1990-11-30

Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today on the second reading of Bill C-88 by concentrating on why this new institution, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or EBRD has been created; by outlining Canada's interest in central and eastern Europe; and by discussing our reasons for seeking membership in EBRD. I will then address briefly the mandate of EBRD, and Canada's financial contribution to the bank.
The countries of central and eastern Europe are undergoing political, economic, and social changes of historic importance. The political and social ferment in these countries, combined with their acute economic problems, present risk and opportunities. These developments are potentially destabilizing, but also create the potential for a prosperous, freer and more integrated European and North Atlantic community. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development can play a central role in permitting central and eastern Europe to reach its potential.
The concept of the EBRD originated from a French proposal that was quickly endorsed at a meeting of the European community in Paris in November 1989. Canada quickly endorsed this principle of a broad based bank to provide a focus for world-wide financial assistance to central and eastern Europe, in support of the process of political and economic change then beginning in that region.
Widespread interest in this initiative quickly developed beyond the confines of Europe. A large number of interested countries, including the U.S.S.R. and all other central and eastern European countries except Albania, conducted the negotiations on the bank's articles of agreement through a highly compressed series of negotiating meetings. Indeed, the unprecedented speed with which the establishment of this bank was negotiated is the clearest sign of the international community's commitment to support reform in central and eastern Europe.
This process culminated in the representatives of potential member countries signing the bank's Articles of Agreement, entitled Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Schedule-Section 2 of the bill), in Paris on May 29, 1990.
While backward in modem technology and burdened by the cumbersome and unproductive structures of the communist system, the countries of central and eastern Europe have a generally well-educated workforce, a good scientific base, and considerable technical skills. With strong and imaginative political leadership and support from the industrial world, many of these countries may be able to transform their economies and societies relatively quickly, thus enabling them to enter the European-North Atlantic community as active and self-reliant partners.
Mr. Speaker, it is the government's view that enhanced economic co-operation and integration among the countries of central and eastern Europe, and more broadly, will be vital to the process of structural adjustment that they require and would reduce the likelihood of regional conflict.

November 30, 1990
Government Orders
The EBRD can assist this process through the provision of financing and technical advice for the steady and systematic introduction of private ownership and market forces into these economies.
Canada has a vital stake in Europe. More than half of our population trace their ancestry to Europe. Some 15 per cent of Canadians have direct ties with eastern and central Europe. Moreover, Canada's future peace and prosperity is intertwined with the peace and prosperity of Europe. As a consequence, Canada is deeply involved in the affairs of Europe through our participation in NATO, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and other multilateral forums, as well as our strong bilateral ties in both eastern and western Europe.
As a nation with broad political, economic, and security interests in Europe, we need to build on our traditional relations and to influence the evolution of Europe in ways conducive to our interests. This means, especially, expanding our political, social, economic and commercial relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe. That process is already under way, as demonstrated by the discussions on European peace and security that the Prime Minister is attending in Paris this week. We must also seek both bilateral and multilateral links with the region. One key vehicle will be the EBRD.
From a commercial perspective, economic liberalization in eastern and central Europe will generate increasing trade and investment opportunities for all, including Canadian business. The bank itself will assist Canadians to be aware of and to finance business with central and eastern European countries.
The EBRD is loosely modelled on the existing regional development banks in Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. However, unlike these banks, the EBRD has a distinctive political mandate to support the transition to the market-based economies through the particular encouragement of private enterprise in those countries of central and eastern Europe adopting both political and economic reforms. The contracting parties of the EBRD have used the articles of agreement to state their commitment to democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and market economics. I would refer members to the preamble to the Articles of
Agreement, which is Schedule 2 of the proposed legislation.
The bank is to be European in character, but broadly international in membership. Its membership will include the 12 member states of the European community; the European Economic Commission, the European Investment Bank, the countries of central and eastern Europe including the U.S.S.R., and other European and non-European countries that are also members of the International Monetary Fund. A list of signatories who intend to become members is included in the annexes to the Articles of Agreement.
The main objective of the bank is to promote the development of the private sector by focusing on those countries undergoing economic liberalization and democratization. To do so, it will need to co-ordinate its work closely with existing institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In order to establish a mechanism for selecting those countries eligible to borrow and to ward against possible backsliding on reforms, the Articles of Agreement provide for an annual review of the bank's lending strategy in each borrowing country. This review, which was proposed by Canada during the negotiations, should ensure that only those countries consistently applying the principles of democracy, pluralism and market economics continue to be eligible for borrowing.
The bank's central task is to build a vibrant private sector in countries that have been dominated for the past 45 years by inefficient state planning and almost total state ownership. The articles specify that at least 60 per cent of bank funding will be targeted toward lending and equity participation in private sector enterprises. Lending to the public sector will be aimed at assisting in the transition toward greater competitiveness and eventual possible privatization of public sector firms. There may also be limited lending for infrastructure projects required to support the free market economy.
I would also note that, for the first time in the articles of agreement of any such international institution, direct reference has been made to the bank's role in promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development. The Government of Canada attaches special importance to this element of the European Bank's objectives.
November 30, 1990

The initial capital base of the bank will be 10 billion ECU, or approximately $16 billion Canadian. Of that amount, 30 per cent of which must be actually paid-in, or deposited by members with the bank. The remaining capital is callable, that is, capital that is not paid-in but for which the members are liable should the bank encounter financial difficulty.
As in the case of the other development banks, the EBRD will be able to borrow further funds in capital markets at attractive rates of interest on the basis of the callable capital in convertible currency of its most creditworthy members. This will enable the bank to lend almost triple the level of funds represented by its paid-in capital. Thus, the establishment of this bank will create a multiplier effect. Every dollar that member governments provide to the institution will catalyze an additional $2 in investment capital for central and eastern Europe.
All powers of the bank are to be vested in the board of governors, which in turn will delegate responsibility for the bank's management and policy development to the board of directors. The Minister of Finance will be the Canadian governor for the EBRD. Canada will have one of 23 seats on the board of the bank.
Canada was present at all the negotiating sessions for the EBRD and has been an active participant in the key political, financial, and technical discussions to ensure that Canadian interests are fully represented. Based on the negotiations among the 42 founding signatories to the articles of agreement, it is proposed that Canada initially purchase a share of 3.4 per cent of the capital of the bank. Such a share would make Canada the eighth largest shareholder after the United States, the other G-7 countries, and the U.S.S.R.
Canada has elected to pay its subscription during this initial period of capitalization in U.S. dollars, just as we make subscription payments to the other development banks, such as the World Bank, in U.S. dollars. A share of 3.4 per cent would entail a paid-in investment not exceeding U.S. $120 million in respect to Canada's initial subscription of shares. The total callable portion of our share would be up to U.S. $280 million. Thus, Canada's total financial commitment, actual and potential, to central and eastern Europe through the EBRD will be some U.S. $400 million, or approximately $460 million Canadian at current exchange rates. Support of this magnitude is a powerful indication of the government's
Government Orders
commitment to political and economic change in eastern Europe.
Although the EBRD will only become operational once the process of ratification by members is completed, there are clear indications that the international business community is eager to co-operate with the bank in developing a vibrant private sector in eastern Europe. Within Canada, government officials have already detected a strong interest in the EBRD on the part of banks, business people, the legal community, academics, and many others. I am confident that Canadians will use the resources of the EBRD to seek out a range of business opportunities in support of the economic transformation of eastern Europe.
Madam Speaker, the shares we are proposing to purchase in the EBRD are an investment, not just in the narrow accounting sense, but in a much broader sense: an investment in democracy and pluralism, an investment in economic freedom, and, above all, an investment in the people of central and eastern Europe. We are establishing an institution that will build productive assets and let the people of central and eastern Europe help themselves to grow and prosper.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I must emphasize that for Canada to be a founding member of the bank, legislation allowing for the communication to the bank of our ratification of the agreement must be in place as soon as possible and certainly before the end of this year.
I look to my hon. colleagues in the House to give timely consideration and passage to this bill.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to speak to Bill C-88, a bill to establish Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
In speaking for the Liberal Party, in general I must say that we support the establishment of this bank and Canada's participation in the bank, but we would like to hear the government be on record as to a couple of particular concerns that we have.
The bill that is before us this morning, establishing Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is understood as important because it is addressing a very urgent critical situation which exists in East European countries and the Soviet Union today. Even this week, day by day, we are becoming more aware of the very crisis that exists in

November 30,1990
Government Orders
eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which in some ways has the possibility of rivalling the Gulf crisis in its severity.
We are hearing, and we know, that Mr. Gorbatchev, the President of the Soviet Union, is committed to glasnost and perestroika. We support his policy initiatives and his desire to see the region become more democratic. But we understand, as well, that the upheaval of that change is enormous and we see the consequences of that upheaval today with a breakdown in the delivery of food to the citizens of the Soviet Union, in particular, and the difficult attempts that are being made to change the Soviet Union from a state-oriented economy to a free market economy. We see on a rather regular basis the results of racial and ethnic tensions erupting in the region. We realize that, if we in the western world are going to keep the lid on this critical situation and keep the process that Mr. Gorbatchev has in mind progressing, then we must do our part in Canada to assist the process.
In April and May of this year, I had the opportunity of visiting the Soviet Union and East Germany. It was very evident from that visit that a lot of assistance was required and certainly the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade recommended that Canada establish new ways of relating and supporting the transition process in the Soviet Union and east European countries, as well as opening up new avenues of our involvement in the area.
The bill before us today, not only authorizes Canada to participate in the bank as a member of the executive board of the bank, but also authorizes an expenditure by Canada of Canadian dollars in support of the capital base of the bank.
The total capital base of the bank will be $10 billion European currency units, or approximately $14 billion Canadian, with 30 per cent of that amount to be paid in initially. The Canadian share of the bank, as my colleague across the floor said, will be 3.4 per cent, entailing a paid-in investment of approximately $30 million Canadian each year for five years. This share ensures Canada
a seat on the executive board of the bank as the eighth largest contributor behind the U.S.A.
What is worthy of note with this particular bank that makes it different from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-which people have suggested could fulfil the role of the EBRD-is that the U.S.A. will hold only a 10 per cent share of the proposed European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It holds the majority share of the the World Bank and the IMF. The other G-7 countries will each share approximately 8 per cent and the Soviet Union will share 6 per cent of the shares in the EBRD.
Beyond, I think the Canadian public would want to know who will hold shares in the bank. That would include most of the countries of Europe and the G-7. They would also want to know who the recipient countries are going to be when this bank is set up and functioning. The recipient countries will be Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia. Given the difficult circumstances that exist in those countries, especially the Soviet Union today, it is important that Canada support this bank.
This morning there was a newspaper article from Moscow. It stated: "Last night in Moscow, a Soviet transport plane landed with 37 tonnes of food for Germany, a load of margarine, and 63,000 meals of lentils, noodles and a pea and meat soup will be distributed to orphans' homes, children's hospitals, and among ethnic German groups." It goes on to say that a Russian major, "an army officer and veteran of the Afghanistan war, said he felt ashamed that his country had to accept hand-outs from the Germans, the nation the Soviet Union and its allies defeated in 1945."
Although it is essential right now that the Soviet Union receive the food assistance necessary, it is important for us to formalize a process that allows the Soviet Union and east European countries to receive the support from the western world in a more dignified fashion.
One of the concerns that I have has to do with the crisis in the Soviet Union and East Germany and our need to address and highlight the need in that area. In doing this, we must not forget the extremely serious
November 30, 1990

concerns of Third World countries. Because of the Middle East crisis that exists at the present time, the burden of coping for Third World countries has increased enormously. It is not just the Soviet Union and east European countries that are experiencing increased problems economically and politically these days. It is also Third World countries which are also showing some signs of moving to more democratic regimes, but because of the severe impact of the gulf crisis, on top of the international debt crisis that they have been experiencing for the last years, they are also in a very precarious situation.
The Government of Canada has said-I would like to have it on the record in the House-that the budget for what is termed official development assistance, that which goes from Canada to assist Third World developing nations, will not experience any further cutbacks. We want to ensure that official development assistance dollars will not be used to help fund the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
We have to recognize that here in Canada we have our own economic difficulties. It is also important that Canadians understand the linkages of Canada's well-being to the well-being of the world as a whole. One of the worst things that could happen to the world today would be for the richer western nations of the world to become isolationist in their policies. In the long run, Canada would suffer grievously from taking those types of policy initiatives.
Looking at the bill, there are some very positive aspects. I would like to just speak for a moment to the preamble of the bill which I think is important for one very significant reason. In the preamble, it states:
Welcoming the intent of Central and Eastern European countries to further the practical implementation of multiparty democracy, strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights and their willingness to implement reforms in order to evolve towards market-oriented economies;
That specific reference to human rights is not in the statement of purpose. Why that is not so is not clear, but the fact that the reference to human rights exists in the preamble to the bill is important and significant.
There has been a proposal from the lawyers committee for human rights in the United States that this preamble notion of protection of human rights be given emphasis.
Government Orders
The lawyers committee suggests that there should be developed within the structure of the bank a human rights department which would assess the human rights implications of proposed bank loans and investments through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
It is unfortunate that the same emphasis on human rights is not given to making loans and investments through our other development banks around the world, but we hope the proposed department will be received positively and be set up. Hopefully, it could be a precedent for the other banks that exist in the world.
The lawyers committee for human rights suggests that the proposed department would provide expertise during the pre-project review and appraisal stages to enable the bank to consider, one, the effects of human rights observance in a country on the purpose or likely success of the proposed loans and investments and, two, the general and potentially reciprocal relationship between human rights observance in a country and economic development.
The results of a human rights review would be considered along with other economic factors in evaluating a proposed project. To quote their document: "The drafters of the proposed charter for the European bank for Reconstruction and Development understood that economic development in Canada and eastern Europe has been seriously impaired by the denials of basic civil, political, social and economic rights". This, I applaud; this statement, I applaud; this fact, I applaud. But why the drafters of this bank would see that very important relationship and not give full credence to the same view and value to the other development banks, including the IMF and the World Bank, is beyond me to understand.
The proposal of the lawyers committee for human rights is supported in Canada by the task force on churches and corporate responsibility. In a letter to the Minister of Finance by that group, they commented that they are hopeful that Canada, if it becomes a shareholder in the new bank, will be in agreement with the proposal to set up a human rights department, and that a similar move on human rights criteria would be possible.
A concern that we have on this side of the House with regard to the institution of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is the fact that this will be the first of the development banks to have our

November 30,1990
Government Orders
Minister of Finance sit as the director rather than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Personally, I feel that that distinction is significant because the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have a much broader view of Canadian policy vis-a-vis east European countries and the Soviet Union than the Minister of Finance who basically has shown us so many times that it does not matter what other policy or program in this country exists, or might exist, that economically it is cash that is the bottom line. It is of great concern to us really that this change has been made and we ask why would the government have done this.
One other aspect that is important and which we support on this side of the House is article 2 (vii) which states that one of the bank's purposes is to promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development. I can just say again that having visited the region earlier this year, certainly the very first and impressive impact that confronts one when landing in that area is the severe and critical environmental damage that has occurred in the Soviet Union and east European countries at this very point. It is a serious crisis. If we as Canadians want to really understand the importance of cleaning up our own environmental act, one only needs to see the consequences of not acting, as they exist at this point in time in the Soviet Union and east European countries.
Certainly if western nations which will be members of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development are going to be involved in helping the Soviet Union and east European countries to become successful democratic societies, we must give importance to all of the projects which are funded being environmentally sustai-nabale.
To conclude, we on this side of the House are in support of this bill. There are aspects of it which we feel are very important. The last one, that I just mentioned, the bank's funding would support only environmentally sustainable projects and programs. The second is that for the first time we have a bill that suggests and recommends that funding given to countries by western nations to developing democracies take human rights considerations into account as an important factor. I hope that factor will be seen as important wherever this country lends and invests Canadians funds.
My final word is that we support this bill, but would like the government to go on record saying that our representation on this bank will reflect Canada's total foreign policy vis-a-vis these countries and not merely dollars as the bottom line, that there is other conditionality to the funds that we will make available through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As well, we would like to have the government on record to say that funding for this bank will not in any way impact upon the current funding that is provided to official development assistance by this government.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I too welcome participation in the debate this morning with respect to Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada on the board of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
It has already been mentioned by the two previous speakers. We are looking at a situation which has taken a long time to develop but which has been thrust upon the international stage in a relatively short period of time. Of course I am referring here to the dire economic situation in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union.
After some 45 years of oppressive Marxist-Leninism, highly centralized economies, economies that could not function in the post smokestack industrial world in which we live today, industries and economic systems that could not adapt themselves to modem technology or to the electronic age, in short to the modem marketplace, have left a legacy of not only bitterness at the human level, but chaos at the economic level and in the marketplace.
Let us just pause for a moment and take a look at the central and eastern European and Soviet Union situations today. We may indeed be almost too late at this moment to assist some or many of those economies. For example, in the Soviet Union under perestroika absolute chaos reigns today. It is not that the Soviets cannot produce, they have never been able to produce enough in many areas such as food, but they cannot transport their goods and services from source to market. Consequently there is a tremendous lack of goods and foodstuffs in the Soviet Union that is creating tremendous hardship.
November 30, 1990

