appoint not one board but four boards of directors. Those previous appointments were not only bad for ethical reasons. They badly hurt the Canadian cultural institutions to whom these people were appointed.
Jean Sirois' tenure at Telefilm was a nightmare of incompetence, political interference and personal overspending. Pierre Boutin oversaw the debacle of the National Arts Centre trying to choose a new director. We had to have a special committee meeting of the communications committee of the House because they were so incompetent it took them two years to choose a chair. The reason they were incompetent was because on the boards they had too many political appointments.


An Hon. Member:: Tory hats.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There were Tory hats on the boards. That is what it was about. When Flora MacDonald became Minister she changed that situation. I gave her credit for that. She started making changes. Now that we have Oscar Masse back, we are into the possibility that we are going to have more Tory hats appointed.
Yesterday, at the communications committee, Pierre Juneau, the President of the CBC testified. He is a very discreet, distinguished man. He was asked by one of my colleagues on the board: "Well, would you make any suggestions now that you are leaving public life after 20
May 25, 1989

or 25 years?" He said it in a sort of nice way. Do you recall? He said: "I say to the Government, not so many political appointments to the board of cultural institutions."


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear about Juneau's appointment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member yells: "Tell us about Trudeau's appointment."


An Hon. Member:: Juneau's appointment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Juneau's. Well, it is the same thing, is it not, Juneau, Trudeau? Almost. The fact is that these boards have been hurt by the appointments. I will leave it there. I do not have to belabour this. I made the point. With talented, committed people in charge, these institutions will grow and flourish, which is what we all want in every part of this House.
Now, I want to say a few words about- [Translation]


Mrs.   Duplessis@: When it's one of your colleagues who is appointed to the United Nations, like Stephen Lewis, it's OK!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, my colleagues know that. My colleagues from the West too.

I was talking about transitional arrangements because it is important in this Bill. One of the major concerns before us is to ensure that transitional arrangements for the museums are acceptable to the employees who work there. I have consulted with the unions involved and some of the employees who work there, and it seems for the most part that the legislation is acceptable in this regard. There may be a couple of problems-I hope my friend, the critic for the Liberal Party will listen to this because she is going to have to deal with it in committee.
There may be a couple of problems with transitional matters as far as the employees are concerned, but we will have to deal with that in the legislative committee on this Bill and we will have to look at that very carefully. We might want to have witnesses from the employees or the unions.
I know for example that the Professional Institute for the Public Service has contacted me with some concerns
Museums
on these matters. There would be a good witness. In general, it should be noted that the Bill changes the status of labour relations at the museums. At present they are subject to the Public Service Employment Act, or the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Under this Bill, the independent museums will fall under the Canada Labour Code. In general, I see this as a positive step due to the greater number of issues that can be dealt with in collective bargaining under the Canada Labour Code. It is probably positive but we will hear from the unions and employees involved at committee to see whether any changes have to be made there.
Finally, I said that this was only half a job. It should be noted and noted strongly that while we in the NDP support this legislation in principle, it does not mean that we are satisfied with the Government's museum policy.
Indeed, as Mr. John MacAvity of the Canadian Museums Association has correctly noted, it represents only half a job. In response to the standing committee, the Government promised a national museums policy to cover not just the museums here in Ottawa but museums and galleries across the country. That is very important. Every MP will be able to tell you, my colleagues here behind me from areas in British Columbia, in Penticton and up in Prince George, that there are lots of small museums with a lot of people who are interested in them. I know many retired people in some towns who have a lot of time to get involved in museums. They are museums all across the country. The standing committee found, and people in the country feel that there needs to be a national policy to deal with these museums outside of Ottawa. Since the recommendation we have had a government discussion paper Challenges and Choices, and repeated further promises of action.
Museums in the regions cannot just simply survive on these promises. These institutions play a critical role in collecting, preserving, researching and interpreting Canada's cultural heritage. I think successive federal governments, including Liberal governments, have let them down. The Museums Assistance Program was created in the early 1970s. It has not received so much as an increase for inflation since that time, not even a 1 per cent increase in 16 years. It is as if the governments did not believe that inflation counted for museums outside of Ottawa. These museums do not have the magic

May 25, 1989
Museums
formula of avoiding inflation. They need more money. They are' hurting.
The museums' policy has been promised for a long time. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we were told back in January that it was drafted and ready. There have been some disturbing signs lately, however. There was no mention, unless I missed something, in the departmental estimates. The museums' policy was missing in the Throne Speech as well.
Last week, on International Museums Day, the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement congratulating the Museums of Canada and especially underlining the contribution made by volunteers to those institutions. I agree with him. It was a good statement. The Government should have celebrated International Museums Day, not only with those words from the Parliamentary Secretary but rather with actions from the Minister of Communications. Those actions would mean a museums policy.
Let me summarize the New Democratic Party's position on this Bill.
First, the process has been good. It follows up a commission and a committee report. That is the way it should be.
Second, the principle of the bill is good, mainly to make these museums four Crown corporations. Schedule 1, Crown corporations, gives them more room, if you like, to be even better museums.
Third, we have to look at the adjustment procedures in a little bit more detail in the legislative committee to make sure the employees are well treated.
Fourth, as I pointed out, it does raise the spectre of those plums that the Government would like to give as political appointments. Instead, the Government should appoint good people. They can have political backgrounds but it is not necessary that they do not have and that should not be the sole criteria. The criteria should be to encompass people who are competent and who can act as advocates for the cultural agency. They should be advocates for their own agency with the Government. That is the secret of having a good cultural board.
Finally, this is only half a policy. The other half will be the long-awaited national museums policy which will apply not just to these wonderful museums in Ottawa but to museums outside the capital.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I know there are several colleagues across the way who would like to participate in this most important debate.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation because museums are a vital part of our cultural history. They remind us of our past and the steps which our society has taken to make possible the quality and standard of living which we enjoy today.
Our museums remain the guardians of our heritage. They are responsible for assembling and classifying collections of works of art and heritage objects.
Let me thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), if she is listening, for briefly flagging a matter that I raised two days ago before the Standing Committee on Communications, Cultural, Citizenship and Multiculturalism. The witnesses in front of our committee were the Board of Directors of the National Museums of Canada. I want to enter into the record my profound concern that what is currently known as the Canadian War Museum comes under the broad umbrella of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I know that displays are not permitted in the House of Commons. I am not going to show all of this poster which advertises the grand opening of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, June 29,1989.1 will quote the slogan at the bottom of the poster which states: "A new experience in museum entertainment".
The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the mother of a sub-museum called the Canadian War Museum and the current Act calls the civilization museum a celebration of human cultural achievements. I believe there are several hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would take a very dim view, indeed, of the description of the victims of World War I and World War II as a celebration of human cultural achievement, let alone a showcase for museum entertainment. I am appealing to this House to remove the Canadian War Museum from under the umbrella of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, because the wonderful Canadian heritage we are talking

about here is the opposite of celebration. It is commemoration in its fullest sense.


