1990-05-17

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am aware that this morning you were given notice of a question of privilege. In the interest of getting Routine Proceedings out of the way, and especially the tabling of the important report of the Meech committee and putting it before the people of Canada, it would be agreeable if we have Routine Proceedings first and then proceed with the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the forty-first report of the Striking Committee.



COMMITTEE TO STUDY A PROPOSED COMPANION RESOLUTION TO THE MEECH LAKE ACCORD

['I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.']
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Special Committee to study a Proposed Companion Resolution to the Meech Lake Accord.

It is the belief of the committee members that the conclusions and recommendations, and there are more than 20 of them, reached after hearing 160 witnesses and receiving more than 800 written submissions, may form the basis for resolving the current constitutional impasse by the June 23 deadline.
Mr. Speaker, your committee concludes that a companion resolution process that formally adds to the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord, without subtracting from it, has the best prospect of solving the current constitutional impasse. I wish to point out that such a companion resolution can only be negotiated by First Ministers.
Committee members agree, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations must maintain the perspective of the statement made at the meeting of provincial Premiers in the summer of 1986, to the effect that the constitutional talks should be aimed at bringing Quebec back as an active participant in the Canadian Constitution.

May 17, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Furthermore, this process-and this was stressed by witnesses who appeared before the committee-must also include recognition of the five proposals made by Quebec.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the committee who participated in this veiy difficult task. It is my information that we are probably the parliamentary committee that has travelled the most, heard the most witnesses, and received the most written submissions in the shortest period of time ever. Also, it was a first for the Elouse of Commons to have one of its committees' activities and hearings televised as it travelled all through Canada.
If there is one thing out of this experience that all members of the committee feel very strongly, it is that it was an opportunity for us to learn from each other and to learn from other Canadians.
I also want to thank the staff who supported us in this work and who went well beyond the call of duty in helping this committee and the Parliament of Canada to accomplish its work.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the report is unanimous.
[.Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [English]


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that there is unanimous consent to permit a representative from each of the opposition parties to make a statement matching the statement made by the chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy happy to have been able to work on this committee and, like the chairman, I am happy that we were able to produce an unanimous report.
We were rushed by our timetable and our fellow Canadians did not have as much of an opportunity to prepare themselves or to appear in front of us as they deserved. On the other hand, I want to acknowledge that
we heard a wide cross-section of views covering the waterfront, that no views were excluded, and that we were honoured to have appear before us a number of premiers of the provinces of Canada.
The strongest message that we got in our travels across the country is that the Canadian people want their political leaders to take them through this impasse. The unanimous report is motivated by that strong message.
Why were we called into existence? In the opinion of the opposition, we were called into existence as a committee because of a tactic imposed three years ago by the Prime Minister, against the wishes of the opposition, which prevented real public discussion and input until now.
Some people want to say that what has happened over the past three years can be interpreted-


Mr. Speaker:: I know there is consent for a response to the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I am just wondering where this response is taking us. I am concerned about it turning into a debate on matters extraneous to the immediate filing of the unanimous committee report.
I would ask the hon. member to keep that in mind. I would hope that we would not meet with points of order at this point at such a moment in our country. I would ask the hon. member to try to confine his remarks to the committee and to the report that the committee has filed. I do not think it is appropriate to get into a long debate about things that may or may not have happened many months ago.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to make a statement at this time if I will be denied the opportunity to make a statement equal in length to that of the chairman, giving the views of the official opposition on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. I understand that today, members have a chance to comment briefly on the tabling of the report. This was agreed to earlier by the House. Am I right? My point is, Mr. Speaker, that if a member other than the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) is allowed to state his views, be it ever so briefly, on the report or the tabling of the report in the House, this automatically
May 17, 1990

gives other members of the House the same right. It is all or nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the situation is clear. With consent of the House, the government, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party apparently agreed there would be a statement by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, by the hon. member for York Centre and by another member for the New Democratic Party, but that's all. According to the Standing Orders, statements are not appropriate, except by the member tabling the committee report, unless there is consent. There is no consent for debate, only for a statement by the three parties in the House.

Very reluctantly, I have had to suggest that the commentary in response to the hon. member for Sherbrooke should be confined to the committee report and its contents and the activities of the committee.
I felt that it was not appropriate on this occasion. I have some sense that there may not be even consent for a wide-ranging debate that goes back into matters that led up to the matter.
The hon. member for York Centre has said that he wishes to defer his statements to another time because he feels he has a position to put forward. I think that that is where we should leave it.
The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead wants an opportunity to comment on the report. That opportunity is available by taking steps to put a motion for concurrence on the Order Paper and within 48 hours that matter can be called in the House. If the hon. member wishes to do that, he would be able to start off by having a full 20-minute debate, and other members, of course, could join in. So there is the opportunity to make representations, if the hon. member wishes to avail himself of those procedures.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this clarification. You will realize that I refuse to give unanimous consent. I refuse to consent to a debate, even by representatives of the three parties. And if as I see it, the consent of members of this House must be unanimous, it
Routine Proceedings
should be obvious to the Chair that consent has not been given.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the difficulty is that consent was obtained. I have taken it upon myself to limit the tone of the debate and received co-operation. I will now hear the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I join with pride the chairman of our committee and the representative of the Liberal party, and on behalf of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, by saying that today is an historic day in this country.
What we have done with our report is to set the table for what is the constitutional accommodation that will bring Quebec into the constitutional family of Canada, which is extremely important. At the same time I believe that we have addressed the concerns and the suggestions of other people to make one united Canada, which is the most important thing.
Mr. Speaker, I believe and I hope that we have found national accommodation for national reconciliation. We have respected the conditions set by the Province of Quebec, and we have also considered the concerns of other Canadians across this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers to act. It is time to act now, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today, signed by numerous residents of Sarnia, Ontario and some from Vancouver as well, who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
These petitioners indicate that the government has imposed something like 31 tax increases since it took office in 1984. They object to the imposition of further taxes in the form of the goods and services tax and they call upon Parliament to reject this tax.

May 17, 1990
Privilege


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to join my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, in presenting a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, regarding the government's intention to proceed with the goods and services tax.
These petitioners from Merritt and Kamloops, British Columbia point out the very detrimental effect this tax will have on their lives and ask the Parliament of Canada to do what it can to encourage the government to back off from this tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, the petitioners again from Kamloops, British Columbia, point out that they feel the government's decision to cut back on passenger rail service in Canada was a very regrettable step. They are suggesting that the government consider modernizing VIA Rail services so that the second largest country in the world, Canada, can have a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation by maintaining our passenger rail service at an advanced level in the country.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 wish to table a petition which concerns the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women from the workplace.
The Canada Labour Code must observe the principle set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is thus supposed to protect the rights of women.
The regulations on compensation for pregnant women do not consider all the demands of the workplace.
The option of preventive withdrawal from the workplace for pregnant women is one that is both desirable and necessary for women working outside the home.
Mr. Speaker, I myself signed this petition, with residents of Senneterre and Val d'Or who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to give serious consideration to the shortcomings of the legislation when the Canada Labour Code is reviewed and recognize the need for including
provisions in the Code concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women from the workplace.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present petitions from residents of southwestern Ontario who continue to call upon this government to withdraw its 7 per cent goods and services tax as it will be inflationary and make us less competitive in the world.
I call upon this government to respect the wishes of the Canadian people and withdraw this tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that I have received notice of a question of privilege, first in point of time from the hon. member for Dartmouth, and a second question of privilege from the hon. member for Sudbury.
In reading the notices which both the hon. members have filed with me, it is not completely clear but I suspect that the issue is the same.
I am wondering if the hon. members could clarify that for me because if it is the same issue, I will hear it as one application. Is that agreed?


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Yes.


Ms. Marleau:: Yes.


Mr. Andre:: I will not delay the proceedings, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately I have an appointment in my office shortly and I will have to depart before I can hear all the comments. I would like to have the opportunity to respond prior to a decision, if you feel it is appropriate to hear a response before making your decision. If you should find that there is no prima facie evidence, I would not want to delay that decision. However, if you feel it is
May 17, 1990

necessary to hear arguments on the other side of the question, I would appreciate an opportunity to give them.


Mr. Speaker:: If I feel it necessary to call on counsel, I will make the appropriate arrangements. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Always, Mr. Speaker, without prejudice to establishing a precedent here, but if it is the minister's intention to establish that kind of a precedent, then I would certainly like to have that in our rules, but the Speaker has to decide that more than us, so I leave it to the Speaker to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: So hon. members and the public understand, there could be a little bit of a difficulty here. When a notice of privilege is given to the Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to treat that notice of privilege with absolute confidence. In other words, the Speaker cannot tell other members that there is a motion coming on a question of privilege.
The reason for the confidentiality is that until a member rises on a question of privilege or indicates to the Speaker that he or she is going to rise, the member has the right to stay quiet in his or her seat and at that point the application dies.
The hon. House leader for the government does not have notice, and has heard nothing about this until I rose a few minutes ago. He may not be able to stay here for the full argument, but he wants the opportunity to come back, if necessary, and address the Chair. I do not treat that as a precedent. I treat it as the discretion of the Chair in handling an argument.
On the other hand, the Chair is always in the hands of hon. members. If it suited hon. members to put off the argument of this application to a time when all members on both sides of the issue could be in the Chamber, that is easily arranged and I would be quite prepared to do so. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I know that we are anxious to get on with dealing with the health of animals and the plant protection act. Knowing that some people have other commitments, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to revisit this at three o'clock when there will be an opportunity to have all parties here and able to make representations, if they wish.
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of members. It might suit the government side to do that. The hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with this matter this morning. I rise today on a point of privilege to bring to the attention of members and Your Honour the issue of untrue and misleading advertising by the Department of Finance which is being broadcast on radio stations from coast to coast.
According to Standing Order 48(2), I bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker in the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I offer transcripts of the ads for the table and the Clerk, and they may, if they choose, read the text of these into the record.
This is not the first time that this issue was before this House, Mr. Speaker. You will recall the representations made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra on September 25, 1989, concerning the placement of advertisements in newspapers. On October 10, you delivered a very important and historic ruling. I would like to quote from a section of your ruling found in Hansard, of October 10 at page 4461.
However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case, which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.
The misleading ads have returned, and the sequel as I will argue is worse than the first series. First, we are dealing with a different medium. As we all know, an ad in the newspaper is a matter of the written word which can be read and reread at the discretion of the individual reader. For instance, a reader can seek-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have the general gist of the hon. member's complaint, and I thank him for giving me a copy of the radio advertisement. In assisting me, I would ask him to direct his argument to where there has been a breach of privilege.
It may have been by way of radio, television or signboard. That may be of some interest if it turns on the question of privilege, which has been breached as the hon. member argues.

May 17, 1990
Privilege


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the House would allow me a very few moments to unfurl my argument, you will find that I am stating a case of privilege. This is a very important matter. Therefore, I believe it is important to lay the groundwork. I will continue.
For instance, a reader can seek clarification by referring to a specific text. In the case of radio ads, the listener has no such recourse. Therefore, in my view it is a medium which is more easily manipulated because the information is very selective. It is disseminated in a matter of mere seconds, and the first impression is usually a lasting one.
In light of these facts, it is incumbent upon those who use this medium to be responsible and provide an accurate message which should not be deceptive or misleading. I submit the Department of Finance has failed once again to honour this important obligation.
I would like to read into the record the text of an ad which was broadcast to my constituents and other listeners.


An hon. member:: Come on.


Mr. Speaker:: The ad is short, and there is no reason why it should not be read into the record. Having got it into the record, I want to hear where the breach of privilege is.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will.
The ad mentions a number of things which are inconsistent. I think they are a false reporting of the papers of this place. The ad states: "Number one, this is not an additional tax since it replaces the current federal sales tax." This is simply not true. "We know from records that have been placed on the table that the GST will apply to many services that are now untaxed."
The ad also says-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair is having is that this is getting into a continuation of the debate that takes place in the House day after day after day on this.
The government has one version of the facts and others dispute that. They have a different version. That in itself does not create a question of privilege. An application for privilege should be confined to what way this ad has breached an hon. member's privilege or in
what way this ad amounts to a contempt of the House. That is what I would have to decide.
I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to allow this to get into a general, long, broad-ranging debate on different views of what the particular tax does. I give as an example, and I am reading what the hon. member has kindly given me: "It is not an additional tax since it replaces the current federal sales tax." That statement in could invite a great deal of comment one way or the other. I do not think it is appropriate that we get into a debate on that here.
If there is a clear statement here which is so inappropriate that it affects the rights and duties of a member in carrying on those rights and duties in the Chamber, then we have to consider whether that is privilege. If it is so outrageous that it is a contempt of Parliament then that, of course, is what I have to consider.
I would ask the hon. member to remember that this is not a place to get into a general wide ranging debate on the whole question of whether the proposed tax is or is not a replacement of another tax or to the degree that it replaces or does not replace it. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, this is the first time I have raised a point of privilege in the House. I have done my best to keep with the record of what is appropriate for points of privilege.
I will shorten my argument considerably. If anyone reads that ad, it is quite clear in my view that the spirit of the Speaker's ruling of October 10 has been violated. At the very beginning of the one-minute ad, the word "proposed" is there. No where else in the ad does it mention that this is a proposed tax that has not passed all the legislative process.
In addition, when dealing with the actual wording, which I think is very important, and I think the Speaker would agree, in situations such as this it does not say that the proposed GST "would", it says that the GST "will". That is quite an important word.
I read through the submission by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and I carefully read the ruling of the Speaker. We seem to be in a position where the record of this place is being misrepresented. It may only be by a word, but it is something that must be stopped.
May 17, 1990

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that a careful reading of your ruling of October 10 and a careful reading of what the government is now putting forward will show that it is a legitimate complaint by myself and other members, that this is a misrepresentation of what has taken place in this House, and I believe it is in contempt of your ruling of October 10.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is incumbent upon this place to rule on this type of behaviour. If any other private individual or company did such a thing, there are rules and laws which we pass here, enforced by the CRTC and the misleading advertising section of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Governments do not come under those particular regulations. I think it is incumbent upon members of this place and the Speaker to ensure that representations of what takes place in this place are true and correct, and do not even lead to the impression of falseness.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the arguments of my colleague as we have both been very distressed by these ads.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of comments made in this House in 1980 with regard to misleading advertising by the hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in- Simcoe. On October 22, 1980, he asked this question in the House.
"May I ask the minister", whichever minister it was, "how he can justify his double standard of exempting the government from provisions regarding false and misleading advertising where false and misleading advertising by the private sector would result in criminal charges being laid by the government?"


An hon. member:: Isn't he a minister now?


Diane Marleau: Yes, he is. Mr. Speaker, I understand that at present there is no body that rules over misleading advertising broadcast by the government. The government could at least be reminded to apply the same standards as apply to the public in the promotion of a service or a product. There is no body to rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker, except yourself.
Privilege
The integrity of the House of Commons is at stake and the reputation of all of its members. We must protect Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to read from page 196 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada regarding contempt of the House. It states:
Contempt is whatever the House finds as contempt -
I think that is the case we are actually making at the moment.
-any act-which obstructs or impedes -any member-of the
House in the discharge of his "parliamentary" duty,-
It goes on to elaborate on that point. To support the point made by the hon. member for Dartmouth, this morning I was listening to one of the country and western stations and heard the ad which said that the proposed goods and services tax is not an additional tax.
The minute I heard that I realized that my constituents, recalling what I have been telling them for the past year, may wonder if I have been telling the truth because I have been saying that on hair cuts, movie tickets and laundry bills they will have to pay a tax, items on which they have never paid a tax before. This is a brand new, first-time tax. The ad says this is not an additional tax, not a new tax. That is a misrepresentation of what this House has actually passed.
I support the point made by my hon. friend from Dartmouth that this tax is not through Parliament. Mr. Speaker, as your ruling indicated, we are in a parliamentary democracy and this legislation is only half-way through the process. I am assuming that the Liberal senators will stop this bill so this will become an irrelevant tax.
However, I want to say I believe there has been a contempt of the House when a finance department advertisement broadcast on radio this morning indicated that this was not a new tax. I, and I am sure my colleagues here from all sides of the House, have been telling their constituents that this is a new tax. We have never seen this tax. I am sure my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary from Alberta, knows that certainly in that province it will be a new tax. Alberta does not have any kind of sales tax at this point, particularly on service.

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
I am afraid there is definitely a contempt of the House and I would like to lend my support to the words of my hon. friend from Dartmouth.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point and I have the transcript. I understand the argument that has been put to me and I will consider the matter and report back to the House as soon as I can. The hon. minister.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment in response to the House leader of the New Democratic Party. He talked about the fact that there is no tax in this country, that the GST is a new tax. He specifically mentioned Alberta. The hon. member should know, an Albertan should know, that in fact they pay $2 billion a year in tax and-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the co-operation of the House and ask hon. members to remember that what I have to determine is whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt of the House. That is the sole issue. I have heard enough argument to be able to make that decision one way or the other and I have indicated that there is no need for further argument on this. I would ask members to co-operate with me. I will report back to the House on this matter as soon as I can.
The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: I do not wish to enter into the argument. I just wish to draw the attention of the Speaker to citation 62 of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-66, an act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: In respect of this bill, C-66, and the next bill, C-67, I believe there is unanimous disposition on the part of the House that the two be referred to the same legislative committee.
While the motion may not have to be changed on this particular bill, I wonder if on the next one it could be made clear, and perhaps the Table could assist on this, that when the question is put it is by unanimous consent that after the bill receives second reading, it is referred to the same legislative committee to which Bill C-66 is referred.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I would just like to indicate that indeed we agree with this sensible proposal and would support it. I think it is a good idea.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too want to suggest that there have been discussions. We felt that this was a way to deal most expeditiously with these two related bills. I support the suggestion made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank all hon. members. We will make sure that when we do present the next bill whatever needs to be done will be done.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House for second reading legislation amending the Animal Disease and Protection Act.
The current act has provided a sound base on which Agriculture Canada implemented its national animal health program, but it is showing the afflictions of age and time has exposed some weaknesses. Technological advances and public demands for the highest standards in agricultural products, increased competition in the world market-place, and the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have produced a new urgency for legislation that will guide us into the 1990s.
The amendments before the House will revitalize our animal health legislation. They reflect national demands for a continued high level of animal health, consumer demands for top quality products, and international demands for world-class agricultural products.
The current Animal Disease and Protection Act, originally passed in 1869 and last amended 14 years ago, has been revised to meet the demands of the next decade. The act has been substantially improved to control animal diseases that may be passed to people and to ensure toxic substances do not contaminate domestic
May 17, 1990

livestock. More than ever producers and consumers are concerned about the dangers to people from tainted animals and animal products. Many animal diseases such as salmonellosis in poultry, trichinosis in pork, and rabies can cause serious human illness. The act has been amended to prevent, control, and eliminate animal diseases that can harm the public.
A second substantial change in the act prevents the introduction and spread of toxic substances. Increasing consumer concerns about residues in food prompted this revision. The authority to deal with animals in relation to pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics is currently embodied in a separate piece of legislation: the Meat Hygiene Act.
The Meat Hygiene Act applies only to animals after they arrive at a registered slaughterhouse. Provisions in the Animal Disease and Protection Act that deal with the importation, movement, disposal, and control of diseased animals will also refer to animals and animal products contaminated with toxins.
One of the provisions of this new act will provide for cost recovery mechanisms by Agriculture Canada. The cost of conducting inspections, taking samples, issuing permits to those who import animals, isolating animals at quarantine stations, and providing other services under the Health of Animals Act will be eligible for recovery.
Industries are demanding more assistance from the department and, where appropriate, these costs will be borne by the industry and importers who seek the department's services or those who, by their negligence, jeopardize the health of people or livestock. The public purse will not be obligated to pay for facilities to inspect for animal disease. New provisions will provide the minister with the authority to require operators of air, road, rail, and sea terminals to allocate at no cost to the Crown space and facilities for the administration of the act.
The revisions I have mentioned so far address urgent matters, but the bill before the House also addresses other important areas. The cumbersome system that now compensates producers when diseased animals are destroyed has been replaced by a more flexible and equitable system. Cost to producers will be recovered in cases
Government Orders
where the government decides that affected animals should be treated rather than destroyed.
In addition to the new compensation system, the Health of Animals Act will make it easier for producers to comply with quarantines and other orders issued by Agriculture Canada. These modifications remove the obligation of an inspector to declare any premises "infected" where the inspector finds or suspects disease. This obligation causes hardships for producers who must comply with the strict requirements imposed on infected places.
Clarification of the compensation system is another improvement. Under the previous act appeal procedures for compensating producers when the department orders their animals or animal products destroyed were vague or referred to in other legislation. The Pesticide Residue Compensation Act and procedures to appeal compensation claims are now provided in the new act.
A new section in the act authorizes the department to provide financial and technical expertise to foreign countries. The current acts force the government to bide its time, waiting for the problem to reach Canadian shores. This new provision, however, will allow Canada to assist another country to eradicate serious animal diseases before they arrive and jeopardize the health of our domestic animal populations.
Under the current mandate inspectors cannot stop and search vehicles on the highway, even when they have reason to suspect that they carry animals that may be diseased or otherwise pose health problems. The lack of authority is rectified in the revised act, and there are other amendments specific to the act.
The department's powers to seize or detain animals and animal products have been extended to close loopholes. Currently inspectors may only order the return of animals or products if they are removed from an infected place. They may not, however, seize and detain animals and/or their products.
This legal gap seriously hampers the inspectors' efforts to control disease, and a new section will authorize officials to seize anything that contravenes the act or its regulations. Another amendment establishes a new national identification system for animals. This system will identify an animal's most recent owner and location. When a diseased animal is found it can be quickly traced back to a specific farm, helping the department to ensure

