1990-06-27

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Conservative Senator Martial Asselin was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Quebec by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Asselin is from La Malbaie. A lawyer by training, he was educated at Laval University. He was elected member of Parliament for Charlevoix in the general elections of 1958, 1965 and 1968, and was appointed to the Senate in 1972.
He has represented Canada at a number of international conferences. In 1988, he was elected President of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians. He was Minister of Forestry under John Diefenbaker in 1963 and was appointed Minister of State for the Canadian International Development Agency and La Francophonie in 1979. He was Mayor of La Malbaie from 1957 to 1963.
Mr. Speaker, we are all proud of this appointment. When he was member of Parliament for the riding of Charlevoix, Mr. Asselin defended most effectively both the interests of his constituents and the demands of Quebec.


DUBIN INQUIRY
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the previous Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport said in April, 1989 that only "the federal government will decide whether to allow Ben Johnson to run for Canada again". Conversely, Recommendation 7 in Justice Dubin's report states: "Decisions on eligibility for competition remain a function of the sport governing bodies themselves. While the federal government can and should reserve the right to determine what individuals and bodies receive government funding, it is not appropriate for the Government of Canada to determine who is eligible to compete in either domestic or international competition".

I hope the minister responsible will accept Chief Justice Charles Dubin's recommendation that decisions on eligibility for competition remain a function of the sport-governing bodies themselves. While the federal government can and should reserve the right to determine what individuals and bodies receive government funding, it is not appropriate for the Government of Canada to determine who is eligible to compete in either domestic or international competition.

Our athletes and sport organizations are now waiting to see if the new Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport will follow Justice Dubin's recommendations.


HIBERNIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I raised questions with respect to the Hibernia bill. Later I left the House and in the lobby made remarks which, upon reflection, are totally unnecessary, unacceptable and I want to withdraw them completely.
I made reference to members of the government and specifically to the Prime Minister. I mentioned other times and other politics in the history of the world which no member of this House should be associated with. I

June 27, 1990
refer specifically to the word "Nazi" and other references.
The emotion that I feel with respect to the issue yesterday is genuine, but no amount of emotion warrants those kinds of words. I want to withdraw them totally and to apologize completely and absolutely and without reservation to the Prime Minister or anybody else who felt offended by those words.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Justice for her action yesterday in introducing a comprehensive package to strengthen control of guns in Canada.
The new laws will make it tougher to obtain a firearm licence and will provide tighter screening for people who want to own guns. Also, applicants will be required to pass a firearm's safety exam.
The import and possession of fully automatic firearms converted to fire in a semi-automatic mode will be banned in Canada and anyone convicted will face up to five years in prison.
Stiffer sentencing is essential to reduce attacks and murders by criminals because, in the past, sentencing was very poor and minimal.
The consultation process will continue. A committee of Parliament will meet this summer to hear recommendations for improvements from all interested parties.
This summer I will be convening a town hall meeting to hear the views of the residents of Markham and Whitchurch-Stouffville to ensure a balanced approach, an approach that recognizes the rights of responsible and legitimate firearm owners, while at the same time deals harshly with criminals, gun dealers and others using or trading illegal or unauthorized firearms.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, misleading media statements, echoed by the Minister of
State for Housing who ought to know better, have implied that co-operatives are the only type of housing subsidized by the federal government. That is not true.
The great majority of subsidized housing starts in the past 20 years were for owner-occupied homes or for apartments built for private profit.
Since 1969, home owners have received exemption from capital gains tax when selling their principal residence. This costs the government four times as much in one year as did all public, non-profit, co-op and private housing.
Developers of hundreds of thousands of luxury apartments received a total of $4 billion or $5 billion subsidy. On one Bay Street building, Cadillac received over $4 million subsidy, on another, Tridel received over $7 million in interest free loans for 15 years.
Compared to this, the 62,500 co-op units built in Canada are modest buildings providing a friendly community of affordable housing for all classes of people.


TRIBUTE TO PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, although the demise of Meech Lake leaves a bitter after-taste, I feel very strongly that I must take this opportunity to reaffirm my steadfast support for my Prime Minister who, since 1984, has worked unceasingly to promote the interests of Quebec and Canada. As the tireless artisan of reconciliation, he has earned the respect and admiration of all Quebecers.
More than ever before, nationalist Quebec members have their place in this government, a government that is tolerant and open to Quebec. They are needed to protect Quebec's higher interests and to explain Quebec to Canadians.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to announce a new feature in the corporate welfare bum of the week award.
June 27, 1990

This week a special presentation is being made to Edgar and Peter Bronfmann and their many holdings. Mr. Speaker, you have heard of frequent fliers. Well, the Bronfmann's have the special honour of being frequent corporate welfare bum winners.
Not only did they have such runners-up as Trizec and Bramalea, but they also have taken top honours with Brascan and Edpar Limited.
Today, we add their sister holding company, Brascade Limited. It made $64 million in profit in 1988 and, like its sibling companies, did not pay a penny in taxes.
Let's show our appreciation to the Bronfmanns for their frequent appearance in the corporate welfare bum of the week awards.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, barring any last minute snags, we parliamentarians may be beginning our summer recess in just a matter of hours from now.
I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister of Justice to come to grips with the David Milgaard case. This man has been behind bars for 21 years for a murder that he possibly never committed. For 21 years he has not confessed to the murder and for 21 years he has been denied parole.
About 18 months ago, the Milgaard family lawyer made an application to the justice department to reopen the case, and for 18 months the Minister of Justice has done more or less nothing. In that time, star witnesses for the Crown have changed their stories and there have been two prominent forensic reports casting doubt on the only physical evidence that linked Mr. Milgaard with the crime scene.
I urge the Minister of Justice to take action now. No more stalling. Do not try our patience any more. This case screams out for action and it screams out for action now.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: "Let us avoid living in or falling into over-narrow provincialism; let us work
for the good functioning of the federal system, and let us gain confidence by sharing in our common government. Let us preach by our acts more than by our words".
Mr. Speaker, those patriotic words were spoken almost a century ago by an illustrious proponent of federalism, Henri Bourassa.
Today, let it be said that Liberals are committed to building a united country, and we have taken the first step by electing Jean Chretien as our leader.
As a federalist, Mr. Chretien represents the vision of other Liberal leaders who have brought together our founding nations through understanding and accommodating their mutual aspirations by the balancing of interests of individuals and society, regions and the nation.
Now is the time for members of Parliament to look to the future and a united Canada in which our children can grow in the knowledge that their leaders have the best interests of the nation at heart.
To the Prime Minister I say, faults are the easiest things to find. Answers are the true test of leadership.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, with the high unemployment in the riding of Timiskaming, the people of Kirkland Lake have been given a second chance. The Minister of Veterans Affairs announced earlier this year that the Ontario regional office would be relocated to Kirkland Lake, creating 180 new positions. Many spin-off jobs will result and they are welcome to the area.
Other initiatives have recently been announced to assist veterans throughout Canada: an agreement for 200 new long-term hospital beds in British Columbia; services under the Veterans Independence Program for one year for spouses of deceased veterans; increased income protection for spouses of veterans in long-term care institutions; the payment of interest for the first time on trust funds administered by Veterans Affairs; a special trust fund for needy veterans; payment of attendance allowance for one year to spouses of certain veterans; and, finally, the raising of the ceiling for funeral assistance.

June 27, 1990
This government recognizes the sacrifices of its veterans and places their need for program enhancements as a top priority to maintain what we all recognize as the delivery of benefits second to none in the world.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, over the past year, 1,500 jobs have been lost in the mining industry in several communities in northeastern Ontario. During the next 12 months, we face the loss of over 2,400 mining jobs in Elliot Lake with the closure of the Quirke and Panel Mines and the cut-backs at Denison Mines.
It is essential that the federal government put in place a new system of incentives to promote mine exploration to ensure the future viability of the mining industry in northeastern Ontario.
More important is the desperate need of the federal government to put in place a comprehensive action plan to assist the community of Elliot Lake and the north shore communities to reduce the adverse impacts of the massive lay-offs planned to start in a month's time.
There must be early approval of the budget of the Community Futures Committee of $15 million needed for industrial and community adjustment, job retraining, manpower mobility and job search assistance. We need a comprehensive program to create jobs in the private sector and the decentralization of government departments and agencies to the Elliot Lake area.
It is urgent that the federal government make a commitment immediately to help the town of Elliot Lake at this time of desperate need.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, with each passing week, more and more Canadians are coming to recognize the GST as an important reform for Canada.
As the proprietors of small businesses register each day, they are discovering the benefits that the GST reform will mean to them and that administering the tax will not be nearly as complicated as they initially thought.
In this regard, the recently announced quick method alternative for tax calculation was a most welcome modification. Unfortunately, the $200,000 threshold leaves many businesses above the line and not able to take advantage.
Many business people who support the GST are concerned about whether they can meet the current compliance requirements by January, 1991. My suggestion, and one which I convey to the government for its consideration, is that the threshold for access to the quick method be increased to $1 million for 1991, phasing down thereafter over three years to the targeted $200,000 mark.
This modification would provide the flexibility to assist many more businesses to comply on time and without undue trauma.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, despite the defeat of Meech Lake, the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick-according to our amending formula-can amend the Canadian Constitution and enshrine in that Constitution the equality of the province's francophone and anglophone communities.
The First Ministers' communique on June 9 contained an understanding regarding a constitutional amendment for New Brunswick that would provide that New Brunswick's francophone and anglophone communities have equal status and equal rights and privileges.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this understanding affirms the role of the Legislative Assembly and the Government of New Brunswick in preserving and promoting those rights and privileges.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge the Prime Minister of Canada to communicate with Premier McKenna of New Brunswick and set a date as soon as possible to thus amend the Constitution, since under our Constitution, this amendment only requires the approval of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick.
June 27, 1990



