1990-10-05

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a time of extraordinary events.
We see the government being ready to use unprecedented means in order to force a tax, the GST, which is the most unpopular tax in Canadian history, through Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that is debate.
We may be in extraordinary times, and those who were listening carefully to the prayer would notice that I had noticed that. Certainly, I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government is using extraordinary means to force through Parliament the most unpopular tax in Canadian history, the goods and services tax.
Therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present immediately a motion as follows:
That this House direct the Prime Minister to take the steps
necessary for the Governor in Council to appoint a person who will
respect the rules of Parliament to preside over the Senate.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in reinforcing this motion, and in speaking to the motion, I would like to call on the British North America Act, section 34, which makes it very clear that the responsibility for naming the person in the Senate who becomes Speaker rests with section 34.
The Governor General may, from time to time-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to try to be as even-handed as I can.
A few days ago, the government rose to put forward a motion and asked for the consent of the House. There was some debate, I think 16 minutes on behalf of the government side and I think 13 minutes on behalf of the opposition side. I may have been too lax in indulging and giving everybody the latitude that was engaged in at the time.
Now before the House, there is a request by way of point of order by the hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the House accept the motion which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has put forward on the basis of unanimous consent.
I recognized the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but I think again we have to keep in mind that what the opposition is seeking here is exactly what the government was seeking the other day. That was unanimous consent for a motion.
My difficulty in dealing with this-I am sure all hon. members can understand this- is that it is legitimate enough, but it cannot be turned into a prolonged or extended debate.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has put the point, and he has put it with his usual forcefulness. I am just wondering: Is there any particular need for other members to become involved? I know that the hon. parliamentary secretary is seeking the floor on a point of order, and I anticipate that he will be asking the same questions that I am putting in general terms to the House.
Probably the better way to deal with this would be to say that there is the motion. Perhaps I should ask if the House is prepared to agree to it or otherwise. However, I have some regard for our hon. friend, the member for Ottawa-Vanier. If he can persuade me that, as your Speaker, I should hear further debate, I may be persuaded. I am pointing out that the procedure that is being followed has been done many times in the House. Somebody has risen and asked for unanimous consent on a point of order. That is exactly what is happening. It is not appropriate for me to allow it to extend into a long debate.

Points of Order
Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who I interrupted, can assist the Chair, but not to debate what is or is not going on in some other place. I have some doubts as to whether that would be appropriate. I will hear the hon. member in order to decide whether I ought to hear the hon. member further.
The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I understand very clearly your need to treat both sides fairly and we on this side appreciate and respect that principle. Keeping that in mind, the other day as the Speaker reminded us-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is any secret that we have been witnessing extraordinary events. Some of what has happened in the last 24 hours has never happened before. As your Speaker, I have to try to find a way to allow the House to deal with it, but still stay within the bounds of reason and within the rules. I am prepared to be very careful about making sure that we do both of those things and I certainly think that it is appropriate to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to give his remarks to the House.
It seems to me that, given the backdrop of what we are dealing with, we ought to be very careful this morning. Let us listen to each other and see if we can find a way through it.
I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary shortly, and I remind him that his point of order interrupts the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I will come back to the hon. member.
The hon. parliamentary secretary who may be able to help me.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of quick points.
First, you referred to the 16 minutes and the 13 minutes the other day which would lead us to believe that the opposition should have three minutes. However, yesterday, if my memory serves me right, the opposition took 32 minutes, so we should have 27 minutes.
I do want to say on the basis of the motion that the normal way for us to do this is to discuss it in House leader's meetings. We would be happy to do that. But without those discussions at this point, we would have to signal that, no, we will not give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has given clear indication that the House is not going to agree to the motion. The hon. parliamentary secretary has also, however, left the door open for some discussion. However, I am listening to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, and I will hear him to see if what he has to say is going to help the Speaker deal with this problem.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and appreciate your comments. Indeed, the Speaker is invested with powers to maintain order and I take exception to the government trying to bootleg some phoney points of order when I have the floor legitimately. I do not agree with this attitude that there has to be a quid pro quo, just because they get a few minutes we do not get as much.
The point is that the government is responsible for the appointments of certain persons. It is done by appointment, by Order in Council. The Governor General follows up on the recommendation. We all know that. The point of the motion is to get the government to put forward an appointment of a person who will, like you, Mr. Speaker, have respect for the rules of the House of Commons and have respect for the rules of Parliament. That is our point.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops. I know that he will assist the Chair in not straying too far, given the situation.
I want to join with you, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledge as I am sure we all do that we have been witnessing some extraordinary events in the last 24 hours and it has demonstrated a whole number of very serious problems we face as a Parliament.
I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect I reflect the views of all of us on both sides of the House-perhaps we could call it a three-sided House- that while we might have different views on the other place in terms of its validity, we do recognize that the Parliament of Canada includes two Houses, that the work that is done here eventually moves into the other place and is concluded there, under normal conditions.
October 5, 1990

What we see this morning is that while we are here in our places to carry on important business, particularly as it refers to heritage languages in the country, we know full well that the other place is paralysed. It is non-functioning. It is not working.
While I sympathize with the point raised by my hon. friend, the Leader of the Official Opposition, I think what we have witnessed in the last few hours in the other place was a complete debacle or chaos, I think is a good way to describe it. If there ever has been a demonstration of the need to abolish the Senate, it has to be now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has, I think, commented on events of which we are all very much aware. The hon. member has a certain minimum awareness of those events, as we all know, but this is not the place or the time to debate great constitutional changes.
I think that the appropriate thing is for me to put to the House the motion that has been proposed to us on the basis of asking consent that this House direct the Prime Minister to take the steps necessary for the Governor in Council to appoint a person who will respect the rules of Parliament and to preside over the Senate. That is the motion. Is there agreement to the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have only heard the motion now twice, but it seems to me that some of the language in there would cause that motion to be ruled out of order because it sounds to me like a reflection on present occupants in the other House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary may well be right. At the moment, I am asking the House whether there is consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so long as hon. members and also the public that is watching understand this, the hon. House leader has proposed a motion with respect to events that are taking place in the other place. That motion has not received unanimous consent in this House.
Points of Order
Now, I am going to hear the hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we dealt with the previous motion that was put before the House seeking unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the indulgence of the House to ask also for unanimous consent to consider what I think is a most appropriate motion considering the events of the last number of days. I refer to Hansard of Wednesday, October 3, 1990, Motion No. 283, standing in my name, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of abolishing the Senate and introduce
electoral procedures to enable the regions of Canada to participate
in government decision making in fair proportion.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to put that motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as you have set the tone of fairness that is a very important principle in this House, I want to say as sympathetic as I personally am to that motion, I think in fairness it should be handled in the same way as I recommended for that of the Official Opposition, and that is to discuss it at another place with the House leaders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, surprises, surprises. Here is the government which applauded the statement made a few minutes ago by that same member who applauded the abolishing of the Senate. I mean, hypocrisy has no limits. Here we have the NDP now proposing to abolish the Senate when last night all Canadians saw the hon. member for Kamloops on television talking to the Senate. Again, hypocrisy has no limits.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is probably appropriate to ask the hon. member for Shefford to state his opinion or suggestion.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, like millions of Canadians, today I had a chance to see what is happening in the other place, and like many Canadians, I think all this is degrading and humiliating, and I am surprised the Parliamentary House Leader of the Liberal

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
Party did not rise in the House this morning to apologize on behalf of the Senate to this House and to Canadians, instead of moving a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point of view is very interesting.

I have to say to the hon. member for Kamloops, who has proposed this motion, that there does not seem to be consent. However, in the interests of ensuring that we are dealing with these matters in a completely fair way, I think that the motion was:
That, in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of abolishing the Senate and introduce electoral procedures to enable the regions of Canada to participate in government decision making and fair proportion.
The hon. member for Kamloops has asked if there is consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not.
Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are two motions in amendment in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East as set down in the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. Motion No. 1 is in order. A similar motion was moved in committee and negatived. However, Motion No. 1 is sufficiently different that the Chair is prepared to allow it to be put before the House.

Consequently, motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2 is in order and it will also be debated and voted on separately.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-37 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 16 and 17 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada and does not include aboriginal languages of Canada."
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to just explain a little bit about this motion, though I know members of the committee will be well aware of why we felt it necessary to be very explicit that aboriginal people do not want to have their languages, the languages of the First Nations of Canada classified as heritage languages and included in this bill.
I know that in committee we did delete the section that was originally in the bill which included "and includes any aboriginal language" after the phrase "contributes to the linguistic heritage of Canada". However, having deleted that, in the view of a number of native people we heard from and to whom I have spoken since, it does not make explicit what their intention is, so we have added the phrase "and does not include aboriginal languages of Canada", so that there will be absolutely no mistake about this.
I would like to quote just a couple of things from two of the senior native groups that appeared before the committee or have written to us on this subject. Originally, the Assembly of First Nations did ask for a deletion of the phrase, which we responded to in committee, but they subsequently did ask for a more specific exclusion. Mr. Erasmus says, in his letter to members of Parliament:
Although we understand Aboriginal languages are not excluded from the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act, First Nations do not wish to be included in the definition of "Heritage Languages" in Bill C-37.
That is a letter dated dated last June, so it is referring to the original bill, before it was amended in committee. The letter goes on:

We are the "founding" languages of Canada,-
I think that is extremely important, not "heritage" languages but "founding" languages of Canada-
-and given the precarious future of our endangered languages, require a separate Aboriginal Languages Foundation/Institute.
He goes on to quote from the presentation that he made, in committee that, and I quote:
The First Nation's position that any federal policies or actions which impact upon Aboriginal people must ensure the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada -on the Sparrow case-in 1990. It is our submission that Aboriginal and treaty rights to language is with section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1981. Further, the federal government is obligated to consult with Indians-
This was not done, prior to this bill being drafted.
- in the development of legislation that directly impact our lives and must prove that any involvement of legislation will enhance the Indian position for protection.
They said that they did not believe that this proposed legislation would enhance their languages and wanted to be excluded. They also asked that we support an aboriginal languages foundation. I think that this is another thing that we must not forget. It is very important. I know my colleague will be speaking on that question in a little more detail.
Finally, I would like to mention as well on the question of aboriginal languages, a statement by Phil Fontaine, the provincial leader of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. This was interestingly enough to the people of Quebec after the Meech Lake Accord was in effect turned down. He said that they supported Quebec's passionate dedication to the preservation and promotion of the French language and culture in Canada. He said: "We also are fighting for our culture and language. We, the aboriginal people of this country, have inherited through the oral traditions of our forbears, 55 different, distinct, original languages, 52 of these original languages of Canada are now on the brink of extinction. Unlike you, we cannot retrieve these languages from our mother country. Our mother country is Canada. What we lose in Canada, we lose forever". I think that very eloquently explains why the languages of founding peoples, which are founding languages of Canada and unique to Canada and North America, must be pre-
Govemment Orders
served in a separate way and much more strongly through an aboriginal language foundation.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturaiism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, I certainly share the concern of the member for the preservation of aboriginal languages. I, too, am very disturbed by what appears to be a rather impossible situation where we have not been able, through the generations, to put forward a mechanism to guarantee the preservation of this important heritage, the languages and cultures of our founding peoples, our first peoples. This is not the issue which we are discussing today. As a matter of fact, there have been at least two excellent studies that I have had the opportunity of perusing personally. I have had lengthy discussions with the member of Parliament from Alberta. I think it was the member for Wetaskiwin. He and I are both pursuing the initiative very diligently.
However, the bill that we have before us is really the follow-up to the original Bill C-152 which was before the previous House. At that time members of both opposition parties, in particular the member for York West and Mr. Epp who was the critic-and, by the way, he did an excellent job on behalf of his party in all of the issues before us-explicitly brought forward the suggestion that aboriginal languages should be included. They had a concern that if they were not explicitly written into the bill there would be a very narrow and restrictive use of the institute, perhaps, and all aboriginal languages would not have access to any of the funding or the resources or the shared expertise that may become available by this institute and would be of great benefit in preserving heritage languages and cultures in Canada.
Certainly it was on reflection and having accepted the helpful suggestion of members of the opposition that when we brought forth Bill C-37 it was included. It was not in any way to abdicate or deny the responsibility for establishing an important process for the preservation of aboriginal languages. All of us, this summer, have certainly become much more aware of the unfairness, the inequalities, and the difficult situation that our first peoples found themselves in. There is a much greater commitment by all of us today to do everything we can to

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
restore equality, to give full participation, and to provide the same opportunity that all other Canadians have.
Today, however, I cannot accept the premise that the member has brought forward. Her proposal would have the effect of limiting and restricting the activities of the institute. I would not want to preclude instances where the aboriginal languages and cultures could participate actively. It is on these bases that I do not accept the suggestion of the member. Certainly the mere fact that it is not mentioned would have a tendency to give people the feeling that it is not there, but as far as I am concerned all languages and cultures must be preserved and protected.
It will be up to the people who will run the institute- the board of directors, administrative people, and the community from coast to coast-to decide how those resources will be used. I do not think it is up to us necessarily to restrict or narrow the opportunities this excellent institution will have.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I regret the fact that the hon. Secretary of State has decided not to support the amendment. After all, this amendment comes at the request of the aboriginal people of Canada through their representative organizations. This is not a request that was developed within the caucuses of a particular political party on the Hill. This request comes at the request of representative organizations of the aboriginal people.
If the Secretary of State would read the decision in the Sparrow case, he would find that as part of Canada's fiduciary obligations he has an obligation to consult with aboriginal people before bringing down legislation which deals with something as critical as their cultural survival and with languages which are key to cultural survival. This amendment is not coming at the request of a particular political party. It is coming at the request of the aboriginal people of Canada.
This minister in particular should respect the wishes of the aboriginal people of Canada who have made their views known in committee and to the various members of the House of Commons. It would be a shameful act if we did not consider these views, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sparrow case which calls upon the government, in recognition of its requirement for honour in dealing with the aboriginal people, to consult with the aboriginal people before
legislative changes are made. The wishes of the aboriginal people should be followed in this case.
The survival of aboriginal languages in this country, as my colleague has mentioned, is a fundamentally different issue from the survival of other, what we like to call, heritage languages. If you are of Spanish descent in Canada and you feel that your language is being threatened or that you have lost contact with your mother tongue, that language will survive in Europe or in Latin America or elsewhere in the world. If you are of Ukrainian descent or German descent, the same thing applies. If you are like me and you are descended from one of the Gaelic speaking groups, that language is dying out elsewhere in the world, but there are organizations in the mother countries that are attempting to protect and to save those languages. Action is even being taken here in Canada, Cape Breton, and elsewhere to protect those languages.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East, the fact is that if aboriginal languages die out, there is no other country. There is no other place in the world where these languages can be nurtured, incubated, and protected so that people can learn them again in this country. The mother country for those languages is right here in Canada, and it is here we have to take steps to protect them.
Aboriginal people do not want to have their languages, because of this fundamental difference, included among a whole group of heritage languages. The threats to aboriginal languages are fundamentally different. As my colleague has pointed out in a letter from the Assembly of First Nations, only three of the 53 aboriginal languages in Canada are likely to survive into the next century. That is less than 10 years from today. It is important that we as members of Parliament, in respect of our fiduciary responsibilities to the aboriginal people of this country, act immediately and take steps to make sure that those aboriginal languages are protected.
It seems that the minister is operating on the principle which applies to aboriginal people in Canada, that is, first here last served. This principle has to be reversed in the case of aboriginal people. It would have been important for the Secretary of State to stand up and accept this motion and at the same time make a positive statement to the aboriginal people of Canada, first, that he will consult with them on the formation of an aboriginal languages foundation to protect aboriginal
October 5, 1990

languages and to promote aboriginal languages in the country.
Second, he should have stood up and in a positive way have said that he would support the bill presented to this House in the name of the hon. member for Western Arctic, Bill C-269. He should have said that he would consult with the member who proposed that bill, with the aboriginal groups in Canada who support the bill, and with our caucus which supports the bill. He should have said that he would make sure the heritage languages legislation goes through the House and that Bill C-269 goes through at exactly the same time, and with appropriate funding, so that we can make sure these languages do survive into the 20th century because they are fundamental to the survival of aboriginal culture in this country.
We as a Parliament and members opposite as a government have an obligation spelled out in the Sparrow case and spelled out in our fiduciary responsibility to the native people in Canada to get that kind of legislation through as quickly as possible. It is shameful that a heritage language bill is going to go through this House first, before we have dealt with the founding languages of Canada.
I support both bills, but I think that the government should abandon its principle of first here, last served. We should consider the bill that has been presented to this House in the name of the member for Western Arctic, Bill C-269. That bill should be passed first and then we should pass Bill C-37.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Vancouver on her amendment that Bill C-37 not include aboriginal languages of Canada. I whole-heartedly support this amendment in that all of my life's work prior to coming to the House of Commons has been related to education or the enhancement and revitalization of aboriginal cultures and languages.
I must say that coming to the House of Commons has given me a forum in which I can express politically the views of the aboriginal people as they have been presented to me, because I come from an area that is
Government Orders
majority aboriginal and where the aboriginal languages have been deemed official.
In the past, under Secretary of State Serge Joyal, P.C., we negotiated in the Northwest Territories a $16 million aboriginal language agreement with the federal government. This funding will come to an end this year, I believe.
My question to the minister in the body of my speech concerns whether unspent moneys will be reprofiled and whether there will be an extension of this particular funding. This has specific reference to this amendment because aboriginal languages are not specific to a debate in the House of Commons. They relate to the concerns of the over-all aboriginal community. In an area that is predominantly aboriginal, I have to say, it is very important that these people have some kind of feeling as to whether or not their work is going to be able to continue.
There have been some very major steps taken. Anyone who knows the justice system in Canada will appreciate that in an area such as where I come from there are many people who are unilingual. Being served in a non-native milieu or in a non-native environment is sometimes very detrimental in applying the principles of social justice in the courts of law.
The territorial government has amended the Jury Act. To its credit I say that it has amended the Jury Act to include unilingual speaking members. They can now sit on a jury. That is quite profound in that the unilingual speaking members are aboriginal people.
I must say also that I share similar concerns as my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, the critic for aboriginal affairs. I have to say that he is quite right. I will take no credit for the basis on which my private members' bill, Bill C-269, an act to establish an aboriginal language foundation, was developed.
That work should be attributed to people like Mary Jamieson and other people from the Assembly of First Nations. However, I did sit on a policy development committee in 1986 and 1987 to assist them in developing a policy for the establishment of this foundation. It was the good will of Mr. Crombie that allowed this to happen.
I must say that there should be no limits set on the amount of money that it will take to preserve the 53

