1990-06-19

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, for reasons that I will briefly outline, I want to challenge the validity of the Standing Orders and the practice of reading prayers in the House of Commons.
During the course of the great debate on the Meech Lake Accord, those who would destroy this constitutional achievement claimed that the distinct society clause would deny Canadians the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter must govern and dominate in all circumstances. It is the paramount law, a kind of legal sacred cow displacing the creator.
This legislative body approved the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and made it law. I, like others, added my vote to the concurrence but not without grave doubt. The Charter is a two-edged sword. To protect society, the guilty may go unpunished and subversives may walk free.
The Charter was intended to enhance the law, not render it sterile. I believe the distinct society clause will enable the Charter to be applied in a sensible and constructive way so that Quebec society can maintain its character and not regress under the burden of restrictive laws.
That is why I challenge the right or obligation to say prayers in the House of Commons. Had the Charter proclaimed Canada to be a society that acknowledged the Almighty, the courts would not have ruled school
prayers illegal. Here is the judicial reality stated by the Chief Justice of Canada:
In an earlier time, when people believed in the collective responsibility of the community toward some deity, the enforcement of religious conformity may have been a legitimate object of government, but since the Charter, it is no longer legitimate. With the Charter, it has become the right of every Canadian to work out for himself or herself what his or her religious obligations, if any, should be and it is not for the State to dictate otherwise.
Having passed the Charter, a constitutional law that denies school children the right to seek the intervention and assistance of the Almighty, how can we possibly claim the benefit of prayers in this House of Commons, the most public and democratic forum in Canada?
I believe in God. I acknowledge the power of prayer and I seek divine intervention, but I cannot claim a right I have denied to school children, because I helped enact a law that purports to enhance Canadian society by excluding the Almighty.
Accordingly I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that section 30(1) of the Standing Orders and the practice of saying prayers in the House of Commons, particularly the Lord's Prayer, violates the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians can better judge the law that governs all of us.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have a point which he obviously feels is important, and I am not diminishing the heartfelt conviction that he has in this regard. However, I do not believe, Sir, that Mr. Speaker should be unilaterally scratching out one of our Standing Orders.
If the member feels that one of our Standing Orders is inappropriate, he should perhaps stand on a question of privilege instead and ask that the matter be referred to the standing committee responsible so that that committee could look at the issue.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, when we reform the Standing Orders of this House, if the member feels that this

June 19, 1990
Point of Order
Standing Order is wrong, he could again recommend to the same committee that it consider revoking the Standing Order in question.
As far as I am concerned, and not withstanding what the Charter says, the Standing Order should remain. However, I am only emitting a personal opinion. However, that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not Mr. Speaker has the authority or whether Mr. Speaker should, notwithstanding any authority, decide to unilaterally revoke one of our Standing Orders.
If I may be so bold as to suggest, I do think that Mr. Speaker would probably not want to do that.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments of my friend who has just spoken. The point he raised is appropriate. There have been a lot of questions from various members about the propriety of Standing Order 31.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of alternatives. One is to follow the advice of my hon. friend to simply drop Standing Order 30(1). The other, of course, would be to keep it in place. On the other hand, perhaps there is a compromise, that at the beginning of the day some other appropriate statement be read. We realize the benefit of a statement, a prayer or perhaps some other form of comment that sets the tone and establishes a certain guideline for the procedures and the behaviour of the House.
However, to ask you to set this aside would be inappropriate. The House Leaders are presently meeting and evaluating a variety of Standing Orders. They are examining whether they ought to be modified to suit the changing times. Perhaps my hon. friend could refer his concern regarding Standing Order 30(1) to that regular process which will determine whether it should be dropped, whether it should be kept or if there is another alternative to consider in its place.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak very long to this particular point of order. I agree that my hon. friend who has brought the point of order forward has a legitimate concern.
However, there are a couple of factors that we have to take into account. First, the Americans have a Charter of
Rights which has had a similar impact in their country. However, their Congress has a chaplain who daily delivers a prayer. I think that shows that it is consistent with a charter of rights. I would think, therefore, that in our own Parliament that same consistency would apply.
The second point I would like to make, which I think has been made already, is that this is more properly a decision of the House. It is not, I think, a decision of the Chair and the Chair should not be put in a position of having to making a ruling on a particular Standing Order and its validity or its lack of validity.
This has been a tradition in this Parliament for a long time. It is also a tradition that has come under discussion on several occasions, including throughout the hearings on the McGrath task force. I can remember we spent a good deal of time on the issue.
In each case the end result has been that we have come back to the tradition that we practise today and that is what I would encourage the Chair to allow to continue at this point. I think the Chair would be in a very difficult spot were it to make an arbitrary decision that a particular Standing Order is in violation of the Charter.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a matter which relates to Standing Order 30(1) which reads:
The Speaker shall read prayers every day at the meeting of the
House before any business is entered upon.
That is a rule which, of course, binds me as your Speaker. It also happens to be a rule that has been in place, not just for a few years but for generations. The hon. member urges me to make a decision that it is somehow inconsistent or contradictory to the Canadian Charter of Rights.
First, it is not the role of the Speaker to make that kind of a declaration because my jurisdiction does not enable me and does not ask me to make decisions concerning the law of the land. My jurisdiction is to make decisions concerning the procedural rules which this place has put in place and which govern us.
I have to say to the hon. member that whatever his concerns may be, and they may be the concerns of other people, I cannot comment upon the rule that instructs us to say prayers daily on the basis of whether it does or does not infringe the Charter of Rights.
June 19, 1990

What my personal opinions might be matters very little at the moment because I am asked by all of you to interpret the rules of this place, not to give you my personal opinions about the appropriateness of prayers or the inappropriateness of prayers. Whatever temptation I may have to make some comments thereon, I, of course, have to restrain myself from saying anything.
Elowever, if hon. members wish either to change the form of the prayer or, for that matter, make a decision that prayers will not be said, it is not for me to do. That is up to members. I am sure that if that matter comes under discussion the sensibilities and the sentiments of the vast majority of Canadians would be taken into account.
I think that is probably where we ought to leave the matter, except I think I can say the following to hon. members, many of whom have been able to be with me at official and less than official occasions in this House when we have dined together. Hon. members will remember that I always ask members to join with me in the blessing. Hon. members will also note that, while I am Christian, I was raised to have great respect for other people's views and the blessing always commences the same way, in such a way that the vast majority of us can join in it with respect and gratitude. I always say: "Lord, whose children we all are-". That seems to gain some considerable acceptance. I mention it for your consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 65 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Routine Proceedings



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian 13ranch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the official visit at Westminster from May 9 to May 25, 1990.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The report relates to the Inuit people who were moved to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes, statutory instruments and regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should advise hon. members and the public who is watching that at this point the hon. member is entitled to a brief statement. How any member is, in a brief statement, going to explain how we are going to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes is beyond me, but the hon. member can have a try.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, with the help of the Lord and other people, maybe we can do it.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to require that all federal government statutes, statutory instruments and regulations be written in plain language and the object is quite simple. Canadians should be able to clearly understand the full intent of government action-dare I say it-without the help of a dozen lawyers. I do not want to be mean to our common profession, Mr. Speaker, but I want to cite what Napoleon once said. He said that constitutions and the laws of France should be drafted so that every peasant in every village in France should be able to read the document and understand what it meant.
That is what I attempt to do in this bill with respect to Canadian laws so that they will be clear, simple and straightforward and all Canadians, not just lawyers, will understand them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will remember what Shakespeare said about lawyers: "The first thing we will do, we will hang all the lawyers".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to provide for the review of postal rates and services and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the public has an opportunity to play a role in the establishment of postal rates and the provision of postal services in Canada. It would also establish a postal services review board similar to the one that was cancelled by the Minister of Finance in the last budget.
This bill would ensure that Canada Post no longer has the right to shut down post offices in the indiscriminate manner that it is doing at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business presented to the House on Friday, December 29, 1989, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to debate the adoption of the ninth report of the present Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which formerly had a longer name. This committee laboured extensively last autumn to prepare a report on televising of the House. Committee members made a trip to Washington last summer and reviewed the television arrangements which were in place for the United States Congress. It met with various media representatives in Canada. It met with members of Parliament and conducted fairly extensive hearings on this issue before submitting this ninth report.
Since the report was tabled last December, very little progress has been made in dealing with the recommendations and they appear to have fallen on deaf ears insofar as the House is concerned. I wanted to take this opportunity today to move concurrence in this report so that we could draw the attention of members to the committee's recommendations with a view to having them adopted in this House.
The first recommendation dealt with the control of the Canadian parliamentary channel. It recommended that a consortium composed of representatives of the cable television industry and the CBC, a partnership in fact between the two, should be formed and authorized to take over the operation of the channel in so far as broadcast of non-House of Commons proceedings is concerned. That particular recommendation has been adopted in this House already. It is now before the CRTC where hearings will be held and the CRTC may or may not grant a licence to the partnership.
It is clear that that recommendation is on its way and there is really not a particular concern for this House arising out of it except for the monitoring committee. It has been recommended by the privileges and elections committee that that committee be appointed as the
June 19, 1990

monitoring committee to assist the consortium in its duties.
I do not believe that report has been presented to this House, or if it has been it has not yet been concurred in. I am optimistic that that will be done in the next short while.
However, the other major components of this report, I submit, are important for the House and for Canadians and it is those that I want to address my comments to today so that we can consider them as a group of MPs.
There are two principal recommendations that form the basis of this report. The first, and the one that I think is the most significant, is the recommendation that committees of this House be televised.
I would like to read the committee's recommendation in this regard because I think the wording of it is very apt. It is that each committee of the House of Commons shall determine whether any meeting or meetings will be open to the electronic media. Each committee may impose any arrangements that it deems necessary to ensure the decorum of the meeting. This freedom for electronic media would apply in Ottawa and throughout the country.
The committee's intention was to allow committees to make their own decision with respect to television and radio broadcasting. In my submission that was a reasonable exercise. Indeed, since this report was tabled last December, we have witnessed in this House and certainly on our television screens, the spectacle of certain committees of this House having their proceedings televised and made available nationally. I think particularly of the Standing Committee on Finance which held extensive hearings last year. There was another committee that went on on a cross-country tour and also received extensive national coverage for that reason.
In my view the public interest was well served by seeing those committees in action. I think the point that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections wished to make in presenting its report was that Canadians want to see what else Parliament does. Parliament is made up of this House, but it is also made up of a group of committees. I am using Parliament in its expression in terms of application to the House of
Routine Proceedings
Commons alone. I have no intention of excluding the Senate from this, but this is a report to the House of Commons and deals with the televising of this House only.
The committees of the House are an important component of it. Indeed it is said by many that much of the very important work of Parliament is done in committee, and I concur. The fact that this report was prepared by a committee composed of representatives from all parties in this House is an indication in my view of the importance of committee work in itself. I note for the record that the committee recommendations were unanimous on the part of all parties, except in one particular, and that deals with the financial provisions for CPaC. I am not dealing with that in my arguments today.
In other words, members from each of the three parties in this House met, discussed, extensively reviewed, heard witnesses, and came up with this unanimous recommendation, that is that committees be masters of their own procedure in so far as televising is concerned.
It was our view that the television media would seek permission of committees to televise proceedings where they felt that the televising would be appropriate. We were of the view that the committees could decide, if they wished or declined, to proceed with televising of their proceedings. The chairman would have ultimate jurisdiction over the way the television cameras would be operated in the committee room, that is the chairman could determine whether or not, subject to appeal of the committee, cameras would be permitted to roam in the room or be at fixed locations and how the shots would be arranged, given the varying nature of televising of proceedings, particularly where the committee is holding meetings outside Ottawa.
Obviously the rooms that would be available in other parts of Canada might not be the same as the ones here and different arrangements might be necessary for that reason. Certainly the committee chairman is free to make arrangements as are necessary with the local media to ensure coverage of the proceedings. It was our intention as a committee, that is the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, that our recommendation would allow for the committee proceedings to be shown on the parliamentary network.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It was agreed with CPaC that in the event of official televising of any House of Commons committees, the proceedings of those committees would be shown on the parliamentary channel after the day's proceedings in this House were complete. Then Canadians would have an opportunity to watch committees in action. Particularly we felt this would be of interest in local communities where a local mayor or other representative of a community was appearing before a committee in Ottawa and making representations. The proceedings of that committee would be of particular interest in the community from which the witness had come to make his appearance. We felt it only fair that those proceedings be available by television and possibly radio in the local areas. On certain national issues it was our view that the work in committees is important. Witnesses come from across Canada to give testimony, for example, on national issues. We think Canadians should be able to see what goes on in those committees.
In watching this House the public is able to see members of Parliament from all regions of Canada discuss various issues. However, in committees it is more than members of Parliament who are appearing. We have Canadians who come from their communities to give evidence. Experts in all fields come to give evidence. Canadians could see that evidence being given. They could hear many of the arguments that help shape our views as members of Parliament.
As a committee we felt that this was extremely important and that therefore the televising of committees was in effect televising the other half of the work of this House. I urge members to consider this issue. The government might have some reservations. I understand there may be reservations on the part of hon. members on all sides.
I want to deal with the reservations briefly at this point. I may say quite frankly that when television was introduced in this House many years ago, as an outside observer of Parliament I had my reservations about how effective it would be. I was afraid that television would undermine the spirit of co-operation that existed in the House and perhaps make relations among the parties more difficult.
It may be that it has done that; I don't know. Some members think it has; some members think it has not. In any event the thing that has changed-and I think it is a
fundamental change in the way Parliament works-is that it has brought Parliament into the living rooms of Canadians. I am surprised how many people in my riding of Kingston and the Islands watch the proceedings of Parliament. I get comments on it repeatedly from members of the public who come to visit me here and to whom I talk on visits to my riding.


An hon. member:: Who are they watching?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They may be watching me. They are watching all members. I am sure the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is well watched, he is such an eloquent speaker. I am sure his constituents enjoy his speeches to no end. Certainly those of us here in the House do. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was a member of the committee. He is well versed in his arguments. Perhaps that is why he is being a little loquacious this morning. I know he will make a speech later.
The important thing was that television brought the House to Canadians in a way that was never done before. On the whole I think therefore it is better for Parliament. It has brought Canadians closer to this institution. It has given them considerable appreciation of the way it works. For that I am glad. I realize that it may have caused changes in the way we deal with one another in the Chamber. It may have brought about increased partisanship in the Chamber. I regret that. I am not sure that it is so. I am not sure that that would not have happened whether or not television was admitted to this place. But it is here and the committee recognized that it is here to stay. We feel as a group that the logical extension of that kind of publicity for Parliament is that committees also be televised.
While it may present the opportunity for members to act in a more partisan and less fair or less objective way in dealing with committee matters, we feel that given the amount of televising that goes on in this House already and given the lack of partisanship on many issues that exist, it is not going to change the approach in the committees. Where hon. members want to be partisan in committee because there is a genuine fight about a principle of legislation that the government is proceeding with, they will be partisan whether or not the television cameras are present.
In my view television cameras are not going to alter radically the way we conduct business in committee. Certainly, I think, that was the view of the members of
June 19, 1990

the committee. If there was to be a change it was our view that the publicity television generates in committees would more than offset the disadvantages. In other words, the advantage to Canadians in seeing what was going on was more important than the thought that perhaps we would act differently in committees than we now do. I do not think it will make a radical change in our approach.
I commend this recommendation to the House. It has not changed the committees where we have had television. In my view they have worked quite satisfactorily. I have no reason to believe that televising all the committees, should the media wish to have them televised, would change that.
I stress the recommendation. Committees are masters of their own procedure in this regard. If a committee chooses to have its meetings without the television cameras present, each committee will be free to make that decision. I think that is an important part of the recommendation.
The second major recommendation of the committee was to establish a programming director. I will read recommendation No. 3. It says that the programming director should be responsible for the production and direction of the broadcasting of the House of Commons subject to the over-all direction of the monitoring committee of the House. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended that it be the monitoring committee, at least for the time being.
The significance of this recommendation was to change from the guidelines that now restrict the television cameras and their operations in this House to allow for a more general and fairer representation of what is happening in the House on camera.
People who are watching now will see that I am standing here in my place and will not see anything else in the chamber. I think it is unfortunate that they are unable to see the other members from a wider angle. I am sorry they are unable to see some of the empty seats.
I do not consider the absence of members today different from any other day, but certainly I do not consider it unusual. I am not surprised that many members are not here. There are committees meeting
Routine Proceedings
this morning. There are other meetings and businesses to which members have to attend. I think Canadians should not be surprised to know that there are a lot of empty seats in the Chamber. I think that is a normal feature of parliamentary life. If that is the reason for not widening the angle on the camera lens that is now facing me, then I do not think it is a good reason and I think we should abandon it.
The proposal we made was based on the experience in the Ontario legislature. I urge hon. members to tune in to the Ontario legislature to see how its proceedings are televised because in our view as a committee the televising there is more interesting than our television. It is not because their speeches are necessarily better, although heaven knows there are many very capable speakers in the Ontario legislature, particularly on the government side. We know that they are extremely capable. I would not in any way suggest that watching the Ontario legislature would be any less interesting than watching this House. With all respect to my colleagues there, they do a better television job in making a speaker's presence in the House more obvious. There is a wide-angle shot normally when the speaker stands up, either from behind the speaker or from in front of him, that shows how he is standing, where he is standing in the House, and where he is in relation to the Speaker.


Ms. Clancy:: Or she.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Or she. I am sorry. I am just shortening my remarks because of the time. I recognize the hon. member for Halifax is very right. I am using he in its generic sense, including members of both sexes.
Once the speech commences the camera then normally moves in on the speaker and follows the speaker very closely.
I am not suggesting that we have wholesale reaction shots. The Ontario legislature has difficulty with that, as the programming director there told us. There may be a speech going on. I might have been the first speaker and I might be addressing my remarks to the parliamentary secretary across the way and making direct reference to the parliamentary secretary. In Ontario the cameras are very reluctant to go to the parliamentary secretary in case he is having a discussion with the chief Whip and is laughing uproariously while I am making a serious comment. It is not fair to the parliamentary secretary, nor would it be fair to my speech.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I hear the hon. member for Halifax getting overwrought again.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Halifax West.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Halifax West, I am sorry.


An hon. member:: He hasn't got a prayer.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Ottawa South says he hasn't got a prayer.
In any event, to go back to my comments, I was suggesting that reaction shots are not always easy to do because members are often carrying on discussions of other kinds in the House that do not relate to the person who is speaking. They are very difficult to do.
Members seem nervous at the concept of reaction shots. I think there will be very few of them. The programming director, in doing his or her work, will not be able to take advantage of that facility very often because of the risks involved in getting the wrong kind of shot. We also would have the normal restriction that proceedings in the gallery would not be filmed. We are not here to show disorder in the galleries or any of that kind of thing. That would not be part of the television program. It is not part of the television program in Toronto.
I think the experience the committee came away from Toronto with was that their television is working extremely well under much, much looser guidelines. The structure is that there is a programming director who makes the television decisions and there is a complaint procedure available whereby members who feel aggrieved by what has been shown can make a complaint. There have been no complaints in over two or three years of this system being in place. We feel that if it can work there, surely to goodness it can work here in Ottawa.
We ought to consider this. We ought to relax our guidelines and give this responsibility to someone else, subject to a review procedure, so that the Committee on Privileges and Elections could be charged with the responsibility of hearing complaints from members where there has been something gone wrong and dealing with the issue to ensure that that kind of error, if that is what it ends up being, could be dealt with, and restrictions placed to ensure that that does not happen. We do not think it will happen very often. We think that hon.
members on all sides will be delighted with the results of this change and we illustrated our suggestions with small illustrations in the report, which I again commend to hon. members for reading. Those are the two essential and basic recommendations of this report.
The one other that I think should be borne in mind is, if the report is to be adopted, the whole system is to be reviewed after two years of operation. In other words, we are not locked into something that will not change or is somehow immutable. What we have done is adopt a new system for the committees and a slightly modified system for the House, which we feel will enhance television coverage of this House and make it more interesting for Canadians watching it.
I am not suggesting that it is boring now, but it would make it better television. It would make it something that Canadians would get more pleasure out of watching because they would see more about what is going on in the House. They would see more of the reaction of the House to events and see where members are speaking in relation to the proceedings of the House. In other words, they would have a sense of the presence of this place that I feel, frankly, is lacking by the idea of having only the member who is speaking fill the screen and that be the sole picture that is shown of the House and its proceedings.
We also felt that special occasions could be televised more aptly by showing, again, wider expanses of the House. Cameras in different locations could show Your Honour, for example, but can show about half of the chamber in the same picture as well, so that the Speaker would have an opportunity to be shown in situ in the entire House. We think that is an excellent recommendation. We feel that the whole report is one that is deserving of serious consideration by the House. I hope that members, today, will have an opportunity to discuss it and that we can then adopt the report and proceed with those recommendations, put them in place, and start using them fully next autumn.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I was otherwise engaged during Routine Proceedings and I had a responsibility to be in the chamber during Routine Proceedings to present the forty-sixth report of the Striking Committee.
June 19, 1990

I understand, according to our Standing Orders, there is reason for the two committees to have organizational meetings this afternoon and I understand that is all they intend to do at this time.
I am wondering if I could have unanimous consent to revert to that aspect of Routine Proceedings so that I can present this forty-sixth report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. There is unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the forty-sixth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES, PROCEDURE CONCURRENCE IN NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my friend, opposite, vis-a-vis televising committee sessions and I would like to put a different perspective to him.
Before the major change where committees were set up, all bills, whatever category, went through this Parliament. That did not work because Parliament could never come to an agreement as to the time allocation for debating bills. Contrast that with Britain and France and unitary states, where one Parliament has the whole range of legislative jurisdiction. That would mean all that we have federally as well as provincial legislation.
Routine Proceedings
They found that the only way it works is to be able to have agreement. Even major bills might have only three or four speakers at second reading, then it would go into Committee of the Whole, with agreement. I like that model because I think it would keep us together much more as parliamentarians in this House, which should be the focus of power. However, that has not been the way. When television came to the House, nobody could be seen to be compromising on the television, so we had to set up committees. The compromises are made at committee stages because television is not there and people's constituents are not seeing them make compromises. My fear is that if we put television in the committees people will simply not be able to compromise and therefore will have to move to the steering committees and the power will be exercised there, again behind closed doors.
I would like my friend to comment on that because the other model would be to return the focus completely to this House. As we all know this House is absolutely meaningless other than when we stand and ratify a decision by way of a vote. It is totally meaningless. None of us attend. None of us read Hansard any more because this is not where the power is. Opinions are not changed in this House. It is only where the final vote is made.
Minds are changed at the committee level. I would rather see that back here. I know it is a radical model but I would like my friend to comment on it. If the parties would come together and agree to limited fixed debate in this House we could return the focus, the excitement, and the dynamism of politics to this House where I think it should be.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary has raised many interesting points and I do not know where to start because I disagree with him on several issues.
First, the shift to committees was to take consideration of the committee stage of bills out of the House, out of Committee of the Whole. Frankly, I think that was a very sensible decision.
Committee of the Whole is quite unworkable and it was not satisfactory for hearing witnesses. I think the thrust of our committee work on bills now is to hear expert witnesses on the bills so that we can consider much more about bills than ever could be done before in Committee of the Whole. I feel that that change has

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
been an extremely sensible one and veiy beneficial to both government and opposition.
The legislative committees that I have been on, and I admit it has been a very limited experience, have been excellent. There have been changes made in the committees on a non-partisan basis, there has been agreement after extensive work. Witnesses have been called, and various groups wishing to make submissions have been invited. The legislative committees I have been on have been very worthwhile experiences. I felt we made some real contribution to the bill. In some cases there were no amendments but at least the public had some input which we could never have had in Committee of the Whole in this House.
I disagree with him on that point and I think that while it would be nice to think that putting bills through all stages here would somehow refocus attention to this House, I do not think that is so. I think that members who are interested in discussing a bill are here for the debate, by and large.
The suggestion that no one is here is wrong, I think. I am here hour after hour, day after day, and I love being here. I am sorry that more members do not find the same pleasure in it. I feel it is my job to be here and I enjoy being here.
I realize other members have other commitments. I do too, but I tend to do more of those at night I guess and spend more of my days here. I find it great. I enjoy participating in debate with any member, particularly the government Whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I am always pleased with them.
The Minister of Transport is always entertaining. He has a string of jokes when he makes a speech and I am happy to be here to listen to those.