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that the manufacturing and primary resource sectors in Canada are being seriously damaged by the artificially high Canadian dollar. Representatives of the forestry sector, agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, mining and exporting companies have told the government again and again that the high dollar policy is causing enormous and perhaps irreversible damage to their industries.
Does the Minister of Finance recognize that the time has come to listen to the pleas from business leaders and try to focus on the economy and see if something cannot be done to try to save this haemorrhaging of jobs in the manufacturing and primary resource sectors?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what representatives of the resource sector and the manufacturing sector have said to me about various elements of government policy. I would ask my hon. friend to listen to them as well. If he does, he will understand that they say that one of the principal features of government policy which will help them to improve their competitive position is the removal of the existing federal sales tax and the replacement of that tax by the goods and services tax. That will reduce their costs of production, improve their competitive position, improve their ability to gain business in other countries and improve their ability to create jobs here in Canada.
Surely my colleague can get on side with that and tell his friends in the Senate to get on with passing this so that those industries can move ahead and improve their competitive position in the world today.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggests that we listen to the people who are involved. I would point out to him that Mr. Laurent Beaudoin of Bombardier severely criticized the Conservative government's monetary policy yesterday,
Oral Questions
saying that interest rates were too high and the value of the Canadian dollar was artificially too high as well, which puts exporting companies like Bombardier at a disadvantage.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the finance minister if he admits that he has to listen to people- perhaps he will listen to the spokesman of the Desjardins Movement who tells us that Quebec's economy is on the brink of a recession.
Does the Minister of Finance now admit that the time has come in Canada to address the problems facing the economy of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing. If my hon. friend will look at the national accounts figures that were put out last week, he will see that the underlying cost structure of the economy, as best represented by unit labour costs, increased at a rate of 6.4 per cent in the first quarter of this year.
If that continuing upward pressure on unit labour costs continues, and it will continue if we start to ease monetary policy prematurely, then we will be in real trouble in this country. We will find that we will lose more business and more jobs, and that is surely what my friend and I both agree should not happen. We should be doing things that will help to create jobs.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we take the minister's advice and listen to what Canadians are saying.
I want to point out to the minister that the Canadian Exporter's Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the National Council on Business Issues and the Canadian Labour Congress are all suggesting very forcefully to the Minister of Finance and to the Conservative government that they are in a situation where thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and the primary resource sector of this country are being lost.
How many of these high-paying jobs in manufacturing and in the primary resource sector are we going to lose? The inflation battle that you are fighting is against that sector of the economy which creates the best jobs in Canada. When is the government going to recognize that

June 27, 1990
Oral Questions
its wrong-headed monetary policy is going to cause irreparable damage to the Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand fully what representatives of industry are saying and what representatives of the labour unions are saying. I understand that they would like to see the dollar down and they would like to see interest rates down.
What I have said on many occasions in this House is that we are in government to anticipate problems. If we do not get this cost structure under control, we will have much more serious problems down the road. The job loss down the road will be much greater than the job loss that those industries are enduring today.
That is why we have said that until we can address and get the underlying increases in the cost structure of the economy under control, we have to continue with the policies that we are following now. Once we see that we have those under control, then certainly we will be able to see some reduction in interest rates, but we are not there yet.


HIBERNIA
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could the minister give me the latest, up-to-date status of the Hibernia oil project? If he could, would he do so today, please.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As the hon. member knows, over the last number of days there has been some debate as to the status of the legislation.
The hon. member will recall that when we were in legislative committee, and he was a very helpful and co-operative member and I thank him for that, that I mentioned at that time that if the legislation was not completed before the House would rise, I had every indication that we could complete the work on Hibernia in the summer of 1990, this summer.
I should also say to the hon. member that there have been meetings today in Calgary at which the government
of Newfoundland, namely the premier, has been represented and there have been federal officials at that meeting.
I just had a report before coming into the House for Question Period. I believe that those meetings are progressing well, and I think with that type of progress, we can keep on the schedule that we had originally announced.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I would seek some clarification because at the legislative committee, I think the minister suggested that he would prefer to have the enabling legislation before he went ahead with spending any money.
Yesterday, apparently, he was at least quoted in the media as saying that without the bill we might be able to go ahead and sign something by this summer between the consortium and the government of Newfoundland and construction may start this fall. Then I just heard on the wires that Mr. Crosbie said that if the deal is not signed by August, it may be delayed a year, which is a completely new thing to me.
Is it possible for the minister to give us any indication of a date so that the people of Canada would have some indication of when they are finally going to derive some benefits from this megaproject?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I said in committee and I repeated it here in the House yesterday that that was my preferred option, namely, to see legislation passed.
I think all of us are mature enough to recognize that it is possibly best to proceed in the manner in which I described in my first answer.
That being the case, we also knew, and I said this at the time the committee met, that there would be some slippage beyond the mid year, beyond June 30, relating to the lender-risk sharing, the LRS, as well as some of the benefit issues and the financing issues. I think we made some progress on that this morning.
I think it was the understanding of all the parties concerned this morning that the outstanding issues, including the legal drafting, should be completed this summer and that is what we are working toward.

*

June 27, 1990


INTEREST RATES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance.
For a long time, the Minister of Finance said that our interest rates were too high because of the constitutional crisis and our high rate of inflation.
But now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of last week's events, the Canadian dollar is stable and the inflation rate is down to 4.2 per cent. The finance minister has no more excuses now.
Will he now say, Mr. Speaker, whether he will make a commitment to lower interest rates starting today for all Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the question quite fully in response to the member for Gloucester.
I would like to respond to the point the hon. member has just made. He said that the Consumer Price Index is 4.5 per cent, but I do want to draw to the hon. member's attention that the unit labour cost increase in the first quarter was 6.4 per cent.
The reason that 6.4 per cent has not been reflected in the Consumer Price Index is that corporate profits are now at the lowest levels as a percentage of sales that they have been since 1983 and that the Canadian dollar has been higher this past year than a year ago.
For those two reasons, costs at the retail level are less than the cost increases at the corporate level. If we do not get the cost increases under control at the corporate level, that will flow through into the retail level very quickly. That is why we are concerned.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that the unit labour costs in this country are higher because net exports are down and because we have a high Canadian dollar.
In light of the possibility of a budget later this year, as he indicated yesterday to Canadians, can the minister assure the House that there will not be any new tax
Oral Questions
increases? What we have seen in the last five years are taxes, taxes, taxes, a GST, and a high interest rate policy where real interest rates are now at the highest level in the history of Canada.
In light of that, and if we have a budget later on this fall, can he assure the country that there will be no more Tory tax increases for ordinary people in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the remarks of the hon. member about a possible budget later this fall. That is something which I think has been taken out of proportion from the comments I made in a scrum yesterday outside the House.
I was asked questions following my response to the member for Gloucester as to what I meant by an adjustment, if that is appropriate. I said that we are always making adjustments. These adjustments are internal and external. In 1986 we made adjustments externally when we found that we were a little off track from our budget projections.
The principal feature of this government's management of the fiscal policy of this country is that it is hands-on management. We are following things aggressively on a day to day basis, and that is precisely why we have been able to come in under budget for the deficit number, four years in a row.
Whether or not we have a mid-term correction in the fall is something that we will know later on in the year if it is appropriate, and that is when it will be announced.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question which concerned what might happen during his mid-term correction.
One might suggest, too, that the economy might be in a good deal better shape if, instead of a hands-on philosophy, it was a hands-off philosophy on the part of this government.
I want to put the question directly to the minister once more. If he is going to make corrections as he says he is considering in the fall, will he make a commitment to this country and to this House that he is not going to give us yet another massive tax increase that will damage this economy just as his high interest rates are doing right across the country?

June 27, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. What I was referring to is a hands-on management of the operations of government.
If my hon. friend is suggesting that we should not have hands-on management, that we should just set our course at the beginning of the year, put our feet up and watch the world go by, that is not the way that this government does business. The reason we have been able to keep our budget under control to control government spending is that we do have hands-on management and we are committed to continuing that hands-on management.
My hon. friend wonders what might happen in the fall. I ask my hon. friend what might happen if there is blue cheese on the moon. That is something that we will find out in the fall when things are far more precise than is the case today.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to assure Canadians that aboriginal people will not be punished for exercising their democratic rights. He typically avoided the question and provided members with a non-answer. This is a serious situation.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister today to be specific and to assure members of this House that there will be no retribution to Canada's aboriginal people for exercising their legitimate rights in the Manitoba legislature. We need to know.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes that with passage of the Meech Lake Accord the aboriginal issues could have been advanced in a very comprehensive fashion, having regard to the fact that all governments in Canada would have then been committed to that process.
However, the government continues to remain committed to improving conditions for aboriginal peoples in Canada in the area of pursuing land claims negotiations, encouraging economic development for aboriginal communities, advancing self-government, and providing assistance to improve their ability to handle their own affairs within their own treaties and within their own reserves and the resolution of treaty issues, such as the thorough work of the treaty commissioner in Saskatchewan. On all those things, I am sure my hon. friend would agree, there has been progress made in those areas. There will continue to be progress and we will continue to work in that regard.
I repeat that I believe and the government believes that we missed a golden opportunity to advance the cause of aboriginal peoples as a result of the conditions that were laid out and that would have been inherent in the Meech Lake Accord. For that, we sincerely regret the fact that the Meech Lake Accord was not adopted.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there would not have been the reaction from the aboriginal community if the government was willing to allow aboriginal people to participate equitably. People like Elijah Harper were forced to be obstructionists and find their way into history books as obstructionists because you would not allow them to participate.


