1990-06-13

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, elementary and secondary school pupils spend roughly 1,000 hours per year in the classroom.
Recognizing the importance that the curricula plays in school and in education, parents, students themselves, teachers, public servants and the ministers of education for whom they work have been working extremely hard, and will continue to do so, to remove violence and negative and inappropriate stereotyping from curriculum found in schools.
It has also been noted that these same young people spend roughly the same amount of time watching television. What has been the minister's response to this concern about the impact that violence on television could have on these young people? Well, he has turned it over to the CRTC. That is not a bad first step but I would ask the minister to take a personal initiative here to address this important issue immediately and to bring forth guidelines.

Canadian parents expect the minister to do everything possible to remove violence from television and the media.


THE HON. CYRIL BEVERLY SHERWOOD
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, July 1 is Canada's birthday. It is also the birthday of one of New Brunswick's and, indeed, Canada's finest citizens.
On July 1 the hon. Cy Sherwood will turn 75. Senator Sherwood has served his country well. Cy was first elected to the New Brunswick legislature in 1952 and was subsequently re-elected in 1956, 1960, 1963, 1967 and 1970. Cy Sherwood served as New Brunswick's Minister of Agriculture from 1952 to 1960, and also served as the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the P.C. Party in New Brunswick, from 1960 to 1966.
Cy Sherwood retired, or at least thought he retired, from politics and chose not to run in the 1974 election. However, Cy was appointed to the Senate by the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark on October 3, 1979. Needless to say, Cy Sherwood continued to serve his province and his country with the same level of commitment and integrity that has been the hallmark of his life.
On July 1, 1990, Cy Beverly Sherwood will retire from the Senate of Canada. On behalf of all the members in this House, I wish Senator Sherwood and his wife Madilene a most happy retirement.


HIBERNIA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources destroyed one of the few remaining arguments in favour of the Hibernia megaproject-that it would increase Atlantic Canada's energy security. He agreed, during a meeting of the legislative committee on the Hibernia bill, that the government could not even guess what proportion of Hibernia oil would actually be refined in Newfoundland or anywhere else in Canada.

June 13, 1990
In fact, there are indications that most of Eiibernia's oil will How south to the United States, straight off the Hibernia platform. More than $3.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money will be placed at risk, including a gift of over $1 billion, which could have gone to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but which will instead go to subsidize American energy consumers. This is on top of the inadequate and unsecured employment and industrial development benefits from the project, coupled with the project's negative environmental impacts. A more disgusting illustration of this government's contemptible energy policy is difficult to imagine.


WORLD FOLKLORE FESTIVAL IN DRUMMONDVILLE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, "The world at your door" will be the theme for the Ninth World Folklore Festival in Drummondville, from July 6 to July 16.
Some thirty folk dance groups from five continents will bring you the magic of song, music, dance and folklore of various nations.
Fifteen hundred participants from Canada, the United States, France, Brazil and countries as far away as Israel, Cameroon and Russia, will amaze you with their performances of traditional dances, full of charm, beauty and feeling.
More than 1,800 volunteers are working very hard to make this cultural festival the best ever. Last year, we had 750,000 visitors, and the festival was proclaimed "tourism event of the year" in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues and all Canadians to attend this international festival.
The warmth, energy and enthusiasm of the people of Drummondville, together with the spectacular program offered during this ten-day festival, will make your visit unforgettable.


KOREAN WAR
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, June 25 marks the fortieth anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War.
Between June, 1950, and July, 1953, a total of 26,791 Canadians volunteered their services under the United Nations Charter. Five hundred and sixteen lost their lives and more than 1,000 were wounded. The United Nations intervention in Korea was a move of outstanding historical significance. For the first time, an international organization with a multinational force had intervened effectively to stem aggression.
To date, our Korean veterans have received two medals from the United Nations and the Commonwealth. Their service has yet to be officially recognized by the Canadian government.
It is time that the Canadian government gave recognition to the generosity of spirit that inspired young men and women to risk their lives in the name of peace, freedom and security.
The striking of a distinctive Canadian Volunteer Korean Service Medal would be applauded by all Korean War veterans.
Let us take a moment, on June 25, to remember their great contribution.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Access Awareness Week, a time to focus national attention on the contributions and concerns of Canadians with disabilities. The spirit engendered by this week is clearly intended to last all year round. Canadians across the country are invited to commit themselves ever more deeply to the full integration of people with disabilities in the life of our society.
This year we are privileged to have the generous sponsorship of nine corporate partners; Bell Canada, Cadillac Fairview Corporation, Canadian National, Esso Petroleum Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd., IBM Canada, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., Royal Bank and Sears Canada Inc. Each of these
June 13, 1990