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
aboriginal languages. If I might, I would just like to say the following in my aboriginal language. That was my first language, taught to me by my grandmother.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Dene-North Slavey. ] [English]
What I have said, Madam Speaker, is that the essence of aboriginal languages is who you are specifically, culturally, and your heart and your mind are spoken through your language. Our language is a living language. It is a language that expresses our psychology. If our languages die or are not able to flourish because we do not have the mechanisms to revitalize them or to enhance them, then the will and the culture of the people die, the spirit of the people dies.
We come from an oral tradition, Madam Speaker. This oral tradition is one that has been carried on for thousands of generations. Does it not amaze Canadians that a member of Parliament can rise in the House of Commons and speak Inuktituk as can my hon. colleague the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, and Cree as can my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. It is quite amazing that I can rise and speak in my aboriginal language when those were basically unwritten languages. They have been passed on for thousands of generations from our forefathers. It is a gift, a very special gift, and in order to keep that gift I make this appeal to the government.
Please give unanimous consent for Bill C-269, not to give me profile but to honour the needs expressed by the aboriginal community. They want an aboriginal language foundation because if there isn't one there are only three languages that can survive, Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktituk.
Madam Speaker, may I say to you that our battle has not just been on this front, not just for resources specifically, but constitutionally. I fought hard to get a clause in the Meech Lake Accord that expressed the will of my people concerning their linguistic and cultural rights. It was denied. We worked very hard in the Charest committee to entrench these in the Constitution.
I cannot believe that we can achieve a constitutional balance in Canada with other groups until the government has defined its relationship with the first people. There will never be the kind of constitutional balance that this country needs because it is inherently wrong to
exclude the first nations in terms of their languages and their cultures. That is who they are.
Madam Speaker, may I end by saying this to you. If we do establish an aboriginal language foundation, it would be to the credit of the government, to the credit of the various individuals that were involved in doing all of the research and all of the work along with the Assembly of First Nations. It could be a co-operative approach.
Why did the House leader not respond positively when I wrote to him? He applauded in great glowing terms what I was trying to achieve with Bill C-269, the act to establish an aboriginal language foundation, but would not give consent. I cannot understand how that fundamental right, to be able to speak in your first language, can be denied by any government.


Mr. Dan Heap (IFinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I do wish to say a few words on this amendment to the act to establish a heritage language institute.
I want to begin by saying that during the last three or four months I have had a very remarkable flow of unsolicited comments to my offices in Ttinity-Spadina and on the Hill here, in writing and in telephone calls, expressing almost unanimous support for the general cause of Canada's first nations. Most of comments did not speak specifically about this or that issue, although they were stimulated by the controversy around Kanesa-take. They simply asserted a general feeling that the first nations have not had a fair deal and that we have to act now to change that situation.
It is in that context that I want to speak about the amendment of my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, which would insert the words "that the heritage language institute mandate does not include aboriginal languages of Canada".
As has been pointed out, this proposal did not originate with the caucus of which I am a member. This proposal originated with a group such as the Assembly of First Nations. This is their request. I wish that the government would give it more careful consideration than it appears to have done.
I am not an expert on the subject of aboriginal affairs. My wife, Alice, did live for four years at the place she learned to call Caughnawaga. We now understand that its name is Kahnawake or something close to that. Her father was the United Church missionary there and she and her young sisters and brothers, as well as her
October 5, 1990

parents, lived among the Mohawk people for four years. Her sisters and brothers went to school there with all their schoolmates being of the Caughnawaga Mohawk people. What she understood from that and as conveyed to me over the years, is that the use of their own language was essential for their identity, their self-respect and their survival for what they think they are, one of the first nations of Canada.


An hon. member:: In that they are the same as us.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My colleague has said that in that they are the same as us. Certainly, as a person of English language origin I feel a very strong need to maintain the English language, but I do not feel it is threatened at the present time.
What has changed to some extent recently and what has impressed me this year is the very strong drive for determination of Canada's First Nations to control their own culture. Sometimes this gets into a discussion of words such as sovereignty, and people wonder if it means control of the army and so on. That is not before us today. There is nothing being proposed by the First Nations in this matter and nothing being proposed by the amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver East that in any way challenges or threatens the responsibility and authority of the existing governments of Canada. Rather, it is the opposite. What many Canadians are now beginning to learn and realize is that it was not properly presented when we went to school 30, 40 or 50 years ago in our Canadian history.
Over two centuries ago, King George III made a solemn agreement with some of the First Nations which has been applied to many of the others, that there would be a fiduciary responsibility, or an obligation to act positively on behalf of the First Nations. This would mean a legal obligation to consult the First Nations when the Government of Canada or any of its subordinate governments is initiating some change in its programs that might affect them. This was an undertaking which is still an obligation to this day of the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces. It is an obligation which has been grossly neglected or even denied far too often in past years.
Government Orders
When the government talks about the rule of law and law being applicable to everyone in Canada, with no one having the right to take the law into his own hands, it is very unfortunate to see the government doing exactly what it says no one can do, that is, simply abrogating its responsibility in this sense of consulting the First Nations before doing something that would affect the teaching of their language.
Therefore, I believe it would be a small evidence of good faith if the government would listen to the request of the First Nations on this point. These evidences are needed. We heard a speech by the Prime Minister promising to do all sorts of wonderful things for the First Nations if a small band of people at Kanesatake would simply lay down their arms. They have laid down their arms. They are now in the custody, that is those of them who were sought for custody, of the authorities recognized by this government. Now is the time for this government to show its good faith and give unanimous consent. We have heard from the official opposition, the Liberal Party. We now wish to have unanimous consent completed by the government.
In light of the Prime Minister's promises of a few days ago, I ask that the control of the teaching of the aboriginal languages be left with the aboriginal people, to be carried on in co-operation with the Canadian government on a consultative basis, and not to be handed to the bureaucrats of some institution that is now to be created so that may do what they please about aboriginal languages. The aboriginal peoples will have no recognized right in the minds of those bureaucrats to any say in what is done.
Please recognize the kind of desperation that is reflected in the words and in the actions of the First Nations at this time. They feel they are faced with extinction, as has been pointed out in the letter read by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Recognize that and do not exasperate them further. Do not exacerbate their fears further by this quite unnecessary insistence that if the government's appointed officials in this heritage language institution wish to do something or other with the aboriginal languages, they are free to do it. Please respect the rights granted two centuries ago by the King of England, then an authority of this land, and the promises so grandly made by the Prime Minister only a few days ago.

October 5, 1990
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: I am glad to be able to speak to the member for Vancouver East's amendment with regard to the heritage languages. The Inuktitut language must move forward and be alive for generations to come. As my colleague for Western Arctic stated, aboriginal languages are being eroded and therefore need to be encouraged. We have to ensure that future generations keep our language, and through it our culture, alive and well.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to address the amendment of the member for Vancouver East on the issue of aboriginal languages being recognized in the heritage languages bill.
Although the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs over the last few weeks have been telling the people of Canada how much more they are going to do for the aboriginal people of this country, it just drives home the point that their promises may not mean too much when my colleague for Western Arctic is denied unanimous consent to go ahead with Bill C-269 on the issue of aboriginal languages.
It is an issue too with the government House leader as to what priorities or what recognition aboriginal languages have. It is indeed a very serious issue on the part of the aboriginal people. The issue of language, the issue of being able to move forward with our language is a fundamental part of our culture. I am sure that the House leader would be just as happy if we just went away and did not drive home the point that we do indeed have aboriginal rights.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. I am sure he will want to continue his speech after Question Period.
It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 30(5) the House will now proceed with members' statements.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, according to Rules 49 and 50, at the conclusion of a debate, the Speaker puts the question. If there is uncertainty of agreement, the Speaker asks for the yeas and and the nays and then expresses his opinion as to the result. If two or more express their disagreement by rising, the Speaker calls for a standing vote. The bells are rung, and when the whips enter and indicate that they are ready for the vote, the vote proceeds.
Canadians have a right to know that their rules of voting were broken yesterday by the government in the Senate. It is a shame. It is a disgrace.


THE SENATE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I have just been to the Senate. At 10.50 a.m, I saw one senator, Senator Romeo "Lasagna" LeBlanc, take one shoe and bang it on his desk during Senator Lowell Murray's speech.
Madam Speaker, I must say I found this offensive. It was an offensive display by Liberal Senator Romeo "Lasagna" LeBlanc who represents the riding of Beausejour.



Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, the Mulroney government will go to any length, including the abrogation of basic democratic and parliamentary rights, to ram through their goods and services tax, the biggest single tax grab in Canadian history.
This tax will raise billions of dollars by taking money for the first time from service transactions and 60 per cent of personal expenditures by Canadians are spent on services, services such as dry-cleaning, transportation,
October 5, 1990

private lessons, haircuts, taxi fares, amateur sports and recreation, restaurant meals, and funerals to name only a few. This tax is being implemented at a time when we are moving into a recession and energy prices are doubling.
The government has lost all sense of proportion, equity, and sound judgment. The public cannot cope with this massive new tax at this time.
We must do everything in our power to defeat it and that is exactly what our Liberal senators, within their authority, are trying to do. They are not serving their own needs, but responding to the democratic wishes of millions of Canadians.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, by maintaining their solid family traditions, our ancestors were able to build this country of ours and transmit to us their strength, their faith, their ideals and their vision of the future, and thus help this country develop and prosper.
In Quebec, we were able to preserve our language, culture and values and remain a distinct society, through our respect for and our pride in our family traditions.
Across Canada, families proud of their very diverse origins overcame their differences and worked together to build a country. We celebrate National Family Week at a time when our country is going through an identity crisis.
Madam Speaker, I therefore urge all Canadians to take this opportunity to share their family traditions and renew those feelings of confidence, unity and pride that form the basis of a country's future.


LITERACY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth Meeting of Ministers responsible for Women's Affairs will be meeting this weekend. The Delegates Handbook, published by our
Minister responsible for the Status of Women, states erroneously that Canada's literacy rate is 99 per cent.
The government knows full well over five million Canadians are still functionally illiterate with serious handicaps for employment and this means a great loss of human potential for Canada. It is shameful to state such blatant misinformation to delegates from around the world.
As the International Year on Literacy comes to a close, I ask the government to redouble its fight against illiteracy and sustain funding for community programs.
A good place to start would be for the government to drop its proposed goods and services tax on books. Studies show that illiteracy costs Canada billions of dollars each year and most illiterate Canadians have low incomes. The added cost of the GST will only help to discourage them from learning.


THE SENATE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, a strong and unified country needs a government that is prepared to govern. Democracy is not a popularity contest, nor a monthly poll, or even a referendum. Rather it is the selection and the election from term to term of men and women and political parties to whom a mandate is given to govern. It becomes their responsibility and their duty to do what they believe is right for Canada and for its citizens.
That is why I support our government's resolve to temporarily, at this time, add to the Senate size to ensure that the House of Commons is in control and to insist that the will of the elected members of Parliament will prevail.
That is also why I have come to believe that the Senate badly needs reform to make it elected and effective or, otherwise, to see it abolished as an institution which has outlived its role and its tradition.


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, in The Financial Post today, we learn that the newly elected Government of Ontario, the NDP government of Bob Rae, has learned its first lesson, that is, the difference between making promises and governing.

October 5, 1990
Lo and behold, Madam Speaker, we learn that the rookie NDP Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, is suggesting that he may piggyback the 8 per cent provincial sales tax on top of the Conservative GST. That is shameful.
No sooner do the NDP get elected to govern than the NDP are breaking their campaign promises. Instead of joining the Tories, the NDP should be joining the Liberal Party and, indeed, all Canadians in fighting this tax. It should be joining the court challenge, as the rest of the provinces will be doing shortly.
Madam Speaker, mark this on your calendar as the first broken promise of Bob Rae and the NDP.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, the sad antics in the Senate last night and today only confirm the need for Senate reform or even abolition.
Yesterday afternoon, the opposition Senate members called a procedural vote and then refused to show up for their own vote. When they lost the vote, the first vote they have lost in 48 years, they reacted by herding the media onto the floor to hold up proceedings even more.
As I left the Senate, a few moments ago, the opposition senators were banging their desks to deny a government member being heard. Such antics would not even be allowed in kindergarten. On leaving the Senate, I could not help but think that I was seeing the demise of a once respectable institution and part of our Parliament which has now degenerated into a circus.


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, never before has the Parliament of Canada been in such a crisis. The government, at various times, has blamed the opposition parties and the Senate and, on occasion, Conservative MPs have blasted, in their words, "the ignorance of the public".
The reality is that Parliament must be reformed. The government has institutionalized closure after limited debate on important and controversial legislation. Conservatives have refused to accept reasonable amendments. They insult witnesses before standing
committees. The Chair of the Finance Committee abused the rules to force through the GST. And now, the government intends, at noon today, to reduce the size of the standing committees of the House.
Why would the Conservatives do this without the support of the other parties? Simply put, they wish to retain absolute control of each committee-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired.

[Translation\


WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: I congratulate our Prime Minister for acting as co-chairman of the first World Summit for Children at the United Nations where the leaders of more than 70 countries gathered to show extraordinary interest in the plight of the poorest children of the world.
The summit was a telling commitment towards worldwide co-operation to preserve our human wealth-children.
There exists a wide gulf between the hopes we entertain for our children and the appalling conditions which are the lot of so many innocent victims.
Each day, Madam Speaker, 40,000 children die of sickness throughout the world, and for millions more life means hunger and violence.
By giving world leaders the common will to face such a challenge, the summit renews our hope that we will eventually eliminate child suffering.


THE SENATE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, in the Senate, last evening, Canadians witnessed the destruction of the rules of parliamentary government.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Parliamentary law and procedure are fundamental parts of our Constitution. They constitute part of the rule of law in this country. The authority of
October 5, 1990

the Speaker of this House and the privileges of the members of this House constitute an integral part of the rights and privileges of Canadians. We are representatives of the people of Canada and, as such, we embody the privileges and rights of our fellow citizens in our great country.
In the other place, their Speaker, appointed by the government, proceeded with a vote completely contrary to the rules. He made the rule of law a laughing-stock. This action constitutes a flagrant abuse of the laws and customs of Parliament. It is a disgrace and I call on the government to remove this Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired.



Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, here are a few headline stories from around the nation that tell it all regarding our Senate problems: "Senate shouldn't stymie Commons", the Halifax Daily News; "Shame on you Liberal Senators", Montreal's The Gazette ; "Senate shenanigans intolerable", The Ottawa Citizen; "Senate actions turn the stomach", The Calgary Herald; "Liberal Senators hijack democracy", The Kitch-ener-Waterloo Record; "Democracy is at stake", The Toronto Sun; and, "Liberals in Senate using strange logic", The Financial Post.
The message across the country is becoming increasingly clear. Canadians do not and will not support the actions of the unelected Liberals in the other place.



Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I stand proudly today to congratulate my Liberal colleagues in the other place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Catherine Clancy: In the face of naked tyranny these valiant men and women are performing their constitutional duty and defending the rights and wishes of the overwhelming
majority of Canadian citizens who say to all of us: "Axe the tax".
I am particularly proud of the Nova Scotia Liberals who will not sit still for the repudiation of the rule of law and who, with their Scots heritage and Canadian fortitude, will not give in to the nefarious practices of the government.
Nearly 2,000 years ago the Emperor Caligula made an appointment to his Senate. Would that the ancient Romans had Liberal senators to defend their rights. Canadians have their defenders against the Caligula of Baie Comeau.


THE LATE FRANK LYNCH-STAUNTON
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, last Saturday, family, friends, and admirers laid to rest and paid tribute to rancher Frank Lynch-Staunton, former Lieutenant Governor of Alberta and former member of the Canada Council.
Frank was bom in Pincher Creek in 1905, months before Alberta became a province. He embodied the values of the foothills pioneers and shared those values with the rest of our nation in his own understated straight talking manner.
As miles of cars and pick-up trucks trailed the hearse up the dusty gravel road to Livingstone Cemetery, one could not help but know that the setting was most appropriate. Even nature paid tribute with a glorious sunny Alberta foothills day and the salute of the eternal southwest wind.
With all the Livingstone Range of the Rocky Mountains as a headstone, with the Porcupine Hills to help keep out the cold north and east winds, colleagues should know, there lies a true Albertan and a great Canadian.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we have been baffled in the past by the actions of the Celtic sphinx, but his most recent escapades are beyond comprehension.
Earlier this week, the leader of the Liberals in the Senate, Senator MacEachen, told us that he opposed the

October 5, 1990
Oral Questions
goods and services tax and that he would block it in the Senate. MacEachen is the master of procedure and it was his wily strategy, we were told, that would stop the GST from being passed.
Well, last night, the real strategy became apparent. Down to the wire the Conservatives were posed to bulldoze democracy and ram the GST through the Senate. Where was the leader of the Liberal troops? Where was the master Liberal strategist? Where was the Liberal senator procedural expert? Where was Allan J. MacEachen? He was in Brussels working for the Bank of Montreal.


FOOD LABELLING
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, a few months ago, the tragic and untimely death of 15-year-old Robyn Allen of Scarborough heightened the necessity for action concerning disclosure of food ingredients on food packaging.
The Allergy Information Association and citizens across the country are calling on the government to enact regulations to require restauranteurs and food retailers to provide, on demand, a list of food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.
We must do our part to assist those persons who suffer from serious allergic reactions in order that protection for health and safety can be extended.