Indeed, this winter it is estimated that between unemployment and inflation there will probably be upward of 10 million citizens wandering the countryside looking for shelter and clothing and food alone, to say nothing of the many more millions who will be unemployed.
In eastern Europe the situation is not that much better. In areas of Poland, eastern Czechoslovakia, even in parts of Hungary, and particularly in Romania and Bulgaria, we have a growing danger and unless we can get the economic systems kick-started, there may indeed be a resort to coups d'etat for the re-establishment of oppressive regimes not of the left but of the right, military, quasi-Fascist in other words.
Eastern Europeans and people in the Soviet Union have lived under such oppression for so long that they are extremely anxious to get moving and to get into the process of liberalization and democratization. Hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, may not be prepared to wait for the normal market adjustments and for the normal regulation and change from the old system to the new. This will manifest itself, I suggest, in many different ways.
As I alluded to a moment ago, I think there is going to be a period in some areas of some of those countries of extreme social chaos. I think there may be some political activism that is of an extremely unsavoury nature.
I also think that many of these younger people who do not have the ties that older family people have in central and eastern Europe may decide, as many of them already have, to pick up and move west. This is going to create tremendous stress on the economies of central and western Europe because these people know no national boundaries today in eastern Europe. They are simply moving from Poland into what is now eastern Germany, from Czechoslovakia into Germany, from Hungary into Germany and so on. It is creating a very large pool, a sort of a floating population, in central and eastern Europe that is potentially explosive. I suggest that unless we can get a handle on the orderly development and transition from the old Soviet-style economy to the more modem industrial market-oriented and liberal economies of western Europe, we may be in for a very rough time.
Madam Speaker, my party is pleased to participate in this debate. We wish to point out that we first of all do
Government Orders
not oppose Canada's participation in this new regional development bank. We think it is extremely worth while, but we do have a few reservations.
As has already been stated, the purpose of this legislation will enable Canada to become a founding member of a regional bank for the modernization and development of eastern and central Europe. Nations potentially eligible for funding are Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the former G.D.R., Hungary, Poland, Romania, the U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia, incidentally, is a country that is on the brink, I believe, of civil war; certainly some kind of civil disruption at this time, not based so much on its economy but because of the ethnic tensions and stresses in that area.
Canada is contributing 3.4 per cent or $479 million of the bank's capital, which ensures it a seat on the board of directors. The agreement must be in place by March 31, 1991. The EBRD will control $15 billion Canadian in funds.
This is a wonderful idea. As I said earlier, my party supports it. It was mainly the brain child of Francois Mitterrand, the President of France, and indeed the first president of the bank will be a French banker.
We have some reservations-and I will get to them in a few moments-in that the constraints being placed upon these various countries will limit the kind of enterprise into which individuals, groups and corporations can enter.
For example, public enterprises of a democratic nature will be virtually excluded. Co-operatives may indeed be excluded. There will be an overemphasis on purely private owned operations. As we know, throughout the world, economies are much healthier when there is a mix between privately owned, co-operatively owned, and publicly owned but working with the parameters of a free market in those areas, regions, and countries.
I would like to give a little background as to how Bill C-88 came about. The articles of agreement to create the EBRD was signed in Paris on May 29, 1990 by our own Minister of State for Finance at that time, along with 39 other founding countries, specifically the European Economic Community and the European Investment Bank. This bank is the result of a proposal presented, as I said a few moments ago, by French

November 30, 1990
Government Orders
President Francois Mitterrand during a session of the European Parliament held in November 1989.
The headquarters of the bank will be located in London, England. The first president of the bank will be, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Jacques Attali from France, an of course the agreement must be ratified by March 31, 1991.
Even though time is of the essence, we in this party would hope that the bill will go to a committee where it can be properly analysed, scrutinized and debated, so that perhaps there could conceivably be some important, positive, added input by Canada into the financial arrangements and into the construction of this kind of enterprise.
EBRD will control $10 million ECU, which is approximately $15 billion Canadian in funds. The original authorized capital stock shall be divided into paid-in shares, 30 per cent or $3 billion ECU, and into callable shares, 70 per cent or $7 billion ECU.
Prospective subscribing members are divided into four groups. The first group includes the member companies of the European Community, the European Community itself as distinct from its membership, and the European Investment Bank. This group of members would control $5.1 billion ECU or 51 per cent of the total. In this group, France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain each control 8.5 per cent of the shares.
Another group contains members of the European Free Trade Association, other European countries such as Tbrkey, and a middle eastern country, the state of Israel. This group will control $1,137 billion ECU or
11.37 per cent.
The third group includes recipient countries of central and eastern Europe and control 1.35 million ECU or 13.5 per cent.
The fourth group includes Canada, which will control 3.4 per cent of the shares, the United States, which will control 10 per cent-and this makes the United States the largest shareholder-and Japan with 8.5 per cent.
The initial paid-in capital by Canada amounts to 120 million ECU or 3.4 per cent of 3 billion ECU or U.S. $119.04 million, with payments spread over five years. Under article 6 of the agreement, payment must be in
ECU, U.S. dollars or Japanese yen, based on the average exchange rate for ECU between September 30, 1989 and March 1990.
Nations potentially eligible for funding are Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the former G.D.R., Hungary, Poland, Romania, the U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia.
There are two articles of importance, particularly to me and to the New Democratic Party Article 1 states the purpose. The purpose of the EBRD is to foster the transition toward open market oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the central and eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multi-party pluralism and market economics. I would have hoped that in that article, along with the stress on the free marketplace and the liberalized marketplace, human rights would have been put at the top of the list because that has always been the major problem, certainly since the 1940s, in those countries. Human rights were virtually non-existent. Another clause that should have been included in article 1, as was mentioned by my Liberal colleague, was a direct and specific reference to environmental impacts. As a modem banking document, human rights and environmental concerns should have been right up there at the top of the list, along with specific market mechanisms and financial and economic mechanisms, in the article. It would have signalled a modem, contemporary approach to banking, if in the act itself setting up a new regional bank the governors of that bank would have put at the top of the list, along with banking mechanisms and instruments, respect for human rights and respect for the environment.
That to me would have been a giant step forward, but it is not there and it is unfortunate it is not there. I call upon the government to attempt to put it there in its continuing negotiations with their American, Japanese and European counterparts as we move on toward March 1991.
Turning to article 2, the activities of the EBRD are listed in this article. It is for the purposes of implementing economic reforms, including demonopolization, decentralization and privatization, promoting productive, competitive and private sector activity, to provide technical assistance for relevant projects, stimulating development of capital markets, and promoting environmentally sound activities and sustainable development. It comes
November 30,1990

in the second article, but it is not specified or emphasized.
So far so good, in our view. As I alluded to a few moments ago, we do have very serious reservations about the exclusivity of the trust and philosophy behind the setting up of this regional bank for reconstruction. It places total emphasis on the private sector in a liberalized marketplace and does not make accommodation for such things as co-operatives and state owned enterprises, which exist and flourish in many democratic countries. They used to flourish in this country in many respects, although we are doing everything we can right now to privatize those that are the most productive, effective, and efficient in their management and organization.
We would like to see some movement, some accommodation, so that this bank would simply not reflect or be a mirror image of the American, the German or the U.K. marketplace but would be broad enough and flexible enough to allow individual eastern European countries and individual republics within the Soviet Union to develop their own kinds of market oriented economies and their own kinds of market oriented enterprises. Therefore we would not restrict them or make it exclusively a private ownership kind of approach. Co-ops and even state owned enterprises would be included in this whole area of economic and commercial development.
After all, there is still a majority of international airlines in the world which are state owned, they have not all been privatized, by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the railroads, for example, in western Europe today are publicly owned; they are state owned. One has to be flexible here to allow greater latitude in the type of commercial enterprise anticipated by the EBRD.
The use of the resources and facilities of the EBRD is exclusively tied to the implementation of articles 1 and 2. This is basically what I have been talking about. The EBRD may not provide more than 40 per cent of its total committed funds to the state sector. We would like to see more committed to the state sector, including state owned enterprises.
In each individual state, no more than 40 per cent of the bank's committed funds may be provided to the state sector, and that of course is in article 11. The EBRD is
required to work in close collaboration with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as the OECD.
What we are doing here is perpetuating financial institutions of a totally western hue and colour. We are not allowing, I would suggest, enough creative latitude on the part of the eastern Europeans and the various republics in the Soviet Union. One should keep in mind that it is unlikely that we will be dealing with the U.S.S.R. for very much longer. As far as I can understand at this moment, the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, except in name, in the office of its president, and in the Soviet military. Within very short order we are going to be dealing with at least five or six former Soviet republics as more or less independent nations. I think that is a good thing. That is the way things are going over there, so we have to make certain that this act is amenable to accommodate those new republics which may very well become independent nations.
I understand my time is up for now. I do not know how much time I will have left following Question Period, but I will call it eleven o'clock at this time, if I may.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: To answer the hon. member's question, he was allowed 40 minutes so he has a lot of time left yet. Does the House agree to calling it eleven o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, Canadians are appalled at the number of foreign criminals, using Canada as a haven from justice. Our present extradition law, with its lengthy procedure, enables these fugitives to remain in Canada for years. Canadians are demanding that the extradition law be changed.

November 30,1990
I welcomed the recent announcement of the Minister of Justice that the goal of the government was to introduce new, comprehensive extradition legislation.
A private member's bill which would limit the number of appeals available was introduced into the House of Commons by the member for Peterborough. It deserves the support of all members. The government and the Official Opposition have agreed to move this bill forward. However, the NDP is blocking the speedy passage of this legislation. I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-210.
Canadians are demanding an immediate change to the Extradition Act. Foreign criminals are not wanted in Canada.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, today it's official: we are in a recession. Its effects are particularly severe in our northern regions where the government has systematically cut assistance for resource development. I am referring to the unfortunate demise of the flow-through shares program, a Liberal policy that literally caused the rebirth of the mining industry in Canada. This program has proved be one of the best tools for regional and entrepreneurial development, which is probably why the NDP was initially against it.
Thx benefits linked to flow-through shares should be reinstated to help northern residents get their economy started again. These are dynamic people, people with vision, and they should be given the tools they need. The Tories have never understood the problems of our northern regions, and by cancelling this program, they once again demonstrate their lack of understanding.

[English\


WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow, December 1 is World AIDS Day. This year's focus, women and AIDS, recognizes the very important contribution women make in fighting this disease. While a great deal of progress has been made,
anyone can be at risk. The incidence of HIV infection among women in Canada and around the world is on the rise.
In addition to becoming increasingly vulnerable to AIDS, women face an added burden. As the principal caregivers in most societies, both in the helping professions and in their traditional role as nurturers, women are called upon to bear a heavy load in this struggle.
Women are one of the identified target groups in the national strategy on AIDS. Health and Welfare is working closely with community organizations to produce education and prevention materials specifically designed for women.
This government is committed to protecting all Canadians from the further spread of this deadly disease. We are pleased to support Canada's participation in World AIDS Day.



Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow is World AIDS Day. While I would like to express my support for the thrust of this government's response to the AIDS epidemic in the form of the National AIDS Strategy released in June, it is important to realize that the strategy leaves many issues unaddressed.
The principles contained within the strategy and its direction are sound. Unfortunately, the lack of resources threatens the strategy's implementation.
The government needs to increase funding for AIDS education, research and prevention. It needs to increase funding for community groups and for human resources within the Department of National Health and Welfare. It needs to do so over the long term so that long-range planning can take place. Stronger government effort is needed to educate and inform the public. In particular, the federal government must fulfil its commitment to add sexual orientation to the human rights code.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration should remove the restrictions on travel and immigration in Canada for persons with HIV or AIDS, and resources must be made available to address the growing problem of AIDS in Canada's prisons. The federal government must also collaborate with the provinces to ensure adequate resourcing of provincial plans, anonymous
November 30, 1990

AIDS testing, increased support to community groups and access to affordable treatment.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that the minister has taken an important step forward with the National AIDS Strategy.


BILL C-210
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, Charles Ng, wanted for mass murder in California, is fighting extradition proceedings. Already he has spent five years in a Canadian prison.
Thousands of Canadians want changes to the Extradition Act. Our procedure now allows foreign fugitives to remain in Canadian custody rather than face justice at home. A bill presented by the member from Peterborough would reduce the extradition proceedings up to a year and a half.
We had the opportunity to vote and the NDP delayed the vote. The means are here to improve the act but the NDP has thwarted these efforts.
The bill should be voted on and sent to committee.


WORLD AIDS DAY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, it is not without reason that World AIDS Day on December 1 has for its focus the increasing impact of AIDS on women, for 5.2 per cent of all adult AIDS cases in our country are women.
This may appear to be a small percentage. However reports show that new cases of AIDS for women are increasing at about the same rate as that of men, an alarming and unforeseen new concern.
Women who come into contact with AIDS and HIV infection face many stresses and forms of guilt like their male counterparts. Additional harmful psychosocial effects includes blame for the risk of transmission of HIV infection to their newborn and a lack of power in negotiating sexual practice which often results in violence and abuse.
These problems will not solve themselves. It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to initiate and maintain programs that will encourage behaviour changes in both sexes, particularly education toward safer sex, responsible sex, the use of condoms, the right
to advertise information on our television channels and the right and choice to just say no.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Andre R. Nadeau, president of Pinard and Nadeau, the Ford Mercury Lincoln dealer in Drummondville, in my riding, recently sent me a copy of a letter adressed to Mr. Jean Chretien, regarding the GST.
In his letter, Mr. Nadeau points out that in anticipations of the GST, his business has taken the necessary steps to prepare for its implementation, which was done at considerable cost. He even advised his customers that the price of cars would go down after January 1, which has caused many prospective buyers to postpone their purchases.
It seems, however, that the Liberal senators are prepared to go to great lengths to further postpone the final vote on the GST.
Mr. Nadeau is very concerned. Postponing the coming into force of the GST would be a potential disaster for his business, especially now that we are experiencing an economic slowdown. He therefore urges Mr. Chretien to allow the immediate passage of Bill C-62.
Madam Speaker, this is tangible proof of irresponsible behaviour by the Liberal Party, at the expense of Canadian men and women.


ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, the headlines in today's newspapers say it is official. We are in a recession. That is no news to Atlantic Canada. To prove my point let us review some headlines from Atlantic Canada on this government's economic mismanagement over the last two years. "New Brunswick to be hardest hit by VIA cuts"; "Military cuts, closures will hurt Nova Scotia"; "Federal funding cuts threaten troubled provinces"; "Change in grant policy another blow to ACOA"; "Maritime lads starve as Ontario gets fat"; "Atlantic chill"; "APEC sees $72 million yearly loss for Maritimes in military cuts"; "GST already damaging Nova Scotia economy"; "Federal policy hard on Atlantic economy"; "Nova Scotia to lose $40 million in UI benefits"; "Ottawa's bad-news downpour has Atlantic

November 30,1990
s. o. 3i
residents reeling"; "Atlantic Canada, the nation's economic wasteland gets wasted again".
This is a consequential headline: "Tory support in Atlantic Canada at an all-time low".
However, there is one headline that is about to be written for December 11 that offers hope. That headline will read: "Jean Chretien elected member of Parliament for the riding of Beausejour". For the sake of Canada, that headline cannot come quickly enough.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure veterans and their dependants that the expenditure reductions announced last Friday will not affect their programs and benefits in any way whatsoever.
True, the veterans affairs ministry is having to bear its fair share of the cuts revealed in the supplementary estimates and has had to budget for $3.26 million in reductions. However, veterans affairs is managing to tighten its belt without touching direct services to veterans.
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, President of the War Amputations of Canada has applauded the approach taken by the ministry. In a news release Mr. Chadderton said the ministry's plan which includes a freeze on hiring is "a very gutsy decision by Veterans Affairs Minister Gerry Merrithew" and "is in keeping with the promise that the level of veterans benefits will not be disturbed".
I also congratulate the minister for ensuring that it will be business as usual for veterans and their families.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, 43 years ago on November 29 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 181 (II). Known as the "partition resolution", it provided for a Jewish state
and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under special international regime.
Since only the Jewish state came into being, the UN General Assembly in 1979, by resolution 34/65(D) requested member states to observe November 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The President and Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council lead a meeting of governmental and NGO representatives, and a message is read from the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The objectives are: one, to draw the urgent attention of the international community to the continuing plight of the Palestinian people; and, two, to mobilize international public opinion in support of a just and peaceful settlement that recognizes the right of Palestinians to return home and to establish their own state in Palestine.


FISHERIES
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, quillback rock cod tops the culinary list of Vancouver's Chinese Canadian community and is enjoyed by residents of Vancouver and tourists alike throughout the Pacific Rim.
The Chinese community in Vancouver is concerned about the Department of Fisheries proposal to reallocate quillback to the sportfishing sector and to impose a 300 tonne commercial quota without limiting entry requirements for full-time vessels. Without limited entry, the planned commercial cap will lead to a three-month season, making this fresh seafood available only from May to August.
While the volume production of quillback is relatively small, the social and economic returns are high. This labour-intensive fishery employs many people who maintain the live fish until sale, as well as supply wholesale and retail outlets.
The industry warns that the quillback stock could die within two years. On behalf of my constituents, supported by petitions which we will table later, I ask the minister to impose a limited entry program on vessels, to
November 30,1990

establish an eight-month season on all Gulf fishing to protect the stock during spawning season, and to reverse the quillback allocation from commercial to sport by introducing the factors of culture and employment to the decision-making process.
Most important, I remind the minister, and of course the Speaker knows as well, of the unique importance of this fragile industry to the cultural mosaic of Vancouver and the British Columbia coast.


FLEUVE ET MUSIQUE FESTIVAL
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, environmental awareness remains essential if we want to change our habits. This year, over 15,000 people took part in the Fleuve et Musique festival in Repentigny, in my riding, a successful event that was made possible partly thanks to federal support.
This week, Fleuve et Musique received support from the United Nations, through the UN Environmental Program, for the fourth edition of a festival that has become both national and international in scope.
I support the organizers of this great ecological happening, especially Mr. Pierre Lussier and his team. I urge them to keep up the good work and I want to congratulate them on their dedication to this worthy cause. As in the past, they can count on my support, and I hope the Canadian government will support a project that makes a vital contribution to environmental awareness in this country.


LANDFILL SITES
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, the Keele Valley landfill site in the federal riding of York North is expected to reach capacity in 14 months. To the shock and amazement of North York residents, the provincial NDP environment minister last week cancelled plans for two alternate landfill sites in favour of overfilling the Keele Valley site.
Keele Valley is part of the environmentally sensitive Oakridges moraine where area residents and environmentalists are struggling to ensure the protection of wildlife and fresh water spawning, and to stop development that would destroy the area's sensitive habitat forever.
Toronto's waste disposal problem is even ending up in the national capital region, as garbage is shipped to landfill sites just outside the city of Ottawa. For a government that wants to come across as the great green defender, the provincial NDP are looking more and more like the grey federal Tories.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, more and more Canadians are recognizing the true value of higher education to both individual and national development. Mark Gerson, a Toronto journalist, is a good example. In his recent Globe and Mail article "Stop Squawking and Start Thinking" he raises a number of interesting considerations on the subject.
For example, should we consider a trimester system which ensures year-round use of university facilities and spread the student labour pool beyond the summer months, or should we actually merge or close some facilities or programs, to name just two.
In the end, the article's central theme is that we do not need some sort of knee-jerk exercise. Rather, what we need is an all-encompassing review of the future of higher education based on critical thinking.
He also proposes that such a review should include whether there is a need for a stronger federal presence in higher education.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Gerson adds his voice to the growing number of Canadians who are seeking more from our educational system. Canadians need and deserve a system which prepares them for productive employment and lifelong learning opportunities.


MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, it is not often that a New Democrat has the opportunity to get up in this House and thank corporate Canada for its donations to the country, but I would specifically like to thank the Dominion of Canada General Insurance

November 30,1990
Oral Questions
Company, the Empire Life Insurance Company and Beatrice Foods company and Curragh Resources Inc. for allowing the member for Vancouver Quadra to be in the House today.
I am sure his constituents and members of Parliament are very glad that he has had this opportunity. We would like to thank the corporation specifically for replacing Jean Chretien who had exactly the same type of attendance in the House of Commons when he was on so many boards of directors and when he was in opposition, and felt no need to attend the House of Commons.


WORLD AIDS DAY
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow is World AIDS Day. This year, the emphasis is on women and AIDS.
The World Health Organization estimated that one third of the 8 to 10 millions infected with HIV worldwide are women. In the year 2000, there will probably be an equal number of new AIDS cases among women and men every year. On some 4,500 AIDS cases reported in Canada, nearly 5 p. 100 are women.
In Canada as everywhere in the world, women are increasingly affected by this pandemic disease. There are indeed the women who are themselves infected with HTV, those whose child or spouse are as well as all women health care workers, teachers, social workers and counsellors.
Women do play a key role in preventing the spread of HIV and they have been identified as a target group in our National AIDS Strategy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time is up. We shall now move to oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed what thousands of Canadians who have been losing their jobs, farms, homes, and businesses have known for months. Statistics Canada has told us that the economy has actually shrunk for a total of the past six months, and that is the official definition of a recession.
Will the Minister of Finance finally use the dreaded r word and admit what everybody else in the country has known for months, that we are in a recession? Will he take steps today to get us out of this recession, the economic mess that his policies have created for all too many Canadians?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think that I have been quite forthright with the Canadian people in talking about the weakness that we can expect in the economy this year. I mentioned that first in my budget of February of this year.
We are in a recession. The numbers in the Statistics Canada release today confirm that. This is something that has been apparent for some while now. I think it is significant, though, to observe that the numbers today are not as negative as what some economists had been calling for. There was some reduction in the level of negative activity in the second quarter, from minus 1.6 to minus 1.2. It is important to keep these statistics in perspective here.
There is weakness in the economy. That is very clear. But it is important that we not overdo this by excessive rhetoric about the state of that weakness. We are certainly not anything like we were in 1981-82, but it does mean that we have to do what we can to get interest rates down. As I have indicated on many occasions in the House, when we can see the easing of the inflationary pressures continue, we will be able to get interest rates down further.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
November 30, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, Canadians will find it astounding that the minister, in effect, says that he is sticking with the very policies that have gotten us into the economic mess that Statistics Canada has confirmed today.
Statistics Canada has identified high interest rates and the high dollar as major contributors to the massacre now under way in the manufacturing sector and, in fact, in just about every sector of the Canadian economy. This minister is sleep-walking to economic disaster, and he is dragging Canadians unwillingly along with him.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his budget of last February was totally wrong and is now out of date, and that, in fact, his projections of growth and interest rates were totally wrong? Therefore, will he bring in a new budget right away to end the economic nightmare that his policies of recession, which he admits he has been putting in place, have been creating for Canadians and the economy? Will he do this today?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this underscores the point that I have just made. We said in the budget that we are expecting an increase in the economy over the course of this year of 1.3 per cent. In fact, these numbers confirms that we are at about 1.0 per cent. That is very little change from what the projection was at the time of the budget.
I have commented on the deficit in the House. We are on track for something slightly less than $30 billion for this fiscal year. The deviation from my projection in the budget is equivalent to about 1 per cent of total spending. So, it is not a major deviation.
I do want to point out that consumer spending in the third quarter rose by 1.1 per cent. Residential investment and the non-residential investment, while off significantly, are coming off at extremely high levels of activity. In the case of housing, for four years running we were in excess of 200,000 housing starts a year. We had a huge investment boom in 1987 through 1989.
Another key factor here, going into this recession, is that interest rates were about 14 per cent whereas, in
Oral Questions
1981-82, they were 21 per cent. The inventory balance is much better this time around than was the case in 1981-82.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, when the minister talked about the projections in his budget, he did not say a word about his projections on interest rates, and how the facts show the extent to which he is going to be off base on those.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance can no longer ignore the facts. Statistics Canada confirmed today that we are in a full-scale recession. I therefore want to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us exactly how long this recession will last and how much longer the minister intends to hide his head in the sand, instead of facing the facts and introducing new policies that will get us out of a recession that was brought about by the Minister of Finance in the first place.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is very frustrating to listen to the misleading statements that the Leader of the Opposition continues to make. I have commented on these on a number of occasions and I will continue to state what our best judgment is. I would match the record of our recommendations, our estimates, and our deficit projections of the economic and interest rate activity against the government of which he was a part any day, at any time of day.
The hon. member asks how long do we expect this recession to continue. I have said on many occasions that one of the key elements here is the inflationary pressures. We have seen some easing of inflationary pressures and we have been able to match that by close to 200 basis points drop in interest rates. We will continue to see those interest rates drop as we see inflationary pressures ease. Our expectations for the second half of next year is that we will see a recovery. But what we are putting in place now is a base for a return to non-inflationary growth on a solid basis well into the 1990s.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.

November 30,1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, so we are in a recession. This comes as no surprise to the thousands of Canadians who have lost their homes, farms, jobs, and their businesses.
There are only two possibilities: either the government has deliberately driven us into recession, or the government simply did not know what it was doing. Which is it?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Give it to him, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we have had seven and a half years of strong economic activity in the country. As we have gone through this period of strong economic activity, there have been inflationary pressures building up. We have seen that in the investment boom and the housing boom we had in the 1987-88-89 period. The economy reached a point where there needed to be some catching of its breath.
We also saw, during the course of this period, significant inflationary pressures. We have had to take action to lean against those inflationary pressures and that resulted in higher interest rates. We are seeing some signs that those inflationary pressures are easing, but they are still there.


Mr. Martin:: You're strangling the economy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member from LaSalle-Emard is saying that the inflationary pressures are not there. They are very clearly there.
The inflationary pressures are clearly there. I have commented on these on a number of occasions. We are committed to getting these inflationary pressures turned down. If we are able to get the inflationary pressures easing further, we will see further reductions in interest rates.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of the economy catching its breath, it is a question of the government having put a noose around the neck of Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The minister predicted in his budget a growth rate of 1.3 per cent for this calendar year. In order to reach this figure, we will have to have a growth
rate of about 5 per cent in the last three months which we are now in.
Will the minister admit today that his growth forecast, just like his interest rate forecast, is way off the mark? Will he admit today his incompetence?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I will say is the hon. member's figures are wrong. The projection that we are making for economic growth for this current calendar year is 1 per cent. That compares to 1.3 per cent in the budget that I brought down in February of this year.


Ronald MacDonald: That's a 25 per cent drop.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Point three of 1 per cent in an economy of about $600 billion is not a very large reduction.


An hon. member:: Tell that to all those people who have lost their jobs.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, it is official. Just like the Liberals in 1981-82, this government has led us into a recession. What is scary is that investment has decreased, exports have decreased, and the worst figures on economic growth are from the most recent months, August and September. I quote from Statistics Canada: "These were the largest back-to-back declines since April, 1982."
Will the Minister of Finance now admit that we are heading into a severe recession, hurting older workers, hurting young people, hurting women, and hurting poor people right across the country? Will he admit that this is a serious and important recession to which he has to respond?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this is precisely the excessive rhetoric that I think hon. members should avoid.
We are not in the same type of recession as 1981-82. We went into 1981-82 with interest rates in excess of 21 per cent. This time the peak in the interest rate was 14 per cent. In 1981-82, we had a major imbalance, a major build-up of inventories and in the recession there was a
November 30, 1990

huge drop. We are not in an imbalanced inventory position anything near what we were in in 1981-82.
That does not take away from the fact that we are in a recession, that businesses are hurting, and that people are hurting. That is why we brought interest rates down by close to two percentage points. As I have indicated on many occasions in the House, we will see a continuation of that if we are confident that we can keep our inflationary pressures under control.
I remind the hon. member that there is a recession under way in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, so that this is not something that is purely a Canadian phenomenon. The difference between now and 1981-82 is that the Japanese and German economies are growing quite strongly.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I am not certain why the Minister of Finance thinks he can get away with that kind of nonsense.
He says that the United States is in recession. In fact, the third quarter figures in the United States showed a significant advance in economic growth, whereas the figures that have just come out show a decline. That is the reality and the minister knows it.
Like many members of Parliament, I have had-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member might want to put a question.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Your lights are out.


Steven W. Langdon: Joe, if you stood up, perhaps you would be even smarter.
My question to the minister is this: Across this country, there are people weeping because of the jobs they have lost, because of the farms they have lost and because of the businesses they have lost. Is the minister prepared to take some action to change his policy thrust? Is he prepared-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There was a question, I think.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have made statements in this House on many occasions. The basis for which we kept interest rates high up until the spring of this year was because we had significant inflationary pressures that, if we had let stand, they would have got out of control as they have in the
Oral Questions
United Kingdom today, where their inflation rate for 2 months running has been just short of 11 per cent.
In 1988, the British inflation rate and the Canadian inflation rate were about the same. That is the problem that we have avoided. The United Kingdom is going into its recession starting at much higher levels of inflation and much higher levels of interest rates. If I were in the shoes of my counterpart over there, I would not be very happy.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is the minister's responsibility to deal with this country and he has done a very poor job of it, as these statistics today show.

Canadians right across the country are feeling the impact of this very deep recession. So I ask the minister whether he is now prepared to change his policies? Is he prepared to lower the unduly high interest rates in this country? Is he prepared to reduce the value of our dollar to help Canadian exporters?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member would insist on choosing the kind of excessive words he used in his question. We are in a recession, but it is not as severe as the 1981-82 recession. Current interest rates stand at 12 per cent, but in 1981 they reached 21 per cent and even more. The balance of inventories is now better than it was during the previous recession. My colleague would be well advised to weigh his comments and avoid using overly excessive words.


PERSIAN GULF
Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Some states, notably the Soviet Union, have conditioned their support for yesterday's Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq on the need for the international community to try one more time to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
Here in Canada, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the choice of peace or war in the Persian Gulf is entirely in the hands of Iraq. Will Canadians be hearing from the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister about a Canadian initiative to encourage a

November 30, 1990
Oral Questions
peaceful resolution in the gulf or is it the government's position that we leave that role to others?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is inadvertent I am sure that the hon. member misleads the House.
The Security Council resolution that was voted yesterday, supported and indeed sponsored by Canada along with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and others, talks about a pause of goodwill.
As I indicated yesterday in some comments, that pause of goodwill proposal was in fact proposed by Mr. Gor-batchev on behalf of the Soviet Union in negotiations of which Canada was a very active and full partner. We were seeking to have a resolution which could send a veiy clear, unmistakable signal to Saddam Hussein that force would be used but that it would not be triggered with the adoption of the resolution yesterday.
What would begin with the adoption of the resolution yesterday was a period of time, some 47 days, in which it would be possible for all of us to try to seek some basis on which the Security Council resolutions could be respected, Kuwait could be restored to her sovereignty and the world could get on with the rest of its business.
Has Canada been involved in taking initiatives of this kind? Of course we have. I have just returned from extensive consultations in the Middle East. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, was doing the same thing. During those discussions, we had conversations about, for example, the possibility of the kind of force that might be placed in Kuwait in a period after there had been a withdrawal of Iraqi forces were that to be the result of discussions between Iraq and Kuwait.
We have talked about a range of means by which the world, including with some help from a respected middle power like Canada, may be able to persuade Saddam Hussein that the rest of the world is very serious about the position that we have taken.
We are taking a number of initiatives. We will continue to take them, and I would hope that in future we, and the United Nations, might have the support of the Liberal Party in this House.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I was trying to ask the Secretary of State what our next step was, not are we taking a pause to do nothing.
The UN resolution supported yesterday in the Security Council authorizes: "that member states use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Is the Government of Canada concerned that all necessary means, in effect, can encourage any country to use, for example, chemical weapons against Iraq, claiming justification on the basis of this resolution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am aware of international conventions signed by Canada and by the other countries that supported that resolution.
They have been breached by one country, Iraq. It would be an absurd distortion of the work of the United Nations for the hon. member to try to have the interpretation she has just put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party apply.
I was surprised, frankly, that the member did not ask me questions about sanctions. I have read about those questions being asked, but they have never been put to me in this House. Sanctions are the thin veil behind which the Liberal Party is hiding its failure to support the United Nations.
I am quite prepared to answer questions on that matter in this House. I am also quite prepared to put in place arrangements-if I have the attention of the House leader of the Official Opposition-that will ensure very full briefings for members of Parliament.
I can do that on two bases. I can do that on a basis that is available to all members of Parliament, or in addition to that, I can do it on the basis of a briefing available to Privy Councillors.
The House will understand that some of the information that is available is highly sensitive. I am prepared to do everything within my power, as this government has been from the beginning, to ensure that the House of Commons can make fully informed decisions about this
November 30,1990

issue which is critical to Canada, not only because we want to achieve peace in the gulf, but also because we want to maintain the momentum that we have built up for the United Nations.
For the United Nations to fail, for it to be backed away from as it was in this House yesterday, would be a tragedy for all that Canada has stood for over more than 40 years in foreign policy.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, prior to my question to the Minister of National Defence, I would point out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs why he is not forcing Committee 661, of which we are vice-chair, to give us a report on economic sanctions. They have been in existence for how long?
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister knows that the Order in Council passed September 15 sending our forces to the Persian Gulf cited only those Security Council resolutions related to the enforcement of economic sanctions against Iraq.
Can the minister say whether this government will bring forward a new Order in Council to cover the resolutions passed yesterday at the UN, calling for the use of "all necessary means" to get Iraq out of Kuwait?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgot to mention that in the Order in Council which dispatched Canadian men and women to serve in the multinational effort was the deterrence of aggression.
I informed the House during the debate that took place the day before yesterday that if there was a change in the commitment of the Canadian forces, if there was a need to bring about that change, it would be brought forward to the House at that time.
This time what is covered in the Order in Council, the presence of the Canadian forces there and their capability and the tasks they have assumed, are perfectly concurrent and will remain that way. If there is any change, we will inform the House in due time.


Coline M. Campbell: My supplementary is to the Minister of National Defence. Again, it is a question of interpretation, I am sure. Yes, the Order in Council used military forces, but it was to enforce economic sanctions of resolution 665.
Oral Questions
We have had many resolutions since that, particularly yesterday's. The National Defence Act says that there must be an Order in Council specifying why our forces are going over there, particularly in light of yesterday, whereby after January 15 we will be sending them into a forum of war.
Will we at least have a debate in this House before January 15? Will he assure us that there will be a debate. He knows that the recess is coming. Will he assure us that there will be a debate on the change of our forces' role in the Persian Gulf after January 15, 1990?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague to review the National Defence Act. What the government did was comply with convention. We felt it was important to have a debate that would allow us to bring forward the Order in Council. It was not a legal requirement. It was something the government did because we believed it was important that the House put its signature on what we were doing at the time.
As I said earlier to the hon. member, if there is a change in the role of the Canadian forces, we have said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, the Prime Minister has said, that we would bring it forward to the House for debate in due course.
I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change in the role of the Canadian forces in their function, in reality and in practice. They are there to enforce the world's condemnation of Iraq. They are there to bring about peace and security in a region where it is important, and I would hope that the Liberal Party would support them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are getting into speeches today when this is a very important matter.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the gulf crisis.
Reports from Washington now state that the United States pushed the United Nations Security Council for a January 15 deadline because of declining troop morale, loss of domestic political support, changing weather conditions in the gulf and the approaching religious holidays. None of these reasons justify a deadline for war.

November 30, 1990

Oral Questions
Are these the reasons the United States government gave to Canada for the necessity of the January 15 deadline?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member unfortunately is misinformed.
The idea of the pause did not come from the United States. The idea of the pause came from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was proposed personally by President Gorbatchev in the discussions involving a number of world leaders with regard to the most effective way in which this matter could be dealt with in the United Nations.
Nor is it a deadline, nor is it an ultimatum. As the language of the resolution makes very clear, language voted for by everyone there except China, Yemen, and Cuba, it is a pause of goodwill. It is designed very explicitly-and the debate in the Security Council made that clear yesterday-to provide Saddam Hussein with a strong incentive to consider his options and to look for a way to peace.
I have just been informed-I have not confirmed this myself-that President Bush, in pursuance of this initiative, has just invited Tariq Aziz, the foreign minister of Iraq, to come to Washington and has indicated his willingness to have Secretary Baker go to Baghdad as one of several steps; some that Canada is taking, some that other countries are taking, to try to ensure that we use this pause productively so that we can end this situation peacefully in accordance with the resolution of the Security Council.
It was clear that before yesterday' action Saddam Hussein thought the world was bluffing and he was not prepared to seek a peaceful solution. We hope that that illusion has now been swept away and that he too will join the rest of us in seeking a peaceful solution.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
Canadians are not only facing a war crisis. We are facing an information crisis. Yesterday the government gave no information on the effectiveness of sanctions, and now it refuses to admit the real reasons for justifying the January 15 deadline.
This government continually talks of a pause of goodwill. Is not January 15 nothing more than an artificial and arbitrary deadline for war?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Madam Speaker, it is not. I am sorry to have to repeat this several times to the member; I think the rest of the House understands.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: What it does is create a period in which it is possible first for the world to signal its seriousness to Saddam Hussein. The colleagues of the hon. member who put the question are shouting so that he cannot hear my answer.
First, it was seeking to send a very serious message to Saddam Hussein so that he would be prepared to enter into the kind of serious work that could lead to a peaceful solution but, second, it very explicitly declined to follow the normal practice which would have made the capacity to use force effective yesterday, and instead of yesterday it will be effective some time in the future.
This gives the world 47 days to work for peace. I think that is considerably better than having a situation in which there could have been the threat of force, the use of force, triggered yesterday. What was triggered yesterday was a process that can lead to peace if Saddam Hussein seeks peace.
I would hope that members of this House of Commons will put aside whatever ideology is driving them and join us in trying to find a solution to one of the most serious crises the world has faced in the last 40 years.