Sheila Finestone: Good.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I want to see, by whatever procedural routes that are necessary, and I think I can count on my friends across the way-


Mr. Mills:: Absolutely.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -a fifth museum corporation to honour the memory of the 150,000 men and women who fought and died in the two world wars, the thousands more in the Korean War and the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East.
There is no reason in the world, in my view, that the Government cannot establish a Canadian memorial museum. I dislike resurrecting the use of the word war, but I intend to move at the earliest opportunity, in the legislative committee, a statutory amendment to ensure that the Canadian memorial museum be completely autonomous, reflecting the views of those Canadians who lost loved ones from 1914 to 1918, from 1939 to 1945, from 1950 to 1953 and beyond. I believe that they deserve to have their own distinct and separate museum.
The National War Memorial goes a long way toward establishing that but it is not quite the same thing as preserving the heritage and the memorabilia of those Canadians who lost their lives in serving this country.
It was 50 years ago that the King and Queen opened the National War Memorial. What prompts my intervention today is that we are coming up to the fiftieth anniversary of the declaration of World War II. On September 9, 1939, Canada entered World War II. We are talking about a quiet display or a memorial to the men and women who gave their lives, not only in that war but in previous and subsequent horrors and catastrophes around the world.
Can we have a somewhat more autonomous memorial museum portray the colours of sacrifice that our Canadian war dead and other heroes and heroines across this country displayed in the name of this country? It can be done very simply. I conclude by bringing forth this recommendation which we can refer to a legislative committee.
Museums
George C. Bell, the President of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, says we can do it simply by:
In 1988 establish the museum as an autonomous institution with a new name, a clear mandate, its own board of trustees and consultative committees and budget. Couple this with an announcement of an immediate preparation of a development plan for the museum and an appropriate national support programs.
The new name could be the Canadian Military Heritage Museum or the National Military Heritage Museum.
My suggestion would be to set up the Canadian Memorial Museum in honour of all of those wonderful men and women who gave their lives and set up their support for this country. I hope in the course of the next few minutes that we could refer Bill C-12 to the appropriate legislative committee and see if we can get justice done by separating and creating an autonomous committee for the Canadian Memorial Museum out from under the Museum of Civilization.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). Has he been able to ascertain what the additional costs would be in order to take this important memorabilia, the $500 million worth of paintings and related items, give it proper packaging and proper respect and environment. As well as this project which he is talking about and, is something I do support.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, in specific dollar terms, no, but I can tell the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills) that throughout Canada through the Department of Veterans Affairs there are regional museums, places to put the memorabilia about which we are talking, places where the memorabilia could be collected as part of a national memorial museum for which space could very easily be allocated or reallocated since space was already taken away from it some years ago. I think we could find an appropriate location and appropriate facilities, but right now, the important thing is that the Government signal the importance of the symbolism of this matter and make certain that somehow, somewhere, for Canadians now and in the future, there is a place to remember the Canadian men and women who died in the various wars in which they fought.

May 25, 1989
Museums


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that across Canada there are 700,000 members of the Royal Canadian Legion. What would the Hon. Member think of organizing collectively? Since we all agree on this issue, the forces of this institution, 1 am sure we would get support for this cause?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, that is a very worth-while question. That is what the legislative committee is all about. That is why legislative committees are set up to follow second reading of an important Bill such as this. With the collective agreement of every single Member of the House of Commons, agreement that I see right now, and with the 700,000 plus men and women of the Canadian Legion, we can get that momentum going and get that institution set up in honour of those who died in our world wars.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I hope that I can finish my remarks by the top of the hour. As usual, my colleague from Mount Royal has delineated our Party's position on this issue very well.
I am very pleased to see a piece of legislation that allows Canada's four national museums to evolve into independent bodies. This is a step forward and is great progress for these fine institutions. The legislation is based upon the recommendations of the Richard-Withrow task force on federal museums policy which set out a coherent policy for Canadian museums.
The four new national museums, the National Gallery, the Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Nature and the Museum of Science and Technology, will be independent arm's length cultural institutions in the tradition of the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The museum will join these institutions as important components of the Canadian cultural mosaic.
In the tradition of Canada's arm's length cultural institutions, we must ensure that the museums are completely autonomous in all matters relating to their collections and activities. I believe it is very important that we take a careful look in committee at the arrangements set out in the legislation creating an arm's length relationship between the museums and the Government.
It is crucial that these arrangements give the museums the intended autonomy.
These four autonomous museums along with the sub-museums provided for in the legislation are an important part of Canada's identity. They are showcases of our history, our achievement, our art and our future. As Hon. Members know, this country is rich in history. We have an exciting history and everyone should appreciate it.
From the Canadian art displayed in the National Gallery to the Imax/Omnimax theatre in the new Museum of Civilization, these museums reflect the Canadian people. This is invaluable to our country.
It is notable that the legislation specifically mentions for the first time sub-museums such as the Museum of Contemporary Photography and the Canadian War Museum. This will ensure that these museums are not integrated into the larger museums and that they maintain a certain degree of autonomy. I am certain that this will be reassuring to the many supporters of the War Museum. I can only hope that the Government will follow this up with increased funding for this important part of Canadian heritage.
The War Museum is especially important as it is a means of preserving our heritage. I want to share in the remarks of my hon. colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth who so correctly pointed out that this is not a celebration of war but a commemoration and remembrance of the great men and women who have fallen in upholding the security of Canada. Of course, the War Museum is a way of honouring those Canadians who served Canada during the two world wars and a way of preserving Canada's military history.
Many of my constituents are concerned about this. They want to be certain that the War Museum does not lose out to the Museum of Civilization. It would be a great loss if this were to happen. It would also be a great loss if we did not expand the facilities of the War Museum. Valuable war art and other artifacts belonging to the War Museum are in storage as there is not enough display space available. These items should be on display. As one of my colleagues pointed out, we are talking about art worth $500 million. These items should be on display in the National Capital Region and in regimental museums across this great land.
It is also notable that the legislation includes regional outreach in the mandates of the four museums. This allows Canadians living outside the National Capital Region to share in this important national resource. It is
May 25, 1989

essential that Canadians be able to appreciate Canadian art and culture regardless of whether they live in Fredericton, Vancouver or Flin-Flon, Manitoba.
My hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out some concerns about employees of the museums. These are questions that should be dealt with in committee and I would hope that we could deal with those adequately when the committee studies this Bill.
In conclusion, I want to say again how pleased I am to see the progress that has been made by Canada's national museums. There are now four independent museums, and in my opinion, that is a step forward. All Canadians benefit from the growth in these institutions and we are all proud to see them develop into world class showcases for Canadian science, art and civilization.
One of my friends in the New Democratic Party raised the issue of appointments to the four separate boards, appointments that will be made by the Hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). I hope that when appointments are made in the future, they are made on the basis of competence and ability and not on a political basis. It was correctly pointed out that there have been appointments made in the past that can be characterized as political. In fact, politics was the only reason for these appointments. I would hope that future appointments would reflect competence.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question related to the regional impact of the National Museums Program. As we have been discussing and exploring this program, I sense that there has been a tremendous emphasis on the museums around Ottawa, but the fact is that there are museums all across the land-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do apologize. I will have to interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being 5 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper.
National Capital Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Don Boudria: that Bill C-206, an Act to amend the National Capital Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to present Bill C-206, an Act to change the boundaries of the National Capital Region, to the House. This Bill is a suggestion and I must give all due credit to the Mayor of Rockland, His Worship Jean-Marc Lalonde, who in 1986 had this brilliant idea to extend the boundaries of the National Capital Region. His Worship later contacted me and asked me whether it would be possible to take similar action. What I did, Madam Speaker, is first to contact the National Capital Commission to have its reaction to this proposal.

On June 27, 1988, at the Government Operations Committee, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission in response to a question that I asked said the following:
It would be wonderful if perhaps you had a Private Member's bill in which you would suggest the boundaries of the National Capital Region be extended, especially along the Ottawa River. That would, I think, delight our hearts because we feel that the protection of the banks of the Ottawa River is just perhaps one of the most important issues that we face.
That is the position that was expressed to the parliamentary committee at that time concerning this particular Private Member's Bill.
Following this statement by the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, I had a meeting in the fall of 1988 with the municipalities potentially involved in such a venture. At the meeting that was held at the Township of Clarence town hall were present representatives of the eight municipalities potentially affected. Those municipalities would be the Township of Clarence, the Town of Rockland, the Township of Cambridge, the Village of Casselman, the Township of North Planta-