POVERTY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, as Canadians begin their celebration of Thanksgiving weekend this afternoon, it is important that all of us remember that many Canadians will be hampered in then-thanksgiving by sheer need.
In the national capital region alone the Ottawa Food Bank distributed 585 metric tonnes of food in the year ending September, 1989 and 20,000 children live in poverty in the city of Ottawa. Five hundred thousand children in Canada need to look to food banks for their nourishment.
According to the National Council on Poverty in 1987, 57 per cent of all single parent mothers and then-children were poor.
This is in Canada, which as we all know is blessed with prosperity in comparison with much of the world, where malnutrition claims the lives of 30,000 to 40,000 people each day.
As members of Parliament, let us not forget the admonition to a new chief set forth in the thousand year old Great Law of Peace of the Longhouse people:
Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people, and always have in view not only the present, but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground -
As we give thanks this weekend, let us not forget those in need.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we live in remarkable times here on Parliament Hill. All this stems from the arrogant and desperate desire of this government to use any means to force the GST down the throats of Canadians.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Why did the Prime Minister, other ministers or officials of his government instruct their appointee in the chair of the Senate to throw the rules of the Senate out the window? Why are they that desperate to ram the GST down the throats of Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should just step back and look at the sequence of events here.
What we have seen over the course of the past number of months is the Liberal senators holding up a number of bills: the bill on unemployment insurance reform, on the goods and services tax, on income tax changes from the 1989 budget, expenditure reductions from the last budget.
The Prime Minister, not in an enthusiastic way, felt it was extremely important to break this deadlock between the House and the Senate. He decided with reluctance to add eight new senators.
October 5, 1990

What happened subsequently is that once the Liberal senators lost the majority in the Senate, they proceeded to follow procedural battles to deny the right of individual senators to express their views, and indeed to vote on specific issues.
Yesterday, the Speaker of the Senate, after waiting for a good amount of time for the senators to come into the House and vote on a motion that the Liberal senators themselves had put, gave half an hour's notice to the senators to vote and indicated to them-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister I am sure is intending to reply to the question, but I think it is perhaps going beyond a reply.
I will hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has attempted to evade answering my question as to why the Prime Minister directed, or other ministers or officials of his government instructed, their appointee in the chair of the Senate to throw the rules of Parliament out the window, because in directing the vote in a shameful way, that is exactly what happened.
I have here in my hand a transcript of an interview the Minister of Finance gave on national television last Sunday. In answer to questions about the GST and the Senate, he said: "We will be able to get that legislation through. I am not going to talk about it at this point in time, Mike, but we will get that legislation through. We will see certain things happening in the Senate this week."
I ask the Minister of Finance if this is not the smoking gun demonstrating the connection between the desperation of the Minister of Finance and this government, and the unprecedented actions of the Speaker of the Senate. I ask the Minister of Finance again: why are they so desperate to force the GST on to the backs of Canadians that they have instructed the Speaker of the Senate to abandon the rules and traditions of Parliament? Why are they so desperate? Why do they not care about the wishes of Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is really, really reaching far for something here.
Let me ask him a question. He talks about arrogance. It is ridiculous for the Liberal senators to stand up, as the
Oral Questions
hon. member is also standing up, on their sanctimonious high horse and hold up the rules of the Senate when time and time again, over the last six years, the Liberals in the other place when the rules have not gone the right way, as far as they were concerned, voted to change the rules of the House.
They have overruled the Speaker on a number of occasions and now, for the first time in 45 years, they have lost a vote in the Senate. The arrogance of the Liberal senators is: "If we can't win a vote, we are going to take our marbles and go home".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is so interested in the Senate, he should study the Senate rules because those rules permit a ruling of the Speaker to be overruled. That is the case there. The Minister of Finance does not explain why and how the Speaker of the Senate had the authority to ignore the clear wording of the rules of the Senate.

Why did the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister ask and direct the Speaker of the Senate to throw out the rules of the Senate? Why is the government so desperate that it is prepared to ram the GST down the throats of Canadians even though they do not want it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to rules. I would like to see clearly what those rules are that he is referring to. I cannot read the Leader of the Opposition's mind. There are a lot of rules over there.
The key here is that time and time again, when the Liberal senators did not get their way as far as the rules were concerned, what did they do? They overruled the Speaker. They voted to overrule the Speaker, voted out the rule and changed the rule themselves. That has been done time and time again.
It is a clear responsibility of the Speaker to ensure that the business of Parliament continues. This is what the Speaker in the Senate said there yesterday: "I have taken this decision after much reflection to protect the rights of individual senators to perform their duties". That, I think, is a clear statement of the role and the responsibility-

October 5, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: That certainly is a statement of the hon. Speaker of the Senate. The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Prime Minister poses as the champion of democracy, yet today he supports anarchy. That is what happened last night, nothing but anarchy, so I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is prepared to assume his responsibilities under section 34 of Canada's Constitution Act and remove forthwith the man who behaved so anarchically last night, namely the Speaker of the Senate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Hamilton refers to anarchy in the Senate last evening. I saw what I think all Canadians saw on television of what was happening, grown men acting like children, running around the Senate, inviting the media into the Senate, contrary to the rules of the Senate, as my hon. friend surely knows.
I ask my hon. friend, as I would ask all Canadians: Were you proud to be a Canadian when you saw what was going on in the Senate last night?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. According to the official biographer of the Prime Minister, L. Ian McDonald, it was the current Prime Minister who personally commandeered the Senate appointment by the Right Hon. Joe Clark of Mr. Guy Charbonneau in 1979 and it was in fact Mr. Charbonneau and two others who commandeered Mr. Clark's overthrow.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question to the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to remind the House again of Standing Order 18.1 repeat what I said at the opening of the House an hour and a half ago, that these are unusual circumstances that are going on.
This is what the Standing Order says. I know the hon. member will help the Speaker.
18. No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.
Now, I think the hon. member can put her question without straying into offensive words. That may indeed be a great challenge to many members here, but I am sure the hon. member can help the Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will remind the House that I was referring to the analysis of the Prime Minister's official biographer.
Deferring to your reference, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, given the close association and obvious strategy being developed together by the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the other place, will the Prime Minister show Canadians that he is prepared to divorce himself from the political agenda of the other place by exercising his authority under Article 34 of the BNA Act and firing the Speaker of the other place.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to reflect again on what is at stake here. What is at stake is a fundamental, democratic principle which all members of the House of Commons should take seriously and that is the supremacy of the elected House of Commons, the accountable House of Commons, over the appointed, unelected, unaccountable senators in the other place.
I refer the hon. member to what her leader is quoted as saying in Le Droit a few days ago. In any case, he claims to have complete control over his 52 senators who have locked horns with the Conservative government over the GST. Mr. Chretien said, "They'll do what I told them to do".
I ask the member opposite, is Mr. Chretien responsible? Is he telling those 52 senators to break the rules? Is he telling those senators to-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government could end the nonsense happening in this place by bringing in a bill right away to the House, that our party would support, to abolish the unelected Senate in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
October 5, 1990


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the government is not prepared to do that-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


EMPLOYMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Like the minister, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you heard this morning that the unemployment rate in Canada has gone up 1 per cent since last year. The unemployment rate in Montreal is up 2.5 per cent. More than one million Canadians are now out of work.
Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. We are now in a recession, so will the minister finally admit that and what does he intend to do for the millions of Canadians who are without jobs, the millions of Canadians who are the first victims of his recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which question the hon. member wants me to answer. He has asked one question on the Senate and he has asked another question on unemployment insurance.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not here to answer the question on the Senate. If he were here, he should table a bill to abolish the Senate right now. My question is for the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: We have a rule in this place that it is not appropriate to comment on the absence of any hon. member, whether it is the Prime Minister or otherwise. I have to remind the hon. member of that. Would the hon. member put his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Minister of Finance on this Thanksgiving weekend, when even food banks cannot feed all the hungry people in this country, what he is going to do for the over one million Canadians who are now without work.
Can he, for example, withdraw the GST-that is the wrong tax at the wrong time-do something for the
Oral Questions
people in this country who are without work? Will he withdraw that GST now and at least do that favour for those people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has talked about the unemployment rate today. The unemployment rate is up but so is job creation. We have more people working last month than was the case the month before.
I draw that to the hon. member's attention because it is this excessive rhetoric about what is happening to the economy which is not helpful in improving people's confidence about what is going on in the economy.
I am not happy about people in food banks. We are reflecting the weakness in the economy, which I have talked about openly in recent months, by a reduction in interest rates that has amounted to over 1.5 per cent over the course of the last three or four months. If the weakness continues, if the inflationary pressures subside, we will see further reductions in interest rates and that will help lead to a stronger economic performance in the months and years to come on a non-inflationary basis.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would not use the word recession if his mouth was full of it.
If' this is excessive rhetoric, what does the Minister of Finance have to say to the 115 people who lost their jobs at Dr. Ballards in Mississauga, or to the 94 people who lost their jobs at Fletchers in British Columbia, or to the 200 people who lost their jobs at ICI Canada in Montreal? What does he have to say to those people who are without work and cannot find jobs because of the economic policies of this government?
Will he withdraw the GST, give those people a break, and start concentrating on an employment policy in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that I am not happy about people losing their jobs. I would like to see a lot of people working and a lot of people getting new jobs.
What I do know and what the hon. member totally ignores in the rhetoric that he uses is that the GST in the province of Quebec, with the harmonization by the province of Quebec, will result in a major boost to new

Oral Questions
investment in plant equipment and technology equivalent to a 7.5 per cent investment tax credit.
On the one hand the hon. member pleads about people losing jobs. Why is he at the same time standing in the way of the government doing something which will help create jobs in this country and which international organizations say will help create jobs in this country?


THE SENATE
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Economic Council of Canada has unequivocally condemned the government's fiscal policy. The government has destroyed the confidence Canadians had in themselves and now seeks to undermine the democratic institutions of our country.
How can the minister believe it will be possible for Canadians to regain their confidence now that his government is bent on destroying the institutions on which that confidence must rest?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member who is normally a reasonable individual, his excessive rhetoric, talking about the Economic Council unequivocally condemning. It did not.
If the hon. member had read the report of the Economic Council, he would know that it did not unequivocally condemn. The council says that it is supportive of what we are doing in controlling inflation. It is looking for a better balance between fiscal policy and monetary policy, and I agree with that. We are trying to get that better balance, but we are constantly being thwarted by the hon. member and his colleagues from doing the things that are necessary to bring the deficit down.
If the hon. member were serious about the question he was asking, he would say to the senators in the other place to get on with the job of passing Bill C-21 which is a money bill designed to improve our desperate position, Bill C-28 which is a tax bill designed to improve-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute bunk. The Economic Council of Canada said that this government is strangling the economy of this country.
As far as what is happening in the other House, for the first time in the history of this country a majority government in power is seeking a coup d'etat on its own people. That is what is happening.
This government has destroyed the economy. It has destroyed national goodwill. This government has destroyed aboriginal rights, and now it is destroying the rights of Parliament.
The first issue we had to deal with was this terribly unfair tax. Now we are dealing with the future of our country. No tax policy is worth what is happening to this nation. No tax policy is worth submerging the rights of Parliament.
My question, Mr. Speaker: Will you withdraw the tax policy for the good of the nation?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Andre:: That was absolutely outrageous, totally outrageous.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had made that speech back in June, maybe he would have been in a different position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He is being just a little bit too self-righteous and a little bit two-faced about what he is saying because if he were as concerned as he says he is about democracy and democratic rights, he would reflect on the fact that the GST was part of the tax reform proposal that we announced in June 1987. It was part of the platform of this party when we went through the 1988 election. We were elected to introduce or to bring into power that platform. Now-


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: You wouldn't even debate it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member is
saying what-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The question put to the hon. minister was a very vigorous one. I think the hon. minister should be given an opportunity to reply. The hon. minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member talks about democracy and the rights of Parliament. When a government is elected with a majority, it has a right and a responsibility to legislate its program.
The Senate, which is not elected, which is not accountable, does not have a right to block what the elected government has decided to do and was elected to do. When the senators in the other place without a majority in the Senate block the voting possibilities, block the right of individual senators to vote, that is anti-democratic. When they do not allow simple motions that were put by them to adjourn the House, when they do not allow that type of motion to come to a vote, that is anti-democratic. That is the fundamental principle that we are talking about.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Notwithstanding the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party with regard to its opposition to the Senate and now its favour of the GST as evidenced by the premier of Ontario, I want to remind the Minister of Finance that Canadians are against a tax on reading, are against a tax on restaurant meals, and are against a tax with regard to health care.
Will the Minister of Finance take us into his confidence and tell members of the House and Canadians why the Prime Minister of Canada and his staff have directed their Order in Council appointment in the upper chamber to breach the rules in order to pass the GST tax?


Mr. Speaker:: That is an allegation of impropriety of a very severe nature. The hon. minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no basis for saying what he has just said about the Speaker in the other place. I do not think that there is any justification whatsoever for
Oral Questions
that type of comment to be made on the floor of this House.
The hon. member has referred to rules, rules in the other place. Time and time again over the course of the last six years when the Liberal senators did not get their way, when the rules of the Senate inhibited them from doing the things they wanted to do, they voted down the Speaker and they voted to change the rules of the House.
When we are talking about, using the hon. member's word "hypocrisy", let me just remind him of what his leader said: "It would be irresponsible for Liberals to promise to scrap Ottawa's goods and services tax without offering an alternative".
We have not seen the alternative, and we have Mr. Chretien directing his senators to block this legislation without an alternative. That is clearly irresponsible.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, we would gladly provide an alternative. Just call an election. I dare you.
I am glad the Minister of Finance has referred to hypocrisy again, because we know what the Minister of Finance stated in his recent interview, and I quote: "We will see certain things happening in the Senate this week. More than that I cannot say".
I ask the Minister of Finance to take members into his confidence, to take Canadians into his confidence and explain to this Chamber as to why the Prime Minister of this country has directed an Order in Council appointment to-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is not the Senate. Order the Government House leader to sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. minister wishes to respond, he may.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point. The hon. member said: "Call an election". Let me remind the hon. member we did call an election in 1988.1 heard the platform of the Liberal Party and one of the first items on the platform of the Liberal Party was: "We will not

Oral Questions
introduce the" Mulroney"-I think the words were- "sales tax reform proposal". If they did not have an alternative then, how can we expect them to have an alternative now?


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the RCMP released a statement indicating that they are conducting an investigation into Technotread Tire Manufacturing. Technotread has received over $2 million of federal money.
On May 17 the Minister of Public Works told the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with respect to Technotread: "If there has been a mistake made, I will take full responsibility for it".
Given the commitment made by the Minister of Public Works, will the government hold him to it and demand his resignation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for ACOA, I will have to take that question as a representation and will certainly get back to the hon. member with the information he has requested.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is a serious matter of ministerial responsibility and a waste of government funds. My New Democratic colleagues raised these grave concerns about these expenditures with the minister on three occasions; in June 1989, August 1989 and before the parliamentary committee. The government has done nothing in the meantime. Why did the government refuse to act to save public money?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the supplementary will have to be the same as to the original question. I will have the minister get back to the hon. member with the information, if that is what the question is about, about this file.


THE SENATE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know who ordered the Speaker of the Senate to break the rules of Parliament in the Senate. Why this coup d'etat by a government-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that anybody established that any order was given. If the hon. member wants to ask the government if an order was given to the Speaker in the other place, that is an appropriate question. The government can answer it, refuse to answer it or give an explanation. Let us put aside the accusations. The accusation is very serious.
What would we do here? What would we do in this place if someone got up and made an accusation that someone, whether it was on the opposition side or on the government side, gave me orders to do something? That is what the accusation is, it is a serious one.
I ask the hon. member to put his question and we can deal with it, but make sure that it is not an accusation. Make sure that it is asking a question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I intend to.
I would like this government, which is in the process of carrying out a coup d'etat with its majority and wants to break the rules of Parliament, to tell the House which cabinet minister gave the Speaker of the Senate the order to proceed with this infamous decision.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear with the words that the hon. member has just used. A coup d'etat is when a minority tries to take over when a majority is ruling. That is precisely what is happening in the Senate right now.
As to the question that the hon. member has asked, there was no directive given to the Speaker of the Senate. What he has said in a letter to four senators on both sides of the House is, "I have taken this decision
October 5, 1990

after much reflection, to protect the rights of individual senators to perform their duties."
That, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, is the role and the responsibility of the Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will quote again the minister this week on national television. He said: "We will see certain things happening in the Senate this week. More than that, I cannot say".
I want to tell the government, the Prime Minister, or any minister in that cabinet, using the Speaker of the Senate to give the jackboot to Canadians is wrong.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, you tell us that we cannot use offensive language against members of either House, but what happened-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. Just a moment. I did not say you could not use offensive language. I read the rule.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, what happened last night in the other place was offensive to all of us, and to all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Bill Rompkey: Because he did not answer this clearly earlier on, can the Minister of Finance say now that no member of the government has been in touch with the Speaker of the Senate at any time to advise on strategy with regard to what happened last night. Will he deny that any member of the government was in touch with the Senate Speaker at any time to advise him on the strategy with regard to what happened last night.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was offended by what happened last night, he should reflect on the fact that the circus we saw was produced by Liberal senators and organized by the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure.
It was organized and perpetrated by Liberal senators. They opened the doors of the Senate, called on to the floor of the Senate members of the media, the member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the member for Saskatchewan-I forget his riding. It was these actions on the part of the Liberal senators that, according to the phone calls I have been receiving this morning, have embarrassed Canadians, have shamed Canadians. They say, "What is
Oral Questions
going on in this country when what we thought was a place of sober-


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


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, what offends people in northern Canada is the fact that gasoline is going up, snowmobiles are going up, the price of living for people in the north is going to be astronomical as a result of the GST.
Let the record show that the minister did not answer the question. Let me give him another opportunity to answer it. At any time was he, any member of the government or anybody representing the government, in touch with the Speaker of the Senate to advise on the strategy with regard to what happened there last night. Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by my colleague that the advice was given on the floor of the House of Commons.