Marie Gibeau: 
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As the hon. member said, Madam Speaker,

November 30,1990

December 1 is World AIDS Day and the theme is "Women and AIDS". According to the World Health Organization, one third of AIDS-infected people in the world are women.

We have taken a number of actions in Canada to try to address this problem, including the distribution of information kits to AIDS organizations and women's groups, the production of posters to help to educate people, the funding of a national conference and local workshops, the distribution of a special pamphlet on women and AIDS, and the development of a discussion paper on preventive strategies for women.
In this way we hope that we can stop this needless tragedy before more lives are lost.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister had a private meeting with co-chairmen Belanger and Campeau. We also know that the Meech Lake failure was largely due to the closed doors process. Why is the Prime Minister now making the same mistake? Why is he not prepared to appear publicly before the Belanger-Campeau Commission?


Mr. Andre:: The failure was due to Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that under the terms of reference of the Belanger-Campeau Commission it is not entertaining representations by elected members of Parliament and elected officials. That is my understanding. I may stand to be corrected on that but, if that is the case, then it obviously speaks for itself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of the fact that members of Parliament have already appeared before
Oral Questions
the commission. Surely the Prime Minister of Canada has the right to speak publicly for Canada before that commission. The public is tired of secret meetings and closed door, back-room politics.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the government today to a public appearance by the Prime Minister to speak for Canada before the Belanger-Campeau Commission?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have set up the Spicer commission to obtain the views of all Canadians about the future of Canada. There are various commissions undertaking studies and assessments into Canada's future that are being conducted by all of the provinces. Is the hon. member suggesting that the Prime Minister should appear before all of them?
My sense is that the federal government's leadership is being demonstrated in the establishment of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. Obviously, on the basis of the input that is going to be received, the federal government will take further action down the road.
It has been pretty clear that what has been lacking in this whole process is the lack of opportunity for individual Canadians to participate in the process. We have provided that vehicle. Why doesn't the hon. member give it a chance to work? I think it deserves a fair chance.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is for his parliamentary secretary.
The parliamentary secretary knows that in the community of Elliot Lake this year the mining industry has lost some 2,200 direct jobs and many more in the secondary sector. Similar losses were suffered in other areas of northeastern Ontario last year, representing over 15 per cent of all the direct mining jobs in the region.
Do the parliamentary secretary and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources agree with their estimate in 1988 that at least $1.3 billion a year has to be spent on exploration in the mining sector in order to maintain this sector and maintain the employment?

November 30,1990
Oral Questions
Does the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the government, agree with that estimate of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I can certainly agree with the hon. member for Algoma that his community, along with mine and other parts of northeastern Ontario, is going through a very difficult time in terms of mining.
The fact is that resources are mined and they come to depletion. There are also other pressures out there. The world price dictates the price of material not only in northeastern Ontario, but across Canada.
As a department we have certainly been monitoring and looking to see what can help not only Algoma and Timiskaming but other parts of the country. As well, through Employment and Immigration and through federal government committees chaired by ministers, we are looking at economic development and we will certainly continue to do that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister will be meeting today with some mayors and reeves from municipalities in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec representing 40 mining communities.
For 1991 the projection of exploration and development will fall to about one-third of what the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources estimates is needed in order to maintain the mining industry.
Would the minister make a commitment today to bring in new incentives to promote mineral exploration and development and ensure the very future of these mining communities, so that there will be adequate exploration taking place and the haemorrhaging and loss of jobs will be stopped?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to meeting the mayors from northern Ontario and listening to the points of view they will be expressing to me.
We are concerned, as the parliamentary secretary has just expressed. This matter is a world-wide problem. We have looked at our incentives in relation to other countries. We believe a very competitive set of incentives is in place now. The price of gold has been under
pressure. This is affecting the willingness of companies to spend money in new exploration.
The fact that northwestern Quebec has a significantly higher rate of depletion supports the flow-through share concept and is not drawing large amounts of moneys from investors. I think that is a significant element in this whole problem.
As the parliamentary secretary and I said, we are looking at various alternatives here. I am looking forward to my meeting.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Farmers do not have to see the figures today from Statistics Canada to know that for some time they have been in a recession. In fact farmers across the country are suffering.
In Saskatchewan we are facing the worst situation we have seen since the 1930s, with an average of four new foreclosure notices going on every single day.
What we need in this country is a permanent agricultural farm bill, which the minister has promised but has not yet delivered.
Will the minister be introducing a farm bill in this House before Christmas so that we can begin to give it the detailed study and debate required to have it in place for the 1991 crop year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's support for the initiatives we are undertaking, namely the establishment of a grains safety net and stabilization program.
Discussions have been continuing with the provinces, because it will be a shared responsibility. We are pleased to report to the hon. member that we have reached agreement in principle on the major components of the program. It is our intention, hopefully, to work out the details so that we can have in place an improved safety net and stabilization program for the 1991-92 crop year.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, that is important, but it is also important that the bill is thoroughly debated in the House. If it is to be
November 30, 1990

in place for the 1990-91 crop year, it should come to the House shortly.
Some 24 farm and rural groups from across the province of Saskatchewan will meet tomorrow in Grayson to search for solutions to this tragic situation, and a strong viable agricultural base is crucial to the future.
Will the minister give a message to the people who will meet in Grayson that in fact the bill will be in the House before Christmas so that we can begin the debate and have the bill and a program in place for farmers for the 1991 crop year? Will he give some assurance that bill will be in the House before Christmas?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, indeed it is a tragic situation. One of the issues we will be pursuing collectively as the government and with other like-minded agriculture exporting nations is the negotiations at Brussels involving the GATT, where we are firmly committed to ending the grain subsidy war by the reduction and indeed the removal of all export subsidies, along with greater market orientation and improved market access.
We believe this strikes at the very heart and core of the problems that western Canadian oilseed and grain producers are facing. We are clearly attacking this issue on two fronts: the international front and the domestic front. I would hope we will be in a position to provide those words of encouragement to which the hon. member has referred.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Last question. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the case of a Quebec minor, Maxime Gariepy, who has been held in a Florida prison for the past few months. The young man pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime involving rather unusual circumstances. Could the Minister of Justice confirm that the government has
Point of Order
been asked to consider a transfer to Canada and that it has the necessary information? Could she inform the House when, approximately, she will decide to allow this Canadian to serve his sentence in the country? Furthermore, since we have been informed that this young man suffered a severe beating in the U.S. prison, I would like to ask the Minister whether she could arrange with U.S. authorities to have this Canadian and Quebecer given the necessary protection.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Solicitor General is aware of Mr. Gariepy's situation and is closely monitoring the request for a transfer to Canada. We are trying to accelerate the process in order to pursue the investigation by the Solicitor General.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. During Oral Question Period, the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed surprised and even critical in his remarks about questions the opposition has been asking for nearly two weeks about current economic sanctions, in connection with the situation and the crisis in the Middle East.

We have asked for the information on the investigations or whatever the government has in its possession on the sanctions for several weeks. The member for Winnipeg South Centre asked for the information two or three weeks ago. This week alone my leader asked for it five times and the member who asked the question today asked for it at least four times.
Therefore, I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the interest of open government, and in the interest of giving Canadians the information they require and need to assess the situation. We know that Canada is vice-chair of the sanction committee of the United Nations. We know that the government has those facts. I took it today that the minister is disposed to share information with the House of Commons, at least

November 30, 1990
Point of Order
with the standing committees on external affairs and defence.
I was wondering if I could ask the minister for his co-operation. I feel that he wants to give some information to us. Will he do it either in a statement on motions today or Monday or by officially briefing members of Parliament at an appropriate time or by briefing the external affairs committee, at which time all members could attend?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I simply found it curious that the opposition was putting questions to me on days when I was not in the House and when I was in the House did not put any questions, but that is perhaps their interpretation of parliamentary behaviour.
However, I think I gave an undertaking to the House. Let me repeat it. I want the members of the House to be as fully informed as possible about the impact of sanctions. Speaking generally, some impact of sanctions is being felt by the people of Iraq. There is no evidence that in the next several months there will be any impact upon the decision makers in Iraq.
If we were to rely only on sanctions, the consequence would be that over that period of time we would run the risk of more children dying, we would run the risk of Kuwait being sacked even more than it is now. We would run the terrible risk in that highly volatile region of some mistake being made which could inspire a conflagration that no one in this world wants.
It is important that as much detail as is possible be known to members. I indicated two categories of briefing that are imposed upon me by the circumstance. One has to do with information that can be generally available. Certainly I will find ways to have that organized and made available regularly to members of the House. Probably it would be easier to do that through either a general briefing or an appearance before the standing committee.
There is another problem. Some of the information with which we are dealing is highly confidential. Members would understand why that is the case. Some members of this House have sworn an oath as Privy Councillors. I would be prepared to try to work out some arrangement, if it is acceptable to members of the House
and it may not be for good reasons, in which there could be another level of briefing on that basis of confidentiality to members who have sworn the oath as Privy Councillors. If the Official Opposition has other suggestions as to how this information can be made available more efficiently, I am prepared to consider that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I would like to address the same point of order. I think Canadians should realize that there is no time in the Question Period, if one sticks to the conventions as to how long a minister is permitted to answer, to provide the kind of complete detail that we have been seeking repeatedly over the past several weeks about how the sanctions are working.
I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should leave the impression that there was time today or any time in Question Period for the kind of detailed information we have been seeking and that Canadians want.
Furthermore, contrary to his suggestion that the answers had to come from him, Canadians should know that the answers could have come from the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister or any one of a number of other ministers during his absence. The answers did not have to come only from him, especially when we wanted the information before the time came for the government to vote at the United Nations yesterday.
Therefore, we again say that we should consult and work out the best way to inform, not just a limited number of members who may be Privy Councillors, but Canadians generally. They have a right to know as much as possible about how sanctions are working to be able to make up their minds about the appropriateness of the conduct of the government.
That is why we asked for a statement on motions to which we could reply. That is why we asked for briefings open to all members and to the public, likely through the external affairs committee. Let's get on with that, rather than the minister being concerned that he did not get a chance to make a statement, which he would not be allowed to do in any event, during Question Period.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the point of order. I will be as brief as possible.
November 30, 1990

The impression I am interested in leaving, because it is the fact, is that I am looking for a way to inform fully as many members of this House as possible. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not casually disregard the problem that I face. He, as a Privy Councillor, knows that some of this information is highly confidential and cannot be broadcast on the CBC. It should be held to members who have taken an oath in this House. I am prepared to take the extraordinary step of making that available.
I was a Leader of the Opposition myself and I know there are circumstances and reasons sometimes why an opposition does not want to accept an arrangement of that kind. That is fine. Within the limits of the possible, I will try to make all of the information that is available to us and that an be circulated, available to members of Parliament. If it is acceptable to brief Privy Councillors separately, I think I can make additional information available. In any event, we will do the best we can.
If the member wants a statement in the House so there can be a debate, that is a different kind of question. I am prepared to enter into debate. We have done it regularly on this issue. I think what he is asking for, if I understand him, is a calm, detailed outline of the information that we have, so that all members of the House can come to some understanding of the effectiveness of sanctions. I am really in his hands as to the way that can be done. I think it should be done in a way that encourages the presentation and consideration of objective information, rather than something that might simply be an occasion for debate. As he knows, I am always ready for debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I accepted the question by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order, although it was not exactly a point of order. We listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Leader of the Opposition. However, I don't think this is the proper venue for getting the kind of results the various parties would like to see, with respect to getting answers to questions as well as giving answers to certain questions. I think it would perhaps be wise to resume our proceedings and let those responsible get
Routine Proceedings
together and find a normal way to get answers to their questions.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the spirit with which he put forward the suggestions. I did want to remind him and the House that not all parties in the House have Privy Councillors.
It would be useful and helpful, and in fact it seems to me necessary, for the briefing that he suggests to be available to all members of the House of Commons, whether they be Privy Councillors or not. I look forward to the discussions which will lead to a fruitful resolution of this issue.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 47 petitions.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-84, an Act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, without amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
November 30,1990

Routine Proceedings



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors visas). He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Northumberland for seconding this private member's bill which will propose an amendment to the Immigration Act.
An increasing segment of Canada's population was bom outside Canada. These fellow Canadians all have parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends in their countries of origin. Some years ago, in an attempt to stem the stream of fake refugee claimants- and there are many true refugees in addition to those- Canada initiated travel visa requirements for visitors from a number of countries including China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Guyana and Philippines.
Because of the new visa procedures, even bona fide family visitors are being denied visas. This has been the case for some time. Our visa officers are simply gun shy and feel they must refuse visas.
My bill would permit an individual Canadian to personally stand for and become a surety or guarantor of the proposed visitor. This specific procedure does not now exist in the act for visa applicants. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


PETITIONS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many citizens of Nova Scotia calling upon the government to axe the GST. The petitioners wish Parliament to cause the government to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one concerns the GST and was sent by Canadians in Quebec City-there are 183 signatures-and, according to a letter I received from Mr. Alfred Hunter, they are anxious to express to the House their objections to the government introducing a goods and services tax as of January 1991. Madam Speaker, your petitioners are basically repeating the same arguments we have used in this House for several months.
They maintain that this tax is not only regressive and unfair and will cause serious problems for low-middle-income Canadians; it also constitutes an attack, and I will read what it says here: "-an unprecedented attack on the incomes of Canadians and will force them not only to pay higher taxes but also to contend with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment".
Madam Speaker, with these 183 Canadians who I represent, and there are many others, I ask the government to refrain from imposing a goods and services tax on Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, my second petition deals with a more local issue, since it is in my riding, and I am referring to the Rideau River. This is a very important environmental issue, and Parliament should be aware of the importance of this river, which is polluted.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament and the federal government to become equal partners with provincial and municipal authorities in implementing an action plan for the clean-up and maintenance of the Rideau River.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to add a petition of 51 names to the thousands of names included in previous petitions from residents of the city of Port Alberni in my riding. The petitioners are fed up with the
November 30,1990

government's mismanagement of Canada Post and Canada Post's management which is ignoring its 1981 mandate to improve customer service and employee relations.
Specifically, my constituents object to the closing of the drive-through mail facility in Port Albemi, the long delays in local mail delivery as a result of the closing of the local sorting facility, and moving mail sorting to Nanaimo and Victoria.
My constituents request that Canada Post Corporation be instructed to keep existing outlets, operate longer hours, expand revenue generating services, stop privatizing, and start increasing services to raise revenues.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling petitions signed by voters in the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who of course object to the Tory government's GST, and rightly so, I may add. They are residents of Alexandria, Dunvegan, Dalkeith, Alfred and Embrun, in the riding I have the honour and the privilege to represent, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from the residents of Grand Manan Island.
This is yet another petition protesting the destaffing of Gannet Rock Lighthouse. To let Canadian people know, this lighthouse is in the Bay of Fundy in a very strategic spot. We do not want that lighthouse de-manned.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the current staffing of the Gannet Rock Lighthouse.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today, under Standing Order 36, to present petitions collected by the members of the Tru-manville Volunteer Fire Department in Amherst, the Shelburne Volunteer Fire Department in Shelburne, and the Pomquet Volunteer Fire Department in Nova Scotia.
Routine Proceedings
In each of these cases, the petitioners are asking the government to review its policy of increasing the radio licence fees and having the radio licence fees apply to volunteer fire departments. They believe very strongly that the government is misguided in this endeavour and are asking the government to go back to the initial commitment given by the previous Minister of Communications not to tax volunteer fire departments with these licence fees.
The petitioners ask the government to review its current regulations and withdraw it so that they can get on with the business of protecting the lives and property of those communities that they serve.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the great pleasure to table a petition to this House on behalf of people from my riding of Ottawa Centre and people from the Ottawa-Carleton region who are opposed to the GST on books and magazines. They call upon the government to withdraw this tax.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 36. My colleagues and I have presented literally thousands of petitions on behalf of Canadians who are opposed to the tax on reading material.
These petitioners are from Toronto and just immediately north of Toronto. There are 100 names on this petition. These people would like the government to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present three petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first is from a number of people from across Canada who are concerned about the low-level flights that the government orders and allows in Labrador and eastern Quebec. They ask this Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador, and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada, in oppos-

November 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
mg use of their lands for this attack training. They demand that the low-level flights be ended and that the funding for the NATO-NORAD training there, as far as it comes from Canada, be redirected to the benefit of the aboriginal people and to promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by a number of Canadians, primarily from Toronto, who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
These petitioners ask Parliament, not only to reject that tax, but also to reduce the need for a sales tax by reducing the bank interest rate so as to improve the economy and by increasing employment in useful work, such as protection of the environment, restoration of needed roads, improvement of VIA service, and industrial research and development.
The final petition is signed by a number of residents of Gloucester, North York, Ottawa, Nepean, Kingston, Hull, Montreal, and other places in central Canada, who are concerned particularly that the goods and services tax hits books, music lessons, and live entertainment.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the government to scrap the tax and bring in taxation which will tax the people who have money, instead of those who have none.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition, certified as to form. These petitioners are mainly from Th Ta Creek in my riding.
They state that the government's policy of closing rural post offices discriminates against people living in non-urban centres and thus violates the established principles of fairness, and that the government's policy has hurt seniors, farmers, and low-income Canadians the hardest.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop immediately the policy of closing rural post offices and direct Canada Post to put service ahead of profits.
The community of Ta Ta Creek is a small farming community and its post office is the most viable centre within their community


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition given to me by farmers from the towns of Plunkett and Viscount in the province of Saskatchewan.
The petitioners call upon the government to replace oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also call upon the government to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now enjoys under the Canadian Wheat Board, meaning that those commodities could not be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board unless Parliament decided that they should be removed.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, again I rise, day after day, month after month, to ask the government, particularly in the light of the decision taken by the province of Quebec, not to tax intellectual thought, reading, books, magazines, and literature.
I hope the government is giving serious consideration to the implications of taxing the kinds of information that will affect the literacy and the educational potential of our young people and our reading interests in Canada. I deposit such petitions from Quebec and British Columbia.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to file a petition of nearly 100 names, mainly from my own riding of Surrey North, but also from Burnaby, Delta, and New Westminster.
These petitioners point out that in countries where visitors' visas are required, it is taking two to three years for spouses to be able to join their spouse in Canada. This creates a tremendous strain on the family and is rather cruel.
November 30, 1990

They are suggesting that Canada undertake to devise a system whereby spouses in bona fide marriages from countries where visitors' visas restrictions apply, particularly areas such as the Punjab in India, would be able to enter Canada immediately, pending the processing of their landed immigrant applications.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a total of seven petitions from individuals in Kingston, Napanee, Odessa, and in metropolitan Toronto, whereby the petitioners recognize the importance of the printed word for freedom of expression, and as a corner-stone of our economic prosperity.
These petitioners call on the government to delete its plan to tax books and periodicals under the goods and services tax.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question Nos. 381 and 382.