corporate sponsors is committed to promotion of employment equity, full and equal access to goods and services for all Canadians and the accurate portrayal of persons with disabilities in advertising and communications.
The active involvement of the private sector at the provincial and local level is fast becoming a tradition during National Access Awareness Week. It clearly reminds us that this week was indeed founded on the principle of partnership among Canadians from every sector of society.
Let us use this occasion to thank this year's corporate sponsors who are promoting the ideals of a barrier-free Canada in every practical way.



Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to pay tribute to the dedication of all Canadians who throughout the year help 3.5 million disabled persons in Canada to be participating members of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to mention the continuing dedication of agencies and volunteers in my riding, such as the Association de la rose bleue, Les Amis de Repentigny, the Richelieu Club and the Lions Club, to name only a few.
This kind of commitment, which should be an inspiration to us all, receives special attention during National Access Awareness Week, from June 10 to June 16.
The purpose of National Access Awareness Week is to make significant changes in the daily lives of all people who have a disability and to assess the progress achieved during the past year.
And, above all, this week should be an opportunity for reflecting on what remains to be done.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the first nominee for the corporate welfare bum of the week is Trilon Financial. It received a tax credit of $17 million on profits of $218 million in 1988.
The second nominee is Steinberg. In a statement released yesterday the company bragged of how it managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in capital gains tax. It used something called a "butterfly" transaction to float away with taxes from the federal treasury. It floats like a butterfly and stings Canadians like a bee.
The third nominee is the Great Lakes Group which paid only $1.9 million on profits of $96 million in 1988.
The envelope, please. And the winner is Trilon Financial. Like many other financial companies, Trilon has benefited from tax breaks that allow holding companies to avoid income taxes. For paper shuffling its way out of paying its fair share, Trilon Financial is the corporate welfare bum of this week.


ROMANIA
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the situation in Romania. We heard overnight news reports that the Romanian government has moved into University Square and cleared out the demonstrators.
When I and other members of this House had an opportunity to speak with these demonstrators we found they were not the vagabonds described by president-elect Ion Iliescu but Romanians concerned about their future and concerned about the democratic life they were trying to achieve.
We have just heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he is prepared to allow the Candu project to continue despite the fact there are numerous human rights violations by the Romanian government. The verdict is still out on that government and we call upon the Canadian government to hold a public inquiry to investigate conditions in that country so that we do not end up being responsible for another Chernobyl.


ADVERTISEMENT IN MEDIA
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, this morning on page 31, the Journal de Montreal published an ad, in very poor taste, in connection with the Saint-Jean holiday in Quebec.