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
that other animals at the farm do not spread the disease. The department will be given the authority to conduct surveys to help determine if a disease is present and the extent of economic loss that results from an outbreak. Statistics on animals will be readily available.
The new act also recognizes that disease and pests can enter Canada indirectly. Garbage generated on international ships entering Canadian waters or on aircraft landing on Canadian soil presents a serious risk of introducing animal diseases. The new legislation will continue to ensure that garbage is properly handled and disposed of when it is discharged on our shores. The department has new powers to control animal disease vectors: insects or other animals that can carry disease from one organism to another.
One new section in the Health of Animals Act specifically empowers the department to dispose of vectors. Another section provides for regulations to control importing and exporting vectors and also specifies the method of treating, destroying and separating them from healthy animals.
One of the weaknesses of the current act is that necessary controls are assumed or are simply not clear. Now the obligations and duties of anyone handling animals and their products, including diseased cultures, are written in more detail and in a style that is readily understandable.
Amendments also update and simplify legal requirements. The penalties for contravening the act have been updated. The new penalties include ticketing for minor offences. This procedure is similar to that of a police officer handing out tickets for traffic violations and avoids the current procedure of having the accused appear before a judge, even if the accused is pleading guilty.
The revised act protects the rights of individual citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An inspector may not enter a dwelling place without the occupant's consent or without a warrant issued by a magistrate. The powers of the Governor in Council, the minister and inspectors have
also been recast to ensure they are compatible with the charter.
The new act is the culmination of experience. All public and private groups directly affected by this legislation have been consulted. Provincial governments, the departments of the environment, revenue, and health and welfare, the trade negotiations office, industry, and interested members of the public had input into the contents of this bill. All agree that amendments are necessary, and all continue to support the principles of this bill.
The Health of Animals Act has several benefits. Agriculture Canada will be better able to control animal diseases. The department will be sensitive to changes in technological and trade practices and thus react reasonable to them.
The department will be able to enforce the act and its regulations, ensuring that there are few infractions. It will be possible to recover costs for certain services and programs. The department will be ensuring the rights of individual citizens as required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Amendments to this legislation reaffirm the government's commitment to safe and healthy livestock. The act has been revised to clarify responsibilities, reinforce controls, and take into account modem technology. This bill ensures that our animal industries, so vital to this nation's well-being, will be successful in the competitive world markets for animals and their product.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-66 which is an upgrading of the Health of Animals Act. However, I have some concerns that I want to make very clear at this time.
First, once again the government is pulling away some of the support systems to the Canadian agricultural industry. It is bringing in a user-pay concept in terms of inspections that cannot be added to the costs of the animals when sold. Individuals who reside within a five-kilometre area of a herd being placed under quarantine may have to go through a series of blood testing or other tests to examine whether or not their herd is infected with tuberculosis or any other diseases that are prevalent in livestock, particularly in cattle: tuberculosis, brucellosis, or even a recent outbreak in Britain that has created panic throughout the livestock industry. They
May 17, 1990

estimate that millions of cattle will have to be slaughtered because of a very serious epidemic of what they call the mad cow disease or, in the official terminology, they call it bovine spongiform enephalopathy.
Having been a farmer for longer than I care to think about we have gone through the blood testing procedure with livestock on many occasions in our own operations. There is a huge expense connected with it, even in terms of the producers, let alone the services of the veterinary involved or the veterinarians for Agriculture Canada.
Agriculture Canada has some excellent veterinarians, not only out in the field in the various counties or areas they serve but also here in Agriculture Canada in Ottawa. I certainly give them my full measure of support for the excellent work they are carrying on.
When I look at this piece of legislation that will impose another cost on producers at a time when the profit margins are veiy low, or in many cases do not exist, I think the Government of Canada has an obligation to provide those services to protect the health of animals, particularly those that may be subjected to diseases which come into this country with animals from Europe or other nations where there may be diseases such as the one I just mentioned from Great Britain: the mad cow disease.
In spite of the fact that we have high health standards in Canada, I remind the parliamentary secretary and the ministers who are in the House that last year we had an outbreak of brucellosis. Carriers of brucellosis were identified as coming out of one of the prairie provinces where there was a dispersal sale of an infected herd. The animals from that dispersal sale were sold across North America and, in fact, some of them came into Ontario and created havoc among producers here who had what we thought were clean herds.
When such an animal comes into an area and a quarantine is placed on a five-square-kilometre surrounding area, is that cost to be borne by the people within that area whose herds are clean but have to be tested to reaffirm that status? Or is that cost borne by the person who imported the animal that was infected?
Government Orders
I think we have to make that very clear. Clause 60 (2) says:
The fees, charges and costs are recoverable jointly and severally from the owner or occupier of the place or the owner of the animal or thing and from the person having the possession, care or control of it immediately before its inspection, treatment, segregation, detention, forfeiture, quarantine, testing analysis, identification, storage, removal -
Based on what the bill states, if someone brings into an area an exotic pet or another exotic animal that could be a carrier, it looks as though all the people in that five-square-kilometre area would be responsible to pick up the cost of testing if an outbreak did occur.
I recall that, in 1952, we had an outbreak in Canada of foot and mouth disease. While the outbreak was arrested, the loss was enormous. Thousands of cattle which could not be replaced were quarantined and slaughtered. Even though there was compensation paid to those producers under this legislation, a lot of those animals simply could not be compensated for because of the genetic strain and the breed lines they represented. The losses were borne by the producers, as well as the Government of Canada. To add on additional cost at this time is not appropriate.
We have heard a lot of comment about the bison herd in Wood Buffalo National Park. A lot of people think that it should be wiped out. Last September the hon. member for Kent and myself flew over that park. People do not know what they are talking about when they say they are going to eliminate that herd. They are not familiar with the terrain of the area where that herd grazes.
I suggest that there are outside influences putting pressure on the government to eliminate that herd, because there are grazing grounds there that may look very enticing to other interests. There may be people with ambitions to set up buffalo burger outlets featuring the carcasses of these animals. They say that 33 per cent of them are infected.
Having had experience in blood testing animals for brucellosis or tuberculosis, I know that one has to take a blood sample. I suggest to the House that those blood samples have been taken from infected animals and, consequently, the results show a higher percentage infected than if a cross-section of the whole herd had been taken.
My rationale for making this statement is that if one is going to take a blood sample, does one take it from some rambunctious, 2,600-pound bull that measures seven feet at the shoulder and that is liable to chase one up the

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
nearest tree, or from a sick, dozy animal that cannot keep up with the rest of the herd and is not going to put up much a fight? Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that I know from which those blood samples will be taken. It would take a lot of fortitude to tackle one of those 2,600-pound bulls that is liable to chase you up the nearest tree and then shove over the tree to get to you.
There are a lot of things we have to look at in terms of infectious diseases in the country. While I support most of the provisions in this bill, I do not believe in imposing additional costs on producers who could be innocent victims of an imported animal spreading disease or an outbreak that could be carried by migrating water-fowl stopping over. It could occur as a result of bringing in some birds or animals from another continent.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, we had an outbreak of a contagious poultry disease in southwestern Ontario. I believe it was Newcastle disease. It was learned that a particular hatching operation had imported baby chicks, supposedly from Ireland, because Ireland was listed as a clean vicinity. They had been trans-shipped from another country to Ireland and then on to Canada.
The outbreak did not occur in the area immediately surrounding the area where these birds were reared, but rather some 50 miles away in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Kent. It occurred there because the same feed truck that serviced farms in that area serviced the hatchery these birds came from. Consequently, two breeding flocks of turkeys in my own neighbourhood were wiped out because of this supposedly innocent act of importing from Europe by way of Ireland baby chicks that were carriers of this disease.
The farmers were not paid ample compensation for these two breeding flocks under this particular legislation because it did not provide for compensation other than for the sale of the birds for meat purposes. Those losses were very heavy and I would like to see something done to compensate for that.
My main concern about this bill is that the government is trying to proceed on a cost recovery basis. The government has a responsibility to make sure that the consumers of Canada have high quality, clean food
available to them that is not infected by these diseases from other nations. But it also has an obligation to make sure that, if the owners of the livestock are willing to test to maintain that high quality, clean food, and they volunteer to test, then they should not have to bear the costs of the veterinarians who do that. They have their own costs of round-up, handling, and equipment and, of course, always at risk of injury.
As I said, this bill has some very important provisions that we think are good, but that is one aspect that I want to make sure the government is very much aware of and prepared to deal with in committee.
There is another concern that I think I should raise here on the floor of the House today because of this outbreak in England. The United States, the EEC, and the Soviet Union are among those that are banning imports of beef from this area. I hope the government will act immediately to do the same thing. When we ban those imports, we must be very careful to catch all the shipments and not allow some that may be trans-shipped to another country to end up in Canada, the country of origin undivulged to the consumers.
While it does not appear that this particular disease can infect humans, it is suspected of infecting a cat. The autopsy was performed at the University of Bristol. It seems to be a comparable disease to that found in cattle. This disease had been identified only in sheep, but it is obvious that the infected cattle originally contracted it by eating a protein supplement partially composed of meat scraps and meat meal that came from some infected sheep.
I hope that the government will act very quickly to make sure that shipments of beef into the country are curtailed immediately until this outbreak is cleaned up.
The British Government is funding a $30 million research program, but scientists say it could be several years before they understand how the disease is passed on and they perfect a fool-proof test. In the meantime, this dread disease will continue to spread throughout British cattle herds. As a result, many British consumers have simply stopped buying the product.
May 17, 1990

It would be a disaster in the industry in Canada if we ever had an outbreak here. I think we have to impose the most stringent regulations possible on imported meats coming into the country until this risk is removed.
We, on this side of the House in the Official Opposition, do support most of the provisions in this particular bill. However, I again want to place on record that, in terms of cost recovery in the areas I have outlined, we do want the government to re-evaluate the position it has taken. I say that in view of the low returns to producers and in view of the fact that innocent farmers within a quarantine area could be forced to make huge expenditures as a result of a disease that came into that area through no negligence on their part but through occurrences beyond their control.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few remarks at this time for two reasons. The first is to welcome you to your new position. We have appreciated the work you have done in your position over the last number of months and look forward to working co-operatively with you in the future to ensure that the House of Commons works as it ought to work, in terms of a balanced approach to legislation and an opportunity for all members to be heard. We offer our co-operation always with the Chair.
I am also pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the provisions of Bill C-66 regarding animal diseases. I have waited some time for this. I must say at the outset that my hon. colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was also hoping to participate in the debate today, but at the moment he is held up in committee work. So, I have an opportunity, in his stead, to make some remarks about Bill C-66.
I want to begin by suggesting that one of the items that concern members of the New Democratic Party is the extra charges that will be attached to the livestock industry as a result of this legislation. I do not have to remind members of the House of Commons that these days the livestock industry is being challenged on virtually every front. Costs are continuing to increase while prices-although they are holding in some parts of the country at this moment-are not increasing in the same way. There is a financial crunch being felt by the livestock industry, to say nothing of what high interest rates do to the industry.
Government Orders
The legislation before us clearly points out that the user-pay concept, the extra charges, and the cost recovery that will be involved will mean added cost to livestock producers. When it is perceived that there is disease in your herd, there is a lot of cost involved in the round-up and assembly of the animals and, in some cases, the transportation of animals. In addition to those costs, the livestock producer will have the cost of service charges attached to the attempt to eliminate, eradicate or check out the disease. I want to flag that as an item that we will be raising in committee.
I should say at the outset that we support this bill. It is a housekeeping bill in a lot of ways. That is not to say that there are not concerns and shortcomings that we will want to raise in committee. We believe that modification to the legislation would make it better, both for the Government of Canada and for the livestock industry.
I believe that the fines involved for a summary conviction are appropriate. The ticketing proposal is a good one. It will allow a streamlining in dealing with infractions. Prior to this bill, Agriculture Canada had to rely on the Criminal Code for any punishment for offenders. Now it has its own authority through the issuance of tickets, much the same as for a speeding offence. If you admit you are guilty, you do not have to go to court and go through a long process. I think this streamlining is in the best interests of the Department of Agriculture and the industry itself.
The purpose of the bill before us is to control diseases and toxic substances in animals and products. It also strengthens Canada's ability to prevent the entry of diseases in animals which have serious economic impacts attached to them, and also to control or to eradicate outbreaks of a variety of diseases. The act broadens the mandate under the scope of diseases. Prior to this Agriculture Canada could destroy an animal if it had tuberculosis, rabies or brucellosis, for example, because the disease was affecting the animals. Now it can destroy an animal if whatever it has is also transmittable to humans. To accomplish this, the inspectors will have greater powers and the department can control movement by blocking roads and ordering the disinfection of certain vehicles.
Regarding compensation, the act will allow Agriculture Canada to set a maximum for compensation across the board for all species and all programs. We have some concerns with this because, for example, the current

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
maximum fine for brucellosis is $1,500 which, of course, does not cover the cost of replacing valuable purebred animals.
I suppose cattlemen could always take out additional insurance to cover the differential costs, but Lloyds of London is the only insurer which will cover an animal for government slaughter. It is expensive, about 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the value of the animal, and likely the insurance would have to be taken out in conjunction with mortality insurance which is about 5 per cent of the value. Therefore, it is obvious that a producer would be looking at a yearly premium of 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent. Needless to say, this could cause serious problems with certain producers.
The act will allow Agriculture Canada to pay for treatment instead of slaughter. This would be appropriate for anaplasmosis in horses. It makes a good deal of sense that the government has been flexible in dealing with the situation and is prepared to support a treatment.
It would be helpful to go through some of the points raised in the legislation. I think this legislation was last amended in 1974. Of course a lot has changed since then in terms of the way animals are transported and dealt with which makes it, in some cases, easier for diseases to be brought into the country and, once into the country, to expand.
The legislation will confirm the authority to control, eradicate and prevent the entry into Canada of diseases of animals which constitute a threat to human health. This has to be seen as a major step forward.
The legislation also gives authority to control animals and their products exposed to or contaminated by toxic materials in order to prevent their entry into the animal or human food chain. With the continual entry of toxic substances into our environment this has become a problem which hitherto had not existed to the same degree. But I think we would all recognize that the ability to control animals exposed to contaminated toxic materials is becoming increasingly a problem that we have to address.
The bill also allows the Governor in Council to regulate the movement of people, animals and vehicles in respect of places or areas infected with serious animal
disease. Perhaps this would be an appropriate point to take a moment or two to point out that the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has made a number of recommendations to Agriculture Canada in terms of the transportation of livestock. As the second largest country in the world geographically, with a livestock industry in virtually all areas, transportation is a critical feature in the industry.
The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has flagged a number of issues that I think warrant mention at this point. It suggests, for example, that all weigh stations close to provincial borders should be manned by individuals who are authorized to enforce the Animal Disease and Protection Act and that they should be encouraged to inspect vehicles and enforce the transportation provisions. That is an excellent recommendation.
The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies says that Agriculture Canada should make an immediate commitment to get back into the day-to-day monitoring of livestock transportation and enforcement of its transportation regulations. Consideration might be given, they suggest, to expanding the role of existing staff such as the meat hygiene staff. In an effort to curtail expenses we made reductions in inspection which have been raised from time to time in this House and elsewhere and are causing sectors of Agriculture Canada serious concerns.
It is also recommended that Agriculture Canada should join with provincial departments of agriculture and animal welfare groups across the countiy in a multi-disciplinary committee based on the British Columbian model to utilize all available resources in addressing the transportation issue. Animal welfare groups, particularly farm animal welfare groups, are now becoming more vocal in the matter of livestock transportation. The multi-disciplinary approach that has been experimented with in British Columbia is certainly worth considering on a national scale and also would encourage those provinces that are not participating in this type of approach to do so.
The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies also suggests that veterinary inspectors from the federal government should be available at all major U.S. border crossings during the day or at times that coincide with inspectiojn hours in the United States. It suggests that stations without regular inspection should have a veterinary inspector readily available on an appointment basis.
May 17, 1990

If that cannot be accomplished, Agriculture Canada should consider establishing designated animal importation stations fully manned by Agriculture Canada inspection staff. These stations should be established at points which currently handle most of the animal traffic into the country.
I think this goes without saying. I know that my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue, is concerned about improving the flow of traffic across our borders. He has indicated a number of potential improvements and this would be one that ought to be considered with that because we do not want to have diseased animals entering the country.
There is a whole set of other recommendations. I think I have made the point that when it comes to transportation of livestock across our provincial or international borders there are obvious improvements that ought to be made.
The legislation is receiving our support because it provides authority for a national identification system for animals for the purpose of determining the presence of and controlling or eradicating of animal diseases. That is fundamental and it is for that reason we want to see this bill proceed expeditiously.
It also establishes an authority to provide assistance to other countries in order to control or eradicate animal diseases. We have already heard today concerns about the importation of diseased animals from other countries using the indirect routing of livestock. While we might prohibit animals coming in from a certain country, if they are detoured via another port, it is sometimes impossible to regulate that. We are concerned about that for obvious reasons.
The legislation will allow recovery for the cost of inspection, treatment and other services previously provided free. I think we have to revisit this whole concept. Obviously, the government is trying to introduce a user-pay process. That certainly has merit and at first glance people will say it makes sense. However, if we are going to expect people to co-operate fully in attempting to eradicate livestock diseases, we do not want to place roadblocks in their way. We want to encourage them to come forward and participate in these eradication programs. We have to determine whether assigning extra
Government Orders
charges or fees would discourage people from taking this matter as seriously as they should.
There are a number of other items in the legislation that are equally significant. I think I have said enough in terms of the major portions of the legislation and the reasons we want to support it.
I want to conclude by saying that this legislation does allow for greater flexibility in terms of controls when it comes to transportation of animals. We have been approached by a number of animal welfare groups which are concerned about the cutbacks in inspectors to enforce the transportation provisions of the act. They are concerned about abuses with regard to the length of time animals spend in transit and about the lack of removal of cattle that have deceased enroute. When this bill gets to committee we will have an opportunity to raise these critical issues to representatives of the government.
This is major housekeeping, long overdue. It addresses some of the major issues with which we have been concerned. We have some concerns, but they can be dealt with appropriately once the legislation goes to committee.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, this is not a topic of which I know very much. I will make that admission.
The lack of inspectors at border crossings is a concern of mine as well. At the steel mill in Sault Ste. Marie, as a result of the lack of inspectors to address the problem, we are assured, even by Revenue Canada, that Third World and European seamless tube is coming into the country. There is a problem in steel and I notice that there is a problem in this area as well. Is this a common problem along many lines where there is just not enough personpower to address situations like this?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, I did make a mistake. Normally at second reading the first three speakers do not benefit from the period for question and comments. However, I think we may allow the hon. member to answer his colleague's question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague. Obviously, we are all well aware of the problems with seamless tube which he has raised once again. It is a matter that has been raised many times both indirectly and directly in the House. The seamless

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
tube issue is one that has caught our attention in the past as a result of problems at border crossings.
When it comes to meat or livestock inspections at the border, there are also problems. The fact is that Agriculture Canada is recommending that steps be taken, and I think I mentioned some of those specifics steps, to ensure that appropriate inspectors are available, at least on an on-call basis.
I think it is fair to say that we should be designating certain border crossings as those crossings where livestock crossing take place with appropriate and adequate inspection services available at all times. I think the international transportation of livestock products and live animals is sufficiently problematic that this is a safety precaution that we ought to consider. This will be one of the points that will be raised when the matter gets to committee.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate you and wish you good luck in your new duties as Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-66, the Health of Animals Act.
I know that Canadians, and especially our agricultural producers, are proud of the fact that Canada has one of the best animal health records in the world. Our country has managed to avoid experiencing some of the very serious outbreaks of animal diseases to the extent sometimes witnessed in other nations. This success is due in large part to the commitment over the years of Agriculture Canada, national and provincial organizations and individual producers to be ever vigilant in the fight against animal diseases.
The establishment of preventive measures and detection procedures have played a major role in maintaining our animal health record. However, as the case of the so-called mad cow disease currently being encountered
in England proves, we must continue to do all we can to avoid such a devastating outbreak of animal disease.
A large outbreak of disease would not only have an impact on farmers, but could also be a potentially serious health hazard to the public. In addition, a large outbreak may affect the high reputation of quality that our agricultural exports enjoy abroad. Therefore, it is necessary to create the most prudent and efficient measures we can to protect human health in this vital industry.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-66 proposes to improve upon Canada's ability to detect and control diseases and toxic substances which may affect animals or be transmitted by animals or animal products to humans. The bill also provides for the strengthening of Canada's ability to prevent the importation of animal disease, while at the same time preventing, controlling and eradicating any outbreak of disease which may indeed pose serious health risks to Canadians or create economic difficulties which result from them.
The objectives of Bill C-66 are certainly worthy of support, both by members in this House and throughout the Canadian agriculture community.
There have been cases where animal diseases have surfaced both in terms of the disease being brought into Canada or it being domestic in origin. In some of the more severe cases a number of animals had to be destroyed. Only the quick action taken by farmers and agriculture officials prevented the spread of these diseases.
In terms of disease threatening our exports, everything must be done to ensure that Canada does not sell infected animals abroad. Certainly, for us to transport a disease to a country or, even worse, to a country that does not have a history of that particular disease, the damage would be considerable in both financial and product reputation terms. The only policy is to be as sure as possible that our exports are disease free.
Bill C-66 provides a number of measures that would be helpful in efforts to combat domestic and foreign animal diseases. In Canada, the bill enables the Ministry of Agriculture to designate qualified animal inspectors and to provide them with appropriate powers to execute their duties effectively.
May 17, 1990

The bill would enable an inspector to declare any property within five kilometres of an infected area to be deemed temporarily infected. This would assist in preventing the spread of a disease or toxic substance.
If an inspector believes that a larger quarantine area is necessary, the ministry could permit an even larger control area to be declared for a longer period until the situation is resolved.
Bill C-66 also strengthens important rules such as prohibiting individuals to possess or dispose of an imported animal or item known to be in contravention of the act. To accomplish this, the animal inspectors can examine or detain any animal or animal thing which may be diseased or contaminated until a thorough inspection has been conducted.
If the inspector has reason to believe that the animal or thing is contravening the act or could be infected, the inspector may require it to be removed from Canada or forfeited and properly disposed of.
In terms of exportation regulations, Bill C-66 requires all exports of animals, animal products or associated things to specifically meet the certification standards of the importing state. This measure would be effective in enabling Canada from unintentionally exporting a disease or toxic substance which would have damaging repercussions to our international reputation in animal health safety and also cause concern over maintaining our external markets.
This bill does, however, possess an aspect which is worthy of further deliberation in committee. This relates to the issue of cost recovery. Bill C-66 would permit the government, through the animal inspectors, to recover the costs of inspections, treatments or any other necessary services which have previously been provided free of charge.
I believe this matter deserves closer examination so far as this additional cost may have a significant financial impact on some farmers, especially during periods of depressed market prices. I hope that this matter will be discussed in detail during committee stage.
Inspectors able to charge service fees for inspections and treatments reflects a policy similar in nature to privatization. It must be ensured that the quality of these services remain consistent throughout the country.
Government Orders
This additional concern should be given further thought with regard to bird stocks. This bill would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations to maintain or improve the quality of poultry and control or eliminate diseases or toxic substances among birds. I believe that such authority, if exercised properly, would be most beneficial to Canadian poultry producers.
It is also a positive step for this bill to permit the Minister of Agriculture to provide assistance to individuals or governments outside of Canada to aid them in controlling or eliminating a disease or toxic substance which either affects or could affect people or animals within Canada. This measure would indeed be of value in preventing any future cases of disease or toxins from entering Canada.
While the capability to diagnose and control animal diseases and toxins have improved considerably, there is still cause for concern in cases involving foreign animals. Therefore, this foreign assistance is certainly justifiable.
In terms of penalties provided by this bill, the proposed legislation would increase the amount by which individuals are fined for violating the act. It has been determined that existing penalties are not sufficient enough in deterring individuals from repeating an offence.
Bill C-66 allows the Minister of Agriculture to enact regulations permitting the issuance of tickets for minor infractions of the act and regulations. This ticket system gives inspectors the power to issue a ticket, thereby avoiding the often long and expensive court proceedings which are currently required.
The ticket system is, however, worthy of further consideration. Such a system should operate under specific guidelines. The system should be closely examined to ensure that the new enforcement powers assigned to inspectors do not have an unduly negative impact on farmers, particularly small-scale producers. If the ticket system proceeds, then tickets should be issued for reasonable cause and not be too expensive for minor infractions.
With regard to the issue of compensation for farmers who suffer losses of animals due to disease or toxic substances, Bill C-66 provides for the establishment of a new system of compensation. The type of compensation permitted is to be based upon the species and maturity of the average Canadian animal. The maximum compensation available, however, would be set at an amount which would not bankrupt the animal health program. There may of course be cases where the maximum compensa-