An hon. member:: On the floor of the Senate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On the floor of the Senate. It happens that the Speaker of the Senate-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -if hon. members are not going to allow-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to move momentarily to a single question. The hon. member for Fredericton.


FORESTRY
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to change to subject.


Some hon. members:: No, no. Come on.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. There is strong speculation in the forest industry in the Atlantic region that the government is considering termination of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the softwood lumber export tariff with the United States. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic region lumber producing group are exempt from that surcharge.
I would like to ask, because this is very important to the Atlantic lumber industry, what is the status of negotiations to terminate the MOU and can he assure

October 5, 1990
Oral Questions
the House and the Atlantic lumber producers that that exemption will be retained for Atlantic Canada in some form?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, many of the circumstances and the factors that gave rise to the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States, which was a rather unconventional way to solve a trade dispute, have changed significantly since 1986. It is the intention of the government to negotiate, perhaps, a termination of the agreement over time. Extensive consultation has been carried out with the industry, the provinces, and all the other stakeholders, with a view to reaching a consensus as to the approach that should be taken.
As my hon. friend knows, I met with the lumber producers yesterday and gave them the assurance that they will be involved in the consultations and their interests will be considered and protected.


THE SENATE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Considering the degrading and offensive spectacle to which Canadians have been treated during the past few hours in the Senate Chamber, all at their expense, and considering the fact that a bunch of senile old men see themselves as a government in exile, I would ask the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to name them, but I would ask the Minister of Justice to take steps immediately, by way of a constitutional resolution, to move the abolition of the Senate in this House. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance keep criticizing the Senate. I think it is high time they did something about it and closed the damned place!


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, the demise of Meech Lake has prevented us from introducing these constitutional changes because we no longer have the process for doing so.
However, I hope we will be able to find another process for bringing about these changes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As we head home for our Thanksgiving dinners, it might be useful to remind ourselves that the food producers in this country, Canada's farm families, are in their worst financial situation in 50 years. Piles of grain are rotting on the ground while creditors come knocking on their doors.
Last week the Minister of Agriculture assured us that he recognized the urgency of the situation and was looking at the options. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister, since everybody from Harvey McEwen to Garf Stevenson and from Grant Devine to Wayne Easter have called for the restoration of interest-free cash advances as a first priority, is this, in fact, one of the options which the government is seriously looking at?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very good question. As of today there is a working group looking at the Advance Payments and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Acts. We expect them to have a report available for us shortly. We have a task force working with these people and we hope to have a recommendation very, very shortly.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I think the inference was that, in fact, the restoration of interest-free cash advances might be at hand. Therefore, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to assure us that this has nothing to do with the timing of a potential Saskatchewan election. When might the government announce a decision and when might the new interest-free cash advance program be available to farmers?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was certain that the issue was dealing with farmers and the plight of the grain producers in the country, and that it had

nothing to do with elections. The government will respond at the appropriate time.
I would hope that he would encourage all provincial Ministers of Agriculture to come forward and help us take part in developing the proper process to give agriculture the safety nets that are certainly required for the long-term continuation of a viable agriculture.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The central issue for Canadians is the issue of trust. For months and months, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been saying that there are no alternatives to the goods and services tax.
The Minister of Finance knows that there are many alternatives to the goods and services tax out there, the single tax being one and the Brooks proposal another.
When is he going to start coming clean with Canadians, withdraw the GST, and start studying tax reform that will bring simplicity, fairness, and efficiency to our system?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said that there have been no realistic alternatives because we have studied Mr. Brooks' proposal and the single tax proposal. They do not make sense. It involves putting a much heavier tax burden on small business.
My hon. friend says that it simplifies the system. It simplifies one aspect of the system in that there is a one-page form, but it omits a number of other schedules to the preparation of the tax which help business people and individuals prepare their tax returns. They can avoid mistakes that are going to complicate the whole situation.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we should increase the tax rates for low income people? Is the hon. member saying that we should increase the rate of tax for small business? Is the hon. member saying we should put a far heavier burden on income tax and remove taxation totally from consumption?
Privilege
He says that, yes, he would like to do that. That would put a tremendous reduction to the incentive for working, for saving, and for investing in the country. These are things that are very important in the development of this economy.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I want to change the subject for a moment. I hope that what I am going to do will find favour with the House.
On behalf of hon. members, I want to express our very great regard to one of our colleagues, Mr. Stan Darling, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, on his 50th wedding anniversary.
I think this is an unusual and wonderful event.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice during Question Period that I want to raise a question of privilege arising out of something that happened during that Question Period just completed.
After the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard finished his question, the camera and the sound cut to you, Mr. Speaker, and your microphone came on. Therefore, the entire country could see and hear the government House leader screaming into your ear. The entire country saw it and heard it. It can be viewed on the tapes.
What the government House leader was saying, in part, was: "Outrageous, absolutely outrageous." I submit what was outrageous was the blatant attempt by the government House leader to interfere with the Chair.
The government may be able to get away with that kind of thing in the Senate, but I submit the government should not be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised the matter by way of a question of privilege.

October 5, 1990
Points of Order
Is the hon. parliamentary secretary seeking the floor?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that there not be left an impression that it is unusual for House leaders of any party to approach the Chair, to discuss what is going on in the House, and to make arguments about procedures. I think to leave that impression on the floor would leave an impression that is both false and misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: A very brief reply.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that not only House leaders but hon. members approach the Chair. The question is: what was the purpose in the case that I mentioned of the government House leader and what was he saying? The purpose can be divined from the words, the tone, and the entire context.
I say that what we have here is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, because the Speaker of this House is the servant of all the members of this House and not of the government House leader or the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you find a prima facie case of privilege I am certainly prepared to move the necessary motion.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I am going to deal with this as best I can.
First, whatever the hon. government House leader said, it had no influence whatsoever on me and that is also very clear from the tape.
Second, there are times in this place when not just the government House leader, but other members on both sides of the House are given to express themselves in-


Mr. Bosley:: Strong language.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the help of a former Speaker of this House when he says strong language. That happens.
All I can say in this matter, and it is clear if one wants to look at the tape, that whatever the hon. House Leader said did not make any difference in the way I conducted the exchange between the hon. member for LaSalle-
Emard and the minister. I think that the hon. member would agree with that.
I am sorry. These things happen, but I can tell you I was not influenced in any way that would diminish the dignity of this place or which would have touched on my handling of that particular exchange. After that, I do not think there is anything more than I can say.
The hon. member for Athabasca.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, you have very appropriately commended Mr. Stan Darling on his 50th wedding anniversary.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Darling, but also, with unanimous consent of the House, I think that we should recommend her for sainthood.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be procedurally out of order, but we probably would get consent. I think we can say to Mona that we think he is a wonderful guy, but we think that most of the reason for that is because of her.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


POINTS OF ORDER
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the House during Question Period and I would like a point of clarification from the Chair.
Each time members on our side, or perhaps even in the NDP, have talked about the interpretation of the recently made appointment of the eight senators in the other place, you have stood up and said that they were putting an allegation forth as to how they were appointed.
It seems to me that when there are cases before the court in Canada, when many legal opinions-and you and I are both lawyers and we perhaps have different

opinions on that act-that in the House we should be able to talk about those appointments without being stopped and calling it an allegation as to how the Prime Minister made the appointments.
I would just like clarification. Am I wrong in how I have interpreted your opinion at the time?


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I want to respond to the hon. member or South West Nova.
Of course, perhaps she should check the record. I have not stopped questions on the legality or otherwise on the question of legal opinions with respect to the nomination to the other place of eight senators. There has been extensive discussion of that in Question Period.
If the hon. member has got some specific instance where, again as I said yesterday, she feels that I may have erred, then I will discuss it and, if it is important enough, I would give her the chance to raise it as a point of order.
But there has been extensive discussion about whether or not there are legal opinions and who wrote them and where are they. I have not ruled those questions out of order.


Coline M. Campbell: I would just like to clarify one point.
I thought that each time somebody made a reference as to how they were appointed by the Prime Minister in the other place, under that section there was a censure, but maybe I am wrong. I will go back and look at each time where the Chair intervened before bringing it up.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. member for South West Nova, who has been here for a good many years and is a long-time colleague of mine, that I would ask her to look at the record carefully.
But certainly there has been extensive questioning and responses to the issue of whether or not as to the legality or otherwise of those appointments. As far as I can remember, I have not put any block in the way of those opinions being asked.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary-Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is related to the presence in the Speaker's gallery yesterday of a guest of Canada's
Points of Order
Ukrainian community, travelling on a Soviet diplomatic passport, and I am referring to Mr. Viatcheslav Tchomo-vil, a member of the Parliament of the Ukrainian Republic and President of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Lviv.
Mr. Tchomovil is a well-known dissident who spent 15 years of his life in Soviet prisons because he defended democratic principles.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: This is no doubt an important matter and a very distinguished person but I am having difficulty seeing how it is a point of order. I do not think it is a point of order. On the same point, the hon. member.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order?


Alex Kindy: On the same point of order. I had not finished, Mr. Speaker!
The fact that he was not introduced to the House, Mr. Speaker is a breach of parliamentary tradition. I hope that this omission.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not accepting that. I have been trying to make it clear that in a Question Period of 45 minutes, with the competition for time that faces us all, but especially the Chair, I will do the best I can with introductions but they will come at three o'clock or afterward.
That is no disrespect to any distinguished visitor, but my first obligation is to all members of this place. If there was not a recognition, it was because the events of this place were more important. This is the House of Commons of Canada. My obligation is to all members and that comes before polite, courteous, and no doubt very happy occasions when we can introduce distinguished people in the Chamber.
But there are only 45 minutes. This is not a question any more. Members and the public have got to understand this. It is not just the government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and the other loyal opposition party, the New Democratic Party. There are independents

Routine Proceedings
sitting in this Chamber and all of them are contesting, and rightfully so, for time.
I am not in the position that I was many months ago where I could exercise some latitude. As far as I am concerned, the members come first.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has got up on a point of order and I have explained why, regretfully, I could not make that recognition. If the hon. member wants to take it up with his colleagues and change my approach to this, the hon. member has every right to do so. But I insist on putting the hon. members first.


Alex Kindy: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has got a second point of order I will hear him, but if it is the same point of order, I am not going to hear him. The hon. member.


Alex Kindy: I have not concluded why.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. There is another way to carry on this discussion, and I am prepared to see the hon. member. The hon. member can join with other members and come and see me.
In the meantime, I want to make very clear there is no disrespect meant. If it is impossible, given the exigencies of the moment and the hour, that we cannot get to the introduction. There is no disrespect to anybody. But this is the House of Commons of Canada and the people who are going to get the first attention from this Speaker are the members of the House of Commons.
Tabling of documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the other day I gave an undertaking to the House leader of the Official Opposition that I would table the document that the Prime Minister was referring to during the question on hon. Senator Hebert.
I regret to inform the member that we did look through and we do not see the apology, but I will table that document and he can look for himself.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would seek clarification. My hon. friend the government House leader yesterday indicated that a reference that the Prime Minister made to the past Chief Justices of the Supreme Court in the House and he said he would see that that would be tabled. I am curious. Did he have an opportunity to do that, and if not, would he do it as soon as possible?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did indeed make that commitment. I have not had an opportunity to do that. I will do it as soon as possible.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure of tabling in both official languages the nineteenth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


STRIKING
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-ninth support of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day. I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the clerk at the table.
I think members should know that this is the first time unanimous consent has not been given. The previous 48 reports were unanimous, the forty-ninth one is not. It is in the House on division. But we were unanimous in asking that the chairman make members aware of one paragraph that is in the report, and I would simply read that paragraph of the report at this time.
Your committee would like it known that it is their view that standing committees should be encouraged to meet less often as full committees and more often as smaller sub-committees in order to use more effectively and efficiently the members' time.
October 5, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will be seeking unanimous consent as the government Whip has indicated for the forty-ninth report of the Striking Committee. I must say that it is impossible for me, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to give my consent today. We have many, many concerns regarding the report. I think it deserves much more consideration. I think to be fair, this is a unilateral effort at this point. I would like to think that we can come to an accommodation between all the members of the House and simply not have one more government unilateral decision being foisted upon us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West on the same point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not yet asked for unanimous consent. It comes during Routine Proceedings at the point of Motions. If there are argument to be made and you wish to hear them, that would be the appropriate time. Certainly I am prepared to make some if that is your desire at that point, but normally we ask for unanimous consent, and it is given or denied. If we are going to hear arguments, I would be pleased to enter into that situation as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should proceed and we will see whether the matter comes up again. The hon. parliamentary whip.


REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE IN FORTY-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I am prepared to move that the forty-ninth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not agreement.
Petitions


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me this afternoon to have an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from western Canada, particularly British Columbia, who point out their concern that the government has decided to attach a tax to reading material, including children's books. The petitioners feel that this is a stupid decision actually and are asking the Parliament of Canada to do whatever it can to have the government return to its senses and not proceed with taxing reading material.
On a second petition, Mr. Speaker, on a different topic but related I suppose, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and again on behalf of constituents primarily from Kamloops this time and from Logan Lake, British Columbia. The petitioners point out a whole set of reasons why they oppose the government's decision to proceed with the 7 per cent goods and services tax. They point out that 80 per cent of Canadians oppose this tax and that it is coming at a time of recession, and are asking that the government not proceed at this time.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Mississauga and Streetsville who are opposed to the application of the goods and services tax to books. They in their petition indicate that printed material has been exempt from taxation in this country and, indeed, most of the world for a very long time, they and are opposed to this tax.
They must be appalled that their representative in this House supports the tax and more so at the jackboot tactics used by the government in the other place.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions to this House. One is with respect to the goods and services tax. A number of residents in the city of Moose Jaw have presented me with a petition calling on this government to withdraw this tax. They say it is unfair and they call upon this government to bring in some fair taxation.

October 5, 1990
Petitions


Rodney Edward Laporte: I also, Mr. Speaker, want to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from Saskatchewan. These are producers who are concerned about the future of agriculture in Saskatchewan and, indeed, in western Canada and are concerned most particularly with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. They are upset that the government has removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon this government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now has under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, namely that neither can be removed or changed without this body making that recommendation and passing that bill.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IHnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents from the Sweet Bay, Portland, Charleston, Summerville, Clay Cove area. These are fish plant workers in the fish plant in Charleston and they are veiy concerned about the 14 weeks unemployment insurance that they need to have in order to qualify. There was a meeting of 350 of them not too long ago at which they have expressed their concern.
They have now put it on paper. They are very concerned about what Bill C-21 is going to do, particularly with the government getting out of the unemployment insurance business.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these cuts to the unemployment insurance system and propose more meaningful reforms, concentrate on the labour force development and come up with an effective regional development policy.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition today, which will be the first of many petitions on this subject.
The petition is pursuant to Standing Order 36. The names of the petitioners on all the petitions total some 9,000. Recently, Robyn Allen of Scarborough died as a result of a very serious allergy food reaction.
The Allergy Information Association in metro Toronto and the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations. This is a very important issue.
A number of young people across the country have been subjected to death because of the information that has been lacking in restaurants as well as on packages. I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the petitioners.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from constituents of mine in and around Saskatoon, Young, Asquith, Cutknife, Warman and Dalmeny and so on who ask that the government reject in the strongest terms the proposals for a goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that what it does is tax people in a way that does not take into account then-ability to be able to pay taxes.
They also decry the government's execution of the tax system which is presently in place whereby those who are wealthy and very well off pay very little tax. Those who are far less able to pay taxes are forced to share the major burden of the tax system.

QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 288 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 288 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: For each fiscal year from 1945-46 to 1989-90, have government funds been spent on the nuclear industry in Canada in (a) total grants to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) (b) total grants for (i) research and development (ii) nuclear power reactors (c) loans for the construction of nuclear power reactors, less revenues received in payment of interest and principal (d) advertising and public relations for nuclear power and contributions to the Canadian Nuclear Association (e) development of (i) the CANDU 3 (ii) the "SLOWPOKE" reactor (f) research and development, loan forgiveness and subsidized interest rates, tax exemptions and subsidies for operating and maintenance costs for the Canadian uranium mining and refining and heavy water industries and, if so, in 1990 dollars, what amounts?
Return tabled.
October 5, 1990


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if I may just quickly bootleg to wish you, your family, the members of the table, the staff who serve this House and my other colleagues in this House a very happy Thanksgiving.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I am touched by those remarks. I thank the hon. member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: course, the Opposition supports this initiative, and we also wish you, Mr. Speaker, your family, the Clerk at the Ihble and his family, and all the pages and members of your staff who help us in the House, a pleasant Thanksgiving holiday weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps a motion of adjournment is in order.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have two applications. First, I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I provided you with notice that I would rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to
Petitions
adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
I do not think I need to go into any particular detail. The letter explains the reason. In a very short summary, though, I will simply say that over the last 24 hours, the crisis in the other place has deepened, and I am sure our constituents across the country are confused and angry at the apparent inability of Parliament to function.
Our ability to perform the functions with which the Constitution endows us is being undermined at this present moment. The continued growth of these concerns may result in the complete loss of faith in our political institutions.
In summary, basically all of us are deeply troubled by the situation in the other place. In a sense, the work of the Parliament of Canada-not necessarily the House of Commons-has been paralyzed. I would suggest that, if there ever has been an emergency in the country, it is this.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice today that because of the breakdown of the rule of law in the Senate of Canada, we believe it would be very useful to have a debate on this whole question.
We believe that the ultimate authority on all these questions is Parliament. Parliament right now is paralyzed, and we deplore that immensely. We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that in your good judgment you would give us a chance to try to restore some confidence of Canadians in Parliament and give us a debate later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to respond to both of these applications and I am going to say more than perhaps the Speaker usually does on such applications.
I am very conscious of the fact that the reform committee sometime ago recommended that no reason should be given by the Speaker when responding to these applications. As I had to do a few days ago, I am going to give some indication of my approach to this.