Mr. Kempling:: What is your question?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: The question is this. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried in vain to divide and pit against one another the aboriginal people by using the 80,000 Manitoba Metis, but we know in our hearts we will never be divided. He will not succeed.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister today to take the first step of honour, to extend his hand to the First Nations of this country and to assure Canada that the First Nations will not be subjected to punitive actions by the government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would agree that we missed a golden opportunity in terms of advancing the cause of self-government in the constitutional process, primarily because Quebec was not at the constitutional table at that particular time. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me.
It was the unanimous decision of 10 premiers and the Prime Minister that in order to bring Quebec into the Constitution, to advance this process, the Meech Lake Accord was fundamental.
June 27, 1990

I do not want to be argumentative with the hon. member, but it seems to me that some aboriginal leaders were only interested in one thing-and I think that is unfortunate-and that is killing Meech Lake. Phil Fontaine was quoted on CBC as follows: "The strategy here is to kill Meech Lake". He said: "We are prepared to live with the consequences". I could go on and quote Mr. Erasmus. He said: "If it means that there is no constitutional change for some time, we will live with it the way it is". I think that one has really to question the sincerity of some of those leaders, because quite frankly I think they did a disservice to the aboriginal people of Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to explain the legal gimmick found at the very last moment last week to extend the time frame for the ratification of the constitutional Accord, a gimmick which he said would apply only to Manitoba. Yesterday, in the other place, Senator Murray stated, and I quote:

"The view of the federal Department of Justice is that we would have a strong case to make".

If the case then is as strong as her department claims, could the minister responsible for this legal opinion tell us why she does not appeal now to the courts to obtain additional time for the two provinces which need it?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this issue.
If the hon. member will hark back to the circumstances of that Friday, the expectation was that a vote would be held in the Newfoundland legislature but that for reasons of procedural problems and not for a lack of commitment on the part of all party leaders in Manitoba
Oral Questions
it might be the situation that Manitoba, while wanting to ratify, could not do so within the time frame.
Therefore we were faced with the question of having all provinces in a sense ratifying but outside the time frame set down in the provisions of the Constitution which says-and I am paraphrasing but I think I have the words fairly close-that no proclamation shall be given more than three years after the date of the initiating resolution.
Therefore there was some suggestion that we should be looking for ways around the time frame and I know the Charest committee considered this possibility. The question arose as to whether, if there was a clear indication of a desire to ratify on the part of all provinces, it would be possible by having that initiating resolution repeated to come within the terms of the amending formula. I do not know whether the court would have found that the case or not, but only the federal government has the statutory power to go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada with a reference.
The government indicated at that time that if that commitment was there, if Newfoundland ratified and if Manitoba indicated its commitment to ratify and perhaps went ahead and ratified even outside the time frame, we were more than willing to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether that would bring the resolutions within the time frame.
It is perfectly clear that the opinion of the Department of Justice is that if there was that clear commitment on the part of all 10 provincial governments and the Government of Canada we would have a strong case to argue in the Supreme Court of Canada.
One cannot anticipate what the result would be, but if there was a desire on the part of all governments of Canada to have the Meech Lake Accord ratified it seemed to me perfectly responsible and in fact would have been abdicating our responsibility not to seek whatever measures were within our power to make sure that that happened. As a result it became an academic question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated, the Charest committee did look at that argument, but what the minister has not explained-and I press her on this-is if the interpretation of Section 39(2) would possibly allow a later ratification, bringing it up to the second date, what difference does it

June 27, 1990
Oral Questions
make whether there was one province still to ratify, two provinces still to ratify or more?
It was important, the legal argument on which the Government of Canada relied, a legal argument which to the disgrace of the federal government was never made known to first ministers when they were meeting in Ottawa.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it does not take a law professor to construct that argument as something that one might take before the court.
I remind the hon. member that the question is both a legal and a political question. At the time, and I am quoting from Winnipeg Free Press of Friday, June 22, it was said: "Premier Gary Filmon has opened the door to continuing Manitoba's Meech Lake debate beyond tomorrow's deadline but made it clear yesterday that the next step is up to Ottawa". The headline is "It's PM's move, Filmon said".
The Manitoba government was seeking some kind of assistance. The point is that in order to make the scenario work there was a possibility of resetting the time for the amending formula. It would require that the initiating resolution, the resolution of the Quebec legislature, be made again.
I do not think it is politically unrealistic to suggest that the province of Quebec, given its feelings about Meech Lake, its commitment about Meech Lake, and the political position it had taken, was unlikely to agree to re-enact its ratification resolution-it has a great deal to do with the legal situation-unless there was an existing commitment on the part of all of the provinces to ratify.
I think it was an extraordinary suggestion that you would ask Quebec, on spec, to do it.
If there was not a willingness to do that, then the opinion, of itself, would have been academic. If the provinces now come forward and say they are prepared to ratify then the hon. member's question becomes a very interesting one.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The government seems to be taking a two-track system to healing in this country. One is to call for healing after the Meech Lake decision fell apart last week. At the same time it is pointing fingers.
We want a clear answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the government live up to its word to native people and will it say today that it will have a joint definition on treaty rights and a royal commission on native affairs?
Will it live up to that commitment and will it start the healing process now by stating this in the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was in the House yesterday when the hon. member's leader asked the Prime Minister a question that was similar. The Prime Minister said he would take the suggestions of the hon. leader of the NDP into consideration.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister thought that a royal commission on native affairs was a good idea a week ago, it is certainly a good idea now and it is time we start the healing process.
The Deputy Prime Minister, earlier in Question Period, pointed fingers at various native leaders. He should realize that there are native people in northern Manitoba who will not be going to university this fall because the federal government has cut off funding for federal-provincial programs, the BUNTEP program and the ACCESS program?
How can he expect those native people to have any faith in this government when they cannot go to university in two month's time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to the latter part of the hon. member's question, may I simply say to him that on a per capita basis spending on behalf of native people in this country has risen by 38 per cent over 1985-86.
June 27, 1990

Oral Questions
With respect to the question regarding healing, I simply quote from the hon. the Prime Minister's statement at Baie-St-Paul, Quebec, on June 24: "Everything that was in the Meech Lake Accord has, because of the failure of its ratification, fallen, as a result of which all of the meetings that were scheduled. And the ones that I particularly regret were the ones involving the aboriginal peoples because, as I indicated today, we came so close in the past. I was absolutely in my heart convinced that if we had Quebec back at the table we could have done the deal that would have brought aboriginal justice about. That is a great tragedy for the aboriginal peoples and for Canada that this was and has been lost, but we will try and work as best we can."
That is the commitment of the Prime Minister on behalf of the government of Canada.


RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton -Stans-tead):: In the absence of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Now that most Quebec men and women favour Quebec sovereignty and that even the leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted as saying that she could live with a Quebec sovereignty which she found ineluctable, it is surprising that Canada has not yet broken its colonial ties with England and the Queen, thereby demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of a modern and free Canada.
If English Canada cannot get rid of its old colonial ties and become an independent state, is it still the policy of this government to recognize the right of Quebecers to self-determination, to full sovereignty and complete freedom?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is. If it is seeking clarification on the position of the New Democratic Party, he had better pose his question to the leader.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could pay attention and he would understand that this is an issue of extreme significance for Quebec men and women.
Is it still this government's policy to recognize the right of Quebecers to self-determination as well as full sovereignty and freedom? If the government replied in the affirmative, I should like to ask, by way of a supplementary question, whether the government recognizes that this right to self-determination could be exercised either through a Quebec referendum or a vote of the National Assembly?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me whether I am a federalist and believe in Canada, the answer is yes.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the government proposed amendments to gun control legislation in Bill C-80. These proposals leave at least two holes in the gun control safety net. They do absolutely nothing to advance safety training requirements beyond those passed in 1978, and still not proclaimed in force, and in relation to converted fully automatics, allow continued acquisition of these guns under a grandfather provision up to June 30, 1991.
Why has the minister failed to deal with these two important elements of gun control legislation and why is she proposing to allow acquisition of these so-called converted fully automatics for another full year?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member's question. Notwithstanding his criticisms, I do appreciate his constructive comments yesterday, as do I appreciate those of his colleague of the NDP.
To take the second part of the question first, in respect of the question of grandfathering converted fully-auto-matic rifles which are now in a semi-automatic mode, they will not be available for acquisition up until the time of the legislation coming into force because, as the hon. member will recall from yesterday, the importation of

June 27, 1990
Oral Questions
such weapons is already now being restricted by Canada Customs.
The decision as to whether or not in rendering these prohibited weapons to have a grandfathering provision, was a decision that was made as a policy decision. Certainly the legislative committee may want to discuss it and make other recommendations.
Following the practice that was set out in 1978, where prohibited weapons were grandfathered, that process worked very well. When those weapons are grandfathered, in order to be held legally they must be registered. They do give law enforcement authorities a much better idea of where those firearms are, who has them, and it is much easier to promote the gradual reduction of their numbers than when one simply prohibits them, creates an amnesty period for turning them in and hopes that all of those that are out there get turned in. It is a better way of keeping control but I would welcome suggestions from the legislative committee.
In respect of the provisions for training, I would like to advise the hon. member that the provisions in the Criminal Code-


Mr. Milliken:: Come on. That's not an answer; it's a filibuster.


A. Kim Campbell: I am answering his question. The provisions in the Criminal Code do not set out any particular details as to the training proposals. I have indicated that I will be forming a Canadian advisory council on firearms. Its first mandate will be to provide a blueprint to implement those proposals that I hope will be in effect by the beginning of the next fiscal year.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Justice Minister. It is clear that we have a way to go with this particular bill. We in the opposition are prepared to look at expediting consideration of the legislation in order to accommodate real consideration with responsible gun users and groups.
Is the minister ready to agree to move this bill speedily through to second reading and a legislative committee so
that Parliament can quickly receive submissions and consultations and make real improvements in this bill?