May 25, 1989
National Capital Act
genet and South Plantagenet and the Village of Planta-genet itself.
What does the Private Member's Bill do, and what is the cost to the taxpayers of Canada? The Private Member's Bill would add eight municipalities to the some 50 or so municipalities that already form part of the National Capital Region. What would this cost the taxpayers of Canada? The short answer is nothing. Extending the boundaries of the National Capital Region does not in itself cause any cost other than the cost of redoing the map of the National Capital Region and printing the Private Member's Bill in question into the statute upon its promulgation.
What are some of the benefits to us? There are some benefits in both the short and the long term. In the short term, the obvious benefit to the constituents that I represent would surely be in the fact that the National Capital Region would then designate their municipalities. In other words, if one is an industrialist arriving at the Ottawa International Airport and picking up a regular tourist map of the National Capital Region, communities such as Rockland, Plantagenet, Casselman and so on that are very close to the National Capital Region and very close to Parliament Hill would then form part of the map in question. It would demonstrate that indeed these communities are near the National Capital area.
There would be a benefit to tourism for the constituents that I represent. All of this, I suggest again, would be at very little if any cost to the taxpayers. One might ask, if such is the case, why does it cost us so much to have the NCC now? The short answer to that is very simply that in one municipality of my riding, the Township of Russell, the National Capital Commission has never spent one cent in that particular municipality. I am informed by my colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre (Mr. Assad) that the same is true for a number of municipalities which he represents so ably in the House of Commons.
Therefore, the National Capital Commission does not spend money in all the municipalities which are within its territory. Of course we would wish that eventually the NCC would provide assistance of one sort or another to the municipalities in question. But the Bill in itself by its
adoption does not automatically result in any expenditure of any kind in that regard.
What are some of the benefits? I have already spoken about the fact that there are potential tourism benefits for the area. What is the benefit for this country as a whole, some Members across the way might ask? Quite simply, it is the following: We have recognized as a Parliament in the past that it was necessary to have a National Capital Act. We have felt that it was desirable to have such an Act in order to protect an area around the National Capital Region. Therefore, the need to have such an Act has been well established and historically recognized by the Parliament of this country. Why should it be extended eastward, and what benefit would all of Canada derive from that?
One of the most precious and historical rivers in this country on which one of the founders of this country, Samuel de Champlain, sailed in the 1600s, is indeed the Ottawa River, and it goes through the constituency that I represent. It is a very historic river. There a few islands on the river. Those islands are important from a conservation standpoint. The banks of the Ottawa River should indeed be protected and preserved. Right now there is nothing to preserve the banks of the Ottawa River in that area. There is nothing to protect the islands and to keep them in the public domain for future generations to enjoy. I would suggest that these islands warrant protection. This has been recognized by a statement made by Mrs. Jean Pigott on June 27, 1988 which I recited to your Honour in the House of Commons a few moments ago.
There is one further point which I think should be brought to the attention of this House. It is the following: If one were to leave Parliament Hill right now and drive in a westerly direction to the limit of the National Capital Region, one would find that the distance from Parliament Hill to the westerly limit of the National Capital Region is some 45 kilometres. If one goes eastward from Parliament Hill to the easterly limit of the National Capital Region, one would find that that distance is only 20 to 25 kilometres. What I am proposing in this Bill, and what has been suggested and brought to our attention here by His Worship, the Mayor of Rockland, Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde, is that we extend the boundary eastward to a distance which is similar to what the distance is on the western side of the city.
May 25, 1989



In other words, what we want to do with this Bill is quite simply to extend the territory of the National Capital, not very far, just as far east of Ottawa as the Region extends west of Ottawa.

Just in case some may think that this initiative is not one that enjoys the support of the local municipalities I have in hand here, and I have provided a copy of the same documentation to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay) and to other Members of this House, particularly the Member for the New Democratic Party, whom I understand is interested in speaking on this issue, a copy of all the resolutions of the municipal councils in question adopting this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative has the unanimous support of the eight municipalities concerned. I have in my hand a resolution passed by the Council of Clarence Township; I have a resolution from the Town of Rockland; I have here a resolution from the municipalities of Plantagenet South and Plantagenet North, from the Village of Casselman, from the Municipality of Cambridge and the Village of Plantagenet. So it is clear that all the municipalities concerned are unanimously in favour of this initiative.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House a report published in May 1988 for the Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell by the consulting firm of Leroux & Associates who recommended that the region I just described to the House be annexed to the territory of the National Capital. This report is called "One Step from the National Capital Region."
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to point out some other important facts. I could describe the region I represent and I could for quite a while longer tell the House all the good reasons for passing this Bill.
However, it is important in the House today that we do not create a circumstance which may cause certain MPs to be tempted to talk this Bill out. For the information of all who are listening, and for the information of all who will read Hansard in the future and who may not be familiar with the procedure of the House, there is a
National Capital Act
quick and easy way for the Government to ensure that the Bill is defeated without voting against it, and that way is to talk it out. In other words, ensure that a government Member is standing on his feet at six o'clock. That has been done in the past by certain Hon. Members, and by some political Parties that do not wish to vote against a legislative measure of one form or another.
I want to suggest to the House that this not be done, that we allow this item to come to a vote today and we dispose of the item in question, hopefully disposing of it in favour.
A project of a similar nature involving the Blue Water Bridge proposed by the Conservative Member for that region last year was voted on on the same day by all Members of the House. We talked briefly on the Bill in question and all Members co-operated in ensuring that the Bill was not talked out.
What I am asking for today is exactly the same courtesy that was offered at that time to an issue that was not partisan, but which benefited local municipalities in one Member's riding. As I understand that particular venture, it involved very little cost to the taxpayers.
This Bill has many similarities to the one passed in the House of Commons approximately one year ago involving the Blue Water Bridge. I hope and trust that all Hon. Members will allow this issue to come to a vote in order that the Mayor of Rockland and the mayors of all other municipalities, and the Council of the United Counties of Prescott-Russell, can benefit from this measure that we can give to them as a Parliament.
It is often said that the federal Government is very distant to local communities, and that the things we do are not always tangible or there for local people to understand, and that because of the size and the vastness of this country the federal Government is aloof to the every-day needs of Canadians. We have the opportunity now to prove that we can think of the small municipality, that we can help the man on the street, and we can help the constituency which I represent. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this measure.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments about this Bill. I understand the comments of the Hon. Member, and I also appreciate that this is not necessarily a partisan matter. However, it is a matter that should be viewed from the point of view of other parts of the country and

May 25, 1989
National Capital Act
how they might see this if we were to do something like this here today.
I would like to respond to the call from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Bou-dria) for the enlargement of the National Capital Region to include nearly 400 additional square miles of his riding.


Don Boudria: Four hundred square miles?


Murray Dorin: How many miles do you believe it is? It is nearly 400.
We must look at this Bill and ask ourselves the question, what do we want Ottawa to be as the nation's capital, and then weigh the costs and benefits.
The National Capital Commission, the Crown corporation which administers this new area, sees our capital as Canada's meeting place, as a tool for communicating Canada to Canadians and to the world, and as a place for safeguarding Canada's treasures.
What is a capital for Canadians? What do we hope for when we go to Ottawa or see it on television? What will foreign guests learn about us when visiting Ottawa?
We want something to be proud of. Ottawa should be a place that everyone in the country would call their own, a capital where the Government listens to their voices and lets them realize their dreams wherever they might live. That is what we want to show the world, not some ornamental seat of empire, but the hub of real democracy.
That means that the town should be kept respectable. Frankly, when Ottawa became the capital, it was a mosquito-ridden, swampy logging town that would not justify being the capital of a nation such as ours. However, Canadians who now visit Ottawa know that that is not the case. Over the years, Ottawa has become a comfortable, clean and beautiful capital, worth a visit if you can afford to get here.
The National Capital Commission has had a lot to do with that. National leaders such as John Diefenbaker have seen to the transformation of this city through the NCC. People such as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-
Prescott-Russell have arranged to commemorate our former national leaders near Parliament Hill.
However, people from my riding would probably be surprised to know about some of the other changes around Ottawa. The NCC has had its share of criticism. Some people, for example the Nielsen task force on program review, voiced concerns that the House needs to consider when we talk about Bill C-206.
When I went to school in the Town of Bruce, Alberta, we were taught that Queen Victoria made the City of Ottawa the capital of this country back in the 1850s. It was not Hull, which is the major town across the Ottawa River, certainly not the Town of Amprior, Ontario, or the Township of Buckingham, Quebec.
In 1969 the federal and provincial Governments agreed that the National Capital Region would include all those places, and all those places would have the benefit of the National Capital Commission. In all, 26 municipalities in Ontario and Quebec are now part of the region. Some of these have effectively become part of Ottawa, for example, Nepean. Others, like Amprior, are quite separate towns or villages. They are not Ottawa and do not look like Ottawa. All of the areas that Bill C-206 would add to the NCC is like that: very nice places, but not the nation's capital.
The federal lands, green parklands and buildings that the NCC owns are now four times the size of the whole City of Ottawa. The NCC is the capital's biggest land owner.
This federal agency is no municipal Government. It does not collect garbage or run buses. No local officials sit on its Board of Commissioners. However, its budget is nearly half the size of the budget of the City of Ottawa. It was $92,261,000 in the Main Estimates for 1988-89.
The NCC employs more than 900 people. It sponsors cultural events and festivals. It plants more than 500,000 tulips in five hectares of flower beds. It manages 300 kilometres of pathways, 668 hectares of parks, 2,230 hectares of turf, and many museums and other buildings.
No wonder this Commission costs so much money. No wonder towns such as Rockland, Plantagenet, St. Isidore de Prescott and others would like in on the action.
May 25, 1989


Don Boudria: St. Isidore is not in it.