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
First, as anyone who is watching this place today knows, there is very grave concern here in this Chamber about events in the other place. Within the bounds of the rules that we have to govern us, there has been extensive comment today.
The question is whether it would be appropriate to have an emergency debate today with respect to those events. I have given this very careful consideration today because I have had notice. I am inclining not to accept the applications of the two hon. members at this time, not because this is not a serious matter, but because it is probably appropriate to see if the other place can sort out its difficulties.
I am very conscious that in turning down an application for an emergency debate there must be no confusion in the minds of the public that hears the application and hears my answer that that rejection is necessarily for all time or that it ignores the seriousness of the matter raised.
I know hon. members will understand that it is not particularly easy in a situation like this for the Speaker of the House to make this ruling but I think that today, given events as they presently are, it would be appropriate to see if the other place can resolve its difficulties.
I thank both hon. members for giving me notice. I have taken their applications very seriously.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 1 of Ms. Mitchell (p. 13846).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before Question Period the hon. member for Nunatsiaq had the floor. I will recognize the hon. member.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, I would just like to continue with the amendment of
the hon. member for Vancouver East to the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act.
I would like to quote from some letters that arrived in my office with regard to the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act. This one is from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, which is the representative organization for all the Inuit in Canada. I will read part of the letter which was written to the Secretary of State of Canada. It states:
Unlike other minorities in Canada, we have no homelands in which our language and our culture can flourish, other than the Canadian North. As native people, we have special rights by virtue of our aboriginal status. These rights have been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and are part of the laws, customs and treaties of the land. Although these aboriginal rights have not been fully defined, it is certain that they will include the right to the protection and enhancement of native languages and cultures.
That is the feeling of the Inuit Thpirisat of Canada and all the Inuit, that aboriginal languages have to be recognized by themselves and not as part of a larger group of languages.
I would also like to read another letter from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations to the hon. members of Parliament, which in part says:
Although we understand Aboriginal languages are not excluded from the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act, First Nations do not wish to be included in the definition of "Heritage Languages" in Bill C-37. We are the "founding" languages of Canada, and given the precarious future of our endangered languages, require a separate Aboriginal Languages Foundation/Institute.
It is with these kinds of letters and the support that we have from the various aboriginal groups that we press forward not to be included in the Canadian Heritage Languages Act but that aboriginal languages be recognized on their own merits as the founding languages of this nation.
Earlier this year the Government of Canada slashed its funding to the aboriginal communications sector. When that occurred several things happened which cut back on either the education of aboriginal languages through the media or in other ways caused us suffering.
I would again like to refer to a copy of the press release by the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation which is the TV arm of the Inuit Communications Society. It says in the press release issued on February 22, 1990:
The Inuil Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) may lose more than a quarter of its funding as a result of the new federal budget. The $600,000.00 cut will have an immediate and devastating impact on Canada's leading aboriginal television network.
October 5, 1990

That speaks for itself. The Government of Canada, through the government House leader, in refusing to recognize Bill C-269, an act to recognize aboriginal languages within the Constitution, is really telling us what priorities it has in terms of aboriginal issues. It tells the aboriginal people that it has put forward the aboriginal issues of the day to recognize the aboriginal peoples' concerns, but it does not want to follow through by recognizing the need for aboriginal languages to be recognized in the Constitution by themselves.
Again, I would also like to quote from a friend of mine, Blandina Makkik, from the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation who calls the $600,000 cut to the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation spiritual genocide, which is very descriptive of how the people feel.
I would like to tell the Canadian people how important it is that the aboriginal languages be recognized because, as everyone knows, language is part of your culture.
I am sure that the government House leader never had to cope with the problem of not being able to speak his own language because he was forbidden to do so, as we were when we were in residential schools or when we were in public schools. I am sure that he never had to struggle with that. I am sure that he would never understand why we feel we have to be recognized separately and on our own. Again I would like to quote an article from the National Aboriginal Communications Society on the issue of cutting back on communications, which reads:
It is particularly important that Native people have access to communications giving the Aboriginal perspective during a time when such issues as self-government, Aboriginal title and equality rights are being debated.
Madam Speaker, those are the few issues that we have and I thank you for your indulgence.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. First, along with the number of speakers who have spoken concerning the importance of the aboriginal languages I want to be on record as stating how important I believe that this is.
Government Orders
Having an opportunity to travel in the Northwest Territories and Yukon during the Charest commission on the Meech Lake Accord-McKenna proposals, it was a great experience for me to sit in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories where some 27 languages were being translated during the debate. The issue of aboriginal languages is one that is extremely important, but unfortunately this is not the issue we are debating today, although some who may be watching this debate may think that is exactly what we are debating.
What we are debating is an amendment to clause 2 of Bill C-37. I would just like to read from clause 2:
"heritage language" means a language, other than one of the
official languages of Canada, that contributes to the linguistic
heritage of Canada,-
That is how clause 2 in part reads and the amendment wishes to indicate that this does not include an aboriginal language of Canada.
I would just like to go back to the history of this clause. We had a lot of discussion in the committee on Bill C-37 about this very aspect of this clause. I am a bit surprised that we are debating it again at report stage, because we had such an extensive debate at committee stage concerning whether or not aboriginal languages should be included as part of the Heritage Languages Institute. When we reflect on the previously proposed legislation, Bill C-152 which was brought before the House of Commons prior to the election of 1988, this bill, practically in its entirety, was brought in, during the last Parliament, and was not passed because of the election.
In that previous proposed legislation aboriginal languages were not included. It was not stated whether they were included or not included; it was not mentioned. Then when we got to committee on Bill C-152, the Liberal Party and the NDP were insisting that aboriginal languages should be included. In fact they made a number of motions and at report stage a Liberal member amended the bill to say that the retention and use of languages including native and aboriginal languages should be included in this bill.
So here we are: we introduced this Bill C-37 into this Parliament. We have gone through committee stage. We have had extensive discussion about it. Now the Liberals and the NDP have completely reversed themselves from what their position was just a short time ago. I am

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
actually quite surprised that they would make such a big change in their position in such a short time.
I want to state briefly the purpose of this institute. What is this institute supposed to do for heritage languages? Well, it is supposed to promote and develop the field of heritage language learning in Canada. It is to undertake public education, and develop and disseminate Canadian oriented learning materials, assist in the development of programs to improve standards of heritage language instruction, and carry out research activities of importance to heritage language learning in general.
The institute will be established in Edmonton and will work closely with organizations, individuals, and groups from across the country, consulting with community-based organizations, educational institutions, and the provincial and territorial governments to ensure that all those who are concerned with heritage language training benefit from the activities of the institute.
This will be a charitable foundation as well as being supported by the Government of Canada. It will receive financial support from the private sector. We hope that everyone involved will be very much into making this institute the tremendous place that we think it is going to be in order to have the heritage languages expanded.
I understand what the member for Western Arctic is saying concerning Bill C-269. I wish we were debating Bill C-269 right now, but we are not. However, I think it would be very valuable to have the merits of Bill C-269 debated but unfortunately that is not what is before us today. What is before us is whether we are actually going to bar somebody from being part of the heritage language institute.
The bill states that heritage language will mean language other than the official languages that contribute to the linguistic heritage of Canada. Therefore, we do not want to exclude anybody. It does not necessarily include everybody. We have not named all the languages, but it is open-ended. If groups want to come to get research material, there will be an opportunity to do it.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the way the bill as amended in committee now stands before the House is the appropriate definition of heritage language.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I feel privileged to participate in today's debate on an act to establish a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute and particularly to follow the very thoughtful amendment of my hon. colleague from Vancouver East which suggests that we amend the bill by saying "Canada and does not include aboriginal languages of Canada".
I really want to associate myself with the comments made by my hon. colleague from Vancouver East as well as my colleagues from Comox-Albemi and Spadina on this issue because it seems to be totally inappropriate that we would not include those languages of our first citizens in with heritage languages generally.
To make my point, I want to quote from Mr. Phil Fontaine, the provincial leader of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who on July 14 of this year said the following: "We, the original people of this country have inherited through the oral traditions of our forefathers 55 distinct original languages. Fifty-two of these original languages of Canada are now on the brink of extinction. Unlike you," meaning the non-aboriginal peoples of the country, "we cannot retrieve these languages from our mother country. Our mother country is Canada. What we lose in Canada we lose forever."
I think that we really have to reflect seriously on what appeared at least in the beginning to be the government's motivation to include with Italian, Norwegian, Danish and German, 53 aboriginal languages to be considered heritage languages.
Regardless of what we might do to our national heritage in terms of language, myself being Norwegian, we can always go back home and learn the language, or be introduced again to it.
We cannot do that with aboriginal languages. This is their home. This is the only place in the world where they exist. I feel particularly strongly about representation. A group of us, members of Parliament from the interior of British Columbia, met recently in the great city of Vernon. At that meeting we were privileged to welcome four of the native chiefs of our region. They explained their concern about their language. This is the Shuswap language, Madam Speaker, a name that you are
October 5, 1990

very familiar with yourself. It is one of the many languages we find in British Columbia.
I am pleased to say when I look at the list that there are 2,000 individuals who are presently speaking the Shuswap language. As the provincial leader of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs indicated, it is not one of the languages that unless something is done will not be preserved beyond the next decade or so. As a matter of fact, as I said earlier, only three of the 55 languages will remain in place unless some action is taken.
What action are we requiring? We certainly are going far beyond the suggestion of an institute. I suspect that we are getting very close to the point raised by my hon. colleague for Western Arctic in Bill C-269-which, of course, we support-calling for an aboriginal languages foundation.
The assumption we all make is that this is going to require some investment so that native people across our great country will have an opportunity to develop the necessary learning materials, provide the necessary learning infrastructure, so that young and old alike will be able to learn and become fluent in their native language. I think this is in the spirit of our country and something that we certainly ought to do as expeditiously as possible for Canada's first citizens.
I know in Kamloops the Shuswap Tribal Council has made tremendous gains in developing curriculum for kindergarten and grades beyond, in terms of the language classes as well as a cultural introduction to the reality of the native experience in central British Columbia.
The initiative the government is taking regarding Bill C-37 is one that we support obviously because of its encouragement and development of Canada's heritage languages. But again, as this amendment makes very clear, we certainly do not want to exclude the aboriginal languages of Canada from that consideration. We want to set aside a major initiative to ensure that language becomes our preoccupation in terms of assisting aboriginal people across the country. We want them to develop the necessary infrastructure to develop their own languages which will enable them to build their cultures with strength and on a good foundation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-37 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 37 to 40 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"mendation of the Minister from nominations made by organizations and institutions concerned with the teaching of heritage languages."
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak briefly to this second amendment which we have put forward. This recommendation relates to the board of directors of the proposed Heritage Languages Institute. The original motion in the bill says:
The activities of the Institute shall be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of a Chairperson and not more than twenty-one other directors, to be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, after the Minister has consulted such governments, institutions, organizations and individuals as the Minister considers appropriate.
Our feeling is that this part of the bill, clause 6.(1) actually allows the minister and the Conservative Party to do what they always do and what they are doing now in the Senate, that is, to make patronage appointments to a new institute. I do not like to suspect ulterior motives but it seems the way the government has gone about establishing this whole institute, while taking away funds for all community programs for heritage language, really smacks of a political motivation. I am surprised that the Conservatives would do it in this way. This clause also allows the minister to recommend people to the cabinet who would then make patronage appointments and we can expect that they would largely be Conservatives. They would then go to the electorate and say, look at the this wonderful thing we have done for the heritage languages in Canada.
Our amendment is to change the process for appointing members to the board to make it far more democratic, more practical and efficient. We think it is up to

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
institutions and organizations that are directly concerned and have expertise in the field of heritage languages as well as colleges that teach the languages for example, and community programs that have experienced people to nominate candidates for the boards so that they are experienced people who are not partisan and who are being appointed because of their expertise. It would also ensure that there would be regional representatives. Many witnesses at the committee wanted this as well.
I would hope that this change would be supported, particularly by the government because it would show its intention to make this a solid, democratically-appointed board rather than patronage appointments which is very usual from this government.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, this particular section of the act, clause 6, relates to the board of directors which will actually be there to direct the activities of the Heritage Languages Institute. There will be 21 directors that will be selected from across the country.
Let us reflect for a moment on what is in the bill. How will these people be selected? They will be selected after and in such consultation with provincial governments, institutions, organizations and individuals. All those people will be consulted. It is important to read that with clause 6.(2) of the bill which says:
(2) Persons appointed to the Board must have knowledge or experience that will assist the Institute in fulfilling its purpose.
I think the amendment is looking for persons to be representing organizations and language schools. Because of the vast numbers of organizations and schools that we have, we could not have all these organizations represented because we have 21 directors.
What we need is to have an opportunity for the minister, after consultation, to appoint those persons with experience and knowledge. Geographic representation, as the member has suggested, would be taken into consideration, as well, in order to have people with a broad spectrum of skills and expertise to make this
institute the tremendous organization that we believe it will be.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East. We have no other choice but to support it. How can we guarantee fairness and, above all, professionalism and impartiality, in an institute where the members of the Board of directors are to be appointed on the recommendation of the minister?
Does this government intend to do what it did in the Senate and appoint its friends, who will have to respond to the priorities determined by the minister?
Madam Speaker, the institute should be able to make its own appointments, after consultation, of course, with cultural communities and teachers. I say this because they are in a position to select the people they believe are most competent and capable of performing their duties, and do not need the government's official or informal approval. I therefore support this amendment.

We have already seen evidence of great government partiality in the nominations of the members to a recent multicultural commission. Some of the members on this particular cultural commission are in absolutely no way linked or connected to any large national cultural bodies. Some, I believe, are really hacks.


Mr. Karygiannis:: Hacks? Shame!


Shirley Maheu: I would even go so far as to say they represent only themselves, or perhaps the minister. They have never been involved in some instances in any way, shape, or form with any cultural community.
The bottom line on this whole institute makes one wonder if it is not a political candy to Edmonton. That is why we, as Liberals, on this side of the House are supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough Centre made a comment that I could not hear, but let me reassure my colleague that my constitu-
October 5, 1990

ency assistants are also working on the problems of Scarborough Centre.
I would like to point out that I am in support of the amendment for a number of reasons. Being an ethnic myself, I have seen this bill, and after reading it very closely and seeing some of the members in action outside the House, basically and practically, the 21 directors will be political appointees. The 21 directors will be fulfilled by Tory supporters. The 21 directors will be fulfilled by who the government wants to place.
We have seen clearly that the government, beyond any doubt, uses its power to fulfil and do whatever it wants. It appointed eight senators only last week where clearly the people of the country do not want the GST. They have put the boots. This government, beyond any shadow of any doubt, will use these 21 appointments as political candies to some political hacks-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You mean these hacks? Shame.


Jim Karygiannis: -for some leaders of ethnic communities who have no respect whatsoever-


Pauline Browes: You're insulting people.


Jim Karygiannis: Oh, my colleague from Scarborough Centre said I am insulting. Well, I am glad she is saying that because I am an ethnic and I know that the political appointments of the government from the ethnic communities are real shameful.


Mr. Hudon:: No, sir.


Jim Karygiannis: Oh, there is that-well, here we go. They are saying no, sir. Well, Madam Speaker, I can speak to you from firsthand experience.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Jim Karygiannis: The government and the Minister of Justice on that side say they were not Tories and now they are going to become Tories. Really, Madam Speaker. This just makes me want to jump to the ceiling. I know it is very far up, but the past record of this government sometimes makes me feel ashamed to say that I a Canadian with strong ethnic roots. The government is using the ethnics as lollipops and that is what they are going to do out in Edmonton-


An hon. member:: And it's going to cost them.
Government Orders


A. Kim Campbell: Let's talk about the leadership campaign.


Jim Karygiannis: Oh, the Minister of Justice says: "Let's talk about the leadership campaign." And I am glad she said that because the ethnics of Ontario and the country clearly supported the Liberal Party during the leadership campaign, and they were so ashamed.
I met people in Sarnia. I met people in Windsor. I had the opportunity to travel the great province of Ontario and person after person told me that what the members across are trying to do was so shameful that it is incredible. They want to stick out a political lollipop in front of the ethnics and it is shameful. Therefore, I have no alternative but to support the amendment.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, in addressing the amendment now being debated, I want to speak very briefly on it and say only two things. I want to note the great participation of members from the great city of Scarborough here today.
The mechanism that has been proposed by this amendment is a commendable one and one that conceptually has been addressed by no less than the Prime Minister himself in considering the issue of prospective appointments to the Senate. The mechanism was referred to in the Meech Lake Accord and it involves nominations or appointments by the government from a list supplied by, if I can use the term, the client group.
I cannot think of a better mechanism which would both purge any appearance of patronage that might be there in any particular appointment and at the same time serve to democratize further or bring the level of appointment making back toward the street, back to the people, the client group, who have need of the organization. For those two reasons I am in support of this amendment.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also support the amendment by my colleague from Vancouver Centre and I think it is-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Vancouver East.


Robert Evans Skelly: Vancouver East, sorry. I thought Vancouver Centre would be wise enough to suoport it but I may be wrong.