A. Kim Campbell: I thank the hon. member. Yes, indeed I am. I am very grateful for his co-operation. I think that is precisely the way we would go and I would hope that perhaps we can get agreement among the House leaders to do that today. I think it is an excellent suggestion and I appreciate the good will and co-operation of the hon. member.


TRUCKING
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Over one month ago in Windsor, the minister met with the Ontario and Canadian trucking industry. He said he would address their concerns and level the playing field with their U.S. counterparts.
In a meeting this morning with industry representatives, the minister took the government's usual tactic and promised yet another task force, a task force that is not even going to start until mid-August.
When will the government do something concrete to assist the Canadian trucking industry?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that my hon. friend would suggest that I reject the suggestion of the Canadian conference of teamsters, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport & General Workers, and the transportation and communications international union, representing some 150,000 Canadians who asked me if I would form a task force made up of representatives of the trucking unions, from the industry and from government at the federal and provincial levels. I thought it was a good suggestion and I accepted their suggestion. We came up with a date which suited everybody, the week of August 13, for the first meeting. If my hon. friend is suggesting I reject that suggestion, what alternative would he have?


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that it was 34 days ago that he made a similar promise to those people and he has not done one thing about it since then until he was further pressured this morning.
June 27, 1990

I think the minister also knows that he has 24 hours to avert what some people in the trucking industry are going to do. They are saying that at 11.59 tomorrow night, unless there is some concrete action by this government, they are going to shut down the borders and the highways of this country.
I ask the minister again what the government is going to do now to address the concerns of the trucking industry, such as high interest rates, excise tax on fuel and the capital cost allowance that they face? All of these give them a disadvantage to their American competitors. What are you going to do now, before midnight tomorrow night?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the commitments I made to the independent truckers in Windsor some five weeks ago. I committed to explore better enforcement of the laws against cabotage. That is done. I committed to see if there was any way in which we could get more evidence on unfair competition. The independent truckers gave us no evidence in the intervening five weeks. I committed to explain the situation on the federal excise tax on fuel. That was done to their satisfaction. I have met all of the commitments I made in Windsor, and they will tell you I have.
I have also said to the organized truckers, some 150,000 Canadians who do not want a blockade, who want to obey the law, that I would meet with them in August.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he not counsel breaking the law as he is now.


DUBIN INQUIRY REPORT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Yesterday the Dubin report was made public. The report is an excellent well balanced report which makes a very powerful case for a complete overhaul of the sports system in Canada.
This House, through the Standing Committee, has established a sub-committee on fitness and amateur sport, and I would like to ask the minister if he will confirm in the House for the record that it is his
Oral Questions
intention to refer the Dubin report to the sub-committee on fitness and amateur sport?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of a question from my hon. friend to thank Mr. Justice Dubin and his staff on behalf of all members of the House for the excellent work he has done on the report.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: As far as the process goes from now on, it is the intention of the government to consult. We will, in fact, ask the sub-committee, of which the hon. member for Victoria is a member, to give us opinions on the report. It is our intention to make a decision with regard to those people named in the recommendation by Mr. Justice Dubin by the end of the summer. In phase two, it would be the intention of the government to have a global response by the fall.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in his comments yesterday the minister said that he accepts the thrust of the report. The report describes a global disgrace in the area of sports and talks about the unethical and immoral conduct of organizations, some of which are funded by the government.
Will the minister assure the House that in his review of sports policies in the future we will no longer have to accept government funding of immoral and unethical activities?


Marcel Danis: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the government will give a full response to the report in the fall.
I would love to answer all questions concerning the report now. However, I am sure my colleague understands that it would be done in a more proper and more orderly way if it were done in the way I suggested a minute ago.


AIRPORTS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

June 27, 1990
Privilege
Minister of Transport. After many discussions I am pleased that he is going to visit Buttonville Airport.
The environmental assessment panel's recent review of air transportation proposals in the Toronto area recognizes the value of regional airports such as Buttonville. The including paragraph of the report states: "If there is a possibility that any of these airports may be included in the long-term aviation strategy for southern Ontario, the panel suggests that Transport Canada consider protecting its range of future options".
Is the minister prepared to make a comprehensive review of this excellent facility and its capacity to ease the chaos at Pearson Airport, particularly the large volume of small business aircraft?


Some hon. members:: Yes!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say simply, yes, as my hon. friends opposite suggest.
I would tell my hon. friend that we are in fact in the middle of a comprehensive review of all the airports in southern Ontario. Pearson, Hamilton, Buttonville, and Oshawa are all included in our plans. We expect to visit Buttonville in the summer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Cote) wishes to raise a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond -Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, further to rumours that were circulating this morning to the effect that I was going to leave the government benches and no longer sit as the Conservative member for Richmond-Wolfe, I wish to deny outright what was said in the media.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Yvon Côté: I may add, Mr. Speaker, that my decision had already been announced and confirmed in my own riding on Monday morning, and I am sorry these rumours should have disturbed my constituents.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to add that I see only the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney and
the Conservative Government as genuine defenders of the interests of Quebec in general and the interests of my constituency. Without this government, Mr. Speaker, we might have to rely on Jean Chretien, which could only lead to sabotage and the destruction of-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I can do so because I am not leaving my caucus either.
When the Minister of Transport responded to my supplementary question he made a very serious accusation, one which I take very seriously. He accused me of counselling an illegal activity.
I can tell the House that I have not been doing that, and I am not doing that. I was simply pointing out to the minister a serious problem that might arise so that he can take care of it and look after it as he should.
I ask the minister to withdraw that accusation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend made several allegations in the preamble to his questions as to what I had done and had not done. I take offence at the suggestion that I have not met my commitments, because I have. My hon. friend should know full well that we have.
I have the representations of 150,000 unionized workers who have agreed that they will participate in this task force that we have created at their request. I am pleased to have their acceptance.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I welcome the comments of my hon. friends opposite. If they want to join the task force too, they are welcome.
If I inadvertently suggested that, by threatening the Canadian people with a walk-out tomorrow at midnight, my hon. friend was counselling the breaking of the law, and if I inadvertently suggested, when he suggested that there is going to be a blockade brought about by those independent truckers, that he was breaking the law-something which I think is unfortunate for him to suggest-then I withdraw it.
June 27, 1990



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 eight petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies of the Dubin report, in both official languages.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.



STRIKING COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF FORTY-SEVENTH REPORT

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

Mr. Speaker, this report deals with the membership of legislative committees. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), upon presentation such reports are deemed adopted.
Routine Proceedings EXCISE TAX ACT MEASURE TO AMEND


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extremity pumps).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a Private Members' Bill entitled an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extremity pumps).
The purpose of this bill is to exempt extremity pumps from the application of the federal sales tax. These pumps are used to reduce swelling caused by lymphedema.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to introduce a second bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Beryl Gaffney: for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (breast prostheses).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to stand in this House and introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (breast prostheses).
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that people are protected from dangerous and potentially dangerous breast prostheses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, hate literature which is directed at women or which is directed at lesbians or gay men is not illegal.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that these sections of the code be brought into conformity with the Charter of Rights which prohibits discrimination based on sex or on sexual orientation.
There has been an increasing amount of material promoting hatred and violence against lesbians and gay men and against women in Canada. The purpose of this bill is to send out a clear message from Parliament, despite the Neanderthals in some sections of the Conservative Party, that this hate literature will not be tolerated in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan to introduce two bills?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act are designed to deal with a number of administrative matters regarding the establishment of the election day operation in terms of where people live and how they can vote, as well as dealing with the whole question of election expenses.


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

Iain Francis Angus: for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Criminal Code (overbooking).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to deal with the frustration of those people who show up at an airport to find that their seat has been sold out from under them. It would make it illegal to oversell these seats, but would also require passengers to give a certain cancellation notice.


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

Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I have three motions which require consent. The first one is the following:

That notwithstanding any order or practice of the House, the report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled: Report of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration for the year 1989 and deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, be also deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology Regional and Northern Development.
June 27, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion, which requires unanimous consent, is as follows:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 73(2), Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, not be referred upon second reading of the bill to a legislative committee but to the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yes, there have been consultations and we are prepared to give unanimous consent.
I am just wondering if the minister can indicate that once the committee has been established, it will not meet during July and August, and that there may be a short meeting-in September to deal with the agenda. The purpose of establishing the committee now is to let people know that the committee is available to receive briefs and that it will be looking for information.
Second, can the minister indicate that the 1984 cabinet guidelines dealing with the environmental assessment review process will not be modified unless the Minister of the Environment has met with the committee?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm with respect to the motion that should any changes be contemplated to the regulations
Routine Proceedings
as established in 1984, the minister would appear before the committee and consult with it to discuss those changes.
It is not our intention to have the committee sit during the months of July and August. I just want to confirm that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the motion which is before the House which deals with the Parliament of Canada Act, could the deputy government House leader indicate whether it is the intention of the government to call this bill for debate this afternoon, and if so, at what point?


Marcel Danis: It is our intention to call the bill sometime later this afternoon. If the hon. member would allow me to put my third motion, I could probably answer some questions after.



