1990-06-01

Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a question of privilege, and I regret having to do so, but it is also a matter where my honour as a member is at stake.
Wednesday I was interviewed by telephone on radio station CHLN in Trois-Rivieres, and this interview subsequently raised a great deal of controversy.
My comments regarding the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Clyde Wells and the citizens of that province were excessive. Today, I wish to take this opportunity in the House to make a public withdrawal and offer my sincere apologies to the citizens of Newfoundland.

From time to time politicians try to find excuses when they make an error. I do not choose that way. I recognize today that I made a human error. That is why I apologize fully for what has been said.
I do not try to escape my responsibility as a member of Parliament. That is why I would conclude by saying that Canada does not need more oil on the fire. The time is for hope and optimism. I want to be a part of the solution, to find a new way in order to keep Canada united forever.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank my colleague for his statement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. William C. Winegard (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on this short bill which repeals paragraph 230(d) of the Criminal Code and amends Section 589. As you know, Madam Speaker, Section 230 of the code now provides that culpable homicide is murder where a person causes the death of another while committing or attempting to commit one of a number of crimes such as treason, sabotage, hijacking, sexual assault, hostage taking, robbery, breaking and entering or arson.
Under paragraph (d) of Section 230, if a person uses a weapon or has it upon him or her at the time he or she commits or attempts to commit an offence, or at the time of flight after committing or attempting to commit the offence, and death is a consequence, it does not matter whether or not he or she meant to cause death or knew that death was likely to be caused to any other person. Very simply, the ordinary mens rea requirement need not be met.
We are quickly approaching the centenary of the adoption by this House of the Criminal Code of Canada. What are now paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) were a part of the original 1892 code. In 1947 paragraph (d) was included. At that time Senator Hayden said that the intention behind the amendment was to curb "the reckless disregard of life that seems to imbue to those who carry weapons when they embark on unlawful enterprises."

June 1, 1990
Government Orders
In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Five years later, on December 3, 1987, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its reasons for decision in the case of Regina v. Vaillancourt. In that case, the accused challenged the constitutional validity of paragraph 230(d). Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer ruled in the Vaillancourt case that the presumption of innocence in paragraph 11(d) of the charter is infringed when an accused may be convicted despite the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the presence of an essential element of the offence. Justice Lamer found that where Parliament substituted proof of a different element, as was the case in paragraph 230(d), such substitution is constitutionally valid only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the substituted element in lieu of proof of an essential element.
Speaking for the majority of the court, Mr. Justice Lamer held that an accused cannot be found guilty of murder absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least objective foreseeability. Accordingly, a murder provision such as paragraph 230(d), which allows a conviction in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least that essential element infringes Sections 7 and 11(d) of the charter.
The Supreme Court also found that paragraph 230(d) could not be saved by Section 1 of the charter. The Vaillancourt case struck down, therefore, paragraph 230(d) of the Criminal Code. The bill now before us recognizes and responds to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada by repealing this provision.
The unfortunate fact remains, however, that there are a significant number of cases of murder each year in which a victim is stabbed or shot or beaten to death during the course of the commission of another serious crime, such as sexual assault, robbery or break and enter. The present Section 589 of the Criminal Code presently prohibits the joinder of any other count to a count of murder.
For example, while a person may be charged with murder and also separately charged with sexual assault, the murder and the sexual assault cannot be tried together. As the murder charge must proceed first, and a conviction for murder results in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, a prosecution for the other offence does not take place unless there is an acquittal on the
murder charge. A trial for murder usually takes a long time to prepare and conduct and there may be appeals. It is therefore not unusual for a murder case not to be disposed of for several years and it is only at this time that the trial for the related offence may be commenced. By that time, memories may have faded and witnesses may have died or their whereabouts may not be easily ascertained.
One amendment to Section 589 will provide that all offences arising out of the same incident may be tried together. As a result the fact finding process will be much improved and justice will be better served since the possibility of delays will be greatly diminished.
It will interest you to know, I am sure, that this amendment was proposed by the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference in 1988. As well, this recommendation received the support of a federal-provincial working group on homicide in its interim report in 1989. Furthermore, the Law Reform Commission of Canada also proposed that Section 589 be amended.
A second amendment proposed to Section 589 will permit the joinder to a charge of murder any other charge of an indictable offence if the accused agrees. This was also recommended by the federal-provincial working group on homicide.
By encouraging the joint trials of charges where an accused consents, the interests of justice as well as those of economy for both the state and the accused will be served.
It is our view that this bill respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Finally, these proposals do not affect a judge's right under the general provisions of the Criminal Code to order separate trials for an accused.
In summary, by repealing Section 230(d) and by amending section 589 of the Criminal Code as is proposed, the justice system will be strengthened by reducing unnecessary delays in the administration of justice, modernizing the law in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, allowing for the giving of evidence while witnesses' memories are still fresh, reducing administrative trial costs, and helping to ensure that the constitutional rights of Canadians are safeguarded.
June 1, 1990

The federal government is committed to ensuring that Canadians are better served by the justice system. Bill C-54 is a part of that commitment. I ask the support of all members in the House in seeing that this bill is passed into law.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate second reading of the two proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.
I am moved to preface my remarks, following the eloquent statement made by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, with the wish that every member in the House had an opportunity to express him or herself fully on the issue of national unity in these days. I will not be able to do it quite so eloquently as the member for Saint-Maurice, but I want to echo his words that all of us in this House care very deeply about the unity of our country and wish for the ultimate in success from the continuing negotiations in relation to the Meech Lake Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Derek Vincent Lee: To return to what must surely appear to be more mundane matters, Bill C-54, as proposed by the government, proposes two changes to the Criminal Code. They are seemingly minor in nature, but they deal with very important issues in relation to the criminal justice field.
This is not the first or the last time this House in this Parliament will attempt to reform the Criminal Code and criminal procedure laws on a patchwork basis. I for one am uncomfortable with the history that has given rise to that. I feel that it is an inefficient, unfortunate piecemeal way to approach an issue that has relevance for all of us. It was only a couple of months ago that we had to address the reform to the foolish old section which described the arson offence.
In committee this week a number of members dealt with a miscellaneous statute law amendment act which included other relatively minor amendments to the Criminal Code as well.
The current section 589 which states the ability of the court or the policing authority to join counts basically prohibits the joinder of any count charging murder to any other offence. This reflects a state of the law which goes back many years. To paraphrase the quotes of a professor
Government Orders
at the University of Ottawa, this current state of the law "seems to violate the rule against absurdity".
The current state of the law has derived itself from a state of affairs many years ago when there were many more offences which called for the death penalty. I suppose, in a sense of British fairness, it was felt to be unkind and unfair to load an indictment with more than one offence when one of those offences could bring about the death penalty.
In any event, nowadays there are virtually no offences which call for a death penalty in this country. We believe we have the ability to deliver fairness in a better procedural way to our accused.
In a relatively recent, high profile case which occurred in the nation's capital, there was a murder offence and other offences committed at the same time. Those other offences involved unlawful confinement and assault and involved more than one accused. In that process, because of the state of the law the Crown could only proceed with the murder offence in one indictment. The factual circumstance giving rise to the charge involved a lot of people-authorities, civilians, military, and the like-and as a result it was extremely expensive to put together two trials: one for the murder and one for the other offences.
I believe it is important for the judicial system to respond to all offences committed. I do not think it is appropriate for the authorities to simply charge the indictment involving murder and walk away from all the other charges.
The amendment in the way it is worded now will permit joinder of the indictment charging murder with a non-murder offence where the non-murder offence arises out of the same factual circumstances. We have to address the issue of fairness because the issue of fairness was the reason for the old rule against joinder.
We have to point out two things: first, the law in relation to fairness dealing with an accused has developed considerably over the last few decades. The courts and the procedures by their nature lean toward fairness. There are principles of common law built right into the code which lean toward fairness to an accused. Also, we now have our charter. The accused in any circumstance