June 13, 1990
Oral Questions
In the ad, readers of the Journal de Montreal are offered a T-shirt which shows a Quebecer walking and tearing up the Canadian flag.
Like many other Quebecers, I cannot condone advertising a T-shirt intended to arouse feelings of hatred and contempt in our two founding peoples. The Canadian flag also belongs to Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, millions of Quebecers felt humiliated when residents of Brockville, Ontario, trod on the Quebec flag on September 6, 1989.
I am sure that today, most Quebecers will join me and members of this House in condemning this advertisement and asking the Journal de Montreal to withdraw the ad immediately.
Quebec is capable of celebrating its national holiday and parading its flag with respect, dignity and pride.
A Happy Saint-Jean to all Quebecers!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, after six years in power, the government is finally listening to Canadians on the environment.
The green paper for public discussion is simplistic and outdated, but it is not discouraging Canadians from participating constructively in large numbers. Their message to the government is this: Act now. The water, air, soil and natural resources need urgent attention. Since the economy is built on the environment, stop treating the two as being separate. Government will be able to protect the environment and promote sustainable development only when departments and agencies adopt such a responsibility.
Canadians have high expectations. Their patience is wearing thin. Their ideas are well ahead of those in government. They are encouraged by the participation of the part-time Minister of the Environment. But does he realize that time is of the essence?
We urge him to meet public expectations by acting expeditiously and by ensuring an environmentally sustainable future for Canadians and the global community.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Since Monday, when the Prime Minister announced the appointment to the Senate of Stan Waters who was elected by the people of Alberta to represent their province in the Senate, the Prime Minister has said that he does not want any more such elected senators for at least five more years.
The Prime Minister can hardly expect Canadians to take him seriously when one day he says he is in favour of an elected Senate, and the next day he says he does not want any more such elected senators for at least five
years.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: Does the Prime Minister have a commitment from all the provinces on this and, if so, exactly what is it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the difference between this government and the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, prior to 1984, is that we are taking Senate reform seriously. That government talked a great line, but did nothing.
As all hon. members know, for the first time in the history of Canada we have laid out an arrangement for comprehensive Senate reform which is based upon the fact that the Senate should be elected. It should have effective powers while retaining and preserving the principle of responsibility of the government to the House of Commons. As well, it should preserve the principle that the Senate would be more equitable in terms of its distribution, so that the less populated areas would have greater participation in the decision-making process in Canada. There is a time-frame that is laid out for that.
I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should applaud the Prime Minister for clearly demonstrating his commitment to the principle of Senate reform and his clear commitment to the principle of an elected Senate.
June 13, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly applaud the Deputy Prime Minister for the way he skated around and failed to give any direct answer whatsoever to my question.
Yesterday, speaking in the Alberta Legislature about that province's procedure for electing senators, Premier Don Getty said:
I talked to the Prime Minister about this: Alberta has the legislation
and Alberta will use that legislation whenever it sees fit. There has
been no commitment to do anything else.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying today that the Prime Minister will not accept any senators chosen democratically through election by the people of any province, including the province of Alberta, for the next five years? Can he give us a clear and direct answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty hypothetical proposition that the hon. Leader of the Opposition puts forth.
I have the same press report that he has and it points out that Mr. Getty said he would use the Senate selection proposals when he sees fit to do so.
We have here an agreement that has been signed by all First Ministers which outlines a process. Mr. Getty is an honourable man and I suspect that he will honour that process.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to give some explanation. Fie seems to be saying that he and the federal government consider that Premier Getty has given a commitment not to put forward the names of any Senators elected by the people of Alberta during the next five years. Yet, Premier Getty has said in his legislature that he has made no such commitment.
I would like him to explain that contradiction. [Translation]
Furthermore, what justification does the Deputy Prime Minister have for the fact that representatives elected by the people of a province such as Alberta would not be able to sit in the Senate for the next five years?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no contradiction.
The Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta are very major architects in terms of the constitutional reform process that has been ongoing and particularly with respect to the program outlined for Senate reform. It is clearly outlined and I can assure the hon. member, if there are any differences of interpretation, the Prime Minister and the Premier will clearly iron that out.
I should also advise him that today there have been ongoing discussions and there will continue to be ongoing discussions. For the information of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister called the new senator-elect, Senator Waters, and invited him to the Chamber. We look forward to his participation.
I think that in itself is the clearest recognition and the clearest acknowledgement of Senate reform. Certainly, it is much more progress than was made in the time when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was in government.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Revenue.
Further to the ongoing tragedy of this terrible sale by CN Route to Route Canada and Route Canada Enterprises, records show that tax deductions at source were not remitted to Revenue Canada for over a 12-month period. We all know that, if this happened with any other business in Canada, Revenue Canada would have been on its doorstep and confiscated its assets to protect the taxpayers of the country.
I want to know from the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, why this particular company was given such special favoured treatment in the payment of trust funds by the employees. Why?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, no such provisions were given to this company by Revenue Canada. Every effort was taken to obtain the funds due