MOTION TO ADJOURN FOR SUMMER RECESS

['Agreed.']
Marcel Danis: My third motion reads as follows:
That, when the House has disposed this day of the second reading stage of Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Government Notice of Motion dated June 26, 1990 respecting Bill C-78, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, it stand adjourned until Monday, September 24, 1990, provided that:
(1)	the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) respecting recall of the House be recognized as in force during such period of adjournment; and
(2)	if, at any time following the adoption of this Order until Friday, September 21,1990, the House is not sitting and a Bill or Bills be ready for the granting of Royal Assent, the Speaker may, after consultation with the Government, fix a time at which the House shall meet for that sole purpose, after which the House shall once again stand adjourned in accordance with this Order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for asking the question during the wrong motion. There were probably two bill numbers side by side.
The government is aware, of course, that there have been serious questions raised about a particular clause in the Parliament of Canada Act, clause 52.8(1). Some members have clearly indicated that they want that clause changed. Can the government advise if it is

June 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
prepared to modify or even eliminate that clause during committee consideration?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make these comments as chairman of the committee, if my hon. friend would agree.
The members for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Churchill are members of the committee. We presented a unanimous report to the House.
I have read the bill very carefully, as have my friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan and members of the Official Opposition, and understand and share their concern with clause 52.8(1) of the proposed legislation.
That is why I hope that over the course of the summer, if there is a unanimous decision by all members to meet, and it will have to be unanimous, the government will certainly look into it. As chairman of the committee, I certainly would be willing to review that clause.
I fully share the concerns that members of the New Democratic Party, as well as members of the Official Opposition and members on this side of the House have with that clause.
To my knowledge it is the only clause in the whole bill which members have serious reservations about. As chairman of the committee, I can assure members of this House that we will look into it.
If members of the committee will support me in this, I am willing to write to the members of the House asking for their opinion of that clause. I would send each member a copy of that particular clause asking them for their comments. Then each member from each political party could make representations at that time.
It would also be my intention to suggest to members of the committee that we hear witnesses concerning this clause. Members are aware that the committee has been working now for over seven months on the bill.
There are approximately 50 clauses in this bill. Yet there is only one that causes some problems. That is why I hope that we could agree this afternoon to proceed quickly with second reading and have a careful look at
the particular clause mentioned by my friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this matter.
As a member of the special committee of the House that looked into the Canada clause, and speaking for this caucus and in particular for my colleague, the member for Saint-Denis, we expect hearings to be held later this summer. We expect witnesses to be called from civil libertarian groups and from police forces, to have input from everybody, on clause 52.8(1).
I can assure the House that we also have some reservations with the clause itself, but that we would like to have some public discussions on it so that people are very informed about what we are trying to do here.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we had discussions in caucus about this very clause.
I want to make it very clear that the problem we have is that we are going into second reading later this afternoon. There is no way that we can accept the principle of that clause. We do not want to be preempted in the process that takes place this afternoon.
We do not want to see the House of Commons give second reading to the bill and then the government later on getting up and saying that we agreed to it in principle by giving it second reading.
We want to state very clearly on the record now on behalf of our caucus that when the bill comes up later this afternoon that we cannot accept that clause. If it passes in the House later on today, it is certainly our intention to remove that clause and to make sure that it is not there in the final bill after the committee studies it this summer.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr
Speaker, I appreciate the undertaking of the deputy government House leader with respect to this bill. However, I am concerned in that the deputy government House leader made reference to the committee report.
The committee report in question, while I understand it was adopted on a Friday afternoon, has not yet been the subject of study by the House. Certainly I would not want our agreement to this particular procedure to be
June 27, 1990

taken to mean agreement to a bill which in that particular area reflects the report of the committee.
The reality is that there are deep concerns about the suggestion that there might be in effect a screening device and one law for Canadians and another for parliamentarians. That is the nature of the concerns. I think the deputy government House leader recognizes that that is the nature of the concerns.
I would hope that it would be clearly recognized. I understand my colleague from Churchill will be speaking to this bill at second reading. At that point we will be able to clarify our concerns, but I hope that it could be very clearly understood that we will oppose this bill at second reading.
A legislative attempt to ensure that the police of this country are forced to go to any body, whether it be the Board of Internal Economy or any other body, before they undertake a search warrant or an authorization for a wire-tap, would be fundamentally-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a number of petitions concerning the new tax that will come into force on January 1, 1991.
Several hundred people in my riding and the Montreal area, Mr. Speaker, signed this petition to indicate that they object to a tax that is discrimatory and will put an additional burden on Canadian families. Your petitioners ask us, the Liberal Party, and all Canadians who vigorously object to this new tax on goods and services that constitutes an unprecedented attack on the incomes of Canadians and will force them not only to pay higher taxes but also to cope with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment to ask the government to withdraw this terrible tax.
Routine Proceedings VETERANS


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of veterans and their supporters concerning a government decision.

The petition concerns the fact that the Government of Canada has introduced charges which will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the cost of long-term care.
Our veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures.
I call upon Parliament to reject measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardships.
This petition has been signed by over 300 veterans and their friends.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from quite a number of people in the area of Labrador City and Wabush dealing with the crisis that now hits our province in the fishery.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to have the Government of Canada immediately extend Canada's jurisdiction to the edge of our continental shelf, as is consistent with international law, so that Canada can protect and regulate the fish stock so vital to Atlantic fishermen and all Canadians.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition with another 300-plus names of people to add to the many thousands of names I have already tabled in this House. They are in opposition to the goods and services tax and ask that Parliament reject this tax.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition in opposition to the cuts to rail passenger service in Canada. There are several dozen signatures to be added to the many thousands that have already been presented in this House on this subject.

June 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition in the House today concerning the goods and services tax. This petition contains the signatures of 252 residents of Hamilton which were collected through the good offices of my very distinguished colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject this tax which they perceive as unfair after a string of Conservative tax increases.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: The Liberals like the GST.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton East. I know he is supporting the Senate, and I am delighted to hear it.
This petition is addressed to Parliament in both its constituent elements and calls upon this House to reject the goods and services tax.
I know the hon. member for Edmonton East is going to want to get an appointment to the Senate in due course so that he can express his concerns and views there.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to table petitions.
The petition of these Canadians states that thousands of east Europeans who entered Canada in good faith subsequently applied as self-exiles in good faith, that there are no full service immigration offices anywhere in eastern Europe and that the processing time for many of these self-exiled applicants takes up to two years and even more. Whereas these people are well established in Canada as required by the self-exile regulations, the petitioners call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reciprocate on their good faith and to extend the expiry date of Canadian visas until the cases have been completely processed.
In fairness, I do want to add that the minister and deputy minister have already taken action to address this
problem and I thank them for their positive interventions to my early representations in this matter.


Jesse Philip Flis: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by thousands of Canadians pertaining to the unification of Germany and the impact it might have on the security of the Polish borders. The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the present borders between Poland and the German Democratic Republic as the boundary between Poland and any future unified German state as final and inviolable. They call upon Parliament to support the demand of the Polish government to be an active participant in any gathering and deliberation where any matters affecting Poland's interests will be discussed and resolved.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House two petitions against the new GST signed by my constituents in York West.
They say that the Conservative federal government has imposed at least 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the imposition of this new universal goods and services tax will cause serious difficulties and injustices for Canadians throughout the country. So on behalf of all these people, I ask the government to withdraw this new goods and services tax right away.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

June 27, 1990


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all motions for papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. Speaker would like to see them in Room 16 at 4.45 p.m. this day.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Durham has 10 minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes questions and comments. The hon. member for Durham.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, yesterday as I was supporting the government bill, Bill C-78, the proposed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the main thrust of my presentation related to the openness of the process and the significant steps that have been made in this bill to allow for public participation throughout the process. As I finished yesterday, I had just mentioned that as part of the bill there is a clause that has established a formal participant funding program to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in the mediation and public hearings that will occur under this bill.
Government Orders
This multi-million financial assistance program will open the environmental assessment process to Canadians who might not have had the financial resources to otherwise participate in public reviews.
This includes both opponents and proponents and applicants reflecting both sides of the issue will be equally considered for participant funding.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act even legislates the requirement that public comments aired in the environmental assessment must be considered before a decision is made on a major project. As well, public concerns must be reflected in mandatory study, mediation and panel reports.
The act also establishes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The new agency, which will be fully independent of all departments, including Environment Canada, has a mandate to examine and report on the implementation of the environmental assessment process across government. Each year the agency will be required to table in the House an annual report on this subject which will be open for public scrutiny.
There are also additional opportunities for public involvement in the development of exclusion and mandatory study lists, and other regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act states that the government-wide exclusion list must be developed with public input and review. This list will include projects known not to pose any risk of harm to the environment and those with negligible environmental effects. Such projects could include simple renovations, routine operations, minor construction and controlled scientific experiments. Projects on the exclusion list will not require assessment.
A mandatory study list will be compiled for projects that pose a potentially significant risk of harm to the environment. In general, these projects will tend to be large-scale projects that often generate considerable public concern. For example, large oil and gas developments, uranium mines, major hydroelectric developments and large industrial plants, could be subject to mandatory study. There will also be major opportunities for public consultation and input in the identification of other statutes and regulations that should trigger an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

June 27, 1990
Government Orders
The act gives authority to the Governor in Council to regulate which provisions of other federal acts will fall within this category. A preliminary review of the federal regulatory statutes suggests that some provisions of the Fisheries Act, the National Energy Board Act and the Atomic Energy Control Act may warrant being considered by the proposed legislation.
Identifying these regulatory acts in regulation, and not in the legislation itself, will provide extensive opportunity for public consultation. It will also allow the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to remain dynamic.
Mr. Speaker, I have been talking today of the opportunities for increased and more open participation in the environmental assessment of projects. This government has, however, also introduced another major initiative that will increase public participation in the assessment of policies. For the first time ever the government is establishing a progressive environmental review process for all new policies and programs. This review process is virtually unique in the world. Under the new process, ministers have decided that the environmental implications of all proposed policy and program initiatives must be considered before decisions are taken.
The government has decided that a statement of the environmental implications of each policy and program will be released when the new policy or program is announced. Canadians will be invited at that time to scrutinize these public statements. A further opportunity for public scrutiny exists. The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment can request any minister to appear before it to explain the environmental implications of any new policy or program.
I remind the hon. members that this legislation is the product of considerable public consultation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act reflects closely the views and recommendations of Canadians gathered over the past two years on country-wide consultations.
To date the government has heard from a wide spectrum of Canadians, including governments, the private sector, native people, environment and other special interest groups, the bar, and environmental assessment professionals.
I encourage these and other Canadians to make their views known to the House of Commons committee when it studies the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act later this year.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Durham yesterday in particular, and today, I would like to ask him a question. Considering the fact that he was not yet politically bom in 1984, and speaking so authoritatively as to what happened, in his opinion, hastily in 1984, he should perhaps be aware of the fact that the guidelines produced in 1984 were the result of considerable thoughtful work and not hastily produced as he is quoted as having said on page 13141 of Hansard.
The guidelines were intended of course to trigger all federal departments to conform with such guidelines after 1984. So the fault is not with the guidelines, but with the government not living up to the guidelines which have existed since then.
Therefore, the question to the member for Durham is could he explain why, despite the guidelines, and subsequently despite the two court orders, this government is still allowing construction of both the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dam today?