An hon. member:: Does it change anybody's views?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member asks if it changes anybody's views. I agree. The views may not change visibly in this House, but invisibly I believe they do. I think the speeches that are made here influence ministers; I think the fact there is going to be an extended debate on a clause that is unpopular forces the government to consider changes.
They will not stand up and say that as a result of the representations of the hon. member for Mount Royal, or Ottawa-Vanier, or Kingston and the Islands they are changing their views. They will not announce that but we feel that the views are changed as a result of what we do, and I think that if the hon. member looked at the schedule of bills that has been dealt with in this House for the last two months he will see there has been considerable co-operation between the government and the opposition parties with a view to allocating time among those bills to ensure an orderly transaction of business.
I think there has been excellent co-operation. There has been no closure. I believe there has been no time allocation for the last two months and I believe it is primarily because as a group we have worked together to try to provide some orderly progress in dealing with government business in this House.
We do not always agree with the business, but we recognize that the government has a majority, that it is going to force the work through in any event and we have worked together to achieve that.
I do not know why that same co-operation would not continue in committees whether or not they are televised. Certainly it did not change the committees that were televised during the past year which, in my view, worked extremely well and provided an excellent opportunity for Canadians to see that aspect of Parliament at work. I hope he is thinking very positively toward this report.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question.
I have been in the House 11 years, and because I was energy critic perhaps I have been in more legislative committees studying more bills. I went right up and down the national energy program with many bills. I am now in communication. Probably I have been amongst a group of parliamentarians who have had more experience in committees than a lot of people in the House.
Committees can be very boring, but they can be very exciting also. There are a lot of people who perform very well in committees who you do not see in Question Period in the House of Commons. I think Canadians are going to be pleasantly surprised when they see the committee work.
June 19, 1990

However, my question is: How are you going to decide which committees to televise? At any one time, we have 10 or 15 committees sitting. Do we decide on the environment committee hearings on the new regulations on environment, or do we want to hear the legislative committee on the new broadcasting bill, one that we have been sitting on for a long time? I believe that Canadians are interested. If one looks at the TV channels, people want information.
People will get more information from the committees than from the speeches made in the House of Commons. Material that they could follow can be sent to them. They could follow the bill clause by clause. With modern communication, modern television, it is amazing what can be done. The NDP believes it should be open to everyone. How are we going to choose which committee? How do you see that working?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the question that the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has raised is a very good one. Certainly, it is one that exercised the committee considerably, because we recognized that with up to 20 committees sitting on a day it is difficult to know which committee or committees should go on the air, one on one.
Our view was that there should be committee rooms established on the Hill so that the committees sitting in those rooms would be automatically televised. Which committees would sit in those rooms? There would have to be some choosing. In Toronto, the committee that sits in the one committee room equipped for full television coverage is automatically on the parliamentary channel. They are working on a second committee room to be equipped for television coverage.
I think we recommended a total of four rooms. The committees that sit in those four rooms would automatically be televised at staggered hours. We felt that the committee chairmen would decide among themselves which ones should be there. In almost every case, we felt that the committee chairmen would be able to work out either alternate times of sitting to accommodate the room or would decide that one committee is of greater national interest than the other and should be televised.
That would be the first level. If the committee chairmen could not work it out, then the chairman of chairs of committees which is made up of all the committee
Routine Proceedings
chairmen or the "liaison committee" as it is called-we like to refer to it in more exalted terms-would make the decision on behalf of the group. In other words, a decision would be made at that point.
The other committees could all be televised. The committees that are in the four rooms would be televised automatically by House staff, but television cameras would be admitted to the other committees if the networks wished to cover them. For example, a television station in Vancouver might hire somebody in Ottawa to cover a committee on which the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam was sitting because the people in Vancouver were interested in the issue that was being discussed on a particular day.
Those people could get a tape of the committee proceedings done and broadcast in Vancouver subsequently. All those would be available because of the openness in committees as long as the committee itself allowed its proceedings to be televised. We are not Stopping-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments is now over.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee on Privileges and Elections, I am pleased to rise today to address some of the issues.
When we entered into this study there was a lot of apprehension about how this would affect the role of a member of Parliament and the collegiality of committees. Would it distort the proceedings of the House? Would it give Canadians a biased view of what we were doing? We ourselves had many of these apprehensions.
The committee received a reference on June 8 of last summer. It had a few preliminary meetings and then it travelled to Washington to look at the C-SPAN television station. C-SPAN is the televising of Congress. There is C-SPAN 1 for the Congress itself and C-SPAN 2 for the Senate.
We went there with many apprehensions. We talked with Democratic and Republican Congressmen, interest groups, and a number of players and lobbyists. We asked them how they felt about the television station C-SPAN, if it was biased, or if there were any problems with it.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Every person we talked to said that the television station was not biased and was very fair.
In the United States politics is a little more polarized than it is here in Canada. People said that the station gave as much time to the left as it did to the right, to this issue as to the other, and that it all works out in the end. There were a few Congressmen who said that they had apprehensions at the beginning. The Republicans said it was a Democratic enterprise, and so on.
We asked them, after several years of experiencing the television channel and station, was it biased now. They said no. We asked them if it portrayed any Congressmen in a bad light, and they said no. We asked them if it was beneficial to the debate of public policy in America, and they said yes, it was.
C-SPAN is the channel that we would propose to model our broadcasts on in the House of Commons. It would have a basic schedule of televising the House during the day and then wraparound programming. The wraparound programming would include news conferences, provincial legislatures, if they were speaking on national issues, party conventions, conventions, conferences and committees. It would be gavel to gavel so there would be no editorializing by the producers. It would also cover special ceremonies.
This has worked extremely well in the U.S. After Congress rises at 6 or 6.30 in the evening, they replay sittings or play taped committee meetings or taped news conferences. They may play them two or three times. They may take out one news conference which was of very great importance and play it. If it originated on a Monday, perhaps it will be replayed a couple of times on the weekend. They opened up the process and Americans are able to participate, view and understand public policy in the United States.
We went to C-SPAN and the biggest question that we wanted answered was, who decides what goes on air? Who decides which committee hearings should be broadcast? We felt that this would give whoever decided a great deal of power and influence. We asked to go into the producers committee where the decisions were made.
At the committee meeting it was decided what went on the air at what times. There were about six or seven
journalists in the room, or people who had professional journalism backgrounds. Some had worked as assistants and some had worked in different capacities with interest groups or with public service organizations.
Each morning they would meet and go over what was going on during the day. Basically they would make a decision on what would interest the public most. For example, what was of topical interest? Who was speaking? How important was the subject matter? They argued it out among themselves and came to a decision as to what time this programming material would go on air. It was done very easily without a lot of haggling or production.
What amazed me was that after all was said and done, members of Congress and people across the U.S. would look at what had been decided by six or seven very young people and say that it was very fair; it was not advantageous to either the Democrats or the Republicans. That was very important.
I wish the parliamentary secretary, the government House leader and members who are apprehensive could have sat in with us as well, because it certainly allayed a lot of the fears of our committee.
There was apprehension about televising the House of Commons. In 1977 when TV was first introduced, there was a long and protracted debate. When it was introduced, the camera angles were a little wider and the guidelines were a little looser than they are today. Gradually members complained and we came up with a form of electronic Hansard.
The hours in the House were changed to cut out evening sittings, and the House was televised during the day from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. We then had many hours of dead air space. The CBC was paralysed for 12 years, not being able to fill this time with public policy broadcasts because of apprehension of the members of the House of Commons and others.
Finally last year, as an interim measure, we replayed broadcasts of the sittings the House of Commons. Some members have said that it is all government time, others have said that it is all opposition time, or that one side is favoured over the other.
In my view, and in the view of most Canadians after seeing what goes on in the House, other than Question
%
1 '
June 19, 1990

Period, the House of Commons is basically just a record of how members feel about different matters.
Last year our committee struggled to write a report and get concurrence in that report. I would like to thank all members of the House for giving us concurrence. We were able to replay the proceedings of the House of Commons and that is very important.
We have this channel with dead air time on it, there is a lot of important business going on, and we would like to share that business with the Canadian public.
Following the McGrath reforms, a lot of important work is done in committee. Committees have been bringing out reports that have had a lot of influence on government policy. We would like to share with Canadians those deliberations and discussions. Canadians are not participating in one of the more important democratic reforms that has been undertaken by the House of Commons in many years. We must open up the House so that Canadians can share in that.
Committee chairmen have come to the House and asked: "Will you please televise my committee?" The chairman of the finance committee has come before the House on several occasions asking for permission to televise his committee and sometimes he has received it, other times he has not. The chairman of the communications and culture committee has come before the House asking for permission to televise his committee. Other committees have been asking for the same permission. The pressure is building. This report is asking for the right to organize how we are going to do it so it is fair to everyone.
Another point I would like to make is that the McGrath report said that committees were the masters of their own destiny. Why should committees be beholden to the House of Commons for permission to share their proceedings with Canadians? That is very unfair and it is time that we as members of Parliament in the House of Commons gave concurrence to this report and allowed committees to be the masters of their own destiny. We need to foster the independence and the spirit of goodwill that committees have in trying to influence public policy and allow Canadians to see how influential committees have become and perhaps Canadians will come forward and share their ideas and concerns with those committees.
Routine Proceedings
Committees presently allow print journalists into a committee room. It is very unfair that committees exclude the electronic media. Under this system, the electronic media would not be excluded. Networks could come in with the permission of the chairman and the committee itself and take some clips, and I would hope that they would be longer pieces, and broadcast them if they wanted. That is very important.
In asking for concurrence, we are saying that we in the House of Commons take some control over what should be broadcast. There are a few recommendations of importance, one we have already concurred in, and two or three which are very important which I would like to address.
One is that a programming director should be responsible for the production and direction of the broadcasting of the House of Commons, subject to the over-all direction of the monitoring committee of the House of Commons.
What we as a committee have said in this report is that the Speaker controls the House of Commons broadcasting, but the Speaker is in no position to make editorial decisions or deal with complaints. That should be vested within the privileges and elections committee which ordinarily deals with complaints, revising the Standing Orders, and how committees operate.
The monitoring committee would be able to work with the C-PaC organization and come up with over-all policies and programming guidelines that would be satisfactory to everyone. Members of the House could easily approach the privileges and elections committee. A programming director, under the supervision of the monitoring committee, would make the day-to-day editorial decisions such as what goes on and when, in co-operation with the liaison committee when it comes to the televising of committees. I presume this programming director would be meeting with a number of programmers because it would be too big for any one person to handle.
Each committee of the House of Commons shall determine whether any meeting or meetings will be open to the electronic media. I have already covered this and, as I said, committees should be masters of their own destiny.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Recommendation No. 5 is that the House of Commons should equip two committee rooms. We felt this is very important. We have seen the televising of committees on an increasingly ad hoc basis with wires strung all over the place. They sometimes interfere with the proceedings of the committee. We would recommend to the House that two committee rooms be set up and wired and that this be done at an appropriate time in appropriate rooms so that the television cameras would be very discreet. Committee chairmen could then opt to go into those rooms. For instance, the Charest committee could be assigned to that room, or the finance committee when it is doing something important as it did with the GST hearings.
The first recommendation of the committee is that the Canadian Parliamentary Channel proposal as presented by CBC and the Canadian cable television industry should be accepted and endorsed as proposed, provided that four members of the board of directors are appointed to represent the public interest.
By concurring in this report, we are sending a signal to the CRTC that we agree with this proposal and we want the CRTC to accept it, but we want to have some control over it. We want to have some input. We believe that it is important to appoint four people who are not a part of the CBC or the cable industry to represent the public interest, four notable Canadians who would be noble in thought and with ideals about what we wanted to achieve with the channel. This channel could be a great instrument of Canadian unity. It could show public policy debates across the country and open up the process to Canadians of what is going on in Quebec, Newfoundland, and elsewhere.
I should remind the House that the Canadian CPaC would be a non-profit organization and that the people who would control CPaC, the board of directors, the consortium, has said that if revenues from the channel exceed what they spend, they would delay further increases as inflation came, or this money would be used to enhance the service. It is important that it is a non-profit organization.
In summary, I believe that we in this House should be concurring with this report. It is a simple report. It is not asking us to do anything radical, but to open up the process a little bit to allow committees to make their own recommendations, to use the facilities that we presently
have in place such as the channel and the satellite air time, which is dead air, to broadcast news conferences, special committees, committees of the House or conventions, whether they are political conventions or an important address at the Canadian Medical Association convention.
I urge members of the House of Commons to give consideration to this report and bless it with their concurrence.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On question or comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, a question was put to me that I did not finish answering. I know the hon. member for Edmonton- Strathcona is a very capable member of this committee and perhaps he could explain.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam asked the question as to how the committee recommended it would be decided which committees would be televised when there are so many sitting. I got part way through the explanation. I had not dealt with the committees that were not in the four rooms. I wonder if the hon. member could have specific comments on that part of the question to complete that part of the answer because I know he is as familiar with it as I am.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: This is a very important question and I thank the member for it.
Under this proposal there would be two or perhaps four committee rooms equipped with television cameras. Committees could book themselves into these rooms and the liaison committee or the chairs of committees would make the decision as to when the committees would go on the air or if they would be repeated.
CPaC has also stated that it would have three or four camera crews so as many as eight committees could be taped at one time. They could all be televised, subject to the discretion of the liaison committee or the chairs of all the committees. Let us say that on a Wednesday there are 15 committees and eight, seven, or six are of great importance and should be on television. Four of them would be booked into committee rooms with recording capability and CPaC would bring in portable television crews to the other two or three. Then the chairs liaison committee would work with the production director and decide which committees go where.
June 19, 1990

One other thing we could do with this television channel is string two or three committee hearings together so viewers could see a progression of witnesses address an issue, unless they put it on a Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon and committees could be kept in the can, as it were, and strung together so viewers could see the full debate all at once and be better able to understand what we as a House of Commons are doing.
I concurred in this report, but it was my feeling that we should allow the decision-making authority to go to the consortium itself, subject to the review of the monitoring committee or the privileges and elections committee because, in my view, it is the professionals who are non-partisan who can best make the decision whether it should be a news conference or a committee of the House, what is topical today, what is hot today, what is of great interest to Canadians. We as a committee felt that we needed a little bit more control as things work themselves out and it should be the chairs of the committees who make that decision.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have been following this discussion and debate rather carefully. I want to raise a question and I want a confirmation or denial. I believe that I can get a confirmation of the following.
My understanding is that the most important thrust here, the bottom line, is that we are trying to bring Parliament closer to the people. We are trying to help Canadians understand, perhaps better than they do now, the whole question of governance as it pertains to the nation, and how decisions are made. We want to help citizens understand government, understand what it does and how it does it, perhaps even better than they do now so that together we can help build a nation. We can improve governance and decision-making generally.
Is that a reasonably accurate description of perhaps the most important objective that we are trying to reach here.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: I would say that is true. We would like to help Canadians understand government. When Canadians turn on their TV and view this channel, they are only seeing one-third or one-quarter of what goes on on Parliament Hill and in Ottawa.
A lot of important decisions are taken at committees. We can see the development and the thinking evolve as
Routine Proceedings
committee members hear witnesses, as they themselves are influenced, as they sift through information. Canadians should have access to that information.
News conferences are held and people will see a 20-second clip or a five-second clip on national television that evening. If they were able to see even 15 minutes of that hour-long news conference and the questions asked and how reporters were trying to elicit that information, their understanding of that one issue and their understanding of the process would be so much greater.
The process not only means committees and the House, but political conventions, conferences, and interest groups trying to bring pressure on government. I would agree totally that we want to foster a greater understanding of governance of this country and an appreciation of Canada as a nation from sea to sea. I believe this could be a fantastic instrument of national unity.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and report on the report from the elections and privileges committee entitled "Watching the House at Work". I am sure some Canadians out there would wonder about the title of this particular report.
Before we get any great illusions as to the number of people watching us, this Environics poll taken in 1986, somewhat dated, shows that 86 per cent of people favour parliamentary television; only 13 per cent are opposed.
If we take that poll one step further, we find that 3 per cent of the population watch our channel each and every day. I guess we would call those the political junkies of Canada. Ten per cent watch it once a week and 37 per cent watch it occasionally. I guess that leaves about 50 per cent who never watch it at all. So let us be assured that we are no competition for the Cosby show, Rosanne Barr, or even any of the soaps.
Nevertheless, it would appear that from all the reports from the MPs, the vast majority said it must continue. Many had reservations about relaxed or loosened camera coverage of the House. Very few feel it should be removed altogether, but there were some members of Parliament who said there should be no coverage whatsoever in the House. I suggest that Canadians would not accept that kind of decision. It is here now and has been for 12 years. Canadians are used to it. If we took a step back, I am sure citizens would accuse us of doing

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
everything behind closed doors or somewhere where at least they could not see us at all.
Of the Canadians who wrote to the committee, and there were several hundred of them, the vast majority said yes, indeed, we want relaxed, loosened, enhanced coverage of parliamentary television. The vast majority were also concerned with the cost. They did not want to be burdened with any further cost for the showing of the House of Commons proceedings or committee proceedings.
As far as working in committee and the televising of committee, I think Canadians will see a different aspect. Many of them are tuned in only to Question Period and they see the show time for 45 minutes. That is not the real world. There is a lot of work done in committees, probably the majority of the work. We keep saying this but I think Canadians have to see that.
Also, they would see that there is some collegiality in committee work and there are some non-biased decisions made. I am loath to say this, but you can even make a few friends in committees. Even with their politically warped philosophies, you can still make a few friends in committee. In that light, you are assured that some work can be done. Whereas in the House, especially during Question Period, it is much more confrontational.
As far as the partnership between Cableco and CBC, when I asked the representative from the cable company, why do you want to get involved with this, just for the betterment of Canadians? He said: "Yes, we have only altruistic motives in mind". I had some hardship, and I do not want to be cynical, but I was not too sure of that.
My colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam tells me that from 1984 to 1988 cable prices went up 6 per cent, which is almost acceptable. However, in 18 months in 1988 to 1989 they went up 29 per cent, which is not acceptable. Canadians wrote in and said that they were getting programs that they did not ask for but have to pay for. I am sure they are having the same reservations about the work in the House and the work in committee.
We would much prefer that CBC go it alone, restructure its priorities, but in reality they are not going to do that. Mr. Veilleux and Mr. Watson were witnesses at our committee and said that they were very excited about this partnership. I am rather convinced that this enhanced coverage will not go ahead unless we okay the partnership.
We had another reservation and I put in a minority report on behalf of our party. The C-SPAN that we saw in operation in Washington works extremely well. However, I hasten to point out that there are professionals working for C-SPAN alongside professionals from CBS, NBC and ABC who are working at half the rate. We do not believe it is fair that professionals work side by side at different wage scales. We would like very much that the workers, the professionals who work for this consortium be equally paid with those of the CBC, and that those who work for CBC not be threatened with their positions.
I believe that now the coverage in this House is somewhat sterile. Boring, perhaps, is a better word to describe it. I reviewed the tapes this morning of the visit of Mr. Mandela yesterday. I wanted to see how that was covered. It was covered in its usual sterile way. If Mr. Mandela was not waving his arms in front of the Speaker, we would not have known that Mr. Mandela was there. This is most unfortunate. It did not show the somewhat awe inspiring scene in this House yesterday. Certainly, I felt it in my seat. The Canadian public were not able to share with us that sense of exhilaration and awe that proceeded. As much as we revere the Speaker in the House, the poor Speaker has to be alert at all times because he is in the Chair in front of whoever is speaking, whether it is the Prime Minister or Mr. Mandela. This enhanced coverage would allow the senators in the middle aisle here to be shown on television-and everybody wants to see the senators, I am sure-and the House basically filled on one of the few occasions that it is filled.
As I speak now, I want to tell Canadians that they are not seeing the real thing. They are probably anticipating that there are a lot of people listening to me here. I am glad to see that you are at least smiling, Madam Speaker, which must indicate that you are listening to a certain extent. The member for Mackenzie is listening. I am sure that the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is listening, at least with his right ear, but there are many people who are not listening to me.
June 19, 1990

This is the fruit of the committee work. We did a lot of work in committee, and this is an opportunity for us to tell the Canadian citizens what in fact we did at the committee level.
When we were in Washington there was a scenario that really pointed out to the Americans what was wrong with their television coverage. They have I guess what one could call a late show in Congress. It takes place one hour after the sitting of the Congress is over. You put your name in and and wait in line to give an hour speech on any topic you want to give a dissertation on. Everybody did it and it was going along fine until one night a congressman decided to put on a good show, a real grandstand exhibition.
He was in the House all by himself but proceeded to admonish the President of the United States. He said: "You, Mr. President, are going to have to answer to this". He referred to a number of people as if they were in the Congress when in fact there was not a soul save for himself.
At that point in time, Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House at that time, saw this going on and said: "What is this man doing? I want it stopped immediately". He instructed the camera crew to pan to show who was really there, and there was not a soul. The real situation was exposed.
We have nothing to be afraid of. Let us expose what this is. There are people talking about other things, although perhaps some Canadians may think this is important. I personally do think it is important. Let us show them the real House.
As I speak I understand that there are probably 50 members sitting in committees. So members are working as there are 25 members in the House.
I suggest that if we provide enhanced coverage of the House more members would probably want to come to the House. They would want some more exposure. When you are here in the House you are able to ask questions in the comment and question period after someone has spoken. You can get some coverage, if that is what you are after. Also, if the cameras are allowed to pan, then probably not everybody would read their newspapers or do whatever they are doing. It would
Routine Proceedings
almost obligate them to pay some attention to what is going on in the House.
There are some who have grave concerns. I think that they are unfounded. This situation will be monitored by our own, if you will. Some people may have difficulty with people policing themselves. I think we are going to tread slowly. I would be much less conservative, small "c", and we would take a bold step.
I read carefully who expressed concern. It seems that the majority of people who expressed concern are from the government side. They said that this would allow for more grandstanding. They seemed to say that opposition members would have just another forum to get more exposure, allowing us time to rail against government policy. Being a member of the opposition I can understand that. With the enhanced programming, phone in programs and other avenues, government back-benchers will be given more opportunities as opposed to fewer.
As far as reaction shots are concerned, I think that when someone asks a question of another person with great acrimony and indignation and after the camera moves to the one who is answering the question it behooves the questioner not to break into a smirk or a smile after having asked that acrimonious question. Again, this will be a self-policing device for members in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I think this does work very, very well in the United States. It works very, very well in the province of Ontario. Our gravest concern with this whole issue is in terms of the pricing. We do not believe that Canadians should have to pay to watch their democracy, their elected members at work. If they come here in person, they can see it free of charge. The galleries are filled each and every day. We do not believe that they should be obligated to pay, but I say that in the full understanding that this measure will not go forward unless there is some charge.
I have suggested in the minority report, without knowing if we have the authority, that we put a cap on it for heaven's sake. I think it is eight cents now and ten cents after the next five years. We are suggesting maybe five cents and cap it at fifteen cents because it is supposed to be non-profit and the cable companies are going to pour all the excess revenue back into enhanced programming for Parliament.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I do not want to be too cynical but we are somewhat cynical about this matter. This is our only concern with this entire report. Otherwise we are indeed in favour of enhanced coverage of the Parliament of Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I did not sit on this committee. My friend opposite seems to have much more detailed information on the matter than I do.
I am wondering if he can elaborate on the cost. He seems to want to have the service provided without people paying more than eight, ten, or fifteen cents at the maximum. Surely the question is whether the users pay for it or whether it is the taxpayer in general who pays for it. I think he is saying that he would rather have the taxpayer at large subsidizing this operation rather than the users.
I would like him to expand on that point. My own starting point would be that the people who decide they want to take the channel should be paying for it, rather than imposing it on seniors and poor people who are not watching it. They would subsidize the few who are watching it.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, that is a good question. It is one that we wrestled with. Canadians who wrote in said that they were willing to pay eight or ten cents a month.
The cable companies are enjoying a good rate of return. What they have done time and time again lately is they have inflicted these MuchMusic channels, the sports network channels, with no choice to the people. They have also inflicted NewsWorld, I might add, at 50 cents a month. They have done it with great regularity. As I have already pointed out, the profits are great.
Probably unrealistically we would anticipate that the cable companies should do it free of charge. We believe that CBC could restructure its priorities because this particular media coverage of the House of Commons has been long neglected for the whole 12 years it has been in place. It just has not been addressed.
There were recommendations made previously that would have been rather costless, but no one moved to react to them. It has been on the back-burner for a long time.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, if I recall correctly the comments of my hon. colleague, he indicated that a majority of members appear to be concerned about the opportunities the opposition would have to condemn government initiatives.
I would ask him the following. If these initiatives on the part of the government are extremely sound, is that therefore not a minimal risk? In fact, is not democracy as we know it, as it has evolved, gravitating toward greater openness?