Murray Dorin: Fine. I know there are many towns that would like in on the action. I know many towns in Alberta would probably like in on it, too. There are probably towns just across Ottawa on the other side of the river that would like to become part of the National Capital Region. The Member has been quite vocal on the subject of this expansion. He and his supporters say that the NCC would maintain riverside parks further down the Ottawa River, along the South Nation River, and prevent erosion.
NCC pamphlets would include these new towns for business and tourism promotion. Perhaps new federal buildings would go up in these towns and attack unemployment and a poor tax base in this mostly rural riding.
These are normal and understandable concerns in a riding with a weaker economy. The Hon. Member's constituents have watched this care and attention going on next door, and they feel it would be beneficial to have those types of improvements in their area as well.
Where I disagree with this Bill is that it seeks to do these things at federal expense at a time when we have just had to make over $5 billion in spending cuts just to keep our heads above water. When we cannot pay for 14 military bases, we cannot pay for more tulips.
As the Nielsen task force report said about the NCC: "Ownership begets more ownership which results in ever-increasing development and operating expenses". Is that not what this Bill is really about?
What we have heard so far has little to do with the way the NCC sees this town of Ottawa, or the way many Canadians see the capital. How many Canadians know the area around Ottawa? How many, if asked, would say that the area makes them feel part of the business of the country?
Back in Roman times there were two kinds of laws. The first kind were leges. These were laws to benefit Rome and its citizens as a whole. The other kind were privi-leges, which is where the word "privilege" comes from. These laws were only for a few people, giving them special rights. I think Bill C-206 is just that, a privilege and probably not much more.
National Capital Act


Don Boudria: Like the Western Diversification Program.


Murray Dorin: Not everyone has the privilege of living near Ottawa.
We could expand the NCC forever, north, south, east and west, and there would always be someone left out, like the West Edmonton Mall. I cannot support this Bill or its progress through the House for that reason.
I do not want to suggest in any way that I am saying anything negative about the people of his riding or the people who live in those towns and communities. However, I do not believe now is the time to be looking to expanding a very expensive operation of Government, when we are asking my constituents and constituents from other parts of the country to make sacrifices.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, first I want to salute my colleague. It is a laudable idea and I applaud him for his initiative. If I were in his constituency, I would probably do the very same thing and would be remiss and perhaps criticized if I did not.
Much work has gone into this Bill, and various municipalities are involved. I know full well the frustrations of a municipal politician, having spent 10 years in that particular line of work. I know that they are behind the project.
The benefits are obvious. Ottawa and area is a beautiful place to visit. It is a showcase for Canada. It is a pleasure to be here. In fact, it is the second most favourable city I would like to be in, second only to Sault Ste. Marie.
Canadians must be proud to visit their capital and the NCC has done very much to make this more than a liveable city and area, with an exemplary life-style. Other Canadian cities may in fact be jealous of the moneys spent, but their nationalism shines through and they say it is probably money well spent.
Having said this, I must add some criticism, not of the project or the concept or the initiative, but to some of the changes in direction and philosophy of the NCC. I have read the NCC corporate plan and have some grave concerns about the terminology used and some of its probable consequence.

National Capital Act
As I read through the corporate plan I see phrases like market approach, market driven, revenue generation ventures, user fees, contracting out. This sounds very much like another agenda that we have become used to in this recent Thirty-fourth Parliament. I have great fears that the two agendas will come together, and I do not believe that is something we want to endorse, because the endorsation of that particular corporate plan would be an endorsation of the Government's plan.
We have concerns about the apparent change and the less than subtle approach of the NCC to doing business.
The NCC should definitely be at arm's length from the Government, and we have grave concerns that that arm is being amputated at bit at a time, if there is such a possibility.
One has to wonder about the timing of this initiative, however laudable, when there is a reduction in funding of $5 million. We are not yet sure how that will be addressed. As recently as yesterday afternoon, Mrs. Pigott could not say how the $5 million reduction would be addressed.
The request is for an expansion of territory only to be coincident with a reduction in funding. My hon. colleague suggests that this will cost nothing. I accept that it will probably cost nothing now, but certainly one has to be realistic and suggest that it will cost something in the distant future.
This concept of expansion yet reduction is tantamount to spending $27,000 on a shrub inventory, $48,000 on a poll to find out what Canadians think of the NCC, and spending $1.6 million on studies at at time when the Government says we must cut back. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that the shrub inventory expenditure is stupid spending, but we all know it is business as usual. The inventory went ahead.
We all know that studies beget studies, to parahrase what was in the corporate plan. Studies are often put on the shelf where they gather dust. If they are not acted on with some immediacy, a new study will eventually be required when it is necessary to rationalize spending five years later. We cannot tighten our belts, pull in, and let out our trousers at the same time. Something will give. I
will not pursue that analogy, but one can see the consequences of trying to do this.
We support the concept of decentralization. Our Party supports that principle strongly. I hope a federal building is erected in Plantagenet, Casselman and Prescott-


Don Boudria: Prescott is not in the riding.


Steve Butland: I am not as familiar with my hon. friend's area, as probably he is not as familiar with Sault Ste. Marie. I hope there is a federal building erected in Plantagenet and Casselman, just as I hope a federal building is erected in Sault Ste. Marie. What a boon that would be to any community.
I believe it should be an initiative of the Government and the NCC. Perhaps we should extend the NCC boundaries 500 miles northwest so that Sault Ste. Marie will benefit as well.
I applaud the initiative of the Member and the municipal officials. We support the concept and would like to share in that kind of initiative. But we must ask whether it is realistic. While we endorse it, we do not know if it is realistic, and I think we have already seen some indication of the Government's opinion. Under the circumstances, the Hon. Member will be hard pressed. We endorse the initiative. God speed.


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has before the House Bill C-206. Quite often in the House we talk about boundary lines in relation to constituency boundaries and redistribution. We recently had the plebiscite in the Northwest Territories on the question of changing the territorial boundary line there. Sometimes we contemplate the question of whether areas like the Ibrks and Caicos ought to be included within the boundaries of Canada. Today, we have the Hon. Member who is sometimes known for walking a very fine line in this House, placing a Bill before us that proposes a change in the boundary line of the National Capital Commission.


Don Boudria: The National Capital Region.


Patrick Boyer: I should say the National Capital Region. There was some discussion in the previous debate as to what municipalities were not included within the exact
May 25, 1989

metes and bounds description of which this Bill entirely consists. We would all like to have from the Hon. Member, of course, his assurance that after this he has no further territorial ambitions.
It was refreshing in the debate we have had thus far to hear from the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Butland) sounding a note of realism with respect to this type of proposal. It is certainly understandable that the Hon. Member would have taken the initiative to bring before the House a Private Member's Bill because of the background efforts that have been made within the municipalities directly affected.
When I learned that the debate was coming on today on this particular Bill I got a copy of A un pas de la region de la capitate nationale.


Don Boudria: I gave it to your Minister.