June 1, 1990
Government Orders
will still have access to the severance application procedure found in Section 591, subparagraph 3, of the code.
There is a wealth of case law developed, thanks to the perseverance of our legal profession. There are pages and pages of case law developed around the fairness principles permitting the severance of counts in any circumstance where it would be unduly unfair to an accused.
In summary, we want to support this amendment based on the principle that an accused should have a fair trial, where the procedures are both efficient and economic and where we avoid a multiplicity of trials and procedures. The taxpayers of the country have an equal interest in both efficiency and fairness-and I do not put priority on either one of those-but efficiency and fairness are what the citizens of Canada are entitled to. I believe the amendment proposed to section 589 does that.
The second portion of the bill repeals Section 230. I believe my colleague speaking for the government has adequately outlined the background of that repeal. It is based on a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaillancourt case. I have very little to add to the comments of the hon. member who discussed it.
There were two events this week that highlight the significant need to pursue criminal procedure reform and reform in the area of corrections. One of the events occurred on Parliament Hill when a number of people who were or represented Victims of Violence appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in relation to an issue surrounding the escape and the subsequent killings perpetrated by Daniel Gingras in the province of Alberta.
The second case is a current issue involving an individual in custody who is about to be released and in relation to whom the authorities state that he is predisposed to committing crimes of the same nature for which he has been imprisoned. He will be with us shortly, out on the street in society.
The taxpayers of the country do not care which jurisdiction is responsible for taking care of this kind of business. They do not care whether it is the federal government, the provincial government, the metropolitan government, the regional government, or the city. What they want to see is the justice system and correction system working for them; not for the bureaucrats,
not for the politicians, not for the ministers, and not for the people who are incarcerated.
The justice system is there to work for society as a whole and that is what our citizens, our taxpayers, want to see. I believe our piecemeal approach to reforming the Criminal Code, the patchwork every two or three months of deleting or adding a section, is not the way to go. It is going to take five years to catch up to reality if we keep on this way.
I want to note in the area of reform that the government has not responded to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on the areas of sentencing, detention, interim release, and the like.
After two years of study and intense effort by the committee with solid dedication on the part of its members, many of whom are still with us in this Parliament, the report was submitted in 1988. It has been two years since it was submitted. Ordinarily, for the benefit of the public who may be viewing the proceedings, a report submitted by a standing committee is to be responded to by the government within 150 days. As a result of the prorogation of Parliament and the election of 1988, the government was not obligated, strictly speaking under those procedures, to respond to that report.
However, the government has a moral obligation, to which it has admitted, to respond not only to all of that effort, but to the issues that are raised in that very comprehensive report. I know the government has stated to the committee that it will respond. Myself and the other members of the committee are, of course, anxiously awaiting that because the response to that report will in part determine the agenda of that standing committee for the next year or two or three.
We are anxious to proceed. The taxpayers and the citizens are anxious to proceed. They want to see movement. They do not want to see little pieces of reform here and there, the want to see the entire issue redressed because, I think they believe that the system is not being managed properly and in their interests at this time. There are cracks and there are loose ends. Some of those cracks and some of those loose ends result in further crime, violence, death and suffering for innocent victims.
June 1, 1990

In conclusion, I want to encourage the government to get on with comprehensive Criminal Code reform. The Minister of Justice has asked the committee to address recodification of the general part of the code. The committee is about to do that. I am very happy to be on the committee and to play a role in that. However, I want to light a fire under the government, I want the government to get on with it.
I want the government to take some courage from the progress and the co-operation shown on this side of the House and in committee. It can take courage from some of the successful efforts in Criminal Code reform that have occurred in jurisdictions outside of Canada. I want the government to put to use the efforts of the Law Reform Commission of Canada manifested in a proposed new draft code and dozens of other initiatives and working papers.
The work of the Law Reform Commission, in fact, seems to be forming the basis of a lot of the piecemeal reform we are addressing. We are going to end up with a patchwork quilt if we are not careful. I want to make sure that the government knows that we on this side of the House are prepared to address that and get on with the reform that is so badly needed.
To repeat my earlier remarks with reference to what has become known as the Daubney Report, the report of the standing committee, we want to see a response to that at the earliest possible date so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General can get on with its efforts.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could join with my friend from Scarborough-Rouge River in taking this opportunity to speak to the issue that is before the country this weekend and to share his views of the fine statement by the member for Saint-Maurice. I am very pleased and proud of the statement he has made and I join with my friend in congratulating him for the position he has taken.
One of the privileges members of Parliament have is that we get a particularly unique perspective on this country. We are able to share very closely with members from all across Canada the human wealth of this country. We all send our heartfelt best wishes to the First Ministers for this weekend. I am sure that they will be
Government Orders
able to come to some agreement, but I certainly urge them on their way.
We in this corner of the House will be opposing the bill before us on second reading. We particularly oppose on fundamental principle the second part of the two-part proposals here, the joinder of offences.
On the deletion of Section 230(d), our position is that it simply does not go far enough. If a bill does not go far enough, that is always a difficult position to be in. But in this case this represents the government's response to the Vaillancourt decision on constructive murder. We think that it is a fundamentally flawed response and one which should be rethought. Therefore we will oppose this bill on second reading.
The first part concerns constructive murder. First, it is important to review Section 230, which is the constructive murder section, which provides that someone who does not actually commit the crime of murder can still be convicted of murder through some association with the crime. The part which is being deleted is subsection (d) which provides that a person is subject to being convicted of murder if the accused used a weapon or had a weapon on his or her person while committing or attempting to commit the offence, or while fleeing the scene and death ensued as a consequence thereof.
The section also provides in effect for constructive murder in a number of other circumstances. It is those sections which will remain in the Criminal Code following this amendment to it. Our objection is to the failure of the government to remove the other sections.
I should first state the principle. I can do no better than to quote Mr. Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada who stated in the Vaillancourt case:
I am presently of the view that it is a principle of fundamental
justice that a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foreseeability.
That is a judge's way of saying that the crime of murder which carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment should only fall on a person who had a clear, formed intention themselves to commit the crime of murder. If someone with whom they are associated commits the crime of murder, even if they themselves are party to the criminal transaction that leads to murder, then they themselves should not be subject to a conviction for murder. They may well have committed