[Stage Direction]
*Questions No. 381-Mr. KarpofF:
Did the government publish a document entitled "Important information about Canada's economic plan and how it affects you" and, if so, what were the budgeted costs for (a) creative and editorial work (b) production (c) distribution (d) postage (e) entire project (f) any other costs?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: In response to the hundreds of thousand of requests from Canadians for information about its economic policies, the government published an information guide entitled "Important information about Canada's economic plan and how it affects you".
The budgeted cost for the (a) creative work, (b) production and (c) distribution (preparation for postage) was $765,000. The actual cost was $761,810 which breaks down as follows:
Routine Proceedings	
(a) Creative work and	
(b) Production	$486,874
(c) Distribution	$ 84,046
Agency Commision	$ 97,237
Federal and provincial sales tax	$ 93,653
The budgeted cost for (d) postage was $625,000. The actual cost was $594,915.
The budgeted cost for (e) the entire project was $1.39 million. The actual cost was $1.35 million.
Additional money was budgeted for (f) advertising: $57,000 by the Department of Finance for print adds in daily newspapers and $350,000 by the Secretary of State for their Community/Ethnic/Aboriginal Newspaper Program.
The editorial work on the information guide was done by public servants in the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Karpoff: Did the government publish a document entitled "Important information about Canada's economic plan and how it affects you" and, if so, was any of the (a) creative and editorial (b) production (c) distribution (d) mailing work performed by individuals or groups not employed as public servants and, if so, how much were they paid?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In response to the hundreds of thousands of requests from Canadians for information about its economic policies, the government published an information guide entitled "Important information about Canada's economic plan and how it affects you".
The production of this information guide, including the creative work, the distribution and preparation for postage, was performed by Publitel Communications of Montreal. For their services, they were paid $761,810. The mailing of the information guide was done by Canada Post for $594,915.
The editorial work on the information guide was done by public servants in the Department of Finance.


Albert Glen Cooper: Due to the length of these responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

November 30, 1990
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 14 report stage motions set down on the Order Paper, in amendment to Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

Motions nos. 1 and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier are in order. They will be grouped and the vote on Motion no. 1 will also apply to Motion no. 8.
Motions nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, are in order and will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: if Motions no. 5 is agreed to, no vote will be necessary on Motions nos. 3, 4 and 6. However, if Motions no. 5 is negatived, separate votes will be taken on Motions nos. 3, 4 and 6. If Motion no. 11 is agreed to, no vote will be necessary on Motions nos. 9, 10 and 12, and if Motion no. 11 is negatived, separate votes will be taken on Motions nos. 9,10 and 12.

Motions Nos. 7, 13 and 14, standing in the names of the hon. members for Churchill and Ottawa-Vanier, are acceptable. They will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows. The vote on Motion No. 7 will apply to Motion No. 13, and a separate vote will be taken on Motion No. 14.
Therefore, I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 8 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-79 be amended in the French version in Clause 1 by striking out lines 9 and 10 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "alors reputes avoir ete deposes devant le Senat."
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 2 the following: "(5) Where a member of the Board participates in the exercice of the powers or the carrying out of the functions of the Board, the member shall not be held personally liable for the actions of the Board."
He said: Madam Speaker, the members of the Special Committee on the Review of Parliament have spent nearly a year examining the problems referred to them by the House of Commons. I must say I am very glad today that we are nearing the end. We are at the report stage, that is after the stage when amendments to the bill have been studied in committee. I hope the bill will finally be given third reading by the House so we may complete that important aspect of our work and, I imagine, go on to something else under the expert chairmanship of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, Marcel Danis, whom I commend for a job well done.
Madam Speaker, Motion No. 1 is a simple amendment to make the French and English versions the same.

In English, Madam Speaker, the text is quite correct. It says that any bylaws adopted by the board, or made under the section, will be deposited by the Clerk and they shall be deemed to have been tabled.
In the English text, it says "before the Senate". In the French text, it says "before the board". We are just trying here to correct the French text to make it of equal importance and to make it exact.

This is a very simple motion, Madam Speaker. It will amend part (3) of subclause 20.2 so that the wording will be the same. That is all I have to say about it, except that I hope members- I see the minister is leaving. I must not bore him, but this is an important stage of the debate
November 30, 1990

and this matter concerns us all, even senior members and senior ministers.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On to Motion No. 8. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, just a word to say that this amendment will make the French version the same as the English.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will now call Motions Nos. 2,3,4, 5,6,9,10 and 11. Motion No. 2 will be voted on separately.


François Gérin: Motions Nos. 5 and 11 will not be presented.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister, on a point of order.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I understand that motions Nos. 5 and 11 will not be presented. I also understand, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead wishes to replace motions Nos. 3 and 9. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this time to ask the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to replace these motions, so that you will not
Government Orders
have to read the original motions which are not to be moved in the House.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe all members heard what the minister suggested. The Chair agrees to let the hon. member present these motions, and I would ask him to lay copies on the Table as soon as possible so that I can substitute those for the copies I have here. The hon. member has the floor.


François Gérin: After discussions among members of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-79 and after consultations with the experts, Motion No. 3 and the same applies to Motion No. 9, except that one applies to the House of Commons and the other applies to the Senate-reads as follows and I move:
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 1:
a)	by striking out line 37 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"peace officer may apply to the Board for, or the Board may, on its own initiative, provide the peace officer with"
b)	by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 3 at page
4 and substituting the following therefor:
"20.4(1), the Board may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, make any of its opinions, including opinions issued under section 20.3, available to the peace officer."
Madam Speaker, I have a copy here for the Clerk's office. Basically, this amendment is intended to cover a situation where, if a peace officer conducts an investigation which concerns the manner in which the member's or senator's budget was spent, he decides to go to the Board of Internal Economy and ask whether, in the opinion of the Board, the expenditure made by the member is in order or lawful or proper. By this amendment we want to add that the Board of Internal Economy may make available, to the peace officer who so requests, any of its opinions, so that the peace officer may know the Board's opinion on the use of a budget item by a member or senator. Once he has this information, the peace officer can decide whether he intends to pursue his investigation or perhaps initiate proceedings. If he decides to initiate proceedings, however, he will have to make available, to the judge who will rule on the case, the opinion of the Board of Internal Economy. I believe that is a compromise everyone is prepared to accept. So this is the proposed amendment.

November 30, 1990
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will now put all motions before the House and we can then proceed with debate.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 6,1 would seek the unanimous consent of the House to change the last word in English. It says: "authorized by a judge of a provincial court within the". It should be "meaning" instead of "remaining".
If I could get unanimous consent to that, it would allow the Chair to put the motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


François Gérin: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 2 the following:
"(5) Where a member of the Board participates in the exercise of the powers or the carrying out of the functions of the Boards, the member shall not be help personaly liable for the actions of the Board."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-79 be amended in clause:
a)	by striking out line 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"peace officer may apply to the Board for, or the Board may, on its own initiative, provide the peace officer with,"
b)	by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 3 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"20.4(1), the Board may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, make any of its opinions, including opinions issued under section 20.3, available to the peace officer."
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-79, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 42 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"or the peace officer has been advised by the Board that an application under subsection 20.3(2) has been made by the senator to whom the investigation relates and where an application for a process is".


François Gérin: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 25 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"authorized by a judge of a provincial court within the meaning".


François Gérin: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 2:
a)	By striking out line 41 at page 7 and substituting the following:
"may apply to the Board for, or the Board may, on its own initiative, provide the peace officer with, an opinion
b)	By striking out lines 4 to 8 at page 9 and substituting the following:
"52.7(1), the Board may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, make any of its opinons, including opinions issued under section 52.6, available to the peace officer."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 45 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"or the peace officer has been advised by the Board that an application under subsection 52.6(2) has been made by the member of the House of Commons to whom the investigation relates and where an application for a process is".
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 29 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"judge of a provincial court within the meaning of section 2 of".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield to the mover of Motion No. 2, but I also intend to take part in the debate on these amendments.
Perhaps we should consider the historical context, Madam Speaker, to have a better understanding of the scope of the amendments before the House.

On December 12, 1989, members of the House will remember that many of us were surprised, to use the term mildly, to hear from RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster that 15 parliamentarians were currently being investigated by the RCMP: 11 were being investigated for alleged Criminal Code infractions and 4 others for
November 30, 1990

alleged election law violations. The revelation broke with traditional RCMP policy of not commenting on investigations while they were under process and before charges were laid. It many of us, to say the least.
The press coverage at the time reflected the reaction of many parliamentarians, including myself. It is no exaggeration to say that we were somewhat angered by the news, given that the conduct of police investigations, whether or not a conviction results, can hinder and, we can appreciate, can ruin a parliamentary career. Just the fact that one is under investigation by the police leaves a bad taste out there. We always believe that elected officials should be open to scrutiny and should be available to answer questions, but we never suspected that the police forces would reveal to the public of Canada that indeed they were investigating 15 Canadians. That kind of created a situation in this House that was requiring of some actions. The House felt it was in its good judgment to strike the committee. The committee looked at this whole situation and the possibility of reforming or amending the laws dealing with this House and the Senate in a way to make them more possibly adaptable to modem circumstances.
We also appreciate-and I am sure, Madam Speaker, you will understand-the changing times and the reform of the House following the McGrath commission report. The McGrath commission suggested in-depth reform of our procedures and our practices here. It gave the Board of Internal Economy, which is the administrative body of the House of Commons composed in the old days of strictly ministers of the Crown, an enlarged composition. It included members of the opposition on the new board, gave it new powers, and changed the whole way it operated.
Members of the House were surprised to hear all of a sudden that the rules of the game we had changed here were being interpreted by way of a manual of instructions as to what members interpreted in terms of the expenditures that they were allowed to administer their offices and render their services as elected representatives to the people of Canada. Therefore, the manual was becoming some kind of bible for the police, and the
Government Orders
interpretation of some of those sections was indeed difficult and possibly misleading to many people.
Therefore we took it upon ourselves that we should amend the Parliament of Canada Act. One of the important subjects that we had to deal with was the role of the board in determining what expenditures would be allowed under the budgetary expenditures of members of Parliament authority. Another important factor was how we could make sure that police forces and the justice system operate in an open, fair and just manner.
We recognize the duty of the police to investigate possible charges of misuse of public funds by MPs. Unfortunately some members of Parliament have abused the system. We recognize that this is far from being a perfect world and that the House of Commons is a reflection of Canada as a whole. The system is there, and sometimes people abuse it. We must have checks and balances. We did not want to impede in any way the justice system and how it operates.
We also had to balance the privileges we claim as members of Parliament to decide how to use the funds allocated to the members to represent their constituencies in an open and fair manner.
The committee looked at many things. We narrowed in on the authority of the board's rulings and opinions as to why or how the members should be expending public funds. We had to deal with a very difficult subject. I must admit that it took some time for many of us to make clear to our colleagues in the committee that we were not trying to impede police work but that we were trying to make it possible for members of the House of Commons and the Senate to obtain from the board clear and written opinions, directives that are easy to interpret, as to how we could expend the moneys in trust to us for administering our offices on the Hill and in the constituencies.
We dealt with a very contentious article at the time, which indeed many of us felt could be improved and was improved eventually. The motions and amendments before us today, as well as the bill as amended in committee, reflect an awful lot of understanding by all members in relation to the important matters as to how

November 30,1990
Government Orders
the funds will be expended, who has jurisdiction over the expenditures, how members of Parliament are to behave in terms of getting instructions from the board as to what is available, and how such things should be done.
Motion No. 2 indicates that members of the board who participate in the exercise and the powers of the board shall not be held personally liable for the actions of the board. The rest of the amendments all deal with the specific exclusive authority of the board to determine exactly how members of Parliament spend the funds made available to them.
We have reached a fair compromise. We have reached a good balance in terms of allowing police forces to ask the board-it is permissive, I admit; they do not have to, but if they want to have a good case I think they should-for an opinion if it is alleged that a member of Parliament has misused the funds that he or she has to administer his or her offices. In turn, if the police force gets an opinion from the board, that officer must make it available to the judge when in the process it has asked for either a warrant or the police force believes that it has reasons to require more information and wants a search warrant or something else. That opinion must be made available because it is essential to the process. We want it to be open. We want it to be as clear and limpid, if I may use that word, as possible. We also want to make sure that it is fair. To be fair, I think police forces now have the facility to ask the Board of Internal Economy for an opinion as to the expenditures of funds.
I hope all members of the House would take very seriously that members of Parliament who have doubt, who want a directive or need to be told more clearly how to interpret a certain rule or a certain disposition, should in turn ask the board for an opinion before they dispense public funds. Possibly we have allowed for a little more largess, if I may use that word. We have allowed for past expenditures to be included in that. Sometimes things change and sometimes there are oversights; members did not think about it or did not know about it. The amendments would allow that members to ask for an opinion from the board on past expenditures, on present expenditures, and on future expenditures.
If members ask the board for its advice, I am sure we will have little difficulty in keeping this place open and clearly in public view. I do not think that anything in these amendments could be seen or could be taken as an effort of the House of Commons and the Senate to put themselves above the law.
We are trying to maintain a system here of transparence.
[Translation\
We are not here to draft special legislation for members. We are here to try and clarify the situation, and the amendments we have before us do just that.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act, which subsequently became the Legislative Committee on Bill C-79, met about fifty times, with some sittings lasting two or three days. During that time we saw committee members make a special point of being present themselves, despite changes in their duties. For instance, I went from being a Conservative Member to sitting as an independent member, and I am now with the Bloc quebecois, but I am still a member of the committee.
The Deputy Speaker of the House chaired the committee, and this was an honour for the committee. He was appointed minister, but continued to chair the committee nevertheless. The Government Chief Whip, the House Leader and the opposition's Chief Whip, people with extremely important duties here in the House, decided to spend an enormous amount of time-over 50 meetings-on this committee, to deal with an extremely difficult problem that arose last year. It does not make life easy for members when they are told by the Chief Commissioner of the RCMP that 15 members of Parliament are under investigation. Fifteen members means 5 per cent. If we apply this percentage to the population of Canada, it would mean that about one million people are under investigation. There is something disproportionate about all this.
We asked ourselves: Where is the problem? And throughout the proceedings of the committee, for one year, we enjoyed the extraordinary co-operation of the Clerk of the House and his staff-especially Mr. Kirby- and also the co-operation of the Chief Administrator of the House, Mr. Riedel and our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Pelletier, with their respective teams. Without them it would have been impossible to finish the job.
Fifteen members of Parliament under investigation, and a year later, I don't think a single one has been convicted-maybe one. In most cases, investigations did not lead to charges being laid. In some case, charges were laid but were ultimately dismissed by the court. In some cases, there were searches, but the court subsequently decided that there had been no grounds for authorizing a search. In all cases, however, irreparable harm was done, not to the member personally, because
November 30, 1990

there is always the possibility that compensation might be discussed, but irreparable harm was done to the voters who gave this person a specific mandate, because his ability to represent his riding, his constituents, in the House of Commons has been diminished.
We must consider, Madam Speaker, that a member, who suddenly is the subject of a public inquiry or allegations by the RCMP, can hardly be expected to be able to perform his duties as well as any other member. Obviously, it hampers the member in his ability to act as a member here in the Parliament of Canada as well as in his own riding. Fifteen of our colleagues were in this kind of situation. For most of them, it was like being the subject of a public inquiry. Their names were all over the newspapers.
This means that hundreds of thousands of Canadians were represented by members whose powers had been diminished because a police officer happened to decide to conduct an investigation, often as a result of allegations by a political enemy or whoever. However in most cases, absolutely nothing was found. However, reputations had been sullied, constituents had not been well represented, or not as well as they would have wished, and we definitely had an abnormal situation.
Where is the problem? Madam Speaker, I think there are two sides to this question. Members of the House of Commons, as represented by the Board of Internal Economy, have not done a good job of being absolutely open about their activities. The Board of Internal Economy, which is supposed to represent them, has operated like a private, exclusive club that does not have to act with the openness that we tend to demand of this type of organization today.
The Board of Internal Economy revealed its decisions to no one. They did not become public until they were tabled in the first ten days of the following session, and in some cases this meant three years later. How could a member have personal knowledge of a decision of the Board of Internal Economy if it was not made public until three years later? And how was a Canadian citizen, an officer of the peace or an RCMP officer supposed to know about the decision? He did not, through no fault of the RCMP. It wasn't the fault of the average member of
Government Orders
this House but of the Board of Internal Economy which had not done its job. The bill will remedy this.
Perhaps some background information would be in order. Formerly, the Board of Internal Economy consisted only of members of the government in power. It consisted of the Speaker of the House and four government ministers. However, as part of the 1985 parliaments reform, it was decided to make the Board less partisan, and membership was changed to include two members of the Official Opposition and one member of the third party in the House of Commons, so that today, we can say that the Board fairly adequately represents the members of this House. There is good representation, Madam Speaker, but the Board neglected to change its rules of procedure and create a secretariat, for instance. It forgot to appoint someone to act on behalf of the Board. It did not have the power to adopt by-laws and it did not publish them.
We had police officers who argued, showning their complete ignorance of the role of a member of Parliament, that a member was like a public servant. That is false, Madam Speaker. A member is not a public servant. A public servant can ask permission from his superior. But as a member of Parliament, whom do I ask for permission? I have said repeatedly, and I still say, that I take orders from no one except from the people in my riding. I have no superior. There is not a single member in this House who can claim to be my boss, certainly not! I am here on behalf of the people of my riding, in a very special situation. No other Canadian citizen has those duties.
So we are not public servants, as RCMP officers and peace officers in general say we are. Madam Speaker, even the Chief Commissioner told the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on December 12, 1989, that he did not know the Parliament of Canada Act.
He did not know what the Parliament of Canada Act was all about. On the other hand, he said that there were 15 members of Parliament being investigated because of expenses made under the Parliament of Canada Act. You can imagine that we ended up in a real mess: the Board of Internal Economy, which has rules which are not published; a RCMP officer who thinks that a member of the House is a civil servant; a RCMP officer who refers to the explanation manual, which is neither the Act nor the Regulations, and who decides to institute proceedings against 15 members of the House and the