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, yes, I certainly concur. It is a minimal risk for the government to take. It anticipates that we are going to criticize and probably condemn most of its policies. This is not the time or the place to say that most of them are condemnable, but I throw it in anyway. I do not think it is a great risk for the government to take. The enhanced coverage will give it opportunities.
The hon. member's last comment was the key. It is toward more openness that I think the Canadian public is after. Certainly many say now that that is the problem with Meech Lake: it has not been nearly open enough.
I am certainly a long-time educator and a short-time politician. Education of members of the Canadian public is extremely important. I think they will appreciate the openness and what really goes on here, rather than providing them with somewhat of an artificial situation much of the time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, first, on his participation in this committee which is yeoman's work and, second, on his analysis which I think is excellent.
The hon. member for Lethbridge asked my colleague whether or not the users should pay. No, the taxpayers should pay, in general, because it should be open to everyone. It is like medicare. You can use it if you need to use it. You can tune in if you want to. This is the Parliament of Canada. This is not MuchMusic or soap opera. It should be open.
The cable companies can afford to put it on. They are making a 28 per cent rate of return, twice the amount of the phone companies. The CBC gets a budget from Parliament. It should be for nothing that it is on. We in
June 19, 1990

the NDP and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie in his minority report said that we should not have to pay for this.
I do not want to end in a controversy. I will pass along a little stoiy to my friends. A couple of years ago I was on holiday. I was in California. I rented a car and drove the highway by Big Sur from San Francisco to Log Angeles. I pulled in at Big Sur, which is pretty remote. There was a little tavern where I wanted to have a beer. I went in. There were two old hippies, probably my age, standing there at the bar.
I sat between them and had a beer. I noticed outside that they had a TV satellite dish. One fellow said: "Where are you from?". I said: "I am a Canadian". He said: "Canada, Canada. I saw that House of-". I said: "The House of Commons, Parliament". "Yeah, Parliament," he said, "I watch it on TV. They are really strange dudes, really strange dudes". I did not have the heart to tell him that I was a member of the institution.
The point is, as my friend said, that it should be open to all. Maybe there are junkies, as the hon. member called them. I think there are a lot of people who watch us and approach us on the street.
The point is that there should be an opportunity for everyone to watch it. The point we are trying to make in the NDP is that it should be free. It should be paid through general taxes and not paid by people once again being asked by the cable companies to pay more money when they are already making big profits. They should put this on free of charge.
The House of Commons should have instructed the CRTC to require that. I hope the CRTC, the group that governs television and the price that people pay for their cable, requires that it be free.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. At the start I must admit, as most of us do, that I was not a member of the committee that looked into this matter. Thus, first, I would like to pay tribute to those members of Parliament who looked into this topic and issued the report that we are debating by way of a concurrence motion today.
Routine Proceedings
I did make a presentation by way of written correspondence to that committee. I must say that the committee did not accept my perspective. While I speak against the report, it is not with any malice because I do respect the parliamentary process whereby people come together to form committees that look into different topics. They invite the public to comment. They invited us as members to comment, and we all did.
They then went through a process of negotiation and discussion and came up with the report that we are debating today. The fact that I disagree with the committee does not in any way take away from the respect I have for the members of the committee and the thanks I have for them doing this good work.
Our differences are, I guess, in perspective. My perspective would be for us to get back to this House being more meaningful in the life of Parliament.
By that I mean I wish we could have debates here, as used to happen in earlier days, when people would actually change their mind as a result of hearing a debate in the House of Commons. The reality today is that no views or opinions are ever changed as a result of a debate in this House.
Where peoples' minds are changed is at the committee level. Once television hit the House of Commons nobody could be seen to be compromising because that leads to all sorts of problems from your own supporters out in the ridings who do not appreciate the nature of Canada and the nature of Parliament. This is a body where we come together to broker in a sense the honest and legitimate interests that are held out across this broad country with our very different populations, whether they are in Newfoundland, B.C., Alberta or Quebec. The role of Parliament is to broker those differences and to come up with compromises.
Compromises never meet the needs of the extreme group, the people who feel so strongly. The fact of the matter is that if you are going to survive in life you simply have to compromise. The fact of the matter is that none of us know every issue perfectly and we are not as smart as we think.
I can remember giving my maiden speech in this House some 11 years ago and really pounding forth the view of southern Albertans as to how we held our opinions on certain issues. I then listened to other members and realized that they were far smarter than I.

June 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They just as honestly and fervently held their view which represented the perspective of their constituents.
The point is that once television hit this House the power flowed out to the committees where people could debate the issues, make compromises and send them back to this House.
Another point I would like to make is that in the United Kingdom, in France, in many other parliaments and in the United States, the vast majority of the full legislative jurisdiction is in one parliament. The legislation that is considered in Britain and in France is the equivalent of all of the legislation that we consider in this House plus everything that is done in the provincial legislatures.
That means they have had to come up with routines that make the House far more efficient. In Britain, a major bill, whether it be like the National Energy Program that we had in the last Parliament, or free trade or the Meech Lake Accord as we had in this Parliament, would be allocated four speeches, perhaps two hours in all. They then go to a legislative committee where it is looked into by a committee, and comes back.
The point is that during that major debate opinions can change because people know that it is a significant speech. Madam Speaker, as you well appreciate, in this House, and it does not matter who is in the government and who is in opposition, the fact of the matter is that when you are in opposition, and we were exactly the same when we were in opposition, you try to use up as much time as you can.
Yet beyond the first speech it is all repetition. That is why this House has lost its meaningfulness. The vast bulk of the speakers just repeat what the first speaker said on behalf of the party, whether it is the government party or the two opposition parties. It is an enormous waste of time here and it does not change anyone's mind.
I speak from the perspective of someone who has been here for some 11 years. I have sat as a back-bencher in the opposition. I have sat as a critic of a specific department in the opposition. I have been a back-bencher on the government side. I have chaired standing and special committees. I have been a parliamentary secretary and all that involves at the committee level. The fact
of the matter is that the most satisfying part of being a parliamentarian is committee work.
What might have been an imperative driving the members on the committee was to be able to give members of Parliament more visibility back in our ridings, for those many, many hours we all spend at the committee level where we really make a substantial contribution to the public life of Canada. There is no doubt about that. I fervently believe that.
I know of all sorts of occasions when committee members of all three parties have made substantial changes to bills. On the standing committees they have input policy that has then showed up later on in a statute that comes out. The problem is that we get no credit for it. But why should we expect credit for it? We are elected. We have a term as long as the Parliament exists. We have an obligation. We are very well paid at $80,000 a year, $20,000 of which is tax free. We do have an obligation to come and work hard, and the vast bulk of members do.
If I could have my choice, I would rather be an independent. Independents do not have any responsibility. They never have to go to committees. They do not ever have to compromise their views. They can sit there in all their pristine virginity and never compromise. But they have absolutely no power. They never change one thing in this House. If you want to be here, get very well paid and not do anything, then you want to cross the floor and sit as an independent. It is a marvellous life of freedom with no responsibility. The fact of the matter is that government members and opposition members do have a responsibility. I think that it is at the committee stage.
I remember being the Parliamentary Secretary on the legislative committee which studied all the deregulation bills on transportation. It studied the National Transportation Act, the coasting trade and other statutes. As a Parliamentary Secretary I could see the logic of dozens of amendments that came from government members and from both parties in the opposition. As I recollect we accepted some 118 amendments.
When I became convinced that it was a good amendment, as the Parliamentary Secretary I would go to the minister, who happened to be the present Minister for International Trade, and say, "Look, minister, if we can get these amendments I think I can negotiate a package with the opposition to be able to get the bill through in a

June 19, 1990

reasonable period of time at report stage and third reading". That is exactly what happens.
If that committee was televised, I do not think opposition members would be able to make those compromises. They would be seen to be co-operating with the government. Again, I say that whether or not I am in the opposition. If I were in the opposition the same pressure would be on me as an individual.
If we televise committees, then the power will have to move to a steering committee. That will mean we will spend far more time at steering committees where we will make those compromises. I would rather not do that. I would rather see us have a totally new orientation that would bring more influence and power back to this House, even where there is television. I think we could become less partisan if we had agreement on fixed hours for debates. Bills could still go off to a legislative committee where the technical changes could be made from the expert witnesses. They could come back here for the policy debates. If government had a fixed agenda, it would be much more amenable to accepting amendments from the opposition parties.
That is my perspective. I do not claim to be a total expert, but I feel strongly on that perspective.
I want to respond to the point made by the NDP members who feel that this channel should be provided free. It has often and long been the NDP model that something be free.
Canadians know that nothing is free. Under the principle of offering something for free, this nation built up a national debt that is now over $400 billion. When we came to power the deficit was $38 billion, $22 billion of which was interest on the national debt, and $16 billion was surplus spending on programs compared to what was being taxed from people. By borrowing $16 billion, we were able to offer programs to people for free.
But the young people of this nation in particular surely realize today that nothing is free, and that in fact what we successfully did was to pass on to their shoulders this huge national debt that they are either going to have to
Routine Proceedings
pay for directly by way of tax dollars, or by a very substantially reduced income and standard of living.
Madam Speaker, what would you and I think today if our grandparents had done to us what we have done to our children and grandchildren in a mere 20 years? The fact of the matter is that this country went from 1867 to 1968, fought two world wars, came through a major economic depression, purchased the west, developed the north, built roads to resources-developed the whole of this country-and the national debt was only $18 billion. Maybe only six cents out of every tax dollar went to service that debt.
But in the last 20 years we have offered people a whole host of programs, all of which are very attractive and which we like to have. At the same time we have maintained low taxes in order to have a good cash flow in our pockets. For that we went out and paid too much for land if we were farmers, too much for businesses if we were business people and too much for our homes. The secret is that collectively we were borrowing it on the side and under the table from rich people who had lots of money who had nothing to do with it except lend it to the government. We borrowed it from people from other countries and we built up this debt. As I say, at first it was six cents to service the debt. In 1968, it was 12 cents. Then it went to 15, 20, 25 and 30 cents. Now 35 cents out of every tax dollar that comes in has to come right off the top to service the debt.
As I say, some people argue that we owe it to ourselves so it does not make a difference. It does make a difference because people with lots of money rather than investing it in plant and equipment and taking the risk of going belly-up, sit back and lend it to the government. They have a guaranteed rate of return. But that money is not then available for putting out into social programs or developing new mining ventures so our young people can get great jobs as engineers and technicians. It is just not available.
If our grandparents had done that to us, Madam Speaker, we would not have the very high standard of living we have today. I think it is really wrong what we did to our children and our grandchildren. Thus I make the point that when the NDP continue to offer to our fellow Canadians something for free, surely to goodness that concept has been totally discredited as, indeed, I

June 19, 1990
think it has. We notice that when people are polled between elections they like the NDP but when they actually have to decide if they are going to give the socialist philosophy their votes only one in five ever come to that decision.
I am privileged to speak on this matter. I would like to refer to Conclusion C which states: "Broadcasting committees would relieve some of the pressure that is presently put on Question Period and would permit the public to better understand the roles played by members".
I do not think there is any solution to the Question Period. Question Period is very important in our society in terms of being able to hold the Cabinet accountable. I know it is a raucous period and all of that. It not being a congressional forum we do not have real solid journalists who are well educated and penetrating in their investigative journalism. We do not have that. The National Press Gallery in this country really does not measure up to a professional-


Mr. Dick:: It's a joke.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is a joke, as my colleague says. It is a real tragedy in the nation. It is one, I suppose, that will only be solved over time with better education.
In the meantime we need to have Question Period. It is going to be partisan because politics is a quest for power. Whoever has it wants to hang onto it. Whoever does not have it wants to get it.
I do not apologize to my constituents when they say that Question Period is childish and raucous. I just explain to them that yes, it is a battle for the late night journal, and it is too bad, but they have a responsibility as a citizen to be able to appreciate it. It is 45 minutes. You have the responsibility as a citizen to put it into proper perspective and to see it for what it is. When there is a stupid question followed by a stupid answer, people should realize that, yes, it is a stupid question and a stupid answer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the cyclists' federation of the Soviet Union will send a junior team to the Tour cycliste international de l'Abitibi, from July 24 to July 29. The 22nd Tour de l'Abitibi, in which all races will start and finish in Amos, will be presided over by the honorary chairman, reporter Leandre Normand.
The Amos organizing committee is ready to receive teams from France, Czechoslovakia, the United States, Canada, Quebec and several provincial teams.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Marie-Claude Audet will be honorary chairwoman.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has just released a shocking report showing that Brazilian authorities are implicated in the torture and murder of Brazilian street children.
In a news release, Amnesty states that police officers in Brazil are torturing and killing suspects in and out of custody, including youth, secure in the knowledge that they will not be punished. Off-duty police officers are running many of the growing number of death squads- vigilante groups acting as judge, jury and executioner- and many of its victims are vulnerable, destitute street children. Indeed, death squad killings accounted for one-third of the violent deaths of children.
Brazilian authorities are overlooking these gross violations by not punishing those committing these atrocities. Few effective investigations or prosecutions are carried out for serious abuses such as torture and extra-judicial executions. Canada must call on the Brazilian authorities to stop these gross human rights violations.
The situation in Brazil further demonstrates the urgent need to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention is a standard by which all nations will be judged.


June 19, 1990

I urge the government to press for early ratification of the convention, both here in Canada and abroad so that we can legitimately press other governments, such as that of Brazil, to commit to the survival, protection and development of the world's children.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's annual report and five-year plan were tabled yesterday. They are enough to outrage even the most cynical.
Canada Post gloats over its recent $149 million so-called profit. It is not profit, it is the blood of rural post offices slashed from Canada Post's roster. This comes from the cruel harassment and intimidation of its employees on sick leave, from denying Canadians door-to-door delivery, from cutting back service to Canadians everywhere. Nowhere in Canada Post's mandate is there a call for a national postal service to turn money over to the government at the expense of service-nowhere.
But our new Canada Post has decided to gift wrap itself for the private sector, by turning a profit and cutting back on such costly ventures as providing service to rural Canadians, or delivering mail to people in sizeable communities door-to-door as it always has, and at the expense of providing a humane workplace.
However, the criminal is not Canada Post. It is this government's cowardly failure to confront our Crown corporation, its refusal to stand up for rural, suburban and urban Canadians, its abuse of postal workers and disregard for the future of our national postal system.
Shame, Mr. Speaker, shame on the government.


LIBERAL LEADERSHIP
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Jean Chretien, where are you?
Earlier this month, speaking in French, Mr. Chretien said clarifications to the accord seemed to have been made, and he hoped that the accord would pass.
Last week, in English, he would not say what he thought the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland should do.
Well Mr. Chretien, you should say the same thing to Canadians in English and in French.
Do you think the Meech Lake Accord should be adopted this week or not?
Yes or no, Mr. Chretien? Yes or no?


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise this House that there is an alternative fuel that is renewable, which will not only reduce global warming but whose production might even contribute to the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere.
It would reduce urban ozone and polluants, and would require no new technological breakthroughs and would assist in providing our agricultural producers a better income. It was first used in the 1930s.
The fuel is ethanol, and its use has been studied time and time again.
A recent report commissioned by the Department of Grains and Oilseeds calls on the government to set an ethanol fuel policy. The energy committee report, Alcohol Additives, in 1986 called on the government to encourage the use of ethanol.
While this government dithers, other countries are gaining a huge lead in the use of ethanol. There are as many litres of ethanol blended fuel sold in the United States as there is gasoline sold in all of Canada. The U.S. spends close to $400 million a year fostering its ethanol industry at a net saving of $25 million a year according to its General Accounting Office.
It is time this government provided action on global warming instead of contributing to it by talking about the problem rather than implementing the solutions staring them in the face.


VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago, the municipality of L'Ancienne-Lo-rette started a very positive tradition.

June 19, 1990
Annually, the town's authorities organize a special evening to thank volunteers who work day in day out to make life easier for fellow members of their community, of all ages.
These people who donate their time and skills and certainly do not advertise the fact, are invited to a special evening where they are offered entertainment, have a chance to talk to other volunteers and are given public recognition for their dedicated work.
I believe this is a wonderful example of how we can give merit when merit is due.


LIBERAL LEADERSHIP
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the man who would be king, the man who intends to assume the mantle of national leadership this weekend, has gone underground on the greatest national issue of the day.
His leadership rival, the member for LaSalle-Emard said: "One could not ask for a better demonstration of his failure to exercise leadership." Mr. Speaker, I agree. This is a total failure of leadership. The man has nothing to say to his Liberal colleagues in Newfoundland and Manitoba.
Mr. Chretien, if you are to be a leader, it is time to show leadership. Do you support the Meech Lake Accord? Yes or no?


TRANSPORT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that some months ago the Minister of Transport commissioned a study into the implications of a year round ferry service for Argentia.
Since the release of that study in March, the minister has been looking at his options. In the meantime, private shippers in just about every municipality in southwestern Newfoundland including Port aux Basques, Stephenville and the city of Corner Brook have opposed the move toward year round service, and with very good reason.
It is widely felt in Newfoundland that even a slight variation from the existing system would lead to major disruptions and major problems regarding transportation
and that the idea of a year round service to Argentia should be scrapped altogether.
I call upon the minister to let his decision be known and to not displace the obligation under the terms of Confederation, which places Port aux Basques as the main point of entry.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural voice of CBC Radio has retired.
On behalf of thousands of farmers who are faithful listeners to the CBC's farm broadcast, I would like to thank George Price for the valuable service that he provided for so many years. His informative, succinct reports and interviews will be missed, as will his presence at national and regional agricultural conferences, at which he was regarded both as a celebrity and an institution.
In wishing George Price well in his retirement, I would also like to urge CBC Radio to appoint a full time successor. Although the CBC as a Crown corporation should carefully regulate its expenditures just as government departments must do, the information which George Price provided was too important for his position to go unfilled. Canadian farmers need the daily agricultural reports which George Price so faithfully provided.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is blaming Canadian workers for causing inflation, and his latest scapegoat has been women. His targets have included teachers, nurses and social workers, jobs that are traditionally female oriented. Yet, since this government came to power, real wages have fallen almost 4 per cent while salary increases for fat cat executives of Canada's Crown corporations have been nothing short of unconscionable.
Last year, the government allowed salary increases of $40,000 to $84,000 for the top brass of CN. These are increases that are more than the average Canadian worker earns in a year. Why is the minister attacking reasonable wage settlements for ordinary workers, while remaining silent on these pork barrel payouts to senior government executives? Why does he not wake up and smell the coffee? The minister should stop blaming
June 19, 1990

others and look to his own financial policies for the cause of Canada's economic woes.


LEADERSHIP OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the silence maintained since Sunday by the number one candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, Jean Chretien, is a blatant insult to the intelligence of Canadians and shows contempt for the democratic process.
The man responsible for the Meech Lake crisis is lying low in his cottage.
For two years he has been urging the Wells, Carstairs, Doers and Filmons to fight Quebec.
The Liberal Party of Canada is about to choose as its leader a man who has shown contempt for Quebec.
Quebecers are proud through and through. They have not forgiven Jean Chretien for the role he played during the referendum campaign, the contempt he has shown for my province and the humiliation he imposed on Quebecers in November 1981, when Quebec was isolated from the rest of Canada, at his instigation.
On June 24, the national day of Quebecers, the people of Quebec will be mindful of their motto: "Je me souviens".
Jean Chretien has shown many times over that he has betrayed Quebec.


&quot;REACH FOR THE TOP&quot; CHAMPIONS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, once again Cape Bretoners have proven that they can compete with the best and come out on top.
Last weekend, the Reach for the Top team from Memorial High School in Sydney Mines captured the North American championship in Houston, Texas. They
defeated American champions from Richmond, Virginia and captured this tremendous honour.
Team members Jay Boutlier, Patrick Sutton, Anthony Serroul, Jennifer Morawiecki, Robert MacDonald and Karl White demonstrated outstanding mental agility under tremendous pressure. I know I join with all Canadians, including members of this House, in congratulating them on their victory.
To this group of young scholars and their coaches, bravo for a job well done, and a very best wish for an enjoyable and rejuvenating summer holiday.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, if this environment committee report about the hazards of CFCs and halons accomplishes nothing more than to communicate a public call to action as contained in its text, then it will have served a very important purpose.
I am convinced that neither the average citizen nor the average legislator truly appreciates the very significant hazards which atmospheric pollution poses for our world.
Certainly in my own case, until I became involved in hearing the expert advice and opinions made available to our committee, the serious prospects of ozone depletion or global warming seemed very far off in dreamland. I was largely unaware of the problems or the causes. To quote from the CFC report:
The members of our committee reached one overpowering
conclusion, not just a consensus but a unanimous opinion, that
ozone depletion is a threat for the continuation of life on earth.
Literally we must declare war on all those elements which cause
that risk.
This CFC report is well worth reading.


BILL C-21
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, countless Tories have risen in their place to decry the delay to Bill C-21.
As recently as yesterday they rose to a member to defeat a motion that variable entrance requirements be implemented. They tiy to divert our attention by staging

June 19, 1990
Oral Questions
a mock battle with the Senate. In the meantime it is Canadians who are being wounded and it will be our highly effective unemployment insurance system that is the casualty.
In British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Alberta the section 26 training option has been suspended, with Ontario and other provinces soon to follow. The Tory back-bench continues to applaud the commitment of the employment minister to job training while she steadfastly refuses to release additional funds for this valuable option.
New Democrats have consistently asked the Government to bring in the variable entrance requirement so workers in economically depressed areas or in seasonal jobs can more readily qualify for benefits. This plea has been ignored.
Again, New Democrats demand the government withdraw Bill C-21, bring in the variable entrance requirement and grant the much-needed additional funds for the Section 26 training options.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's latest attempt to break the Meech Lake impasse in Manitoba has clearly failed. In fact it is clear that the envoy sent to Manitoba did not understand the significance of the statements made by the Manitoba chiefs.
I ask the Prime Minister, given the extraordinary nature of the problem which he must take responsibility for creating, will he undertake to meet personally with the aboriginal leaders in Manitoba in an effort to come to grips with the fundamental issues which are at the heart of this very serious crisis in Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9, in the final communique of the Meech Lake discussions the undertaking was as follows:
The Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland undertake to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987 for appropriate legislative or public consideration and to use every possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990.
That was 10 days ago, 10 days ago, and the premier of Manitoba had agreed to use every possible effort to achieve a decision prior to June 23.
Inasmuch as the premier has, and all people acknowledge it, a unique minority situation, the comments of the leaders of the opposition that same day were also important. I think my hon. friend would agree.
Mrs. Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party, said that day: "We are prepared to meet all days and all nights, long into the nights, early into the mornings, if need be weekends, in order to make it happen and we think it will happen.
Mr. Doer, the Leader of the NDP, said:
We felt it was the best we could do under the circumstances and that we should move on in our constitutional process and get onto the real issues that are facing Manitobans and Canadians and take this proposal to the legislature-
The obligation clearly rests upon the signatories of the agreement to deploy their best efforts to get this passed by the twenty-third because the unity of Canada very much depends on their seeking to honour that undertaking.
With regard to the chiefs, I think it is generally acknowledged that Senator Murray led a very significant delegation to Winnipeg.
We put forward what is described in the press today as a most generous and attractive package in favour of the aboriginal peoples by the Government of Canada. Phil Fontaine, leader of the Assembly of Chiefs, said that the aboriginal people were not swayed from their strategy, and I am quoting him, "-to do everything we can to kill the accord and its companion resolution." I am saying to the premier of Manitoba, to the leaders of those two parties, to Phil Fontaine and all the chiefs with whom we want to work: do infinitely more on behalf of aboriginal justice in Canada; do not take the position that it is time to kill the Meech Lake Accord; work to get the Meech Lake Accord passed because it is the instrument whereby aboriginal justice can come to the peoples of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, nevertheless the fact is the envoys of the Prime Minister did not address the cry of heart that came from the aboriginal leaders.
It was told to the Prime Minister during the meetings in Ottawa by the premier of Manitoba that there was not sufficient time to allow the democratic process to be heard, and the Prime Minister decided to roll the dice. Will the Prime Minister now undertake his solemn responsibility, as the First Minister of this nation, to meet directly with the aboriginal chiefs of Manitoba and come up with concrete proposals, not promises, but proposals that would meet their concerns?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I bring to my friend's attention something that he may have missed. In a statement on June 18, the Manitoba Metis Federation representing, I believe, 80,000 people, said it wants the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, and the companion resolution, to be allowed to proceed in the Manitoba Legislature.
Yvon Dumont, president of the federation today called on MLA Elijah Harper to end his procedural blockage of the resolution. Here is a very distinguished aboriginal leader who is saying: "Let the people decide. Let the people who are elected get to the legislature and let them take cognizance of the package that has been put forward".


Roger Simmons: Answer the question.