Patrick Boyer: The Hon. Member is saying that he gave it to my Minister. That is a veiy fine thing that he did. I am saying that I have a copy of it as well. I hope he will share the report with all others who are interested in this question.
The point of this document is that it is a sound bit of work by municipal authorities who are very interested in seeing the benefits that come from being within the National Capital Region extended to their area. In my review of it I see that there are at least five major characteristics of Prescott-Russell which the report suggests make it suitable to be part of the National Capital Region.
The first relates to demographic position and emphasizes the largely Francophone population in the area in question. However, I feel that given that about half the National Capital Region already in existence is in part of the Province of Quebec and has a large majority of Francophone population that it is not clear from the report that there would be any significant difference on this importance balance within the National Capital Region. I think we want to do more than just play with some numbers and statistics here. The fact is that the National Capital Region is most certainly a present reflection of the duality of Canada and our two founding cultures. The suggestion in the report that this would be altered by the inclusion of this more eastern part, while it is an important point, I do not think can really be considered to be fundamentally significant in a way that would influence us here.
National Capital Act
The report goes on to deal with the Ottawa River shoreline, tourist circuits and attractions, festivals and organizations. Those are the five main characteristics cited in it in support of the contention that the boundary be drawn to a more easterly point. Again, one cannot take exception with any of those points. For example, in terms of festivals, the national capital now has the reputation of being an active and dynamic city in a wide range of festivals and special events that occur throughout the year. It is a real treat for Canadians from any part of the country, and foreigners as well, to come to the National Capital Region to participate in these seasonal festivals.
The argument that was put forward in the Prescott- Russell report to which I have already made reference is that the inclusion of Prescott-Russell would provide additional partners to be involved in festivals and special events. At the present time the NCC, which hosts several major festivals in the capital, has an extensive network of partners both in the public and private sectors. There are a number of other agencies as well that sponsor festivals with a local audience and a local character. It is questionable that the addition of even more partners would have a significant positive impact. In fact, it is quite possible that the opposite result would be achieved in terms of overburdening the existing administrative structure.


Don Boudria: Have you even heard of Franco Ontarians?


Patrick Boyer: Of course, Madam Speaker.


Don Boudria: One would not think so!


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the realities mentioned by the Hon. Member, such as Fran-co-Ontarians, now exist in that region, but it is not necessary to change the region's boundaries to enhance the participation of this group in the activities of our National Capital Region.

The Hon. Member by his interventions is obviously chippy and sensitive on this point. I understand that he is bringing before the House of Commons, our Parliament, a Private Member's Bill that is something anxiously sought by municipalities in his riding and that he would have a great deal of emotional and intellectual effort

May 25, 1989
National Capital Act
invested in the project. I think every Member of Parliament understands that.
I have tried to look at the five main recommendations in the report itself and, understanding the good intentions and the fine spirit in which they have been advanced, to point to some drawbacks associated with them. However, I am not speaking-and I want to reassure Hon. Members and the Hon. Member who sponsors this Bill-in a way to be negative about the proposal. What I would suggest is that it has been a long period now, some three decades, since the planning really got under way, and that it is high time for the future role of the National Capital Commission and the National Capital Region to be reassessed. I understand that the Chairman of the NCC, Mrs. Pigott, has in fact submitted a work plan for the year 1989-90 which looks in a broad and over-arching way at all of these questions, including boundaries, levels of participation, the future and what projects can be carried out and so on.
I am sure the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would not mind if I added this to public record. I contacted officials to obtain a copy of Mrs. Pigott's letter in which she sets out the broad approach that the NCC is taking with respect to this matter.


Don Boudria: Which letter?


Patrick Boyer: This is a letter dated February 28.


Don Boudria: Addressed to whom?


Patrick Boyer: It is addressed to the Hon. Member. If I may, with the Hon. Member's permission, I would like to quote from that letter. If the Hon. Member has a problem with that, I will not do that.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no idea to what correspondence the Hon. Member is referring. If he has in his possession a letter addressed to me from an official of the Government I would suggest that there appears to be a prima facie case of privilege right now. It was not an open letter. The Hon. Member says he has it. He is asking my permission now to read it. I do not even know what the letter is. I am curious and I am anxiously awaiting the words of the Hon. Member. I do not think we have heard the last of this issue. He has my permission to read it, that is for sure. The damage is already done.


Patrick Boyer: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for giving me his permission. I would note again to him, and to you, Madam Speaker, that before I mentioned anything about the contents of this letter, I referred to it and asked whether the Hon. Member-


Don Boudria: That is not the point.


Patrick Boyer: -had any objections to it being put on the record of this debate since it is directly relevant. Nothing in the contents of this letter between the NCC and the Hon. Member have yet been mentioned by me. Prior to doing that and concluding this point of order, and why I raised it as a prior point, is to see if the Hon. Member would permit me to use that as the most efficient method of explaining what the policy is publicly on record before the committee to which the Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Butland) has referred to, as the most efficient way of joining the issue. I can certainly do it in other fashions as well. I have not, without the prior permission of the Hon. Member, mentioned anything about the contents of this letter on the floor of the House. That is my comment on his point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on the point of order.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the Member of course does have permission to read the letter. My objection, and my notification to you that I might rise later on a point of privilege, is not on the content of the letter. It is on the fact that he appears on surface to have correspondence between an official of the Government and destined to myself, which he says he has. It is not whether or not he reads it into the record. I do not object to that. He has my permission.
I want the Chair to know that once this debate is over, at the earliest opportunity that I may very well rise on what appears to be a case of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The points of order have taken some time. There would still be about a minute left in the Hon. Member's intervention if he wants to conclude. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore.
May 25, 1989


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to, in the brief moment that remains, not let this point go past because I think the Hon. Member-


Don Boudria: What does he have?


Patrick Boyer: -must understand-as I have told you already, Madam Speaker, I told the Member it was a letter dated February 28, 1989. There is a question about the ownership of a letter. The person who is the author of the letter is free to send copies of any such letter to whomever he or she pleases. I would welcome the opportunity for the Hon. Member to raise this at a future date, because if he-


Don Boudria: Who is the author?


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, through you, I will repeat for perhaps the fourth time, this is a letter from the Chairman of the NCC, Mrs. Pigott, setting out the policy of the NCC with respect to the need after some 30 years for a comprehensive approach to boundary changes.
In conclusion, I would leave with that point, that the Hon. Member in his effort to seize upon the small points and not allow a debate to be joined on the merits of this case has not allowed me the opportunity to place on the record the fact that while this is under way there is a more far-reaching approach by the NCC with respect to the entire boundary question. I think the Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member's time has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his submission to the House. I think he has done tremendous work in terms of research on the issue. I became aware of it some time in the fall of 1988. I was fairly excited about it. This is not because I know that there is a benefit to his particular riding, as well as some other ridings between his and my own, but because I strongly believe that the NCC is doing a fantastic job in the National Capital Region, not only for the nation's capital of Canada, but also for Canadians as a whole.
In terms of tourists in the National Capital Commission, they are directly and indirectly bringing into this region in excess of a million tourists a year. In many of the festivals that they are sponsoring, it is now at the
National Capital Act
point where they are self-sufficient. They are bringing in money, like the Festival of Spring this year.
There has been a positive injection into the economy on the part of the NCC, whether through the festivities or through encouraging tourists from within Canada and as well the United States.
As the Hon. Member from the NDP Party indicated, it is an economic development for the riding of the Hon. Member. If that is the case, let it be. I hope that Members over the years from all sides of the House will bring forward initiatives that might benefit their ridings and the people of this country as a whole. If that is what it takes in order to get the economy rolling, let it be.
There is no doubt in my mind that when it came to the issue of unemployment insurance, when we were looking at eastern Ontario, the figures which came from Statistics Canada indicated 5.4 per cent as the unemployment rate for all of the Ottawa-Carleton region. That was not the case when we looked at the Hon. Member's riding. In his riding, the unemployment rate was about 12 per cent.
When it comes to issues that might work in the interests of the Government, the figures may come out in one way, but when the Hon. Member is trying to do something whereby his area might benefit, those figures change around completely.
I strongly believe that the extension of 25 additional kilometres into the east will not negatively impact as the mandate of the National Capital Commission. It will not increase the cost to the it. It might increase revenues, not only for the National Capital Region but also for the riding of the Hon. Member.
I wholeheartedly will support his initiative. If the issue comes to a vote, which I hope it will, I will be voting with him.
Having said that, if the issue is to be deferred to the committee, then at that time I would suggest that an impact study could be done to find out if there are any cost implications. If there is a tremendous cost we will then have a chance to vote against it. In the meantime, I have seen the Mayor of Rockland, and as well have spoken with many members from the Hon. Member's constituency and there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm about the idea.