June 1, 1990
Government Orders
other very serious crimes and should stand trial for them. But, given the particular place of murder and the consequences of a conviction for murder, the law should very clearly provide that the individual so charged should have had himself or herself the clear intention to commit the crime.
This principle was supported by the Law Reform Commission and was really the principle behind the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Vaillancourt. In its 1984 working paper entitled: "Homicide (Working Paper 33)", the commission stated on page 51:
To treat an unintentional killer as though he intended to kill involves the criminal law in artificiality and fictions and in the injustice of not treating significantly different cases differently.
We think that constructive murder should be abolished, that the rules contained in paragraph 212(c) and section 213 [now paragraph 229(d) and section 230[ should have no place within our criminal law, and that killings where death is neither intended nor foreseen should be excluded from the category of "intentional" homicide whether or not they are brought about in furtherance of some other offence.
The commission went on to make the recommendation that flowed from that reasoning. The recommendation was that intentional homicide should apply only to killings done with actual intent to kill, and cases of constructive intent should be excluded from this category-
As the parliamentary secretary and the House will know, there are a number of cases already before the courts heading toward the Supreme Court of Canada which cast doubt on the constitutional validity of these other sections. It seems to me and to our party that the government would have been better advised to come to its conclusion as to the constitutionality of those provisions and to the principle underlying those provisions before it brought forward this bill. It is not just a question of constitutionality, but as well the principle underlying those sections in view of the comments made in the Supreme Court of Canada. If the government had done that, then, in my view, it would have reached the conclusion that all of Section 230 should have been repealed and perhaps a broader view of manslaughter taken.
I am indebted to the law firm of Rosen Fleming, in particular John Rosen of that firm, who has provided us
with a very comprehensive review and critique of Bill C-54.1 expect and hope that should this bill pass, despite my eloquence on the subject, that Mr. Rosen would be invited to appear before the legislative committee to give his views because they are very comprehensive and well thought through.
In the course of a written review given to us, which I believe he also made available to the Department of Justice, he noted, it seems to me, the incontrovertible point, that a person who participates in one of the enumerated offences but does not participate in the homicide may still be liable for murder, if he knew that it was a probable consequence of the commission of the common purpose that the principal would cause some bodily harm to the victim.
Given this fact, even if the principal did not have the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm that would be necessary to constitute murder under Section 229, then the accomplice could be convicted. The net effect of all that is, the less stringent requirements of Section 230 to prove murder against the perpetrator of homicide are further watered down as against the secondary party to the underlying offence, for example, the driver of the get-away-car or whatever. It is therefore, in our view, a wrong principle that murder should be the crime for which such an offence is characterized.
Let me move to the second part of the bill before the House, that is, the joinder of counts. I have not had the depth of experience as my friend from Scarborough- Rouge River has had in the criminal courts, but I do understand the proposition that when one is joining, as this bill does, various other offences to the count of murder, that conceivably adds to the prejudice that an accused for murder would suffer before the courts.
This point of view was captured in comments by the Law Reform Commission under another paper, Working Paper 55, published in 1987, entitled: "The Charge Document in Criminal Cases". It states as follows:
[The] flat prohibition may be unfair to both sides.
That is the flat prohibition against the joinder of counts in a murder charge.
The offences of manslaughter, attempted murder and criminal negligence causing death are often linked to an allegation of murder, but the present rule forecloses the possibility of joinder. We would relax the rule to permit joinder of this nature-Furthermore, we see no cause for objection to the joinder of any other charge capable of being
June 1, 1990

tried by a jury with that of murder, where the accused consents and the
court is of the opinion that the interests of justice would thus be served.
Having gone that far, which is obviously the rationale for the bill, the Law Reform Commission went on however to make some cautionary comments to which the government apparently has not given any weight.
The commission notes that Section 518 of the Criminal Code regarding joinder of another charged with murder should be amended to allow the joinder of the crimes of manslaughter, attempted murder, or criminal negligence causing death. Furthermore, in the interest of justice, any juryable crime should be joined with the consent of the accused.
It is important to note that the commission limited the number of offences which could be joined. It therefore puts the commission's recommendation at variance with Bill C-54.
Bill C-54 makes no distinction between the offences of manslaughter, attempted murder, and criminal negligence and other offences that may be charged by a jury. Nor would it make joinder conditional upon the accused's consent in all cases involving offences triable by jury-
In fact, it can be argued, when one marries this section to other sections, that the change places the onus on the accused to persuade the court that there should be no joinder. In an already difficult situation, that adds to the burden placed on someone accused of murder. In all of the circumstances of the potential liability, this would seem to us to be unfair.
We suggest that the views of the Law Reform Commission should have been given greater weight by the government.
I would like to make some closing comments on related matters arising from the Vaillancourt matter. They have to do with those now in our penitentiaries and prisons who would not be there had the Vaillancourt decision been understood to be the law when they came to trial.
I understand that there are many people in jail in Canada who would not be in jail if the Vaillancourt principle had been understood and if, in fact, this bill were law. All this bill does is incorporate the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada as to what powers Parliament had.
Private Members' Business
The government, as far as I can understand it, has not responded to the injustice in that situation. Representations of various kinds have been made to the government that there should be a clear survey of those within our penitentiary system to find out who fits into that category and some effort made then to have them released, through pardon, clemency or some other system as is available.
I hope that in the course of this debate, in the discussion of this bill, or at the earliest opportunity, the government would indicate that it is prepared to act on this injustice. The government should not leave those in jail who would otherwise be released, and ought to be released, if the country is to have its proper sense of justice.


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:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you canvass the House you will find unanimous consent to move directly to Private Members' Business.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

["Madam Speaker, yesterday's Supreme Court decision recognizing aboriginal fishing rights has been hailed as a major victory in the struggle for aboriginal rights.\nThe ruling allows native people's first claim to resources to be limited only if there is sufficient evidence of the need for conservation. This unanimous ruling shows that the aboriginal peoples have been right all along. The government has failed to listen to the native peoples of Canada on questions of title and treaty rights. I am hopeful the federal government will listen to the\nSupreme Court and immediately suspend enforcement of legislation which may curtail native rights.\nThis decision combined with the Huron Treaty ruling last week are indeed positive steps for our first peoples. Although the ruling is a significant advance, there are still many issues to be resolved before Canada's founding peoples are made equal partners in Confederation.\nToday is a great day for Canada's first nations, but we have miles to go before we sleep. I urge the First Ministers to be mindful of this when they meet this weekend."]
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to have Mr. Tetreault move the motion on Bill S-15, in place of Mr. Fontaine.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 1, 1990



Mr. Jacques Tetreault (for Mr. Fontaine) moved: that Bill S-15, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jacques Tétreault: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I believe there is another Private Members' Bill that may be called for consideration, Bill S-10.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That bill can be brought before the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT
Jacques Tétreault: that Bill S-10, an act respecting the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, as amended, be concurred in, by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jacques Tétreault: that the bill be read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 11 a.m.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The sitting of the House is suspended until 11 a.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.54 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 11 a.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, in its May 1990 bulletin, the Royal Bank of Canada reviewed the impact of the free trade agreement since it came into force a little more than a year ago.
According to this review, supporters and opponents of the agreement tend to justify their respective positions by pointing to plant openings or closings, but in most cases, making the agreement alone responsible for recent reactions by large companies would be oversimplifying the issue.
In fact, companies develop strategies and plan their activities in terms of a large number of factors, including prospects for economic growth, inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, salaries, trade policies, technology and competition.
Madam Speaker, this thoroughly researched document indicates that during its initial year, the free trade agreement caused no dislocation of Canada's economy, as some would have us believe. On the contrary, a 2.8 per cent increase in exports to the United States was recorded during the first nine months of 1989.
June 1, 1990


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, Better Business Bureaus in Toronto and Vancouver have added their voices to the growing number of citizens and organizations objecting to the government's deceptive methods of promoting the GST.
In contradiction to what the ads are saying, most Canadians realize that the GST is, indeed, a new tax.
When is the government going to regard the GST for what it really is, a new additional tax that is going to have very devastating effects on the economy of Canada?


GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, as part of its recently released biennial report on Great Lakes water quality, the International Joint Commission pointed out that progress has been mixed in reaching the goal of restoring and maintaining the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes.
The report calls upon the United States and Canada to commit a level of resources congruent with the admirable pledges each nation made in signing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
As we proceed with The Green Plan consultations, I urge the government to keep the recommendation in mind and include these matters in the final document.
The report also calls on the parties to encourage others to accept their responsibilities to implement the agreement. These include state, provincial and local governments, as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.
We must all work together to restore and maintain the Great Lakes, and ensure that we protect the health of all those who live in the Great Lakes basin.