October 5, 1990
Government Orders
The reason I support it is that the method of appointment suggested in the bill is kind of the Tory top-down system of governing in Canada that I think has led a lot of people to be cynical about how government handles itself in this day and age. I think a lot of people are cynical and a lot of people are disillusioned about how government handles itself.
These kind of appointments come from the top down. They tend to be political appointments. They tend to be people who do not represent the grass roots. They tend to be people who in many cases are not even familiar with the organizations that they are supposed to be serving or with the issues they are supposed to be serving.
I recall a recent issue of The Ottawa Citizen that reported that in a single day the Government of Canada made a 108 patronage appointments. The article went through the resumes of some of those people and found out that, while some of them had a remote connection or were reappointed to an organization that they had served on before, a substantial number of those people were simply political hacks and flacks and not the best people available to serve the interests of Canadian citizens or, in this case, the ethnic groups or the linguistic groups who need to be served by this heritage language legislation.
It is long overdue that we change in law the way that we appoint these people. The way we should appoint these people is to make them responsible to the groups from which they come and that they be nominated or selected from the groups from which they come and the groups which they serve. This bottom-up approach is the approach we should be looking at if we are trying to restore credibility in government. If we are trying to restore confidence in government and in institutions such as the one we are setting up here, the Eleritage Languages Institute, then we should really be setting up a structure and a process in this legislation which allows nomination of the people who are going to be serving on this board from the representative groups, from the groups that they are going to be serving, rather than having the campaign managers from the last Tory campaign or the wives or husbands of former Tory members of Parliament, as we saw in that article in The Ottawa Citizen a few weeks ago. Let us have people who really
know the field that they are working in. Let us have people who really understand and know the constituency that they are serving.
I think that the suggestion by my colleague from Vancouver East is the kind of process that is going to result in that happening. What we will have if we adopt this amendment and adopt this process is an institute that we can all be proud of and that the people who will be served by this institute can also be proud of, have confidence in, and appear themselves to be stakeholders in.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts) be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank all parties who made a contribution to the consideration and drafting of this bill at all stages. More specifically, I would like to thank my former opposition critics, and I
October 5, 1990

hope to have the same satisfactory relationship with the new critics.

This bill comes as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v. Vaillancourt. I hope that, through these amendments, justice will be expedited and, that the modernization of this law will bring it into line with today's requirements.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, it was a very brief and succinct address by the Minister of Justice.
The bill we are debating here is itself a rather brief and succinct bill. One might say it was a simple housekeeping bill in relation to the Criminal Code, but I am afraid that it is never possible to call amendments to the Criminal Code simple housekeeping. In that act, we address issues and procedures that belly up right against our rights and freedoms as citizens, and our conduct among each other in a civilized, ordered society.
I feel that it is necessary to address each of the amendments as proposed albeit that they are short and brief.
The first amendment proposed by the government deals with the deletion from the code of subsection 230(d). That subsection is one of four constructive murder charges currently in the Criminal Code.
After due consideration, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that that section varies or conflicts with our Charter of Rights and therefore has been struck by the courts from the code. Today the government is asking and has asked in this bill that the section be formally deleted from the code.
The only issue that arises in relation to this action by the government is whether or not the government should have addressed removing or deleting subsections (a), (b) and (c) of the same section, because those subsections deal with the same issue of constructive murder from different perspectives.
Having read judicial comment of the last few years, I think it is fair to say that constructive murder, no matter what perspective it comes from, is going to be a difficult debt with the rights and freedoms set out in our charter.
There are existing before the high courts in Canada appeals dealing with various of these constructive mur-
Govemment Orders
der subsections, and the court will make a ruling. The real issue here-I have simply raised the flag-is whether or not the government might have shown a bit more leadership in addressing head on those rights and freedoms, those charter issues related to subsections (a), (b) and (c), dealt with them now, got them out of the way and saved the courts a whole lot of time.
The flip side of that coin is that we as legislators may well benefit from the judicial interpretations that we will be offered from the courts over the next few months. That may help the Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice and members in the House to reach better and more informed conclusions on those subsections.
Moving on to the second part of the bill, an old rule that had been imposed ages ago prohibited the joinder of a murder count with a count alleging another indictable offence. In the old days, I guess that was quite a fair rule because in the old days a conviction for murder, nine times out of 10, resulted in some pretty dire consequences. The world has changed, we have changed and while in many cases the consequences for the convicted may not be so dire, in terms of capital punishment, there is a sense that we are more capable of dealing with the sophisticated legal issues that lie behind the law as it relates to murder and the procedures related to prosecutions for murder.
So that old rule which says you cannot join any count with a murder count will now be changed to the following: in practical terms, where the murder count arises out of a fact situation where another offence may have been committed, the Crown may join the murder count with a count alleging another offence. Second, where the accused, himself or herself, consents to having the murder count tried with other counts, whether or not they arise out of the same fact situation, the joinder may take place.
The first real reason that brought us all to address joinder, notwithstanding the old rule, was the appearance of cases of failures to complete prosecutions, failure to complete the delivery of justice, as a result of the non-joinder rule. As a result, there was a feeling that the courts, the system, the taxpayer and the accused could all be better off if the courts were permitted to try murder and other counts together. All of the witnesses would be brought in and the facts set out, thereby precluding the need for subsequent trials or breaking

Government Orders
trials up into sections with witnesses having to attend much more frequently.
The efficacy reason prompted the review of the rule, the Law Reform Commission did some excellent work reviewing it, the issue has been canvassed by academics, the courts and lawyers, and the net result is that there seems to be, on balance, a feeling that the old joinder rule should be abandoned.
The major alleged problem with abandoning the nonjoinder rule is that accused may be prejudiced by this. Of course, that was an argument in why the non-joinder rule was there in the first place, but we must point out that in every single case where a murder indictment is prosecuted, an accused has the right to ask for severance of the counts. There is not likely a judge in this country who is not aware of the significance of possible prejudice to an accused in a murder trial and there is not likely a Crown prosecutor in the country who is not aware of that. At the commencement of each murder trial, there is that opportunity for the accused and his or her counsel to raise that with the trial judge and, if the trial judge believes that prejudice may occur, severance can be ordered and the trial for murder may proceed on its own, without the joinder with other counts.
We in the opposition, having stated that we have looked at these concerns, feel that on balance we can support this bill brought forward by the government.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill, which has been handed to me just recently, and to deliver my first speech as new justice critic for the New Democratic Party. The bill is now at third reading. I want to, first of all, say to my friend opposite, the Minister of Justice, who comes from a riding near where I live, that I will try to be as constructive as possible in dealing with justice matters. I know that we are dealing with some very important issues here for people in Canada. We both respect that. I may disagree with the minister, but I respect her a great deal. That is the nicest thing I am about to say about her ever. Now I will get on with the bill.
As I understand, Bill C-54 was tabled on December 14, 1989. It was approved in principle by the House at second reading. It went to committee. I have had a chance to look at some of the committee hearings. It is
now back to the House for report stage and third reading. I believe we are now on third reading.
The bill would amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Code of course being the book that has all the criminal laws in Canada. It applies throughout the country, criminal law being a federal matter.
The government, of course, has to update the Criminal Code regularly, and now even more so in response to judgments of the courts which under the Charter of Rights can declare sections of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. Part of that aspect is involved in the government response in this bill.
Clause 1 of Bill C-54, as I understand it, would repeal one of the prescribed elements for constructive murder under section 230 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Clause 2 would revise section 589 of the Criminal Code in favour of a less restrictive regime for the joinder of counts where murder is charged.
I want to briefly deal with both of those changes. First, constructive murder. Section 230 of the Criminal Code, as I said, sets forth the offence known as constructive murder. It has been defined as a death that occurs in connection with the commission of a criminal offence. It is construed as having been intentional even though, on the facts, the accused did not mean the cause of death. Let me try and explain that in lay person's terms, if I might.
To be guilty of murder, you have to cause death. You have to intend to cause death. It is a very simple principle in criminal law that you have to do the act. In Latin that is called the actus reus. You also need to have to intention to do the act. That is called mens rea, your mind. You have to put your mind to it. It is quite simple. You have to do the act, and you have to intend to do the act.
Let us take a situation, God forbid, where my colleague and I decided to commit a robbery. We sit and plan the act of the robbery. We do the act of the robbery, and we intend to do the act of the robbery. During the act of the robbery, I have a gun. It is an armed robbery. Someone interferes or intervenes, or something happens, and I shoot someone in the course of the robbery, like someone in the bank, for example. That person is

killed. I, on those facts, would be guilty of murder. I intended to do the act. I did the act of murder.
My friend was there for the robbery, but he did not intend to do the murder. Under this section of the code he in fact could be guilty of murder as well because he is constructively said to intend it. By the mere fact of participating in the armed robbery, he is thought of as having maybe thought that there could have been a possibility that the gun would be used and someone would be killed.
I was a criminal lawyer at one point in my checkered career. We always felt very uncomfortable with this section because people could be convicted of murder even though they did not intend to do murder. That is against the basic principles of criminal law.
I will give another example which the Library of Parliament has given us in a little different way. It said, for example, that it would be described as constructive murder within the meaning of section 230 if a perpetrator, while fleeing the scene of robbery, dropped his weapon, which accidentally went off and in the process killed an innocent bystander. It is another example of where one did not really intend to kill the person but it happened in the course of a criminal act. That was a lay person's description of how this section works.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Vaillancourt v. the Queen, in fact threw out this section, and I think quite properly.
It seems to me there is a problem with the bill. The question arises: Are there other sections of this particular section of the Criminal Code that the court might also throw out? I believe-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that the bill only deals with section 230(d). That is only one section that deals with constructive murder.
I believe there are other cases before the courts, and again the minister can correct me if I am wrong. What happens if the other cases are thrown out? Will we have the same problem with the other sections of the bill?
Government Orders
Will we have to come back to Parliament to deal with it? Perhaps we should deal with it all now.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada in its 1984 publication entitled Homicide, (Working Paper 33) stated that it found the whole section 230 is objectionable and should be abolished, and I quote:
To treat an unintentional killer as though he intended to kill involves the criminal law in artificiality and fictions and in the injustice of not treating significantly different cases differently.
We think that constructive murder should be abolished, that the rules contained in paragraph 212(c) and section 213 (now paragraph 229(d) and section 230) should have no place within our criminal law, and that killings where death is neither intended nor foreseen should be excluded from the category of "intentional" homicide whether or not they are brought about in furtherance of some other offence.
They made the following recommendation:
"Intentional" homicide should apply only to killings done with actual intent to kill, and cases of constructive intent should be excluded from this category.
My point is that this bill does not exclude all the possible cases of unintended murder. My position is, along with the Law Reform Commission report, that intentional homicide should only apply to killings done with actual intent to kill, and cases where we have constructive intent should be taken out of our law. I think it is bad law and always was bad law. That is my first point and that is one of the reasons why we will not be supporting the bill. However, I understand that the bill could pass today on division.


An hon. member:: Soon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The member says: "Soon", but I want to explain to the member-and I am trying to do it in very simple language-what is involved in a very complicated
bin.
The House will recall that when I started my speech I said that there were two points to the bill. Let us deal with the second point. The second point is that the bill would revise section 589 of the Criminal Code in favour of a less restrictive regime for joinder of counts where murder is charged.
Here is the problem, and maybe I can make it simple-there can be a prejudice to the accused if one joins a murder count with a lot of other counts because murder is so bad and looks so bad to a jury that the jury can be prejudiced. This is what disturbs me about this section.
I have a legal opinion from the firm of Rosen and Fleming, barristers in Toronto, that was obtained by my

Government Orders
predecessor, the hon. member for Burnaby with respect to this bill. I just want to read what these learned lawyers have said. I will just read this section:
If the proposed legislation is passed, the above general principles relating to the joinder of counts generally will apply. A person accused of murder will have the same onus to demonstrate a manifest need for severance. However, since the proposed legislation requires that in such cases the other offences to be added to the indictment must rise out of the same transaction, and because it follows that evidence concerning one offence will probably be admissible on the others because they are so related, it will be virtually impossible for an accused to meet the onus. If convicted, the rights of the accused on appeal will be subject to the limitations noted above of appellate review of the exercise of judicial discretion. The protection of severance cited by the proponents of the amendment is illusory at best.
It continues:
Proponents of the amendment suggest that the accused will suffer no prejudice by joinder of counts since, if convicted of murder and any other related offences, the convictions for these other offences may be stayed pursuant to the decisions of Kienapple v. R. and R. v. Prince or the sentences imposed for them will be concurrent to the mandatory life sentence which follows the murder conviction. This position totally ignores the potential for prejudice at trial which comes from the overloading of an indictment.
Here are four examples of how the prejudice arises, but let me just go back a step. If someone gets charged with some offences, there is an indictment preferred by the Crown, Her Majesty, an indictment. It is take to court and the person has to answer to the indictment and is read the indictment.
I was in court in Vancouver just recently in the Inderjit Singh Reyat trial, the trial of the citizen who is accused of making the bomb that went on the CP flight to Tokyo which blew up and killed two baggage handlers in Tokyo; a real tragic case. The trial is being held right now in Vancouver, as I speak. Mr. Reyat was arraigned before the court and an indictment was read. There were a number of counts on that indictment: you are charged with this, you are charged with that, you are charged with this, how do you plead. What we are talking about in this clause of the bill is how that indictment works.
What could happen is that someone appears before the court and is charged with a number of offences. The defence counsel on behalf of the accused could stand up and say: I move that we sever one of the counts off, that we have another trial at another place or at another time
on this particular count, and that we proceed in this trial with these counts. The reason a severance is allowed-it is at the discretion of the trial judge usually-is that it is allowed because it may prejudice the accused or prejudice a fair trial.
I think we have the best system known, so far invented in the world, for criminal justice. It is not perfect, but it is an ancient and honourable tradition in the British system that has been developed. That is why these matters are so important, and this deals with severance.
Here is the legal opinion that I was citing. Here is what they say were the problems with this section. I put it forward for the consideration of the Minister of Justice. It reads:
(a)	The jury will be distracted by the numerous other counts included in the indictment and will fail to appreciate the importance of what is at stake in the murder charge.
This is putting a murder charge with a whole bunch of other charges: robbery, assault, whatever. The first point is that the accused to be prejudiced because the jury will look at all these other counts and it will not totally focus on the one count, the one murder count, and these other counts could prejudice the trial on the murder count. In referring to many counts, it continues:
(b)	An accused who faces a multiple count indictment which begins with the offence of murder will be viewed by the jury, even before the evidence is called, as a person of disreputable character.
In other words, if you are charged with murder that is pretty serious. The jury looks at you being charged with murder as you come before the jury. However, if you are charged with murder and assault and robbery and having a weapon and so on, the jury may be prejudiced and say that is a pretty bad person; they have been charged with all those counts, all those other things; maybe they are the kind of person who might murder. That is a prejudice. That is why there is a danger in allowing all these multiple counts. That is why there is a danger in this amendment to the code. That is why we are opposing this. It continues:
(c)	The rule concerning the admissibility of similar fact evidence will be circumvented by the prosecution, since evidence admissible on one count, but not necessarily admissible on another will nevertheless be admitted before the jury. As noted above, the relevance of the evidence to the one count and the fact that all the counts are related will be cited as the reason to deny severance which might otherwise relieve the prejudice.

Again there is talk of similar evidence. Evidence on one count tends to become evidence on the other count and we get into problems with similar fact evidence. Not only on the surface could it be prejudice to a jury, but some of the evidence that comes into one count will filter into another count and there will be further possibility of prejudice. It continues:
(d)	The evidence of other related criminal conduct which may be admissible as part of the narrative relating to the homicide,-
That is the story leading to the murder case. It goes on:
-will now be used to convict the accused of specific offences-
That is, the robbery, the possession of the gun, the breaking and entering, and so on. It continues:
- rather than permitting the jury to consider the evidence and its weight, if any, on the issue of liability for murder only.
The real issue is that murder is such a serious charge it should be tried alone. Alternatively, if it is tried with the other offences, such great prejudice can result both in naming the different counts so the jury sees all the other charges or by the similar fact evidence coming in as the Crown attorney tries to prove those different counts. That is about the simplest way I can put it. For those two reasons there could be some real problems.
I had a chance this week to meet some criminal lawyers. Among them was Clay Ruby, one of the top criminal lawyers in Canada, and some other criminal lawyers in Toronto as well. They expressed to me their concern about this particular section on the joinder of counts.
For those two reasons we in the New Democratic Party are opposed to Bill C-54.1 think I have set out, as best I can, the reasons for that opposition in some detail. I have tried to translate it a little bit away from the language of the law to the language of ordinary people.
I do not know if the government will hear any more speakers. I do remind the government that I did raise the point that we might, even if this is passed, have to revisit the section if the courts declare other aspects of section
Government Orders
230 of the Criminal Code of Canada unconstitutional as they did with section 230 subsection (d).


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to some of the comments made by my colleague for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
I certainly take his point that this is a very interesting area of the law in recent jurisprudence. Martineau, Vaillancourt, and other cases have certainly changed the practice and have been instructive to governments. Since the committee studied this bill, the provisions of section (a) which are being removed from section 230 of the code have been struck down.
My colleague raises a number of interesting questions. I want to say at the beginning, though, that the whole law with respect to homicide is under intensive review in the Department of Justice now. Some of the comments that he raises will be addressed in a more comprehensive framework.
What we are dealing with here is an effort to try to address a very specific problem, which is the need to amend the Criminal Code to remove the culpable murder provisions, as they have since been struck down by the courts. Paragraphs (b) and (c) which remain are possibly at risk we well. I would be the first to concede that.
This area of the law is a very challenging one because it requires us to balance a number of interests. When we look at the whole idea of joining counts, we look at the question of what will be brought before a court.
When my hon. colleague says that murder should always be tried on its own, that may or may not be the case. The point is that if murder is the wrong count to be brought, then any other count would have to be brought separately. Are we going to look at the administration of justice as a kind of all-or-nothing situation and try to determine the appropriate count, if Crown counsel is of the view that there is in fact sufficient evidence to convict on a murder count if the jury does not agree with them, or the judge does not agree with them? Does that mean that is the end of the story for making someone responsible for events rising out of a particular transaction?