June 13, 1990
Oral Questions
to that department. I can assure the hon. member and the House that the majority of the funds owing to the government of Canada have been recovered.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the same minister.
Yesterday, we talked about trust funds. I have here a letter dated June 17, 1986, from the then transport minister, which agrees with the sale and advises the President of CN to consider all of the employee rights and to be particularly cautious about the assets to be transferred in the sale.
There was an alleged concern about this transaction prior to June, 1986. There was an obvious lack of concern about the employees after June, 1986.
Will the minister assure the House that the capital assets of the directors of the company who are personally responsible, Messrs Fingold, Cole, and Ruhland, be garnisheed or seized to protect the taxpayers and the employees?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague raised the alleged letter. This gives me an opportunity to offer to table the letter and put it on the public record.
The first paragraph of the letter which was omitted from the sensationalist article in The Toronto Star says: "You may recall that while concurring with the decision of the CN Board of Directors to sell CN Route-". That is what is left out of the article, and that is what my hon. friend has not referred to. But it is clearly the case that it was CN that decided to sell Route Canada.
As to my hon. friend's question, he knows very well that it is the duty of the bankruptcy proceedings to follow through and decide if things were handled properly. Also as my hon. friend knows, there is an RCMP investigation going forward according to the media. Surely, that is the place for criminal proceedings to commence or for other charges or action to be taken by the Registrar in Bankruptcy through the bankruptcy court proceedings.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
So far, the government has not given a precise indication of what is intended to be put before the House as a result of the First Ministers' Conference last week. I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that this party cannot be expected to give its full support until we have seen such precise wording.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there is still some problem about the wording of the companion constitutional amendment, and whether his government is committed and is prepared to say today that it will ensure that the companion constitutional amendments will come forward as outlined in a communique from the First Ministers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, that is a short answer. I take it as a commitment of the government, and we will be holding it accountable. Perhaps if we got more short answers which actually came to the point, we might get further in Question Period.
The agreement from last week's First Ministers' Conference states that, in the 1990 Constitutional Conference, the wording of the Canada clause will be considered.
Owing to the exclusion of aboriginal people last weekend from all the talks concerning the Constitution and again seeing aboriginal people standing on the outside, can the Deputy Prime Minister commit on behalf of his government that aboriginal people will be full participants at the table with a voice when the 1990 Constitutional Conference which is going to discuss the Canada clause is held?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. members of the House know that ministers of the government-the Minister of Justice, the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs and the Minister
June 13, 1990

of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-have met regularly with aboriginal leadership over the past several months leading up to the important and historic discussions of last week.
There were regular consultations with the leadership of the aboriginal peoples involving government officials last week. I, myself, and other ministers will be meeting again tomorrow with the leadership of the four representative national groups in Ottawa.
I can assure the hon. member that these discussions will be ongoing. If the hon. member would refer to the wording of the actual agreement signed last Saturday evening, she would understand that First Ministers' constitutional conferences on aboriginal issues are to be held once every three years. The first is to be held within one year of proclamation, and the representatives of aboriginal people and the territorial governments are to be invited to participate in these conferences.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development begs to be like the answer from the Deputy Prime Minister which is short and to the point.
I am not talking about the constitutional conferences that are referred to in the agreement. I am very familiar with the agreement.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit on behalf of his government two things: first, that the federal government has a policy of supporting aboriginal people being designated a fundamental characteristic of Canada in the Canada clause and that that is the government' negotiating position; and second, that aboriginal people will be a participant and have a voice at the constitutional conference which discusses the Canada clause?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think I am capable of answering the question.
The agreement reached last Saturday evening provides, under clause 4(2), for a process to define and develop language relating to constitutional recognitions. This process will focus on a recognition of the fundamental characteristics of Canada, beginning with the fundamental role of the aboriginal people in the establishment
Oral Questions
and foundation of our country, that of our two founding linguistic groups and our multicultural communities.
The hon. members of the NDP know that aboriginal people will be invited to appear before special hearings to be commenced July 16 by a special committee of the House of Commons in which they will participate. They will have a full and complete role in the development of this language on constitutional recognition.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. We know that the government was actively involved in the transfer and sale of Route Canada and we know from the letter to which the minister referred that the government was to be kept fully apprised of developments.
Would the minister please advise whether the government was aware that Route Canada intended the real estate split?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer once again to the letter which was typed May 26 and dated June 17.
My hon. friend will know full well from the documents which were released through Access to Information that the agreement of purchase and sale was dated April 4, 1986. Any documentation thereafter was to expedite the
sale.
The words that are used in the letter are "the consummation of the sale". Therefore, anything that the government did thereafter was at the request of CN and CN's lawyers in an effort to consummate the sale.
What my hon. friend refers to was not part of what was referred to the government for expedition.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my question was very simple. It was just whether the government was aware of the intended real estate split prior to the deal being concluded. Obviously, the government does not want to answer.
We know the government was actively involved in the transaction and tried to protect itself by putting in a useless good faith clause, purportedly trying to keep the company operating for three years. We know that there