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, and obviously I expected some comment on this because I am sure the member is quite sensitive, in the provinces of Canada, and I gave one example, that being Ontario, and I must admit that since yesterday I have not checked the exact date, but I know in Ontario the Environmental Assessment Act was brought into being either in 1977 or 1978.
That is a very extensive and quite thorough legalistic type act. During most of that period of time federally, from 1977 to 1984, a Liberal government was in power. During part of that time the hon. member was in cabinet. Certainly they had ample opportunity to bring in an Environmental Assessment Act.
Regardless of what the member says, I think if you look at the timing of the bringing into effect of the guidelines in 1984 they were in fact brought in just prior to the federal election and my comments from yesterday stand.
The member speaks quite eloquently on the situation that exists now, on the various environmental questions that are in place, and on the two dams. I think the government has stated its position. A court decision has
June 27, 1990

been made, and the government has given consideration to those court decisions. That information is in the public forum and I think I will leave my comments at that.
We had some discussion in the House yesterday on those two projects from members on both sides of the House and I do not know that I can add much to those arguments.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, do I take it, then, from the non-answer of the hon. member for Durham that he cannot justify the behaviour of his government on both Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dam?
In other words, he has no answer to offer for the behaviour of the government which has disregarded until now two court orders.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the guidelines were just that. They were brought in as guidelines. They were never intended to stand up to the microscope of court proceedings.
I certainly congratulate the minister and the government for bringing forward this very significant piece of legislation, which I think is arguably one of the most advanced pieces of environmental assessment legislation in the world, and for making sure that adequate legislation is in place in Canada so that projects are thoroughly reviewed and there is no misunderstanding of what are the responsibilities of various jurisdictions. This bill is a significant step forward. It is unfortunate that it was not in place some years ago.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. The member seems to be very knowledgeable of Bill C-78, so I would just like to get his perspective for the record regarding what he described just a moment ago as large hydro projects, nuclear projects, oil and gas projects-projects of that magnitude.
Is it the member's reading of this legislation and his understanding of government policy that this legislation means there would be full environmental assessment and review of those kinds of megaprojects? Is that how he understands this legislation?


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in the bill under which there will be mandatory hearings. I do not have the clause in front of me right now, but as I understand it, it does not precisely delineate exactly what
Government Orders
projects will be in that section. That will come forward in further discussions. I am sure it will come forward in the public hearings.
As a member of the House of Commons I have no problem that these individual areas are not named in the bill, but I certainly as a member of the House of Commons I would like to see prior to the passage of the bill a fairly complete list of projects which would be put into the regulations immediately after the passage of the bill.
It is important that the bill be flexible and dynamic. I do not doubt that over a period of years items will have to be added to that mandatory list. In fact I would be quite disappointed if items were not added to that list. Any future government that tried to take any significant project areas off that list would be dealt with quite harshly by the Canadian public, and I have no problems with that.
As I understand the bill there will be a mandatory list created involving public consultation. As I understand it, I have no great problem with that particular aspect of it. As I say, I would like to see a fairly extensive list clearly spelled out by the government before the time of passage.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on just a brief point of order to interrupt the proceedings. We hope this House will soon rise, if not today, then certainly this week.
However, I want to pay tribute to the pages who have worked so hard for us as members of Parliament throughout this past year. We have an energetic, enthusiastic, intelligent, and marvellous looking group of pages who have served us so well in this House. This is one of the brief times we come together as partisan members of Parliament to pay tribute to the pages who have served us so well. We want to say thank you to each one of you. We wish you well in all your endeavours as you continue your education, return to your homes this summer, or whatever. I want the rest of the House to join with me in thanking you for serving us so well this year.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair concurs.

June 27, 1990
Government Orders


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-78, the environmental assessment review process legislation, the long awaited legislation.
However I must confess to being disappointed in the bill. I want to make it clear from the outset that our party will vote against it at second reading. I want to say why.
The New Democratic Party is clearly on record as being a leader in the whole environmental issue. I am sure viewers will wonder why we oppose a bill that purports to assist in the process of environmental protection. It is clear that this bill is totally inadequate. We have been waiting for months, in fact since the last election. The government has said that the environment would be an issue of this government. This bill causes disappointment because it is inadequate. It is much narrower in scope than the existing 1984 guidelines.
Yesterday my hon. colleague from Skeena outlined the history of this bill, and I refer members to his speech because I think it was a very concise rendering of the history and increases our disappointment in this bill.
It docs not include federal legislation such as the Fisheries Act and other environmental statutes. It provides for exemptions but does not list them. It provides for mandatory studies but does not list them either.
The Minister of the Environment offered intervener funding at his press conference, but the bill does not include it. It is a just policy assessment, but the legislation does not do it. This bill is shot full of holes. It appears to be something when it is not. The whole expectation that this was going to be the lead for the government to take in environmental action is yet to be seen. That is why the NDP will vote against it at second reading.
After all the government's promises for a strong environmental assessment process entrenched in law, we are left with a hollow piece of legislation which is weaker than the rules now in place. Cabinet decisions are exempt from this legislation. The government has promised that all cabinet documents will have an environmental assessment attached but that only summaries of them will be made public. That is not good enough.
We have heard a lot about process over the last couple of weeks. The government should know that the process in this legislation is just not good enough. We are expected to trust cabinet to do the right thing. There are no safeguards or means of assuring that environmental considerations are given proper weight in cabinet decisions.
The government says that public opinion will be the enforcement mechanism. I know public opinion. People talk about how it relates to the GST. Did public opinion have any impact on that? No. We have already found out that in the employment equity legislation, using public pressure, is not an effective way to enforce the aims of legislation. This legislation is discretionary. This is a step backward from the current guidelines which were ruled as binding on the government by the Rafferty-Alameda decision.
Important sections of this bill have been left to regulations yet to be drafted. It is not even clear what federal legislation comes under this new law or what type of projects will be excluded. This bill leaves important questions unanswered. Some of them are: Which projects will be covered? Which will be exempted? What criteria will be used to review cabinet decisions? What federal legislation will come under this act? Will foreign aid and development be covered? How will Crown corporations be affected?
This was the bill that had such expectations, and yet it fails to address these crucial questions. The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, CEAA, is basically the old federal environmental assessment and review office, FEARO, beefed up a bit. The NDP and environmentalists have called for an independent agency that would report to Parliament, but this agency like FEARO only reports to the environment minister. There were a number of reports including the NDP task force report entitled Towards a Sustainable Future. I had the honour to sit on that task force.


James Ross Fulton: It was an excellent report.


Lynn Hunter: It has been well circulated across Canada. The greenprint for Canada recommended the creation of an environmental auditor to review government operations independently. This was in the original drafts of this bill but was axed in the final version. When we

June 27, 1990

talk about having faith in the cabinet and then we see what it did to this bill, I have little faith in the cabinet.


James Ross Fulton: Shame, Tory hackery.


Lynn Hunter: It is clear that this legislation has been drastically watered down from the original draft. It is now, in the government's words, only an advisory process. The legislation does nothing to clear up the uncertainties over the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dam projects. The government has admitted that it is currently impossible to assess the full scope of the bill. In the words of our environment critic, the hon. member for Skeena: "The bill is a giant Swiss cheese. It is full of holes." That is why we are opposing it at second reading.
I also want to focus on the bill itself and the language of the bill in the preamble. I think it demonstrates that the government's approach to the environment is wrong-headed. In part the bill says in the preamble:
Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve an
appropriate balance between economic development and the
preservation and enhancement of environmental quality;
Even that language points to the flaws in the government's thinking.
What we had hoped would appear in this legislation was an understanding that the economy and the environment were not something to be balanced. They are interlinked and that should be acknowledged. There should be a mechanism for full cost accounting.
I sit on the environment committee and I heard very interesting testimony from David Runnals of the Institute for Research on Public Policy when he appeared before the committee. When I speak about full cost accounting, the system we have now essentially counts only the flow of resources. It does not count the stock of resources. As a result we can have some quite idiotic circumstances like the Exxon Valdez spill in which the costs of clean-up are added to the U.S. Gross National Product and the costs of the destruction of the natural resource base of Prince William Sound are not counted anywhere. The Gross National Product of the state of Alaska grows quite significantly as a result of the oil spill. This is crazy. This was referred to by an economist of the World Bank, Herman Daly, as akin to running the world as if it were a company in liquidation. This is where this government had an opportunity to make a real impact on
Government Orders
the environment, to merge the economy and the environment, and it has missed that opportunity.
It should be in this legislation. It should at least be in the preamble. If we are not successful in defeating this bill at second reading, I hope that the committee that is going to be reviewing this bill will certainly make that fundamental change at the very beginning.
I want to turn now to that part of the bill dealing with foreign aid and the Export Development Corporation, Clause 4. It does not say, as I stated earlier in my remarks, whether these are even covered in this legislation. That is why my colleague compared this bill to Swiss cheese. This is one of the holes.
This bill raises expectations, and as my colleague describes in his usual colourful way, it is like a game of snakes and ladders; you get up the ladder and you expect something to be there at the top but then slip down the slope because there is nothing there.
The environment committee had the opportunity to hear from representatives of the Export Development Corporation. They made it very clear what their mandate was. It was to facilitate and develop export trade by providing insurance, guarantees, loans and related financial services, fostering Canada's international competitiveness. It sounds wonderful, but the philosophy behind that action means that the EDC has to conduct its affairs in accordance with commercial principles and disciplines, similar to those followed by the commercial banking sector.
These are Canadian taxpayers' dollars that are going to assist Canadian exports, often going into developing countries, and they are not subject to environmental assessment? How can we as a country that has an international reputation, which sometimes exceeds what it is worth, carry on its affairs this way? We are a wealthy country. Certainly, we have a large deficit, but when we talk about it in relation to the rest of the world, we have a responsibility to act with environmental responsibility that exceeds other countries because of our relative wealth. It certainly is not right to allow the Export Development Corporation to be exempt from environmental legislation.
It is unclear as to where CIDA is in this environmental legislation. I am the critic for CIDA for my party and I have to give credit to CIDA. Often, they use a lot of scrutiny in their projects and their increasing environmental conscience does my heart good. They are doing some very good work and I give them credit for that. I