November 30,1990
Government Orders
Senate. That was quite a mess. That is why we ended up with so many people. That is also the reason why I moved all these amendments which are not mine alone. I discussed these amendments with the other committee members and they were in agreement.
To summarize, if I may, the whole legislation that we wanted to introduce would try to solve the problem in two ways. On the one hand, in the future, the Board of Internal Economy would have a secretary under the Head Clerk of the House of Commons. It would get a sort of a head office. There would be a person there to whom people could address their complaints and where members could direct questions. There would be someone there. There would be an office.
Second, the Board of Internal Economy would have the power to draft its own administrative regulations. That was necessary.
Third, the Board of Internal Economy would have to publish its decisions within thirty days whether the House is sitting or not. People would no longer have to wait as long as three years. If its members agreed, the Board of Internal Economy would have the power to straighten out a situation which it should not have allowed to deteriorate that much.
On the other hand, the RCMP will of course continue its investigations of members of Parliament, except that, before starting one it should begin by looking into the Act, and I will make sure that it does by personally sending a copy of it to Mr. Inkster, for I should like him to read section 52.6 which reads as follows:
The Board -
-meaning, the Board of Internal Economy-
-has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use
is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the bylaws made under subsection 52.5(1).
(2) Any member of the House of Commons may apply to the Board for an opinion with respect to any use by that member of funds, goods, services or premises referred to in-
-a previous sub-section.
The Board of Internal Economy, therefore, has the power. Will it exercise it? As members of this House, we will deal with this issue later on. I hope so. It has to. It has the legal and moral obligation to do so, not only in the interest of the members of this House, but of all Canadians. So the police officer who is informed by a citizen-in bad faith in those cases, but often in good faith-that the member has committed an infraction concerning his budget will now be able to go the Board of Internal Economy and seek an opinion on the matter. If the officer is acting in bad faith and wants to act without going through the Board of Internal Economy, then the board will send him the opinion if he does not have the courage to seek it himself. But once the police officer has the opinion, served by whoever, he will be legally obliged to send it to the judge to whom he will submit any kind of legal request-search warrant, wiretapping, accusation, another warrant-and that is spelled out in the legislation. And not a justice of the peace but a judge so that members of Parliament will not be above the law. But members will be protected in the sense that the judge will have to take into account the opinion of the Board of Internal Economy which authorizes our expenses. If it authorizes our expenses, it will say whether the expense was correct or not.
Madam Speaker, that was the object of the amendments, most of them presented on behalf of the members of the committee, and I thank them all. In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues that what is being proposed today is probably the best piece of legislation we could have. It had been suggested to include something like "notwithstanding any section of the Criminal Code". That did not respect the principles which must guide us here in the House of Commons. But this bill provides enough guarantees for members, if the Board of Internal Economy does its job and if the RCMP act in good faith in their investigation by calling upon the Board of Internal Economy.
November 30,1990


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I too wish to speak to the bill. At the end of June when this bill received second reading I, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, rose to explain that we could not accept the bill as it was worded at that time.
The wording at second reading certainly gave a different situation from the bill than is before us in its amended form today. At that time the bill required an investigating officer to go before the Board of Internal Economy to get the opinion of the board before that officer received a search warrant or took any of the actions among those listed in the bill.
It did not stop an investigation, but if that officer did want a search warrant, did want a wiretap, or did want to take some other action, he or she was required to go before the Board of Internal Economy. The board then had 30 days in which to respond. That created, quite legitimately in my mind, a number of concerns. First, that we were being treated differently from other citizens in Canada and, second, that there was every opportunity, if an investigation was going on and an officer had to come to the Board of Internal Economy, there might be a leak and an investigation could be interfered with in that manner.
I do not think it was ever the intent of members of the House to tamper with a legitimate RCMP investigation. What we wanted was to cover some of the problems that had occurred as a result of the investigations which have gone on in the past and were referred to earlier.
Also, as a result of having the Commissioner of the RCMP appear before us a number of times, we heard that he and his officers had a number of problems when it came to dealing with members of Parliament. For example, if a complaint was made against a Canadian citizen with regard to a possible fraud or misuse of funds, then it would be normal for the investigating officer to go to the department concerned or the employer of that person. Through that means, the RCMP would probably receive the information it needed to determine whether an investigation should go forward.
The RCMP and the Commissioner appearing before our committee indicated that when it was a member of
Government Orders
Parliament, and with our perceived parliamentary immunity in a number of areas, the RCMP believed it was necessary to get a search warrant in order to get any information with regard to what was going on within the budgetary controls or in the offices of a member of Parliament.
They themselves suggested that we look for some other mechanism which would enable the RCMP to do its duties and at the same time respect the traditional rights of members of Parliament to do their work, not only as members of Parliament, but on behalf of their constituents. Often, we have very confidential information in the same way as a lawyer or a doctor would, because people have come to us expecting us to act on their behalf on issues which are very important and confidential to them. They are often in areas of complaints against the RCMP and certain government officials.
Often, as members of Parliament, we act as ombudsman for our constituents. If those files can be opened, without any protection, then it is not just members of Parliament who would feel threatened, but, obviously, any constituent or citizen of Canada who was working through a member of Parliament who could find that those files would be in the public domain.
There was a need to balance our rights on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of our constituents and other Canadians, and at the same time, to allow the RCMP and other investigating authorities the information they require in order to conduct an investigation or even to discover whether or not an investigation is required.
As a result of the very long and often repeated committee discussions and deliberations, the bill we have now balances those two concerns. Our constituents are protected, but at the same time the RCMP is able to go forward, just like any other law enforcement agency, and get the information it requires. There is no way, with the wording of the amendments that have come forward today as a result of the most recent committee deliberations, that we are inhibiting an investigation.
Now an RCMP officer or another investigator has the right, if he or she chooses, to go to the board and get information that they may require. That is their option. It is not a decision that is imposed upon them.

November 30, 1990
Government Orders
I know, Madam Speaker, that my time has lapsed for this particular part of the debate. I will explain later some of the other ramifications of the legislation at the appropriate time.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are questions to be put on Motions Nos. 2, 3, as amended, 4, 6, as amended, 9, as amended, 10 and 12.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.
Motion No. 3, as amended, agreed to.

Motion No. 4 agreed to.
Motion No. 6, as amended, agreed to.
Motion No. 9, as amended, agreed to.
Motion No. 10 agreed to.
Motion No. 12 agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed now to Motions Nos. 7, 13, and 14.1 remind hon. members that a vote on Motion No. 7 will apply to Motion No. 13, and a separate vote will be taken on Motion No. 14.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 5 the following:
"(6) For greater certainty, the oath or affirmation referred to in subsection (5) only relates to matters of security, employment and staff relations, tenders and investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons and nothing in subsection (5) shall be construed as preventing the communication of any information relating to other matters to a party caucus."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-79 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 9 and 10 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"matters of employment and staff relations, tenders, security, and investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons, nor will I allow".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-79 be amended in the French version in Clause 3 by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chambre des communes, ni de lui permettre (ni ne lui". [English]


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the House will be aware that in committee review of the legislation a new clause was added to the bill, which is an unusual procedure. Normally, it would not be allowed in this manner. However, as a result of events that have occurred over the last little while, there is a feeling that members of the board often dealt with matters that should remain in private.
There is, I think, in the case of any board of directors or any management group, a need to have some matters dealt with in private and in confidence. However, the wording that came down from committee was not acceptable to our caucus. I had indicated so during the meetings of the committee. Therefore, we have put forward this amendment, which I understand will be agreed to later on today, which helps to clarify and restrict those areas in which the Board of Internal Economy would have the right to expect its members to keep confidences.
To be more clear on that matter, I will refer to some of the areas. The amendment states:
-The oath or affirmation-relates to matters of security, employment and staff relations, tenders and investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons and nothing in subsection (5) shall be construed as preventing the communication of any information relating to other matters to a party caucus."
The Board of Internal Economy has a right and obligation to make certain decisions behind closed doors. It cannot discuss the relations of an employee in public. That is not fair to the board, but more importantly, it is not fair to the employee. In terms of matters of security of the House of Commons and the people working in the House of Commons, again, it would not do much for security matters to have them discussed in public. However, I do remind people that it would have to be real security matters and not just perceived security matters or matters of inconveniences which often occur in the House of Commons or on the grounds of Parliament. They have to be matters of real security before the oath could bind members of the Board of Internal Economy.
November 30, 1990

For those areas, and for the purposes of collective bargaining, the board does need the right to expect that its members will not break confidences.
However, there are a number of other areas in which the board is the servant of the individual members of the House and the members of the various caucuses. We have to expect as members of Parliament that we have a right to go to our board members and ask what is happening on areas that we have raised with the Board of Internal Economy. As mangers of our own offices, we have been asking for computers and we have been asking for clarifications of travel rights and privileges within our own riding. We have the right to go to our board members and get that type of information.
We have, I think, through the amendment put forward, guaranteed the right of the board to deal with those matters that they must deal with behind closed doors. However, we have made sure that the oath is not so encompassing that it binds members of the Board of Internal Economy to perpetual silence on matters that should be in the public domain. In addition to that, it prevents the board members from becoming so isolated from the other members of the House of Commons that they no longer work on their behalf, serve them, and communicate with other members of the House of Commons.
I hope that the wording proposed here will resolve that problem. I hope it will receive the support of all members of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have but a few comments to make. I agree with my friend with regard to the oath of allegiance. Responsible administrators would not want to prejudice discussions by going out after every meeting and revealing certain information to the public. An example, would be the mandate that is used to negotiate salaries. One would certainly not want to go out and reveal its strategy.
There are other circumstances where there are situations requesting a certain amount of discretion. I agree with the member that the oath of affirmation referred to in the bill is essential. I agree also with the amendment, although I would have preferred that the wording be a little more related to the actual subject matter.
Instead of saying, for example:
Government Orders
For greater certainty, the oath or affirmation referred to in
subsection (5) only relates to matters of security, employment and
staff relations-
-which I agree with. It continues:
-investigations in relation to a member of the House of
Commons-
-or the Senate for that matter, in the section dealing with the Senate. I would have preferred that it deal with matters relating to the operational budgets of specific members. That would have been more in keeping with the intent that I see in this oath.
I do not think that it is appropriate for us to be involved in investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons. Investigations is a term that is used for many purposes. It could be investigations from outside sources, police, for example, or auditors, or something. Or, it could be investigations by the board itself into circumstances in the administration of the board.
A responsible board would want to pay very serious and close attention to how members are disposing and dispensing the public funds. Therefore, I would take it that the board would sometimes have reasons to call in members and say: "We are not so sure of what you are doing or what is being done is correct" without bringing in police or any other outside element. I do think that the word "investigations" is a wide word, but nevertheless I am willing to accept that.
I also would like to make sure that anything that is related to the operational budgets of members of Parliament is what we are talking about here, and not anything else. We are not talking about anything outside of matters relating to the expenditures now, past, or future of members of Parliament.
Motion No. 7 agreed to.

Motion No. 13 agreed to.
Motion No. 14 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister, on a point of order.

November 30, 1990
Government Orders


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, if the representatives of the Bloc quebecois, either Mr. Rocheleau or Mr. Germ, and the members of the New Democratic Party and of the Official Opposition agree, I suggest, if there is unanimous consent, that this bill be now read the third time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. minister. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Shirley Martin: that Bill C-79, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, as amended, be concurred in at the report stage with further amendments.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Bill, as amended, concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations) (for Mr. Andre) moved: that Bill C-79, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, be now read the third time and passed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Debate. The hon. Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House has the floor.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to move for third reading of a bill that has been discussed on more than 50 occasions by the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act. At this time, I would like to thank committee members, especially the Whips of all three parties, the hon. member for Churchill who was whip at the time, the Official Opposition Whip who was subsequently promoted and is now Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, the
government's Chief Whip, and also another member who has done an extraordinary job since the committee started its proceedings, the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to thank the committee's research staff, especially Margaret Young and Jimmy Robertson, who did an excellent job for us for many months; the principal Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Kirby; and Mr. Sandy Birch, and also the many lawyers on Mr. Pelletier's team whom we consulted since we started our proceedings; Diane Davidson, and Gabriel Lapointe, who was hired by the committee.
As we all know, this bill represents a consensus formed by all members of this House and of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. I think we seldom have before us a bill as important as this one, and, as we saw in Hansard, a bill that was debated in this House with a complete absence of political partisanship.
I would like to thank all members who participated as well as the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and I would also like to say, Madam Speaker, that although today we are discussing Bill C-79, that does not mean the committee's work is finished. The committee still has a number of questions to consider, and we will continue to hold our meetings. In fact, the next item on the agenda is the matter of disclosure of funds made available to members.
We still have a lot of work to do, and I hope that my colleagues and I will be able to table many more reports and that these, like our first five reports, will receive the unanimous consent of this House.
I would also like to tell my honourable colleagues in this House that, when I say the bill was obtained by an exceptional consensus, I tell the truth. I would like especially to quote the words of the RCMP commissioner. We all know, as the member from Ottawa-Vanier said before, as well as the member from Megantic- Compton-Stanstead and the member from Churchill, that this committee was established after the RCMP commissioner said a number of members of Parliament were under investigation. After studying the bill, the commissioner appeared twice before our committee. I would like to quote the words he used during his testimony on September 25th:



November 30,1990



-where the commissioner says: "On a closing comment, Mr. Chairman, that, as the commissioner of the RCMP, I am absolutely delighted with all the work that has been done, with all of the attempts towards self-regulation, with all of the attempts to clarify the privileges and the disbursements to which members of Parliament have entitlement. I think all of that will go a long way to clarifying the issues of concern."

So, I would also like to thank the RCMP and its commissioner for their co-operation with the committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to join the minister in thanking all of those who helped us and who worked hard to try to keep the committee productive. I think that, inadvertently, the minister may have forgotten to mention some members who worked with us for several months. I simply wanted to mention my good friend, and his good friend, Marcel Prud'homme, the member for Saint-Denis, Howard Crosby, the member for Halifax West, and Dorothy Dobbie, the member for Winnipeg South. There is also Mr. Iain Angus who, from time to time, was standing in for Mr. Murphy. To all these people, to all these colleagues of the House, I would like to extend my many thanks, because they helped me to perhaps understand a little better the solutions to the problems that seemed to be of concern to us all around this time last year.
Madam Speaker, I would have some comments to make. First of all, I want to make things clear. The situation is not the same anymore. Once the bill is passed, Madam Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy will have some work to do, some challenges to meet. And I want to put on the record right now in the House that, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, I will take my responsabilities. We will do all we can to try to respond to the expectations in the bill and to give members the views that they will ask for. We will also give them the support that they need to make sure that, in all cases, we are straightforward and totally capable of meeting the challenge, that is, that the Canadian public must be satisfied that their representatives work openly and do not hide behind systems, laws or measures that could perhaps protect them.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, nowadays people have a veiy cynical attitude towards politics, and that is unfortunate. But there is one thing I know for sure, we are going to work very hard in this House, on both sides of the House, to correct that, to restore confidence and to change the atmosphere, so that people will not see politics as something dirty. In politics, the citizens chose some people to represent them to the best of their ability. We are not perfect, but we do our best. As far as I am concerned, I want to say, on behalf of our caucus, that we will do our best to try and be as open as we can, Madam Speaker, so that Canadians know there is no partisanship on either side of the House, that we are open, that we can all say:
We are not here to get rich, or to abuse the system, we are here to serve the Canadian people and this is the way we want to be seen. We want to put an end to the cynicism so apparent in the media and in the public towards politics. That has to stop, Madam Speaker, and that is why this bill is so important. The bill will give hon. members a well-known, easy-to-manage system, as well as the transparency and responsibility all of us have been looking for.
Having said that, I am sorry I got carried away a little, but it is so veiy important that this bill be considered as a major piece of legislation, quite essential for the proper management of our country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, throughout the entire exercise, I think this is the first time I have stood in the House relating to Bill C-79, but I spent many hours in committee. I am going to spend just a few minutes with my colleagues in the Chamber today.
In many ways in my eleven and a half years in the Parliament of Canada, this has been the most difficult assignment that I have accepted on behalf of the Chamber itself because you cannot move a word, comma or whatever in relationship to this bill without dealing with a conflict of interest. It is the bill which guides our lives as members of Parliament and members of the Senate.