June 13, 1990
Oral Questions
wasn't any good faith in the deal and that Ruhland stripped the company of its assets.
Why would the government not, at the very least, put in an iron clad guarantee for the workers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this takes me back to a former Liberal cabinet minister who gave all sorts of iron clad guarantees that were not worth the paper they were written on. There is no way you could put in an iron clad guarantee. My hon. friend knows that. A best efforts undertaking is the normal undertaking used in legal transactions. The best efforts of CN were used.
With reference to the question of the real estate split, the government was not involved in the sale in that way. It was involved in any policy matters. Therefore, the answer is no.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The president of Fruehauf Canada has now announced he is closing the Brantford, Ontario, trailer plant because of the free trade deal, high interest rates and deregulation in the trucking industry.
What plans does the minister have to save these 334 jobs, many of which are in my riding?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that what my friend said about free trade is wrong. We still have tariffs of 12 per cent. They were at 15 and they are now still at 12 per cent. The problems at Fruehauf have nothing to do with the free trade agreement. There are many factors which are involved, particularly the fact that the competition is very strong in that sector and they have to compete with the United States and many other companies.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration and myself are working veiy closely with all the programs in her department to help those workers.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should talk to the president of
Fruehauf Canada who said yesterday that it was specifically related to the Canada-U.S. free trade deal.
Given the minister's unwillingness to do anything to save these jobs, will the minister at least keep his government's promise of the last election to bring in these special adjustment programs that are supposedly set up to help these workers?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science
and Technology): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again that with tariffs of 12 per cent this problem has nothing to do with the free trade agreement.
Second, there is a bill on the other side of my friend's wall that has been stalled by the Senate for many, many months. If the member wants to do something to help his people he should ask the senators to pass the bill, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the galleiy of Mme Adriana Munoz, member of the Chilean Parliament and Leader of the Chilean Socialist Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, responding on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is a follow-up to a question asked by my leader a few minutes ago on the Canada clause.
As we all know in this House, under the agreement in the communique issued last Saturday there will be participation of aboriginal people during the aboriginal round at the table of the FMC, but can the Deputy Prime Minister give a commitment today that aboriginal people will be participating at the table at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver later on this fall when the First Ministers are discussing the Canada clause as it pertains to the aboriginal people in Canada? That is the commitment we want from the Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is a clear process outlined with respect to bringing about a
June 13, 1990

better consensus and understanding with respect to the so-called Canada clause.
As is indicated in the preamble, the Prime Minister and premiers reviewed various drafts which were submitted by the federal government, the Manitoba government, the Saskatchewan government, the Ontario government and the British Columbia government, and it was undertaken that all of these drafts would be submitted to the committee for further consideration.
The hon. member raises an interesting point but it would seem to me that his suggestion might be somewhat premature having regard for the fact that this work will probably be ongoing at that particular time. We will certainly take that suggestion into consideration and obviously I will convey his interest in that regard to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister recognizes that it is up to the Prime Minister to show leadership at this very critical time when aboriginal peoples are feeling a sense of exclusion as a result of the last process that took place.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that in view of the fact that an essential component of the Canada clause is the recognition of aboriginal peoples as distinct societies with distinct cultures and languages in this country, it is fundamentally unacceptable for First Ministers to sit around the table and discuss that issue without the participation of aboriginal peoples? Will he not include aboriginal peoples at the table at the First Ministers' Conference in December?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to undermine the good intentions of the hon. member, but I think that what he is proposing here is a short-circuiting of the process that has been laid out.
He talks about leadership. There never has been more outstanding leadership in this regard than that which has been displayed by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member should know as well that there has been agreement reached as to a process which I think he should allow to take its normal course of action. Why would he want to interfere with that and subvert a process which has been agreed to by all First Ministers?


GUN CONTROL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. When the minister visited the Montreal Ecole Polytechnique in April, the students presented her with 25 boxes of petitions with over 500,000 signatures requesting more effective gun controls. On that occasion the minister promised to table a bill in this House before the end of May.
It is now June 13, with only four more days before the summer recess, and there is still no such bill.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: That's not what J.R. told us.


William Warren Allmand: Five days, six days.