June 27, 1990
Government Orders
hope that the Export Development Corporation will set aside its commercial principles and look at environmental projects in the same way as CIDA does.
The environment does not distinguish between foreign aid money and export credit. It is crucial that we have an understanding that if taxpayers' dollars are involved we expect environmental assessments to be up to Canadian standards. We obviously have a responsibility for projects in Canada, but we also have a responsibility for those overseas. There is no way we can take any short-cuts with that.
This bill also gives an opportunity for the government to do as the Bruntland Commission recommended and set the new agenda to deal with the causes of environmental problems rather than dealing with the effects. This is what I speak of when talking about the narrow mind-set of this bill. It is with a great deal of disappointment that we read the bill.
I know I have only a few minutes left, but I want to point out, as my colleague from Skeena said yesterday, that this is an amorphous document; it purports to be something when it is nothing.
I have in my possession a secret document from December, 1989. It is a communications synopsis. It says that the purpose of this bill is, and I quote: "To gain recognition and credit nationally and internationally for the government's leadership in using the environmental assessment review process to help achieve sustainable development".
What they are saying in this document, obviously, is that we want to appear to be doing something and to get the credit for that nationally and internationally. It goes on to mention the possible headlines that would result from this legislation. The possible positive headline is: "Government reforms to aid sustainable development". The possible negative headline is: "Feds back off on environmental promises".
Mr. Speaker, just to give you an understanding of what actually did happen and what the headlines were, I have a clipping file here of what actually happened when this legislation was unveiled. The Ottawa Sun of June 9, 1990 states: "The Green Law Unveiled-NDP denounces
gutless bill". I wonder whether that was the positive headline or the negative headline. I guess it all depends on whether or not you belong to the NDP.
The Ottawa Citizen, June 19, 1990: "Environmentalists criticize fill-in-the-blanks legislation". I think that fill-in-the-blanks legislation came from a well-known, well-respected environmentalist by the name of Elizabeth May, who many in this House have the privilege of knowing. I think that definitely fits in with the negative headlines.
The next headline is: "The environment protection bill lacks anticipated measures". Environmentalists and the New Democratic Party are very disappointed with this initiative. We are going to be debating this at length, I know, but I want to make it clear that we are opposed to this. The government has fallen far short of its so-called rhetoric on the environment. They have missed this opportunity, and I can only hope that if we can have this bill amended, if it does happen to pass because members have not taken our good advice to defeat it at second reading, we can create a new environmental agenda for Canada and for the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? On debate, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's note: Member spoke in Inuktituk.]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-78, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Certainly, after several years of promises from the government, the legislation was finally introduced last week. However, although we support it in principle, we have some serious concerns because of some clauses in the act. It is like building a house without the necessary permit or without securing the land underneath. It is nice to look at, but you cannot get into it.
Section 55(2) is really the problem with this whole bill. That clause states:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations prescribing a list of projects or classes of projects that are physical activities, and for which an environmental assessment is not required, where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that conducting an environmental assessment of such projects would be inappropriate.
June 27, 1990

Basically, this particular clause states that we could have all sorts of concerns and address all sort of concerns, but if some corporation decides that they do not want to go through that process, all they have to do is go to their friend, the Governor in Council, and ask for permission not to go through the assessment. The bill allows cabinet to exclude, through regulations, any project or class of project it chooses.
This bill does not specify which existing legislation would automatically trigger an environmental assessment.
This bill, furthermore, does not cover actions of Crown corporations. The bill does not bind cabinet to implement the recommendations of the review panel.
The public reaction to this bill has not exactly been ecstatic. Commentators, media and environmentalists have noted that the government's commitment to environmentally sound policies and programs has lacked conviction. One particular incident I would like to note is that during the 1988 international conference, the government wanted to pass a resolution cutting emissions down by 20 per cent by the year 2005. The Government of Canada subsequently did not agree with that. What kind of commitment is that to the environmental cause? Therefore, we have some questions about the government's concern about the environment.
The Green Plan for action has been postponed while the government stalls for time with public hearings. The existing federal environmental regulations have been treated by this government as discretionary and as nuisances to be avoided. The courts have had to tell the government that these regulations are mandatory. The Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman River dams are still under construction, however, for safety reasons.
The new package the government has introduced includes this bill, and a host of promises of the government's good intentions. Ministers are to include environmental assessments of all their policy proposals. These assessments, however, will not become public. The public will see only a summary of these assessments. We also do not know how extensive the cabinet assessments will be, nor what standards for environmental protection must be followed.
Government Orders
This bill proposes to set up environmental reviews before a project gets under way, but what types of project must be reviewed? What federal laws automatically trigger an environmental assessment? What projects are exempt? What rules apply to aid projects?
The answers to these questions will be found in regulations, rather than in the bill itself. Regulations can be changed easily and frequently. We are concerned that important sections of the bill have been left to regulations which have yet to be drafted. These include special regulations for Canadian foreign aid, Crown corporations, and aboriginal lands.
The list of the various federal statutes the new law will apply to has been left to regulations and is not covered in this bill. A list of the types of projects that will be automatically excluded from the application of the legislation is also not covered in this bill. This exclusion list is left to the regulations which are not yet drafted.
Environmentalists have pointed out that the bill will be toothless if the cabinet fails to pass regulations listing all the specific federal jurisdictions and legislation under which it can be used or if it later changes the regulations.
A spokesperson for the Sierra Club, Elizabeth May, has said the bill is "fill-in-the-blanks legislation." Stephen Hazel of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee commented, "Too much has been left out. As it stands, it is narrower than what we have now".
The government is not required to follow the recommendations of the environmental assessment panels. The environmental assessment process remains advisory only.
The new legislation does not apply retroactively to any federal project which has already been subject to some form of assessment. No provincial project or private commercial development is covered if it does not involve federal funds, or does not have any impact upon federal authority.
This bill is meant to replace the 1984 environmental guidelines. Until this legislation is in place, what does the government intend to do about the existing guidelines? The guidelines must remain in place to fill the gap until the new law is in effect. It seems some ministers and some provinces are pressing hard to weaken the guidelines so that the courts cannot further intervene in

June 27, 1990
Government Orders
federal projects. The government must resist this pressure.
As I pointed out earlier, this new legislation is flawed, and some have said it is narrower in scope than the rules which are in place now. There are several questions we want answers to and we will be trying to strengthen this legislation.
The government appears to have recognized that many projects requiring a federal decision also require decisions from other interests, including provincial governments, foreign states, and bodies established under land claims or Indian self-government legislation.
The act enables a responsible authority to co-operate in the preparation of environmental assessments with another party or jurisdiction in the case of a screening or mandatory study. It requires the responsible authority to exercise the appropriate quality control for any assessment so undertaken. The responsible authority, however, cannot delegate any of its decision-making powers. The government believes this feature will enable federal authorities to work closely with other parties and jurisdictions to minimize duplication and confusion without sacrificing environmental values.
Where another party or jurisdiction has the responsibility to undertake a public environmental review of a project, the act provides the Minister of the Environment with the authority to establish a joint review panel.
The other party could be a provincial government, the government of a foreign state, a body set up under a comprehensive land claim agreement or a federal regulatory authority. I assume the government is recognizing here the environmental portions of the Inuvialuit and James Bay land claims agreements.
With respect to panel reviews of projects, the Minister of the Environment may approve the substitution of another federal or aboriginal organization for a review panel under specified conditions. The minister may also establish criteria for substitution.
The act also permits the minister to establish a public review panel to assess the serious transborder and related environmental effects of a project on federal, provincial, foreign, or Indian lands. Such projects include those to be carried out in a province and likely to cause serious adverse environmental effects in another province, on federal or Indian lands or outside the country. Projects also include those to be carried out on reserves, or other Indian lands that are likely to cause serious adverse environmental effects elsewhere.
The government has said all these projects will be subject to environmental assessment in accordance with the stated purpose of the proposed act. Because of special circumstances, however, they will be subject to special procedural regulations.
The government has set out a list of principles to govern the development of these special procedural regulations on Indian lands. I hope the government is also including Inuit lands in its terminology.
The regulation is to be consistent with the principle of devolution of authority to First Nations and, therefore, accountability under these regulations will reflect the accountability outlined in the devolution instrument. The regulation will minimize duplication of process with other jurisdictions.
We will be studying these proposed principles and their impact very carefully. We will be seeking comments and input of the aboriginal peoples and their representative organizations.
I will be examining this bill with the fact in mind that aboriginal rights include the right to pursue a traditional life-style and economy of hunting, fishing and trapping on aboriginal lands.
I will be thinking of the proposed pulp mills in Alberta that have the potential to affect the rivers in the Northwest Territories. I will also be thinking of the proposed Kiggavik mine near Baker Lake, about which an awful lot of people from the Keewatin have very grave concerns with regard to the possible effects of radiation.
Clause 55(2) is an escape clause for government and industry. This clause permits the government to draw up a list of projects or a class of projects for which an environmental assessment is not required. This clause is a gaping hole in the environmental protection regime.
As I said earlier during the opening statements, this particular clause does everything to undermine the principle of the legislation by saying that anybody could go to the Governor in Council and say that they have to
June 27, 1990