An hon. member:: You are shifting the blame.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say I am shifting the blame. I am quoting a very distinguished aboriginal leader, and I am not shifting the blame to anyone.
I took the liberty of calling Phil Fontaine directly. I called Mr. Fontaine, notwithstanding the fact that the statement he made on Saturday was negative. The statement was: "We want to kill Meech Lake. No matter what you say or what you do, we want to kill Meech Lake". I called him and asked him, given the great importance of the Meech Lake Accord to Canada and the fact that the Meech Lake Accord is an instrument that is so vital to unblock further instruments that will provide justice for the aboriginal peoples, if he would undertake to meet a delegation from Ottawa led by Senator Murray. Senator Murray went out there and put forward a package pursuant to my conversation with
Oral Questions
Chief Fontaine which this morning, for example, in The Montreal Gazette is described as follows:
Even in their own terms, the leaders of Canada's native leaders have probably made a serious mistake in not accepting the large olive branch that Prime Minister Mulroney held out to them in exchange for passage of the Meech Lake Accord.
It goes on:
That offers the native people as much as Meech offered Quebec. And just as Meech is the best offer Quebec is likely to put to the rest of Canada for many years, so the native people may find that having spurned this chance, they may not get another, in such a favourable climate, for a long time.
We want and we stand for justice for the aboriginal peoples. That is what I conveyed to Chief Fontaine. That is what I convey to him today on the floor of the House of Commons.
I know that my hon. friend wants that justice for aboriginal peoples. It can only be secured in these circumstances by passage of Meech Lake. I ask my hon. friend from Winnipeg: call your friends in Manitoba. Ask them to ensure the passage of Meech Lake so that the aboriginal peoples of Canada can finally get justice.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I say very simply: I do not understand why the Prime Minister is evading his own responsibility in this case. It does not matter how many editorials he reads, how many other people he quotes, the situation is of his making and, therefore, he must take responsibility.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Why will he not simply meet face to face with the aboriginal chiefs, put concrete proposals to meet their concerns and break the impasse. The power is in your hands, Prime Minister, why won't you do it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether this line of questioning is going to continue, but I want to advise both sides of the House that I am not going to let liberties be taken on this issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me about why I won't, I suppose, go out and see the chiefs myself. I asked Senator Murray to head a delegation composed of Paul Tellier, the secretary of the cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council, Norman Spector, the secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations and Stanley Hartt, my chief of staff. All of this, by the way, was

June 19, 1990
Oral Questions
approved by Chief Fontaine and by his lawyer in Winnipeg-
They went out and put forward the proposal that has been described in today's media as probably the most generous ever put forward by a Government of Canada. Inasmuch as my hon. friend is asking me to do more, before he says that, perhaps he should understand what has already been rejected.
What was put forward was that my government is ready to act expeditiously in relation to and provide financial resources for each of the following, as soon as the Meech Lake Accord is ratified:
1.	a Federal-Aboriginal process to set the agenda for the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal matters; and the acceleration of holding the first Conference;
2.	a commitment by the Government of Canada to full constitutional recognition of the aboriginal peoples as a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
3.	a participation of representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada at any future First Ministers' Conference held to discuss the "recognitions clause";
4.	an invitation to participate in all First Ministers' Conferences where matters being discussed directly affect the aboriginal peoples;
5.	the joint definition of treaty rights, something that the aboriginal peoples have been seeking for a long time, and;
6.	the establishment of an historic royal commission on native affairs of the dimensions and the power of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that could bring about historic and sweeping changes that would benefit the aboriginal peoples well into the next century.
That is the offer that is on the table. Having seen the offer, Phil Fontaine, the leader of the aboriginal people, says: "We want to do everything that we can to kill the accord and the companion resolution." By taking that attitude, Chief Fontaine is killing off a tremendous opportunity for the aboriginal peoples to move very swiftly and effectively along the road to justice for the aboriginal peoples, which is what this government and all members of the House want.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
A number of observers on the constitutional scene think it will be extremely difficult to find a way to resolve the constitutional deadlock by June 23.
What alternatives, what options is the government considering at this point?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a formal document was signed by the Premier of Manitoba and the other Premiers, and by virtue of this document, the Premier of Manitoba, seconded by the two opposition leaders, is committed to making-and I will quote the English text-;
-to use every possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990.
Ten days later, because of dilatory action by one MPP, they have not even had a chance to hear witnesses, let alone discuss it and vote on it!
When people say they are going to make their best effort, this implies leadership. It implies acting responsibly and exercising leadership. My friend from Winnipeg, who knows what the situation is, should be interested in this statement by the Manitoba Metis Federation, where we find the following:
"Any action in the name of aboriginal people affects the Metis equally", said Mr. Dumont. "We have considered the latest undertaking by the Prime Minister and believe that it is now in our interests, more than at any other time in the past, that we take advantage of the provisions now before us and which are possible following the approval of the accord."
My message to the premier, to Mrs. Carstairs, and Mr. Doer is: "Follow the wishes of the Metis people in Manitoba, pass Meech Lake, and move on to justice for the aboriginal people".


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has already said, I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the Manitoba legislature cannot deal with the Meech Lake Accord before the Saturday deadline. There are legislative procedures to be followed, and some 3,000 Manitobans have indicated they want to speak at pubic hearings.
June 19, 1990

What does the Prime Minister do now? After all, it is his responsibility and he got us into this mess in the first place. He said he rolled the dice and he even bragged about it, and now we see the result: a complete mess. What is the Prime Minister going to do now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will read for my friend from Winnipeg the formal undertaking that says:
The Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland
undertake to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987 for
appropriate legislative or public consideration and to use every
possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990.
That was 10 days ago, and notwithstanding that formal undertaking on a matter of the greatest concern to Canada that deals with our unity and the ongoing well-being of this nation, the Government of Manitoba and the Legislature of Manitoba has not even yet taken formal cognizance of the matter so that members can rise and speak and vote yea or nay on it.
I say that the question of leadership is important in the province of Manitoba. The Liberal member there is asking me where I stand. My stand on the Meech Lake Accord is very well known. I have been standing in the same place on it for three years, which is more than some people who aspire to lead political parties can say.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
As he has indicated in his remarks, the document signed on June 9, 1990 committed the Governments of Newfoundland, Manitoba and New Brunswick to "use every possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990". Despite this, the government has indicated its intention to exert further efforts on these provinces by a motion in this House.
Does the Prime Minister not trust the commitment of those first ministers from those provinces? What is he trying to accomplish by this? It is the Prime Minister himself who chose the unrealistic deadline despite the warnings about that deadline. What is the Prime Minister's purpose in trying to bring forth further pressure on the people of Manitoba and Newfoundland?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in causing the government to
Oral Questions
introduce this resolution is to invite the House to do that which it was called upon to do in previous circumstances.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Before the hon. member arrived in this House there was a motion in regard to Manitoba. It was supported and seconded in a very eloquent speech by the member from Fort Garry when there was a problem in Manitoba. It called upon people to stand up and be counted and to make sure that documents once signed are honoured, and that is what we want.
It was asked for in the past in regard to serious questions in Manitoba. We have a serious question now. All the Canadian people want is for parliamentarians to stand up and be counted and to make sure that this passes in Manitoba and that Canada can go on to the great work that awaits us all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister saying that he wants this House to do something which he was evidently not able to do in his own negotiations? He rolled the dice, as he said, and set a deadline that could not be met. He is now trying to have this House pass another motion four days before the June 23 deadline.
I have asked repeatedly in the House of his government what the Prime Minister's plan is to deal with ongoing constitutional talks, and I ask the Prime Minister again today. We know what the Prime Minister's plans were in the past and they failed. What is the plan today? You owe it to the people of Canada to tell them.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated that I was going to be very careful about allowing any liberties in this exchange. I would ask the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to co-operate with the Chair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out to my hon. friend that on two occasions, some 48 hours after I first entered the House in 1983, Prime Minister Trudeau, supported by his Liberal colleagues, quite properly introduced a resolution that the House support the Government of Manitoba to cause to give effect to an undertaking that had been reached. The House spoke on this, I believe almost

June 19, 1990
Oral Questions
unanimously. I would have to go back and check the record.
Sometime thereafter, in February 1984, Prime Minister Trudeau communicated with me again, and he communicated with Mr. Broadbent, and called upon the House to debate again a resolution that would call upon the Government and the Legislature of Manitoba to honour its commitments given to the French speaking minority in the province of Manitoba.
On both of those occasions I rose and stood in my place, notwithstanding some difficulties, and I was counted. As I said to my hon. friend, it is important that all Canadians know where all those who seek to be leaders and who are leaders stand on these great national issues. That is all that we seek to do by this resolution.
On June 1 the leader of the NDP was asked: "Did the Prime Minister show you any polls or anything like that kind of information that would obviously jolt the two of you into coming out with this sort of unity-country scare scenario here?"
The leader of the NDP said: "I don't think we are coming up with a scare scenario. No, the Prime Minister didn't show us any polls. All of us read the papers. All of us have contacts in every province and territory in this country. I think we are all very well informed about the feelings in this country, the kinds of objectives in every part of the country. It wasn't necessary for the Prime Minister to create a crisis scenario-I know there is a crisis in the country."
That is what the leader of the NDP was saying three weeks ago. We are trying to deal with that crisis, and I ask her to stand and support us in that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, neither the New Democratic Party nor anyone in this caucus needs to enter into a debate about the importance of the unity of this country. The bottom line for the New Democratic Party is the unity of this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I ask the Prime Minister this question. He told this country publicly last week, after the First Ministers'
Conference, that he had a plan. We know now that plan did not work. We cannot have any more secret plans.
Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada, in this House today, what his plan is? Not the history of other debates, not what happened in 1984, but what is going to happen in 1990 about the unity of the country? What is he going to do? What plan is he presenting to the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, three years ago, in June 1987, we managed to secure a unanimous agreement, signed by 10 premiers and the federal government, which was then passed twice in the House of Commons. It was a process welcoming Quebec back into Confederation.
In the intervening three years, the time frame provided by section 39(2) of the 1982 Constitution, three governments changed. Two of them did not follow through; one revoked the consent given. I then had to work with my colleagues and with many of you to bring them together again, as we did last week. Again we achieved what appeared to be the consent, if not the binding obligation of 10 out of the 10, plus the Government of Canada.
At this moment, as we speak, eight legislatures representing 94 per cent of the population of Canada have already ratified the Meech Lake Accord. Newfoundland is going to vote on it, and Manitoba has yet to even take cognizance of it, irrespective of and notwithstanding the undertaking signed by the premier of Manitoba and the other premiers.
This is the history. I do not know why my hon. friend-


Some hon. members:: What's the plan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The NDP is yelling: "What's the plan?" The leader of the NDP said that the bottom line-and I do not quarrel with her statement-for the NDP is the unity of Canada. If that is the case, perhaps she could talk to the NDP member in Manitoba and ask him to pass the Meech Lake Accord.


CANADA POST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
June 19, 1990

It concerns the tabling of Canada Post's annual report yesterday through which Canadians discovered that this government has sold off $118 million worth of assets of Canada Post in order to achieve the sought after phoney profit this government is looking for.
Will the minister announce immediately that he will stop the closure of rural post offices in Canada, stop the selling of the furniture of Canada Post, and cancel the next stamp increase?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. member cannot join the rest of Canadians in applauding Canada Post management for its spectacular success. It would seem the hon. member was happier with Canada Post when it had a $500 million subsidy from the taxpayers.
The profits from postal operations were up $107 million last year. They were higher than the previous year, a spectacular performance. The hon. member talks about recoveries from the sale of some assets. He forgets to mention that Canada Post self-funded a $470 million investment program in fixed assets and other management systems and product development.
If he is going to talk about proceeds on sales, in that context he should also recognize the capital expenditures and most of all he should recognize the spectacular performance of Canada Post.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing spectacular about shutting down post offices that are serving ordinary Canadians.

In its last Budget, the Tory government abolished the Postal Services Review Board, the so-called watchdog for Canadian consumers. Is the Minister now prepared to at least reinstate the Board to protect consumers from the catastrophic policies of this government?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgot to mention that Canada Post has also forgone a planned increase of 1 cent.
He forgets to acknowledge that stamp price increases since 1984 have been less than inflation, therefore down. He forgets to acknowledge that the number of postal
Oral Questions
outlets have increased from 12,000 to 18,000. He forgets to acknowledge that everywhere, including in rural Canada, people by way of opinion surveys are saying that service has improved. He forgets to acknowledge that on all counts things have got better. I guess that is tough for a Liberal to bear.


JUSTICE
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Parliament of Canada Act prohibits senators from doing business with the federal government. In light of the police affidavits alleging civil and criminal offences against Senator Cogger, will the minister tell us what measures she plans to introduce to prevent even the appearance of such activities in the future?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am just a little confused by the member's question which appears to relate to something that is under police investigation. I do not quite understand her question. Perhaps she would be prepared to restate it.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat the question. I will repeat it in French or in English.

I repeat, this abuse of confidence is intolerable. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question to the Minister: What measures will she take to prevent similar scandals from occurring?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in either of our official languages I do not believe there has been any determination of this process. I think the hon. member's question is totally inappropriate and presumptuous.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in his responsibilities for the environment. Yesterday the minister tabled Bill C-78 to establish the federal environmental assessment process. As the minister knows, it regrettably does not provide for an adequate review of government policy

June 19, 1990
Oral Questions
and it deliberately excluded reference to existing environmental legislation such as the Fisheries Act.
Could the minister explain to Canadians why, after two years of drafting and a year of public consultation prior to that, cabinet chose not to include in the regulation section those trigger mechanisms, those pieces of environmental legislation such as the Fisheries Act that are necessary for the legislation to work?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised two questions, the question of policy and the question of the Fisheries Act. In terms of the question of policy I also tabled yesterday a fairly detailed statement of how government policy would be assessed from an environmental point of view. Those assessments will form the basis for a statement when government policy is announced. They will be referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment for full public airing should the committee decide to do so. I believe that is a very open process, a very fair process, and a process that provides the necessary forum for any concerned Canadian to make his views known.
In terms of the Fisheries Act, as in any other act, it is very clearly stated in the legislation that those will be determined by regulations. My hon. colleague is asking why. It is for a very good reason. This is a dynamic act. It will change over time and we want to have the possibility of including more and not less. If we cast it in stone at the beginning it will be a restrictive act and we believe very strongly that the environment is too important to be subject to an act that is restrictive. We want it much broader.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The act is so dynamic that it is like a car with no gas in it. I think someone in this House had experience with that kind of a situation.
Everyone, from environmentalists to industrialists, was hoping that some kind of certainty would come from the legislation and it has not. The minister does have the chance here in the House today, though, to give assurance that the 1984 cabinet guidelines order upon which the Rafferty-Alameda decision was made by the Federal Court and the Oldman decision was made unanimously
by the Federal Court of Appeal will stay in place and will not be tampered with by his office or by cabinet between now and the passage of Bill C-78.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think the government's commitment is very clear. If my hon. colleague opposite would take the time to read the legislation, he will see that Bill C-78 goes well beyond what we have in terms of environmental protection today.
All major projects will undergo mandatory assessment. Mandatory assessments are to include cumulative effects for the first time. Public registries will be maintained for all assessed projects. I could go on and on.
When we compare Bill C-78 to existing legislation in other countries which are advanced, as we are in this area, which we have done on 12 of the major elements of the legislation, we see that Canada ranks number one in the world.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulato-iy Affairs stated that the wage settlement arrived at for Air Canada employees which included protection against goods and services tax inflation up to 2.5 per cent was nothing new. Also yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that rising wages, especially for women, nurses, teachers and social workers, were among the leading causes of increased inflation.
In the wake of huge increases and bonuses paid to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, heads of corporations and senior officials, does the Minister of Finance really believe that Canadian workers, especially women, are going to sit back and not protect their families against the goods and services tax that is coming into effect next year?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to show where I said that which he attributed to me as a quote. He will have to show me precisely where I said that because that was not said by me at all.
June 19, 1990

I did say that at the provincial government level there have been settlements which have been leading the private sector and also have been higher than the rate of inflation. It is precisely that which is causing pressures on other parts of the economy, to which my hon. friend has referred on other occasions in this House, in the resource sector and the manufacturing sector.
If these pressures from the provincial sector put the competitive position of the resource and the manufacturing sector under pressure and cause us to lose jobs, we all suffer from that.
That is the precise point that I am making. That is the precise point that I think Canadians should take into account when they go into wage negotiations or when they are making pricing decisions, because we must get our costs under control in our economy if we are going to maintain a healthy future.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will undertake to get that information to the minister. It is taken from newspaper reports of his speech yesterday in St. Andrews.


Mr. McDermid:: Read the speech. You might learn something.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for privatization learned something yesterday in his answer.
I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, David Dodge, has publicly criticized the Conservative government's legislation, specifically the pension reform bill, Bill C-52. He has said that that legislation was very unfortunate.
Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to retain the services of David Dodge in order that he can second guess the minister's judgment as well as the government's legislation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for the quote that the hon. member has said that I made. I know what I said yesterday and I know that I absolutely did not make the statement that he is attributing to me now.
The key point here is that we have a slower economy. We have some pressures in the economy today but the point that all Canadians have to take into account in
Oral Questions
coming to decisions is that if we try as a country to take more out of the economy than it is capable of giving, we will all suffer. We will suffer through higher interest rates and through lost jobs.
It is for these reasons that I say to Canadians that we should use some good common sense in approaching these decisions so that we do not undermine the competitive strength of the economy.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Bankruptcy proceedings reveal that Route Canada owed the federal government $1.7 million in taxes and employee deductions. That amount has mysteriously become a mere $500,000, a reduction of $1.2 million. The minister assured us last week that a majority of the funds owing to the Government of Canada had been recovered.
Will the minister please explain to the House and to the former employees of Route Canada why the debt was reduced by $1.2 million? Where is the cash?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member's colleague on the Liberal benches last week, if they do their homework- and this is all public knowledge-they would find out that the federal government debt from Route Canada in fact was eliminated. Most of it has been collected. The remaining approximately $200,000 is guaranteed, held in trust by the agent for the Royal Bank.
As well, I am happy to repeat to my hon. friend that all back wages of employees have been paid in consultation with the agent. Having studied this case very carefully from day one, I can assure him that Revenue Canada made every effort to support the benefits, wages and wishes of the employees of Route Canada, all of which have been satisfied.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, we know from the bankruptcy proceedings that the government filed a document which reduced the amount from' $1.7 million to $500,000. This would only benefit the directors of the company, Ruhland and the Fingold's, and other secured creditors like the Royal Bank will save, in effect, $1.2 million, with the only losers being the Canadian taxpayers and the workers.

June 19, 1990
Oral Questions
Why would the government give a gift to its friends and sacrifice the workers?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can make myself any clearer than to say that all of the elements of the pensions and all of the back-wages of the employees have been satisfied. There were no gifts by this government, by Revenue Canada or any other department, to the principals of Route Canada.
In fact, as the hon. member knows, the situation is that some of the $200,000 is still outstanding. It is guaranteed by the agent. At the end of the day we could and would assess the directors under the directors' liability provisions, should those provisions be required. At this point in time we do not expect that to be the case.


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. As he knows, NRC has announced some considerable restructuring today with the creation of five new research institutes.
Gerhard Herzberg, the NRC's only Nobel laureate, says he does not know what it all means. We know what it means. It means that cutbacks have occasioned the need to function within restricted resources, as they keep telling us.
How many sections and projects such as medical engineering are to be lost? How many more scientists are to be laid off, and how many important, significant researchers of Canada are going to flee the country because they have lost their jobs because this government has cut back at NRC?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed not be as pessimistic as my friend is, but that is something that we are used to seeing on the other side.
Those institutes which will be created at the NRC today are for micro-structural sciences, national measurement standards, environmental chemistry, molecular sciences and information technology. All those institutes will reinforce the capacity we have to do
research. It is based on the result of an arduous evaluation process involving the staff and experts from industry and the scientific community.
I believe that the NRC decision is a good decision. It will reinforce what my friend reproached the government for many times, a basic research sector. I believe it is good for NRC and it is good for Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that is all very nice. There may be some merit in these changes, but my question to the minister was how many scientists are going to lose their jobs, how many scientists are going to leave the country.
There has been in process the development of a five-year plan at NRC. When will that plan be available? Will the minister allow the House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to have some input into evaluating that five-year plan before government chops it up and fires some more scientists?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in reply to the question about employment or staff cuts further to the restructuring announced by the National Research Council: they are completely out of the question. No staff cuts are involved.
Secondly, as for the NRC's five-year plan, I think it will be tabled when the science minister sees fit to do so. The minister will carry out the required consultations to the extent that he thinks advisable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. One of the Canadian negotiators of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Michael Hart, recently predicted that Canada would eventually conclude a trilateral free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Moreover, he came out with a positive report on it yesterday. He also maintains that without a trilateral agreement, the benefits that Canada derives from its free trade agreement with the United States will disappear as the Americans look south.
June 19, 1990

Can the minister assure this House and Canadian industrialists that Canada will participate in these negotiations so that it can adjust to any new competition that might arise?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not yet decided whether or not we wish to participate in any discussions or negotiations that occur between the United States and Mexico on a possible free trade arrangement.
As I explained to the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs yesterday, we intend to consult the provinces, the business sector, the labour movement, and members of this House before we make a decision on that. Of course we do not know whether or not there will be a free trade agreement between the United States and Mexico. There will be no decision made as to whether negotiations will be entered into likely until December. We certainly have, I would suggest, until the end of September to make up our own minds as to whether we wish to be involved or not.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the vacancy in the riding of York North, created by the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario on May 28, 1990.
The Prime Minister has already called two by-elections, one in Oshawa and one in Laurier-Sainte-Marie in Montreal, for August 13, 1990.1 wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House today if the people of York North will have a chance to vote early on a representative in the House of Commons. Will he call the election on August 13 for York North? He has until June 25 to call the election. Will he do it before that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the comment but I have not had a chance to give it the thought it deserves. I will and get back to him. If I thought that the soon-to-be leader of the Liberal Party were interested, I would like to see him in the House as soon as possible.
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of order. Earlier in the day, the government whip sought unanimous consent to revert to Routine Proceedings for some government business. Consent was naturally given. Because of the proceedings this morning, we missed the presentation of petitions. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to revert to petitions to allow members to present their petitions before we get on to other business of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has asked the House for unanimous consent to revert to petitions. Is there agreement? The hon. member for Calgary West on the same point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as the whip of the government party, I asked for unanimous consent this morning to table a committee report. I am not quite clear on the request. Is this a request to put a single petition on the table or are we looking at a whole lot of petitions that might eat up an hour or two? What is the nature of the request?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have not done a count but I assume there might be half a dozen members presenting petitions and since we missed it earlier, we may want to conduct the business in the usual way if there is unanimous consent to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present some 12,500 signatures from across British Columbia on petitions certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36, co-ordinated by Greenpeace and the Alliance Against Low Level Flights.
These petitioners join with organizations representing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, First Nations, labour, churches, peace groups, environment groups, and disarmament groups, in calling upon the government of Canada to cancel all low-level military

June 19, 1990
Petitions
flights in B.C. Such flights escalate the global arms race and cause pollution, noise and accidents that are harmful to people, wildlife, and the environment.
In light of this significant public concern in B.C. about flight route I.R. 910, the Minister of National Defence must refer the matter to a full environmental assessment and review. The minister has never given proper written reasons for refusing to refer I.R. 910 to an EARP and surely the Federal Court rulings on Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman dams, combined with the significant public concern in B.C., determine that this matter deserves such assessment and review process.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member was getting into debate and not just presenting petitions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a series of petitions from Coquitlam, British Columbia; Port Coquitlam and Port Moody, British Columbia, and other places in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The petitioners say that cable companies made an average 32 per cent profit on fixed assets in 1988, more than twice the level of the telephone companies. The reason is that the telephone companies are regulated and cable companies are not.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284 which I have presented, and which applies a rate of return regulation to the cable industry. In other words, regulate the rate of return to the cable industry, which will reduce the costs people pay for their cable television.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, the fight goes on against the goods and services tax from coast to coast to coast. People in Canada do not want this particular tax and they have requested a number of us to continue to present petitions asking that this government come to its senses and stop the tax and bring in a tax that is fair to all Canadians.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition under Standing Order 36, certified correct as to form and content by the clerk. The petitioners state that the offshore scallop fishery in Nova Scotia, initiated some 30 years ago, has been continuously the most economically viable fishery on the east coast.
They are urging that there not be changes made. If it ain't broke why fix it. They are urging that there not be an increase in the 12-day trip limit, that there not be a licence for factory-freezer processing vessels, and that we do not allow the banks to be decimated as were done in Norway by freezer trawlers.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to present today. First of all, I have many hundreds of petitions from residents of the national capital region, calling upon the government to withdraw the proposed goods and services tax. People continue to be very concerned about this.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, [DOT]another 350 petitioners are calling upon the government to restore passenger rail service in Canada through VIA Rail.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I have a very important petition from this region calling upon the federal government to enter into an equal partnership with provincial and municipal governments to implement a plan of action for the clean-up and maintenance of the Rideau River, one of Canada's most important historic waterways.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, finally I have approximately 6,000 petitions from people all over Canada objecting once again to the proposed clawback of Old Age Security and family allowance benefits, a matter which is still before this House.
June 19, 1990