Mr. McKnight:: Warren for House Leader.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when will the minister present this bill? Will she keep her promise and do so before the summer recess?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I thank him for giving me an opportunity to point out that as a result of my visit with the students at Ecole Polytechnique I was able to bring back, from their report, other issues which I have asked the Department of Justice to review and which will be included in the package which I want to present to the House.
I never made a commitment to have something in the House before the end of May. I may have said that I would hope to have it by the end of May. The commitment that I made was to have it in the House before the end of this session. I hope the hon. member will not suggest that anything precipitous be done in order to prematurely foreshorten the session and make it difficult for me to meet my commitment.

June 13, 1990
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the students understood the minister's promise to be to present a bill before the summer recess, whenever that will be.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Let's stick to the principal issue. On June 5, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities endorsed a plea by the city of Montreal to ban all semi-automatic combat weapons. The minister knows that the Ruger semi-automatic used to to kill the 14 young women at the University of Montreal could fire up to 50 rounds of ammunition and is in fact used by several police SWAT teams.
Will the minister respond to this serious and reasonable request and make a commitment to ban that type of weapon? Will she put that in the legislation that she tables?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is in fact misquoting the resolution by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which I think was directed to military and paramilitary type weapons. But those issues will be addressed in the package that I am bringing before the House.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister's monetary policy is having a disastrous impact on the economy of Quebec, which is on the verge of a recession, according to Frangois Dupuis, of the Mouve-ment Desjardins. When will the Minister of Finance revise his monetary policy and reduce interest rates?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we review the monetary policy on an ongoing basis. I had a meeting with the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada on Monday. I had a meeting with the Governor the previous week. This is something we do on an ongoing basis.
I have made very clear in this House the basis on which we are following monetary policy?. We are concerned
about the inflationary pressures which are undermining the competitive position of our economy. If we do not get these inflationary pressures under control, companies are going to lose business which will cause a loss of jobs on an ongoing basis. It is this that is driving the monetary policy of the Government of Canada.
As soon as we can see some pressure subsidizing, yes, we will see interest rates decline. Until that time, we must continue to follow the policy that we have been following.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. In the past twelve months, 51,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Quebec because of the disastrous policies of the Minister of Finance. When will the minister finally start listening to the Premier of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, the Quebec Minister of Finance and all economic partners in Quebec who are asking the minister to reduce interest rates before it is too late for Quebec's economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada, and the premiers have been calling upon us to reduce interest rates for almost two years now, but consider what would have happened had we taken that advice in the summer of 1988 or even the summer of 1989. We would have had a rip-roaring inflation problem today that would be doing lasting damage to the competitive position of our economy.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear some disagreement from the members opposite. Let me ask the members opposite to consider the fact that the unit labour costs of Canada at the start of 1989 were increasing at a rate of 4.9 per cent. At the end of 1989 they were increasing at a rate of 6.9 per cent. At the same time unit labour costs in the United States were increasing at 4.9 per cent throughout the year.
That is the measure of the loss of competitive position. That is the measure of the loss of jobs that we will encounter if we do not get these inflationary pressures under control.
June 13, 1990


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The government has consistently been attempting to place itself at arm's length from the decision to sell off CN Route to the private sector. In fact on June 4 the Minister of Transport said: "It was sold on an arm's length transaction with advice coming to the government from CN as to the best offer".
The sentence in the letter which the minister quoted from earlier today, which he did not complete, goes on to say: "The ministerial task force on privatization asked for some additional information on severance provisions and other employment and service considerations and on the value of land to be transferred to the purchaser by virtue of the sale."
If this was only a one-way situation, that CN was only providing advice, why was the Government of Canada, the Minister of Transport of the day, asking for specific information if it was not for the purposes of modifying the sale agreement which although agreed to had not been finalized at that point in time?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the sale agreement was executed on April 4, 1986 and the sale was consummated on December 6, 1986. Between those times it was necessary for the government, in order to complete the sale, to go through certain matters and certain Orders in Council as requested by CN.
I refer my friend back to the letter which says: "while concurring with the decision of the CN board of directors to sell CN Route".
I refer him also to the letter from Canadian National to The Toronto Star dated June 7, 1990, which has been tabled. It says: "CN and no one else decided to sell its subsidiary."