Government Orders
tion permitted would not be enough to cover the animal or animals in question. Thus owners would have to carry adequate insurance coverage. This, unfortunately, may add to the additional input costs of farmers.
It is important that consideration be given in committee with regard to the amount of compensation the farmer would receive should a disease inflicted animal be destroyed. The bill should provide farmers sufficient compensation to replace their high valued animals.
In general, Bill C-66 attempts to provide measures that encompass a wider variety of animal diseases and harmful toxins. It endeavours to strengthen import inspection to keep out foreign diseases. It also provides for more effective legal control over diseases and adds to the ability to enforce legislation.
Aside from the benefits the bill has for the protection of animals and this sector of our agricultural industry, it plays an important role in protecting the health of farmers who come into contact with animals and the Canadians who eat meat, eat eggs or drink milk.
This legislation assists in the eradication of diseases which can be harmful to humans, such as in the case of salmonella. The bill also provides the powers to detect chemical residue contamination such as in the serious case of PCB contamination, by broadening the scope of disease definition.
For all these reasons, I believe the bill is worthy of support. I would hope that some of the aspects of this bill are given further study in committee and that these matters which I have referred to are given due consideration when the committee examines this bill in greater detail.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-67, an act to prevent the importation, exportation and spread of pests injurious to plants and to provide for their control and eradication and for the certification of plants and other things, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the legislative committee considering Bill C-66.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that we have agreed to have this bill, as well as Bill C-66, dealt with by the same committee because the two pieces of legislation are very similar in many ways.
The title of this revised act is the Plant Protection Act. The more appropriate name reflects the new and more vigorous action this government is taking to protect Canadian plant-based industries from the economically disastrous effects of plant pests, which include both insects and diseases.
Since the first formal pest control act was passed 80 years ago, Agriculture Canada has accepted responsibility for safeguarding the health of our agricultural plants and our forests. The government revised this mandate when new technology, advances in research and changes in the world market for plants, plant products and other things demanded better legislative controls.
In 1952, for example, Canada responded to growing international concerns over the spreading of pests by signing the International Plant Protection Convention. Signatories to this convention agreed to certify that their plants, plant products, and other things destined for the shores of member countries were free of plant pests. The legislative mandate of Agriculture Canada was subsequently extended to reflect this international commitment.
May 17, 1990

Since 1968 when the Plant Quarantine Act was introduced many changes in Canadian law and in the world market-place have started to erode its power. Many sections are no longer productive.
Seven years ago Agriculture Canada vigorously reviewed its plant protection programs. Experts from the department, with the help of those from provincial governments, industry and the public, assessed the impact on our programs of the new technology, changes in the market-place, and the recurring problems that have resulted from applying the current legislation.
This bill results in part from those amendments. It ensures that Canada's superior standards of plant protection are preserved. We are removing those facets that inhibit the department from doing its best to prevent the spread of pests. We have reworked sections to make them more productive. We have taken steps to ensure that Canadian plant based industries will continue to prosper in the world market.
The revised legislation deals with three major areas. First, it incorporates several provisions found previously only in the regulations. These provisions grant Agriculture Canada authority to issue permits to persons importing plants, to designate where and under what conditions products will be inspected, and to move, place in quarantine or dispose of plants, plant products or other things that are infested. Moving these provisions from the regulations to the act leaves them less open to challenge.
Second, the onus is no longer solely on the department to prove that individuals deliberately spread pests. The current act states that no person shall knowingly introduce or admit into Canada any pest, plant or plant product, or anything else that is infested or likely to be infested with a plant pest. This clause has been a legal hindrance to the government's efforts to keep plant pests from entering or spreading within the country.
Steps to prevent plant pests from entering Canada or spreading have bogged when individuals challenge the department to prove that they deliberately spread the pests.
Government Orders
The purpose of this legislation is to control and eradicate plant pests, not punish people. The bill therefore separates the control and eradication of pests from commission of the offence.
The third major provision of the bill will ensure that technological progress does not outstrip legislative controls. The controls in place today cannot keep pace with the expected rapid change in methods of transporting plants, products or other things, and in methods of controlling or eradicating plant pests.
The department needs some mechanism to ensure that it can keep up with the new technology. Currently, authority to revise control provisions rest with the Governor in Council. The revised act allows the Minister of Agriculture or officials to deal with matters of a technical nature, such as the packaging and transportation of material that is likely to be infected with plant pests.
The act is also being amended to provide for cost recovery for some services. In fact costs can now be recovered for services like conducting inspections, issuing permits to those who import plants, and for providing other services under the Plant Protection Act.
These costs will be borne, where appropriate, by the people who seek the department's services or by those whose negligence threatens the health of plants.
The costs for facilities to inspect and test for plant pests will also not be shouldered by the public. Two new sections of the act provide the Minister of Agriculture with the authority to require operators of land, air, rail and sea terminals to allocate, if required, at no cost to the Crown, space and facilities for the services provided for in the act.
As well as providing these major benefits, the amendments also clean up other problems associated with the previous act. For example, they clarify obligations and eliminate unnecessary hardships on people. They also confer new powers on the department to perform its work more efficiently. They ensure that the new act respects the rights of citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The scope and intent of many sections have been crystallized in the new act. The duties and obligations of

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
the people are now entrenched. Where the Plant Quarantine Act left responsibilities unclear, new sections will clarify the obligations of people.
Procedures and responsibilities of the department have also been clarified. The process of declaring places to be infested and the powers of the minister and inspectors in this action have been spelled out. The process and authority to prohibit or regulate the introduction or movement of plants, plant products or other things are also clearly laid out.
For example, this bill allows for the designation of an infested place by an inspector. The designation by an inspector of an infested place ends after 90 days. Under this designation people must adhere to rigorous movement or propagation controls. A period longer than 90 days might severely hamper a person's efforts to meet financial obligations. Therefore, if 90 days is insufficient time to control the infestation, only the minister may extend it.
Clarification of the compensation system is another improvement which will help Canadians. When it came to setting out the procedures for compensating people when the department ordered their plants or other things disposed of, the previous act was vague or referred to other legislation. The new act specifies under what conditions the department will pay compensation and sets out how people can appeal compensation claims.
In some situations our safeguards were inadequate because legal controls were lacking. Under the current legislation, inspectors cannot stop vehicles on the highway, even when they have reason to inspect the vehicles may carry plants, plant products and other things that are likely to be infested with a plant pest.
When departmental officials have the legal mandate to inspect things, it often happens that inspectors are forced to conduct their investigations under poor physical conditions. A dimly lit warehouse, for example, can seriously undermine the official's best effort to detect plant pest infestations. The lack of authority in these matters is rectified in the Plant Protection Act.
The act also extends the period that material coming into Canada may be detained. The current 90-day limit rules out using sophisticated testing techniques that can take as long as a year or more to complete. The new legislation increases the period to 180 days or longer.
With this extension the department will be confident that it has the time to discover the presence of certain viruses or other plant pests that are not easily detected.
There are two new safeguards in the revised act to prevent infested material destined for Canada from leaving the shores of the foreign supplier. Many plants, plant products or other things come from countries where plant pest infestations are widespread. If the department has reasonable grounds to believe that the goods are infested, it can inspect them at the origin before they are shipped to Canada.
Another new section authorizes the department to provide financial and technical expertise to foreign countries. The current act forces Agriculture Canada to bide its time, waiting for infested materials to reach Canadian shores before it acts. The Plant Protection Act, however, will help eradicate foreign plant pests before they arrive and jeopardize the health of agriculture and forestry industries.
Other amendments update and simplify legal requirements. The penalties for contravening the act have been restructured to make them more effective. The new penalties include ticketing for minor offences. This provision will eliminate the need to go through lengthy and costly courtroom proceedings to prosecute those who plead guilty to minor infractions.
The revised act also protects the rights of individual citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The inspectors may not enter a private dwelling without the occupant's consent or without a warrant issued by a magistrate. The powers of the Governor in Council, the minister, and inspectors have also been updated to ensure they comply with the charter.
The Plant Protection Act is the culmination of much labour and learning from the lessons of past experience. We have consulted all public and private groups directly affected by this bill. Provincial governments, appropriate federal departments, industry and other interested groups have studied and responded to the proposed changes. All agree that the amendments are necessary and all support the principles of this bill.
The Plant Protection Act will add needed substance to our plant based industries. All sections of the previous acts have been amended to clarify responsibilities, reinforce controls, and take into account the urgent needs of modern technology.
May 17, 1990

This new legislation will ensure that agriculture and forestry, two of Canada's most important economic sectors, will be able to compete in what is a very competitive world market-place.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-67 respecting the Plant Protection Act. As the parliamentary secretary has said, this is a bill respecting the updating of the previous act known as the Plant Quarantine Act that has been in place since 1967.1 agree that it is long overdue and that an updating of that bill is taking place now.
Basically this is good bill. I look forward to seeing the bill in committee where we can have further discussions on some of the particular aspects of it.
However, this bill will assist Canada's plant industry to avoid the economically disastrous effects of insect pests and diseases while maintaining Canada's foreign markets by preventing the spread of plant pests into foreign countries and from them coming into Canada from foreign countries.
If there is any hope of prevention or control of plant pests, the first essential is to be able to detect these pests at the early stage and deal with the problem in a responsible and expeditious manner. The amendments that this bill provides should enable the Department of Agriculture to react more quickly and efficiently to any emergencies in plant pest outbreaks that take place.
The proposed legislation as well, as the parliamentary secretary has stated, would help any person or government to establish a pest control network in order to control or eradicate pests outside Canada.
If there was an outbreak of a plant pest or disease in another country in the past, we in Canada, unless we did it through a project sponsored by an organization such as CIDA which could take some time, were not able to jump in quickly and help solve the problem. I can think of one situation in which we had a lot of transplants purchased from the southern United States come into Canada. This allows us, if necessary, to go in there and assist in order to provide better and safer plant material coming here for our producers.
Government Orders
The bill should also improve the compensation provisions since compensation would be paid not only for destruction of a plant or a thing, not only for prohibition of sale or restriction of use of the property, but also for any treatment to a place, to a storage area or to a crop. That availability has not been there before for compensation by Agriculture Canada or by the government. I am sure such a provision will be welcomed by the agriculture industry.
However I have a few concerns as well. This legislation also gives the the ability to the Governor in Council to make regulations which would provide an inspector with the power to issue tickets for minor infractions of the act. I feel that should be and must be carefully reviewed so that the inspectors new enforcement powers are not overly extensive.
The ticketing mechanism this bill puts in place is not all bad. It allows inspections at border crossings or on site within the boundaries of Canada to take place and a ticketing process so that even though one is guilty one does not have to go before a judge. They are ticketed, they are fined, and they pay the fine.
However we must be very careful that process is not trivialized so that someone who is an offender does not say: "Well, that is fine. I will pay my ticket and I will go on". I think we must spend some time in the legislative committee to make sure that the regulations are written so that we take that into account. It is a useful tool that can be put in place, but we must be careful that it is used properly.
Another point that I feel should be questioned is the power provided to inspectors regarding the size of areas which they can declare as being infested. The area capable of being declared infested has a limit of time. It can be done for 90 days and, if it is to be extended, it has to be extended by the direction of the minister. However the size of the area is not dictated. That will be done depending on the situation which might arise.
I feel we have to be very careful. It could be the corner of a shed. It could be a farm. It could be a facility where plant material is being grown, being handled or passing through. The minister can revoke any inspector's declaration of infestation, in which case the place would cease to be infested. However we must ensure that standardized levels of service are provided across Canada so that

May 17, 1990
5. 0. 31
Canada does not lose uniformity in the inspection process.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized right after Question Period to complete his remarks.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, May 14 to 20 marks Canada's fourth National Tourism Awareness Week.
Tourism is the most rapidly evolving and exciting industry in Canada today. In fact, tourism in Canada is a $24 billion industry, employing over 630,000 Canadians. Tourism is Canada's second largest earner of foreign revenue at about $7 billion. Last year, 15 million tourists visited Canada.
A large portion of tourism revenues goes toward municipal, provincial, and federal governments in the form of taxes. This builds roads, schools, and arenas and supports social programs-all the services that we have come to expect from our governments.
I salute the one million people involved in Canada's tourism industry and invite all Canadians to celebrate National Tourism Awareness Week. In Alberta we say: "Smile, you are a tourist attraction."


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, the National Capital Commission announced the winning design and developers of the Daly Building on Rideau Street. Appraised for $50 million in 1984 and
vacant for 15 years, work was to begin that summer. One of the developers went bankrupt and the project was put on hold.
After numerous technical problems, we learned in September the project was to commence again, that the architect had been fired, and that the general contractor had not begun work because the developer was unable to post a bond that would satisfy the contractors.
Finally, this past December, work did begin on the interior of the building. Incredulously, last week at the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Committee, the Chairman of the NCC told me that the building was still on schedule and she made no mention of the latest snag.
The developers now want to demolish the Rideau Street portion of the building and replace it with a replica.
The National Capital Commission must settle the problems with the Daly Building and begin to take steps to ensure that these problems never arise again. Time is money and, again, the NCC has wasted a lot of both.


ZEBRA MUSSEL INFESTATION
Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government has taken concrete action to address the infestation of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. American congressmen say that the U.S. should spend $47 million to fight the mussel nuisance before it causes billions of dollars in damage to water intake systems and to sport fishing. Senators Glenn and Heinz have introduced Bill 4214 in the House of Representatives which deals with such aquatic nuisances.
This is a common problem for states and provinces and begs various aspects of co-operation between the two federal governments. I am reminded of the successful binational control agreement for lamprey eel in the Great Lakes. This is a similar problem and demands similar binational action.
The Ontario government and the Canadian Coast Guard suggest that a soft-line voluntary compliance with controlling ballast water is sufficient to control the proliferation of this nuisance. Guidelines are not enough. I urge the government to introduce immediate discussion with the U.S. government to initiate a binational co-operative agreement to address the problem of
May 17, 1990

the zebra mussel before the Great Lakes are mussel-bound.


BILL C-21
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has urged the members of the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-21 to recommend forthwith that Bill C-21 be passed.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports the bill, which it considers a step in the right direction. Unemployment insurance coverage should be provided for employees who are suddenly and temporarily out of work, said Tim Reid, President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Reid also said that the uncertainty caused by the present deadlock among employees and employers and the damaging effect on the lives of average Canadians have become intolerable.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Senate passed Bill C-21.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, an estimated 30,000 Canadians are sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis, more commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome. As a health and economic threat, it is second only to AIDS.
It is a total body disease with significant acquired functional and circulatory brain injury causing major cognitive, intellectual, and physical impairment.
The majority of patients incapacitated are highly educated, high functioning, productive professionals and their immediate families, people involved in jobs of high contact with a potentially ill public or a public recently vaccinated or immunized.
The majority of cases start with clear evidence of infectious illness which develops as a severe, chronic disabling disease.
Yet, except for Australia, no government is funding research and treatment of the serious and debilitating viral-immunological illness.
A symposium on myalgic encephalomyelitis, sponsored last weekend in my riding by sufferers and their families, called on the Government of Canada to devote resources to research and treatment of ME. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to heed that call.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, any doubts I had about how the Conservative government's agenda is affecting Canadian women were resolved this past month.
I have heard from hundreds of women in my riding and the message is clear. Free trade, the GST, cutbacks, and broken promises add up to bad news for the women of Canada.
Here are some of the things they asked me to tell the Prime Minister: Affordable, accessible child care is a must. Restore educational funding; women need education or face poverty. End restrictions on social assistance funding. Tax big business, not the poor. Stop violence against women. No new abortion law; make it a health care item with equal access for all. Naming a few high profile women to patronage posts is not enough; we need equality in the workplace and in decision-making now. Equal pay for equal work.
And, finally, the message that to me sums it up, we need a new Prime Minister and a democratic country.


NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, May 14 through 20 is National Tourism Awareness Week.
Tourism is the fastest growing industry in this country. In 1988, it generated $24 billion in revenues, of which $17 billion was spent by Canadians visiting their own country and $7 billion by visitors from other countries.
With 631,000 employees and 577,000 Canadians who depend on tourism for part of their income, the industry is also the fastest generator of new jobs in this country.

May 17, 1990
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Drummond has many activities and tourist attractions, including the World Folklore Festival which last year attracted more than
750,000	visitors and was proclaimed the tourism event of the year in Quebec. There are many historic sites to delight the visitor, such as the Village quebecois d'antan, the Parc des Voltigeurs, the Domaine and the Manoir Trent, the Moulin Blanchette and many more.
I therefore want to take this opportunity to invite Canadians to my beautiful part of the country.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today the corporate welfare bum of the week honours friends in high places. Our three nominees each gave handsome donations to the Liberal and Conservative parties in 1988.
Our first nominee is the Bank of Nova Scotia which gave $80,000 to both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Our second nominee is the Bank of Montreal which gave $80,000 to the Conservatives and $80,510 to the Liberals. Who says there is no competition among the banks?
Our third nominee is Wood Gundy which gave $67,000 to the Conservatives and $25,000 to the Liberals.
The envelope, please!
The winner is Wood Gundy. Wood Gundy remembered its friends in the Conservative government in 1988 after it made $31 million for underwriting the sale of Air Canada in 1987. For keeping its friends in high places, Wood Gundy is the corporate welfare bum of the week.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, increasingly, politicians are expected to act in the face of scientific uncertainty. This is why the precautionary principle is increasingly being accepted in political circles.
The reasoning goes like this: To do the right thing in the environment, we must anticipate and prevent. We must attack the causes of environmental degradation at the source, and before the problems become too big to handle. In addition, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of complete scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
There is also recognition of the fact that many measures urged on behalf of the environment make good economic sense as well. To achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle which was widely endorsed at the just concluded Bergen Conference on Sustainable Development.
We urge the Government of Canada to put this principle into practice.


ALLERGY AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, allergies to natural substances and to chemical compounds can be a severe irritant to some people and life-threatening to others. In fact, more and more people seem to be affected by allergies in our modern and fast-paced way of life.
Awareness and understanding of allergies and their causes, a knowledge of ingredients of everyday products, such as food, clothing, and household cleansers, as well as the preservation of our environment are all keys to living safely with allergies.
The month of May marks Allergy Awareness Month and I wish to take this opportunity to salute the Allergy Information Association. For over 25 years, the Allergy Information Association has alerted Canadians to the hidden dangers of living with allergies by promoting awareness, lobbying for accurate food and textile labelling, and providing authoritative advice to Canadians who may suffer from allergies.
On behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I express our gratitude to the many dedicated volunteers of the Allergy Information Association.
May 17, 1990


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my warmest and sincerest congratulations to The Disability Network, the winner of the first ACTRA "into the mainstream" award, in recognition of its positive portrayal of visible, audible, and disabled minorities in Canadian movies, TV and radio.
Produced by the CBC and the Toronto Centre for Independent Living, The Disability Network airs Saturday afternoons as a news and information magazine for the disabled and other minorities.
While we celebrate this impressive achievement, we all must be reminded that there are many barriers confronting disabled Canadians. The Disability Network brings to light the fact that many of the issues raised in government reports or reports made by local organizations, such as the Community Services Council of York Region's "From Gaps to Option" report, remain unanswered.
I believe that we must practise the principle of inclusion, rather than exclusion. I urge the government to take all necessary steps to bring about full economic, social, and cultural integration of disabled Canadians.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, recently I have made a number of statements calling for our government to continue leadership and stewardship in the restraint of government spending.
On this same theme, I recently read some interesting facts prepared by one of our deputy ministers. How many members of this House are aware that each month Supply and Services Canada sends out something like 8.5 million cheques for old age security, guaranteed income supplements, Canada Pension Plan, and family allowance?
If one assumes that the public cost of each of these cheques was 39 cents, this translates into roughly $40 million a year. I ask then, should we as a government not consider other means through which cheques could be delivered? In this day and age of technological advances,
there must be alternatives which could be more efficient, not as capital intensive, and in the end less expensive. The idea of direct-depositing is one that comes to mind.
On the surface, this appears to me as one avenue through which we could further reduce our spending and improve our over-all efficiency.


HOUSING
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, under this government, affordable housing has become an increasingly unobtainable goal. Forty per cent of all single parents in Canada are raising their children in unacceptable housing conditions.
With interest rates climbing to over 14 per cent, there are only 270,000 potential buyers of the average home, compared to 475,000 buyers two years ago when interest rates were only 10 per cent.
The government's response has been to ignore the housing crisis and exacerbate it by introducing the GST, cutting out RRAP, and cutting a total of $175 million from the social housing budget.
The Liberal Task Force on Housing released its report Monday with 25 recommendations for federal action. The key to this report is federal action, leadership, and co-operation with other levels of government and housing groups.
A national vision requires national direction. It is necessary for the federal government to co-ordinate a national housing strategy now by providing much needed funding and setting new directions for housing policy.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, in meetings in my constituency this past weekend and in several weekend meetings over the past few months, a question that keeps recurring is: Will manufacturers pass on to the consumers savings that occur as a result of the removal of the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax?
I asked the same question of witnesses during finance committee hearings in every province in Canada. Here are some of the answers.

May 17, 1990
Oral Questions
Professor John Crispo stated: "Very few manufacturers of significance are going to be able to pocket the reduction in the MST. Competition is going to force them to pass it on to us".
The Economic Council of Canada stated: "The reality of the world market-place will force business people to pass through the great bulk of the tax".
The Canadian Construction Association stated: "The selling price for all kinds of construction, in our analysis, is found to be lower under GST than under the current tax system".
This week in the consumer affairs committee the same question was asked and the same answer comes. The Consumers Association of Canada said: "Consumers should benefit from the elimination of the MST. GST does a better job of collecting revenue than the old tax it replaces".
From hundreds of witnesses across Canada we are getting the same answers; consumers will benefit from the savings, manufacturers will pass on the savings when the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax is removed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The special committee studying the proposed companion resolution presented its report earlier today. I want to commend members of the committee for their efforts.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The unanimous report which they have presented may well provide a basis for resolving the present constitutional impasse.
Therefore, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the Prime Minister invited all the provincial premiers to a conference for discussions for which the report tabled today will provide a basis? If so, can he tell
this House and Canadians exactly when this conference will take place?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, of course, I and my party want to associate ourselves with the words of the Leader of the Opposition in complimenting all members of the committee on the very important work they have done and the manner in which they carried it out.
The members of the committee had a very challenging task. They demonstrated the highest level of co-operation, dedication and commitment. Indeed, all Canadians and all members of this House will be eternally grateful for the excellent work that they have carried out.
As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the report has just been tabled today. The Prime Minister and the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs will be discussing this with all the premiers. It is hoped that the report will provide the mechanism for those who have found it not appropriate to support the Meech Lake process to do so as a result of the recommendations made by the committee.
As soon as there is some indication that progress can be made in that regard, I am sure that the Prime Minister will take the necessary appropriate action.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in the context of the present constitutional impasse-some have even called it a crisis-the committee in its unanimous report found that the June 23 date is a political reality. Canadians have said that they want their political leaders to roll up their sleeves, get to work and lead the country out of the present constitutional impasse. Surely this is the message of the committee's unanimous report.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why is the Prime Minister losing precious time? Why is he insisting on having some type of advance agreement before calling a First Ministers' Conference? Why will he not announce an early First Ministers' Conference today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that the report has just been tabled. The necessary and appropriate work will be done toward ensuring that all the players within this very important exercise will, in
May 17, 1990

fact, be contacted so that the next steps can be agreed upon on a multilateral basis.
But let me remind him and the House that in a speech last night that the Prime Minister delivered to the Canadian Advance Technology Association and the Canadian Information Processing Society, he stated:
As Prime Minister, I intend to spare no effort to develop a consensus and break the deadlock, if at all possible. I have begun to speak to each Premier personally and in the next few days, Senator Murray will again visit provincial capitals at my request.
It is clear that a First Ministers' Conference will eventually be necessary to achieve an agreement. But I will only convene such a conference if there are reasonable prospects of success. The deadlock can only be broken by the exercise of Canadians' proven talent for reasonable accommodation, for working things out together.
All members should applaud the efforts of the Prime Minister in bringing this very important issue to this stage at this time. Of course, we very much want to commend the work of everyone, particularly the members of the special committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in quoting the Prime Minister's speech, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be saying that there may not be a First Ministers' Conference before June 23. If that is the case, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, Canadians will be very disappointed. They will feel that the Prime Minister and the government have let them down.