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present three petitions under Standing Order 36 in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
The petitioners are residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, and are from the towns of Nakina, Geraldton, Terrace Bay and Manitouwadge.
On behalf of the 303 petitioners who rely on this isolation tax benefit, I must reiterate the importance of this tax deduction to northern communities. On the average, food and gasoline prices are 25 per cent higher than in any heavily populated area of Canada.
This tax benefit is the only compensation these people have. It should not be taken away. The government is presently studying the report. It is imperative that it rejects the recommendation presented in that report.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today signed by residents of the province of Newfoundland.
The first petition concerns the cuts that the government has proposed to the unemployment insurance scheme in Canada. It recites the promises made during the last election campaign in which the government promised that it would not change Canada's social programs, particularly the unemployment insurance program.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject changes in the program and to propose more meaningful reforms to concentrate on labour force development strategy, a full employment strategy and a regional development policy, all of which have been abandoned by this government through its proposals in Bill C-21. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals.
I am sure that had the people had a petition updated, they would have asked us to pass Bill S-17 yesterday instead of having it defeated by this cold-hearted government.
Point of Order GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with the goods and services tax.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax, which is the thirty-second unfair tax imposed by this government since it took office in 1984. It represents an absolute grab of money from Canadian taxpayers' pockets.
These taxpayers have had enough of these Tory taxes and call upon Parliament to reject this bill.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I have several petitions to present here today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of Haligonians who asked that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, the other petition on which I have in excess of 4,000 names is from women across the country who are asking that unnecessary legal restrictions which abrogate the reproductive rights of women and encourage disrespect for the law be removed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for a ruling on the acceptability of the motion on today's Notice Paper under the name of the Minister of Justice.
Specifically, I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether the motion which urges other legislative bodies to follow a certain course of action is properly in order, in light of the parliamentary convention restricting debate on matters before the other House.
Our House operates on a tradition, a philosophy which was developed over centuries in the British Parliament. From them we have inherited a wisdom of self-restraint in matters which should not properly be discussed in this House. For example, we restrain ourselves from rehashing questions that are already decided, from making

June 19, 1990
Point of Order
personal charges against one another, from casting reflection upon the conduct of judges and from referring to debates in the other place.
There are good reasons for this last category of discretion. We do not discuss Senate debates because we understand the importance of the two parliamentary Chambers not interfering with one another's decisions.
As Erskine May points out in the twenty-first edition at page 375:
Members are restrained by the Speaker from commenting upon the proceedings of the House of Lords.
The rule that references to debates of the current session in the other House are out of order prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.
This important guide is adopted in Beauchesne's fifth edition in citation 314:
The rule that allusions to debates in the other House of the current session are out of order, prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed;
We inherit this rule from a country with only two parliamentary chambers. Britain, not being a federal state, does not have independent legislatures with their own distinct areas of responsibility as we do here in Canada. This means that in applying this parliamentary tradition, it is important to not only apply the letter of the convention but also to apply the logic. How does this logic apply in a country with 14 legislative bodies? If we want, as Erskine May cautions, to prevent fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies which are unable to reply to each other and to "guard against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party", does it not then make sense to apply the restraint on debate exercise with respect to the Senate to the debates of other independent legislative bodies?
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how inappropriate it is for this House to pronounce itself on something which is outside the administrative competence of the government or the legislative authority of this House. If this motion is in order, and the House is permitted to debate the independent decision-making of the legislatures of the provinces of Newfoundland and Manitoba,
we will have destroyed this useful and important parliamentary convention. We will go beyond our legislative authority and we will infringe upon the rights of members of provincial legislatures. In essence, this House will be guilty of legislative battery, of assault by motion, and I ask you to safeguard the integrity of the relations among Canada's legislative bodies.
I think it is important that we recognize the comments of the premier of Manitoba, who last evening indicated clearly that he thought it was appropriate for the Parliament of Canada to be telling his government, his legislature and Manitobans what they should do on this very critical matter. I suspect that if others get in this debate, they might refer to the October 1983 decision when this House decided to pass a motion regarding language rights in Manitoba. That I do not think is a reasonable precedent because at that time we introduced and deemed the motion passed based on unanimous consent, which is not the case before us now. We also know that it provoked animosity and resentment in Manitoba regarding the interference in provincial affairs and the provincial legislature by the federal government and the federal House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to give this serious consideration and ask you to rule this motion out of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the hon. member's assertion in his point of order that the motion that is on the Order Paper would be out of order.
His argument is one that I find very interesting in that he alludes to the fact that it would be out of order for this House to comment on or make decisions on procedures in the other place or in other legislatures. Yet virtually every day in this House the hon. member and other members put questions to the government relating to issues that are before other legislatures that are a matter of debate or concern in the other House of this Parliament. In fact, often we have questions put to us here that deal with matters before the courts. Also, I think that there are ample precedents for this motion. The hon. member refers to one particular one, that is the debate in Manitoba concerning the language laws. He says that somehow, because it was deemed to have been
June 19, 1990

passed unanimously by this House without debate, that therefore makes it an exceptional case.
Mr. Speaker, the absence of debate does not in any way detract from the fact that the House was seized of the motion. The House was given the motion, it was found to be in order and it was agreed to unanimously, even without debate. Nevertheless, the motion was considered to be in order.
There is another case, if my memory serves me right. The hon. member on reflection may want to withdraw his point of order. It seems to me that on another occasion in this House, Parliament made a decision regarding the Moresby Island park in the province of British Columbia. If I recall correctly, not only did the House have such a motion encouraging the legislature of the province of British Columbia to make a decision or to at least be supportive of this issue, I think it too was supported unanimously. Even more important, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops who has just brought forward this argument. In fact, if we look at the precedents before this House, including one in which he was an active player-we were all very complimentary of his efforts at that time-his own precedents refute his argument.


Mr. Frangois Gerin (Megantic-Compton -Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops and I should add that the notice as presented not only asks another legislative assembly to ratify an agreement as is but it also suggests holding a second constitutional debate on which this House has not yet taken any position at all. I note, among other things, the following "open the process for Canada's future constitutional development including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and languistic rights". We could talk about the Canada Clause and all these other major amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. So I do not think that we can ask another legislative assembly to take such an approach and basically distort the whole debate that has gone on in eight other legislatures in Canada.
Point of Order


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I simply want to say in response to my hon. colleague regarding the South Moresby motion in the House that there were actually two differences in that case.
One was that we were calling upon the government for a certain course of action. In other words, it could take that action in any way it wished. We were not calling upon the legislature in the province of British Columbia to act. I think it is quite a different matter to be calling upon a government to take some action or to be virtually committing the legislature to take action.
Second, at that time we were calling for federal-provincial negotiations in order to carry out the establishment of the park.
I want to use this opportunity to say that we remember what happened when the federal House involved itself in the language issue of Manitoba when the premier of that province publicly stated that in no way did he wish the federal government to involve itself in the very sensitive issue at that point. There was animosity and resentment of the infringement upon what they perceived to be their jurisdiction.
I think it is not only dangerous to be homing in on an area where we ought not to tread and where our views are already well known at this point and at the eleventh hour, at a critical point in this very sensitive process, but inappropriate in terms of parliamentary practice.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a matter of interest.
So that all hon. members can fully understand what is placed in front of the Chair, I draw their attention to the Order Paper and Notice Paper wherein the government has indicated by notice of motion placed on the Order Paper that, although it has not been called for debate yet, a resolution relating to the constitutional accord and the results of the discussions of a week or so ago.
I will not read the whole preamble, but I will read the substantive part, which is the basis of the complaint brought to us by the hon. member for Kamloops. It reads:
- the House -

June 19, 1990
Point of Order
That is, this House of Commons.
-urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment,
The hon. member has said that this ought to be ruled out of order because, in one way or another, it seems to trespass into the realm, the area, or the jurisdiction of another legislative assembly within the Canadian Confederation, within our federal system.
First of all, he has put forward to the Chair one citation of Erskine May and another, I think, in Beau-chesne's fifth edition, if my memory is serving me correct.
I would point out to begin with that if we try to take Erskine May or even Beauchesne's, if it is referring back into British practice, we are dealing there with comments which involve the appropriateness of the British House of Commons debating what is a subject matter of debate in the House of Lords.
What is being asked for here by the government, although as I say the government may not even call it, but that is not for me to say, is that this House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland legislative assemblies to do something.
The question is whether or not that is an inappropriate trespass into the jurisdiction of another legislature.
It is not the first time this has happened and I draw attention to the motion in 1984 which, if memory serves me correctly, was urged upon the government of the day by members. It related to a matter which was divisive in the nation and in the province of Manitoba. I quote the motion.
It is true, as the hon. member has pointed out, that it was done by unanimous consent. That is of interest but I do not think that it is a matter that takes away from this precedent. I quote: "The House urges the government of Manitoba to persist in its efforts to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the province and protect effectively the rights of its French-speaking minority."
It goes on: "The House urges the legislative assembly of Manitoba to consider such resolution and legislation in an urgent manner so as to ensure they finally pass it."
We are not a unitary state as is the United Kingdom. We are a federal state. Under the British North America Act, which brought in our constitutional position in 1867, property and civil rights and a number of matters were given to the provinces and other matters were retained by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada.
So it is absolutely true, as the hon. member points out, that within the provincial legislatures there are a number of matters that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures across the country and of course that has to be respected.
The issue here is whether a motion like this is a trespass into the debate of another legislature. The motion relates to something which is absolutely fundamental to the whole nation and is just as important at the provincial level as at the federal level because it concerns the amendment of the Constitution of our country. It is not something that is exclusively related to the jurisdiction of a provincial government.
Even if it was, and I point out that distinction, what is being asked for here is nothing more or less than an expression of this federal House on a matter of great national interest in which it says:
- the House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment -
It is not for me to say what reaction there may be in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Manitoba if the House decided to do this, but I have to say on a procedural basis that it is very hard to be persuaded that that is some kind of a jurisdictional trespass into the appropriate workings of a provincial legislature.
As I say, this is a national issue. If the House of Commons chooses to express itself on a matter of national import-and it has in the past done so-I would think that it would be inappropriate for me to rule that it
cannot do so.
I also want to bring to members' attention the debate of 1987 to which the hon. parliamentary secretary referred, in which there was a motion from the New Democratic Party debated on an opposition allotted day which stated: "That this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside
June 19, 1990

the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve". It goes on.
That particular motion was debated in this House. Some hon. members will remember there was such unanimity within the chamber on it that long before the day that had been allotted for the full debate was over, at the suggestion of the then hon. member for Winnipeg- Bird's Hill and the then Minister of the Environment for the Government of Canada, the motion was put to the House at that point and the motion was passed. Debate then continued, but it was a unique and unusual day; there is no question about that.
I must say that that motion did have an effect outside this Chamber. It had an effect in terms of the province of British Columbia, the province from which I come. Of course there was an effect.
Again, what the House did here was call upon the Government of British Columbia "to co-operate in setting aside". One could say that that did not call upon the legislative assembly. Perhaps not, but it is a very direct plea from this House to a legislative assembly in a province to do something.
I think I have to take the position that it is not an invasion into the jurisdiction of another legislature. There is a difference here which probably distinguishes the case from those set out in Beauchesne's or in Erskine May because this is a federal state, not a unitary state.
Third, it has clearly been done before not just once in a while but quite often. Some members who have been here for some time will remember that it has been customary. It has happened again and again that members have risen in the House and urged the government of the day, whatever government it might have been, to make a public statement on matters of great national importance, and invited the government of the day to put motions to this House in order to make such a statement.
The hon. member for Kamloops raises a point which causes me concern, and that is that this process, if abused, may very well cause some difficulties and some resentment in some places. That is of course a political question, not a procedural one, and it is not for me to rule on that, but I have listened carefully to the point.
Government Orders
I also thank the hon. member for Kamloops for having given some indication to the Chair in advance that this point would be raised. It gave me a few minutes reflection in advance, which is always helpful and helpful to the House itself.
I see the hon. member's point. There may be political considerations that ought to be taken into account. I am always advised not to put my political hat on, so it is not for me to say, but procedurally I find that it is not appropriate to rule it out of order.

We also have an important statement from the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. He took a position in support of the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. I understand the hon. member's position, but I believe there is a difference between the precedents in Beauchesne and Erskine May and the situation before us today. However, I wish to thank the hon. member for his statement, which of course is still helpful to the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Otto John Jelinek: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Otto John Jelinek: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in making a few additional comments on Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act, which will benefit many Canadian businesses, particularly the import sector of our economy.

Government Orders
We have a situation where the rate of duty on certain imported goods is reduced retroactively. Consequently it is only fair and equitable that importers of those goods receive a refund from the duties that they overpaid during the period of retroactivity.
Over and above these refunds, importers should be paid interest on these sums since their financial resources have been tied up for a period of time through no fault of their own.
The act also provides for appeal rights where a departmental decision adversely affects an importer.
I believe these same provisions should be applied uniformly in all cases. In order to ensure equity and fairness, the appeal provisions should also apply in these circumstances. In essence this bill gives the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, the mechanism to grant the full benefits arising from orders made the Governor in Council. Unless this legislation is passed, importers will not receive fair and equitable treatment.
We have had some debate in the House on this matter over the last two or three weeks wherein members of all three parties participated, including some comments by myself. The bill then moved on to the appropriate standing committee where it was dealt with. It is now back in the House for third and final reading.
I hope that it will be passed forthwith since this is not a contentious piece of legislation but one that does indeed benefit a very important segment of our economy.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, several years ago the government introduced the harmonized tariff system in Canada which involved a reclassification of our tariff system along the lines of the harmonized system employed throughout the world.
Some importers or manufacturers that import products suffered an injury simply as a result of the reclassification in the new tariff system which was introduced. Several years ago the current government sought authority from Parliament, from the House of Commons, to compensate importers affected by this change in systems.
The previous legislation gave the government with the authority to provide such compensation for a limited period of time. As I understand it, this bill is to extend to July 1992 the date by which changes can be made to the tariff schedule to assist manufacturers or importers inadvertently injured by this reclassification of tariffs.
When this bill was debated at second reading we indicated that we fully supported the goals of this legislation, that our party was in favour of more liberalized trade internationally, and that this harmonized system of tariffs was indeed designed to ensure more liberalized international trade. Therefore we extend our support for the bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts), as reported by a legislative committee with amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are three motions set down on the Notice Paper for the Report Stage of Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts), two standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and one in the name of the hon. member for York Centre. All motions are in order. They will each be debated and voted on separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 5 to 8
at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"repealed."
June 19, 1990

He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the scope of the proposed Clause 1 effectively to strike out the whole of Section 230 of the Criminal Code.
The reason for this is that four courts of appeal in Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba provincial Courts of Appeal, have all declared subsection 230(a) to be unconstitutional.
In the Vaillancourt decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, subsection 230(d) was struck down by the Supreme Court. It was held to be unconstitutional. However, during the course of that decision the Supreme Court of Canada also criticized the balance of Section 230. They did not strike it down, but certainly they were critical of the other provisions.
Briefly, Section 230 deals with so-called constructive murder. This means that the mere act of killing another person during the commission of the underlying offence, even if death or serious bodily harm are not intended, would subject the killer to a conviction for murder and a mandatory life sentence. This is the so-called felony murder rule.
The Law Reform Commission has criticized this provision very seriously. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission, during their appearance before the legislative committee that studied this bill, recommended the repeal of all of Section 230 of the Criminal Code. That is the effect of the amendment which is now before the House.
I would hope, in view of the fact that this provision and the remaining provisions of Section 230 have been struck down by four courts of appeal in Canada, and have been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court of Canada, that we could show some leadership in these circumstances and repeal the whole of Section 230 and not just Section 230(b) which has already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaillancourt decision.
This will in no way weaken the criminal law and it will certainly reduce the risk of an injustice occurring.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the government opposes this motion at this time because it would have the effect of pre-empting the Supreme Court of
Government Orders
Canada's consideration of the constitutionality of Section 230(a) in cases now before it.
We would prefer to proceed in this very technical area only after we have the full benefit of the Supreme Court's views in this matter. Should the Supreme Court of Canada rule that either Section 230(a) or Section 230 generally is unconstitutional, the government would move quickly at that time to repeal the subsection.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to Motion No. 2.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 2 in the French version by
striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 1 and substituting the following
therefor:
"a) le chef d'accusation visant l'acte criminel autre que le meurtre decoule de la meme affaire qu'un chef d'accusation de meurtre;".
He said: At the present time, Madam Speaker, under Sections 591 and 589 of the Criminal Code, a person can be tried at a single trial for any number of murders or for any number of non-murder offences, but murders and non-murder offences cannot be tried in the same trial.
As indicated in committee, the principal purpose of this bill, as set out in Clause 2, as expressed in the English version, is to amend Section 589 to provide that where a person is being tried for one or more murders, he may be tried at the same trial for any non-murder offence that arises out of the same transaction as the murders for which he is being tried.
Unfortunately, in our view, the French version of Clause 2, as reported from the committee, fails adequately to convey the full meaning expressed in the English version of this clause. Hence, my colleague, the hon. member for York Centre, has proposed this amendment. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here to move it

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
and I am pleased to be able to move it in his name and to speak briefly to the amendment.
This amendment would have the effect of bringing the French version into conformity with the English version so as to fully express the intent of Parliament in adopting the bill.
The English version states:
No count that charges an indictable offence other than murder
shall be joined in an indictment to a count that charges murder unless
(a) the count that charges the offence other than murder arises out of the same transaction as a count that charges murder;
The present French translation of that is as follows:
New section 589.
589. No count that charges an indictable offence other than murder shall be joined in an indictment to a count that charges murder unless:
(a) both charges arise out of the same transaction;
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has proposed the following amendment to the French version of paragraph (c) only:
a) le chef d'accusation visant l'acte criminel autre que le meurtre decoule de la meme affaire qu'un chef d'accusation de meurtre;
Madam Speaker, the French text now is the same as the English text. That is not the case in the bill presented by the government and I ask the parliamentary secretary to support the motion by the hon. member for York Centre that I have the honour to present to the House this afternoon.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I recognize that this is a friendly amendment to do with translation rather than substance and does not propose any change in the substance of the subsection. It seeks to substitute for the present French version of the subsection a word for word translation from the English.
The wording of the present motion has been carefully considered by the legislative drafters. In their view, after considerable reflection, the French wording of the bill as passed in committee is still to be preferred.
I might add that when it comes to translation each version and each element of each version has to be read in its entire context in conformity with the normal rules applicable to each language. The French and the English text must be read vertically, and it is essential that no comparison be made horizontally between an element such as a paragraph, because the logical and grammatical structure might be different from one version to another.
In the present case the word les does not refer to all the counts that might be found in the indictment but to the counts that are specifically mentioned in the opening part of the proposed Section 589. Although taken out of their respective context, paragraph (a) and alinea a) do not have the same content, their respective meaning comes not from a direct comparison of the two paragraphs, but from a reading of the entire section. Therefore, we feel that the amendment is superfluous.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Kaplan) negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 17
and 18 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"transaction as the count that charges murder, and the additional count is either manslaughter, attempted murder or criminal negligence causing death; or"-
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment would have the effect of deleting subsection (a) from the provisions of the proposed Section 589. That would mean that effectively the section would read: "No count that charges an indictable offence other than murder shall be joined in an indictment to a count that charges murder
June 19, 1990

unless the accused signifies consent to the joinder of the counts".
The effect of this would be to delete the possibility of substantial prejudice at trial should the government's amendment pass.
I want at this time to pay tribute to the work that was done by the criminal lawyers association and in particular by a very distinguished advocate, John Rosen, on this issue. Mr. Rosen drew to the attention of the legislative committee that studied this bill and to the House some of the very serious implications of passage of the amendment as has been proposed.
It has been suggested that the criminal accused can always apply for severance, but of course the onus in an application for severance in a criminal trial is in fact on the accused. I suggest that this could work serious hardship to the accused.
There are a number of reasons for supporting this amendment which would in effect ensure that when an individual is charged with murder other offences are not being tried at the same time. There are three or four reasons for this.
The first is that there is a real possibility that the jury might be distracted, might lose its focus because of a number of other counts which are included in the indictment and will fail to appreciate the profound importance of what is at stake in the case of a murder charge.
The second is that an accused who faces a multiple count indictment which begins with the offence of murder will be viewed by the jury, even before the evidence is called, as a person of disreputable character with this long string of other possible offences.
As well, the rule concerning admissibility of similar fact evidence could be circumvented by the prosecution. Once again, this could lead to prejudice to the accused.
Finally, the evidence of other related criminal conduct which may be admissible as part of the narrative relating to the homicide will now be used to convict the accused of specific offences rather than permitting the jury to consider the evidence and its weight, if any, only on the issue of liability for murder.
As well, this proposed legislation could have a serious negative impact on police investigation in Canada. In most major police forces in this country there is a homicide squad, or at least a major crime squad, which
Government Orders
deals with homicide investigations. Routinely, the police will tell witnesses, people they want to get co-operation from in murder investigations, that that person does not fear any possible prosecution for other offences. That in fact encourages people to come forward to co-operate with the police. This could be jeopardized in fact if this government proposal becomes law.
Some people have argued, including the Law Reform Commission, that we can now allow joinder of counts because we abolished the death penalty and thus it is not as serious. The fact is that murder is singled out in the Criminal Code as a very serious offence indeed. It is the only offence for which there is a life term of imprisonment with a minimum time served before parole of 25 years. The criminal law recognizes that. I believe that criminal procedure should recognize that as well by not allowing a joinder of counts.
The reality is that probably the major objective of this bill is to ensure that a person who is involved or may be involved in an offence leading to a homicide is convicted of some serious offence, particularly in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vaillan-court.
I suggest that we adopt the amendment which I have proposed which would in fact delete the possibility of joinder of counts and that we as a Parliament look at more carefully defining the offence of manslaughter.
Those are my comments with respect to the amendment. I hope that the House will give it favourable consideration.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, if I can put my finely trained legal mind to this, I would point out to the member that any prejudice to the accused can be dealt with by severance of counts by the trial judge. I think he understands that.
This amendment is intended to restrict the number of offences that can be joined to a count of murder.
The Law Reform Commission, as the member has pointed out, initially took the position advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway as recommendation 13 in its Working Paper 55, the charge document. But as it testified before the legislative committee on this bill, it has had occasion to reconsider its position and now favours an expansion of the number of offences that can be joined to a count of murder. It testified at the

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
committee that it has now come to a position similar to the one contained in this bill.
On the basis of consultations held, the government is of the view that the subsection as approved by the committee is in accordance with the overwhelming weight of current views on this issue.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the concurrence motion to the House, 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 Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for Burin-St. George's-Fisheries; and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-Government Advertising.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are at the concurrence stage. Is there a minister in the House?


Benno Friesen: The ministers are in a cabinet meeting and one will be in the House shortly.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps it might be appropriate to suspend the sitting of the House for five minutes or so if there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 4.03 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.05 p.m.
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dorin:: I believe that you would find, Madam Speaker, that there is consent for the House to suspend the sitting until 5 p.m. for Private Members' Business.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


François Gérin: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent to suspend the House until five o'clock, may I call it five o'clock?


François Gérin: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead has the floor.


François Gérin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not consulted in any way, although I am here. I left my riding to come to sit in the House of Commons and I see that the government has no bill to present to us. I, who have not been consulted, am being asked to wait around in the corridors, I suppose, until the government-Well, I think I am here to sit. So let the government sit or adjourn until the fall!
June 19, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am in the hands of the House. The government can either call whatever other bill there is or the House will adjourn.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I think there is general agreement that we suspend until five o'clock for Private Members' Business.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I think it was clear from discussions among the three parties in the House-the government party, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party-that there was an agreement to call it five o'clock. But, under the Standing Orders, should a single member rise and object to that, then we as a House have no choice but to continue our work or to adjourn.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, you know and my colleagues know that I am always willing to consider such arrangements.
There are seven independent members in the House of Commons, and several more are expected to join us within the next few days. The government will have to get used to consulting with independent members if it wants unanimous consent.
Unfortunately, I was not consulted, and I am here to do my job. There are motions that could otherwise be tabled, but they should tell me, they should come and discuss and explain what the government's business will be for the next few days, and then I would be able to give my consent. Until that happens, however, I will not give my consent.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, may I ask that the House suspend proceedings for about five minutes and subsequently resume sitting?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Considering what was said by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, there may be unanimous consent for suspending proceedings for a few minutes to let the desired consultations take place, and subsequently, the House could resume sitting.
Government Orders
The Chair is in the hands of the House. The hon. member has the floor.