be exempted from this particular bill because of such and such, or some other things.
I think this particular section should be taken out in order to ensure that proper environmental assessment is done on all projects that have the potential to contaminate the environment.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motions that I want to present to the House.
The first motion is:
That the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-78 be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations on all sides of the House and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion which is on page IV of today's Order Paper and Notice Paper which reads as follows:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to meet, as it sees fit, to pre-study Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, which Committee may organize in June, 1990 and may call witnesses as it sees fit and shall act as the Legislative Committee to which the said Bill is referred after second reading;
That the Committee be empowered to sit when the House is not sitting or when the House is adjourned;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the membership of the said Special Committee be as will be reported by the Striking Committee before the House adjourns on the day of adoption of this Order, and that such report be deemed adopted upon presentation; and
That substitution, if required, be according to provisions for Legislative Committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, just for the clarification of the public, and I am sure this is what the member means and I am sure it is what the Deputy Government House Leader meant when he was speak-
Govemment Orders
ing earlier, this committee is being set up in this way to allow public interest groups, business, the territorial governments, provincial governments, and others who are interested in the environmental assessment legislation to have an opportunity to look at it and get their views back into this committee during this pre-review period.
There should not be a public expectation out there that this committee, in fact, is travelling somewhere in the country. One might describe it, at least during this point in time, as a bit of a post box that is getting information out and getting information in.
I just want that to be clear to the public.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary replies, may I also reinforce the intervention by my colleague from Skeena. It is our understanding as well that, because of the complexity of the bill and because of the importance that interested organizations and groups place on the bill and the time they will require to study it carefully to make a meaningful and constructive submission to the committee, the whole purpose of our understanding today is to provide a mailing exchange and facility to inform interested parties about the bill and to receive their input gradually and to be able to start thoughtful examination of this input by the public in September.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that, in fact, is what the government is proposing here and what has been agreed to by the other parties.
I also want to say, if my memory serves me correctly, that it was a procedure recommended by the McGrath task force as part of its reforms. When we get into issues that are of particular significance to the country and of particular importance at a certain time that, as much as possible, we should allow the public to participate in the process and to have an opportunity for input before the House has approved in principle, as would be accomplished with second reading. This would give them that kind of an opportunity.
I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for agreeing to this quite novel approach and also the critics and members of both opposition parties for their consent. It is a novel approach and I hope it is very

June 27, 1990
Government Orders
successful because it is the kind of approach that we should also be considering for other pieces of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of committee reports so I can present a striking committee report which deals with the motion the House has just agreed to.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-eighth report of the striking committee.
This report deals with the membership of a special committee and, pursuant to Standing Order 105, upon presentation such reports are deemed adopted.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marcel Danis: that Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a special committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the New Democratic Party wished to put
up one speaker on debate at this stage. We do so because of the issue of the clause referring to the reference to the Board of Internal Economy.
As I expressed earlier, we have no complaints with the idea that the RCMP, the Quebec Provincial Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, or others doing investigation should get a clarification from the Board of Internal Economy as to what are acceptable practices within the rules of the House.
We have had some incidents in the past that have shown why this is necessary. For example, we understand that it is quite acceptable behaviour for a member of Parliament to keep a Christmas card list on his computer. If the people on that list happen to be members of his own political party, we do not consider that an offence against the House of Commons or any of its regulations. So, there will be a number of occasions when that clarification must take place.
Our problem with the proposal as it is written is that it would require all law enforcement agencies to come to the Board of Internal Economy before they can ask for a search warrant or a wire-tap and before they can undertake any criminal process. We do not believe that the Board of Internal Economy is the right place for the RCMP or for any law enforcement agency to be going.
We would rather see that particular request for information come before an actual criminal prosecution took place. We believe that those are two very distinct situations. On the one hand, one allows the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies to do their legal duty, to carry out an investigation upon a complaint, but on the other hand, not be in a situation where it could be perceived by the public that members of Parliament have more rights than ordinary citizens.
What the Board of Internal Economy would do, under a proposal that the NDP would accept, would be clarify the rules of the House so the law enforcement agencies and the courts would have benefit of the knowledge of what is allowable.
Other than that provision, of which we have expressed our disapproval and which we will oppose on division later this afternoon, we find that the act itself covers many of the areas to be addressed by the House of Commons. It calls for the Board of Internal Economy to set up by-laws which are available to members of the House, so we know what is acceptable. It also allows members of the House to go to the Board of Internal
June 27, 1990

Economy for opinions on what is or is not acceptable behaviour.
We believe that is a very useful purpose for the Board of Internal Economy. It helps to ensure that members, who have a questionable act, know who to go to and what process to follow in order to get a clarification about some undertaking they may be considering.
With that and with the recognition that the committee itself will study the act, we are quite willing to let the bill go to committee. As the chairman indicated earlier, he will be writing to members of the House informing them of the study to be undertaken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly the bill stands referred to a special committee on the review of the Parliament of Canada Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a special committee.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of housekeeping items that we need to handle. First of all, I am wondering if the House would give its consent to drop from the Order Paper the adjournment motion, which was put there as Motion No. 14, as it is no longer necessary because of the earlier motion we adopted. I would like the consent of the House to drop the motion on page 24 of today's Order Paper.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. I have not had a chance to be here in the last couple of minutes.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is concurrence.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I say to all members of the House that it has been a long, interesting and often difficult spring session.
On behalf of the government, may I say to all members of the House, no matter on which side they sit, that we wish them all a very happy and restful summer. Perhaps they can enjoy some time with their families and friends
Government Orders
as well as the work we know we all have to carry out in our constituencies.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I understand there will likely be Royal Assent at five o'clock. Perhaps what we can do is agree to suspend to the call of the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will suspend to the call of the Chair. There should be Royal Assent around 5.45. The hon. government-the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, call me whatever you want as long as you spell my name right.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to all those who have been listening to us for several months that this was a productive session. When the opposition co-operates, things always go well in the House.

I want to especially pay tribute to the co-operation given by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, my colleague from the new class of '88, who is showing great understanding of the House and a great love of it. He has negotiated sometimes for us on the opposition side with the hon. member for Peace River, who has also been a great person to work with.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think he is well deserving of the applause from his colleagues because of his understanding and his nice attitude and also his very constructive remarks most of the time. I said most of the time.
I just want to wish all my friends and colleagues in the House a pleasant summer with their families, and have a good time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this House only works if we work together. We are partisans, because that is what brings us here, because we all have a different vision of the kind of Canada we want and how to get there.
I think we have to recognize that there are some key elements in this House that allows it to function, and they are the roles of the House leaders and their assistants in the House, as well as staff, the Whips and their assistants in the House, as well as staff that allows

June 27, 1990
Message from The Senate
us to work with you, Sir, and your colleagues in the chair and the folks at the table, who assist us in operating the House of Commons, the people's court if you like, to do the business of the nation.
I want to express my appreciation to the officers of the governing party, of the Official Opposition and my colleagues for their co-operation over the past six months, in particular for me as the most recently elected Whip to the New Democratic Party caucus, but in years gone past as well. I also want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the young men and women who have served us so well this year. This is their last day. They thought that last week was their last but they have hung on to the bitter end with us. On behalf of all of us, I wish to extend our thanks for the work that these young people have done and wish them well in their years to come. Hopefully, some of them will still decide to choose politics as an occupation.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in extending the same wishes to all and to assure you that when Parliament returns on September 24, not only will there be more independent members, but we will be better organized and thus more able to work for Quebec's sovereignty and co-operate in the business of the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the discussion that is under way unduly but I wanted to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his kind remarks.
Also I suggest that perhaps when the House resumes the sitting for Royal Assent, if there is a report of the striking committee that needs to be tabled, perhaps the House could permit, by unanimous consent, that we revert to presenting reports from committees so that that report could be tabled in the House at that time. I think that concurrence is automatic in that particular case.
I wanted to thank the table officers of the House for their assistance during the session, because I think every member knows that they have been particularly helpful. Also I wish to add to the kind words expressed by the
hon. member for Erie our thanks to the Pages for their work in the course of the past year.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit advanced earlier today by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, I wanted to say that there was a rumour going around Edmonton earlier today that somehow I had been convinced to exit my party and sit in this House as a member of a party that began with an "r". It was "reform" or "rhino" or "regressive contemp-tibles" or "rip". That is r-i-p, Mr. Speaker, "ripperills". I just want to say that those rumours are absolutely false. It is my intention to continue, when the House reconvenes, to sit with my colleagues who serve the interests of the ordinary Canadians of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members again that the Speaker would like to see their attendance in Room 16. Since this is going to be the last day, I would hope that all members would pay their respects to the Speaker.
On behalf of the chair officers and all members of the House I wish to thank all the wonderful Pages and hope that they take on other professions, other than politics, after they leave here. I wish them well. They have served us well.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair will suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair for Royal Assent. If you would like to join us, it will be at 5.45 p.m. for Royal Assent.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.39 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6.46 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, without amendment: Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts; Bill C-55, an act to amend to the Customs Act; and Bill C-77, an act to amend the Immigration Act.
June 27, 1990

The Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
June 27, 1990 Sir,
I have 1he honour to inform you that the Hon. Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of June, 1990, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth Deputy' Secretary, Policy
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski) with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts -Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C-57, an act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 37.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
It being seven o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 24, 1990 at one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
At 6.58 p.m. the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 24,1990