National Capital Act
It is a harmless gesture on the part of the federal Government in the National Capital Region, and I would suggest that that is the way it should be done, not only in this region but also in other parts of the country, whether in the east, north, west or the south.
I believe initiatives like this in different parts of the country will help those communities flourish and prosper. I have absolutely no problem with seeing festivals being held in every municipality if that would mean an additional injection into the local economy. So on that note, Madam Speaker-

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for his Bill, and I shall vote for it if we have the chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Fredericton.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about this Bill. First, I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his initiative. I appreciate his intent and I appreciate the aspirations of the communities which he represents to become a part of the National Capital Region.
Unfortunately, I believe that the National Capital Region belongs to Canada. It is not a region that can be planned or approached on an ad hoc basic. It is represented by a commission with commissioners from each province in Canada. It truly has been designed to reflect the two languages officially represented by our country, and the many cultural variations that are represented in Canada. I believe that his initiative should be considered in further comprehensive considerations of expansion or perhaps the contraction of the National Capital Region. As my colleague has said earlier, it may well be in these days of restraint that there is justification to take a second look at the capital region in terms of size. Perhaps it is too large, not as efficient or as economically designed as it may be, although it has been in its present form and geography since 1958.
I would like to take this opportunity as well to say that this concept of a National Capital Commission is one that-I think the Hon. Member is joining in the debate on this side and not listening.


Don Boudria: Let me see.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Williston (Bud) Bird: He wants to be on the right side. Is that what you call a defection? In any event, the National Capital Commission is a reflection which I believe should be considered seriously and addressed in each provincial capital of our country.
I had the honour to be the Mayor of Fredericton, the capital city of New Brunswick, and I have the honour to be the Member of Parliament for Fredericton. I am proud of Fredericton and in the manner in which we have worked in New Brunswick and Fredericton to make it as representative as possible of the two languages and the various cultures of our country. I would like to make note that in Fredericton over the years, since 1971, I recall writing to the then Minister of Public Works that the provincial Government designate a public works development area a tourism precinct. They have restored a very prestigious military compound area. The prior Government is in the process of negotiating with the federal Government about the change in ownership of old Government House which was the original headquarters of the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, a very conspicuous and cherished mansion which some day will become a very significant historic site in our city. This is a subject that is very current and one in which I hope our federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay) and our provincial colleagues will address in a comprehensive and significant fashion in the near future.
Last but not least, over the years we have worked hard to accommodate our francophone population of New Brunswick which represents almost 40 per cent of our province. Fredericton, I think, stands proud in the manner in which it has endeavoured to address itself as a capital city for all New Brunswickers. The establishment of Le centre communautaire Ste. Anne is a conspicuous example of that effort to be representative in Fredericton of all New Brunswickers.
The intent of this motion is admirable. I believe that it fails only in the sense that ad hocery is not the way to

approach the design of our National Capital Commission. I have many other things I would like to say. I have done a bit of research on the history of Ottawa but I think I will pass on that. Perhaps other Members know more about history than I do.
I would like to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to speak on this subject. I compliment the Hon. Member for his initiative. My regrets for the reasons I have described that I cannot support this initiative. I hope that his motive and intent will surface in a larger and more comprehensive look at our capital city of Canada in the foreseeable future.


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-206, an Act to change the boundaries of the National Capital Region. I understand very well why our colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Bou-dria), introduced this Private Member's Bill. I understand his interest. I know that for a Member of Parliament, it is politically very profitable, but I believe that the present boundaries of the National Capital Region are reasonable and acceptable.
The most important feature of Private Members' Bills, of course, is that Hon. Members of all parties have the opportunity to analyse them together, as well as the chance to develop and put forward new legislation. And as individuals, we are all free to vote for or against these Bills, whatever side of the House we are on.
I must express serious reservations about the justification of Bill C-206, which seeks to extend or enlarge the National Capital Region.
The principle underlying this expansionist idea is outdated these days, when we must constantly strive to do more with less. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the hypothesis that the municipalities concerned will all enjoy a whole range of benefits paid for by the federal Government is to my mind doubtful and unverified.
What are our priorities as a government during this period of restraint and restructuring? I believe that most Canadians agree that we must adopt less expansionary, less costly policies-not the other way around. I also believe that Canadians in general are in favour of more regionally based government and development, as the previous speaker said.
National Capital Act
Needless to say, the National Capital Region is a special case because the federal Government is located there. It is the only region in the country in which all Canadians have common interests. That is why the federal Government has a special interest in protecting the symbolism it reflects.
The National Capital Region has roughly the shape of a square, the cities of Ottawa and Hull being located near the centre, towards the east. We have Gatineau Park and the Lievre River valley on the Quebec side and the Mississipi and Rideau River valleys on the Ontario side.
The Bill before the House today would add about 400 square miles of Ontario territory adjacent to the eastern boundary of the region. The result would be rather disconcerting. If our calculations are correct, this protuberance would increase the region's area by 22 per cent.
We must not forget another important point, which is that the Capital National Region has 40 per cent more territory in Ontario than in Quebec. The Bill would merely increase the present imbalance.
I am not trying to draw nice straight boundary lines on a map. The issue goes much further. The National Capital Region is a symbol, uniting as it does the two main cultural and linguistic groups in this country. It is a living expression of the link between those groups, which should be represented fairly and equitably. This Bill tends to undermine this objective.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there is also the tourism aspect. As you know, many Canadians come to visit our Capital, and they come from all electoral districts of our country. They come with their families, in small groups or on organized tours. As Members, we have the privilege of receiving these people. Many tourists come to admire our treasures and national monuments and to learn something about their government and their Canadian cultural heritage. In many cases, they come to take part in our national holidays, while many only stay in the region for a few days. In fact, relatively few visitors go beyond Ottawa's metropolitan area, unless they are staying with relatives or friends who live in rural or semi-rural areas or are visiting Gatineau Park or the nature areas in the Green Belt.
Why expand the National Capital Region, Madam Speaker? Some people would rather make it smaller, although I don't support the idea. I do realize that supporters of this position have some valid arguments. First of all, the Government is divesting itself of goods and responsibilities that are more appropriately the purview of other levels of government or the private

May 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
sector. Expanding the National Capital Region is contrary to the Government's own objectives. Further increasing the federal Government's field of influence in a region that is already seen as privileged is indefensible. Today -


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the adjoumement debate this evening.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you will recall that in this House on April 19, 1989 I asked a question to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. I asked the Minister why he was planning to attend a conference to be held by the Fraser Institute, a far right organization intent on privatizing first-class mail delivery.
The Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation responded, and I quote:
I realize that a closed mind is more appealing to Members of the Liberal Party, but I think that to fulfil one's responsibilities, one should be open to new ideas. The fact that things worked last century does not mean that they have to be strictly adhered to this century.
So, Madam Speaker, the position of the Conservative Government with respect to Canada Post first-class mail is that it is in fact an antiquated system which must be abolished.
However I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that wanting to keep first-class mail in the public sector in Canada is not an antiquated principle.