Iain Francis Angus: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is obvious to everyone that the Government of Canada has a policy of privatization. Whether it is a
Oral Questions
particular Crown corporation or the government itself that initiates the process is irrelevant.
It is clear from the minister's answers that this government had the opportunity to ensure full protection of the employees and full protection for the taxpayers of Canada, and it failed to meet its obligation.
Will the Minister of Transport now table in this House the actual sale agreement so we can see once and for all what was in there, what protection if any the government demanded and got for the taxpayers and for the workers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would quote once again from the letter from CN to The Toronto Star: "Our alternative to the sale was to close down CN Route and lay off all staff in 1985."
Obviously this was a better deal for the employees than closing down and closing the door. The government left the sale in the hands of CN because it was a subsidiary of CN. For that reason it was the decision of the board of directors of CN to sell the company, not of the government.


RAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In 1987, CN unlawfully closed the Franquet-Chapais branch line in Abitibi to railway traffic, thus contravening the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission which obliged CN to keep the line in service. On January 31, the National Transportation Agency ordered CN to maintain service on the branch line and to put the line back into service by July 31.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister ask CN management to observe the NTA's decision so that there will be regular service by July 31? If they do not, I think CN management in Montreal should be thrown in jail for civil disobedience, to get them off our backs!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, CN has given me the assurance that the line will be opened on time, in accordance with the NTA order.

June 13, 1990
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who will be aware that inshore fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland are in need of quite immediate financial help.
The minister is aware that the winter fishery of the south west coast of Newfoundland was a disaster. He will know that the inshore fishery in Fortune Bay, in Placentia Bay, and off the Port au Port Peninsula is a complete failure. He must know that he must act on a separate aid package for those people.
Will he agree to act quite soon to help end some of the pain, suffering, and frustration these people are going through these days?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite significant that the members of the Liberal Party who were in government for so long in this country prior to 1984 were never able to put in place measures in Atlantic Canada to address the needs that people of Newfoundland and Labrador are experiencing right now.
We have put in place this fisheries adjustment package. Part of this package is a plant workers' adjustment program for plant workers and trawlermen. We have also indicated that through consultation and inviting the unions, the fishermen, the workers, the provinces, the companies, and the inshore sector to work together we will design a program to take care of the future. Unfortunately I cannot rewrite the past. Right now we have programs in place.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has a host of programs which she is trying to deliver in Newfoundland in order to come to grips with the problems it is experiencing. We have to do more than just take care of tomorrow. We have to look at the future, and that is what we intend to do.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the minister does a fairly clumsy job of rewriting the past. The problem we are facing now is due to the French, Spanish and Portuguese overfishing which was not going on when this side was in power. There was no overfishing until 1985, none.
I ask the minister to stop playing politics with the issue and to recognize that those people are hurting. They are hurting now and they are looking to him to deliver on the promises he made soon after he became minister.
Will he be a man of his word and give those inshore fishermen and plant workers something to buy their groceries with, not some more rhetoric and cheap talk?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard on this long-term package that is going to be very beneficial to all areas of Newfoundland.
I should point out as well that we are aware there is a very specific problem in the area that the member is discussing. Within the program and within the context of Bill C-21, there are some things that we can do that will be of great assistance to the people in that area. I would urge the member to assist us in getting those things ready so we can do it.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said a couple of days ago in this House that the Minister for International Trade gave notice to the Americans that he wanted to renegotiate the memorandum of understanding concerning the surtax on softwood lumber.
The next meeting is scheduled for October. The sawmill industry cannot wait that long. Will the minister undertake here and now to issue the cancellation notice to terminate this unfair surtax which is crippling the softwood lumber industry?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member understands that the situation is a little more complex than a unilateral order issued by one level of government in Canada on a matter that has both international and interprovincial implications.
I indicated that we have served notice of our intention to the Government of the United States. I also indicated the other day that we are in discussion with the relevant
June 13, 1990

provinces and with the industry to tiy to set this situation right as quickly as we can.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, since July of last year the Minister of Forestry has indicated that the government was gathering evidence in order to cancel the memorandum. There is a stipulation in that memo that if there are many changes it will be renegotiated. The changes have occurred: high interest rates, high Canadian dollar, and exports are down to nil.
When will the government finally do something for the industry?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, with a little more time in the House, will recognize that overstating a case does not make up for not having one.