HOUSING
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, apparently the Conservative government is ridding itself of the responsibility of housing Canadians at a time when 1.2 million households across Canada are paying more than 30 per cent of their income for rent.
My own riding of Northumberland has seen increasing numbers of people dependent upon food banks as a result of the high cost of shelter. Low income families often have little money left over for other necessities of life after the rent has been paid.
The cap on funding of the federal-provincial non-profit housing program has resulted in a serious reduction in the number of unit allocations available under the program, and is having a devastating impact on non-profit housing production across Canada.
I ask the government to heed the resolution passed by the city of Toronto and endorsed by the council of the town of Campbellford and other councils in my riding of Northumberland, urging a renewed commitment from the government to improve the availability of non-profit housing units. The councils further call on the federal government to reinstate full funding and the number of unit allocations under the federal provincial non-profit housing program, to index this funding, and to increase funding for the federal co-operative housing program to allow the production of at least 2,000 housing co-op units annually.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, although Canadians recognize that increased expenditure in scientific research and development is an investment in our future, federal expenditures on R and D are, embarrassingly, one of the lowest of all industrialized nations.
It is high time this government demonstrated its commitment to Canada's scientific community through a substantial increase in federal funding.
The government has a golden opportunity to do so through support of the proposed KAON project at the Tri-University Meson Facility at the University of British Columbia. The project is a world-class particle accelerator that would launch Canada into the frontiers of nuclear physics and allow Canadian scientists to explore the fundamental nature of matter. TRIUMF-KAON is science that will change the world.
It has been endorsed by leading scientists throughout the world as well as Canada's 10 premiers, and supported financially by the governments of British Columbia, the

June 1, 1990
United States, Japan, Korea, and members of the European Community.
The Canadian and international scientific community now await Canada's decision to help put it all together.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, allow me today to point out the important initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada in calling together the First Ministers of the country for a working meeting on Sunday evening to break the present constitutional deadlock.
Madam Speaker, need I remind you, as well as my colleagues and all Canadians, of the serious issues at stake, namely, national unity and Quebec's place in the Canadian federation.
The Prime Minister said recently that he wanted Quebec to have a place in the sun and I am sure that a few days before the June 23 deadline, all the First Ministers in Canada will join together to say yes to Quebec.
In any event, whatever comes of these discussions, no one will be able to accuse the Prime Minister of not having tried everything, done everything up to the last ounce of his energy, for national reconciliation.
Therefore let us hope that this meeting, which has been called "the last chance", will elicit understanding and goodwill from the dissenting provinces so that an agreement may be reached for the greater good of Quebec and Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, at the recently concluded Bergen Conference in Norway entitled "Action for a Common Future", Canada with 33 other nations agreed to accelerate progress on reducing the use and emission of hazardous substances that are toxic, persistent, and bio-accumulative.
The ultimate aim is to phase out uses which cannot be adequately controlled, and by 1993 to set timetables for such phasing out for the protection of human and ecological health.
In addition, it was agreed that disposal at sea, whether by dumping or incineration of wastes, should not be allowed unless such disposal poses no threat to the marine environment in accordance with the London dumping convention.
It is good that Canada supported this message. But how can this government be taken seriously on new international commitments when it refuses to ratify old ones.
Once again we urge the government to regain credibility and ratify the Law of the Sea. Forty-three nations have done so but 60 are needed to bring the law into force.


JUSTICE
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law which makes it illegal to communicate, or appear to communicate, for the purposes of prostitution. I am pleased with this decision.
It sends a strong message that street solicitation for the purposes of prostitution is not to be tolerated. My very first statement in this House upon my election in 1984 was on this subject. It was an important concern to the people of Niagara Falls and I was pleased that our government brought in Bill C-49 which became law in 1985-no thanks to the NDP, I might add, who fought it all the way.
I can tell this House that this legislation has helped significantly. The street congestion, the noise, oral harassment of non-participants, and general detrimental effects on bystanders, especially children, made the bill necessary and yesterday's decision welcomed.


CLOTHING INDUSTRY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, in March, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended the gradual reduction of Canadian tariffs on overseas textile imports for the benefit of
June 1, 1990

Canadian consumers and the Canadian clothing industry.
I have had representations from three Canadian companies located in my Montreal riding, namely Robin International on Jarry Street, Majestic Industries on Jean Rivard Street and Daimor Limited on 19th Avenue, urging me to ask the Minister of Finance to accept the Tribunal's recommendations.
I am especially pleased to do so because I consider the present duties excessive. In fact, the customs paid by Canadian companies are 50 per cent higher than those of their American competitors.
The garment industry is important not only in my riding but also for Montreal and the province of Quebec. Some 65,000 people work in it. Therefore I strongly hope that the minister will protect this industry by implementing as soon as possible the duty reduction proposed by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.


INTERNATIONAL LITERACY YEAR
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, the House will know that 1990 has been designated International Literacy Year. All members should be concerned about the results of the recent Statistics Canada study which revealed that approximately 38 per cent or 6.6 million Canadians, between the ages of 16 and 69, have difficulty with common reading tasks.
A Southam study a few years ago predicted that
100,000	illiterate Canadians are being identified each year. With the rapid pace of technological change taking place today and our reliance on a more information based society, literacy skills are becoming more and more important in the workplace. Only 2 per cent of occupations require no reading and writing.
A study by the Canadian business task force on literacy estimated the annual cost to Canadian society to be $10.7 billion. We know that illiteracy is linked to poverty, it is linked to high national school dropout rates and has marginalized workers into low-paying jobs with little chance for advancement. There are literacy groups
across the country, staffed with volunteers battling this problem. They need help. More volunteers are always needed but literacy agencies need long-term core funding to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, there are approximately 170 countries in the world, and the vast majority have several ethnic, religious and language groups. In many of these countries the political leadership has been unable to reconcile the differences, with the result that the countries and the citizens have never achieved their full potential. Indeed, many today are killing each other solely because of differences in religion, culture or political beliefs.
Canadians have these same differences, yet the political leadership has always been able to reconcile the differences with compromises which preserved Canada. As a result, we are a fabulously privileged people and are highly respected around the world. Indeed, millions of people want to join us in our exciting creation of a decent society.
The vast majority of Canadians ask the Prime Minister and premiers to reflect on the past compromises of past leaders, almost all of which involved personal hatred and ridicule from a part of the population, and to rise up to this crisis in our national life. It is time for generosity of spirit and the putting aside of partisan and personal interests in favour of a greater interest, the continuation of Canada as a whole.


TERRORISM
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that every member of this House was deeply disturbed by the recent action of the mentally unstable individual in Israel and the reaction it provoked. There are still those forces willing to callously and diligently plan violent, cold-blooded attacks, such as the attempt this week by Palestinian terrorists to attack Israeli civilians on a beach in Tel Aviv. This was not the

June 1, 1990
Oral Questions
action of a disturbed individual, but rather of an organized, armed terrorist unit, a constituent of the PLO.
Canada must condemn those who plan and organize such atrocities. We must tell them that their acceptance and respect in the western world is not merely based upon lip service to a renunciation of terror, but rather upon their deeds. Finally, we must hope once again that violence will not be the chosen response to tensions in the region, so that some movement toward peace can be achieved.


MANUFACTURERS' SALES TAX
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, today I rise to quote from Hansard, a member of Parliament who spoke in the House on May 26, 1926. He said:
Mr. Chairman, under this item I wanted to bring a matter to the attention of the minister which I cannot see any way of doing otherwise. A couple of years ago the minister put a tax on dies, patterns and tools made in the manufacturer's own plant. These the manufacturer never invoices and never sells, but under the law tax is collected upon them. He gets his money out of the work produced by those dies, patterns and tools. Under the law a great many manufacturers are being made to pay the sales tax twice, once upon the equipment and again upon the goods therewith produced. Their competitors pay no such tax; you do not reach any of them in the United States, England or anywhere else with that tax. In short, you are putting a direct double tax upon the Canadian manufacturer. I do not know why it was done; I do not know how much the minister makes out of this tax, and I should like to get some information about it. It was first done in 1924.
Madam Speaker, this member of Parliament was my grandfather, the Hon. James D. Chaplin from Lincoln. The tax was bad then, the tax is bad now.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, yesterday's Supreme Court decision recognizing aboriginal fishing rights has been hailed as a major victory in the struggle for aboriginal rights.
The ruling allows native people's first claim to resources to be limited only if there is sufficient evidence of the need for conservation. This unanimous ruling shows that the aboriginal peoples have been right all along. The government has failed to listen to the native peoples of Canada on questions of title and treaty rights. I am hopeful the federal government will listen to the
Supreme Court and immediately suspend enforcement of legislation which may curtail native rights.
This decision combined with the Huron Treaty ruling last week are indeed positive steps for our first peoples. Although the ruling is a significant advance, there are still many issues to be resolved before Canada's founding peoples are made equal partners in Confederation.
Today is a great day for Canada's first nations, but we have miles to go before we sleep. I urge the First Ministers to be mindful of this when they meet this weekend.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Statistics Canada released a report that said that economic expansion is near zero. Ruth Getter, senior economist with the Toronto-Dominion Bank, linked this to high interest rates and said: "Overall, there are serious weaknesses in the economy and they're going to show up more in the coming months". I ask the Acting Prime Minister, when is the government going to realize that its economic policies have pushed the country to the brink of recession? When will it bring in policies to help us avoid a recession rather than pushing us into one?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as Acting Minister of Finance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: -let me say that contrary to predictions by many, including the opposition, the real Gross Domestic Product continued to expand, albeit at a low rate. The monetary policy the government has been following is an
June 1, 1990