November 30,1990
Government Orders
It is a statute that deals with the House of Commons and our responsibilities within it. In particular, the amendments that are proposed in Bill C-79 deal with our utilization of public funds on behalf of what we hope is a strengthening of the democratic process rather than a weakening.
It has been an exercise for me. There is a tendency to want to speak about the bill and all the marvellous things that it will do, including providing greater clarity to members and society, things that my colleague has mentioned. I am going to spend most of my time today talking about this experience in relation to the press and the role of journalists in our society related to an institution this important in our society.
I would like to say to journalists' schools around the country that this may be a case study. Material in the last 12 months related to this issue would constitute case material for a university class. I say that somewhat knowingly because my career prior to coming here was as a university teacher and a full professor.
Out of the real world, Madam Speaker, you sometimes get your best learning material. I would challenge every editorial writer in the country to review their own conscience. When they write an editorial and say that Parliament is trying to pass a law that will stop the RCMP from investigating members of Parliament, I simply say to them: "Find something in the law that we are passing today or in the previous versions or in the June report of the committee, that was designed to stop the RCMP from investigating members."
They will not find it, because it does not exist.
That does not stop senior editorial writers and editors of newspapers and journalists in broadcast from telling Canadian people that is what we are about.
It makes me angry, but it also makes me sad.
I arrived in this place in May 1979, like most Canadians a believer in democracy and with a feel for the importance of democracy. In 19841 went to the United Nations for three months during the fall sitting of the General Assembly. I discovered that I knew nothing about the importance of democracy when I arrived.
By the end of three months, looking at a world body where most are not democracies and really getting a feel for what it would be like to live in a place that is not democratically run, I came back to this country with a different and, I hope, a better appreciation of the importance of democracy.
When you look at the way journalists have treated this issue, you see they are eroding and destroying the confidence of Canadians in their democratic institution. This Chamber in which I speak today is more important than any one of us is or could ever be, because it represents the hopes and aspirations and the dreams of Canadians.
It is the place where we try to resolve the very serious problems of the nation to provide a better future for our children and their children. When our character is attacked collectively or individually by people who do not know what they are talking about but who have absolutely no difficulty in writing or reporting the most nefarious kinds of things about members of Parliament, my blood boils and my democracy is weakened.
I do not know what we are going to do about that over time, but my natural inclination as a Conservative is always self-regulation. The journalists of this country and the journalism schools had better get off the mark and do something about the accuracy of reporting and editorial writing in this country.
Just because we choose to put our names forward in our communities, with a willingness to sit in public office, does not mean that our characters can be assassinated at will by the public press in this country. Throughout this exercise, that was done. Some of us in this Chamber aid and abet that from time to time in the heat of the moment, and that is wrong too. That is simply wrong. Democracy and the institution are far too important for us collectively to tolerate this ad infinitum.
This bill deals with a problem and I will say it as clearly as I can. The RCMP, without the passage of this bill, has to go through a court process with a judge and everything else and put all kinds of allegations in writing to be able to get the simplest piece of information from this democratic institution. That is nothing that anybody in this Chamber decided on; it is required by 100, 200 and 300 years of history. The publication of those allegations that go about behind the scenes in a search warrant is
November 30, 1990

destroying people's lives: families, kids, children, MPs- all kinds of people. They make a laughing stock of the RCMP itself sometimes, with the absurdity of what is alleged.
This bill and the motivation of every single member of the committee from the start was to provide a simpler, cleaner way for an investigator in our society to get information about the people in this institution. That will save the RCMP embarrassment, that will save the members' embarrassment, that will save the members' families embarrassment, and that will save the institution embarrassment in the final analysis. That is what it has been about. Anybody who tells you anything different, Madam Speaker, simply does not understand or has some other goal or motivation in life such as to sell a newspaper.
Some people believe to sell a newspaper is the finest goal they can have in life. Well, it isn't. A newspaper should be accurate. The journalists have a responsibility to discipline themselves in the name of accuracy.
That is in another sense what the bill is about. There is no way that police forces in this country can ignore an allegation made against a member of Parliament. They have an obligation to investigate. What this bill is about is giving them accurate information so that there is no misunderstanding that can arise and no damage that can be done.
I will end in just a few moments so that my colleagues can have their chance to say something, but I stand here with pride because I know how hard the members of the committee worked and under what difficult circumstances. The biggest sense of pride is the sense that we have almost unanimous approval of 293 very special people: leaders in their home communities who were selected by the voters of this country and sent here. To say that members of Parliament are like everybody else is nonsense. They are special. They were elected to be special. They are handed special responsibilities, and there is no greater responsibility than the protection of the democratic institution itself so that it can function and it can be self-correcting.
The bill we pass today is a contribution to that activity, to that goal and that end. I am pleased to have been able to be part of that process.
Government Orders


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I was almost ready to get up and accuse the chief government Whip of filibustering the legislation.
I also wish to rise, at this time, to speak about the proposed legislation. I decided, more than a year and a half ago, that I was no longer going to serve as Whip of this caucus. Last December, a month before my term of office ended, I agreed to be on this committee for a few short weeks to clean up some problems that existed with the present legislation.
Here we are, one year later, and we are finally having the proposed legislation put through the House of Commons. I am glad to see that it has happened. I think it helps to clarify the role of the Board of Internal Economy and, more important, it helps to make sure that there are open investigations of members of Parliament that we as a House can provide information where it is required and we are not perceived to be impeding any investigation. I think that is very important.
I also think it is important that other parts of this legislation, which have received a lot less public scrutiny, have been put into place. It is important that the role of the board is clarified. It is important that the by-laws that the board enacts be tabled in the House of Commons, so that not only members of Parliament are aware of what the rules are but, in addition, the public is aware of them.
This committee was established with the intention of doing a few short weeks of work, but it has taken a long time. I would also like to point out, in the very few minutes I have left, that other things have to be done as well. The committee, in its deliberations, has dealt with some of the problems that we face. It has helped to ensure that the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services is revising the manual, which more or less sets the ground rules for how we spend money and what are legitimate usages of the public purse by members of parliament, and that is important.
That is very important ongoing work by members of that committee, because our bible, if one wants to call it that, had become archaic and had a number of clauses which were not only unenforceable but which denied the reality all of us faced. I always cringed when I saw lines in it which said that we should not use our printing privileges for partisan purposes, that we should not be using any of our privileges for partisan purposes. When I rise in the House, I quite often have some partisan purpose for doing so. I was elected as a member of one political party. I expect to get up and speak, on behalf of that particular, partisan viewpoint. If I do so, I also

November 30,1990
Government Orders
expect that I will perhaps mail out literature stating that I am a New Democrat, that this is what I stand for, that this is what I believe, and that this is what I have said in the House of Commons on those very issues. We have helped to clarify some of the silly rules that we had in place. We have recognized that within limitations we are here as partisans and that we use our resources for legitimate communication of those partisan opinions to the public.
We also have other things which have to be done. The committee has recognized that it is important that we have disclosure of what we spend from the public purse and how that money has been spent. A lot of the problems we have faced result from the fact that the public does not have access to our information. Other legislatures around the world have a form of disclosure which enables the public to know what has been spent from public funds. It is only reasonable that happened for this House of Commons as well. I hope that the committee has the opportunity to finish its work in that area.
In addition, it is time that the government forced through tough, enforceable conflict of interest legislation. That should be in place. It is one of the things that will help to make sure the public understands that what we do is on behalf of the public, not for any personal benefit or gain.
There are things yet to be done, but I am proud of the work of the committee in the end. I also would like, in the very few seconds I have left, to thank the people who have worked on behalf of the committee, the researchers and others. I hope we will take a look at this legislation in a year's time. I hope we will not say that was the end of the process but that it was only the beginning of the process of helping to make sure that what we do in Parliament, how we spend money and we do on behalf of the public, is open to real and complete public scrutiny.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, as we are coming to the end of
this debate, I will make a wish, a very important wish for democracy. I wish that policemen thoughout this country do their duty so that we never have to intervene into their role which is extremely important for democracy. But I also wish that members of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, and the Parliament of Canada as a whole could do their duty without the improper interventions of the police or of a policeman in particular. However, the House of Commons as much as its members or the policemen will have to understand that this bill must take a little while to get over its teething troubles. I wish that policemen co-operate very closely with the Board of Internal Economy. I also want members to realize that self-discipline in any constituted body, including the House of Commons, is absolutely necessary and often convinces people who are watching us and all Canadians that it is as such the best guarantee.
I also ask that the Board of Internal Economy not seek unanimity all the time, but rather consensus. With the self-discipline we will all exercise together, I am convinced we will never again experience the problems we have been through lately.
I wish the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act will immediately consider the whole question of total and complete disclosure of members of Parliament budget expenditures.


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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
November 30, 1990


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   PLACE DU PORTAGE BUILDINGS DESIGNATIONS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer) moved: that Bill C-315, an Act to change the designations of the buildings known as Place du Portage, Phase I, II, in and IV, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present this legislation to give a new designation to the buildings known as Place du Portage, Phase I, II, III and IV, located in the City of Hull.
I have accepted to present this private bill at the request of the City of Hull. This is an initiative led by city councillor Pierre Chenier and you are seeing today the outcome of a long process to change the present designation of Place du Portage because it does not reflect the specific nature of the buildings, but merely the construction stages of the complex. I must point out that, contrary to what some might be tempted to think, the names chosen by the City have nothing to do with political partisanship.
Representatives from the city of Hull wish that these buildings be now named after famous persons of national significance. So, it is with this in mind that they directed their research in order to submit the names of two famous persons who were involved in national politics and whose names would be consistent with the francophone reality of that city's territory. That is why they decided to choose Mr. Jean Marchand and Mrs. Therese Casgrain. The city council referred the matter to the Hull Identity Committee, a committee made up of elected representatives and citizens, which unanimously recommended the names of Jean Marchand and Therese Casgrain. The City of Hull received a lot of support for its choices, notably from the children of Mr. Marchand and Mrs. Casgrain.
Why Jean Marchand? People will remember that Jean Marchand, when he was the first Minister of Regional Economic Development, worked relentlessly to make
Private Members' Business
sure that the Quebec side of the National Capital would get some federal buildings. Jean Marchand was, indeed, the key architect of the decision of the Ottawa government to move to Hull one fourth of the federal Civil Service in spite of the indignation that you remember. It is even more important now to give this tribute to him because close to 21 000 federal civil servants work today on the Quebec side of the Ottawa valley. And, soon, when Quebec takes a decision concerning its political future, those jobs in the Outaouais will still be an important factor.
Why Therese Casgrain? Because she played an important role in our country by spending her life fighting in favor of women's right to vote and because she is considered a leader among 20th century Canadian women who advanced the cause of reform. Wouldn't it be a good occasion to pay homage to her also, particularly since we are celebrating this year the 50th anniversary of women's right to vote.
We must also take into account the fact that federal buildings in the National Capital Region are all identified with different names such as l'Esplanade Laurier, Louis Saint-Laurent, Jules Leger, Jean Thlon, Vanier, etc. To keep up with that spirit the city of Hull has made that request and also to avoid any confusion, as is the case with Place du Portage Phase I, n, III and IV. The Information Services sometimes receive many calls from people wanting to know the location of one of them.
Phases I and II of Place du Portage will now be known as Jean Marchand Building, South Tower, and Jean Marchand Buiding, North Tower. As for Phases III and IV, they will be known as Therese Casgrain Building, West Tower, and Therese Casgrain Building, East Tower. For all these reasons, I dare wish that my colleagues in the House of Commons will agree to refer this bill to a legislative committee, so that, before long, we can name these buildings on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River after these two great Canadians.


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, at the federal level, the designation of public buildings is the responsibility of Public Works. There is nothing wrong with that, since it owns most government buildings.
As a matter of fact, Public Works is not only responsible for a hundred or so federal office buildings, but also for cultural centres, employment centres, research laboratories, harbours, farms and others facilities. Public

November 30, 1990
Private Members' Business
Works is also responsible for the accomodations used by 135 departments and agencies. In fact, some 150,000 civil servants go to work everyday in buildings Public Works is responsible for. Finding an appropriate name for the buildings is an important task it carries out with great care.
The policy on the designation of federal facilities is the following: Choose a prestigious name that will be readily recognized and respected; give recognition to one person or a group of persons who contributed to the well-being of Canada, the community or the customer department; finally, remind a historical event to the community or the client department.
This policy includes a number of criteria Public Works used to determine the merit of the proposals. For instance, it goes without saying that the person it is suggested to name a building after must be deceased, but it can also be named after a place or an event of historical importance, if there is a connexion between the name and the building. The names proposed must also have some prominence in the region.
It seems clear to me that the name Place du Portage is quite appropriate. It reminds us of the days when explorers travelled our rivers in canoes discovering Canada. It reminds us not only of those courageous explorers but also of traders and missionaries who travelled those rivers during decades. Place du Portage brings back to mind not only certain events but also a historic site and a lot of people instead of only two.
According to our policy on the names of federal buildings, any individual or group can make suggestions. Department officials can recommend a name themselves or ask for suggestions. These consulted persons could be the public in general, historical societies, historians, universities, municipal councils or people who have lived in the community for a long time and know the subject well. In the case of property acquired through a lease-option agreement, the promoter also has his say concerning the proposed name.
It is then up to the region's chief manager, an official of Public Works Canada, to check the proposition. To that end, he can consult with the Secretary of State, the Privy Council or any other ressource group he sees fit. The regional chief manager then presents a report on
the results of the study to the deputy minister, who in turn presents it to the minister.
Finally, it is the minister who decides if the name can be given to the facilities or building. At first sight, this system seems complicated or overly prudent. But the government believes that it is worth it, that it ensures that these assets are properly named. Once the name is chosen, it is extremeley difficult to backtrack. Also, a building's name should mean something and be appreciated not only by its tenants, but the community at large and all interested parties.
For years, Mr. Speaker, buildings have been named after distinguished Canadians. As mentioned by my colleague we have, in the National Capital Region, the Jules Leger Building and the Lester B. Pearson Building. I could mention the Champlain Maritime Terminal in Quebec City or the Guy Favreau Complex in Montreal, both named after famous Canadians. That does not mean that buildings are necessarily named after politicians. Many commemorate people who distinguished themselves in other fields of activity.
I suggest to my colleague who made some proposals here, today, Mr. Speaker, that he tells the group he represents-the City of Hull, that he mentioned a few times if I am not mistaken-that we could forget politicians and look for other names.
I am proposing that, Mr. Speaker, because as Mao said, women support half of the sky, but I noticed that in the political arena they are denied access to some fame which is justly theirs.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time that we recognize famous women and pay tribute to those who, in the end, contributed to the history of Canada and were part of it. It is clear that if we limit ourselves to politicians we would restrict the pool of names dramatically, since it is a well known fact that women gained access to this venerable institution only recently, when in reality women had a major role in the settlement and development of Canada.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would like for my honorable colleague that he goes back to his constituents and suggests to them that they think about the role of women in our society, without restricting themselves to political roles, which would limit too much the pool of available names. And if he needs help finding names of
November 30, 1990

very important and distinguished women, I will personally assist him if his group can't. We have exceptional women in Canada as well as in Quebec.
In conclusion- I hear chauvinist comments, Mr. Speaker. I hope you did not hear them, because it is horrible to hear such things in 1990! I repeat, I find the name Place du Portage fully satisfactory. It is a very important historic site and, I repeat, I don't believe it is a good thing to change something just for the sake of it, especially according to the recommandations that have been made. I see no improvement whatsoever in it.
I would like to say finally that if the department wishes once more to change the building's name, I would hope it would choose something other than the name of a political figure. If my colleague would listen, I would suggest further that consultations be held not only in Hull, but elsewhere. Consultations should be held as well as studies made before a decision is taken on the matter.
I believe we should follow the process used previously, and succesfully, Mr. Speaker, under the supervision of different departments and several Public Works ministers.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, not only will I not support the motion, I say that the bill should be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: I thank the Hon. Member for Bourassa. I will now hear the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the Hull City Council for the initiative it has taken through their servant, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer. After hearing the explanations of the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, one can only support that intitiative.
First, I would like to say to the hon. member for Bourassa that there is much ado about nothing. The city of Hull, which represents the people of the region, has taken the initiative to have the Place du Portage complex built-that place has a historical meaning since it is indeed there that portages were made for hundreds of years-and to have the towers of Phases I, II, III and IV erected. What we wanted to do was simply to give these
Private Members' Business
buildings a proper name. There is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned.
The City of Hull should be congratulated for its choice of names because a simple glance at Mrs. Therese Casgrain's career shows her exceptionnal involment in various movements in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec. Nobody can deny that she has played an important role. Many of us here have witnessed the work she has done and they know her for her sense of moderation, her kindness and her great skill. Therefore, I suggest that the Hull City Council has displayed good taste in choosing her name and I congratulate them.
I come now to Jean Marchand, the other proposed name. I believe the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer is more aware than I am of Mr. Marchand's role in the region as a former mayor of Hull, he knows Mr. Marchand was paramount to the expansion of the federal presence in Hull during the construction of the various phases of those buildings.
Now the City of Hull wants to complete this effort by giving those buildings a name that will identify them with a significant person. The names it has proposed are excellent and I need not repeat what the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer has already said on the subject. We support him, Madam Speaker, but if I may, I would have a suggestion that I am sure he could convey to the city council in Hull. Since the site bears a historic significance as a place of portaging-in fact, for hundreds of years, our first settlers who came from France to establish themselves here, in Nouvelle-France, have used this place as such-I was wondering if we could this is only a suggestion, mind you, because I don't have any advice to give to Hull city council-could we not call the whole structure "Complexe Place du Portage", and rename the Phases I and II as the Jean Marchand Building, North and South Towers respectively, phases III and IV being renamed Therese Casgrain Building, North and South Towers-or East and West, if such is the wish of the member for Hull-Aylmer.
That is my suggestion to the hon. member, and I ask him to give it to the city administration. In this way, we could recognize the historical aspect of the site, considering it as a whole, called Place du Portage, and nevertheless improving it with the names suggested by Hull, that is Therese Casgrain and Jean Marchand.

November 30,1990
Private Members' Business


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the suggestion made today by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer is very interesting. I think the Conservative member, who recommended that we should turn down this suggestion, call it a bill or a motion, based her remarks on a very simple argument. As far as I am concerned, I think it best to provide a building with a specific designation, in order to show the respect we have for people who have served this country. For all these reasons, this suggestion seems to me like a good idea.
And there is another reason for that as well, Madam Speaker. The Hull residents have themselves expressed the wish to change the designations of the Place du Portage buildings to honour the memory of Jean Mar-chand and Therese Casgrain. I do think personally that it is very fitting to honour these two key figures in this way.

For all of us, Madam Speaker, there is a concern to serve our community's needs and expressed concerns. In the case of this particular Private Members' Bill before us, if I understand the argument correctly, that is precisely what the member for Hull-Aylmer is attempting to do.
He is attempting to bring before the House something that will reflect the wishes of his community to see the two individuals of whom he has spoken, Jean Marchand and Therese Casgrain, showing the honour of which I think they are quite deserving for many reasons. They are reasons that have to do with the risks which they took in the fight for social justice in the Province of Quebec and with the contribution which both have made in the Parliament of Canada.
From my personal point of view, I am particularly pleased to see the suggestion that Therese Casgrain be given a sign of honour and respect here in the National Capital Region. Her work as a leader in the fight for women's rights in Quebec was, of course, extremely important. But her work as leader of the party which was the predecessor to our party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, is also something which certainly I respect considerably, and which I think should be respected by people across the country. She was one of the very first women leaders of a political party anywhere
in the country and that was not a very easy task. It was not an easy task to be a path breaker.
The names that have been suggested by the community of Hull are appropriate names and names that deserve to be honoured. As a House of Commons, we should respect the expressed wishes of the community of Hull and accept the motion which has been put forward by the member for Hull-Aylmer, to have it pass to a legislative committee, and have representatives from the community of Hull come to speak to us about their reasons for this particular choice of names. In other words, we should not stand in the way of the expressed concern and desire which has come from the city of Hull to honour two important Canadians.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in the House on behalf of the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.
I understand very clearly the motives and rationale for placing before the House of Commons the legislation that he has placed before us today.