François Gérin: Yes, I think five minutes would be adequate, Madam Speaker. I don't want them to use this as an excuse to do indirectly what I did not want them to do directly.
If we want to have a discussion, perhaps this could be done while you are in the chair, for two or three minutes. If they explain what the future business of the House will be, in two or three minutes we can resume.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. We are in the House today to discuss bills and to engage in debate, and all of a sudden there seems to be a hiatus, apparently due to the absence of members on the government side and also to poor organization or failure to table certain business.
For the past few minutes, we have been wasting our time instead of getting on with the business of Parliament.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's response to the suggestion that we suspend the sitting of the House for five minutes, one of the difficulties right now is that the House leaders of the three parties are meeting, presumably to deal with the very question as to what the order of business will be for whatever time it is we will continue to sit here in Ottawa.
I am not sure whether in five minutes the member will be able to receive the kind of answer that I think all of us are looking for in terms of the over-all plans of the government for the next two, three, ten days or whatever.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague who has just spoken. There is a certain irony here. It seems to me that colleagues have been handling legislation and matters of the House with dispatch in order to clear the decks, as it were, for certain events that are taking place in Calgary, and to prepare for the closing of the session.
The fact that there seems to be a hiatus, as it has been referred to, I think is a sign of co-operation and nothing else. I would say that perhaps the Chair might consider taking a short recess in order to consult with the House leaders and to see what the situation is.

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
There are many events going on at the present time, some are of critical importance. I think the House has been handling matters with the kind of despatch that many of us have-


Benno Friesen: Longed for.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -longed for, as my colleague says. So I would urge that the Chair consider the matter, taking whatever time the Chair needs in order to bring clarification to this particular situation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the House leaders are meeting at this moment to discuss the business for the rest of the week and what may or may not happen.
I am sorry that I missed the intervention of the hon. member.
Normally, what we do when we have completed a couple of pieces of legislation and people have had adequate opportunity to speak, knowing full well that we would normally start Private Members' Business at five o'clock, is that we would seek the consent of the House to suspend until five o'clock. I am sure that in this case the hon. member, knowing his care for the institution and his experience in it, will not have a major problem with that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to assist the government in dealing with this apparent paralysis of the institution.
There is, as I understand it, legislation pending which deals with the question of firearms control in Canada. If the Minister of Justice wants to come into the House now and bring that legislation forward, we can debate it right now and deal with it. The people of Canada want this legislation. Let us bring it on now.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I would like an undertaking from the government that the notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Justice which concerns the constitutional question and urges the legislative assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland to proceed with ratification of the Meech Lake Accord will not be tabled either today or tomorrow.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House puts the Chair in a veiy difficult situation.
Our Standing Orders are very clear. Government Orders are to be debated until five o'clock, at which time the House will proceed to Private Members' Business.
If the government does not present some business, the Chair normally, as the hon. minister said, would ask for consent to suspend the sitting until five o'clock. I have asked for that consent. I have not received it as yet.
There seems to have been an understanding at one point that if a short recess were called hon. members could speak together and hopefully come to an understanding.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions. I can tell the Chair that we are prepared at this moment to proceed with Bill C-74, the amendments to the Fisheries Act.
We have chosen that particular bill because the minister is here. I want to assure hon. members that it is not our intention in any way to complete second reading of that bill, but simply to make sure that the House has some valuable work before it until five o'clock when we can proceed with Private Members' Business. I want to assure hon. members of the other parties that we will co-operate in keeping the debate alive until five o'clock.


FISHERIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans) moved that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead was here to work. He has already left-
An hon. member:: He has gone-


Mr. Valcourt:: In any case, Madam Speaker- Aha, he was hiding behind the curtains!
June 19, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I realize the hon. member rose. However, I am sure he noticed the Speaker had risen before he did to call the minister to order for making a comment he should not have made, and he knows that perfectly well. I think we can proceed. The minister has the floor.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker.


An hon. member:: You can leave!


Bernard Valcourt: Okay, you can leave, Francois!


An hon. member:: Gone again!


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, hon. members are aware that a few days ago, the government tabled in the House a bill to amend the Fisheries Act in order to achieve certain objectives, which are entirely in line with the commitment our government made in the Atlantic region not long ago, when I had an opportunity to announce the fisheries adjustment program.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I have been Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for slightly more than three months. Upon my appointment, I immediately went to the Atlantic region where I had consultations with people in the fisheries industry. I spoke to fishermen, plant owners and unions representing plant workers, and I met various ministers representing provincial governments throughout the Atlantic region. Everywhere it was clear from the situation in the fisheries that certain provisions in our present legislation were not really adequate to allow us to meet the objectives we, as the government, wanted to pursue in the Atlantic region.
When I went to regions like -

-whether it is Lockeport, Canso, or any area of Newfoundland, including Gaultois or wherever, people made the point to me and my colleagues that if we were going to really try to rebuild the fish stocks, then certain measures had to be taken. These must be measures not only in terms of putting more money into rebuilding fish stocks, or trying to put more scientific effort into trying to rebuild these fish stocks, but conservation measures would also have to be taken.
Government Orders
Among these measures outlined by fishermen in Atlantic Canada and also on the Pacific Coast, where I went a couple of days after, was the need for us to take steps to reduce the over-fishing, the discarding, the high grading at sea-things that happened in the past which had a bad effect on the stocks.
I am talking about the minority now, very few people, but for too many still a fine under the Fisheries Act was the equivalent to a cost of doing business. Looking at the dispositions in the Fisheries Act, the government decided that incurring a fine when the Fisheries Act is violated is not a cost of doing business. It proposed increased fines under this bill. Some will claim that they are very large, and they are. But that just goes to show how serious this government is about protecting the fish resources. At a time when Atlantic Canadians especially depend on this resource, it is unacceptable that we would continue to consider violating the Fisheries Act or a fine ensuing the violation of the act simply as a cost of doing business.
The bill before the House today proposes to increase dramatically these fines so that those who choose to violate the act can no longer consider that these heavy fines are simply a cost of doing business. Quite literally, the magnitude of these fines will ensure that violating the act will not be considered as a cost of doing business. Tribunals and the courts will conclude the importance that Parliament attaches to this act because of the range of fines prescribed in these amendments. We could literally wipe those who violate the act out of business with this range of fines.
The other aspect of these increased fines is that, and you know too often, Madam Speaker-

-there are people who want to take the credit for certain projects, especially in politics. There are people who like to brag and take the credit for what happens. Of course my government wants the credit for introducing amendments to the Fisheries Act, but my point is that the fishermen themselves initiated the amendments that were introduced today in the House. The fishermen asked our department, my colleagues and various members on both sides of the House to introduce strict measures to preserve this resource. Madam Speaker, I must admit that when the Prime Minister asked me to go to Fisheries and Oceans, I did not have a clear picture of our fishermen, either on the Atlantic or the Quebec or

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
the Pacific coast, and I had not really stopped to think what life was like for these people.
Before, I often travelled in the Acadian peninsula, in my own province of New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, around St. Marys Bay, in the Evangeline region of Prince Edward Island and in Newfoundland, but I never stopped to think how attached fishermen were to their line of work. People who want to believe that the proposed amendments to significantly increase fines will meet with opposition from the fishermen are wrong. They are wrong, and I must admit I was both surprised and relieved when during my visit to the Atlantic region, in every community, all the fishermen, all the groups I met showed this tremendous sense of responsibility. Our Canadian fishermen, wherever they are from, are very responsible people.
For instance, last year, quotas for northern cod were reduced. Of course, a number of experienced politicians in this House preferred to put the blame on foreign overfishing outside our waters or even inside Canadian waters, but the fact is that our own fishermen have also been guilty of overfishing. And this fact, together with foreign overfishing, has contributed to the significant decline in fish stocks in our waters. Once our fishermen realize that, if we want to rebuild these stocks and conserve them, we must take the proper steps to do so. My point is that the fishermen do not object to our increasing fines for those who want to plunder our resources and violate our fisheries legislation, because they are responsible people.
They are responsible people who, throughout the Atlantic and Pacific regions, know that unless the government takes clear measures to show its intention to conserve and rebuild these stocks, they will be out.
Why should these people make the sacrifice involved in going through the present perilous situation of the fisheries in the Atlantic Region if the government and Parliament do not support their efforts? And the best way to support our fishermen is to take action to update a law that has not been amended in quite a while.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that you will hear people say that these amendments to the Fisheries Act are not enough. Certainly, we could have waited months or years to develop a consensus within the industry and address
all the evils besetting the fisheries. Of all the provisions in the Act that could be re-examined and amended, we have a series in this bill that will be eliminated because they are no longer relevant, quite simply, to the industry in the present circumstances.
Just because the law as a whole would need additional study does not mean that we should delay adopting these amendments that are an important step towards resource conservation.

We have to look at what this bill is really all about, what are the highlights of the bill before the House.
In May 1989, recognizing that resource and industry were undergoing dramatic adjustment, the government under the leadership of my predecessor undertook to develop amendments to the Fisheries Act to meet the realities of today's complex fisheries.
The amendments in this bill are urgently needed, and that was the point I was making. It is not because other areas of the bill could also be subjected to amendments that we should refrain from moving now on these urgent amendments. These amendments are urgently needed. As a result, they are specifically focused to provide greater deterrence for fishing violations and for fish habitat offences, and to strengthen the effectiveness of fishery management including the collection of accurate fishing statistics.
I have talked about the increase in fines for fishing violations. We are going to be the country which will have the more stringent fines for fishing violations. It just shows how important we see this issue to be.
In terms of general fishing offences I use as an example what the trawlermen in Canso told me. They talked about illegal dumping of fish at sea. Another example is the misreporting of catch. People would go out to sea and fish for a period of time and then come back and misreport the catch. Today, before these amendments become law, if someone is caught illegally dumping fish at sea in a period when we know the fish are scarce and we have to reduce quotas or if someone is greedy and wants to pick up fish that will pay him more, to dump fish at sea illegally and maybe to bring back a load of fish worth $50,000 or $60,000, we will charge him with violating the act for illegal dumping and he will be
June 19, 1990

Government Orders
fined $5,000 at most. That is a joke. If he brings in a load of fish worth 10 times that amount, what is $5,000?
When I referred earlier to the cost of doing business, that is what I was talking about. If he brings in that amount of fish for big dollars and all he has to face by way of a fine is $5,000, then why not? The present act is almost equivalent to encouraging the illegal dumping of fish at sea.
That is what the trawlermen in Canso told me when I visited them in February and March after my appointment. The trawlermen in Newfoundland talked to me about misreporting northern cod. Given the fact that we had to reduce drastically the quotas in order to protect the future fishery, we literally encouraged these people to do so by not imposing penalties high enough. It was simply considered a cost of doing business.
This is why it is proposed in the bill that for these offences the current maximum of $5,000 be increased to $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment. That is a drastic increase. Those who choose to violate the Fisheries Act and jeopardize the future of fishermen in Atlantic Canada, as well as on the Pacific coast, those who choose to take the livelihoods away from the kids in Atlantic Canada who may become fishermen, and some of them will, they will pay for it.
I think the decision as to the laying of an information from summary conviction offence which can bring a fine of up to $100,000 to one by indictment which would bring a fine of up to $500,000 is an important step in our efforts to try to rebuild and conserve the fish stocks.
There are also options in this bill for second and subsequent offences to include fines and/or imprisonment of up to one year on summary conviction and up to two years on indictment.
The government decided because it was asked by the fishermen. I do not want to pretend that I am standing here as the great minister of fisheries who has decided all alone to do this. No, this is the Government of Canada, and this was started by my predecessor, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to answer the concerns of the fishing industry all across Canada that these fines for general fishing offences should be increased.
A lot of people complained about the fact that fishery officers were not really helped by the present act in that you could obstruct a fishery officer and get a fine of $100. Anyone wishing to violate the act knowingly could obstruct the fishery officer. The cost of doing business for the fun of it would be a maximum fine of $100. This will go up to $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment. There will be a big difference. I just cannot see the effect this will have on our fishery officers.
It is normal that when people talk about the fisheries they only look at the fishermen. They never look at the whole apparatus behind the fishing industry that makes it work. The real people out there whose livelihood is tied to the fish resource have to rely on good fishery officers. The officers themselves need support and need to know that what they are trying to do is worth something. Fishery officers attempt to prevent violations.

Or observe violations of the Act. If that person, Madam Speaker, in presenting himself to do his job is faced with people who say, "Oh, you're just a fisheries official! I'll give you a punch in the mouth," would the penalty be a $100 fine? Come on! What support do we give our officials? If our officials enforce the provisions of the Act, and they will do so professionally, I do not think they will take advantage of the situation to hurt people. On the contrary, they will know that when they discharge their responsibilities and do their duty under the Fisheries Act, whoever hinders them will be liable to a fine of up to $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 if found guilty after being charged. I sincerely believe that these measures will improve the enforcement of the Fisheries Act.
Now, Madam Speaker, there is another aspect of this legislation before us today that I would like to talk about a bit. It concerns the protection of fish habitat.

The bill before the House also entails amending provisions for those who violate the act by committing the offence of altering fish habitat. We know that in some places it has occurred.

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
For example, someone close to a brook or a river decides to construct a road or a bridge to gain access to his cottage, camp, or wood lot to cut wood, or a big company does so to gain access to its lodge or whatever. Why bother about this little brook or the river? They build a road or bridge across the river and literally not only alter but destroy the fish habitat.
How does the act deal with some who violate the fish habitat section of the Fisheries Act? The current maximum fine is $5,000 on summary conviction, and $10,000 for second and subsequent offences.
I submit, with all respect to my colleagues in the House, that this is ridiculous. We are a generation of Canadians in this Parliament who see people every day in Canada, Canadians young and old, concerned about our environment. Today everyone wants to be seen as a proponent of environmental protection.
Political parties and governments throughout Canada are addressing the issue. We can see it. It is an important one. We realize that this fragile environment in which we live is important for us, our children, and the future Canadians who will enjoy it. We have to protect it.
Under the Fisheries Act we have the sections dealing with fish habitat. Those who violate the act and destroy fish habitat will be fined $5,000.
In this bill we propose to increase the fine on summary conviction to $300,000, and on indictment, to $1 million. For those who choose to violate the act, who decide that they can destroy our fish habitat, it will not simply be the cost of doing business any more.
If you want to build a road across a river to access your camp or woodlot, you had better not destroy the fish habitat because you are going to be liable on summary conviction to a $300,000 fine, or indictment to $1 million.
Some will argue that these are steep fines. [Translation]
-they are much too high! No, they are not. If you do not want to comply-We can all talk about protecting our environment-Of course, in the back of my mind, when I talk about protecting fish habitats, I am thinking about my environment in general, but I am also thinking about fishermen and people who must depend on those resources. When I talk about people who build roads
across the river or bridges over streams, I can also talk about people who fish on the high seas, who literally throw harmful material in the water.
People will have to look seriously at how they treat fish habitats in future, because those who decide not to pay attention, who just do not care, will be liable to very heavy fines: $300,000 and $1 million-that is real money, even in Saint-Quentin! It is a sizable amount anywhere.
Once Parliament, with the consent of all parties, I hope, has endorsed these amendments to the Fisheries Act, it will send a message to the courts, to our system and to people that the Parliament of Canada is serious about wanting to protect our fish habitats.

We also know that people are guilty of dumping chemicals which are harmful to fish. It has happened in the past and it happened again recently. This was a little more serious. Currently, the fine is $50,000 for dumping chemicals that are harmful to fish. There is a fine of $100,000 on second and subsequent offences. There are no provisions for indictment. Not everyone out there is a lawyer and people should understand that when we talk about an offence under summary conviction, it is a less serious charge. It is going to be serious enough in terms of the fine or the jail term that can be imposed. Usually, though, the summary conviction offences are those that are less serious.
Those by indictment are more serious because of the act itself and the greater importance Parliament decided to put on those offences. For those who decide to dump chemicals that are harmful to fish, the maximum fine is $300,000 on summary conviction, as proposed in this bill. So we take it from a $50,000 fine to a $300,000 fine. On indictment, we take it from $100,000 up to $1 million. Court options, which do not exist under the present act, include up to three years imprisonment on indictment.
The present fine for failure to provide habitat information is a maximum of $5,000 on summary conviction, with a maximum of $10,000 for second and subsequent offences. We will increase this maximum to $200,000 on summary conviction and $200,000 and/or six months imprisonment for second and subsequent offences.
June 19, 1990

When one looks at the range of all the amendments and all offences dealt with by the courts, it gives increased flexibility for the courts to make additional discretionary orders on conviction such as payment of clean-up costs. When we talk about protecting our environment and those who deposit harmful substances, the court will be able to impose a clean-up cost on the accused person or corporation.
Let us deal with the area of tagging. The salmon is a species which is dear to the people in Atlantic Canada. If the salmon is not tagged, the current maximum fine is $100. The government proposes in this bill that the maximum fines be $1,000 and automatic forfeiture of the fish and gear seized. Again, we are sending a signal. The government and the Parliament of Canada are ready to live up to its responsibility toward the fisheries but we also have to take the steps to, as some say-

-put our money where our mouth is.

That is what we are doing with these increased penalties.
Another important aspect of this bill concerns the management of the fisheries in Canada. One can understand its importance especially when one reads the Harris panel report. This is the panel of learned Canadians, with one American and one Englishman, both of whom were very helpful with regard to forming this report. A lot was said.
There are two aspects to our discussion about the Harris panel report. There is the report itself for those who care to read it, and there is what the media says about it. A lot of people seem to think that the scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were severely indicted by the Harris panel. The media accused the scientists of having blown it, that they were wrong. The media seemed to attribute this conclusion to the Harris panel. I read it in the media, but Mr. Harris never said that.
Anyone who cares to read the Harris panel report will find that the Harris panel confirmed what the scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had said, but it pointed to the lack of good, solid data. It pointed to the inadequacy of good, solid information allowing the scientists to do their jobs more accurately.
Government Orders
In order to rely on our scientists, we have to allow them to get the proper and correct information on the quantity of fish out there, on the catch rate, on the effort and on the landings. Data is required. That is why in terms of statistical provisions, Section 61 of the act is rewritten to define who may be required to provide information and keep records. It defines the type of information required, the responsibility to keep records as prescribed by regulation or licence and how information may be sought.
In addition, fisheries officers will have the authority to examine records and books of accounts to verify accuracy of information.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is running out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member can wind it up at 5 p.m.


Bernard Valcourt: That is Section 61. It is being rewritten to define who may be required to provide this data. This information will help our scientists to manage the health of those stocks better. We will be able to have much better information for our scientists to analyze and to rely on in order to assess and inform the government on what the situation really is.
There is another aspect to these proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that I consider very important. It is in terms of enforcement and management processes. In this bill, there are provisions for broader liability for offenders. According to these amendments, license holders can be held liable for offences. Officers and directors of corporations can be held liable for offences.
That reminds me of Pat Fougere, a trawlerman in Canso who was telling me that on certain vessels-I will not say which ones-they were receiving instructions from the corporate headquarters to do things that were in violation of the act. We have corporations holding licence with the board of directors being responsible. Under the present act we cannot do anything against these people. They are the ones saying that something be done in violation of the act and because of the structure of the present Fisheries Act we cannot prosecute them. Under the proposed amendments, officers and directors of corporations can be held liable for offences.

June 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
I hope that I will have a chance to continue when the bill is next before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. minister's time has expired.

It being 5 p.m., the House will now deal with Members' Business, in the order set out in today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADA PENSION PLAN MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington) moved: that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (spousal agreement) be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to seek the consent of the House to pass Bill C-260 through second reading and on to a committee for study.
This bill has been more than three years in the making, so it is really interesting after that time to see it finally on the floor of the House of Commons.
Bill C-260 is intended to amend the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan was established in 1966 to provide a source of retirement income for Canadians. Since 1966, Canada Pension Plan benefits have been improved on a number of occasions. Canada Pension Plan credit splitting legislation came into effect on January 1, 1978.
The objective of credit splitting was to recognize that pension credits earned by one or both spouses during a marriage were a joint asset. It is recognized that both spouses contribute to the accumulation of the Canada Pension Plan credits during their marriage, either directly by virtue of their both earning credits, or indirectly by one contributing through work in the home.
We recognize that work in the home does contribute to family income and therefore to the Canada Pension Plan credits accumulated by the spouse who is in the labour force. The 1978 amendment, by permitting the splitting
of these credits, assured each spouse a fair share of the assets to which they both contributed.
For five years it was believed that the division of pension credits was outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Waivers in separation agreements or other similar orders which renounced future property claims were not binding on the Canada Pension Plan administration in that they did not affect the division of pension credits. This understanding changed as a result of an appeal to the Pension Appeals Board in the case of Preece v. Preece.
The Pension Appeals Board is the third and final level in the appeal process. Section 86(d) further states that the decision of the board, unless provided for elsewhere in the act, is final and binding.
In the June 30,1983 Preece ruling the Pension Appeals Board decided that the division of pension credits is subject to an agreement or a settlement that may have been reached by former spouses.
A February, 1990 report on pension reform by the National Council of Welfare states that as of September, 1989, only 21,267 applications for splitting under the Canada Pension Plan have been approved since the option was first made available in 1978. During those years there were approximately half a million divorces that should have led to splitting. Informal estimates by the Department of Health and Welfare suggest that at least 15,000 spouses could benefit from Bill C-260.
It is my understanding that since the Preece v. Preece judgment the Department of National Health and Welfare has been seeking a solution to restore the legislation to its original intent prior to the Pension Appeals Board ruling.
In the last Parliament the government introduced Bill C-116, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act, which came into force January 1, 1987. The passage of Bill C-116 restored the division of pension credits as a non-assigned right, unless a waiver is allowed under a provincial statute.
Unfortunately for the drafters of Bill C-116, those spouses who signed a separation agreement between January 1,1978 and June 4, 1986 were still left out. It was determined at the time that the information they received was correct. In 1978, when the original credit splitting legislation was put in place, I recall writing to all the lawyers in my constituency advising them of the credit splitting. In fact, National Health and Welfare and National Revenue continued to advise people that credit splitting was automatic and non-assignable for at least
June 19, 1990

two years after the Preece v. Preece decision. Bill C-260 will correct this administrative error.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare informs me that his department is reviewing its files on a case-by-case basis and in certain circumstances is using the Canada Pension Plan erroneous advice provisions to restore rights to a division of pension credits. However, the credits are not being split, they are being extended to the disentitled spouse creating an additional financial burden on the Canada Pension Plan. Bill C-260 would give the minister the statutory authority to credit split Canada pensions to those who were disentitled between 1978 and 1986.
The chairperson of the National Council of Welfare, on behalf of the council, has written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare endorsing Bill C-260.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, the excitement in 1978 when credit splitting was introduced. It was really a step forward for women. As a member of the 30th Parliament that introduced the credit splitting amendment I recall that it was the intent of Parliament that Canada Pension Plan credit splitting would be a non-assignable right. This private member's bill, Bill C-260, restores the original intent of Parliament.
This whole matter came to my attention several years ago as a result of a case brought to my office. I learned of several personal tragedies that resulted from a decision to waive the Canada Pension Plan splitting after the Preece v. Preece decision. To my surprise, once the word got out among some women's groups that I was working on this, I was inundated with correspondence from a large number of women who found themselves in the same position. In other words, they had been denied their rightful half of their spouse's Canada pension. So I began to gather information and discuss the matter with officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare. That is where we ran across what we refer to as an administrative error in the drafting of Bill C-116.
We worked away at it and had a good deal of consultation with officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I want to thank the minister and his staff as well as several people in the department for their aid and
Message from the Senate
assistance. They worked closely with my office and went so far as to assist in the drafting of this bill.
As well, I want to thank the critics for the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party for their consideration. When I was speaking to them I noted that as soon as I mentioned Preece v. Preece they immediately grasped the thrust behind Bill C-260. The National Council of Welfare immediately supported this bill and wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare supporting its passage.
I recently read again a study on poverty that was produced in 1988. It clearly stated that most elderly- and I use that word very broadly because when you are a senior citizen you are not elderly-unattached women are among the poorest in Canada. The passage of Bill C-260 will be of assistance to many of the women who, unfortunately, fall into this category.
I am pleased that everyone I have spoken to on the bill has realized that an injustice occurred. It was the result of an unfortunate error in the drafting of a bill. This bill, I hope, will return some equity and justice to the women who have been hurt by this.
I want to thank members who have spoken to me and told me that they support the passage of this bill. I have the support of the minister and his staff.
I believe the plan today is to have a member from the official opposition and a member from the New Democratic Party speak, and then I believe it is the intention of the House to pass the bill on to a legislative committee where, hopefully, it will move on and amend a federal statute. If it goes through that course, I believe it is going to be one of the first private members' bills ever to amend a government statute. We look forward to that. I thank you very much for your close attention.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:

Message from the Senate
Rideau Hall Ottawa
June 19, 1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th day of June, 1990, at 5:15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Smyth Deputy Secretary, Policy


CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kempling that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (spousal agreement) be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of my colleague's bill, Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan. I wish to congratulate my colleague from Burlington and thank him on behalf of many women who will benefit from this proposed change to the legislation.
The member for Burlington pointed out that among those most in need in Canadian society are senior, single women, many living below the poverty line. As he said, the intent of the original legislation was that the division of pension funds would not be subject to any agreement or settlement by spouses.
He pointed out today that half a million divorces have occurred in the period of time since this legislation originally came into being and a total of perhaps 15,000 spouses may be affected by this legislation. So we are not talking about isolated cases nor are the cases of senior women living in poverty isolated cases in this country.
I think that all of us here wish to do everything possible to try to support women in need as those needs exist. It is very regrettable that the Preece v. Preece case caused this source of problem in our society. We are grateful that there have been members in this House who were aware of this instance and who have worked
effectively to try to correct the error that has existed for these last five years.
When this bill comes back from the legislative committee and we deal with it here in the House, those who have been disentitled will be grateful for this change. We must all do everything we can to support this proposal, Bill C-260, as presented by my colleague from the riding of Burlington.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic caucus to support this Private Member's Bill, Bill C-260, which would solve one of the problems with the application of the Canada Pension Plan to women. The New Democratic Party advocates mandatory, automatic pension credit splitting. We would like to see even greater pension reform than is represented in this bill, but this is a good start and it does address one of the inequities.
In 1978, pension laws were changed so that Canada Pension Plan credits of spouses could be split upon divorce or annulment. A 1983 Pension Appeals Board decision declared that the division of credits was subject to separation agreements or settlements. Apparently some women signed away their pension rights without even realizing it as CPP credits were now interpreted as part of other assets not enumerated. This had the effect of disentitling those spouses who signed a separation agreement between the years 1978 and 1983 and who were granted their divorce decree between 1983 and 1987. Legislation introduced to remedy this problem applied only to those divorced after 1986.
The bill before us allows for pension credit splitting for those who were disentitled by the Pension Appeals Board after the Preece v. Preece case. It is estimated that 15,000 individuals may be eligible to benefit from this bill being enacted. Upon divorce the accumulated credits of both spouses are added together, divided and distributed equally to each spouse.
Both spouses contribute to a marriage. However, if a woman stays home to raise children, at that time only her husband accumulates CPP credits. Credit splitting recognizes that work that women do in the home is important, that that work in the home raising children does have value.