effort to control the rate of inflation, and we are encouraged by the recent decline in the CPI.
The reality is that there are still underlying inflationary pressures. Were the Bank of Canada to increase the money supply, which is the only way that short term interest rates could be brought down, that would contribute to these inflationary pressures, leading inevitably to higher interest rates in the future and a more serious economic difficulty for the country. That is not wise economic policy and that is why we are not following it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, Canadians will be surprised and disappointed to hear that the government is pleased that we have had practically no economic growth. I repeat, Statistics Canada indicates that economic expansion is near zero. According to a poll released by the Conference Board of Canada yesterday, the confidence index of the business community is at its lowest level since this government came to power. I therefore want to ask the minister this question: Doesn't the government realize that the business community has lost confidence in its policies? When will the government introduce policies that will help avoid a recession instead of creating one?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the policies we have been following consistently since 1984 have given Canada one of the best records of the western industrialized nations. They have increased our competitive position according to world economic fora from eleventh place to fourth, internationally.
To ensure that that kind of progress continues, it is necessary that we defeat the underlying inflationary pressures, particularly on the wage front. For example, we still have figures showing that wages are increasing much faster than the economy, particularly in the provincial administrative section where wage rates in March were going up at 9.2 per cent. That contrasts with the federal sector where they are going up at 4.2 per cent. Those kinds of demands on the economy which are not matched by productivity result in inflation. Feeding that inflation through relaxed monetary policy would be
Oral Questions
precisely the wrong thing to do for the long-term economic health of this country.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is for the same minister. I do not know why the minister does not realize that business in Canada has looked at this government's policies and said they are a failure. Isn't that what it means when the Conference Board of Canada said yesterday that its survey of businessmen shows that business confidence is now at a record low, compared to what it was some years ago.
Plants are closing all across this country. The Andrew Malcolm furniture company in Listowel is closing. Its president said that the government's free trade deal is a consideration. The Kelsey-Hayes plant in Windsor is laying off 241 employees indefinitely due to slumping sales to the auto industry.
Is it not time that this government brought in economic policies that will not drive this Canadian economy into a recession and will not help Canadian plants to close and workers to lose their jobs. Why will it not it reverse these harmful policies it has in place now, bring in policies that help plants to stay open and workers to keep their jobs?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the artificial short-term measures are, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to be suggesting, the kinds of things that lead to the horrendous difficulties Canada faced in 1981 and 1982, with enormously high interest rates, a stagflation which took the country several years to recover from, and left all kinds of economic corpses in its path. We do not want to see that happen again. Holding the line with the kind of responsible policies that we have been following is the proper route for Canada.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about weaknesses in the auto sector. In fact, the figures to which he alluded in his opening question show that there was a surprising strength in the auto sector last month, contrary to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said.

June 1, 1990
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the $14 million advertising campaign to promote the much dreaded GST.
Yesterday, Mr. Paul Tuz, president of the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto, in a letter addressed to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, asked "to have the extremely misleading advertisement removed from the Canadian airwaves."
I now ask the $14 million man, will he do the right thing and remove the extremely misleading advertising from the airwaves right away?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I must apologize for the loss of my voice but there was so much praise heaped on this government yesterday as a result of this simplified accounting that I have been overcome.
Further to what my colleague, the Minister responsible for Privatization, stated yesterday in this Elouse on this matter, I simply want to add for the interest of the hon. member and all members in this House that the GST is not a new tax, even in the service sector. The service sector industry-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: They ask a question and do not listen for the answer. The service industry pays federal tax on delivery vans. The barber pays federal tax on equipment such as clippers, electricity, hair spray or whatever. There is a federal sales tax that is going to be replaced by a much better tax.
What the hon. member and members opposite, and I suppose many Canadians do not realize is that every Canadian pays an average of $700 a year in federal sales tax. They don't even know it. I think that is unfair. When the GST comes into place, everyone will know exactly what they are paying.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, what the minister and government will not realize is that 80 per cent of Canadians are against the tax.

I would like to put my supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it concerns the misleading propaganda used by the government to sell the GST. Mr. Tuz, President of the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto, also said yesterday that if ads of this kind were used by the private sector, there would probably be charges of misleading advertising. Is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs prepared to tell the House today that he will ask for an investigation of this practice of inserting misleading ads indulged in by his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, we analyzed these ads very carefully prior to making them public, particularly after the Speaker's ruling some months ago about another ad of which the hon. member is well aware.
There is no need for an inquiry of any sort into the advertising. It is not misleading. The GST replaces an existing sales tax that is unfair, regressive and that does not allow our Canadian producers, manufacturers and exporters to compete internationally on a level playing field.
When the GST is implemented on January 1, 1991-which it will be-Canadians will realize that we will be better off as a result.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Minister of National Revenue explain that his voice was tired from acknowledging praise for the GST.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. He knows the New Democratic Party has welcomed the First Ministers' Conference to resolve the impasse on Meech Lake. At the same time, because of the necessity of having the meeting behind closed doors and because of the nature of the constitutioned leadership across the country, it is limited to a small number of people.
We would like to know what steps the government is taking to make sure those groups that are concerned about what is happening with regard to Meech Lake,
June 1, 1990