Government Orders
We have a jurisprudential framework within which the law is applied. We make reference to the principle of what I learned in law school to call Kienapple. It derives from a decision of the Supreme Court to protect people from a multiplicity of counts on a particular event.
So there is a jurisprudential framework which I think does protect. There is no question that there are challenges to a trial court judge in instructing the jury or instructing himself or herself if the case is heard before a judge in sorting out the evidence and I would not underestimate those.
However, I do not think those arguments are sufficient to justify defeating the bill. They simply point out that there are a number of interests to be balanced, the interest not just in the efficiency of the administration of justice in avoiding a multiplicity of trial processes and all that that involved in terms of recalling witnesses and trying to keep a case intact, but also in subjecting an accused to a multiplicity of processes which I think can be very difficult and-I was going to say in trying-but it very difficult and stressful. What we are attempting to do with this is simply address what is a very explicit issue.
I want to close by repeating that the whole law with respect to homicide is under review and I am looking forward to participation. The remarks made by my colleague in the Liberal Party were also very much to the point. He is not the official critic in this area so he will not be offended, I hope, when I say that I look forward to the participation of all interested members of this House, particularly the critics, and particularly my colleague the critic from the New Democratic Party who is a criminal lawyer of some considerable experience.
I have always found the expression criminal lawyer an awkward one to use. One tends to say the words very quickly and run them together so that there is no misunderstanding of what is involved. While he may have exhausted his store of nice things to say about me, I suspect that every once in a while he will have something nice to say about my dad with whom he worked in that particular line of work and with whom he has a relationship of very mutual respect.
The hon. member came into the House after I had made my introductory comments. Had he not done so he would have heard my expressed wish to work very closely with my new critics. I think that I am very lucky to have a
colleague of his distinction at the bar to be the critic and to be participating in our attempts to make the criminal law both fair and consistent with modem developments in modem society. I hope that he will continue to be involved in that process.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her remarks.
There is a story of two criminal lawyers who go on a cruise. They are arguing during a beautiful midnight dinner and get so into the argument, as criminal lawyers always do, that they fall overboard. People were exclaiming, "Oh, my God. This is terrible. This in shark-infested waters." Suddenly the sharks come up and form a line for them and they swim right back. One of the people on the ship says: "It is a miracle". The wife of one of the criminal lawyers said, "No, no. It is just professional courtesy".
The only point I want to make to the minister is this. She says section B and section C are at risk by the court. If the court holds them inoperative too, as they have done with section D, and I think there is a real possibility of this, then I say to the government why proceed now, why not wait until those cases are dealt with. It seems to me a little odd that we would deal with this so quickly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Then we would have to come back and deal with the other two. I do not know if the minister wants to reply to that. It is rather hypothetical, but I think it could happen.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I rise for only 30 seconds.
Listening to lawyers talk about legal points is beyond some of us. I must admit that I do not know what joinder's accounts are. I do know that my constituents and many of our constituents are concerned about the increasing use of guns in violent crime.
What sounded earlier like a discussion about the reduction of available sentences and penalties becomes clearer when the minister answers the question that this
October 5, 1990

is a matter ordered by the courts. Therefore, I have no problem with what is before us.
I simply want to put on the record the sense of a lot of our constituents as the homicide review goes through, that we do not need weaker penalties for those who accidentally or otherwise involve firearms in killing folks. We need stronger ones.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I would just like to say in response to my colleague and to the remarks from the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam that that is why I am not in a rush to make sweeping changes to the Code in advance of direction that we might get from the courts.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the names of Mr. Dingwall be substituted for that of Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Marcel Ihemblay (Quebec-Est) for Mr. Charest and
Mr. Angus for Mr. Murphy on the striking committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion as stated by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Could I have the unanimous consent of the House to call it two o'clock? I see that the hon. member whose bill would now be up on Private Members' Business is in the House.
Private Members' Business


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Rodney Edward Laporte: that Bill C-230, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (oats and barley), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak to this bill.
The Canadian Wheat Board is an institution that has been part of the western Canadian agricultural way of life for over half a century. It is one of those institutions that receives the support of not only farmers but of a tremendous majority of western Canadians from all walks of life.
It is looked at longingly by producers from outside the board's jurisdiction. These include not only Canadian farmers in areas outside western Canada, but many Americans speak highly of the efficiency of the Canadian Wheat Board. In short, it is an institution that is held in high regard by a majority of people who know of its function.
The Canadian Wheat Board was created in 1935 with jurisdiction over the sale of wheat. This power was extended in 1943 when the government closed the wheat futures market, thus making the Wheat Board the sole marketer of wheat in western Canada.
The power of the Canadian Wheat Board was expanded in 1949 to include barley and oats. Unfortunately, the reason that we are here today is that barley and oats were not given the same protection under the act that wheat was. In order to remove wheat, the matter must be debated in the House. Only Parliament can change the board's jurisdiction regarding wheat. With barley and oats the Cabinet can, of its own discretion, without any consultation with the House or with anybody else, alter or remove the board's power with the right to market these two commodities. This is exactly what the Cabinet did through the recommendation of the Minister of

October 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
State for Grains and Oilseeds in February 1989 when the removal of oats from the board's jurisdiction was announced.
I believe and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe that the Canadian Wheat Board is an excellent example of a social democratic program. It provides producers with a marketing system that works to the benefit of all farmers. As individuals functioning in the open market, producers are competing with giants such as Continental and with Cargill.
Agricultural markets are volatile because of the unpredictable production fluctuations, because of the large number of independent producers and because of the large number of consumers. Those people who have knowledge of the market situation are at a definite advantage. Information about agricultural markets is costly and not equally available. Companies such as Cargill and others pay a lot of money for this information and they keep that information close to their chest and use it to their own advantage. Therefore they have a definite and a distinct advantage over the thousands of individual farmers who have to rely largely on the public media for their information.
The Canadian Wheat Board neutralizes this inequity and is able to deal with the Cargills of this world on an equal footing. The only time that the government has to in fact incur a loss is when a deficit pool is run, because the Canadian Wheat Board is paid for by farmers and it functions for the benefit of farmers.
When I say the only time that the government is involved with any payment is with respect to a deficit pool, I mean for those Canadians who are watching or those members who may not be aware. Every year the Canadian Wheat Board sets an initial prices that it will pay for a particular grain, be it wheat or barley and previously oats. This is the price that the farmer is guaranteed to receive for his grain regardless of what time of year he delivers his grain and regardless of the world price at that particular time. If at the end of the year the board has sold all the producer's grain for a higher rate than the initial price it paid to the farmer originally, then a final payment is made. Thus, all farmers receive the same price for their particular grain whether it is delivered in January, or June, or September, or any other time of the year.
If on occasion a particular grain is sold below the initial price, then there is a deficit and that is when the government makes up that difference. This has only happened on rare occasions. It should be noted as well that with respect to the initial price; it is the government that sets the initial price; it is not the Wheat Board. It is controlled by the government. It is announced by the government and it controls what the initial price will be. Other than that, the Wheat Board is self-perpetuating financially and it is paid for by the some 140,000 permit book holders throughout western Canada.
Why did the government choose to remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? It certainly was not for budgetary reasons. As I indicated the Wheat Board is self-financing. When I and other members in this House asked the government why it had taken this step, it was indicated to me on several occasions, and in fact the Minister of Agriculture indicated to me last year with a straight face I might add, that he had had extensive consultations over a long period of time and that it was what the fanning industry wanted. They wanted oats to be removed. They said they were niche markets. They claimed that the Wheat Board could not meet those niche markets properly.
I cannot say the minister lied because that is unparliamentary but let me say that he carefully chose his facts and he considered which facts to pay attention to and which facts to ignore. Whom did he consult? In answer to a question I asked in the House on May 4, 1989, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, indicated that the government had consulted the United Grain Growers Limited and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association. That is fair because oat producers are included in those. But he went on to mention the Western Barley Growers' Association, the Prairie Canola Growers' Association, the Alberta Pork Producers Development Corporation, and the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission. He consulted with the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission to see whether oats should be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board, and it said yes. It consulted with the Prairie Cattlemen's Association, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, and the Saskatchewan Pork Marketing Board.
October 5, 1990

That is all very well, but what the minister did not say and, in fact, what the government has never said or acknowledged is that there are a number of other groups that it did not consult with. In fact, at no time or no where did the government indicate-perhaps it did, but it did not indicate-that it consulted with some of the largest grain organizations in Canada, namely the pools, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. It also did not consult with the National Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union is opposed to the move, as are the Prairie wheat pools.
It does not mention the fact that it did not consult with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is one of the largest agricultural groups. It is an umbrella group of many organizations for the country. If it had consulted with the CFA, it would have been told that the CFA had passed a resolution calling for the government not to remove oats from the Canadian Wheat Board without the producers first voting on that issue.
What do farmers think of the claim that the government indicated it had consulted with farmers? That can be answered by a Decima poll that was conducted shortly after the announcement made by the government. In fact, Decima did a report, and I am quoting from that report at page 10 where it states: "fully 76 per cent of respondents believed that the government undertook inadequate consultation with farmers before it made its decision to remove oats from the marketing activities of the Canadian Wheat Board". It goes on to state: "substantial majorities in each of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta concur that the government failed to consult with farmers on this issue in any significant manner."
So, farmers feel they were not consulted. The people who grow oats feel they were not consulted. The Wheat Board's 140,000 permit book holders felt they were not consulted by a large majority, 76 per cent.
The report goes on to indicate what farmers would have told the government had they been consulted. At page 10 the report states: "A substantial majority, 63 per cent, of western farmers registered disapproval with the federal government's decision to remove oats from the
Private Members' Business
marketing activities of the Canadian Wheat Board. Fully 35 per cent of respondents indicate that they strongly disapprove of this decision. This degree of strong disapproval indicates an intensity of opinion on this particular issue and an unlikelihood of farmers changing their opinion with regard to the government action". Those are fairly strong words, Madam Speaker.
What of oats producers? Let us focus on oat producers. The report states at page 11: "Not surprisingly, further cross tabular analysis reveals that oats farmers, 69 per cent, oppose the government's decision to remove the grain, significantly more than non-oats farmers who were 56 per cent". It is no wonder it did not consult with those groups.
The government could also have consulted with the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board. The advisory committee is a committee that is made up of farmers from across western Canada who were voted to the committee by the permit book holders in western Canada, and they are there to advise the Canadian Wheat Board and the government on matters concerning the Wheat Board. The government chose not to consult with it. In fact, the advisory committee was so upset that it publicly called for the resignation of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
The conclusion is clear. The government did consult, but it consulted with those groups that agreed with its opinion. It did not consult with those groups and those bodies that grow oats, that are concerned with oats, and are concerned with the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those groups were not consulted or, if they were consulted, they were ignored because they disagreed with the government's position.
The government also said that there were niche markets that the board could not meet. In fact, this was put in a letter to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Mackenzie, by the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds on April 13, 1989. I will just quote one line where he states that, "the private trade has the flexibility to pursue these specialty markets which command price premiums, as well as to handle bulk sales of feed oats. This will give producers a viable, price sensitive, alternative crop. The new system will provide increased opportunities for oats processing facilities on the Prairies".

Private Members' Business
Since oats was removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the price has plummeted. There have been morbid conditions, that is admitted, but the price has plummeted. There is no indication at all that the privatization or the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board had any effect whatsoever other than to cause oats to go down.
There are certainly no new oat facilities on the Prairies to process oats. That is not happening. In fact, I have been advised by people in the Wheat Board that they had made a request to the government before the government made this announcement, to allow them to move into the so-called niche markets. They had made that request. They had a plan in place and they could have handled it. The simple fact is that the government chose to simply ignore this request.
Why did the government remove oats from the Canadian Wheat Board? It is very simple and very clear. This is a government that is controlled by the corporate agenda in the country. When it comes to agriculture, it is controlled by the corporate agri-business agenda in the country. Companies like Cargill do not like the Wheat Board. Cargill is a huge private corporation involved in many facets of agri-business. In fact, with respect to grain, it actually markets virtually as much grain as the Canadian Wheat Board does, plus operates all its other areas. It would like to see the Wheat Board weakened or gone. It is pursuing that agenda and has been successful. It is Cargill and others like them who have called for and received this action from the government.
While the government consulted with agri-business on this decision, there was no consideration for farming families. There was no consideration for rural communities. There was no consideration for the beneficial role that the Canadian Wheat Board has played in the development and the growth of western Canada. Rather, private agri-business has spoken and the government has once again displayed its so-called neo-conservatism philosophy and ideology.
The Canadian Wheat Board is self-financing. It functions for farmers. The government is always talking about free enterprise and having people determine their own future. If it really believed that, it would allow farmers to determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because the Wheat Board is paid for by farmers
and financed by farmers. They should have the right to decide its future. If the government really believed in people determining their own future, it would allow the Wheat Board to do just that. It would allow farmers and producers to make those decisions.
We need institutions like the Wheat Board because we need the stability in western Canada. Lord knows, times are very difficult in western Canada and times are very unstable. The Canadian Wheat Board provides that stability.
This bill is non-votable. Its only possible purpose is to point out the error of the government and to encourage Canadians to call for a change in its approach, in its philosophy, and in its agenda. Included in its agenda, government should be returning oats to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and undertaking not to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act with respect to oats, wheat or barley until it properly consults with the users of the Canadian Wheat Board. That includes expanding the Canadian Wheat Board.
In conclusion, I know that I am speaking on behalf of a substantial majority of western Canadians. It is very clear. I simply pray that the government is listening.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, after careful consideration of the unique market potential for Canadian oats and in consideration of how that market can best be served, a decision was made to have the industry market oats.
The hon. member opposite has called for a reversal of this decision. He does not seem to believe that the successful marketing of oats into niche markets can best be achieved by having the industry market oats. His proposal would move the industry backward instead of continuing its forward strides.
The government has faith in the abilities of Canadian farmers, including those in the oats industry. We are committed to helping farmers get the highest possible return for their produce and efforts. In keeping with this commitment, the government decided that oats marketing could best be handled by the industry.
We have seen positive developments in the industry that would likely not have happened under the old system. Here are some examples.

Quaker Oats is spending $13 million to modernize and expand its facility in Peterborough, Ontario.
New oats-processing plants are being built. There are the Can-Oat Milling facility located in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba and the Westglen/Agro Company of Canada venture, near my riding in Barrhead, Alberta. At the joint venture announcement last December, Dr. Elugh Homer, the president, stated: "The announcement in 1989 by the Hon. Charles Mayer, that oats would be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board's umbrella was a monumental step in the marketing of oats for Canada and a dominant factor in our decision to locate our new facility in Alberta." These ventures present opportunities both for oats farmers and for rural communities, for example, by way of new job creation.
Other companies such as United Grain Growers and Cargill Limited are responding to the growing demand for high quality oats by setting higher standards to meet market demands. They are rewarding producers of high quality oats with premium prices.
These are opportunities farmers would not have had if the proposal we are discussing today had been in place. Can-Oats has indicated in a letter to my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, that, as is the case for the plant in Alberta, it was in large part due to the decision on oats that they decided to build their Portage la Prairie plant.
The proposed bill is flawed in some of its basic assumptions. The member sponsoring this bill seems to believe that putting oats under the Canadian Wheat Board by statute would mean they could never be removed from the board's jurisdiction. He is wrong. Parliament could always vote to rescind such legislation. Passing this bill would only hobble the federal government's ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing market conditions. Farmers would just have to adapt to unfavourable conditions while Parliament goes through the long debates necessary to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Had oats remained under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, as this bill proposes, and had this government not had the foresight and understanding of the agriculture industry to ensure a market responsive process for selling oats, we would not be seeing processing
Private Members' Business
plants built in rural Canada, such as the one in Barrhead, Alberta. We would not be seeing farmers getting paid a premium for their high quality oats. More processing plants could be built in other rural communities.
That will not happen if we move backward and reverse the decision to allow the industry to market oats. That would tie the hands of those most directly affected. For example, during my recent constituency tour, some farmers, although very happy with crops, were disappointed at the prices and asked me why they could not market their own grain themselves, such as oats. They felt confident that they could sell it if given that opportunity.
I am confident that none of the members here today want to see such opportunities lost for rural communities, such as those in the Wetaskiwin constituency. I do not think anyone wants to see the potential for further growth of the industry nipped in the bud by a narrow and unreasonable view of the future of oats.
In allowing the industry to market oats, the government was confident that the farmers who grow oats and the processors who sell oats would act swiftly to take full advantage of new opportunities. An oats producer association has been formed in Alberta as producers acted for both their own and for the industry's best interests. These producers have demonstrated that they are willing and able to undertake the work of guiding and shaping a healthy oats industry.
Oats producers and Canadian grain traders have demonstrated that they are the ones who can best sell into niche markets. The Canadian Wheat Board has demonstrated its ability to market wheat and barley in the best interests of Canadian farmers on the international markets. Oats are a niche product. Oat export volumes and revenues are small in comparison to wheat and barley. They accounted for only 1.2 per cent of the total value of wheat marketing by the Wheat Board in 1986-87. Oats are more directly affected by changes in the international market, so they require the close attention of those most directly involved in production. By allowing the industry to market oats, this government freed oats producers and traders to undertake a concerted and successful drive to market Canadian oats. Our farmers have been aggressive and successful in their efforts to market Canadian oats. Would the hon. mem-