The Fraser Institute is sponsoring this seminar to be held on January 23 at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto. The seminar's keynote speakers are none other than Don Lander, the President of Canada Post and the Minister responsible for the Post Office.
Canada's universal mail service, which has served to unify this country, has been in place since the existence of Canada, and it was even in place after the Act of Union of 1840 which linked the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. The rationale for Government-sponsored universal mail service was that the lucrative routes in large cities and linking large cities where the profits are would be made to subsidize mail service to small and remote communities across the country.
It is well known by the Canadian public that Canada Post does not make money when people send money orders from Trois Pistoles to Wetaskiwin or from St. Isadore de Prescott to a community east of Montreal. That is not where the money is at Canada Post.
Indeed, some 50 per cent of Canada's revenue, or close to it, is generated by first-class mail. Therefore, the first-class mail service is what subsidizes and keeps the rest of the system going.
What is happening now? The Minister responsible for Canada Post and the Corporation has privatized rural mail service. The Government has reduced services in urban areas, replacing door-to-door service with so-called supermailboxes which no one likes.
Postal outlets are replacing full post offices that once existed in rural communities. On top of that, the Government is now saying that it has an open mind about attending a conference which aims to privatize first-class mail, the mail which keeps everything else going.
I submit that if in fact first-class mail is privatized, we will destroy the postal system altogether for it is the revenue from first-class mail that keeps the postal system going. I urge the Government to make forthwith, through the spokesperson designated today, assurances that first-class mail will not be privatized. No country in
May 25, 1989

the western world has done so, not even the country of that great proponent of privatization, Margaret Thatcher. Even Mrs. Thatcher, notwithstanding her views on privatization, has not attempted to do anything like privatize first-class mail. She knows better. I am asking now, does the Government across know better?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Bou-dria) would like to have everyone believe that this Government is about to make fundamental changes to the structure and mandate of Canada Post Corporation and that in fact these changes would leave Canadians with a poor and unreliable postal system.
Let me take this opportunity to assure the Hon. Member that the Government has no present intention of fundamentally changing the structure or mandate of Canada Post Corporation. The Minister responsible for the Post Office said in a recent interview that he was not working on a proposal to get rid of the monopoly that the corporation has on first-class letter mail. Let me also say that this Government has always been willing to listen to the views of Canadians. It is the people of Canada who keep raising the question of the corporation's exclusive mandate. As the Minister said, people are suggesting it, and it would be foolish not to examine it.
The Post Office is not a static institution, one that is entrenched in old ways of doing things. It is an institution that is constantly evolving and changing just like the country and the people for whom it exists to serve. Together let us look at some of those changes. Twenty years ago, the Post Office operated in a very sheltered environment. Today, it is facing competition on all fronts. The corporation is meeting that competition head on by providing Canadians with an efficient, reliable and affordable postal service.
In 1981, all three political parties agreed that the Post Office should become a Crown corporation. At that time, its annual deficit was running at $600 million and increasing annually. This year, Canada Post Corporation will be recording a profit. This means that for the first time in years, Canadians will not pay twice for their
Adjournment Debate
postal service: once when they purchase their stamps, and a second time when they pay their taxes.
Canada Post Corporation is aware that its existence is dependent on the quality of its service. The quality of that service has been getting better. Canada Post Corporation is the only postal system in the world whose delivery performance is measured by independent auditors. The audits which are issued quarterly have clearly shown that significant improvements have occurred in the reliability of on-time mail delivery. For example, in the quarterly performance report issued by Clarkson Gordon, it was reported that 94 per cent of all properly prepared first-class mail within the same province reached its delivery target, and 96 per cent between provinces. Those are some very impressive improvements, and they have been made throughout Canada Post. What is equally impressive is that the corporation is trying, and I believe succeeding, to do even better.


REVENUE CANADA-SPECIAL AUDIT OF AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT TRADE-IN ALLOWANCES
Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to pursue further a question which I directed to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) on April 25 of this year concerning what is euphemistically known as the business investment tax credit, heavy equipment trade-in over allowance special audit. That sounds complicated and it is. It is a problem that arises out of the Business Investment Ihx Credit Program which was instituted in 1976. It provided a credit within the Province of Saskatchewan of 10 per cent of the purchase price of a new piece of farm machinery or equipment to be applied against a farmer's federal income tax payable.
That credit acted as a considerable stimulus for machinery transactions and was, needless to say, well received in the farm community. In fact, some farmers built up such a credit that I believe in 1983 the then Government of the day instituted a further refinement of the program to permit a cash rebate to the farmer of 40 per cent of the unused credits. That in turn exacerbated the problem which I will enlarge upon.
The difficulty lay in the design of the program. The program was intended, as it turned out, not to stimulate the construction or the manufacture of farm machinery and equipment, but rather to try to stimulate employment on the western prairies with the theory that a farmer having spent $150,000 on a new four-wheel

May 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
tractor would go to the labour pool and hire some stranger to ride it around in the field for him. That is a sad example of the type of twenty-third floor, ivory-tower, bureaucratic thinking in this place.
Regardless of the intent behind that ill-conceived Liberal program, and which our Government to its credit has phased out through 1986, 1987, and 1988, we have to face the problem that farmers of course took advantage of the program in the trading in of their machinery and equipment. What happened was that farm machinery manufacturers and dealers got into the habit of inflating the value of farm machinery and equipment that was traded in. A brand new tractor might carry the price of $100,000.
If a farmer was trading in a piece of equipment that was worth $10,000, $90,000 cash would be paid as the difference. However, it was also open to the dealer to raise the list price of that tractor to $150,000 and inflate the value of the farmer's trade-in from $10,000 up to $60,000. The farmer did not care. In fact, in many cases the farmer did not know, because he was still paying the same amount of cash difference. The fact is that as far as the treasury of the country is concerned, the rebate of 10 per cent on the new price which ordinarily would have been 10 per cent of $100,000 in fact became 10 per cent of $150,000. We are talking about sizeable amounts of money. Over the course of the program, I would estimate that hundreds of millions of dollars were paid out of the federal treasury through this tax expenditure program which in essence was a mini-scientific research tax credit plan. The moneys would have been better spent, as they are now, targeted toward universal programs for Canadian farmers.
In any event, the problem is that along the way Revenue Canada decided that it would attack the western Canadian farmer and state that he was abusing the program by artificially inflating the value of those pieces of machinery and equipment that were traded in.
The producer in western Canada is the innocent party in all of this. If there was abuse of the program, first we must say that the program was ill-conceived, ill-designed, and tailor-made for problems to develop. That is
problem number one. It was the policy of the then Government that was clearly at fault. Second, it was the manufacturers of equipment and the dealer networks which I believe really got into the game of inflating trade-in values.
The average farmer is no different from a person living in the city. If they have a vehicle that they want to trade in, they are going to shop around from dealer to dealer and say: "I would like to buy a new whatever. I have this vehicle to trade in. How much cash difference do I have to pay?" That is the only concern that a particular farmer would have with regard to this matter.
Now we have the spectacle of Revenue Canada coming along years after the fact saying to a farmer: "Well, we think that we are going to reassess you because you abused this program. You arbitrarily increased the value of the piece of equipment that you traded in and we are going to reassess you, cut down that value, and come after you with the full force of the law". If Revenue Canada were allowed to proceed with this folly, it would have entrapped and ensnared virtually every single producer and farmer in western Canada. To the credit of the previous Minister of National Revenue, when he got wind of that proposal on the part of Revenue Canada, he did put a stop to that special audit. However, there were approximately 600 cases where the Department of National Revenue stated that it thought there was abuse and that it should proceed against those farmers.
It is my opinion and the opinion of many farm groups and producer groups in western Canada that that is very unfair. Again, the previous Minister stated that there would be a test case. The crux of the issue here is whether Revenue Canada can come along and substitute its idea of a fair market value of a piece of equipment or machinery that is traded in with its idea of fair market value in place of that freely arrived at in the marketplace between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser acting at arm's length. That really is the legal question involved. I suggest that it is not for Revenue Canada to interfere with that kind of decision. However, Revenue Canada says it can. The previous Minister said there would be a test case to try and decide this matter. Unfortunately, the test case fell apart.
May 25, 1989