Don Boudria: But-


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell says: "But", presuming for a moment that somehow I might automatically, as he would, be of the opposite of the view for no other reason than that I am on the other side of the House. I want to say to the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, who is a reasoned and rational person, that he will know that is not automatically my position.
We look at the edifice that is across the river, a large structure of buildings, with that beautiful name. I am not sure what particular nuances it has for French-speaking Canadians, but I know that for English-speaking Canadians, names such as Portage la Prairie and Place du Portage have a very special ring for which we have a deep sense of our national history.
We know that the country was discovered from east to west along the highways of the rivers, the portages, and all that infers. It beckons back to the earliest days of the foundation of the country.
I would agree with the hon. member who spoke earlier, a member of the Liberal Party, who said that that whole complex should retain and contain that name, Place du Portage. But then we have these towers that I submit could only have been named after a national committee of accountants put together a thorough analysis and study and came up with the picturesque,
November 30, 1990

descriptive, and accurate titles of Tower I, II, III, and IV. I commend that presumed committee of accountants, wherever it might be, for its accuracy.
I submit that if there is anything that is in need in our country today, it is the need for national symbols that will make us hearken to and recognize the heritage and the great people who built the country. Names should be honoured and recognized.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that having looked at the names that have been put forward, I would want to make two comments. First, I would want the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer to know that in no way for either of those two names could I find any justifiable reason to say that those names ought not to be utilized. Second, if I could, it probably would be inappropriate for me to say no to those names to the hon. member who is the representative of that city, after his city council has said that these are the names that it wants. That would very much impinge on the local community from which he comes and which he represents.
I will, however, put forward this thought, because I think there is in the country a need to advance more symbols. There is a need to advance more recognition to our history. Instead of naming two towers for one person, here is a possibility to name all four towers after Canadians and for Canadians who have demonstrated purpose.
>
I am an advantaged member of this House because I sit right down at this end. I do not know which camera is on me at the moment, but if it is the far one, the pages will be seen right beside me.
In preparing to speak today, I turned to the pages and asked them to name for me a famous Canadian. They did. They said Rick Hansen. I asked them to name another one and they said Terry Fox. I asked them to name another, and they said Lester Pearson, then Billy Bishop, Karen Kain, Brian Orser, and Margaret Atwood. The civil service is going to go plum nuts when it hears this one. The hon. member for Prescott-Glengarry- Russell might even put the motion forward. They said Wayne and Shuster. How do you like that, Madam
Private Members' Business
Speaker? 'Where do you work?" "I am over at the Wayne and Shuster Building".
What I found intriguing about the list given to me by the pages is that of the nine names, one is a politician. It is important that politicians be recognized, but that it is also important that we recognize this country was built to a very large and significant extent, not by what took place in this building, but what took place as a result of men and women from all parts of Canada who helped to make the country great.
I know everyone in this House is sensitive to the fact that we have come through a tumultuous summer in terms of native affairs in this country. When I look at the situation with native persons in Canada and when I put in balance the fact that I know so many native leaders of extraordinary quality, of extraordinary skill, with far above average capacity for articulation, I am perplexed at why North America, both Canada and the United States, has so few native heroes.
We have Buffy Sainte-Marie, a folk singer who is nationally and internationally known. I put that in the context of the black movement in the United States. I was a student at the University of Montana. One of the most moving days of my life was to be in San Francisco among a group of 22,000 blacks to listen to a speech by Martin Luther King. It will, as long as I live, be a highlight of my life.
The blacks advanced to a significant extent because of national heroes in their country. The first such person was probably Jackie Robinson, the first black to play professional baseball. Today television broadcasts of Bill Cosby warms the hearts of virtually every person around the world. With national heroes, we soon do what we ought to do in race relations. We fail to see that the person's skin is a different colour. That is important.
Across the river in the city of Hull is probably one of Canada's proudest buildings, the Museum of Civilization. It will probably live with that name forever. It may be all too soon forgotten that that building was designed by an Albertan from my home province, a full blood native Canadian and one of Canada's most exceptional architects.

November 30,1990
Private Members' Business
It might well be in the community of Hull since we have four towers to name that there would be some appropriateness, especially in these times, to reach out and say to the native community: "We will place the name of one of your people on one of our national buildings". I submit that that consideration might be undertaken. I think of the name of the person who my constituency was named after, Crowfoot.
Chief Crowfoot was bom a Blood. He migrated north with his grandfather at the age of five, walking from what is now Montana into what is now southern Alberta. He became chief of the Black Foot and he adopted a Cree son, the first test of multiculturalism. That person, who spoke only his native tongue, at the time of the signing of treaty seven, spoke in English. He said this as an elderly chief: "In a little while I will be gone from among you. Wither I come and wither I go, I do not know. What is life? It is like the flash of the firefly in the night. It is like the breath of the buffalo in the wintertime. It is like the little shadow that races across the grass and loses itself in the sunset." That, by a nomad, who travelled with the buffalo, who learned the language late in mid life, to give that kind of poetic expression, written by the Northwest Mounted Police, needs somewhere in this country his name on an edifice, a building, to signal his importance.
I commend the hon. member for Aylmer-Hull. I simply ask that we only take that time to do the job fully and completely so that all towers can be appropriately named and that we enhance in the process the naming of more places after good Canadians, wherever they may come from.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I did not intend to speak this afternoon. I simply wanted to support the bill presented by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, and I am delighted to do so.
But I feel compelled to take the floor because of comments by the hon. member for Bourassa. She said in this House earlier today that we should not recognize political figures only when it comes to naming our buildings.
That is what the hon. member for Bourassa said. She does not want a certain building to be named after Therese Casgrain. Madam Speaker, here is what the Canadian Encyclopedia says about her:
Therese Casgrain, nee Forget, reformer, bom at Montreal 10 July 1896. Best remembered for her leadership of the campaign for women's suffrage in Quebec.


An hon. member:: If it were not for her, you would not even be here!


Don Boudria: Still, the hon. member for Bourassa is against that appointment!


An hon. member:: That is incredible. Really!


Don Boudria: It continues: "[-[ before WWII, she was a leading 20th-century Canadian reformer. [-[A founding member of the Provincial Franchise Committee for women's suffrage in 1921, [-[and hosted a popular Radio Canada program in the 1930s, "Femina"." I am skipping a lot, Madam Speaker. "In 1961 she founded the Quebec branch-


Marie Gibeau: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bourassa on a question of privilege.


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, if I am to be quoted, I should be in context. What I said-


Don Boudria: That is not a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Marie Gibeau: I insist, Madam Speaker. If he is going to quote me, he should give the complete quote instead of being so selective. He is worse than a reporter. Honestly. That is disgusting.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, if I were the member for Bourassa I would also want to retract an earlier statement when she was saying things like that. I do not blame her for wanting to withdraw what she said earlier this afternoon because it was a shame, Madam Speaker!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is Friday afternoon and I should think that everybody is anxious to leave these hallowed precincts. Still I think that, on either side, members would not be well advised to impute motives as a result of statements made by one colleague or another.
November 30,1990

I would therefore ask the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to continue his remarks but without making accusations which might not indeed be directly related to what the hon. member for Bourassa may have said.


Don Boudria: I shall address this point some other time, Madam Speaker. Just the same, I want to tell you that I am not at all satisfied with what we have just heard.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about Hon. Jean Marchand. The Hon. Member opposite said that she was against designating a building in honour of Hon. Jean Marchand. I am not imputing motives; the reason she is against it does not matter. What matters is that she is against it and for that, she should be ashamed of herself!
I have the rigth to say so in this House. I suggest she should be ashamed of herself for being against the designation of a building in honour of Therese Casgrain and Jean Marchand and I suggest that Hull-Aylmer constituents and all the other Canadians share my views, Madam Speaker. I am prepared to say so in front of anyone. The City of Hull has submitted an application through its elected representatives, and they are not just nobodies! They were people chosen by the Hull electorate both at the federal and municipal levels.
Here is part of the record of proceedings of a Hull Municipal Council meeting dealing deals with this issue. I should like to quote from a resolution adopted on March 20, 1990: "It is resolved that the council is asking the Government of Canada to designate Place du Portage, Phase I, as Jean Marchand Building, North Tbwer, Phase II as Jean Marchand Building, South Tower, Phase
III,	as Therese Casgrain Building, East Tower, and Phase
IV,	as the Therese Casgrain Building, West Tower".
The councillors of the city of Hull are the ones who asked for this, Madam Speaker. The federal representatives, more particularly the member for that riding, asked for this in the House and I had the privilege of seconding the motion in the House today.
If members opposite are against such a designation, let them say so. But in fifteen minutes, Madam Speaker, we will know for sure. If Conservative members decide not to allow us our right to vote on this motion today, that is
Private Members' Business
their privilege. They can kill the bill, talk it out. They might do it; that is their privilege.
And I would dare say that they do, it will only be for political partisanship. It is not mere coincidence that Mrs. Casgrain was a New Democrat, and Mr. Marchand a Liberal. A few years ago, when the time came to erect a statue in honour of Mr. Diefenbaker, I gladly supported the motion here in Parliament, and it was done. Two years later, we tried to do the same for Mr. Pearson, and what took just a few months for Mr. Diefenbaker took two years for Mr. Pearson. But we got our wish although it took much more time. I did not blame the government then because we finally got what we were asking for.
But today, Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are displaying is partisanship of the worse kind. When I see the hon. member for Bourassa act as she did today, Madam Speaker, I am outraged. I hope the constituents from Hull and all Canadians, but especially women, will remember what the hon. member for Bourassa said today and the decision this House is about to make.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, the name Place du Portage goes deep into the heart of the city of Hull as I understand, and for many people it invokes memories of the voyageurs who passed this way in quest of their furs and other riches as they moved westward and opened up this country.
The portage was, of course, the overland route taken to avoid the Chaudiere Rapids as the tradesmen moved up and down the Ottawa River.
Writing of the trail which the Indians used to cut off the long way around the bend in the river, the hon. F. R. Latchman said: "In order to get ahead of the voyageurs as they came up the river in their canoes, the Indian runners took a trail across the country, leaving the river at a point where the city of Hull now stands".
They bore northwesterly until they reached the mountain this side of the Eardley Line and then followed by foot across Eardley and thence to the river again.
By this means they could let their tribe know of the approach of the voyageurs as they came up and down the river. At first it was to prepare their tribe for a hostile reception of the voyageurs and later to meet them for

November 30, 1990
Private Members' Business
barter and trade in furs and do commerce with the voyageurs.
The traditional portage paths that skirted the Chau-diere Rapids were on the north shore. They first crossed the present day Eddy Company yards and at Little Chaudiere Rapids, a short distance upstream, another carry was necessary.
Today in the Hull suburb of Val-Tetreau, beside the Ottawa River and a short walk downstream from the statue of the martyred priest, Saint Jean de Brebeuf, there is a monument showing the old path over which the missionaries, explorers and traders trod.
Before the great days of the timber industry, many fortunes in furs were floated up and down the River.
As the traders went, settlers appeared, things changed.
In 1800 the arrival of Philemon Wright marked the beginning of the lumber trade which was to bring growth, prosperity and many fortunes to the area in the century that followed.
I mention these historical events because this history is very important in our country, important to this area, and important to all of Canada. Certainly the name Place du Portage sticks out.
The name was selected with care when the buildings were built. It preserves the memory of a stretch of ground that was important in the building of this country. It is a reminder to citizens of Hull and all of us in the national capital region of our beginnings and our heritage.
It is important that we do not in any way dilute or obscure the name Place du Portage as it relates to the complex of buildings which have transformed the city of Hull over the past several years to be a thriving, growing and important part of the national capital region.
The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Aylmer in Bill C-315 merits consideration. It is the practice of the federal government to name some government buildings after distinguished Canadians when such action is deemed suitable and doable.
As other speakers have pointed out, M. Marchand and Mme Casgrain both served with some major distinction in Canadian public life.
But in the case of Place du Portage I think it is important that no precipitous action be taken that might detract from the eminently suitable and well-established name that the complex now bears.
The name is well established and well known. Maybe it has some simplicity to it, as the member for Crowfoot mentioned, that they just went "one, two, three, and four", but it does sit well over-all with the citizens of the national capital region.
It is also a rather simple nomenclature. Place du Portage' is a very large complex and houses a myriad of federal government departments and agencies.
Its tenants include Supply and Services Canada, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Employment and Immigration Canada. It houses all or parts of the National Capital Commission-


Don Boudria: We know that. Come on.


Kenneth Albert James: Well maybe some Canadians do not know that. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is yelling out: "Come on". Maybe all Canadians watching do not know that. Maybe it is kind of important and interesting that they do. You do, we do, because we are all here. It is amazing what other people do not know, so maybe it will not hurt to tell them what departments are there. Canada Post Corporation is there and so is Labour Canada, Public Works Canada and other departments and agencies, including Health and Welfare Canada, Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, and some of the offices of National Defence. In short, it is a microcosm of the federal government itself.
Over the past decade and a half, it has become a familiar address to thousands of Canadians who do business with the government and who receive services from the complex. Members of the public have a difficult enough time working out how and under what name they can reach a certain department or agency. All of us have problems now and again, and we work here every day.
We should be very careful to avoid making things even more complicated. I am not saying that changing the name is going to do that but I think we should think about all of this. The present nomenclature is quite clear, the complex is named Place du Portage and its main buildings are designated in a very simplistic way, I, II, III and IV. This is simply for mailing purposes and
November 30, 1990

facilitates giving directions to those wishing to visit a government office there.


Don Boudria: Oh, yes.


Kenneth Albert James: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell keeps saying a lot of words. I think I always sit here very quietly. I do not interrupt him, I am a very quiet member of Parliament who does not yell across at anybody-


Don Boudria: I will resist.


Kenneth Albert James: So I will expect, on this Friday afternoon, that he gives me the same respect.
The proposal put forward in Bill C-315, would add another layer to the designations already in place. It would call one building the Jean Marchand building, north tower and another the Jean Marchand building, south tower and the same in connection with Therese Casgrain. Then we get into east towers, west towers and that sort of thing.
It has been a consistent policy of the government that when buildings are named after specific persons, it gives the name only to one physical structure. That is the way it has been done. No one is saying that these particular names should not be used. It was suggested by the city of Hull and by the member of Parliament for Hull-Aylmer. I do not think anyone is indicating that these people are not great Canadians. But I think that giving two separate and distinct edifices the name of the same person might invite confusion so maybe we should think about this. For this reason alone, it could be that we should reflect upon it.
However, it does not mean that the government rejects out of hand, as maybe it was indicated by some people across the way, the idea of giving names of the prominent Canadians to these buildings. I do not think there would be any disagreement from members opposite that there are other important Canadians, other than politicians, some names were mentioned, for instance, by the Pages to the member for Crowfoot. I am sure if we gave the question to the young people of Quebec, they would come up with another long list that would have a lot of other names on it and they would not all be politicians.
In fact, the Prime Minister received a similar proposal from Le Cornell de la municipalite de la ville de Hull
Private Members' Business
earlier this year, as the hon. member probably knows, and he has referred it to the Minister of Public Works for his study and consideration. The minister, as members hopefully know, has the responsibility for the naming of federal buildings and structures and he will certainly do so.
This is not an undertaking that is entered into lightly by the government. I hope that we would all take that into consideration here today. It is normal for the matter to be thoroughly researched and that there be extensive consultation for the naming of buildings. Certainly the minister and the government will do that, taking into account the submission made by the city of Hull and the member of Parliament for that constituency and the discussions that were held here today.
A building is a thing of some permanence and it is important that all those directly affected have ample opportunity to express their views. For these reasons, and without precluding the possibility of assigning names to the structure at this point, the position of the government will be that we should take under advisement the names that have been put forward and look at naming all four buildings in the future.
Madam Speaker, I thank you veiy much for the opportunity to speak on this important bill put forward by the member from Hull.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief, because my colleague also wants to speak to this matter. I would like to make just one point. One of my first experiences in this field, when I was elected mayor of Beauhamois, was that people wanted to change the name of the Beauhamois Municipal Hall, which had been known as such since time immemorial, and it so happened that they wanted to name it after my political opponent who was the outgoing mayor of Beauhamois at the time. However, I had a good excuse which was that he wasn't dead yet and so they did not have the right to do that. However, I still felt somewhat guilty about possible political overtones, and that is what I have been feeling during the last fifteen or twenty minutes, and that is the point I wanted to make. Clearly, if someone had suggested that the four towers be named after four Indian chiefs and if we had opposed it, we would have been accused of being anti-Indians.

November 30, 1990
Private Members' Business
We have the names of two prominent Canadians, a man and a woman. I suppose that one can be accused of being "blue" and not "red", or of not willing to recognize the achievements of women. That is not true because I believe they both had a political career that I admire, and I would love, at some point, to have the political career they enjoyed.
Personally, I believe that we cannot make things simpler than they are now. Place du Portage, Phase I, II, III or IV, the name this complex has been carrying for 15 years now, might not be very poetic, but it seems easier to me than Jean Marchand North Tower, Jean Marchand South Tower, Therese Casgrain East Tower, Therese Casgrain West Tower. I used to be the Paliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and each year we received thousands of letters. There is also Employment and Immigration and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. All addresses would have to be changed. I was impressed by my colleague's speech earlier. I also think we should keep things simple and maintain some continuity. It has been there for 15 years and it should be kept for future generations. I am not saying that the proposed names do not mean anything, but I still think that what is being suggested lacks in simplicity.
I would have had more to say, Madam Speaker, but I will yield to my colleague who has a few words to say about this bill.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-315 as put forward by the member from Hull. I can understand why he did this. It is his home constituency. He is an individual who has very strong feelings about the designation of names for the particular buildings in question. The two people mentioned are without doubt two famous Canadians, Therese Casgrain and Jean Marchand.
I think all of us in this House are very familiar with their careers and particularly myself-


Don Boudria: rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House to sit for an extra half an hour to make sure we can vote today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for unanimous consent to carry on with the debate.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. I am sorry, the time has expired.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 3, 1990