aboriginal Canadians, women, residents of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, are not left out of the last round of negotiations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and the House know, there have been extensive consultations, particularly over the last several months.
There was a companion resolution first proposed by the premier of New Brunswick. It was the subject of extensive public hearings by a very successful and representative committee of the House.
Also, the hon. member knows the situation has now reached a point where, while there has been a narrowing of differences, there are still very serious differences remaining. We believe these differences can only be resolved in a First Ministers' Conference.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday with, I believe, the general support of the House of Commons: "What is at issue here is Canada." I know the hon. member shares with me and other members in the House a determination that we resolve the Meech Lake Accord question on a basis agreeable to the 11 governments which brought that agreement into being. That is the process being followed now. There will be consultations that continue.
The hon. member knows his own leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition will be meeting the Prime Minister in 15 minutes for a personal briefing as to the status of the discussions as they are seen by the Prime Minister. I know the hon. member hopes, as the House does, that the process of discussions beginning Sunday night will be successful.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the right hon. Acting Prime Minister is correct that we do hope for successful discussions on Sunday and presumably on Monday as well.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not there will be only representatives of 11 governments, or will the Prime Minister make a special effort to include the representatives and leadership from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories because their item is very important. They should be at the table when that is being discussed. Will they be invited?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the important questions that has to be resolved in the process of
Oral Questions
negotiations, which can be achieved if Meech Lake succeeds, has to do with questions relating to the future status of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
What has been convened to this point is a dinner on Sunday night. That is a dinner of heads of government. The Prime Minister naturally hopes that there will be discussions that night which make it possible for there to be a full-scale Conference of the First Ministers whose provinces signed the Meech Lake Accord after that dinner.
We cannot be sure what will occur at that dinner until the 11 First Ministers have had the opportunity to sit down together to share their evaluations of Canada and to share their views as to how the interests of Canada can best be achieved.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is not only the 11 First Ministers; it is the whole nation that is concerned with what is going to happen.
Recognizing not everybody can be invited for dinner, the question is: Can we have the reassurances of this government that the leaders of the two territories will be involved in the discussions that relate specifically to them either on Sunday or on Monday? Will they be invited?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the question of participation at a First Ministers' Conference depends upon agreement of the First Ministers.
If the hon. member is asking me whether or not there will be the fullest possible involvement of the heads of Government of Yukon or the Northwest Territories, I can answer that in the affirmative. I am sure other governments would agree, but even if they did not, the Government of Canada would ensure that there was the fullest possible consultation with them.
If he is asking that at this late stage in the discussions a process that has been difficult enough with 11 First Ministers should contemplate the invitation to those discussions of the heads of the Governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, I think he would agree that that would be an unnecessary complication in the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I assume that there is an interest here on the part of members of the New Democratic Party in achieving an agreement that will allow us to approve the Meech Lake Accord.
I do not like to see thumbs down by members of the opposition on a matter of this importance.
We are trying to proceed step by step toward an arrangement which will achieve constitutional agreement in the countiy and, by doing that, allow us to get on with other essential items on the nation's constitutional agenda. I hope that has the support of all members of this House of Commons.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in bringing in his new quick method for accounting on the GST, the Minister of National Revenue effectively admitted that the GST was so complex that a new simplified method had to be found. In doing that they had to sacrifice the promise that the GST was going to be visible.
I would like to ask the government, through the Acting Minister of Finance, what other promises about tax reform are going to be given up on by this government by the time the GST is implemented?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had followed the process for the preparation and implementation of the GST, he would know that I as the minister responsible for administering this tax have stated for well over a year that we will continue to work with the business community, particularly the small business community, to look for and add any new options that could reduce some of the complexities that exist, particularly for the mom and pop type of operations that do not have the resources to do any additional calculations.
I confirmed that fact in the Standing Committee on Finance not too many months ago and stated that I would be making an announcement in the not too distant future.
This announcement has been welcomed by most of the organizations across the countiy, including the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and others.
From the standpoint of being a hidden tax, let me confirm to this House what the technical paper and the bill outline. It is that in no way, shape or form is the GST going to be a hidden tax with or without the quick method or simplified accounting, as is the case with the existing federal sales tax.
Every Canadian will know exactly how much they are paying for every element of the purchase of their goods, whether it is groceries, if it is zero rated, or if it is taxable. The merchants can include the price in their products, but if they do so they will have to mark very carefully the fact that a GST of 7 per cent is included in that price so that the consumer will be made aware of it prior to the purchase.


John Paul Manley: We have the admission, Madam Speaker, that the amount of GST paid at the point of purchase will not be displayed to the consumer.
Having given up on visibility, as the minister has just admitted, and having admitted that it was too complex to administer the way it was originally proposed, will he now admit to the House that his department is incapable of implementing this tax as from January 1, 1991 and, if they push it through on that date, the only reason will be to hope that the people of Canada forget about it in time for the next election?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious that the hon. member does not understand business practices. I speak from experience as a businessman most of my life.
First, I refute completely the hon. member's suggestion that I admitted to the complexity of the tax. I can assure this House that there will be no bureaucratic nightmare once this tax is implemented. It is a hell of a lot less complicated than the federal sales tax which has
22,000	exemptions in it and confuses the bejeesus out of everybody right across the countiy.
Second, if I may correct the hon. member, I in no way admitted that the consumer will not know that there is a GST on the price of the product. Every store which includes the cost of the GST must mark on their shelves,
June 1, 1990

on their cash registers, and on their receipts if necessary, the fact that 7 per cent GST is added to the cost of that product. That is a great improvement on the federal sales tax.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Again this week we learn of jobs leaving Canada for the United States because of unfair competition. Independent truckers recently blockaded Canadian borders demanding fairness in the trucking industry. This week in Windsor another blow was suffered by truckers with the announcement that the Canadian Transport Group is closing its Sprint operations in southwestern Ontario.
Does the minister realize the devastation that this government's inaction is causing? Will the minister immediately act to restore fairness for independent truckers and for the Canadian trucking industry?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way is no doubt aware that the vast majority of the truckers' concerns are related to matters that come under provincial jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Transport was able to meet a large number of independent truckers earlier this week and discussed the matter with them. Certain aspects of their demands concern areas under federal jurisdiction. They agreed to have the Minister of Transport discuss the matter with the provincial ministers concerned, and this satisfied the truckers who attended this meeting.


Jerry Pickard: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Competitiveness for Canadian business is not only a problem for truckers. During finance committee hearings in May we listened to businesses besieged with taxes, exporters grappling with an overvalued Canadian
Oral Questions
dollar, industry faltering with free trade, and literally every economic sector suffering from high interest rates.
Will the minister tell this House and Canadians that the government will listen and will stop these unfair initiatives in taxes, trade, and interest rates? Will he do this for Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course we will listen to Canadians. Of course we have and will continue to act in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian economy.
The hon. member's picture of doom and gloom is not evidenced by the figures on growth and the fact that CPI rates are coming down. As I indicated earlier, the policies this government has been following since 1984 have led to Canada leading the western world in terms of growth.
Every outside observer including the OECD and the International Monetary Fund that has looked at Canada's policies has pronounced itself well satisfied and said that we are following precisely the right policies.
What is a mystery to this country, of course, is what policies the Liberal party has on this subject.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Department of External Affairs employs only 1.8 per cent visible minority employees compared to 6.4 per cent in the general workforce. Therefore, it has failed to enforce employment equity and to prevent internal discrimination against persons of colour.
I ask the minister to indicate what plan of action he has to counteract this kind of systemic discrimination or in fact racism. I would also ask him to show his commitment to employment equity by arranging alternate employment for Mr. Idris Ben-Tahir, a public employee of 27 years, whose health was affected by job stress and strong feelings of discrimination in the passport department.

June 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there are three comments I want to make.
The first is that I am very much concerned about the success with which my department has been able to respond to requirements that are in the nature of Canada with respect to visible minorities and also, if I may say so, with respect to the de facto equality of women in the department. I am discussing that matter with senior officials now. It is a question which I think the hon. member knows I take seriously myself, and I intend to have my department reflect that in all of its behaviour.
Second, the proportions she has cited while low are nonetheless an improvement. They are better than they were, and we intend to continue on that course.
Third, with respect to the particular case that she raised, I must say I am rather surprised that a particular case would be raised on the floor of the House of Commons. It is better for all concerned, including the individual in question, if matters of that kind are discussed directly.
I think the hon. member and others in the House know from their experience with me that if they raise questions of that kind with me privately, I will keep the question private and I will do everything that is possible within our system to ensure that justice is done to all concerned.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The two worst government departments with respect to hiring practices of visible minorities and natives are the Department of Justice and Correctional Service Canada. It is not irrelevant that two royal commissions have found that racial discrimination against visible minorities and natives is a serious question in the criminal justice system in this country.
Today, as an example of what results from the kind of employment pattern we have in those two departments, we have a guard in Kingston Penitentiary sporting one of those racist pins from Calgary, and the management has been unable to do anything about it. I wonder if this government will.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the specific question that was raised by my friend from Windsor is new to this Question Period. I will look into the matter. The ministers responsible are not in the House at the moment, but I will look into it and I will have a response quickly.
With regard to the more general question, that was raised with the Minister of Justice the other day. She replied in the House of Commons with regard to the commitment of herself as minister and of her department to ensure that the statistics referred to by the hon. member change.