*s'
June 19, 1990

As a result of the Preece case, women could trade away about $10,000 worth of pension income for a few pieces of household furniture.
The statistics, of which the member for Burlington made some mention, concerning the poverty of older women are really frightening. One out of every two single, divorced or widowed women over the age of 65 is currently living below the poverty line here in Canada. The situation is especially bad for women who have spent long periods of time doing the nation's most valuable work, I would submit, that of raising children.
It is not likely to improve drastically with women spending the majority of their lives now in the paid labour force because the average earnings for women in the full year, full time labour force is only 65 per cent of what men earn. This has become worse, not better, over the past few years. According to the National Council of Welfare, the average man in the labour force has a reasonable chance of retiring with a full CPP pension. The average woman will be lucky to get 60 per cent or 70 per cent of what is now the maximum.
Women are poorly placed in Canada's pension system, whether they are part of the paid labour force or not. Many of the women who have retired in recent years are getting meagre benefits from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. Occupational pension plans only cover 37 per cent of women in the paid labour force, compared to 52 per cent of men. Women have a much lower average income than men and most cannot afford to put money aside into an RRSP.
Often women are made to rely solely or primarily on inadequate old age security cheques. That is why so many older women are poor. After a lifetime of contributing to society through raising children and performing paid and unpaid work, many are sentenced to poverty in their older years.
Our pension system is unfair to women and this Private Members' Bill we are discussing today is only a drop in the bucket of change. Even after this bill is passed, there remain many problems with the Canada Pension Plan in relation to women.
The government claims that mandatory, automatic CPP credit splitting is already in place. But this is really not the case. Spouses must apply to Health and Welfare
Royal Assent
for credit splitting. So few women know to apply for it that only 4 per cent of those who are eligible do apply. This is hardly automatic.
The National Council of Welfare, in its most recent report on pensions, says that as of June 1989, only 20,482 applications for credit splitting had been submitted and approved since this option was first made available in 1978. During that same period there were approximately half a million divorces in Canada.
One solution would be to improve the Department of Justice's collection of divorce statistics and information so that enough information could be collected by Justice to allow for truly automatic, mandatory credit splitting upon divorce. That way, one divorced spouse would not have to apply for credit splitting.
It is more complex to have mandatory, automatic credit splitting for common-law spouses as there may be no record of these relationships. The time limit for application, however, could be removed so that women who hear about the credit splitting option several years after the break-up could still apply for the credits accumulated during that relationship.
Divorced people have unlimited time to apply for credit splitting, but common-law spouses who separate have only four years to apply for credit splitting. After four years their pension rights are forever waived.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I am quick to point out that when the House resumes the hon. member will be able to complete her remarks. I hope my intervention has come at a point where the tenor and sense of her speech will not be lost. I thank her for her co-operation.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[English)
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
And being returned:
["The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights-Chapter 20.
Bill C-66, an act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals-Chapter 21.
Bill C-67, an act to prevent the importation, exportation and spread of pests injurious to plants and to provide for their control and eradication and for the certification of plants and other things- Chapter 22.
Bill C-294, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Brampton -Malton-Chapter 23.
Bill C-296, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Montmorency-Orleans-Chapter 24.
Bill C-298, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Elgin-Chapter 25.
Bill C-308, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Selkirk-Chapter 26.
Bill C-309, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Surrey-White Rock-Chapter 27.
Bill C-310, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval -Chapter 28.
Bill C-311, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval-des-Rapides-Chapter 29.
Bill C-305, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Gloucester-Chapter 30.
Bill C-307, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Langelier-Chapter 31.
Bill C-312, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Duvemay-Chapter 32.
Bill S-16, an act to amend the act of incorporation of The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Bill C-75, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991-Chapter 33.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kempling that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (spousal agreement) be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has four minutes left in debate.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure what was going on when the knock came at the door, so I am sorry if I did not stop when I was supposed to.
To continue, in 1988 Saskatchewan passed a law to override mandatory credit splitting. The pension rights of women in Saskatchewan are subject to separation agreements, which goes to show just how seriously further pension reform is necessary. We know that we must look more carefully at homemakers' pensions. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women advocates homemakers' pensions and set up a special lobby session with a few MPs on this issue. I was pleased to participate in that session.
New Democrats stand for pension reform that would guarantee an adequate pension for every Canadian. We have a record of achievement in pension reform of more than 50 years. In 1926 the old age pension was enacted because J. S. Woodsworth, the first leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the parent party of the New Democratic Party, insisted upon it in a minority government situation. It was New Democrats who placed unceasing pressure on another government in 1966 to bring in the Canada Pension Plan. In 1973 New Democrats won from a minority government the full indexing of the Canada Pension Plan to help pensioners keep up with inflation.
This is something that the Conservative government tried to take away in 1985. I would like to see a commitment from this government to real pension


reform. Seniors are demanding decent pensions for their lifetime of work in our society. Instead this government is clawing back at their income security programs and the old age pension. I am pleased to support the bill. The New Democrat caucus is pleased to support the bill. It will solve one of the inequities women in our society face. What we need is real comprehensive pension reform.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burlington for the work done over the past three years on this issue. He indicated some surprise at the number of women who contacted him who were in the same situation as the first constituent who contacted him. Also, he indicated some surprise at the lobbying received from women's organizations that contacted him once it became known that he was working on this issue. I would say that that goes to show the power, the advocacy and energy of women in this country once they know that someone is taking up an issue of real concern to them.
I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Burlington. I am pleased, as he indicated, that the government plans to support this bill and he has the support of all three parties in the House.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to see if there was another member who wished to speak. I do not want to use all the time. I would be prepared to allow the other member to share the time remaining in this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Why do you not
split it up? You have 15 minutes.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Northeast rose first. I am prepared to yield to him. I will take whatever time is left.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member who said he would speak later that we have an arrangement with other parties to pass this bill to committee. I hope it is not the intention of the hon. member to talk it out.


Alex Kindy: The hon. member for Burlington need not worry for I support his bill. I think it is a good measure
Private Members' Business
and I have no intention of killing his bill. I think it is a good bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might make a small suggestion to the House which, I think, will solve the problem. We might hear the member for Calgaiy-Northeast (Mr. Kindy) and, when he finishes his remarks in a few minutes, we would listen to the last member on the conservative side.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In that case I recognize the hon. member for Calgary-Northeast.


Alex Kindy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burlington for introducing this bill which will certainly help women in distress. As the previous speakers so eloquently pointed out, there is a lot of divorced women. Apparently there are half a million divorce cases in Canada. Quite a few women live under the poverty line. This is why I think the bill afford fairer treatment to those who must share pensions.
I wish the situation of people living under the poverty line would improve because it is essential. I would suggest that the government now has a bill which will solve this pension problem. I am sure this legislative measure will be effective and help people who need money.
The hon. member for Burlington was chairman of the committee when I submitted my bill on the referendum and he did not have the courtesy to support it, as I support his bill today. He said then it was not necessary, that we did not need referendums in Canada. I point out to him that a referendum right now in Canada could resolve the constitutional problems Canada is facing.
For this reason, I hope he will grant me the courtesy of supporting my motion on referendum when it comes before the House. So I congratulate him once more. I think Bill C-60 is a excellent piece of legislation and I support it wholeheartedly.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that after a few brief remarks I intend to allow this bill to move forward to a legislative committee where it can be examined in greater detail.

Government Orders
As members speaking on this bill prior to myself have talked about the need for it and how it came about, I might give a little additional background in the area that was not addressed so far in regard to the court decision.
That is something that the legislative committee will have to examine very carefully when it deals with this matter. In principle what we seek to do in this House is to redress unfairness. Speakers prior to myself have managed to demonstrate that circumstances were unanticipated both when the original bill was put forward as well as when the amended Bill C-16 was later introduced with the result that people who thought they would be eligible to receive benefits from the Canada Pension Plan have found that they cannot.
I think we must be careful in trying to redress that unfairness that we do not, in any way, set a precedent where we restrict people from entering into agreements which they, with full knowledge, would like.
Presumably what the original bill intended was that Canada Pension Plan benefits were not assignable rights. In other words one could not waive the right to receive them.
The question we would ask ourselves is if an individual who is knowledgeable of their own situation, has proper legal advice, and decides to enter into an agreement, under what circumstances is it appropriate for this House and this Parliament to restrict a Canadian from entering freely into that agreement.
It was in that vein that the court in reviewing this case stated the following: The facts show that the former spouses have, in three instances, entered into settlement agreements or minutes of settlement, whereby they have undertaken not to make further demands on the property of the other. The fourth has the order nisi approbating the division of property and granting maintenance after a hearing but on the basis of a consent judgment.
The decision of the minister purports to overlook or set aside such agreement or adjudication. The facts show that the parties to the minutes of the settlement and agreements were sui juris.
All parties were represented by counsel in the negotiations, culminating in the settlement agreements or consent judgment and are thereby presumed to have had
proper advice and instruction as to the intent and effect of the agreement into which they entered.
There was no allegation of fraud or undue influence. Essentially, we are considering whether an agreement made properly between parties who are sui juris, can be altered by the provisions of a statute. Here we are dealing with divorce cases and under ordinary circumstances in divorce the jurisprudence is clear that an application under Section 2 of the Divorce Act can succeed to vary the terms of a decree nisi and settlement agreements for minutes of settlement, but that is a specific statutory provision and, in our view, is not applicable in these circumstances.
They went on to discuss this case and I do not want to go on at great length here today because I want to ensure that this matter can go forward to the appropriate legislative committee to be discussed. But I would urge that that legislative committee, in considering this, does review very carefully the findings of the court because I think they point out something that has been of historic understanding within the common law system and that is the right of parties to enter into contracts. We should be careful that nothing in this House destroys that basic principle under which we have been guided for many, many years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration at second reading of Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
June 19, 1990
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-74 amending the Fisheries Act. I was not expecting to speak today because I thought we would examine this bill sometime next week. However, the debate has started, the Minister has explained his bill and we are now ready to discuss it.
As the Minister has explained, this bill proposes changes to the various fines faced by fishermen who violate the law. The first amendment is designed to increase fines for general fishing violations. At the moment, offenders are liable to a $5,000 fine or a 12 month prison sentence in some cases. The new bill increases that fine to a maximum of $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that many representatives of the fishery industry had requested such long-awaited changes. When the minister introduced these amendments last week, he said there was an urgent need to adopt them because the people in the industry had been waiting for quite a while. That is true, they did.
Well then, I have only this simple question to put to the minister: Why has it been so long? It is not the first time that we talk about making those changes. Other changes will deal with, as the minister was telling me, people who obstruct or hinder a fishery officer. At the present time, such people are liable to a fine not exceeding $100 or six months of forced labour on summary conviction. With the amendments, the maximum fine would be $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, our fishery officers need some protection. They also need some degree of authority and the means of carrying out their duties. Of course they need protection, and I think that everybody in the fishing industry-fishermen, plant workers and trawlermen- recognize that need, since the fishery officers are in fact working for the protection of the fisheries, that is the protection of a resource on which the Atlantic fishing communities depend so much.
Pollution of fish habitat is also mentioned. There again, an increase is proposed, from $50,000 to $300,000 upon summary conviction and up to $1 million for an indictable offence. All those who are concerned about
Government Orders
the environment, and I mean all fishermen, all men and women who work for plants in my riding, in the Atlantic area, on the west coast, worry because the dumping of harmful substances in the oceans, and in rivers, threatens the very resource they depend on to earn their living and put food on the table. So I agree the measures brought forward must apply.
Other fines are provided, and there are clauses on information returns. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, we expected to debate this bill later, in weeks to come, and we did not have the time to make a complete and thorough study of it.
According to a provision on information returns where changes are proposed, people could be required to provide information or keep books up to date, and it could be specified what type of information is required, the responsability of keeping books as required by regulations or conditions of licences and how to collect the information. I have some reservations here, Mr. Speaker, because that could become a very heavy burden for small undertakings and for some fishermen who have small boats and manage what are in fact small businesses. So we would have to know.

The bookkeeping requirements of Bill C-74 are extremely stringent. For instance, Section 61(2) states that fishermen and purchasers shall be required to keep records of the number, sex, size, weight, species, product form or other particulars of any fish caught. Other information required will include the time and place of landings, the type of gear, buildings, and other equipment used in the process.

Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, when we have to determine the situation of our stocks, the number of fish in the oceans and in different species, we need as much information as we can get. But I am concerned that these requirements will be a heavy, a very heavy burden to carry for some companies, and we reserve the right to take a second look at this and move amendments in due time.
Now, as I was saying, generally speaking, this bill meets a certain need. This bill will make happy some people active in the fishing industry. It is certainly not perfect and of course we will try to improve it when we

Government Orders
examine it so that it better meets the needs of the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast.
We are talking about penalties and surveillance, but we must have the personnel to carry on that surveillance. That is where the shoe pinches on the Atlantic coast as well as on the West coast.
We have heard a lot about surveillance recently and especially about the inadequacy of that surveillance in relation to the ground fish crisis and, above all, the northern cod. The control was inadequate simply because we did not have the boats and vessels to ensure that the Canadian laws concerning catches and quotas were respected. There was nobody there to stop foreign fleets from coming and plundering-yes, plundering is the word, Mr. Speaker-our fish stocks. Those people were coming and going as they pleased in and out of the 200 mile limit and we did not have the personnel or the boats to stop them from doing so.
By the way, the Harris report to which the minister alluded earlier mentions that and proposes some recommendations.
To go back to the matter of surveillance, the minister, when asked questions here in the House on several occasions, talked about a contract recently awarded to a private firm. That firm would do surveillance within the 200 mile limit, a job that was performed previously by tracker aircraft based in summerside.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you know that the $28 million contract that was awarded will not replace the surveillance work that the tracker planes did for the fishing industry, although the government says it will do more than that. And you also know that, when the contract was awarded, the call for tenders was done in a such a way that only one firm had the equipment required and could in fact provide those services to the government. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, that $28 million contract went, we are told, to friends of the government who are now giving us surveillance services. But that was mentioned in Recommendation 22 of the Harris report which says, I think, that the govemement of Canada should have additional patrol boats for its offshore surveillance operations in order to take immediate actions when offences are reported by trackers or observers, and that helicopters should be used in conjunction with smaller patrol boats for inshore surveillance.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, even if we have trackers to fly over our fishing banks at the 200-mile limit, allowing us to see what is going on in those areas, those planes unfortunately cannot land and arrest anyone in breach of the law. So, we need patrol boats which could react on the spot to what the pilots see from the trackers. That is exactly what Recommendation 22 in the Harris report is all about; a small increase in the number of patrol boats. Even if the minister increases the fines imposed on anyone committing an offence, first the fishing officers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to be able to arrest the offenders on the spot. What good is it to observe an offence being committed if we do not have the means to arrest the offenders; it's a waste of time and energy. We can come back to base and say: "Well, we did see offences being committed, but there was nothing we could do about it." Unfortunately, that is what is happening with the northern cod and other species.
When the minister spoke earlier, he did mention the Harris Report, but he also alluded to the effort made by scientists. Apparently, scientists were blamed in newspapers and in reports for having supplied inaccurate information to the various committees whose mandate it is to establish the total allowable catches. These committees need a great deal of information on the health status of fish stocks, something which is not easy to gather.
What the minister meant, of course, was that these scientists are not to be blamed, and I agree with him, even though the information they supplied was not completely accurate. They had to make do with the means available to them. And that is the problem, for in the last few years the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not put the necessary funds into this scientific endeavour. People had to make do with limited means, which could only give results at some variance with hard facts. And that is exactly what happened; we got into a situation where the information available to us was at a very large variance with the catches, with real numbers. That is when we realized that our stocks of northern cod were in a very bad shape and that we had to reduce fishing as soon as possible.
I wanted to make that point, Mr. Speaker, in order that we do not attack the scientists. They have done the best they could with the means available to them.
June 19, 1990

Speaking about his bill, the minister also said that he had tabled it as part of the Atlantic fisheries adjustment program. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when that program was announced, that the government spoke very highly of it and said of course that it was the solution to many of our problems. We talked about $130 million, $426 million and even about a program worth $150 million, which were of course comprised in the $426 million for the restoration of our fish stocks. We talked about the amount of $130 million for an adjustment program to today's context, and about $146 million for economic diversification.
The government used a lot of numbers twice, Mr. Speaker. They were announced more than once, and it seems to be a lot of money. People believe we will just solve all the problems. Well, such is not the case. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time being, nothing much is happening in terms of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program.
When the announcement was made, certain communities were mentioned; it was said then that the governe-ment would give millions of dollars to people, that is the workers of St. John's, the employees of fish plants, the people of Grand Bank, of Trepasse, and even communities of Nova Scotia like Canso, North Sydney, and Lockeport. However, Mr. Speaker, you know that in the Atlantic, these are not the only communities that have to deal with the serious problem concerning fisheries. And they asked the Minister why so many communities had been forgotten? In certain cases, fishermen cannot yet go out to sea. They are locked in by the ice. I remember very well the questions that my colleagues of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were asking te Minister: What are you going to do for those communities not specifically identified in the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program? Mr. Speaker, you heard it yourself, they were telling us that the solution lies in Bill C-21, the bill that proposes very major changes to the unemployment insurance program.
Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans chooses to hide behind this false argument that bill C-21, if passed, would solve the probelms of these people. I suggest that, on the contrary, Bill C-21 would only make people's lives in the Atlantic area more complicated. Why? Because it is a high unemployment area. It is certainly not as developed as
Government Orders
other areas in Canada and although we are not resentful, we should like to get our fair share. But even before setting up the mechanism to help us catch up with the other areas, the government has decided to deprive us of our livelihood. That is exactly what Bill C-21 is doing, a bill meant to reduce the unmemployment insurance benefits available to various people in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that back home, in my own Beausejour riding, it is going to hurt. It is going to hurt badly.
Why? Because now people are just stuck in a one way dead-end street. As you know, in Atlantic Canada, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to get over ten weeks of employment. No matter how hard people try, the jobs are simply not there. They simply do not exist.
As a matter of fact, as recently as last week, I received several calls from people who were wondering what was going to happen with the unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Plourde:: Ask the senators!