Mr. Speaker, the report tabled today provides a good starting point for helping us out of the present constitutional impasse. Again, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Prime Minister, at this point, doesn't think it would be useful to call a First Ministers conference as soon as possible, even without first consulting with the provincial Premiers. Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Leader of the Opposition would not try to twist words. The Prime Minister has never indicated that he would not call a First Ministers' Conference. Obviously, there has to be preparatory work
Oral Questions
done, and he has said that when it is appropriate, a First Ministers' Conference will be held.
Let us get the work done that needs to be done leading up to the First Ministers' Conference. If and when it is appropriate, I am sure that one will be called. I hope it will have the support of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, another environmental disaster occurred at Saint-Amable where nearly four million tires burst into flames, spreading a toxic cloud as far as 20 or 30 kilometres and spilling toxic oils that may contaminate the water supply.
Since this is the third fire at a tire dumpsite in Canada in less than three months, what does the federal government intend to do to prevent another ecological disaster?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: My colleague, the Minister of State responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport, whose riding includes the town of Saint-Amable, just spoke to me about 15 minutes ago, and he is watching the situation veiy closely.
The Government of Quebec is responsible for coordinating emergency measures. Yesterday afternoon, Quebec asked us for technical assistance. Environment Canada immediately went to the site to do air quality analyses and provide meteorological data. All this was done to ensure public safety.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, since there are tire dumpsites across this country and this has become a national problem, will the government implement a national tire storage policy to prevent environmental disasters like the ones at Hagersville, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, and now at Saint-Amable, from happening again? It's all very well to say the government was on the spot, but it must find a way to prevent these things from happening!


Mr. Blais:: This is provincial jurisdiction.

May 17, 1990
Oral Questions


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: At their meeting on March 20, 1990, the Canadian ministers of Environment set up a task force to identify and examine possibile solutions. Since then, they have started to collect as much information as possible. I may add that Environment Canada has already started its work, and at the next meeting to be held in July, we will be able to continue the process.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
[Stage Direction]
Mme Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Special Committee on the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord tabled its report and I would like to congratulate the members of this committee for it. This report was unanimous and I believe that it is the necessary first step to break the constitutional deadlock. It is now up to the first ministers to prepare an acceptable companion resolution.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Can he report to us on the consultations which the Prime Minister has had with the provincial premiers and can he tell us what he specifically intends to do to get out of the impasse?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only confirm to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this process is ongoing. Lie is engaged in discussions directly with the premiers.
As well, the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs will be contacting the premiers and the other government members who are involved to get a firsthand assessment of the report. It is hoped that the dissident provinces will find it necessary to come on side and support the major recommendations of the committee and, in so doing, lay the groundwork for the next step, which will probably be the holding of a First Ministers' Conference.
As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, this preparatory work is necessary in order to set the stage. Hopefully, as a result of the consultations, we will be
able to proceed with the calling of a First Ministers' Conference.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the holding of a First Ministers' Conference is very important. I hope that the Prime Minister is not waiting for a guarantee of success. Obviously a guarantee of success is just a photo op. I hope that the Prime Minister is prepared to take the leadership to call that First Ministers' meeting to ensure that we can begin the dialogue for which this committee's report has provided the basis.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: It has been said about the report that the committee has set the table for a First Ministers' Conference. I want to point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that one of the items on that table has been the rights of the women of Canada which have been outlined as being important so that the women of Canada can be assured that their rights are protected.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit today, on behalf of the women of Canada, and on behalf of his government, that he and his government will ensure that this time women's rights are guaranteed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the Meech Lake Accord was signed by the Prime Minister and 10 provincial premiers. They, in their wisdom, believed that it was an appropriate document.
However, since that time there have been other developments. Three provinces have stated some reservations, which has resulted in the recommendations of a parallel accord and the work of this committee. Of course, much of the success will depend upon the position or the response that Manitoba, Newfoundland and New Brunswick make towards advancing the process.
What is necessary now is to ascertain the positions and the responses of the dissident provinces. Hopefully they will find sufficient latitude within the recommendations for them to come on board and support the process, at which time a First Ministers' Conference could be held and we could get this problem resolved once and for all.
May 17, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I will assume that the Deputy Prime Minister is not referring to the women of Canada as dissidents simply because they are putting forward their point of view and wanting to protect their rights.
I also want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he knows that Manitoba is required by its constitution to hold public hearings before any constitutional amendments can be signed. The premier of the province has said publicly that the province will hold 10 days of hearings and 10 days of debate. I would suggest, as Mr. McKenna has in his proposal, that all Canadians should have the opportunity to examine the companion resolution.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his government is prepared to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to have information on this companion resolution, using the same amount of time and effort it has put into ensuring that every Canadian household has something on the GST. I think the Constitution is important to the country. I ask the government today to say that it will put the same amount of effort into explaining this companion resolution to Canadians.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would not attempt to distort what I said. I did not refer to women as being dissidents; I referred to the three provinces that chose to take another course of action.
With regard to the other point in the question, I heard comments at the press conference today, and indeed in the House, that this was probably one of the most thorough committee processes we have gone through in this country for a long time. I think there were 160 witnesses who appeared. It has been a broad-based public hearing on the issue. What is at issue today is the responses of those provinces which have chosen not to support the Meech Lake Accord in its original form.
I am not in any position to dictate to the province of Manitoba, the province of New Brunswick or the province of Newfoundland what process they may want to set up in terms of how they want to deal with this. I would
Oral Questions
hope that the hon. member was not suggesting that in the context of her question.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the document the government has sent out entitled: "Some straightforward answers about the goods and services tax and what it means to you".
This flyer tells consumers and I quote: "Once this new system is in place the price of many manufactured items will drop".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: This is very interesting because the Department of Finance has already said that 76 per cent of consumer and commodity categories will actually show an average increase in price once the GST is in place.
I want to ask the government, and the minister, how they can possibly justify sending out this misleading propaganda at the taxpayers' expense.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised because the hon. member sits on the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Last week and this week witnesses from Sears, Ford and GM appeared before the committee and said that they are going to pass the reduction in tax from 13.5 per cent to 7 per cent on to Canadians. Even the president of the Consumers' Association of Canada, Mr. Murray, said that he is satisfied with the way the government managed the situation.
We should ensure that Canadians are well informed on the situation and have the facts. They will then be able to make their own decisions. We are sure they will benefit from the changes in the tax which we will have at the beginning of January.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the government is informing Canadians all right, but it is giving them the wrong information.

May 17, 1990
Oral Questions
Yesterday in this House the Minister of Finance said there will be no additional tax burden on Canadians from the GST and that the tax would be revenue neutral.
A recent government radio ad states:: "The GST, the new tax will provide a more reliable source of revenue which will help to reduce the national deficit."
I would like to ask the minister: Which is it? Is it revenue neutral or is it a tax grab?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will explain once more, as I have in this House quite a few times, what is meant by revenue neutral.
At the present time, we have a tax which is hidden. It is a disaster for our economy. We want to remove it. The present federal sales tax has an additional weakness. It is easy for companies to avoid it. It is a tax which is porous and tends to disappear as we raise the rate. By replacing it with a tax that is more modern and more efficient, we will have more guaranteed income to pay for the programs that Canadians want.
The tax will be neutral, but it will be a better system. As we go on, fewer companies will be able to avoid it.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Finance. It deals with his government's latest attempt by radio ads to mislead Canadians about the impact of the goods and services tax.
The text in one ad says: "The GST is not an additional tax." How can the minister possibly justify that statement when in fact his own documents show that thousands of goods and services never before taxed by the FST are now included in this goods and services tax? Why does he not come clean with Canadians, stop this misleading propaganda and-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put her question.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I do not have any great confidence in the capacity of the Liberal opposition to add or subtract in view of the debt they left this country in a few years ago.
I would like to explain to the hon. member that one minus one is not two. We are removing one tax. We are replacing it with another one. It is not an additional tax.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should ask every householder who is going to pay 7 per cent on his or her heating bills next winter how they feel about it.
This same radio ad, which is aimed at consumers, implies that the GST will actually lower prices to consumers. Mr. Speaker, can you believe this kind of statement? His own documents clearly indicate that the GST will raise the Consumer Price Index by 1.25 per cent. The documents say it.
Will the minister withdraw these untruthful ads and apologize to Canadian taxpayers for this latest attempt to buy this-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put the question.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, once again it is obvious that the hon. member has not understood or does not want to understand what this reform is all about. There are many aspects to it.
The hon. member will look at the CPI, but she fails to read the part in the technical document which states that this reform will increase the economy by $9 billion, bringing additional jobs and additional prosperity. This is what is meant by the increase in our economy. She should look at that. By removing from our exporters the additional weight they have to carry now, we will allow them to improve their performance and the performance of the Canadian economy.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns what is happening in Saint-Amable, which is 15 kilometres from my riding. Between 10 and 20 million tires are burning there. I give you this figure from statements made by the owner of the Saint-Amable tire dump; he himself has admitted it.
It is so serious that today I ask, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government will meet its responsibilities-
May 17, 1990


Pierre Blais: It is a provincial matter.


Philip Edmonston: -when the federal government will stop abandoning responsibility for its jurisdiction by saying that it is still up to the provincial government. It is a matter of joint jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, which is obvious from the fire control regulations. When will we see real leadership from this government, Mr. Speaker?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we responded immediately when the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for coordinating emergency measures, called us. We responded immediately.
As I said, we are on the scene, we are coordinating federal activities and I can assure you that we have implemented measures to coordinate all federal activity involving Health and Welfare, Agriculture Canada, Emergency Preparedness Canada and National Defence forces that are already there.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians would rather see prevention and leadership on the part of the federal government, something it has not shown so far. It dawdles and talks endlessly instead of showing leadership, and we are sick of it. My question is this, and I want a straightforward answer: When will we see some leadership? What are you going to do to prevent this problem? Not only in my riding, in the city of Saint-Amable, but throughout Canada, because there are hundreds of places like this, including Hagersville, and you know it.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I clearly said that a task force was set up try the Council of Canadian Environment Ministers on March 20, 1990. This task force is collecting all the information and will have the opportunity to analyze it at the beginning of July. At the moment, ensuring public safety is paramount and that is what we are doing.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On March 4,
Oral Questions
1987, the Prime Minister said: "We must make our manufacturing sector more competitive." Mr. Speaker, this year, because of this government's policies, we have lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs.


An hon. member:: Shame!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Today, the Minister of Finance increased once again our prime rate which is now 5.6 points higher than the American rate.


An hon. member:: Shame!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: How can we compete with the Americans when we are at such a disadvantage? When will this government stop listening to its Minister of Finance and start listening to Canadian manufacturers?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as recently as last week, or two weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund complimented Canada on its economic policies. This was following compliments by the OECD, following compliments by the World Economic Forum and following evidence over the last five years of a growth rate in Canada unequalled in the rest of the world.
The hon. member is worried about our competitiveness figures. I have the latest statement of Canadian international trade for the month of March showing that exports, for example, of automotive products registered the largest growth in March, increasing by more than $600 million compared to February. Over all, Canada's trade balance in March posted a $471 million surplus and was up $418 million in February. We are not doing that badly, Mr. Speaker.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if we are doing so well, why have we lost 71,000 vital, key manufacturing jobs in four months?
We have seen the collapse today of another Canadian firm, one of Canada's largest real estate firms, with a loss of 300 jobs. Chartland's owner said and I quote: "The government is killing us." Just how many more homeowners, farmers, workers and businesses is this government going to sacrifice on the altar of high interest?

May 17, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a net increase in new jobs so far this year in the order of 100,000.
I just refer to a random selection: Bell Northern Research is starting construction of a $100 million extension to its main research complex this summer in Nepean.
"Quebec's export sales rise 3.2 per cent, Caccia attributes growth to high-tech companies".
"GM gives Quebec plant new lease on life": the new assembly plant for General Motors at Ste. Therese, a billion dollar investment.
A billion dollar investment by Ford in Oakville.
"Thrifty Canadian firms are fighting fit: StatsCan". It says:
Canadian businesses enter the 1990s saving and investing more
than almost any other competitors in the industrialized world, a new
report by Statistics Canada says.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Considering that the long-awaited fisheries aid package does absolutely nothing for the lobster fishermen, could the minister explain what short-term measures he will take to aid the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada so they will survive these low prices?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a similar question yesterday on behalf of the minister of fisheries.
There is a greater supply of lobsters than there is demand. That is the problem with the lobster situation in the world today. We are making special efforts to market lobsters in countries that don't yet appreciate the value, the taste, the texture, and the deliciousness generally of the Canadian north Atlantic lobster.
The government has entered into a $2.5 million promotion program with two of the far-seeing provinces to help and assist in the marketing of lobster. Those are the steps that have been taken with reference to lobster so far.
The minister of fisheries will continue to watch the situation carefully to see if there is anything that we can
or should do further to help in this situation. It is a market situation and of course all parties in this House, except the NDP, believe in the market.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that we are aware they are delicious, but they are also way too cheap. My supplementary question is for the same minister.
Will the minister announce immediately a price support package for lobster fishermen so that they will be able to cover their cost of production and remain in the lobster industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a representation. I know that he is concerned about lobster fishermen, just as I am. I represent lobster fishermen as well. I will pass that representation on to the minister of fisheries. I had better not say any more than that, but I will certainly pass it on to the minister of fisheries.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
Last week the federal government sent a representative to join the worshippers at the church of privatization in Saskatoon. Among other recommendations at the conference on privatization, we heard about the glories of private health care from American experts. Among the many advantages of the American private system is that 37 million people do not have any health insurance and that it is the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the world.
Will the minister confirm that his government is opposed to privatization of health care and will he end the widespread speculation across the country that this government is committed to return to profit medicine in Canada?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the only people who are spreading that sort of concern is the NDP. I can't recall anybody on this side making that sort of comment.
I have had the opportunity to read the report in today's Regina Leader-Post about the shenanigans of the provincial NDP at the conference in Saskatoon. Obviously what
May 17, 1990

it was attempting to do was to create unjustified fear on the part of residents of Saskatchewan.
These fears are unjustified and it is unfortunate the hon. gentleman should foster those himself.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if indeed they are unjustified, perhaps the minister could stand in the House today and tell us that while he is the Minister of National Health and Welfare there will not be a return to user fees in this country, there will not be a return to extra billing in this country. Can he stand in his place today, if he is so convinced that he is not in favour of privatization of health care, and make that commitment to Canadians?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is health critic for his party should be aware of the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which are quite explicit on this matter.
This is exactly the same party that went around Canada during the last election campaign trying to scare the sick, the elderly, and the poor by telling them they were going to lose their benefits. It was false then and it is false now.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture and concerns dairy producers in my riding who disagree with the Canadian Dairy Commission's recommendation to keep the target price of milk at its present level. They claim that this conclusion was reached by the Commission because of a change in methodology.
Could the minister give the House and the producers the assurance that uniform and compatible methods and procedures for data collection will be used, so as to reach a decision that is fair to all concerned?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his
Oral Questions
interest in the matter. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I asked the task force to look into the whole dairy question. Mr. Speaker, our long-term dairy policy expires next year, and we are making sure it will be renewed and will be fair to dairy producers across Canada. With respect to the specific point raised by the hon. member, it is clear there is some difference of opinion about calculation methods.
That being said, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I have asked an independent agency, an independent audit firm to look at these figures. They are to report on the matter around the middle of June. At that time we will consider the report and see what transpires. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will continue to co-operate very closely with dairy producers in order to get the best possible deal for them, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In the last four years this government has allowed subsidized U.S. steel to more than double its share of the Canadian market from 4.5 per cent to 10 per cent, while at the same time the Canadian share of the U.S. market has hovered around its traditional 3 per cent.
We all know that the U.S. has created an informal trade barrier by applying countervail every time our exports in the U.S. climb above three percentage points.
How can the minister honestly say that we have free trade in steel when these practices are still occurring?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have not allowed U.S. steel companies to do anything. It is up to U.S. steel companies to do whatever they can to sell their product in any part of the world that has a free market, such as we do, or are members of the GATT system.
They are quite entitled to sell in Canada, just as we are entitled to sell into the United States. If any private Canadian firm has a complaint against a U.S. steel company alleging that it is receiving trade distorting subsidies or whatever, the company can go to the appropriate tribunal here and lay a complaint. It can lay

May 17, 1990
Oral Questions
a charge of anti-dumping and proceed just as firms in the United States can do the same vis-a-vis us.
So grow up and live in the real world and don't ask silly questions such as are we allowing-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, they sure could not apply for that because they knew you didn't have the guts to stand up for them.
We all know that the Canadian steel industry is far more efficient than its U.S. counterpart and that we could easily compete if there was truly a level playing field.
Why does the government not act now, stop this unfair trading practice and allow our Canadian steel companies that same open access to the U.S. market?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our steel companies have free access to the U.S. steel market.
As a matter of fact, the fairness of the way our steel companies operated was recognized by the United States when it did not try to require Canada to become subject to a voluntary restraint agreement such as many other countries had to enter into.
With respect to my guts, usually the complaint is that they are too large.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
Since the minister and his government refused to cancel the goods and services tax as it applies to education and refused to restore the transfer payments to education, will the minister change student aid to ensure that Canadians are not denied an appropriate education and to ensure that the student debt is not increased?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman is getting carried away.
Our transfers to the provinces this year will increase. We are going to transfer more money this year than last year. Where we are capping in Canada Assistance Program, for example, we are doing it only in the provinces that do not receive equalization payments.
Not only do we provide many billions to the provinces to apply to their own priorities-it is not for us to decide how they should spend their money-we also provide them with equalization payments which they again can apply to their own priorities. We do not choose their programs for them.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Since neither the minister nor his government wants to do anything about the GST as it affects education or to cancel the huge cuts in education funding or to improve financial assistance for students, is he prepared to restore the number of summer jobs for students to the same level as in previous years?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not accept the member's statements claiming that we are cutting and decreasing. We are reducing the growth. We are doing so in order that this government and this country can maintain their ability to help those in need. If we did not take this action, as we did in the budget, paying special attention to the disadvantaged and the poorer provinces, we could quickly let this country drift into an intolerable financial situation, as you did when you formed the government, which would prevent us from giving our support. We will continue to support the provinces massively for all the programs of which you spoke.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who recently attended a NATO meeting in Kananaskis.
Many Canadians were disappointed with that meeting and that the minister of defence, on behalf of the government, did not show any Canadian leadership on the issue of the modernization of nuclear weapons.
May 17, 1990

Why is the government not listening to its former ambassador for disarmament who has called for Canada to oppose the modernization of nuclear weapons?
Why is the Canadian government not taking a stand against all forms of modernization, not just the elimination of ground based missiles but air launched and sea launched cruise missiles?
Why does the minister think it is a good idea to keep pointing these weapons at the populations of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and all the other countries that have become democracies and are struggling to become part of the international community? Why does he think that is still a good idea?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that my colleague did not pay closer attention to the meeting that was held in Kana-naskis.
We, along with the other allies, welcomed the decision that was made by President Bush to no longer modernize the Lance and to no longer modernize nuclear artillery.
The hon. member join with the allies in supporting the initiative that has been taken by the President of the United States, along with his commitment that he would be prepared to enter into negotiations when the CFB talks are concluded and signed.
I am sure the hon. member understands, although he does not seem to from the way his question was phrased, that we will not be able to disinvent nuclear technology. As a mix of deterrents in the defensive alliance, NATO, we have to maintain the mix that has been successful in keeping peace in Europe for 45 years.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's answer says it all. Canadian consciousness with respect to this is either welcoming or approving, or some other response, to decisions made elsewhere, in this case in Washington.
When are there going to be Canadian decisions? Why is it not possible for Canada to take a decision to not participate in certain forms of nuclear weapons testing, particularly the short-range nuclear weapons which continue to be pointed at eastern Europe? Why is there this insistence on maintaining a mix of weapons against a
Speaker's Ruling
people who are no longer our enemies, if they ever were?
Why does he refuse to consult the Canadian people? When are the Canadian people going to be consulted about this review of defence policy that is going on? Why does he not take the Canadian people into his confidence for once? Maybe they will tell him to show some leadership and not just listen to President Bush.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know there is division within the New Democratic Party as to whether or not it would continue to belong to the NATO alliance. Canada happens to believe, and so do the Canadian people, in the opportunities that are provided to a non-nuclear nation such as Canada, which has not made the decision that we will impose our views upon allies. By belonging to NATO, we have, as have other non-nuclear countries, an opportunity to be involved in the decision making.
I do not suggest that it is deliberate, but the hon. member is misleading in suggesting that Canada has been taking part in nuclear weapons testing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What about the cruise missile?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member obviously does not know what the cruise missile is. It is testing of a guidance system-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, no. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that Canada has been testing nuclear missiles. Canada has not been and the New Democratic Party should become honest with the Canadian people.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Sudbury rose on a question of privilege to complain about a radio advertisement relating to the goods and services tax legislation now before the Senate.
The hon. member for Dartmouth very kindly provided for the Chair the transcript of that radio ad, both in French and in English.