Private Members' Business
ber see his farming constituents' income reduced? I think not. And yet, his bill could have this effect.
Part of the success of letting industry handle oats marketing relates to the benefits of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The U.S. provides producers with a ready market for their product. Industry recognizes the possibilities. They are acting quickly to take advantage of the agreement that benefits Canadian farmers, because they now have the markets and the industrial support to make inroads into the U.S.
As pointed out by Can Oats, the Canada-U.S. trade agreement created an attractive and competitive environment for business by eliminating trade barriers between the two countries. This freedom to move into the marketplace helps oats farmers to maximize their sales and farm income. Oats producers now have new options available to them. These options enable producers to make the decisions that are best for them, decisions that are good for their own farms and for the health of the industry.
Let me give another example. The Oatman, a company started six years ago by Mr. Dennis Lank of Ponoka, began expanding two years ago into the United States and now into other parts of Canada. The Oatman is strictly in the horse industry and now continues to succeed and is planning to expand even further. With direct access to markets, oats producers now share the same benefit as other open market producers such as canola or other off-board grains. By watching cash and futures markets, talking to their local elevator manager and reading market publications, farmers have the price information they need, like those who deal directly and privately with the Oatman.
The federal government has a duty to help farmers develop this industry. Government must not take away the right and opportunity for farmers to decide for themselves how their industry should work. Consequently, Madam Speaker, I cannot support this bill.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, I support the principle of this bill. The principle of this private member's bill makes a lot of sense. I think my hon. friend, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, stated the case very well. I would not want to go over much of the ground already covered by my hon.
friend, but there are a number of things that I want to say about this bill and I might even, if I dare, draw on some of the rather cataclysmic events that have been evident on the Hill in the past few hours.
It seems that one of the basic lessons for all politicians and certainly for politicians in government is that you listen to the people. If this government had listened to the agricultural community many months ago in the spring, there would have been no need for this private member's bill, none whatsoever. We would not be discussing this private member's bill if the government had listened, if the government had not removed oats from the Canadian Wheat Board in the first place.
If the government had listened to the agricultural community, we would not be carrying on with this discussion today, but this government does not listen. It does not listen. For example, as my friend, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, said a few moments ago, 63 per cent of farmers surveyed did not want oats taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board, but this government went ahead and did so because it did not listen, it did not consult. In fact, that very same survey indicated that as few as 18 per cent of farmers who were surveyed felt that they were properly and adequately consulted by this government, specifically the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds. I think that is a pretty shabby record. We talk about reputable organizations like the prairie pools, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board. They all said this was bad, this would be a bad practice, that the government would regret, that it would rue the day doing this. But the government did not listen. It did not listen.
My hon. friend from Wetaskiwin said a few minutes ago that by returning oats to the Canadian Wheat Board and giving it the protection of statute, it would not stop this government or any future government to take oats away from the Canadian Wheat Board. Well, that is true. We know it is true. But I will tell you one thing. It would not allow the government to be so arbitrary. This government is inclined to be arbitrary, inclined not to consult, not to listen to the people of Canada.
October 5, 1990

I could touch on many subjects. It is not just taking oats away from the Canadian Wheat Board. I can go through a long list of subjects where the government has demonstrated over and over again: " It is our way or no way. We will not listen. We have an agenda and we are going to follow that agenda, and we do not give a darn." That is typical of this government.
If you go back a few months, what was the farming community saying to this government about interest-free cash advances? That program had been around for more than two decades and it had been palpably successful, demonstrably successful. The government did not listen. The government did not consult. It went ahead and said no, that it was cutting it. This was a marvellous program and in a relative sense, was a cheap program, about $25 million, but the goverrtment went right ahead and bulled its way through.
So where are we today? The farm community is going into a deepening crisis, further and further into a crisis, and now we are back to that issue of interest-free cash advances. Major organizations are saying they need it back.
I listened to a spokesperson, one of the parliamentary secretaries, this morning in Question Period. He indicated that there would be some announcement on interest-free cash advances. We hope that it is going to be a positive response and a positive answer. But again the basic lesson is to listen to the people.
I want to raise another matter that is related to this. That is high interest rates, particularly as they apply to western Canada and the agricultural community right across this country. High interest rates have been punishing. They have crucified the farmer. Yet the government ignores. Just this week we had the Economic Council of Canada saying that this government's monetary policy is not working. High interest rates are not working. But you do not sacrifice farmers anywhere in this country for the sake of taking some heat out of the economy in southern Ontario, in metro Toronto, for example. It is not the way to do it.
The government has been told this over and over again, but it will not listen.
Along the same theme the government has been told about the GST and farmers as consumers will pay the
Private Members' Business
GST, despite the fact of millions of petitions, telephone calls, and letters. Millions and millions of people have spoken out. The government is absolutely intransigent, absolutely stubborn on the point. It will not budge.
That brings me to the current events on this Hill. Why do you think that we have this debacle on the Hill. Why do you think what is happening is happening over in the other place? It is because we have a government that is intent upon pushing people beyond their limits.
People can take only so much, and then they reach their breaking point. That is where we are in this country today. It is not normal for hon. senators to stay up all night. They normally go to bed. It is not normal for them to go through some of the strange things that they have the last few hours, but they have been pushed to the wall.
We have been pushed to the wall in this House. Groups have been pushed to the wall. All Canadians have been pushed to the wall, because this government is absolutely bloody-minded. It takes the simplistic notion: "We won the election. We have the numbers, and because we have the numbers we can do anything."
I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that if every Canadian took that attitude, this country would be in chaos. I can tell you about major corporations. They own all the equity. They own all the shares, and they are the bosses. The shareholders are the bosses, but if they do not operate with consensus, if they do not have their workers with them, if there is no mutual respect, if there is no fairness, there will be a breakdown. This government will not understand that. That is why we are where we are today.
I would say in my few moments left that on this issue of the oats being where they ought to be, with the Canadian Wheat Board, the government should listen. There are all kinds of problems. Bankruptcies have gone up sharply in the last few months, and the government better listen.
The debt problem which has been in existence now in a very serious way for about 15 years, and it is getting worse, is something the government is going to have to address very seriously. It cannot just follow its internal agenda as if nobody else counts.

Private Members' Business
I support this bill. It is good in principle, and it is too bad that we could not vote on it.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the debate initiated today by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It is a credible piece of private members' legislation to place before the House in so much as the issue is one that is arguable.
Obviously, as members who represent rural and western constituencies, we know that there is a divergence of view with respect to the question as to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have a point of order.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I just want to point out that I think we have to follow some rules in this House.
I just saw the member for Portage taking something that he should not have on his desk.


An hon. member:: It is coffee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I did not see whatever the hon. member is mentioning. I am sure that hon. members know that there should be no food or anything in the House except for our precious glass of water, even on Friday afternoon.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I might like to have one of those precious glasses of water.


An hon. member:: Before you sell it to the Americans.


Arnold John Malone: Now, there is somebody who would not sell something when there is a market available.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville would like to enter into the debate. I invite him to come forward, to take his seat and to sit down.
It is about an issue that has some impact on Saskatchewan. It might be worthy of the hon. member to pay note to it. It deals with oats.
The reason I so seriously want to enter into this debate is that while oats are grown in every region of Canada, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, the hon. member for Macleod and myself, who are in this Chamber, can claim that we come from the oats province.
The province of Alberta is the largest producer of oats anywhere in Canada. We produce about 40 per cent plus of the oats.
This issue impacts very much on the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and the hon. member for Peace River. The major oat growers are in those two constituencies of that province. The fact of the matter is that of the cereal grains in our country only about 5 per cent have traditionally been oats in the last 15 years. Some 90 per cent of the oats the oats that were grown were consumed for feed and another 5 per cent was used for seed, so only 5 per cent of the oats was being marketed.
Anybody who does even a rudimentary analysis of the Canadian Wheat Board and how it operates and works clearly recognizes that put in place there is an agency that is best suited for selling massive volumes of grain particularly into export markets. It does it by shiploads and by large contracts, usually dealing in multiple millions and often into the billions of dollar contracts. Most of our contracts with the Soviet Union are in the neighbourhood of $5 billion. That is not what is happening to the oats industry.
The oats industry for some 15 years now has been an industry that markets largely to the race horse industry in the United States. It sells in 25 to 100 pound bags and into truckload lots. It leaves from the farm gate and heads to specific sources located in another country. More recently, in this past decade, there has been an upsurge of interest in oats as a health food.
What we have, as was correctly described by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, is niche markets, small selective markets. That is not what the Canadian Wheat Board was best able to advantage the farmers to move into. He cites and lays before the House of Commons his evidence that says that farmers were opposed to this.
I recognize that taken in the over all there was an opinion from farmers all across the prairies that somehow this might be weakening the Canadian Wheat Board. But when we take a look at who were the farmers that grew the oats as a industry for export, it was those very farmers who came to government and said: "We request that we have the privilege and the opportunity to
October 5, 1990

create our own market, because the Canadian Wheat Board is not opening up the markets for us and is not doing it in significant enough volumes".
It was because of the growers who grew for an industry, who grew for export, and whose business it was to be in the oats industry that the government responded and met that market. Then came the argument from the hon. member that he can now demonstrate that we can see the results of this move of folly undertaken by the government because the prices are low. It used to be higher. The Canadian Wheat Board dealt with it. The prices are low now, therefore there is a connection.
How convenient it was that he also forgot to add the enormity of the surplus of the feed grains in every grain growing region of the world and that it is not the case of the marketing situation. It would not matter if the Canadian Wheat Board was marketing it now. When you have enormous surpluses around the world in feed grains, obviously you are going to have a decrease in price. It is not a change in the marketing system that has impacted on price. It is intellectually wrong to try and draw that connection and to lay it before people as if somehow there is a connection between the two.


Raymond John Funk: It brought the prices up.


Arnold John Malone: I want to hitchhike on that bit of shouting from across the way. The hon. member says that the prices went up. I very much believe that that is the pressure and that will be the absolute result of being able to self-market in a small percentage of an industry where you have the opportunity to find those markets and to hit the foods.
There are three major plants in Canada that are expanding: two in Ontario and one in Alberta. They are spending multiples of millions of dollars to build new oat facilities, signalling the fact that there is a new confidence in the oat industry after years and years of decline in oat processing in this country. We then change the process and, within the year, three new plants spend multiples of millions of dollars to make the oat industry expand.
I have no qualm with any argument saying that the prices are going up. What my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin said precisely was that high quality oat prices are going up. That market is being met. It is only the
Private Members' Business
lower grade qualities that are lacking in price of any substantive amount and that is because there is a surplus of feed grains in the market.
I would like to come back to the other allegation that was made by hon. members opposite, that in the consulting process the Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba wheat pools were not consulted. The truth of the matter is that I have not seen much more enthusiasm for the opportunity to market oats than there was by the agency called Excel in Calgary. It said it could meet the market, find the niches, put oats in and, given the long haul, it would advantage farmers in a very significant way. Excel is an agency of the Alberta Wheat Pool.
In speaking at the time that this move was made, I was told by officials of the Alberta Wheat Pool that they would take a public face against this. At the same time one of their agencies was telling me that it was quite enthusiastically looking forward to marketing oats. It believed that there was an opportunity for a broadening of the market and that more farmers would be able to grow oats because they would be able to market more oats than the present system was able to do.
Where do we come back to when we come full circle on this argument? This is not a question of, as I think the NDP is trying to impute upon the government, an intent to weaken the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not the view of the Government of Canada. We believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. We believe it is doing a good job. We have taken a single commodity that represented 2 per cent of the total marketing capacity which was not being marketed adequately and have said that there is a better approach. It is going to demonstrate itself that it will be a better approach. That being done, advantaging farmers, the NDP has not recognized that the Wheat Board markets better to the larger volumes on the international scale. This is a niche market aimed at a racehorse industry, farm to farm, farm to farm, or from farm to processor to the food industry in the specialized rolled oat industry.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. His time has now expired.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-230 standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

October 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
This bill goes back to the spring of 1989 when the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds unilaterally announced that he was taking the marketing of oats from under the arm of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is interesting that this government which used to talk a great deal about consulting with Canadians did precious little if any consultation with Canadian farmers in western Canada when he took this action.
It seems that he consulted with the Canadian wheat growers, the barley growers, the canola growers, the hog and beef producers, but for some reason or other he did not take any time to consult with oat growers. If he had consulted with some of the big farm organizations like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the Prairie Pools Incorporated, which have something like 130 farm members, he would have found out that the farmers did not want oats removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw is proposing to put this back under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is very interesting that hon. members who spoke this afternoon from the government side suggested that somehow the hon. member was not making the presentation in a very fair way.
The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee had its district meeting in the spring of 1989. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin who spoke this afternoon was saying that this was a great thing. If the hon. member for Wetaskiwin had taken time to attend that meeting in the spring of 1989, he would have found that 82 farmers showed up at the Wetaskiwin meeting-I assume he did not himself-and that a motion was put to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and it passed 53 to 8. If he attended that same meeting in his own home town, he would have known that a motion was passed to remove the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. They called on the Prime Minister to take that action and that was passed, likewise, by a vote of 36 to 21.
The hon. member for Crowfoot would know, if he had taken the time to analyse the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee meetings, that similar meetings calling not only for the reinstatement of oats to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, and in many
cases calling for the removal of the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds were held in Stettler, in Westlock, in La Crete, in Spirit River, and in Valleyview. Then he would not be opposing this motion which is before the House today.
If we look at what has happened to oat prices since the minister's announcement, we could hardly get a more dramatic telling of a tale. I believe the announcement came some time in January 1989, and the top price for oats at that time was $156 a tonne. Today, in October 1990, only some 18 months later, that price has dropped to $109 a tonne. We can see that removing oats from the Wheat Board may have done something for those producers that the minister consulted with, most of them not oat producers but barley producers, wheat producers, canola producers and others that he claims to have consulted with, and perhaps some of the livestock groups. It really has not done much for securing new niche markets or ensuring the stability of the industry. In fact it has gone down very dramatically.
What we face today is a government that is determined, through free trade and through supporting and assisting large grain marketing agencies, to try to break orderly marketing in this country. Unfortunately, it is doing too good a job in my opinion. Removing oats is the first step. Barley will likely be next. Ultimately, if it was around long enough which I do not believe it will be, it would eventually disband the Canadian Wheat Board.
Clearly, if we meet privately with the representatives of the Saskatchewan Pool, the Alberta Pool or Manitoba Pool, they will tell us that as the borders are opened up under that free trade deal the power and the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to be severely tested.
I believe that two things happened in the spring of 1989. It is hard to tell which one was the most harmful but removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board was very harmful. Equally harmful was the budget of the great and powerful Michael Wilson because in that budget, in the spring of 1989, he removed one-half billion dollars of support to Canadian agriculture, everything from dairy support programs, to crop insurance, to prairie agriculture rehabilitation of branch lines, to the advance payment program, to the at and east program, to a whole broad range.

What we have as our negotiators sit down at GATT this fall in Geneva is a Canadian agriculture industry which is on its knees praying, not negotiating from a position of strength like the United States or the European Economic Community negotiators, that they will get some kind of a deal out of the GATT negotiations. The reason they are in that position is because the government has totally disarmed them to fight the subsidy war. They come to the negotiating table with no armaments. It would be like sending our ships off to the Persian Gulf without the proper armaments, without the proper military equipment. That is the position our negotiators are in.
This fall farmers growing wheat in western Canada can deliver something like three bushels per acre. That amounts to about $12 best. That is No. 1 wheat. How can a farmer spending $70 or $80 an acre to put in a crop survive? He cannot. So we go to that table having to make a deal.
Last fall, for three or four months we pleaded with the Minister of Agriculture not to take away the interest-free cash advances. It is a very inexpensive program for the Government of Canada, something like $25 million or $27 million. It provides in the short term, six to nine months, something like $400 million or $500 million of cash flow. It increases the value of the crop. It gives the farmer flexibility. They would not do it.
Everybody opposed it, with the exception perhaps of the western Canadian wheat growers, who now have reversed their position and even they oppose it. The farmer has absolutely no cash flow this fall. What will happen, nobody knows. Hopefully the Minister of Agriculture will come to his senses and reinstate it at least for this year. It will not be enough. It might be only half a billion dollars but it will provide some cash flow.
Those actions by the government have put our negotiators at GATT in a very weak position. We are moving away from orderly marketing. This bill moves us back towards orderly marketing. Therefore, I hope that at the end of the day the government might consider supporting it.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and support my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and the other
Private Members' Business
members who have spoken eloquently in support of this bill. I think it is a veiy well thought out and timely bill that he has presented, and one that I think all sectors of the farm community would like to see us move on.
What particularly struck me though were the interventions from the government side of the House in defence of the really indefensible action of taking oats out of the Wheat Board in the arbitrary fashion that it did a year and a half ago. Their defence, I think, indicates quite clearly to everybody why this party, the political party that used to represent the public opinion of half the people on the prairies has now been reduced to a rump on the prairies, the fourth place party on the prairies and sinking even lower. They have lost touch, they do not consult, they do not have any respect for the traditional institutions of the prairies, they are letting their traditional support from the farm community whither away.
Farmers are falling like flies, but because a few of their friends are becoming millionaires, they are saying that everything is a success.
So as to allow the members here to be able to vote on this bill, not talk out the clock, I would like to sum up my remarks and ask the government to allow a vote on this issue.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Madam Speaker, I wonder as a question of clarification how much time do I really have to speak-two minutes?
I would like to clarify a couple of points that were brought up earlier. It is pretty clear to me, and I think to most knowledgeable observers here today, that the debate is really not about whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board is good or bad. I think we all agree that the Canadian Wheat Board has a very important role and maintains a very important place in the marketing of prairie agricultural products.
But I think it is important to point out that oats was causing trouble for the Wheat Board itself. It cost the Canadian Wheat Board a tremendous amount to handle most of the small orders that were being placed for oats. Most of the oat growers are small specialized growers and the transaction costs of the Wheat Board handling these orders was tremendous. Also, it applied cost to all the activities of the Wheat Board.

Private Members' Business
I was asked by the hon. member for Portage-Interlake-known by his oat farmers as the hon. member from Porridge-Interlake-to draw to the attention of the House a story dated October 26, 1989 in the Manitoba Co-operator. This is directly germane to the discussion earlier by my colleague opposite, who suggested that there was nothing going on in the prairies to take advantage of the market for oats. Here is a story that tells us all about it. Let me quote:
Free trade and the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board are responsible for an oat processing mill to be built near Portage la Prairie according to the company's president.
A $17 million mill, when completed in 1991, will sell 70 per cent of its production to the U.S., said William Kent, president and chief executive officer of Can-Oat Milling Inc., a Manitoba-based company.
The Canada-U.S. free trade deal broadens the new company's ability to market its product, Kent said.
"We are looking at North America as a total market, not just Canada. Without free trade we would not have-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 28(1), the House stands adjourned until next Thesday at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 9,1990