NEW HORIZONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Seniors, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the President of the Treasury Board. In their collective absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Minister of Finance.
For the past several weeks we have been told that the New Horizons Program budget has been put on hold pending departmental review. Could the minister advise the House when this review will be completed, the money released, and whether or not the review's findings will be made public?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware of our very strong commitment with regard to seniors in this country. The moneys that have been allocated in this year's budget are being spent as-

-as planned at the beginning of the fiscal year. [English]
So, there has been no change.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the answer of the minister surprises me in light of the difficulty that seniors groups across Canada have had in accessing these funds. They are told that the funds are frozen and will not be released.
I wonder, in light of the circumstances that it appears that in certain provinces there is no freeze and in others there is, would the minister undertake to ensure that any freeze there may be in place in all those provinces is lifted until a review is completed, so that the provinces and territories where there appears to be a freeze,
June 1, 1990

according to the seniors groups, will in fact receive their money immediately?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that the money budgeted for the New Horizons Program is in fact being spent as planned so I do not see where he got his information. This year, we will have spent over $200 million since the program was launched so I do not see the basis for his questions. I can assure the hon. member that if there ever was a problem in some provinces, we would seriously look into it then.


LITERACY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's National Literacy Secretariat has stated that Canada cannot eliminate illiteracy by simply teaching reading and writing. The government must attack the country's fundamental social problems, such as the growing number of poor in Canada.
They have identified approximately four million Canadians who are at risk and who could be added to the five million who are functionally illiterate now in this country and who cost the nation roughly $10 billion a year.
What is the government going to do to respond to these four million Canadians who are at risk, and how will it do that?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, it should be remembered that it was under this government's leadership and this Prime Minister that we brought forward a very important and impressive literacy initiative.
It gives me an opportunity to reflect on the very effective work of the National Literacy Secretariat, a small group of people who work in a dedicated fashion, and how they have been able to reach out across the country and build partnerships with every single province
Oral Questions
and territorial government in the country and with the people who have worked in the field for countless years, for tens of years and some for hundreds of years. The literacy movements of Canada are finding new partnerships in the voluntary sector and in the business community.
There are many solutions that have begun to show up. There is nothing like having more people come to the cause to eradicate what is indeed a very desperate problem for this nation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, since the minister wants to talk about the current initiative, let me ask him the following supplementary question.

There are now about five million functional illiterates in Canada and they cost the country over $10 billion. How many fewer functional illiterates will there be at the end of the literacy programs implemented by the government? Or is it only or mainly a political gesture or a public relations gesture? How many fewer will there be afterwards?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, the study that Statistics Canada brought out this week is a benchmark study because it gives us a continuum of the literary skills. It gives an individual a means of showing what progress he or she makes in terms of the acquisition of the reading skills that are so necessary to be able to function today.

Madam Speaker, I see the desire of all Canadians throughout the country to get involved, as I know the hon. member is himself. This year, which is International Literacy Year, I want to take part in all the activities. Every week, I will be involved at least two or three times with community groups and individuals like Peter Gzowski, who has done outstanding work, even made it his cause. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised in this effort. As I said, this is a year to reflect and to show all Canadians how we would gain by eliminating this plague, this scourge that affects our country. We

June 1, 1990
Oral Questions
already have plans for next year because we will not give up until illiteracy is beaten.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, my question was for any one of the three ministers of agriculture, but since none of them are here I will direct it to the government bench generally.
The minister announced yesterday a payment to the farmers in Saskatchewan. There is still a bit of concern because the Saskatchewan government, which is only putting in $39 million, indicates that it does not know where that $39 million is going to come from.
Could anyone on the benches across indicate if this is going to slow up the payments to the farmers? When can they expect some assistance from this program?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am not particularly aware of the problem the member is talking about. It was May 31 that that agreement between the federal government and the provincial government was announced. The federal contribution to the program is $238.3 million. The province is coming up with substantial amounts of money to match that program as well.
I am sure that the farmers of Saskatchewan must be very pleased because they are receiving the largest portion of that $500 million program and it has to be coming at a very appropriate time.
The province will be making the payments to the producers. How soon that is going to be, I do not know, but the program has to be developed for distribution of those funds.
Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt): Madam Speaker, the program was announced as pre-seeding assistance to farmers so that they could have money for seeding. For 80-cent-per-acre assistance from the Saskatchewan government, the federal government has forced these farmers to wait for over two months.
Is there any reason the government did not put out this money and collect from the provincial governments later?


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member knows well, it takes time to develop a program and deliver that program. As I said before, we will get that program out through the provinces posthaste.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and increase employee premiums, has not yet been passed by Parliament. Could the minister tell us by what right the deductions on paycheques of federal employees have been increased?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question and to inform hon. members that the deductions that are taken off employee paycheques are taken off in accordance with the regulations and the law that is in place right now. The new law she is talking about, of course, is being held up by her party in the Senate.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister might wish to clarify his answer because we have been informed that the new premium rates were implemented as of January 1, 1990 for all federal government employees.
I ask again on what authorization those deductions are being taken off.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, under the present law, a premium rate is announced every year. At present, the legal rate is $1.95. An adjustment was announced late last year by the hon. Minister of National Revenue, who made it clear that it was voluntary pending passage of C-21. The recommended rate is $2.25. We are making the deductions in accordance with the law and regulations in place now.
June 1, 1990

It would be very nice if the Senate would pass the bill which it is holding up so it would be much easier for more Canadians to get further training, and it would be better for the smooth running of that program.


EMPLOYMENT
David Berger: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to whoever is answering for the Minister of Justice.
On May 10, the principal of McGill University wrote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to express his deep concern regarding the major reduction in funding for the Challenge '90 program. Last summer, 95 positions for students at McGill were funded. This summer, only 63 positions will be funded.
Will the minister restore funds to McGill and to other universities across Canada which have seen similar cuts in their funding and which mean far fewer opportunities for students this summer?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the total funds for the Challenge '90 program have been increased from $198 million to $218 million. That is the first point.
The second point is that we have re-allocated within the total component of the Challenge program a certain amount from the SEED component to a Stay-in-School initiative to help high school students and to prevent drop-outs. Surely, these students are the most at risk in our society, and surely the hon. member would not be against that, would he?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. minister to meet with the principal of McGill, with the faculty and students who were counting on this funding and who do not agree with his assessment of the situation. Perhaps he can explain to them how less means more.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I repeat that we have increased the amount for Challenge. The hon. member
Oral Questions
says we have decreased it. That is false. It has been increased from $198 million to $218 million.
If the hon. member wants to set up a meeting with Mr. Johnston of McGill University, I would be very pleased to accept, at his his invitation, any time.


SEX OFFENDERS
John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity of asking questions so that the Solicitor General will be able to acknowledge his presence here today.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Less than 10 per cent of the NDP is in the House.


John F. Brewin: Thank you for your intervention.
My question is addressed to the ever present Solicitor General. The Solicitor General and the House will be aware of the increased renewed public concern with the complete failure of the administration of justice to deal with the problems of sex offenders in our society arising out of the Timothy Garland case. While it is acknowledged that this case does not directly come within federal jurisdiction, it does give me the opportunity to raise with the minister the report on the management and treatment of sex offenders which his department and he made public on March 8.
Can the minister tell the House what steps, if any, he is taking to implement the recommendations of a report about which, frankly, all we have heard so far is deafening silence?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concern of my colleague to underline my presence in the House. I am usually around, as he knows.
Perhaps some of the functions of the Solicitor General require a low profile, but I will try to enhance my presence or be more vocal in the House, so that even my own colleagues know that I am around.
With respect to the very important issue which my hon. friend raises, and it is an important issue, my hon. friend knows that on March 8, 1990,1 did release the report on the management and treatment of sex offenders. I indicated at that time that it would be part of the broader task force on mental health.