May 17, 1990
Business of the House
For the record, I will read that and it will go into the judgement. The radio ad said:
The proposed goods and services tax will be a tax on the sale of most goods and services in Canada. It is not an additional tax, since it replaces the current federal sales tax.
The GST has three objectives: First, to improve the overall fairness of Canada's tax system. Second, to lower costs so that our products will be more competitive in international markets, and here in Canada. That means more jobs. And finally, to provide a more reliable source of revenue, which will help to reduce the national deficit.
The GST is an important change for Canada. If you'd like more information on how the GST will affect you, call toll-free-
That is the advertisement complained about.
The essence of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Sudbury is that they do not agree that the advertisement I have just read is correct, and both of them indicated that they felt strongly on that issue.
The difficulty the Chair has is that it may very well be that an advertisement, statement, or publication might draw different views from different members, depending on where they sit in this Chamber, or even from the public. It may be that an advertisement may seem to be very accurate from one person's point of view and less than accurate from somebody else's point of view. But that is, by and large, a question of debate.
I point out that in this particular case the ad does start off with the comment that it is the "proposed goods and services tax". The hon. member for Dartmouth asked me to consider whether the next words, that is, "will be a tax" in any way denigrate from the opening words, "the proposed goods and services tax". While one might argue the semantics of it, I am inclined to think that it does not in any way take away from the clear intention of the words, "the proposed goods and services tax".
In connection with the substance of the ad-or perhaps I should say the content of the ad, because the substance of it is very much a matter of dispute in this chamber-I find that while there may be disagreement as to the ad, I do not think it is possible for the Chair to find that this ad in any way infringes on the capacity of an hon. member to do his or her duty as a member of Parliament. That is the test, of course, which the Chair has to apply in determining whether or not there is a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Kamloops eloquently supported the argument of the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Sudbury. The Minister of National Revenue rose and indicated that he was not in entire agreement with some of the arguments that had been put forward with respect to the facts of the general situation surrounding the proposed goods and services tax. At that point, I asked hon. members to let the Chair consider the matter because, clearly, we were in danger of getting into a debate which went beyond the procedural argument.
As I say, I have heard the arguments. I have reviewed carefully the transcript of the advertisement and brought it to the attention of the House and the public, but my ruling must be that I can find no basis upon which the Chair could make the prima facie link with parliamentary privilege or contempt. Hon. members may wish to dispute the facts or pursue the matter through further debate, as indeed was done today in Question Period, but I cannot, on the evidence submitted, give this complaint consideration as a matter of privilege.
I appreciate the fact that I was well informed in advance and I appreciate also the courtesy and co-operation of all hon. members throughout the debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on Thursdays it is the custom for the opposition House leader to ask the government House leader what legislation the House will be called upon to study for the next few days. Would the minister give us chapter and verse of the legislation that we will be looking at tomorrow, Tuesday, and, possibly, next Wednesday?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it would be my intention to call Bill C-34, dealing with the establishment of a management centre, and Bill C-57, dealing with copyright protection for integrated circuits. Hopefully, both bills can proceed through report and third reading stages tomorrow. I understand there has been discussion among the parties and some agreement in that regard.
May 17, 1990

Monday will be a holiday.
Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be report stage on Bill C-43, the abortion bill, for which there is a House Order providing that we will have extended sittings on both days until 9 p.m. to give an opportunity for all members who desire to speak to speak, with votes on report stage on Wednesday at nine o'clock.
Thursday, we will continue with third reading of the abortion bill, again under the House Order on Bill C-43. The vote on that will be postponed until the following Tuesday.
I expect to call Friday of next week an allotted day. That will take care of next week.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a minor but nevertheless important detail, we have not, as of now, had all the amendments to Bill C-34. I do not think that either the government House leader or myself could make the undertaking that we would pass the bill at report stage and third reading tomorrow. I have not seen what the members of the House are going to bring in terms of amendments to the bill tomorrow. I think we should reserve on that one. If there are no unusual amendments, then I can give the undertaking.


Harvie Andre: I was not expecting a firm commitment in that regard, but I understood that there may be a minor typographical error. Where the word should have been "officers", it is "affairs". That is the extent of the amendment. Discussions will be undertaken among parties and, if no agreement is possible, so be it. Hopefully, an agreement will be possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that everybody understands, we have until six o'clock tonight to table amendments to that bill. I do not know if members have additional amendments. I just want to make sure that everybody's right to table amendments is protected and that members do not think that we are going to pass the bill come rain or high water.


Harvie Andre: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker's Ruling PRIVILEGE



HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY-SPEAKER'S RULING

['Given the circumstances and the frankness of the hon. member for Beaver River, I am going to rule now.\nI do not know what has been published in other newspapers, but this is the one that is presently in front of me.\nThis is far more an article purporting to report what the hon. member for Beaver River said than it is an editorial. It is a column in The Mirror, of Tuesday, April 10, 1990, on page 21.1 am indebted to the hon. member for Calgary West for sending it to me so quickly so that I could look at it.\nThe position we are in is one in which we should apply our traditional balance in this place. The hon. member has come in front of her peers in this House and said: "Well, I seem to have said it. I completely and utterly withdraw and retract it". I really think that that is where the matter ought to end.\nI have properly made similar rulings, I think, on other occasions when there is an unequivocal withdrawal by an hon. member. That is my ruling.\nWith that ruling, the matter is closed.\nThe hon. member for Beaver River seems to be seeking the floor. It will not necessary for her to address this matter any further, unless she has something she wants to say to members on a point of order. The ruling is now made.']
Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, April 23, 1990, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rose on a question of privilege to draw our attention to a letter circulating in the United States which had been the subject of at least one news article in this country.
The letter in question was written by a former hon. member of this place and bore his signature. The text clearly indicates that the writer is no longer a member of Parliament. The opening sentence, directed to an American audience, reads:
I bid you greetings from Canada where, for eight years, I served
that nation as a Member of Parliament until 1984.
This is followed by the declaration: "I chose to give up my seat in Parliament as a protest". Finally, the signature block refers to the writer as: "Member of Parliament (ret)".

Beyond noting those indications in the text that bear on the fact that the former hon. member was not misrepresenting his current status, I do not think the Chair should comment at all upon the content of the letter.

When the issue was first raised in the House, the Chair said: "The question is whether or not it is appropriate to send (the letter) out-under the guise of House of Commons stationery", and "The point I have to decide is whether whoever put this out has done something which breaches the privileges of the House".
The writer of the letter who is, as I have said, a former hon. member of this place, has, in a letter addressed to your Speaker, the House leader and several other hon. members, categorically denied sending this letter out on House of Commons stationery. This denial is supported by the statement of the president of the group which claims responsibility for the mailing at issue. According to that statement, the group took the writer's draft, which was on plain white paper, transferred it to a composite made up of two or three samples of parliamentary letterhead, and mailed it in a similar composite envelope.

May 17, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
In our discussions on April 23 last, it was, I think, made clear that our former colleague not only bore no responsibility for the misuse of House of Commons letterhead, but that he took considerable pains to explain his position in this matter to this House at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, it was, I believe, conceded that this House was in no way misled as to the status of the former member.

That being so, I must confine my considerations to the question, is this unsanctioned use of House of Commons letterhead by an American group a serious enough matter to warrant setting aside the regular business of this House?
In this connection, I would remind all hon. members of the limited function ascribed to the Speaker in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege by citation 84(2) of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons, Fifth Edition. I want also to repeat what I have said so often in the past, that the Speaker does not rule on whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has in fact been committed. The Speaker only determines whether an application based on a claim of contempt or breach of privilege is, on first impression, of sufficient importance to set aside the regular business of the House and go forward for a decision of the House.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in his remarks, referred me to a decision of May 6,1985, wherein a former member of Parliament was identified as a member in a newspaper advertisement. In that case, the Speaker stated in finding it was a prima facie case of privilege, "anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member's identity, creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member's function".
The Chair also indicated in that case that the only tangible evidence was that provided by the hon. member who raised the question of privilege. That case is certainly not on all fours with this one, as in this case it was established that there was no confusion as to the identity of the former member and, further, the former member established by documentaiy evidence at the first opportunity that he was not responsible for the misuse of House of Commons stationary.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated:
The point is that that material, in several thousands of copies, has been distributed to individuals, misleading them to believe that in some way the House, or a representative of the House, was associated with it. In that way-the privileges of the House collectively have been affected.
The hon. Minister of State, the government House Leader, felt that it was obviously unacceptable for anyone to use House of Commons stationary in a fraudulent manner and assert a claim of official status for it. While he asserted that the person responsible for the mailing most certainly had abused the privileges of the House, he queried whether we could enforce those privileges beyond our borders.
The hon. member for Kamloops, who had also filed notice of his intention to raise this matter, noted that the hon. "government House Leader said that yes, indeed, he agrees the privileges of the House had been breached".
The hon. member for Kamloops referred to Maingot's work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada which, at page 195 in the English edition, describes one class of contempt as being "the interference with the corporate rights of the House".
"Surely", the hon. member for Kamloops continued, "the House of Commons shares the same corporate rights as other corporate bodies, including the important right to claim sole use of our Coat of Arms, stationary, and freedom from the misrepresentation of our views by others".

I listened intently to the views of all hon. members who spoke on this matter and I have reviewed the facts with a great deal of care. There would appear to be a unanimous sense of outrage directed at the perpetration of this affront. There also appears to be agreement, on all sides of the House, that the privileges of the House, in the broadest sense of that term, have been breached.

The Chair, however, must still determine which of the specific privileges of the House have been breached. I must admit that the action complained of does not fit neatly under any of the headings under which the rights
May 17, 1990

and immunities of individual members or the rights and powers of the House as a collectivity are categorized.
The difficulty in categorizing the purported breach of privilege led the Chair to consider whether perhaps the action at issue was not a breach at all but rather a contempt; broadly speaking, an offence against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons.
The Chair has found that no breach of privilege exists but that it is at least arguable that there is a contempt at issue. The finding is of little practical significance however, because the next question which the Chair must address, in either case, is the same. That is, is this matter of sufficient importance to be afforded privilege treatment. In other words, should it be put to the House immediately?
Were I to respond to that question in the affirmative the hon. member who raised the question of privilege would be invited to propose to the House a motion referring the matter to the Privileges and Elections Committee. The motion could then be debated, amended and voted upon. Depending on the outcome of that process, the matter might then be considered by a committee and reappear before the House if and when the committee reported.
It is with a full appreciation of the whole complex process entailed in according privilege treatment to any matter that the Chair must decide whether or not to find a matter is prima facie a question of privilege or contempt.
The case at hand involves a misuse of a facsimile of House of Commons stationary in a pathetic attempt, presumably, to lend some sort of official status to the perpetrator's cause. Furthermore, the offence has occurred in the United States where neither the House nor its committees could exercise any authority. The Chair is most reluctant to accord to a case of this nature the importance that would undoubtedly attach to it were I to find a prima facie case of contempt and accordingly I refuse to do so.

In concluding my remarks on this matter, the Chair wishes to express its appreciation to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for Kamloops and the Government House Leader for the calibre of their contributions to this discussion. All three
Speaker's Ruling
performed in the best traditions of the place in focusing on the procedural question involved and in avoiding argument on the content of the letter at issue.

The Chair is most conscious of the restraint exercised in this regard. There is a danger always that under the guise of defending our privilege we would provide a platform for those who espouse opinions repugnant to our own. That danger has been neatly averted in this instance and the Chair is grateful for the co-operation of all hon. members in this respect.



Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have not had time to give you notice, but some five minutes ago a member of my caucus handed me an editorial from The Mirror of Morinville of Tuesday, April 10, 1990. Morinville is a town in Alberta and The Mirror is, I believe, a weekly newspaper. The editorial is entitled: "MP Grey decries "goon tactics" to pass GST". It is not the headline I am concerned about.
In the last five minutes I have had an opportunity to talk to the member for Beaver River just briefly and to show her this editorial. I would like to read into the record one particular paragraph of the editorial because I think it brings the House into contempt and certainly this member into contempt. I understand from the member for Beaver River that this is not the kind of remarks she made, although the editorial writer seems to attribute them to her. The word "she" in the article refers to the hon. member for Beaver River. It reads:
She also pointed out the damages made to democracy when members of Parliament are "bribed" to vote for the GST or lose lucrative life-time pensions. Ms. Grey noted the government whip, Jim Hawkes, dangled an extra $7000 tax-free allowance for them if they vote for the government rather than their constituents.
I want to take this opportunity to assure the House and the people of Canada that I have dangled no such offer in front of anybody in an attempt to get them to vote for the GST. I find it abhorrent that any editorial writer in this country would consider that members of Parliament are bribable in any way, shape or fashion in terms of the public interest. I do not think that is true. It is a crime, according to the Parliament of Canada Act. This editorial accuses me of having committed that kind of a crime.

May 17, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
I bring this to your attention. The member for Beaver River is in the Chamber and I think she can assure the House that the editorialist is not quoting her. I believe that these kinds of assertions in a weekly newspaper do constitute a contempt of this member, for sure, and a contempt of this Parliament. They are simply not true.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has raised this question of privilege has made no comment about being prepared to move the usual motion. I wonder if that was an oversight.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, with my 11 years in the Chamber, I should not have forgotten that. If you were to find a prima facie case, I would certainly be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beaver River.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in conducting my spring tour in my riding in the week of the final GST vote I was consulting with several people in many areas in my riding. Of course, it was a huge area of concern for Albertans in general that two of the members of the Tory caucus were removed from their caucus because of their vote on the GST.
When I talk about bribery I know that money is involved. Generally, it was the timing of this particular per diem expense coming out of committee that was, perhaps, made reference to. As far as I can remember, I clearly did not say that the party whip was bribing them with money. Those were two concurrent situations that just happened to take place at the same time.
I did make reference publicly in Alberta and across Canada in the media to comments made by the member for Edmonton Southeast vis-a-vis some of the things that were going on in the Tory caucus. I think it is quite clear to this Chamber that Canada realizes that I certainly am not privy to what goes on in the Tory caucus. I made general comments about that and people were voicing their concerns.
I certainly am prepared and happy to immediately retract that statement, if such was made. But I can say with clear conscience that I may have used the idea of pressuring, but certainly not the idea of bribery. I will be happy to retract that if, in fact, it was said.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard both the issue raised by our colleague across the way, the hon. whip for the government, and also the clarification given to us by the hon. member for Beaver River. Notwithstanding any retraction, if a retraction is necessary, it should still be remembered that the article in question is still out there and so long as it is in the public domain, and the newspaper story in question remains unretracted, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the privileges of our colleague across the way have been offended individually. We are all wearing the same uniform in here. When such accusations are made, to a degree the privileges of the House as well are similarly offended in my view.
To that extent, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the issue would be investigated further, perhaps by means of reference to the parliamentary committee in question, so that the House itself can obtain redress from the serious accusation that was made, regardless of who made the accusation. Notwithstanding any withdrawal by one individual, if such a withdrawal is warranted, the other withdrawal must occur as well in order for this House to obtain redress, in my opinion.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, my staff has just researched this for me and I see that on April 5, 1990,1 was quoted as saying how damaging it is to MPs that they are bribed to vote for face losing when the government dangles these tax-free allowances.
Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I did say that, having now seen it in print, and I will retract that. To be fair to The Mirror of Morinville, that was my quote and I do stand corrected in the House of Commons. I was certainly trying to take it deeper than that. I was not referring particularly to the hon. member but was making comment about the particular system. I do stand corrected. I retract that and I will certainly bear no ill will to The Mirror of Morinville. I will take the advice of the Chair.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, on this very important point of privilege I would just like to add that this has not just appeared in The Mirror of Morinville. My riding of Athabasca neighbours that of my friend from across the way. This same quote has been carried in a number of weekly newspapers in my riding. I would suspect it was pretty generally quoted throughout Alberta. I do not know what your decision will be but I do
May 17, 1990

believe that a reference to the proper committee is in order by way of clearing all members of Parliament of this accusation.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I thank the hon. member for raising the matter and I thank the hon. member for Beaver River for her frankness which is in the best tradition of this place. I want to consider carefully the comments of the hon. member for Glengariy-Prescott-Russell. The editorial, I think, has to be looked at from two points of view; one, what an hon. member in this place may or may not have said and, second, the content of the editorial itself, unless of course the hon. member for Calgary West wants to remove that aspect of it from his presentation.
However, I took it that his presentation and his claim of breach of privilege extended to the content of the editorial and not merely to an hon. member who may or may not have been quoted correctly. Am I correct in that?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, since I rose some five minutes ago the situation has broadened with the comments of the member for Athabasca. I had no idea that those kinds of comments were out and about. I thought this was an isolated case.
We might be well advised to take the matter under advisement for a day or two to give the member for Beaver River, and other members who have weekly newspapers in their ridings, a chance to look into it, to get a better sense of the degree to which that quote was used or abused, depending on the interpretation. Perhaps the House would be best served by leaving it at that stage for a few days, and then bringing it back to the floor of the House with some further information and evidence that might be of assistance to Your Honour in reaching a judgment.
Obviously I would like to stop the spread of the damage caused by the incorrect assertions. I am not quite sure what the best method to do that might be. That would give the member for Beaver River a better chance to search all the files. She seems to have a very good staff, judging by what they have produced for her in such a hurry. We might be best served with a little delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the tenor of this, I do not want to leave it hanging too long. I wonder if the House would indulge me a moment. I would like to see the editorial.
Government Orders
Would the hon. member for Calgary West have a Page bring it up to the Chair?


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Given the circumstances and the frankness of the hon. member for Beaver River, I am going to rule now.
I do not know what has been published in other newspapers, but this is the one that is presently in front of me.
This is far more an article purporting to report what the hon. member for Beaver River said than it is an editorial. It is a column in The Mirror, of Tuesday, April 10, 1990, on page 21.1 am indebted to the hon. member for Calgary West for sending it to me so quickly so that I could look at it.
The position we are in is one in which we should apply our traditional balance in this place. The hon. member has come in front of her peers in this House and said: "Well, I seem to have said it. I completely and utterly withdraw and retract it". I really think that that is where the matter ought to end.
I have properly made similar rulings, I think, on other occasions when there is an unequivocal withdrawal by an hon. member. That is my ruling.
With that ruling, the matter is closed.
The hon. member for Beaver River seems to be seeking the floor. It will not necessary for her to address this matter any further, unless she has something she wants to say to members on a point of order. The ruling is now made.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-67, an act to prevent the importation, exportation and spread of pests injurious to plants and to provide for their control and eradication and for the certification of plants and other things, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the legislative committee considering Bill C-66.
[Stage Direction]
May 17, 1990
Government Orders
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose for lunch the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings had the floor.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, when we recessed for lunch I was in the midst of some comments on Bill C-67, an act entitled the Plant Protection Act. I would like to take a few minutes to continue those comments.
I was in the midst of discussing the powers of inspectors and their ability to establish the quarantine areas that will be allowed under this bill, if it is passed by the Parliament of Canada.
The bill improves the effectiveness of control measures that could veiy well be necessary in controlling pests, diseases, et cetera, involving plants. In the past, a quarantine area could be established. However, there were not effective measures to allow the restriction of the movement of vehicles and people in and out of the quarantine area. This bill will allow such restrictions to be enforced and put in place.
I explained to the House, and I stress this, that we must be very careful in doing this. When we establish a quarantine area the other thing that this bill does is it enables an inspector to make, if necessary, a fairly large quarantine area. We have to remember that many, if not all, the products produced by the agriculture industry are perishable, and some are more perishable than others, but they are all perishable.
When a quarantine area is established that means product cannot move in or out of that area. If it is a very perishable crop being talked about at the farm level, then a very serious economic effect can take place as far as that farmer's livelihood is concerned, or the livelihood of a business if it happens to be a business, for example, a greenhouse business or something like that.
We must be very careful to realize that there is no provision in this bill to allow for the compensation of revenues that might be lost by someone else within a quarantine area. That can only be done by an ad hoc program that can be put in place by a minister. If a plant or crop has to be destroyed, or if a program has to be put in place to correct the damage that has been done, there is provision for compensation to allow for that.
We must keep in mind that there could very well some detrimental affects to others within a quarantine area who are victims of a circumstance beyond their control. It could, as I say, be very costly to those people.
Another point that I feel we must look at very carefully in this legislation is the government's cost recovery proposal. It would permit the government to recover from any person or any business any of the costs, charges or fees incurred by the government in fulfilment of this bill.
I bring to the attention of the House that this is enabling legislation that gives the minister and the Department of Agriculture carte blanche, a blank cheque, to set fees for services performed and to recover those fees. We must keep in mind what such a provision could do. It is not impossible, and I hope it would not happen, that an over-zealous inspector could move in a case where there was a disease or a pest-and there is a good new definition of pest in the bill-on to a site, a farm or business premise and carry out a number of inspections, a number of activities and then later have the opportunity because of this bill to send that person or business a bill.
That is all well and good, if it is an isolated situation where someone has brought something into their business from across the border into our country, for example, plant material that is carrying a disease or a pest that needs to be looked after. I will give a couple of examples on that point.
There are a tremendous number of tomato transplants that are brought into Ontario from the southern United States each year. In 1988, after they started to arrive, even though they had been inspected in the southern states at their place of origin and place of growth, and even though they had been inspected upon their arrival here in Canada, it became known a few weeks later that there was a problem with a bacterial canker in those plants. Federal inspectors did have to go on to farm sites and into fields to inspect to see what damage was there. The job they did had to be done. My concern is that with the fee recoverability in this legislation, the fees for carrying out those tasks could be sent to the grower. I agree that the task that they were doing had to be done. It was a job that they were doing for the total industry
May 17, 1990

and therefore for the good of the agricultural industry in general.
My concern is this. Let us make sure in the regulations that someone is not unjustly charged because they happen to have control of the site where something happened and would therefore have to bear the whole cost.
Again, in 1989, in the tomato processing industry in Ontario a tomato spotted wilt virus was detected a few weeks after some plants came into Canada. They were planted and were growing in the field. Inspectors had to go into the fields and check them.
What I am saying is who bears the cost? I do not feel it is fair that the individual farmer should have to bear the cost of such inspections. There are some things being done in similar cases, whether it is food inspection or something else, that the Government of Canada and the taxpayer want done. Because it is for their benefit I feel that they should contribute toward the payment of those costs.
I remind the House that primary producers in particular in the agricultural field are price takers. They are not price setters. They do not have the ability to pass those costs, if they are given to them, to the buyers of their product. They produce a perishable product that must be marketed when it is ready to go to market. They have to take the price that is established by someone else.
The other concern that I feel we should take a good look at when this bill goes to committee is the allowance in it for the government to hire private individuals or private firms to carry out some of the duties that are provided for in this bill, whether it be with respect to inspections or laboratory tests that need to be done. I am afraid this may very well be a move by the government to further privatize some of the work done presently by inspectors and by the staff of Agriculture Canada. There is a danger that these people may not always be properly trained. We may also very well lose some of the uniformity of inspection and enforcement of regulations that in the past have been done so well. I look forward as well to discussions on that when we get to the legislative committee.
In closing, I would like to state that we must, as we have in the past in the updating of Bill C-67 and Bill C-66, be very strict. We must watch what is happening
Government Orders
here. We must watch what is going out of our country as far as plant products are concerned and what is coming into our country in terms of plant products so that we do not allow insects, pests or diseases to come in which can be detrimental not only to the agri-food industry but to all Canadians in general. We must be careful and take a very good look at the regulations.
Therefore I strongly suggest that when this bill goes to the legislative committee that if at all possible we have a copy of the regulations, at least in rough draft, so that we can review them at that time to see that they are going to be handled and written in a manner that is beneficial and which will give all the necessary safeguards to all sectors of the industry.
With that, I look forward to further discussion of Bill C-67 at the legislative committee for further clarification at that time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am privileged to have a chance to speak on Bill C-67 which, in a sense, is companion legislation to Bill C-66 which deals with concerns regarding diseases with animals.
We are now considering the matter of plant protection legislation to ensure that plant life in the agricultural sector, as well as in the forestry sector, will be protected from incoming pests, meaning insects or diseases. This means that we also control plant material leaving Canada in terms of ensuring that we are not infecting other parts of the world with pests or diseases that may have originated here.
Basically, we are trying to control or eliminate plant pests of one kind or another in the country. It is time that we deal with this issue. This is updated legislation. It replaces the Plant Quarantine Act that has been in obvious need of change for decades. This is an opportunity to do that.
I want to say at the outset that we in the New Democratic Party support this legislation. We feel that it is a good initiative. It will assist the agricultural community, as well as the forest industry, in making Canada more insect and disease free when it comes to the infestation of our plant life.
Since we are dealing with this in principle there are, however, two or three points I want to mention as we move this bill into committee. Once the legislative committee examines Bills C-67 and C-66, there are a number of areas we need to look at.