I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jeli-nek) on April 25, 1989, what his intentions were. He indicated at that time that he was working with the community, looking for a new case to come forward and so on. That is fine, and I very much appreciate that response.
What concerned me and caused me to put this item on for debate here was a response from Revenue Canada taxation in Regina on April 26, 1989, the day after the Minister's response. They say they intend to proceed as expeditiously as possible against the taxpayer because this particular test case was not going ahead.
I believe in this situation that the Department is simply out of control. Given the background, the circumstances, the years this program has gone on and the time these people have waited, to proceed originally I believe was fundamentally unfair, and to carry on now I believe is unfair. I would ask the Minister to either find another test case with a suitable agreed statement of facts, or simply drop the entire matter. Justice delayed is no justice.
In conclusion, I am heartened by the presence of the Minister here today to answer to this matter. His very presence leads me to think that he will be taking the matter in hand.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, this indeed is a very important issue and that is why I am here personally to respond to a very good case brought forward by my colleague, the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson).
At the outset, let me say that it is my intent and always has been as Minister of National Revenue to continue to consult, communicate and listen to any taxpayer's concerns and representations. I certainly intend to do so in this instance. If the Hon. Member or any taxpayers or organizations associated with this situation want to meet with me in order for me to hear their side of the story, as has been very well represented by the Hon. Member in the House today and on previous occasions, I would be very happy to meet with them in order to get both sides of the story.
Adjournment Debate
Allow me to put this issue into some perspective. Some time ago the Department undertook to review and audit the income tax returns of certain taxpayers who have claimed investment tax credits on purchases of heavy machinery and equipment. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that the specific audit program was not restricted to farmers of western Canada, which I want to make clear, but included other industrial sectors, such as logging, transportation, manufacturing and fishing, encompassing all regions of Canada.
The special program phase of this audit activity was concluded in April, 1987, when it reached its goal of identifying those taxpayers who claimed excessive investment tax credit as a result of receiving substantial trade-in allowances on used equipment.
For the time being, the Department will continue to proceed through the normal routine audit program to address significant cases of trading over-allowances. But it has always been the position of the Department that the investment tax credit claim must be based on the actual cost of the property acquired and computed in a manner consistent with the economic reality of that transaction. This position is supported by case law and accounting principles, and is set out in a 1987 information circular which reiterated the long-standing positions of the Department as set out in previous bulletins.
However, to remove any uncertainty as to the Department's determination of capital cost in these circumstances, and in fairness to the taxpayer, the Department was prepared to have the matter settled by the courts if the taxpayers were to challenge the Department's interpretation of the Act. Such a case was brought forward but was withdrawn by the taxpayer who decided to accept the Department's position.
It is my hope that another representative test case will emerge in order that this matter can be resolved fairly and equitably by the courts, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. I urge the Member and the affected community and individuals to do just that. We do not have control of the test case. We want the community to come forward with the test case so that the taxpayer can be treated fairly and honourably. My principle here is to try to bring a semblance of fairness and equity to everybody; the taxpayer, the Department and the Government. As I said at the outset in response to the Hon. Member, I look forward, if need be, to meeting with the organiza-

May 25, 1989
Adjournment Debate
tion, the groups, the individuals or any other Hon. Member to ensure that we can resolve the situation to the satisfaction of eveiyone involved.
VIA RAIL-PC TASK FORCE REPORT/REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express dissatisfaction with the answer given to me in the House on April 5 of this year by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in regard to VIA Rail. The date is important since it is prior to the now infamous Budget which veiy clearly was designed to lead to the inevitable destruction of VIA Rail as the provider of passenger rail service in Canada.
I would like first to refer to the question that I put to the Minister and the answer that I received. I told the Minister of Transport:
When the Liberals tried to cut the deficit by taking apart VIA Rail, just like this Government appears to be set on doing, the now Deputy Prime Minister took a PC Task Force across this country in defence of VIA Rail. Its report entitled "The Last Straw" concluded that the federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that rail passenger services in Canada be retained, modernized, and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system.
If my memory serves me correctly the Conservative Party ran on that as part of its platform plank in 1984.1 will give the Party credit for this, immediately after it was elected it did reinstate services which had been cut by the former Liberal Government. However, that is where the situation ends.
I asked the Minister on April 5 if the Government would live up to its report and its promises as stated in 1984 by ensuring that VIA will not only receive the funds necessary to maintain its existing operations but funds to modernize its operations.
The Minister stated:
The answer was that any decision concerning VIA Rail or any other Crown corporation for that matter will be made in due time.
Due time came along fairly soon with the Budget. The Budget indicated that there would be a reduction in the level of subsidy to VIA Rail. In fact, it turns out that that reduction has a value of approximately $1.2 billion over the next five years. Depending on who one talks to that reduction could have a number of results.
The worst case scenario is that because of the ever decreasing dollars available from the federal coffers that it will not be five years from now that VIA as we know it as a national passenger rail system will cease to exist but it might be this fall. I am aware that on June 15 VIA Rail will increase its prices for every passenger, whether that be a day coach passenger, an overnight passenger, or what have you, by 10 per cent. The last time prices were raised by 10 per cent VIA Rail lost in excess of 700,000 passengers. VIA Rail knows this. The Government knows this. I am sure that is part and parcel of the over-all plan for the destruction of VIA Rail.
The Government has said it will protect nine routes where the people who live along those routes have no other alternative in terms of transportation. They are captive to rail. However, when it comes down to that final year, when there will be only $250 million of subsidy available to VIA, many of us believe that all that it will be able to afford to operate will be those nine routes. That means no Atlantic, no Transcontinental and that the run from Jasper to Vancouver will be gone from the national system.
It may mean that the corridor, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City is also gone. In addition, there is the collective agreement reality between VIA Rail and some of its employees. That makes the cost of shutting down the system extremely expensive as a means of protecting the workers, who will sort of feel like they were employees of CN Route, as they have been transferred over from CN to VIA, or CP to VIA, and who now find after a very few years that their jobs are going out the window or have been dropped off at the end of the-I would say caboose, but that is gone too.
This Government has made a conscious decision to eliminate rail passenger services as a national system. It is talking about provincialization. I hope there is no province that says yes.
I wrote to the Premiers right after the budget decision and said: "If you do that then you are falling into the trap once again of allowing the federal Government to offload national programs and put them to the provinces where the provincial taxpayers have to pay the tab."
May 25, 1989

I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Government of Canada, VIA Rail is extremely important. It is the only method of travel for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is a great tourist opportunity. The Government is wrong in what it is doing. What it is doing is driving the last spike through the heart of VIA Rail. Not only should it be ashamed of itself for doing it, but it should reconsider what it is doing, live up to its own promises to the Canadian people and make sure that VIA Rail continues to exist.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the Government appreciates the concerns of those who have expressed their support for rail passenger services. However, I think it is fair to say that the Government has come to the conclusion that Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford ever-increasing subsidies to rail passenger services.
Since 1984, the Government has contributed $600 million towards capital investment to the modernization of VIA's services. However, the operating subsidies have continued to increase. Over the past four years, total federal subsidies to VIA have increased from $607 million in 1985 to $641 million in 1988.
On May 9,1989, the Government announced that VIA had been asked to prepare and submit by June 30,1989, a new business plan with respect to the new reference
Adjournment Debate
levels for the corporation. These reference levels are, and I would like to read them into the record: $541 million for 1989-90; $435 million for 1990-91; $394 million for 1991-92; $275 million for 1992-93; and $250 million for 1993-94.
The new reference levels reflect the Government's commitment to expenditure reduction and restraint.
The Government expects the corporation to consider all available options in the development of the business plan, including productivity improvements, fare increases, the take-over of services by other interested parties, service reductions and route abandonments.
The Canadian Government's new policy approach for VIA ensures that rail passenger service will be maintained to remote localities which have no other year-round means of transportation. Service will be protected to truly isolated communities along the following remote routes: Jasper to Prince Rupert, The Pas to Lynn Lake, Wabowden to Churchill, Winnipeg to Churchill, Winnipeg to Capreol, Sudbury to White River, Senneterre to Cochrane, Montreal to Senneterre and Montreal to Jonquiere.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 26, 1989