June 1, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I understand that all those recommendations are before my senior officials right now. I intend to look at those recommendations as soon as they are given to me.
I can assure this House, as I indicated on March 8, 1990, that that is not a report that will be accumulating dust on shelves.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the comments of the minister, there are a number of specific recommendations in that report which he could proceed with forthwith. The report makes it very clear that within Correctional Service Canada there are only 200 places in treatment programs for sex offenders and there are 1,400 sex offenders in our federal penitentiaries. Not only does the public safety require that immediate action begin in this area but so, too, the rights of sex offenders themselves. They desperately look for treatment when they are in our prisons.
Can the minister give us his personal assurance that he will proceed, right now, with some steps in this regard?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, the report was released on March 8. There is a comprehensive task force with respect to mental health of which this report is a part. Some measures are already in place and others will continue to be put in place.
I would like to pick up on one comment I heard this morning in the debate on a specific piece of legislation. Someone complained that we should not be proceeding with piecemeal legislation. We are looking at a comprehensive review here and will be dealing with it globally.


CORRECTIONS CANADA
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
The Privacy Commissioner has stated that he did not censor the Legere and Gingras reports and that he had no problem with their release. The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General has requested the production of the uncensored reports. There is a clear indication that there are major systemic and administrative problems at Corrections Canada and that a program
of weed and feed is necessary there. In light of all this, is the minister prepared to produce these reports immediately and to undertake an independent and comprehensive review of Corrections Canada?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, again I want to thank another one of my colleagues for doing everything in his power to underline my presence in the House today.
With respect to the specific question of my hon. colleague, I believe he is referring to the Privacy Commissioner's presence before the justice committee earlier this week. I understand that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General will provide me with the specific motion some time next week. I am aware of the motion. I have also been made aware of the comments of the Privacy Commissioner.
I would ask my hon. colleague to check with the chairman of the justice committee who, I understand, has received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner clarifying quotes apparently taken out of context with respect to that specific report to which my hon. colleague refers.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the fourth report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act. With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
I ask that the House dispense with reading of the report by the Clerk at the Table.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister have the consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 1, 1990


STRIKING COMMITTEE-FORTY-FOURTH REPORT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the forty-fourth report of the Striking Committee.

[ Translation]


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by Mr. Milliken and by Mr. Murphy, for Mr. Gauthier, that the fourth report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today relating to the tax benefit for northern Canadians.
The petitions state that, whereas the residents of northern Canada need a real tax benefit to recognize the high cost of living and working in areas described as northern or isolated, and whereas the report of the Task Force on Northern Benefits was released Friday, October 27, 1989, and it fails to address the needs of these communities, the undersigned call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the report and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program which recognizes the financial needs of the people in northern and isolated areas.
I would like to point out that residents of the following communities in my riding of Churchill have signed this
Routine Proceedings
petition: The Pas, Grand Rapids, Snow Lake, Moose Lake, Cross Lake, Cormorant, Sherridon and Thompson. There are also the signatures of people from Winnipeg and other communities including Terrace, B.C., and, from Newfoundland, Carmanville, Aspen Cove, Main Point, Ladle Cove, Deadman's Bay, Temple-man, Noggin Cove, Lumsden, Valleyfield, Musgrave Harbour, and also the community of Fredericton.
A number of communities obviously want the government finally to come up with a northern benefits package which benefits and helps the people who live in northern and isolated communities.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition certified as correct from the members and friends of the Ashby Branch 138 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Sydney.
There are almost 600 signatures on this petition and in part it states: "The government of Canada has introduced changes that will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the costs of longterm care. Whereas the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by those measures, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures which deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardships.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made some movement away from this very Draconian position, but he has not gone nearly far enough. The position of the government is still grossly unfair to the veterans of the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of numerous Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
Canadians by the hundreds have taken the trouble to sign this petition. They indicate their displeasure with the unfairness of the government in introducing this tax on virtually everything they purchase. They object to the fact that this is replacing the manufacturers' sales tax. They object to the fact that the government has already introduced 31 tax increases before the imposition of this particularly wicked and hard tax and they call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.

June 1, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Chibougamau in the riding of Roberval. Your petitioners reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and ask that Chibougamau be recognized as an isolated area under the present tax benefit system.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. These petitions all urge the government to reject the GST.
It is interesting that when petitions are taken in Victoria, being the tourist destination that it is, petitioners come from all across the country, particularly from British Columbia. There is still, and continues to be, widespread public opposition to the GST and I have the honour to present these petitions to the House to that effect.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today that was organized by Mrs. Dorothy Macdonald of my riding, and signed by herself and many residents of the Ottawa area.
They petition Parliament to promote tolerance by acting to uphold the right to freedom of expression of the French-speaking minority in Ontario, and to uphold the right to freedom of expression of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, once again I have the honour to present a petition with many signatures in both Chinese and English showing how strongly people from the Chinese Canadian community in British Columbia and merchants in Chinatown itself feel. It states: "The 7 per cent goods and services tax will hurt small businesses, costs will go up, incomes will go down and it will be an accounting
nightmare. The tax will also hurt consumers as prices of thousands of items and services go up."
"Therefore, the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament and the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax." I only wish I could say it in Chinese as well.


Jerry Pickard: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of petitions here today asking the government to reconsider its position with regard to the goods and services tax.
One petition in particular emphasizes the negative effects this tax will have on young athletes in sports organizations, something very vital to young Canadians. They are asking the government to take the unfair, unnecessary tax and reconsider its passage.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.
One is from seniors in the Trenton area of my riding who object to the government's policy of clawing back old age pensions. They ask the government to reconsider its policy with regard to this and reinstate old age security at its full value.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, as well, I have the honour to present a petition from people across the country who are concerned about the goods and services tax to be introduced in January, 1991.
The petitioners find it an unfair and additional tax which makes the burden of taxation in the country absolutely impossible. They ask the government to reconsider and withdraw the legislation.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by over 200 people from different parts of Alberta, as well as from people in the Hamilton area of Ontario. It calls on the government to end low-level flying in Canada. These people object to low-level flights disrupting the hunting and traditional ways of the Inuit and other native people in Canada.

They are happy that the low-level flight training centre at Goose Bay has been cancelled. Nevertheless, flights are still escalating, and these people would like to see an end to it.


Raymond John Funk: The
second petition I have is signed by people in my constituency from La Ronge, Stanley Mission, lie a la Crosse and other northern communities.
Like 80 per cent of Canadians, these people object to the imposition of the goods and services tax. They point out that it has a particularly negative impact on northerners who have already a much higher cost of living and pay much more for their goods and services.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament, and in this case I presume members of the Liberal caucus who sit in the other place and have the power to do so, to bring an end to the goods and services tax.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Westminster-Burnaby on a point of order.


Ms. Black:: Madam Speaker, I ask if it is possible to receive unanimous consent from the House to revert to Introduction of Private Members' Bills because I have a bill that I want to introduce.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion as presented by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



DAY OF NATIONAL MOURNING ACT


Dawn Black: for leave to introduce Bill C-306, an act respecting a day of national mourning.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?
SomeOz Hon. Members: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I thank you and members of the House for agreeing to revert to Introduction of Private Members' Bills.
I rise today to introduce my private members' bill that would commemorate December 6 as a national day of mourning in memory of the 14 young women who were massacred in Montreal.
I envision this day of mourning also to be a day of action. Every day of the year, small committed groups of women carry the entire load for helping survivors of violence and educating the public.
I want to see the public at large become involved in working to stop violence against women, and I believe that this day of mourning could be a focal point for that kind of action.
I really do believe that this bill can obtain all party support and I certainly do hope that that is the case.


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

Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent in the House to call it three o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there really be unanimous consent to call it three o'clock? I think even the Pages agree.
It being three o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at one o'clock p.m., according to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 4, 1990