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
One of these areas concerns the incredible powers that are given to the Minister of Agriculture as well as agriculture officials. When you read the bill, Madam Speaker, you will notice that the Minister of Agriculture almost becomes a czar and is able to move in and deal quickly with an area that has been infected by insects, pests or diseases of one kind or another. It is good to have a disease SWAT team, a disease commando unit, to move in quickly to deal with a problem as early as possible. The earlier these issues are dealt with, the more chance there is to successfully eliminate them or deal with them.
However, we also realize that an over-zealous minister or an over-zealous official could cause problems. As my hon. friend who just spoke indicated, it would be appropriate and absolutely necessary to have at least draft regulations for the committee to consider at the same time that we are dealing with this legislation. Those regulations will lay out the parameters in terms of how the minister and agriculture officials will respond.
I also want to give some indication of a concern regarding the fees, charges and costs associated with the inspection, containment, quarantine initiatives and so on that will be taken. The bill indicates that in a sense we are attempting to introduce a cost-recovery initiative where the cost of a particular initiative, looking into a diseased plant area, would be borne largely by the producer.
I want to ask if that is reasonable. Is it not in all our interests as a society to ensure that our crops and our forest lands are disease free? At times, this would require an initiative on behalf of the producer to recognize that there appears to be a problem and we ought to deal with it. It may cost the producer his crop, or a portion of it.
If the entire cost of this analysis is being borne by the producer, there may at times be less than an immediate response to deal with this. We have seen and we are aware of instances in the past where producers have simply overlooked what was a problem, something which became a serious problem later. If we are going to encourage people to volunteer to deal with this, I think we should do so with some recognition that society as a whole will benefit and perhaps society as a whole should carry some of the costs.
I also want to say that I am pleased to see that the act grants authority to issue tickets, similar to traffic tickets, to violators of the act and the regulations that will be attached to it. This is a progressive step. Again, we can deal effectively and efficiently with those people who from time to time may violate sections of the Plant Protection Act.
I also want to suggest that what appears to be an effort here to privatize the inspection service raises some concerns with us. We recognize that we must have a more comprehensive inspection team with more of an ability to provide the necessary on-site inspections, but whether or not the seeking of private firms to carry out this inspection process is necessarily the right way to go is something I question.
I question that because Canadians expect protection. They expect a high level and a high degree of protection. They assume that the appropriate inspection processes are always being carried out. We know, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
When it comes to a country as susceptible as we are from time time to plant diseases coming in, it is important that we have a very high degree of inspection. That has been done extremely well by Agriculture Canada in the past. I would like to think that we will continue on with that tradition and not see this as an opportunity to simply privatize a number of first-class government services that we have known in the past. This is a question that we will obviously be pursuing at the committee stage.
On balance, we support the legislation. We are pleased that the government has brought it forward now. We look forward to dealing with it in committee and raising some of the appropriate concerns there. We again appeal to have as much of the regulations in place as possible for consideration when this bill gets to the committee stage.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, we are all well aware of the devastation that can occur when animals are introduced into an environment where there are no natural enemies to control their population. A world famous example of this is the introduction of the rabbit into Australia. That country has spent millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, over the years to try to control an animal which had no natural predators to control its population.
May 17, 1990

The same thing has happened and will happen again if strict means are not taken in the national interest to control accidental importation of pests and diseases not native to Canada. Dutch Elm disease in Ontario and in my home province of Prince Edward Island is one example. There are many more.
It is in the national interest that strict inspections take place, not only in Canada but in the place of origin, the place of importation, in order to control the importation and the export of plant pests and diseases to other countries.
Therefore all parties agree, I believe, to having a good enforceable act so Canada can protect its farmers and citizens from the huge costs that can result from a weak act. This bill is certainly one which strengthens the existing act.
We are labouring under a certain handicap here today in that we have no knowledge of the regulations which are going to be available or passed which will govern the different aspects of this bill. For example, we do not know to what extent farmers can or will be compensated for a pest or a disease which is introduced to their farm through no fault of their own. We do not know the extent of the arbitrary powers that the inspectors will have when they are inspecting the premises and discovering contraventions of the act.
We do not know to what extent an over-zealous inspector, as was mentioned before, can really cause a lot of irreparable damage to a farmer's financial position by issuing tickets on an ad hoc basis. The farmer must have a way to appeal these ticketing violations in order that he might be able to state a case of his own.
We also do not know the extent or the cost of the privatization of the inspection service. We do not know if there are private people available in Canada who are trained well enough to do inspections. We do not know if we will have enough civil servants or what the government's intentions are in regard to Agriculture Canada officials. Are they going to be reduced and the number of private citizens increased to do these inspections? Of course we do not know how many of these civilians are available to Agriculture Canada, what training they have and what authority they will actually have in the inspection of plants coming into or leaving our country.
Government Orders
We do not really know from this bill where the national interest begins and where the local responsibility leaves off. We will have to determine that point because many people could be left in dire financial straits if through no fault of their own a disease or a pest happened to be introduced to their farm. Hopefully, at the committee stage we will be able to get the answers so that we can improve this very important bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Child care; the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk-Trade; the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina-Immigration.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Translation[

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of the report stage of Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendments) from a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: For the report stage of Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Notice Paper indicates only one motion to amend, in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. This motion is in order. The House will now proceed to consideration of motion numbered 1.

May 17, 1990
Government Orders


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 1
(a)	by striking out line 39 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"November 6, 1989 by the Minister of"
(b)	by striking out lines 46 to 48 at page 2 and lines 1 to 3 at page 3.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill which is in front of us is of course a fairly straightforward bill which simply attempts to tighten up the wording of the Income Tax Act so as to make it clear that the federal government has the right to take action in the case of a bankrupt firm, or in other circumstances, to recover deductions made by that firm from its employees' wages for income tax, unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and so forth.
There is no question that we support the thrust of this bill. We voted for it at second reading. However there is a serious problem with the bill as it presently stands and that is the problem I am trying to correct with this amendment. The reason the bill was brought in by the government was a legal decision in the Alberta Court of Appeal which said that the original wording of the amendment put through in December 1987 was not sufficiently clear to establish the priority of the federal government to take action vis-a-vis other creditors of a bankrupt firm.
When that court ruling took place the federal government decided eventually to appeal it. It attempted to take its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and in December 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada said that the federal government did not have a case which could be taken to appeal. In other words, it upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in Alberta.
This legislation attempts not just to correct the wording of the government's original mistake in 1987 with this piece of legislation which was put into effect with a Ways and Means motion in November 1989. It attempts to say that this improvement in the wording shall apply retroactively from December 1987 to November 1989, despite
the fact that the Alberta Court of Appeal had decided that the original wording in force during that period was considered to be unsatisfactory.
On principle we find this kind of attempt to rewrite history, to apply a new piece of legislation backward to cover up a mistake which has been made, to be unacceptable and completely abhorrent in a democratic society.
Just as seriously, we had testimony before the legislative committee which looked at this bill from the Desjardins movement in Quebec. It indicated that this was not simply a philosophical issue about which we should be upset for reasons of principle, but that this was something which would cost various caisses populaires in the province of Quebec significant sums of money.
The committee heard testimony from the Desjardins movement which indicated, for example, that the Caisse Populaire St. Charles Borromee would experience a loss of at least $260,000 if this retroactive application of this change in wording were allowed to go through. In fact the person who was before our committee representing that particular caisse populaire indicated that when lawyer's fees and other payments were taken into account the loss might be as high as $400,000 for that particular caisse populaire.

Need I say, Madam Speaker, that credit unions are small financial institutions which, because of their size, cannot absorb such losses without considerable difficulty. I therefore believe that as members of Parliament we have a duty to listen to the representatives of these credit unions and to say that it is just not possible to implement this retroactive application. That is why we have proposed this amendment. It is very straightforward, like most amendments to money bills. This legislation should not be retroactive. If this principle is rejected, I think it does not abode well for the future.

If we look at the testimony of representatives of the Canadian Insolvency Association that deals with these questions of bankruptcy, they made precisely the same case in the legislative committee. They stressed that, as they put it, it did not seem fair somehow to deprive those claimants who waited for their day in court. At the very
May 17, 1990

least, if this bill is to be enacted, it should be enacted at a date to be proclaimed and not retroactively.
I raised these questions with finance department officials in the legislative committee. Those officials were not able to respond to these concerns satisfactorily. They were not able to point out any way in which this bill was not retroactive in its application. It is for that reason that I very strongly urge the House to accept this simple amendment which will see to it that a good piece of legislation does not contain a principle which runs counter to the democratic traditions of this House and of this country.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-51 contains two corrective measures regarding unremitted source deductions.
As my colleague just pointed out, the mistake in the bill passed in 1987 allowed a 1989 Alberta court ruling regarding an institution which has since deprived the government of $100 million to $200 million in revenues.
I am quite in favour of the point my colleague was making about the Caisses Populaires, but this mistake affects not only the Caisses Populaires but the whole country. My colleague stated that the Caisses Populaires are small institutions, but I must tell him that they form a very big movement in Quebec. Together, all these small enterprises make up a very big institution.
It is true, as my colleague has said, that representations were made by a Caisse Populaire about a moneylosing case. It is obvious that any financial institution that lends money runs the risk of losing some.
However, when the bill was passed in 1987, we were in a position to know there was a risk since the law was in place. The ruling came much later in Alberta. In the case of the Caisses Populaires, the Desjardins Movement in Quebec, the law in place was clear and enabled them to assess the risks. Unfortunately, financial institutions sometimes make bad loans.
Today, Madam Speaker, our colleague wants the bill to be retroactive. It is one way of looking at things but I think there is another way. However, we cannot pass the bill today and say it will apply retroactively as of last year or two years ago. The law was there and financial
Government Orders
institutions knew how things worked. They continued making loans and probably took the measures required to protect themselves.
Today my colleague is telling us the government would penalize the Caisses Populaires by applying the law as it should have been applied in 1987.
As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, by correcting this mistake, if we failed to implement the law as it should have been implemented in 1987, we would be penalizing Canadians since we are talking about money in trust so to speak, about source deductions, about money belonging to the government and, therefore, to all Canadians and which should be returned to them.
For this reason of equity, Madam Speaker, I think my colleague's amendment is unacceptable.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, there is one point here that I think should be further considered. This bill is a necessary bill and, with my colleague, I do not oppose the sense of the bill.
This bill is necessary to correct what the courts found was a flaw in the previous law. The question is, how far back will this bill be effective? The government has asked that it be effective from the date on which the bill was first introduced as a ways and means bill.
At the time it was introduced, it was not law. It was, perhaps, a notice to the public that a law might be passed. In the meanwhile, in the practical sense the public, which includes small institutions that may extend credit and lawyers who are not members of this House, understands that the law had been stated by the court, in this case, the Supreme Court of Alberta, and that the Supreme Court of Canada had declined even to consider overruling it.
In the opinion of the courts of the land, the law that had been passed earlier in Parliament was flawed, it was not a clearly written law and, therefore, the decision of that court was that the government could not claim the money under that law.
Our colleague across the way has said that it was imprudent for the caisse populaire to lend money on the basis of court decisions, or with the court decision in mind. That means, if at any time a bill is entered into Parliament, it should be regarded as law, which would be

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
quite absurd. We have had a ruling by the Speaker on that point.
Certain advertisements were taken in the newspapers of this land purporting to say that a certain tax is law when, in fact, that tax was proposed to become law. It was understood that it was inconsistent with the privileges of the House that a bill, which is before the House, should be regarded during that time as law.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think it was reasonable and just to consider that those who acted on the decision of the court, namely that the government did not have the right to recover this money, notwithstanding that the government had indicated that it was going to change the law if Parliament agreed. Nevertheless, the law had not been changed.
Parliament no doubt will agree to the law in a general sense, but it is not law yet. It may be law very soon, but it is not law. It is a proposed law and, therefore, I believe it would be undermining the country's respect for our courts if the government took the stand that the decision of the court was null and void.
I think the government has a perfect right to say it does not like the decision of the court and that it will now institute a law which will give a different result from the court's decision in future cases. This is not to say that the court did not make the decision, or had no right to make the decision that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld implicitly by declining to hear an appeal against it.
When I was a boy growing up in my father's family and he argued civil cases in the courts of Winnipeg, we sometimes had disputes at the supper table over the difference between what is legal and just. As far as I can remember, my father always won the arguments. He said: "The court has to try to do what is just. It has to make a decision within the facts that it has." Therefore, one could say that the court's decision is approximate justice, even if it is not perfect justice. It is not possible to get perfect justice in practical situations. We can only get closer to perfect justice.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Alberta was an attempt to get justice, because as the law stood it was unclear. That does not contribute to justice. A decision was made, and no doubt that decision prompted the action of the government in undertaking to change the law. That is all well and good. It is a reasonable thing to do, and we support it.
But to say that the court had no right to make its decision, that it was wrong to make its decision when it was upheld by the highest court in the land implicitly, or that the court's decision should be ignored and that caisse populaire and any other lenders should have ignored the court's decision and not acted on it in the proper conduct of their business, seems to say that any court decision of the land could be found worthless, not by the decision of a higher court but by a later, retroactive piece of legislation. Certainly, it would undermine the respect we hope people will have for the courts of this land and the respect they should have for the decision of a court when it is upheld at the highest level. People should act according to the decision, rather than waiting to see if some day some government will pass a law that will wipe out that decision retroactively.
If the government is not able to collect the money in this retroactive way, I would ask all my hon. colleagues across to consider that the loss of revenue to the government and to taxpayers is much less serious than the loss of the public's respect for the courts. It would be more serious in the long run for the public to lose confidence in a court's decision being the law of the land to the extent of the power of that court.
It would be much better to adopt the amendment my hon. friend has introduced. Then, the law will be an improvement on its predecessor.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments on this issue, I want to extend my congratulations to you in your appointment as Deputy Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lynn Hunter: Sometimes we have an opportunity in the House to consider and speak on a relatively obscure bill or on an amendment thereto. This is such an occasion.
The principle behind the amendment of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor is very important. As a
May 17, 1990

mother, I try to tell my children that they have to be responsible for the actions they take. The same could be said about the government. TTie government has to be responsible for the actions it has taken.
If the government made a mistake in drafting the legislation in 1987, it should not be possible to go back to rewrite history, wiping away that mistake. Just as my children are learning the lesson that one cannot erase behaviour, so the government should not have the ability to erase its mistakes. Although this is a relatively obscure bill in the big picture of debates giving ferment across the country, it is an important principle that the rewriting of history should not take place here.
The House of Commons has a lot of power and, when that power is used disproportionately, it becomes an abuse of power. Such an incident is about to take place if the government does not agree to support the amendment of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. We cannot go back and rewrite history. We cannot do it in our own personal lives, and we should not be doing it in the life of our country.
Government members say this is the government's money, it should be accruing to the government and it is all the taxpayers' money. That is true but, as each of us know, we have to be responsible for our own money. If we misspend it or if we make a mistake with it, we cannot go back and rewrite history. I cannot go to my bank and say: "Oh, excuse me, I did not mean to withdraw that $200 two years ago. Could you please put it back?" The government should not be able to do that either.
This is an important principle. The government is trying to rewrite history to make it retroactive, and it will have an impact on those caisses populaires in Quebec and across Canada. Those caisses populaires are membership-owned. If $260,000 to $400,000 is lost per small caisse populaire, it is a significant amount of money. Where does it come from? It comes out the pockets of those people who invest in those institutions. Members of those institutions should not be responsible for cleaning up the government's mistakes.
Our party is often accused of not being good fiscal managers. It is one of those myths is that social democrats cannot quite manage financially. This is an opportunity for me to say that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor has brought a very good point. He is not
Government Orders
prepared to support this bill, neither are we in this party prepared to support this bill, if the government thinks that it can rewrite history.
The government has made a mistake in the drafting of the bill and it should be responsible for it. We are prepared to support the bill if the government supports the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I, too, am privileged to have an opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-51.
On balance, Bill C-51 is a very good bill. Certainly, its principle has been discussed already and we are now having a chance to discuss it further as a result of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Essex- Windsor. We believe in the general thrust of the bill.
It gives clearance for the federal government to have the right to take action, in cases of bankrupt firms, to recover deductions made from employees' wages to pay income tax, unemployment insurance, Canada Pension, et cetera. In such action, the federal government will have priority over all other creditors, since the money in question was not an asset of the firm but held in deemed trust on behalf of the workers involved.
Therefore, in a bankruptcy proceeding where the creditors have to divide up the assets in an effort to reclaim their losses, I think it is fair to say that monies that were held by the company involved on behalf of its employees for unemployment insurance or for Canada Pension and the like are not assets of the company and ought to be passed along to the federal government. That is the point of this legislation. For years and years, that has been the approach in dealing with bankrupt firms.
There is something almost sinister in this bill, because the government is saying that not only is it going to make these changes today, which we support, but it is going to reach back into the past and apply them retroactively.
I remember when the members of the government were in opposition. At that time, the Liberal government decided to move on some aspects of the National Energy Program with policies that were somewhat retroactive. The members of the opposition, the Conservative Party in those days, said that this was unreasonable and

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
unacceptable. History cannot be rewritten simply by passing legislation.
I remember a number of my hon. colleagues almost being unable to express themselves with indignation and outrage at this incredible grab by the federal government to impose retroactive legislation, which is certainly not fair. They said it was like changing the rules of the game, moving the goal post half way through the game.
Now the government is doing just that. I have not heard a clear response yet from the government that it supports retroactive legislation, not going back to 1989 or 1988, but in fact right back to 1987. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the government was taken to court by the Alberta Court of Appeal saying that the government did not have the right to have priority when it came time to divide up the assets of a firm during bankruptcy proceedings. I think it was Lloyds Bank that made the case and won the case, saying that indeed the wording was insufficient to give the federal government that priority. It was unfortunate. This legislation will now do that, and that is why we support it. However, I cannot support legislation that attempts to rewrite history, that attempts to impose retroactive regulation.
What signal does this send to the business world? The government is essentially saying to a business, if it went bankrupt two years ago, that it now wants to go in and upset the proceedings to ensure, if the business had taken employees' moneys that were being held in trust for pensions and unemployment insurance premiums and the like, that it would get its fair share. Well, you cannot do that.
The most astounding testimony came from the Insolvency Association of Canada that opposed this very strongly when it heard that the government was going to impose this in a retroactive fashion. You can imagine where this leads us, if we were to say that we support this notion.
I might say that the caisse populaire from Quebec made a compelling argument in committee. It stated that this was not only a philosophic case or a case of principle on which it was arguing, but that it would cost members of the small caisse populates hundreds of thousands of
dollars, if this particular retroactivity was introduced and allowed to go ahead.
I can only say that when they stated that they could lose up to $300,000 as a result of this retroactive application of the law, I assumed they were telling the truth and that is what it is going to cost. That is a lot of money to a struggling caisse populaire.
I have yet to hear any argument in favour of retroactivity. I read the committee minutes carefully. I read the reports from the various witnesses. Even those in the Department of Finance could not offer what I would consider a satisfactory explanation for the use of retroactivity in this bill. I think we are on pretty shaky ground here.
If we say to the government that it can impose retroactive legislation today, what will it do tomorrow? Tomorrow will it decide to change taxes, and rather than having a personal tax rate of 26 per cent, maybe it should be 40 per cent and we will make that retroactive seven or eight years. Where does this end?
We are in very dangerous territory when the Parliament of Canada changes regulations and changes laws retroactively.
There is enough fuss in the country when on budget day the government states that it is going to change a number of tax measures and that they are effective immediately and then the legislation takes place six months or two or three years later. People ask if the government has the right to impose tax changes or the imposition of other levies without legislation. Yes, Madam Speaker, that is a custom and a tradition that we have developed in this country. But we have not developed a tradition where legislation can be imposed retroactively. That does not exist.
We are now breaking into some very questionable areas when we allow this to occur. That is why my hon. friend from Essex-Windsor has done the most honourable thing and has said to the House of Commons that we want to support this in the future, because in a bankrupt firm, of course, the funds held on behalf of employees are not to be considered part of the company's assets.
When I consider the number of bankrupt firms that we are experiencing these days, I begin to shudder. Bankruptcies are up again and the policies of the Conservative government are adding to that number. Every
May 17, 1990

month they go up. We are now into thousands and thousands of bankruptcies. It is a very serious situation. We really need this legislation, but let us not do it retroactively. I do not think it is an appropriate step at all. For that reason, we should support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Essex-Windsor.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak, but my hon. colleague from Kamloops inspired and motivated me to proceed to speak to the bill.
I will speak only to the principle of the bill, because that is the concern that I have. This bill may seem to be innocuous and inconsequential to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians out there who are listening, because they probably have no idea what we are talking about. Nevertheless, if they knew the details they would be concerned.
I suggest that this is government by ad hoc legislation. It is back to the future, in reverse. I am reminded very much of Bill C-28, where the government introduced 125 amendments to a bill that were all ruled out of order. I guess this points to the inefficiency of the government itself.
The very thought of retroactivity applicable to any law is totally unacceptable. I think of all of the bills that come before this House. If there were any suggestion, even a hint that we were going to go back to 1987, as in this case, why not go back to the 1960s or the 1940s? We could rewrite history.
It would not be bad, if we were able to rewrite the last five years of history with this government, but that is the kind of precedent that this government is setting.
I notice that you are a little restless, Madam Speaker, and I have strayed a little bit from the topic here, but I sold a house in 1975 for $60,000. It is now worth $500,000. I would like to go back and get my lawyers to say what a mistake I made. I want it back now. It is a retroactive concept that I thought up. It is not a bad idea, and I guess that is what the government is saying, that this is a good idea. The long arm of the government will reach back into history and pick some money out of your pocket.
My hon. friend from Windsor-Essex has a legitimate and sensible amendment that members across should be actively supporting, because the principle of this idea of
Government Orders
retroactivity is totally unacceptable and I am sure Canadians who are listening would agree with the New Democratic Party.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I would like to join in supporting this amendment, as I did during the debate in committee.
Before the legislative committee on Bill C-51, we had a witness from the caisse populaire de Desjardins in Quebec, in particular, from one of the caisse populaires on the south shore of Montreal. These witnesses indicated to us that they stand to lose some $260,000, if this bill is passed in a retroactive fashion. They were opposed to this legislation.
This bill was presented to us in somewhat of an innocuous fashion. We were told that this bill would simply allow the government to get moneys that were rightfully owing to the government, namely, deductions at source for unemployment insurance, premiums under the Canada Pension Plan, or income tax deductions. In other words, money that was deducted from employees and would be payable to and property of the government.
However, we learned in the debate in committee that the matter is not that straightforward. We were given the example by the caisse populaire of a company which is owed an account receivable, let us say by Hydro Quebec, and this account receivable may be payable in six months' time. The company, on the basis of the accounts receivable, could go to a financial institution, a caisse populaire, and borrow money for its operations.
At the time that this loan is contracted, the company is in good financial health and totally up to date in its payments of deducted premiums to Revenue Canada. It could even be that the financial institution verifies with Revenue Canada to ensure that indeed that the company is up to date in its payments. On that basis, a loan is made to the company and the financial institution, the caisse populaire receives an assignment of this particular account receivable.
What this particular section of the Income Tax Act allows Revenue Canada to do is to step into the shoes of the financial institution to seize that payment, a payment that is to a secured creditor. In the words of the Income Tax Act: "to a secured creditor who has a right to receive the payment". This is acknowledged under the act.