Fernand Robichaud: No. The senators just sent us Bill S-17 on which we voted yesterday and which would have made it possible for people in Atlantic Canada to qualify with ten weeks of employment entitlement which was the rule in the past. Why would they now no longer qualify with ten weeks? Well, the government has refused on several occasions to renew this bill dealing with variable entrance requirements as was done in previous years. It was done every year. Before the end of the year, they would renew this bill and people in areas with high levels of unemployment would qualify with 10 weeks of employment entitlement. This was the case back home. If you work in the lobster industry, the working season is limited to 10 weeks. It is out of the question to go fishing and say: "Well, this year, because we need to qualify for unemployment benefits, we are going to fish for 15 or 16 weeks." It is impossible. The lobster season only lasts 10 weeks and for a number of reasons, mainly because a longer season would deplete the resource.
Even though our factories process lobster from other areas, because the fishing season is not the same everywhere, there is hardly enough work for 12 weeks. But the government seems to be completely unaware of that

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
fact. I can assure you Mr. Speaker that those workers do want to stay home, they have no other choice. We prevent them from earning entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. Like all the members of this House, nowadays families need two salaries to get by. Even with two pay cheques it is hard to make both ends meet. So, you can imagine what happens to the people working in greenhouses who called me last week-end. They were among the lucky few who could work for 14 weeks.
They called the Manpower Centre, the unemployment insurance office to find out what was going to happen to their application. They were told that they were not eligible, that they needed 20 weeks. Then they called me and said: "Well, what do I do with this?" I am out of a job, I am not eligible for unemployment insurance, I called everywhere but I couldn't find a job". I know people called, because they asked my office for addresses. But the truth is, there are no jobs to be had. These women were telling me: "What are we going to do? Are we going to stay home? And if so, who is going to put bread on the table? How are we going to clothe the children, run the household? We cannot work and we are not eligible for unemployment insurance". All they can do is wait until the unemployment rate reaches 11.5 per cent. At that stage, they will be eligible with 14 weeks.
But if the government had agreed every time it was presented with a bill on the variable entrance requirement and had passed this bill as in previous years, these people would not now find themselves in such an untenable situation. You must talk to these people. You must talk a little with them to understand what they are going through. I certainly would not want anyone here to be in such a situation. Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is not big bucks! Say you work for $6 an hour 40 hours a week, that makes $240 a week. If you work for 10 weeks, you earn $2,400 gross. Well, $2,400 is not a lot of money! You apply for unemployment insurance and if you are fairly lucky-but now, with 10 weeks, you do not qualify. That means that you will have to tiy your best to make ends meet with that money. In many cases, it is just impossible.
Mr. Speaker, just to make you aware of the government's insensitivity, yesterday, it again refused to support Bill S-17, which was intended to do what people in my area expected, namely to change or apply a new regulation for the variable entrance requirement. Too bad it was a wasted effort.
I was talking about the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program. We had warned the government several times about the impending crisis. We saw it coming.
We were asking them, in fact, to do an indepth study of the situation and they assured us that consultations were going on with all those involved. But when you take a look at the program, you realize that it contains serious deficiencies. The lobster industry has been completely left out of it. Everyone knows that the industry is in a crisis. Last spring, at the opening of the fishing season, that is on May 1st, in the Acadian peninsula, in certain areas of Prince-Edward-Island, lobster traps were launched and a few days later fishermen brought back lobster which would be sold for $1.25 a pound. M. Speaker, no fisherman could make a living selling lobster at $1.25 a pound. It would be better for him to leave the traps at the bottom of the water. But they have no choice. They have to bring them back to the surface and, in spite of those low prices, sell them at $1.25 a pound.
It does not even pay for costs. Fuel costs were higher, and I must say again here that the government made things worse by repeatedly raising the excise tax on fuel. We cannot buy a boat, of course, at the same price as in the past. This increased, too. Fishing gear and lobsters traps that we could make for 5 dollars cannot be had for 5 dollars anymore. It is now 40 or 50 dollars. Where in the past we could buy bait-normally, a fish of lower quality we used to have for almost nothing-we now pay 30 cents a pound. And how much do we need every day? On average, between 200 and 300 pounds, depending, of course, on the catches, on the weather which may swing the traps around on the bottom. With those costs fishermen can absolutely not survive when the price is at $1.25 a pound.
We had warned the government against the low prices that we saw coming. Why? Because many factors were telling us that prices would drop. We had heard that the Americans would limit imports into the United States of lobsters less than 3 1/4 inches long. We talked about it here in the House last September. We had drawn this situation to the attention of the Prime Minister who was going to meet with the President of the United States shortly thereafter. You certainly remember that meetings in Kennebunkport. The Prime Minister had assured us, here in the House, that he would raise this question with the President and that he would see to it that this measure would not be implemented. Well, it was not a
June 19, 1990

surprise because, in many cases, we have good reason to question the Prime Minister's efforts. His plan did not work.
The Minister for International Trade also gave us the assurance this measure would not go any further. He could have saved himself the trouble. It just did not work, which means that today, the lobster we used to be able to export to the United States-a little under three and a quarter inches-which was marketed live, is now a glut on our own market and has to be processed either by freezing or canning. It means adding to the inventories packers already have. Of course, U.S. distributors knew perfectly well what was going to happen if this measure was passed. They were just waiting, not buying. Not until recently did inventories start to go down. Prices are now increasing. We would have liked to see the government intervene, but not by throwing money at the problem. I agree that money is not the solution.
In this case, however, the government could have intervened through the Fisheries Prices Support Board by setting a minimum price for lobster. This wouldn't have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Inventories weren't that high. The government could have intervened. This would have had the effect of immediately stabilizing the market. We could have raised the prices, and the fishermen would have been paid $1.25 per pound.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you were a fisherman, and this summer-in my area, the season starts on August 10 and goes on until October 10-you realize you will have to do all that hard work, and fishing is hard work. You get up with the sun to be on the fishing grounds early in the morning. Then you do all that hard work and sell your lobster for $1.40 or $1.50 a pound- I must say, Mr. Speaker, that is not very encouraging.
No more so than for the plant workers who will have to return or have already returned to the labour market and who are unable to work more than 12 to 13 weeks, and even after working in these factories, they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. Imagine how you would feel in such a situation. It is not fun. The future is not too
Government Orders
promising. Nevertheless, those are the situations facing people, fishermen and plant workers in the fishing industry. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will be sensitive to the needs of these people and will do the right thing so that the unemployment insurance bill does not punish the people in these regions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to return to Bill C-74, we will certainly continue to discuss it and, as I was saying, even though the bill will make some people and interest groups happy, we reserve the right to study it thoroughly and to make the required amendments and corrections.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, as the minister pointed out, is designed to increase the fines for infractions of fishing regulations in particular, something which is supported generally. Certainly I have heard no reaction from anyone in the ministry opposed to this measure. Perhaps the only concern is that the fines we have had in the past have been almost ignored.
When I raised this one day with the minister in Question Period, he said that that was the fault of the judges. One has to wonder, then, if simply doubling the fines, or even increasing some of them tenfold, will really make any difference unless somehow or other the message gets across to the judges that it is important the fines provided for in the legislation be at least considered when fines are levied against offenders.
The minister also said that the fishermen as a group support the regulations and conservation. That has certainly been my experience in the time that I have been fisheries critic for the New Democrats. Fishermen as a group want the fish to be conserved. They do not want to lose the resource. I think that is probably the same in every resource industry that we have. The people working in those industries recognize the importance of preserving the resource, whether it is agriculture, forestry, or fisheries. They recognize it.
There is always the bad apple, of course, who will try to take advantage of the situation for personal gain, out of desperation, or for whatever reason. There are people who will step beyond the bounds. There have to be fines

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
or legislation that will give the authorities the power to deal with that situation. Unless they are going to be supported by the courts-and this does not apply just to fisheries; it applies to many other activities-increasing the fines is not going to mean very much. Unfortunately that has been the experience so far.
When I spoke on this subject, again in Question Period one day, I quoted from several references to the effect that fisheries officers themselves are ignoring the regulations. They are not levying fines. There are examples of fisheries officers condoning and even encouraging the dumping of fish so as not to exceed the quota of a particular species. We have had reports from the east coast concerning observers turning a blind eye to what is happening. I will say a good deal more about that a little later in my remarks.
As the minister said, he has been in his present job for just over three months. One of the first things I was aware of that he did was he sent me an invitation to meet with him in Vancouver. That was within days, if not within hours, of his appointment as minister of fisheries. Perhaps it was even before I knew that he was appointed.
I received his invitation, but unfortunately was unable to attend. I did appreciate and made it known to him that I appreciated the fact that he was inviting me to meet with him in the west on my own ground, so to speak, where I could get some impression of him and his attitude toward the west coast fisheries.
More recently, when this legislation was introduced, an invitation came from his office to attend a briefing in his office on the amendments to the Fisheries Act and regulations. I was able to accept that invitation and attended. I appreciate the minister's invitation to so do.
Ele told us that since becoming minister he has worked to get to know the people in the fishing industry. I have spoken to fishermen and to people in the processing industry, the processors themselves on both coasts, and I give him credit for doing that. I know he has done that from my own experience and from the reports that I have received. The question is whether he is really listening to the fishermen with whom he is meeting. We can only hope that he is.
He said that it was not just a case of throwing money at the problem. There are other questions of rebuilding the stock. I think this is more serious on the east coast than on the west coast. We have some species problems in the west, but certainly nothing to compare with the dramatic events with respect to the northern cod. There is a real question and problem dealing with the sad, sorry and tremendous depletion of the cod stock resource off Newfoundland in particular.
The minister said that it was not enough to pour money in, that we had to rebuild the stock. The only way that we know of to rebuild the stock is to relieve the pressure on the stock; not just the fishing pressure but in part the fishing pressure. That is not just a matter of the people who are out there catching the fish. It is the technology. Over and over again when I travel to Newfoundland I hear complaints from the fishermen and the people in the fishing industry that it is the technology and the new kinds of equipment that are doing the damage.
Dr. Harris talked about this in part in his report. A group of us had people talk to us when we were in Newfoundland. One of the people in the fishing industry to whom I listened said that we had the technology now and within five years, unless the government really takes some drastic action, we could be looking for the last cod off the Grand Banks in Newfoundland. We have the equipment to find them. They tend to herd together. We also have the equipment to catch them, to pick them up, and to harvest them. So there will not be anything left, the way the pressure is going.
The scientists generally have been recommending that we cut our quotas drastically. Not just this government but also preceding governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have been very reluctant to reduce the quotas to the levels recommended by our own scientists because they did not want to inflict economic damage on the processing plants, the owners of the processing plants, perhaps even on the people working in the fishing industry, the fishermen, and the people working in the processing plants.
They were afraid of doing that politically and economically they did not want to do it, so they have been hoping that the fish would come back. If they failed to reduce the quotas to the extent that the scientists were saying, they were hoping that the scientists were wrong, they

June 19, 1990

were hoping that the scientists did not have the information that they needed, and in blind faith they were hoping that the fish stocks would rebuild.
It is necessary to rebuild the stock. The minister is right in that regard, but it will not happen unless the government is prepared to take the drastic action recommended by Dr. Harris, by everyone who looks at the situation, and by the fishermen themselves. They have told me that the only way to relieve the pressure is to stop fishing in some areas. It is that serious. In some areas it is too late to stop fishing because there are no fish there to fish.
Off the southwest bank of Newfoundland, when I was visiting the communities there, I saw the boats coming in. I saw three boats that had made trips out, set 12,000 hooks, and caught nothing of commercial value. They caught two catfish and one very small cod that was not worth bringing back from 12,000 hooks in areas where they used to make a good living catching cod.
It is necessary to take some drastic action. However the point I want to make is that it is not only the regular fishing, but it is also the technology. The auto-trawlers seem to be able to scoop up everything and what they do not want they cast aside dead. They are destroying it, not because of the actions of the fishermen but because the government regulations have allowed this to happen, indeed have encouraged it. If we let one do it, we have to let another do it. We cannot apply different regulations to different vessels, different fishermen.
There has been a complaint that the foreigners, the Portuguese and the Spanish, are overfishing. I do not doubt that they are off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. However, I was in Europe with members of the fisheries committee. When we told them what they were doing, they came right back at us and said that we were also overfishing the quotas set by our own scientists. The same scientists were setting the NAFO quotas and urging the Spanish and the Portuguese to do what they were telling us to do. We are overfishing. They are overfishing. Everybody is overfishing, and the stock is depleting in all areas.
Until we clean up our own act-and I know we are working at it but not fast enough or not well enough-it is pretty hard for us to go to some other country and say:
Government Orders
"We want you to cut down on your overfishing. We want to keep going at the present rate ourselves, but you cut down on yours so that we can do a little more of it ourselves". It is not good enough, and it is not going to provide the kind of rebuilding of the stock the minister has talked about.
Conservation is the same thing in this instance. We have to conserve the stock. There is the danger of wiping it out. Those are not my words. Those are the words I hear in Newfoundland from the people who are talking and are knowledgeable about the industry.
I mentioned the high grading, the fact that in many cases dead fish are thrown overboard. There are observers on the boats, but this may be done while the observers are asleep. Or, who can tell? An observer might just feel that it is wise to turn a blind eye so that he does not find himself washed overboard during the night. It is a pretty desperate situation sometimes, and these were the fears that were voiced to me. I am not making this up. These fears were voiced to me in Newfoundland, that some observers sometimes do not dare deal too forcibly on the boats on which they are working.
The minister did not mention it today, but on other occasions I have heard talk about the under-utilized species and the fact that we should be making more use of some of them. I have said it before in the House and I will say again that one of the most under-utilized species, one that has tripled in numbers in the past seven or eight years, is the seal herd. No one really knows just how much fish it consumes. However they do know that it is eating some of the same food that the cod are eating, so it is certainly competing with the cod for food. It is also known that it is eating some of the cod, at least the nice soft cod belly. Most cod do not seem to get along very well without that portion of their anatomy, so they might as well be eating the whole cod.
Representatives of the industry in Newfoundland have come to Ottawa to encourage the government. The price for seal leather is so low right now that they need some kind of financial help to encourage the building of that industry. We should be making use of that resource in the same way that we are making use of the fish resource. Let us husband the fish resource by taking

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
away some of the competition from the seals in particular.
Off the west coast the problems are different. In the same way that the problems on the east coast have been created by government's reluctance to set quotas that would deal seriously with the situation, on the west coast it is government action or inaction in a different way.
The Americans attacked us under GATT for some of the actions of our processing industry in buying salmon from U.S. fishermen off the Alaska waters and for enforcing regulations which state that our salmon and herring be landed in B.C. before they could be shipped anywhere else. They made that stick with GATT.
There was a way out. The industry, the union, and the people involved in the fishing industry at all levels urged the government to impose an export tax. That is GATT compatible. We support GATT, but that is GATT compatible. They could have imposed an export tax. The only reason I can imagine for the government not doing that was that it was waiting for the free trade agreement to come into effect so that it could then go to a free trade panel hearing and show everyone how well the free trade deal is working for Canada.
Whether that was what it planned or not, that is the route we took. We said that we need it for conservation purposes and for management of the resource, quite apart from maintaining employment in the industry. Several cabinet ministers, both past and present, guaranteed that there would not be job loss in the processing and in the fishing industry in B.C. as a result of the GATT attack and the free trade deal attack upon our landing regulations in B.C.
What were those guarantees worth? I remember Alex MacDonald of the B.C. legislature saying that a verbal promise is worth the paper it is written on, and that is all those promises by the government cabinet ministers were worth. They achieved nothing. The promises were totally worthless. One can only hope that they acted in good faith when they made these promises, but it certainly did not work out that way.
Nevertheless we went to the free trade panel which said that if we held back only 80 per cent and allowed 20 per cent to be exported it might be all right. Of course the Americans were not prepared to accept that. The
Americans finally accepted 20 per cent for one year, then 25 per cent for the next three years, and then they would see what happens after that. There is no that question- and Carla Hills on behalf of the Americans has made it quite plain-that they want total, free, unrestricted access to all salmon and herring caught in B.C. waters.
I raised this matter with the minister in Question Period as well. His response was that the B.C. fishermen do not have to sell their catches to the American processors or to the American boats that are purchasing them. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true.
I spoke at a fisheries union meeting in B.C. and said that the only way we were going to be able to stop the export of round salmon and round herring to the Americans was for the fishermen themselves to stop it. They are going to have to police their own organization and the people who do not belong to their organization, if there is going to be any control of the export of round salmon and round herring from B.C. to the Americans. They want it. They are going to get it. The government is going to stand idly by as has proven to be the case several times in the past 18 months.
It is going to let it happen. It does not really care. It is prepared to write it off. That appeared to be the case when it was negotiating the deal. That was one of the arguments that we used in the election campaign, one of the reasons B.C. sent 19 New Democrats to this Parliament, as opposed to about half that number before. It was the concern about what the free trade deal was going to do to us. The evidence is there that it is doing it. There seems to be no question about that.
The legislation before us is oriented primarily toward increasing the fines, and we can accept that. I have not heard any quarrels about that. As far as letting it go to second reading and to committee, we are in favour of that.
There are so many problems in the fishing industry associated not just with the fines but with the actions against which the fines will be levied that we want the legislative committee to take this legislation and go to the east coast and the west coast to listen to some input from the people who are working in the industry.
June 19, 1990

The minister says he has listened to some of it. I do not doubt that he has. As a member of the fisheries committee I want this legislation to be referred to committee, and at the end of the second reading stage I hope that will be the outcome. If the fisheries committee will travel to both coasts, it must listen to all people-the fishermen, those who work in the processing industry, and the people who are not organized in unions but are organized in associations or whatever.
It is important that when this legislation is passed that it have the support of the people working in the industry or it is not going to work. Even this legislation depends to a large extent upon the willingness of the people who are affected by it to observe the regulations. The best scenario would be for us never to collect a fine because there is never any infraction of the regulations. In the past our attitude has been to levy the fines or find people guilty and fine them a nominal amount which, as the minister said himself, is a licence to keep on doing what they have been doing.
The best scenario, as I say, would be to encourage people to live with the regulations. We must convince them that everyone is living within the regulations. If the fishermen themselves know that, they are going to accept it. They are that kind of people. However, if they know that there are other people getting away with it, it will encourage them to try and get away with it. The best scenario would be if we never collected a dime, but if there is an infraction we would collect an amount that will be a lesson to the person who went against the regulations in that instance. This would not only be a lesson to him, but it would convince the other people that the legislation and the fines are being taken seriously-
Under the provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act fines have been levied in the past against foreign vessels for infractions of regulations. When this act was being passed in this Parliament in 1985-86, the then fisheries critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Jim Manly, raised the following points in a debate. Unfortunately what he said was quite prophetic.
He said that it was not enough for us to raise the maximum fine, that there had to be some way of getting the message through to the courts that they had to raise the level of fines they were imposing because in some parts of eastern Canada the courts were imposing very
Government Orders
low fines when compared to the current maximum. If we are going to raise the maximum, we must send a message to our courts that the international fisheries violations are serious enough that they should be considering imposing the maximum fines in a number of those cases.
There is a range. There is a low and a maximum. The maximum is there so that the court, if it is convinced that it is in the interests of conserving that resource, can impose the maximum fine. They cannot go any higher but they can impose the maximum. To the best of my knowledge that has not been done, but there should be times when it would be considered at least.
It is not just that. Dr. Les Harris in his final report on the northern cod, issued just four months ago in February 1990, indicated that the warning given by Jim Manly was not one listened to by the present government. The provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act allow for severe penalties.
I quote from the Harris report in that regard: "However, in practice penalties have not even approached these levels. We cannot escape the feeling that the violation of fishery regulations are regarded as mere peccadilloes, as if the whole matter of enforcement were a game".
I have another point with respect to the fines and what is happening in this regard. On May 7, 1989, some 13 months ago, the federal government announced its long awaited adjustment package which was to address the crisis in the Atlantic fisheries. Contained in that package was a reference to the intention of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to increase its surveillance and enforcement capability.
At that time, as a member of the fisheries committee, I referred to the annual report of the DFO to the effect that it just did not have the capability to do the surveillance it was presently being asked to do, let alone increase it. It did not have the vessels or the personnel, and it was being cut back. It is being cut back again this year, according to the budget.
The minister tells us that he is going to increase the enforcement. He says that he is going to get the extra money, but he could not tell us from where it is coming. Is he going to get it by cutting back on some other service in DFO? Is he going to get new money given to him from the government? I doubt that very much. So far the government has not given any indication of backing down

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
on any other of its cut-backs. Thus it seems unlikely that there will be no money.
It seems very unlikely that he is going to be able to get it by scrimping and saving within his ministry. I have great concern that as much as the minister may want to increase surveillance and enforcement he is not going to be able to do it. These increases in fines and penalties are going to look good on paper but will have very little effect because there just will not be the enforcement and the surveillance.
He announced in April that there was $28.5 million to be allocated for air surveillance. Now, unfortunately, we have seen privatization. We used to do this with the air tracker service from Summerside. That is gone, or going. So we are going to privatize it.
The entire air surveillance system will now be in the hands of the private sector. Now that of itself is not necessarily bad, but the minister himself in talking about observers said that with what he is doing now he is going to be able to hire DFO officials who will be the observers. The implication of that was that they are going to do a better job than the private staff, the people who were hired on a part-time basis or whatever to do the enforcement.
Certainly, as he put it to us in the fisheries committee, it was his opinion that it would be better to have trained officials, people who are dedicated to the work, determined to proceed efficiently with enforcing these regulations, so that it would be of service to the industry and the people working in it.
I wish to refer now to a document entitled Vision 2000 prepared by the Pacific Advisory Group. Unfortunately, this minister was not minister at the time of its preparation. I am hoping that it will not be his policy. That document clearly forecasts the erosion of the DFO. The activities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be cut back.
That document states in part:
The cost of Pacific fisheries management will have declined to 70
per cent of the level of the mid-1980s and will be totally recovered
from the industry in increased fees and royalties-by the year 2010.
There is a system of levies being proposed for the east coast. The minister has talked about that.
I raise this question with him as well. He said: "If it is going to help the fishermen, if it is going to help the industry, then why should they not pay part of the cost at least, and perhaps even the whole cost?" This is not the time to go to the fishing industry and to the fishermen on the east coast and ask them to put more money into the pot. They are being laid off. In some cases, they are being told that the plant will never reopen.
The quotas are being cut year after year, and there is never enough to deal with the problem. There are going to be more cut-backs. How can the government ask the people who are trying to get by on very minimal incomes to pay more? Who knows what is going to happen with the UIC changes being held up across the hall? We cannot wait until they are ready to pay to do the kind of job that we have to do with the east coast fisheries, much less the west coast.
I mentioned the observer program. Bill C-74 talks about strengthening the observer program. In his final report, Dr. Harris found that: "Even in respect of vessels carrying Canadian observers, we have been informed by what seemed reliable sources, that under reporting of 25 per cent is not at all uncommon." Twenty-five per cent under even when we have observers. If there are no observers, then who knows? Certainly, the situation would not be any better. Again, it is bad apples that are spoiling it. But people are going to be encouraged to cheat when they know that others are getting away with it. Word gets around.
Appearing before the Senate fisheries committee in May, officials of the DFO acknowledged that observers who are charged with reporting and monitoring the activities of the fishing vessels of the large companies are paid by the industry. I found this out when I was in Newfoundland. They are employees of the industry. They are the processors. They are the very people who are going to benefit from the wrongdoing. The employer is the one who benefits if the employees are not doing a proper job of observing what is happening to the resource.
The master is paying the observer. What can one expect those people to do? If they do not do what the employer wants, they know they will be looking for
June 19, 1990

Government Orders
another job. How can we get proper surveillance, proper control, proper management of the resource with that kind of situation?
Also in May, representatives of the trawlermen of Canso appeared before the Senate fisheries committee and described the failure of the observer program. They estimated that only 40 per cent of the observers are "honest, sincere, hard-working and caring" individuals. The minister is going to beef up the observer program. I ask: is doubling, tripling or quadrupling the observer program going to help if it continues working as in the past, unless there are going to be some changes?
That is when the minister brought in his proposal. They are going to be employees of the ministry who will do, in his opinion, a much better job of observing than has been the case in the past. Along with the observer program, the hope is that there will be a lot more technology used. That is good.
The suggestion of the federal government is that it will institute a full surveillance program that would include the use of transponder devices enabling DFO to monitor every movement of these vessels. On March 19, 1990, officials with DFO were saying that a pilot project was planned which would see up to 10 offshore vessels being outfitted with these devices.
However, according to the director of Atlantic operations, before there could be any wider application of this program "there would have to be a lot of consultation with the industry". The passage of Bill C-74 will turn a pilot project into permanent legal requirement, which may have to be accommodated regardless of consultation. We do not know.
In 1981, in a study prepared for the Economic Council of Canada on the public regulation of the commercial fishery, the role of technology was limited. "We are impressed with the important role that voluntary compliance must play if any schemes, including the present ones, are to be successful." Earlier in my remarks today, I made that point. That depends upon voluntary compliance and upon people being assured that the regulations are working and being observed, with proper fines to make sure the system is working.
Even with new technology such as automatic log books and electromagnetic transponders, it is more difficult to monitor compliance with rules on the high seas than elsewhere. With this in mind, we urge that control schemes will encourage voluntary observance and provide incentives for enforcement against third parties.
When the minister talked about fish habitat, he mentioned a small stream. Yes, there are small streams and certainly small streams do get impeded, people build small bridges and small roads. That is not the habitat that is really of great concern to people. The habitat on the west coast is being disturbed by industry.
You will recall when the minister of health and the previous minister of fisheries announced in the House the curtailment of the harvesting of clams and oysters from eight different sites on the coast of British Columbia because it was suspected that they had been polluted by the pulp mills and were not safe for human consumption.
At that time I tried to find out how serious it was. Was it safe to eat stocks already on hand in grocery stores and in homes? The response from the minister of health unfortunately was not satisfactory. He said he would not feed it to his grandchildren because he did not have any. That is not much comfort to the people on the west coast who might be wondering, is it safe to feed to their children? Unfortunately, I did not get a proper answer from the government and have not to date.
Pollution is serious on the west coast. We do not know how serious or how important this is. We do know that regulations are being imposed to make people and industries clean up their act. It is not just industry. The city of Victoria, for example, is dumping raw sewage into the Straits of Georgia. After all this time, the capital city of British Columbia is still dumping untreated sewage from the whole greater Victoria area, not just Victoria itself. Something has to be done to clean up that kind of pollution, as well as going after industry.
It is not just enough to talk about small bridges and small roads. We have to look at the larger picture. Doctor Harris indicates that while much of our fishery, specifically the offshore fishery, is conducted during the spawning season, other country's fisheries prohibit such activity, based upon the information available concerning that fishery. This is one of the problems I have been told exists with respect to the cod fishery in the Atlantic. The

June 19, 1990
Government Orders
fish are being harvested during spawning season in the spawning areas.
In B.C. we know better than that. To the extent that we are able to control it, we do not let people harvest salmon in streams while they are spawning. But, apparently the cod is fair game because there is lots of them around. You find them. You go after them. It does not matter that they are spawning. That does not seem to be important.
Will the protection of the fish habitat apply to that kind of situation? We do not know how bad it is right now. We do not know how effective it is at decimating the cod population. We may find out something tomorrow. The fact is we do not know today and this legislation does not provide for it. The regulations are flexible enough that we can impose them upon this new situation, and to the extent that we get new information, one would hope that the regulations could accommodate the new situation.
We will support the legislation. We hope that the fines will mean something, that the judges will take cognizance of the fact that Parliament has thought it important to make dramatic increases in fines and levies. We hope that the observer program will work. We will be watching it. We wish the government would do something about the landing regulations in B.C. but that will only happen when there is a change in government.
Nevertheless, we support the legislation and are quite prepared to go to committee, have the committee listen to the people involved, the people that know what is going on in the fishing industry and the ones who can help make it work. Then we will pass it through the final stages.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is consent to call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.09 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 20, 1990