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
So the monies that we have been told are monies that were deducted from employees and are owing to the government, are not at all the monies that Revenue Canada is putting its hand on. It is putting its hand on an account receivable that is owing, in essence, to a third party. In the case of the witness who appeared before our committee, the third party was the caisse populaire. It will lose some $260,000 if this bill is passed in a retroactive fashion, and ultimately the members of the caisse populaire who are workers, perhaps heads of families, ordinary people, will ultimately have to make up this loss.
I want to support this amendment, which at least would overcome one of the more reprehensible aspects of this legislation, which is intended to overrule a decision of the courts. Canadians have the right to rely on the courts. When they go to the courts to seek a decision in a matter like this, and when the courts say that the government does not have the power to do what it claimed it had, it is not right for Parliament to pass legislation retroactively, overruling a court decision and depriving people of the recourse that they are entitled to have.


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:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Finance) 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there not consent for third reading? The Chair would like to be sure that there is consent from the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for Essex^-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, clearly some discussion has taken place among the various parties on this issue, and for this reason there is consent. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that a piece of legislation with a very poor principle within it is going to go quite so quickly through this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent at this time?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-51 be read for the third time and passed.


Gaby Larrivée: Madam Speaker, Bill C-51 is not an elaborate piece of legislation, but it nonetheless has its importance in the general frame of things to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our tax system. I therefore welcome its impending approval.
The bill contains corrective measures regarding two problems with respect to unremitted source deductions.
The first one was raised following a June 1989 ruling from the Alberta Court of Appeal in a case involving the Lloyds Bank of Canada and the International Warranty Company Limited. The court ruling gave rise to concerns about the enhanced garnishmee procedures used by Revenue Canada. Bill C-51 dispels those uncertainties.
These procedures were implemented in 1987. They apply solely to the collection of source deductions. Since
May 17, 1990

they have been in force, they are the main mecasnism enabling Revenue Canada to collect unremitted source deductions.
I should of course indicate that, through garnishment, Revenue Canada can intercept payments which, while being payable to a tax debtor, are made instead to the creditor of the tax debtor under a guarantee agreement such as the assignment of receivables.
In the case of a person who failed to remit the required source deductions, after the enhanced gamish-mee letter has been served, the amount seized has to be paid to Revenue Canada instead of the secured creditor.
The financial implications of the Alberta Court of Appeal were substantial. The unremitted source deductions have reached 100 to 200 billion dollars a year in the past few years. Therefore, we decided to pass legislation to dispel uncertainties.
I want to point out an important aspect of this amendment. This bill simply confirms the initial purpose of those procedures. It does not give Revenue Canada new powers and really changes nothing in that some courts have recognized the initial intent of the bill. However, the amendments to the bill will prevent unecessary litigation.
The second situation which Bill C-51 remedies is the result of a mistake which was made when Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, was adopted during the last session of Parliament. When the time came to amend the sub-sections to Section 227, a correlative amendment was inadvertently left out. Therefore, the rules preventing Revenue Canada from taking recovery action in connection with an unpaid income tax amount within 90 days after the day on which the notice was mailed to the taxpayer or until such time a tribunal has ruled on all issue surrounding the responsibility concerning payment of these taxes, became applicable to the unpaid income tax collected at source.
That was not intentional. It had been expressly stated that these rules, when they came initially into force, would not apply to such amounts. This bill, therefore, re-establishes the rule whereby Revenue Canada is prevented from taking recovery action in connection with the amounts in controversy, do not apply in the case of unpaid income tax deducted at source.
Government Orders
Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I should like to comment on two issues which the Committee has addressed.
When the Committee considered Bill C-51, the clause concerning the coming into force of the proposed amendments to the extended measures for garnishment was hotly debated.
The proposed amendments will apply after December 17, 1987, in the case of moneys Revenue Canada seeks to recover after mailing a notice of garnishment after that date, except if the legal recovery procedure were instituted following that date and before the Government indicated its intention to make amendments, specifically on November 6, 1989.
This provision is adequate because the amendments only confirm the intention that the legislator wanted to give it initially. It is to be noted that in respect of the Courts, the amendments do not apply to matters pending before the November 7, 1989 announcement. The clause governing the coming into force in this bill should discourage any useless lawsuit.
It should be noted that the enactment provision does not penalize employers who willingly paid the deductions at source in accordance with their understanding of the law or of the intention of the legislator.
Quite obviously they had no intention of appealing the validity of garnishment procedures, as evidenced by the fact that they did not take legal action between the time the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered its decision in June 1989 and November 7, 1989 when the ways and means motion was tabled.
Another issue raised in committee had to do with the impact of the legislation on the granting of credit. In this respect I ought to point out that the bill only confirms the original intention of the legislator. These are not new provisions. In any case, since the provisions came into force in December 1987, there is no indication that enhanced garnishment has had a negative impact on the granting of credit.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to state my concerns with regard to Bill C-51. Basically, it is a very good piece of legislation. It re-establishes the garnishment authority that our gov-

May 17, 1990
Government Orders

ernment had before the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
The bill reinstates the ability of our government to be able to collect UIC premiums, Canada Pension Plan premiums and income tax owing by corporations that are going into bankruptcy, but which have not been passed on to the Canadian government.
When we realize that many of these payments have been made by employees in good faith to the employer, and as a result of a bankruptcy or another problem incurred within the business, that employer has used some of those funds in order to keep the business going, then I believe that funding should definitely go back to the Canadian government. This bill allows the Canadian government to receive those payments which it could not receive before because of technicalities within the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Garnishment authority had been given to the Canadian government under Section 224.2 of the Income Tax Act in 1987. In June, 1989, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the authority of the federal government to receive that money. Therefore, between June and today, approximately $100 million has been lost by the Canadian government. On an annual basis, the government is projecting that cost to be in the neighbourhood of $240 million.
When we stop and consider it, if those taxes are not collected, they must be made up from another source. The only source is the average Canadian taxpayer. As a result, if a piece of legislation is not put in place whereby the Canadian government may regain its ability to collect those garnisheed amounts, it will, in fact, lose $240 million, which will have to be made up by tax increases or spending cuts. I feel the person who suffers if this legislation is not passed is the taxpayer, the average Canadian citizen.
The government is not asking for new abilities to tax under the Income Tax Act and under Bill C-51. It is asking to regain the ability it had previously. In that case, it is re-asking for the taxpayer in Canada a $240 million loss to go back into the Canadian government.
Liberals in many cases have differing viewpoints and those viewpoints have been stated on certain issues. I could not support a situation where I felt that a major problem may occur to small businesses. I think within the
bill there is room to make a caution and I think that caution should be brought forward.
I expect that within this piece of legislation the government would not take actions to bring a great deal of pressure on small business, or businesses in general, which may not be solvent, and would not apply extra pressure to force them into a bankruptcy situation.
There have been concerns voiced in that area. I would hope the government would use its discretion in a very sophisticated way in order to make certain that a small business or someone in the country is not pushed over the brink into bankruptcy.
Through the revision of legislation the concerns of all Canadians need to be protected. In part this legislation does that. The average Canadian should not have to pay for debts that were not passed on to the Canadian government through a bankruptcy act and those extra taxes should not be forced upon each individual.
The bill ensures the garnisheement letter from Revenue Canada would transfer to Revenue Canada claims or priorities over secured creditors in the case of bankruptcy.
The bill states that legal actions to collect unpaid source deductions cannot begin until 90 days after Revenue Canada rules on the taxpayers' appeal of their assessment, if an appeal is made. If a taxpayer launches a court appeal of their assessment, no action can be taken by the government until the court appeal has made its final decision.
By giving Revenue Canada the enhanced collection powers proposed in Bill C-51, we are attempting to ensure that businesses with severe cash flow problems and which face possible bankruptcies do not use the unpaid deductions as a source of emergency funding which may not be collected by the Canadian government in future times.
The principle of the bill is supported strongly by many members of our caucus. It guarantees that the Canadian taxpayer is protected from doubly paying these issues. The only further situation I think we should bring forward is the fact that we do have some problems within our bankruptcy legislation now.
The Department of Finance has suggested that its officials will present to the House within the year amendments to the bankruptcy legislation that will clear up the entire problem of bankruptcies and take a 1990s view of what is happening within the Bankruptcy Act. We need to upgrade that legislation, bring it forward, and

*8.



May 17, 1990

handle it in a more global sense than just with what is presented within this bill. I encourage the government very strongly not to stop at Bill C-51, but to move forward and bring these amendments to the House as early as possible so that we can deal with the global sense of bankruptcy.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, if I could make up for my oversight at report stage in this more formal setting, I wish you all the success and congratulate you very warmly on behalf of my party and myself on your selection as Deputy Speaker. I think it is a very wise and much-deserved appointment.
I would like to turn to the subject matter of this legislation we supported at second reading because we saw it as important and useful. It would see to it that money deducted from working people was forwarded to the government, as it should be, to cover unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan and income tax. It seemed a very clear, straightforward and sensible principle.
We said at report sta^e that there is within the details of this bill a contradiction of democratic process and a contradiction of the rule of law. It is not possible for our party to support this legislation as it finally stands in front of this House.
We support its principles, but its detailed implementation has within it such a glaring error that we can simply not accept it. That glaring error is to take this sensible legislation which was brought to the House of Commons on November 6, 1989, and to say that despite the fact that it was brought before us in late 1989, we are going to make it apply from December 1987.
I see various Conservatives who are lawyers. As lawyers, I wonder what they think of the application after the fact, the backward application of laws. I wonder what the Minister for International Trade would think if the United States were to pass a law which said that their countervail laws in the future were to take a certain form which would be detrimental to Canada and was were going to apply those laws backward for two years. With the principles of this government in standing up for us against the United States, it is possible that the Minister of International Trade might support such legislation. I hope that he and his government will see that such an
Government Orders
attempt to rewrite the legal regime which affects us as a country retroactively is simply not acceptable. Yet, that is precisely what is happening with this legislation.
I guess it is now the junior Minister of Employment, is it? I wonder how the former junior Minister of Transport, I think that is right, as she sits and thinks about this question and the legislation in front of us, would react if the Government of Ontario were to put into effect legislation which attempted to apply to trucking companies in the province of Ontario not just a tax on tires from the day the tax is brought in but a tax on tires back two years previously. I am sure she would be outraged.

I look at the Quebec members who are in the House. I look at them and I wonder what can be said about Quebec members who do not listen to the Desjardins movement, who did not listen to the caisses populates-


Gaby Larrivée: How about the Royal Bank?


Mr. Ricard:: We listen. But we are in favour of justice.


Steven W. Langdon: -who did not listen to the Quebec caisses populates management when they said to the legislative committee that it would not be possible to have such retroactive action.


Guy Ricard: I agree with that.


Steven W. Langdon: The hon. member says he agrees with that. For his sake I hope he is prepared to vote against the bill under consideration.

I must say that I was especially interested to hear the Liberal spokesperson who just put the Liberal position, which I took to be a position which supported this legislation. I guess I was especially amazed to hear the Liberal position because in committee, the Liberal position was against this bill.
I know that the Liberal party has many times attempted to straddle the fence, but this is the first time that I can remember where it has taken one position in committee, voting against this bill, and taken the contrary position in the House on third reading, suggesting that it was in favour of the bill. This takes inconsistency. It takes contradictory positions to a new depth. I must

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
say that straddling the fence like that is very dangerous; it is dangerous for anybody but it is especially dangerous for a political party. It is likely to lead to sterility, and sterility in a political party is perhaps the worst of all possible fates. Perhaps it is something that we can look forward to in the future for this Liberal party that sits here in opposition, because it is a Liberal party which, on this important point of principle, this question of whether it is possible to apply laws retroactively, really does not care.
I have to admit that in my youth, misguided as it was, I actually was sympathetic to the Liberal party. I actually at one point went-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I thought you were a member.


Steven W. Langdon: No, I never went that far. Somebody suggested I was once a member of the Liberal party. My sins, I am sure, have been great but they have never sunk to those depths. However I did once attend a Liberal party convention. In fact I have to confess I even took part in a demonstration for a Liberal party leadership candidate in the province of Ontario.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You should go to Calgary.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Repent.


Steven W. Langdon: Fortunately that candidate-it was Joe Greene, by the way, a former member of this House- did not win and so problems with potential schizophrenia in my life were avoided.
At the very heart of the Liberal party of Lester Pearson, the very heart of the Liberal party of those days, the very heart I thought of the Liberal party led by the member for Vancouver-Quadra, was a commitment to small l liberalism. At the heart of small / liberalism is a belief in the rule of law, a belief that we cannot through Parliament, a place where we believe in democracy, rewrite law for the past. We cannot pass legislation which will apply two years before that legislation even saw the light of day in the House of Commons. Yet, that is what this piece of legislation does.
Frankly I cannot understand my colleague from Essex-Kent, who comes from an adjoining constituency,
presenting such positive comments with respect to this legislation. I can only hope that another member of the Liberal party will get up and say I was mistaken and say that in fact the Liberal party is still a party that does have at least some principles which it holds dear. One such principle is the principle which the hon. member shared with me in committee, the principle that one cannot rewrite legislation two years into the past.
I look forward very much to hearing the member from Montreal. I hope he will be speaking next on behalf of the Liberal party and will make quite clear that the strong words he spoke against retroactivity in the legislative committee were in fact on behalf of his party and that his party will be voting against this retroactive piece of legislation just as our party will be, just as the member for Laval indicates he will be voting against it.


Guy Ricard: I didn't say that.


Steven W. Langdon: Oh, I am sorry. I must have misinterpreted the member. He said that he too was against the retroactivity within this bill.


Guy Ricard: I did not. I said I was for it.


Steven W. Langdon: But he is still prepared to vote for the bill.


Guy Ricard: Probably yes.


Steven W. Langdon: Probably yes. Oh, dear.
It is very difficult for those Quebec members, they simply cannot take position and vote for important principles, for small caisses populates in the Province of Quebec.


M. Ricard:: That is not what I said. I said there was existing legislation.


Steven W. Langdon: Seriously, this is an important point of principle which we are going to vote against in this party. It is a point of principle which leads us to vote against this legislation, because we do not feel that it is right to rewrite history.
May 17, 1990

I had a discussion with the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina who was talking about the importance of not rewriting history. If we look at some of the problems that affected the Soviet Union-


John Carnell Crosbie: History is rewritten all the time. What tripe.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister for International Trade has finally been brought back to life. Above all, he is someone who would like to rewrite history. He would like the world to forget that he used to be a Liberal.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He used to be on the straight and narrow.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: He was divided.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was a socialist when I was eight or ten.


Steven W. Langdon: If one reads the rumours correctly, it is possible that when he deserts that party he will want people in the future to forget that he was at one time a Conservative.
It is important not to rewrite history, either historically or in terms of law.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: What an inflammatory speech.


Steven W. Langdon: I can see that the flames of rebellion are starting to burn at the very roots at the Liberal party. I can hear the concern. I can see the sense of outrage at its spokesperson's position.
When the hon. member from Montreal stands up, he will take a position against the retroactivity within this bill. I hope that position will be a strong one because we are trying-and I have dealt lightly with it at times-to get across to members of this House just how important the point of principle is in front of us. We are trying to get them to break through reading their briefs, to break through signing their letters, and to recognize that the point before us is one that cannot simply be casually passed through the House of Commons without a thought. Instead, this bill is at the very heart of our democracy and the rule of law, that is, the question of not passing legislation in this House that applies to the past. Who can tell?
There might be legislation when we have a New Democratic Party government, in the very near future I expect, which will indicate that the free trade bill was never even passed in the House of Commons, that it was not abrogated on six months' notice. A piece of legisla-
Govemment Orders
tion will be brought before this House by the New Democratic Party finance critic, trade critic, or Prime Minister which says that in 1988 we did not pass a free trade bill, that in 1990 we did not pass a goods and services tax, that this was something that never happened in the House of Commons. If that is really the principle we want to see applied, let me say that it will not be a principle put in front of the House by a New Democratic Party government, because we will not rewrite history. I urge the House not to rewrite the past, not to put a retroactive piece of legislation into effect.

I should hope so for the sake of the caisses populaires of the Province of Quebec.

For the sake of our principles across the country we will reject this bill and tell the Department of Finance to go back and rewrite it as it should have been written: as something to take effect at the time of a Ways and Means motion just like every other piece of financial legislation that comes before this House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's homily with great interest. He appears to have taken the usual very righteous tone that members of the New Democratic Party take when they are about to shift gears and change their principles.
We have heard quite a lot of that in their support for the Senate, which of course I am delighted to see. Nevertheless that party urged for so long the abolition of the Senate, but its leader stood this week and said that she wanted the Senate, that undemocratic, unelected institution against which she and her predecessors used to rant, rail and rave and say how awful it was. As stated in The Globe and Mail this morning, "some of the former leaders must be rolling over in their graves at the words of the leader of the New Democratic Party". The sudden shift of principle, we are told, is not a shift of principle, but it was uttered in those same pious tones that we hear today from the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, which indicates to me that there has been a very substantial change in principle here.
The hon. member pointed out that perhaps our party had changed its view on this bill from the time in committee. I will go back to April 11,1990, as reported at page 10502 of Hansard, when this bill came up for second

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
reading. The question was put on that day without further debate and the motion was carried, not even on division. No one from the New Democratic Party objected to the bill. It is evident from Hansard that NDP members were in the House but apparently none of them objected to second reading of this bill.
To anyone who is listening and does not know, second reading means approval in principle. For all the ranting and raving we heard today in the speech of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor about their great opposition to this bill and how determined they have been in fighting this legislation tooth and nail from day one, where were they on April 11? Why was he not here to object to the bill when it carried and it was not on division? This is the bill they have been fighting tooth and nail and they were not here to say that it went on division.
It is absolute rubbish that we have been listening to from the hon. member. It is one of those homilies that perhaps would be better preached in a church than here. I suggest that all his pious utterances about the Liberal Party changing its position is just so much nonsense. Certainly we opposed the bill in committee. Certainly we had concerns with the clauses in this bill. There is hardly a bill that this government introduces in the House that we do not criticize, as I am sure is the same with the New Democratic Party.
We recognize that some bills on balance are reasonable, so sometimes we will go along with them as reasonable, not perfect, far from it, especially the bills that are drafted by hon. gentlemen opposite. We know they are fraught with difficulty from the day they are brought in. The ministers who are here know that. I suspect they realize they are not perfect, but they do not like to admit it.
We do not claim perfection. We are not a party that shifts principles right, left and centre. We accept that things are less than perfect in the world and recognize that fact. We have matured. I urge the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, before he starts hurling stones at the Liberal party for having allegedly changed its position, to look at Hansard of April 11. People living in glass houses ought not to be throwing stones. The New Democratic Party is in a green house and is at great peril on this one.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I have to say that I prefer piety, if that is what it was, to cliches.
If the member for Kingston and the Islands had been here for my speech in its entirety, as he suggests he was, he would have heard, as other members in the House can attest, that I indicated very clearly that we supported this bill in principle at second reading because we thought that its basic thrust was useful and important. But I also indicated that after our attempts to change this very serious problem of retroactivity, which his colleague from Montreal and myself both fought against in committee, and which I moved an amendment on few minutes ago in the House, certainly our view is that the failure of the government to accept a straightforward, consistent and absolutely clear amendment meant that we could not support it as the bill now stands.
The member also made some interesting comments with respect to our position on the Senate. I have to assure the member that our deep and abiding faith in the Senate of Canada remains as abysmally non-existent as ever. We challenge the Senate to put up or shut up because we know perfectly well that the Senate and the Liberal majority within the Senate will not listen to the majority of people in this country, will not defeat the GST as it should and will not see to it that democracy holds in this country. I challenge all of the Liberals who are here to make as much use as they can of their contacts with their fellow Liberals in the Senate to try to prove me wrong.
If I am proved wrong, despite my piety I shall be ever so pleased to get up in the House and apologize to the Liberal Party in the Senate for ever having distrusted their lack of will. But let me put it clearly at this point. I think that will does not exist and I think time will prove us correct in that.


Guy Ricard: Madam Speaker, first I congratulate you on your new appointment. I did not have the opportunity to do so publicly and I think that the tradition in the House is to congratulate you and wish you every success.
I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). In his remarks he indicated that the member for Laval would support the bill but finds such a retroactive motion unacceptable. I agree with him to some extent because a piece of legislation adopted today should not apply retroactively two or three years before. The one thing he did forget to
May 17, 1990

mention in his speech is that there was already a law in the statute books and bankers knew that. I wonder why he did not raise that point in his remarks and why today, as we are about to passe this legislation, he is against it. Nobody is supposed to ignore the law. I would like him to tell me why he failed to point out that the legislation was in force and that nobody supported the legislation when the allegations were made.


Steven W. Langdon: It is a very important question Madam Speaker. The Alberta Provincial Court declared in its ruling that the existing act was unacceptable. Small and medium sized financial institutions based their decisions on that ruling. They decided to grant loans to companies. After such a court ruling, we cannot give a two year retroactive effect to the act. I submit that such a retroactive measure is unacceptable in a democracy like ours.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time allowed for questions and comments is now over. On Debate. The hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (M. Berger) has the floor.


David Berger: First of all, Madam Speaker, I cannot intervene in this debate without replying, at least very briefly, to the comments made by the member for Essex-Windsor. He referred to the positions taken by members of my party in this debate at report stage and at third reading and said that it takes inconsistency to new depths. He said this leads to sterility.
I would like to assure him that there is no problem of sterility on our party. On the contrary, I think that perhaps the different viewpoints that he has heard expressed here today indicate vigour and that there is some thinking going on in our party. It indicates that there are some of us who are willing to ask questions. It indicates a certain restlessness. It indicates that policy matters are not always straightforward.
I would say that, on the contrary, what we see from his party is more likely to indicate sterility. It is, generally speaking, a viewpoint which is unequivocal, which does
Government Orders
not allow for any shades or differing viewpoints and is, as I say, an indication of sterility.
I would like to point out to the member for Essex- Windsor that the position that he himself took in committee and in the House today indicates such sterility. His comments were directed simply to the retroactive aspects of this legislation which, yes, we oppose, and which I spoke against earlier. When the vote was put on division my colleagues in the House indicated that we could not support the retroactive aspect of this legislation. So on that point he is quite mistaken.
I would like to draw to your attention that the objections of the member for Essex Windsor were only focused on the question of retroactivity. On the overall principle and overall design of this law he had no questions to ask.
I would like to suggest to him and to the members opposite in the government party that this bill is not just a matter of motherhood and apple pie. It is not as straightforward as we have been led to believe.
I would like to refer to the speech of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance on April 5, at page 10243 of Hansard when he said this bill applies only to recovery of payroll deductions and was designed to overcome a recent court ruling which thwarts the effectiveness of the improved garnishment provisions which came into force in 1987 and which he said applies only to the recovery of payroll deductions. In the very next sentence, the parliamentary secretary said:
The enhanced garnishment enables Revenue Canada to intercept the moneys owing to a tax debtor but paid to one of his creditors pursuant to a security agreement such as an assignment of accounts receivable.
Right there, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, we see that we are not talking simply about the recovery of payroll deductions. No, we are talking about allowing Revenue Canada to intercept moneys or an account receivable that has been assigned to a lending institution, a financial institution, in a security agreement.
I understand that the member for Essex-Windsor does not have a lot of sympathy for the banks. We had a witness who came before our committee from the Caisse

May 17, 1990
Government Orders
Populaire Desjardins. The Caisse Populaire Desjardins, as we know, is not a bank. It is a financial institution, though, that is affected by the legislation that we are debating here today.
We were told what the effect of this kind of legislation is on such financial institutions. I want to read from the testimony of the representatives of the caisse populaire before the legislative committee. They brought to the attention of committee members what the stakes would be for members of the caisse populaire. I quote:

For several of our caisses, such a loss can make the difference between a surplus that can be distributed among members and a deficit that forces us to draw from our reserve. Incidentally, we have with us today Mr. Pierre-Paul Couture, general manager of the Caisse populaire Saint-Charles-Borromfie in the Montreal area, one caisse that will be severely affected if the bill is adopted. The Caisse approved a credit line of $1,7 million for a business which later became insolvent. If Revenue Canada doesn't benefit from a superpriority, the caisse will lose about $690,000 but it stands to lose about $950,000 if such a priority is granted retroactively, a difference of $262,000.
That is not all, Madam Speaker, because we had been told in committee that that loss could go up to some $350,000 since there also some $70,000 in legal fees involved in this case.
We were told that Mr. Couture could provide us with more details. But what must be stressed is that the Caisse had no effective means to protect itself against such a loss. Because of this provision, it will have to use up its entire reserve that it took years to build up and to call on Confederation Desjardins's Corporation defonds de securite, a financial support institution financed trough the contributions of every caisse in the province. So, the
4,500,000	members of les Caisses Desjardins will have to make up for that loss which will be shouldered, for the most part, by members of the Caise populaire Saint-Charles-Borromee.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, this bill, if passed, will not only affect the banks, the big financial institutions of this country, but also the 4 500 000 members of the Caisses Desjardins.

But if that itself was not enough to concern the member for Essex-Windsor or the members of the government party, they could have referred to a decision of a British Columbia court in the case of Concord International Travel.
In this particular case Revenue Canada argued that its priority, the priority which we are debating here today, should take precedence over a claim for unpaid wages of employees. In his judgement Mr. Justice Sheppard of the British Columbia County Court, I believe it was, pointed out that a travel agency in Vancouver had experienced financial difficulties resulting in a debt to its employees of $12,025.38 in unpaid wages. Revenue Canada came along several months after the fact and claimed that its claim should take precedence over the unpaid wages that had been claimed by the Director of Employment Standards under the British Columbia legislation.
If members took a moment to consider this particular decision, they would realize that it is not just a matter of the Government of Canada, acting on behalf of all Canadians and all Canadian taxpayers, trying to get monies which are rightfully owed the Crown and, therefore, which benefit all Canadian taxpayers and which will take precedence over big financial institutions. It is not as simple as that because we see here that there is a decision which said that Revenue Canada, under the legislation the way it was drafted, should not be able to assert a claim which would take precedence over the actual wages, some $12,000 that were owed to employees of a travel agency that had gone out of business.
As a result of the testimony we had before the committee I was able to come to the conclusion that we have here a very complex situation which should not be resolved in the manner the government is proposing here today. On this point I want to stress and repeat the remarks that were made by my colleague, the member for Essex-Kent, earlier today, that only a reform of the bankruptcy legislation will probably be able to sort these questions out and see that justice is ultimately done. We are obviously talking of a situation where, in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, there are not enough dollars to go around, there are not enough assets to go around.
The government has recognized in recent years in a number of reports, that the Crown priority should not always take precedence. There has been talk of abolishing the Crown priority in the reform of bankruptcy legislation. I think there is a recognition there that the Crown, the public at large, the taxpayers of Canada, are perhaps better able to support certain financial losses than ordinary individuals, wage earners, workers, even in some cases, financial institutions. I guess it is because there are more people backing the Crown. All the Canadian taxpayers, the whole country, is backing the
May 17, 1990

Crown, which puts it in a better position in many circumstances to absorb losses.
We have to understand that the effect of this legislation will be to contradict one of the other stated objectives of this government, which is to ensure that credit is readily available to businesses that wish to expand, invest in our economy and create jobs.
We were told by witnesses before the legislative committee that if financial institutions, including caisse populaire, cannot count on the assignment of an account receivable under a security agreement as collateral for the loan that they have extended, then they will have to require other guarantees. They are going to have to go to the small business operators and tell them that an account receivable of $200,000 or $500,000 or whatever it is, is not sufficient because the government can come in and grab that if they get into some kind of financial difficulty.
Therefore, they will require other kinds of guarantees. They will require personal guarantees. They will require other assets extended as collateral which the small business operator may not have and which, therefore, will limit credit, stop businesses from expanding and will defeat one of the stated purposes of this government which is to see that the economy expands and that jobs are created.
So, Madam Speaker, on the basis of the testimony that we had before the legislative committee and on the basis of reading some of some of the decisions of the courts of Canada on this case I can only support those witnesses that appeared before our committee and say that I am opposed to this legislation. I believe that it is a blunt instrument and that the government has to come in with much more sophisticated measures to enable it to recover what is owed to it in terms of unpaid source deductions.
I also want to reiterate that the retroactive aspect of this legislation is particularly reprehensible. The government presented flawed legislation to this House in 1987. I think the people of Canada had a right to rely on a court decision. Canadian taxpayers do not like retroactivity. Canadian voters, Canadian citizens, do not like retroactivity. They do not like it when the Government
Government Orders
of Canada uses its majority to overrule a court judgement which people, I believe, are entitled to rely upon.
When I was sitting in that legislative committee it was ironic to see the Conservative members who were elected in 1984 and again in 1988 on a platform of going to fight big government, of getting the heavy hand of government out of the affairs of the people of Canada, of standing up for the little guy, of protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians. Here we had the Conservative members of the committee ramming through this piece of legislation in the face of the unanimous testimony of the witnesses who appeared before us who were opposed to it and indicated to us what the deleterious effect of this legislation would be on businesses and the Canadian economy.
For the record I would like to point out that we had representatives before the committee from the Canadian Insolvency Association. We had, of course, representatives of the Federation caisse populaire Desjardins. There were also other communications sent to committee members on behalf of witnesses who could not make it to the committee and perhaps realized that it was hopeless because the Conservative majority was in no mood to listen. They sent written submissions to the committee, which I-

And I would bet anything that government members did not even bother to read it.

Again, I find it very ironic that the government members, who I am sure go to their constituents every weekend and tell them how they are there to fight for their interests and to protect the little guy, the ordinary taxpayers of Canada, could support legislation of this nature which, on the basis of the evidence before us, is clearly flawed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, first I would like very much to congratulate my colleague from Saint Henri-Westmount for a good speech and for an excellent fight within the legislative committee. I have not talked about that in our discussions here in the House. There is no question that the member for Saint Henri-Westmount was extremely active in putting forward his concerns on this piece of legislation. He made it quite clear to Conservatives on

May 17, 1990
Adjournment Debate
the legislative committee that there were major flaws within the legislation. I congratulate him on his speech today and on the position which he has taken in the House.
I still would like to clarify exactly what this means with respect to the Liberal Party's position on third reading of this legislation. My colleague from the legislative committee talks about his position of standing up for the taxpayers in the country and therefore that he has many concerns with this piece of legislation. My friend from Essex-Kent talked about how he was in favour of the legislation on behalf of the taxpayers of this country.
I have to ask for an unequivocal answer from the member for Saint Henri-Westmount. Would he be prepared to tell this House whether he is in favour of this legislation as it now stands or against it? Will he vote for it on third reading, yes or no?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I think it should be fairly evident from my comments and even from the comments of my colleague from Essex-Kent that we have serious reservations about many aspects of this legislation. I chose to emphasize certain aspects in my speech and my colleague from Essex-Kent pointed out some of the problems that he has with the bill in his speech. I am sure that our position on third reading will be the same as his party's. I believe that there is a-

- a feeling for passing this bill on division, of course, and I suppose the opposition parties are against it. I believe our party is against the passage of this bill as it is before us now.
[English ]


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


Steven W. Langdon: I have another question, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, I am prepared to put the question if the House was ready. Obviously, the House is not ready if the hon. member for Essex-Windsor is rising again on questions and comments. I will have to go to the adjournment motion. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have had conversations with the two parties on the other side as well as my own party and it was my understanding that we had come to an agreement to complete this bill this afternoon. If the hon. member just wants a minute or two to pose another question, could we agree not to see the clock? Certainly, we on this side have no problem with the member posing his question and the hon. member responding. We could then have the question put and complete our business for the day.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. My House leader and myself have had discussions about this. It is our understanding that there was absolutely no such agreement that this legislation would come to a vote this afternoon. We certainly did not intend to permit it to come to a vote. We think it deserves important consideration.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the clarification.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, on October 18,1989,1 posed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It was concerning the subject matter of child care and particularly it had to do with the conditions which child care givers find themselves in across this country.
At that time I alluded to the fact that child care workers in this country earn 30 per cent less than the average industrial wage, 50 per cent less than a teacher at the elementary school level and 30 per cent less than animal care workers on government farms.
I raised this issue in the broad context of a national child care program. For quite some time the Govern-
May 17, 1990

ment of Canada has been alluding to its profound concerns for those individuals who are seeking new child care spaces as well as for those who are care givers.
In 1984 the government promised an action program with regard to child care. That promise was reiterated in throne speeches in 1985 and 1986. It was promised again during the 1988 federal campaign and shortly thereafter it was reiterated in the throne speech that followed.
At every opportunity which the Government of Canada has had to do something with regard to child care, it has elected in good faith, in good conscience, to do absolutely nothing.
I know that members opposite will stand in their places and come up with the phoney excuse that they are studying the matter. They state that they are not certain which way they should go in providing the necessary services for which Canadians from coast to coast have been asking. They talk about tax credits. But members opposite know that they are not the most effective measures to be used in creating new child care spaces.
They know that these various tax measures do not provide each and every Canadian who has children and who wishes to avail themselves of that particular tax credit that they cannot do so.
It does very little for the poor Canadian who cannot provide or does not earn sufficient income in order to take advantage of the tax provisions as indicated by the Government of Canada.
Of course the other argument that they use is this. "We can provide child care through the auspices of the Canada Assistance Plan". What a wonderful neo-Conservative way of addressing the situation.
A province like Newfoundland would have to come up with 50 cents on the dollar for the creation of a child care space. I suggest, with respect, that it, as well as my own province of Nova Scotia, not to mention New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and, indeed, other provinces do not have the financial wherewithal to create the necessary spaces for child care.
The argument that there are numerous opportunities under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan just
Adjournment Debate
does not hold water, in my view, nor does it give a real opportunity for us to create new child care spaces.
I know the parliamentary secretary agrees with that. I hope that when she stands in her place she will tell us in more detail to what the government at least hopes to do before the next federal election, other than make hollow promises to Canadians who are in desperate need.
I want to conclude with some remarks and observations which are key and germane to any national child care program, namely, quality child care. If we want to have high quality child care in this country, yes, one has to create spaces, that is very true. But one must also have care givers who are equipped with knowledge, know-how and skills and who are compensated accordingly for providing that child care. In my view, we do not need new buildings on a grandiose scale to provide necessary child care. But we need new spaces, new accommodations, alternate accommodations and we need people as care givers receiving good compensation.
I believe the Government of Canada has fallen down in that regard by not providing leadership and by not providing programs, whether it is under the basis of Community Futures or a whole host of programs which are available to the Government of Canada.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will stand in her place today and provide some real and meaningful hope to those thousands of Canadians who are care givers and wish to continue to give care to young children, as well as to parents who are absolutely beside themselves at the lack of action by the government in regard to initiating any new child care programs.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the national child care strategy which had been unveiled in 1987 stemmed from a commitment to establish a genuine national child care program.
It is rather ironic in any event- When the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond takes the floor to speak to this issue he gives me yet another opportunity to remind him that two major pieces of government legislation were stalled in the Senate, the first being the national child care strategy. We would not be talking about it now because the national strategy

May 17, 1990
Adjournment Debate
would have been implemented, but the elections did intervene and then the government was faced with a serious deficit problem.
To this day still the same Senate-friends of our distinguished colleague on the other side of the House- is sitting on an outstanding piece of legislation for women, Bill C-21 which extends maternity leave precisely to help women care for their children before sending them to day care centres.
I do not understand the hon. member. He must have been reluctant to rise because he knew full well I would refer to these two issues. Well, it does provide me with an opportunity to remind him that the government to which I am honoured to belong is proud of the achievements that have highlighted the last five years with respect to equity for women: our legislation on employment equity; our initiatives concerning family violence and child sex abuse; the famous Bill C-21 which I just mentioned and which extends maternity leave; measures to enforce maintenance and support orders; and legislation to improve women's access to training programs.
Moreover, we have put in place programs to encourage business women, we have taken initiatives to support women farmers and we have opened to women virtually all positions and occupations in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Madam Speaker, I will tell the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond-East that our prime minister and our governement have indicated clearly their intention to fulfill their commitments towards child care before the end of this mandate and this time, hopefully, the hon. member will tell his collegues in the other place that he will not tolerate again either that the Senate opposes such an important bill for Canadian women.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to return the attention of the House to the matter I raised last October.
I pointed out at that time that trade statistics pointed to the fact that there was a great imbalance between the trade balance of the U.S. and the trade balance of
Canada. The figures released that month showed that our trade surplus was in sharp decline. Our exports to the U.S. had increased by some 3.4 per cent, while our imports from the U.S. had doubled to almost 7.5 per cent.
I wish I could say that things had changed for the better since that time but, quite frankly, they have not.
There was another decline in the real merchandise trade trade balance in the fourth quarter of 1989. In fact, Canada posted a deficit of some $1.9 billion in its real merchandise balance of trade. It was the first such deficit since the end of 1956.
At the time I asked my question, the Minister of Finance responded with his usual response that our falling trade balance was caused by our increased imports of machinery and equipment from the United States. The minister's response failed to tell the whole story and failed to give adequate consideration to the concerns that Canadians voice when they see these types of figures.
Canadian imports from the U.S. are up, while our exports to the U.S. are down. In February of this year Canadian exports to the U.S fell by $12 million, while imports from the U.S. rose by some $353 million. That same month our monthly trade balance with the U.S. worsened by some $365 million. While Canada's trade balance deteriorates, the U.S. monthly trade balance has improved to its best level since 1983.
What is happening to the Canadian economy is troublesome. But what is happening to the Canadian worker is just unfair. We are posting declines in our trade surpluses and, in some cases, outright trade deficits, the likes of which have never been seen since 1982 and, in some other cases, not since 1956.
These figures have a lot more to do with the free trade agreement than the government would like to admit. There was a recent article on the free trade agreement in the U.S. News and World Report which put it like this: "On the trade front, America appears to have won the first round".
In the first round, hundreds of Canadians have lost their jobs. In the first round, Canada has become a nation of take-overs, mergers and acquisitions. In the first half of 1989 alone take-overs soared by some 31 per cent.
May 17, 1990

In the first round, hundreds of farmers have lost their jobs.
In my own riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, the local economies are really starting to feel the pinch. Tomato farmers in my riding were told in December that after 25 years of having contracts with the Campbell Soup Company, they no longer need their tomatoes. Why? They do not need them because they can go to the United States and, because of the free trade deal, get paste from the United States instead of buying local tomatoes grown in my area.
There are stories like this all across our country. Company after company is closing down and returning to the United States. U.S. parent companies are closing up Canadian shop, while Canadian companies are bringing financial booms to American cities like Buffalo, where they can find low wage rates, low taxes and much cheaper land than they can in the Niagara Peninsula.
For other companies, the threat of closing shop in Canada is enough. Workers at Borden Company Limited in Montreal have been forced to accept wage cuts and reduced benefits because the U.S. parent company had threatened to close the plant unless workers took concessions to make the plant as efficient as its U.S. plants.
So this is round one. Workers lose their jobs or are forced into wage cuts while their government raises taxes and cuts vital programs and reneges on election promises to bring in the world's best adjustment programs.
We are not seeing these programs. They are nowhere to be seen. Canadians are afraid to imagine what sellouts and devastation round two will bring.
Even before the subsidy negotiations have begun, the government has trimmed, cut and chainsawed its way through Canadian programs. This government is unilaterally disarming itself of programs aimed at protecting and helping Canada's unemployed, workers and farmers. The list goes on.
As I questioned the Minister for International Trade in the House yesterday and today, he gave no assurances to the steelworkers in my riding, and those of Hamilton, Sudbury and Cape Breton-indeed, the steelworkers all across this country-that he would protect their jobs when he meets Carla Hills, his American counterpart tomorrow. He gave no assurances to this House that he
Adjournment Debate
had any programs that could be directed toward helping our Canadian steelworkers.
Let us take a quick look at the list of programs the Canadian government identified as agricultural support programs in Schedule 2, Chapter 7 of the FTA. The list reads like an obituary column: Western Stabilization Act, payments through the Special Canadian Grains Program, expenditures of the Canadian Grain Commission, advance payments and crop insurance.
What programs have the Americans cut? That is right, Madam Speaker, they have cut no programs.
The government sold out this country during the free trade agreement. It said it would give Canada access to the U.S. market and guard Canadians from U.S. protectionism.
Now we have Peter Murphy, a former U.S. negotiator for the FTA, saying that Canadian businesses had better make their presence known in the U.S. because the FTA is no guarantee that we will not be subject to U.S. protectionism.
In closing, in October I asked the government the following question. I asked: "Will the government admit that free trade is not working for Canadians and that the FTA has cost Canadians more than they have gained?". Canadians are still waiting for that answer.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I will say outright to the hon. member that he should rely more in the capacity of Canadians not to fall behind, since the preliminary report on foreign trade for Febru-aiy 1990 which Statistics Canada released on April 18, indicates that for the first two months in 1990, Canada had a surplus of over $900 million.
During the first two months of the year, Canada maintained a major trade surplus of $12.1 million with the United States while in 1989 Canada had a trade surplus with the United States of $10.4 billion.
Madam Speaker, the Free Trade Accord makes it possible for Canadian corporations to have a secure access to the most important market in the world, and Canadian corporations are responding well. They increased their investments in machinery and equipment. Their capital costs in 1989 increased by 10.7 per cent. Imports are responsible to a great extent for outlays in

May 17, 1990
Adjournment Debate
machinery and equipment, which explains why we could have an unfavorable trade balance over the short-term.
However, a shor-term decrease in Canada's trade balance is not a bad omen. In fact, both our productivity and competitivity are improving.
Madam Speaker, the Free Trade Accord does not rule out the possibility that the United States could apply countervailing or antidumping duties against Canadian exports. Canada is now seeking changes to the countervailing and antidumping duties within the framework of the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations which are being held under GATT.
Finally, it would be wrong to suggest that the Free Trade Accord is not working. As a matter of fact, there is currently a leadership convention and not many of the leading candidates are talking it nowadays. The hon. member should check this, because not one of them has ever suggested he would scrap the Free Trade Accord. Trade with the United States is significant. Our industiy is sound. Our automobile industry is thriving. Our available capital is stable and we have a secure access to the most important market in the world. I hope the hon. member will agree with that, Madam Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, on May 7 and May 8 I questioned the Minister of Employment and Immigration about the practice of the Department of Immigration administering drugs to deportees without their consent. I am happy now to have an opportunity to clear this matter up further.
On May 7 the minister implied by her answer that the practice of this government is to allow the drugging of deportees without their consent. She did not say it in so many words. My question was:
Will (he minister confirm that it is the government's policy to administer drugs without consent to make deportation easier?
She replied, in part:
From time to time, a medical attendant is required when people are being deported. It is a practice that has to do with the safety of the person involved and the safety of other passengers.
Everybody in the House and everybody listening understood instantly that by avoiding the answer no she was conveying yes.
When I questioned her the following day she then attempted to be more evasive. To my question she answered:
If someone who is to be deported and in the eyes of an immigration official requires medical treatment of any sort whether it is because they are diabetic or have a heart condition, they then call in a medical examiner.
In other words, she tried to suggest that it is only a matter of the deportee's health and handled of course exclusively by a doctor.
In fact she really tried to pass the blame for the decision on to the doctor or, as she said more vaguely, "medical attendants" rather than her department that has employed them.
When I questioned her again and asked her if she would put a halt to the practice of compelling deportees to be drugged, she said:
Whatever treatment is to be administered is determined by a medical examiner, a doctor. It is not determined by myself. It is between the doctor and the person being examined.
She also ignored my request that she place before the House the guidelines which her department uses to govern its conduct in these cases.
There is no possibility of the minister and the department escaping the public understanding of the fact that deportees are being drugged with sedative or tranquillizers against their will in certain cases and contrary to both ethical and legal standards.
The Interchurch Committee for Refugees, a well-known Canadian organization, reports that the action of the immigration officials and the doctors are in direct contravention of the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
But a little closer to the point, Dr. Cluga of the Canadian Medical Association, its director of ethical practices, adds that not only the physician would be
May 17, 1990

responsible but that "the authority who ordered a physician to undertake or even contemplate such an action would also be acting unethically. The fact that someone follows an unethical order or request does not exonerate the person who gave that order".
So the minister and her officials are not excused from the unethical action of a doctor in administering those drugs. There is nowhere that the air carrier security regulations provides that drugs are to be acceptable as a means of transporting prisoners or detainees. They allow restraints, but not drugs.
I have checked the Ontario Mental Health Act. It too asserts that it is illegal to give someone drugs without that person's prior consent. The only exception is if the person is mentally incompetent.
In the case that were considering of Mr. Said, he had been found mentally competent by Dr. Philip Berger who examined him and said that his response to a situation was the response of a sane man.
I am very sorry that the minister still declines to give us the guidelines that were issued and were used by her department as early as last August, as has been admitted by certain officials.
I have to conclude that the government does not wish us to know the truth about the practice of administering sedative or tranquillizer drugs to people it wishes to deport who are sane, who are not mentally incompetent, but who perhaps are difficult to deport.
Prisoners are transported in this country without the use of drugs, since to use drugs in the transportation of convicted criminals when it is necessary in public aircraft or public vehicles would be contrary to the Ontario Mental Health Act, at least as far as Ontario is concerned.
I am asking again that the minister, if she believes she is in a clear position, table those guidelines that govern the action of her officials in these connections and not hide behind excuses about maybe somebody had diabetes or maybe somebody had a heart condition.
The matter has to be cleared up and brought out into the open so that the laws of this country and the laws of the medical association of this country are honoured by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Adjournment Debate


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, it is important that the government's position on this issue be clearly understood.
Whenever a person is in immigration custody, immigration officials are responsible for that person's wellbeing. Immigration officials also have an obligation to effect removals from Canada in a manner which protects the safety of the person concerned, as well as the safety of the travelling public and any immigration or medical personnel involved.
They are very few cases, where a medical attendant must accompany a person who is being removed from Canada. The decision that a medical attendant is required, and what, if any, treatment is necessary, is made by a physician according to the laws of the province in which the case occurs.
This is not a procedure that we established recently. In fact, the use of medical escorts, although rare, has been part of the removal process for many years.
Immigration officials do not administer drugs to persons who are being removed from Caanda, nor does this government have a policy concerning the sedation of persons being removed. Such decisions can only be made by qualified medical practitioners and rightly so.
It is clear however that there are legitimate concerns about the administration of any drug during a deportation. The minister of employment and immigration (Mrs. McDougall) recognized the seriousness of these concerns.
For this reason, Madam speaker, immigration officials have been instructed that all medical removals are to be reviewed by senior officials at immigration national headquarters before the person concerned is removed from Canada.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that in the circumstances the hon. member from Trinity-Spadina will be satisfied with the answer I just gave to that important question.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 18, 1990