DIEFENBAKER CENTRE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the University of Saskatchewan sent out layoff notices to employees of the Diefenbaker Centre and announced that the centre's doors would be closed on June 30.
The people of Saskatchewan are angry and dismayed that this government would force this kind of action because last week in this House the Minister of Communications told my colleague from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing that the funding would be in place.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position now to announce firm funding for the Diefenbaker Centre, or is it the government's intention to close down the centre deliberately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that there are still some details that are being worked out with the Government of Saskatchewan with respect to the establishment of a foundation.
I can assure the hon. member that the centre will not close. We will be able to provide the University of Saskatchewan with the necessary comfort to keep the
Oral Questions
Diefenbaker Centre open. I am sure that will be welcome news to the hon. member and all hon. members in the House.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing that answer for the last four months. The uncertainty in funding is an indication of the kind of incompetence that this government is showing across the country. It is disrupting the business operation of the University of Saskatchewan.
Why is the government insisting on this crisis orientation as far as funding of the Diefenbaker Centre is concerned? The same thing happened four years ago.
Does the government intend the centre to be well used by the scholars, the universities, and the people of Saskatchewan? Or, is it intending to make it a marginal operation at the University of Saskatchewan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, if he is not aware, that this is a unique request inasmuch as the university owns the assets of the Diefenbaker estate rather than the government.
I can tell the hon. member that has made the issue somewhat more complex. We have been able to work these details out and the final details are still being refined. As I indicated to the hon. member, I can assure him that the institution will remain open and we will provide the necessary comfort to the University of Saskatchewan for that purpose.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, the minister said that the so-called consumer information office for the GST would provide information on the GST according to product type or industry, while the new director of the office, Mr. Murray, said the exact opposite, stating that he would provide information on individual products and companies. Who is telling the truth?

June 13, 1990
Speaker's Ruling


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, allow me to respond.
There is no contradictory position on the part of the minister or Mr. Murray, the head of the Consumers' Association of Canada who, by the way, consumers right across Canada should be delighted to have as the individual heading this very important agency for the protection of the consumer.
I can assure the hon. member and this House that every step will be taken by the unit to make certain that all consumers in Canada will benefit not only from the market forces which will automatically, in general terms, allow the passage of the reduction of the cost to the consumer, but through the provision of information to the consumer as well.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, why does the government insist on making consumers believe that the new GST consumer information office will be able to monitor the implementation of the GST when last month, Mr. Murray, the new chairman of the office, questioned the value of such a monitoring agency because the information would be too general to identify abuses. Why does the minister not admit that this new consumer information office is just a PR job for the GST?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, that is the normal type of negative nonsense that comes from that side of the House.
Obviously, if Mr. Murray did not support the initiative of this government he would not have accepted the job as head of this agency. Can that hon. member not get it through his thick head that this is for the benefit of consumers and had we gone the route of the Liberals or the NDP the consumer would suffer as a result?
The steps taken by this government were to look at the options available to us; either sticking with the status quo or going the route that the Liberals probably would favour, which is to create a great big bureaucracy for a six-month period and initiate something like wage and price controls, which we oppose by the way. We have
gone the moderate route to allow the market system to operate, along with the information office.


POINT OF ORDER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the undertaking I made during Question Period, I wish to table herewith a letter from the Hon. Don Mazankowski to Doctor J. Maurice LeClair, Chairman and Chief Executive, Canadian National Railway. The letter was typed May 23, 1986 and dispatched June 17, 1986.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am pleased the minister has tabled that letter. Would he now table the sale agreement?


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday, March 8, 1990, the hon. member for Skeena rose on a question of privilege to bring to our attention certain actions by the Department of National Defence which in the hon. member's opinion breached his rights and those of all members of the House.
In order to place this matter before the House, the hon. member referred to and quoted extensively from several confidential documents of a sensitive nature. He agreed to provide copies of the documents in reference to the Chair, to the hon. government House leader and to the House leader of the Official Opposition. The recipients of these documents agreed to respect their confidentiality and the Chair undertook to review the documents, to be in contact with the three parties and to return to the House on this matter at an appropriate time. On March 27, 1990, the hon. member for Skeena wrote to the Chair to provide further relevant information. On May 3, 1990, in response to the hon. member for Skeena's inquiry, I reported that discussions on this matter were proceeding.

The Chair is placed in a rather awkward position in a situation such as this. Serious allegations have been
June 13, 1990

made publicly on the floor of the House respecting breaches of members' privileges, yet the documents on which the allegations are based cannot be made public.
The Chair had hoped to reach a negotiated solution to these difficulties and to inform the House of the terms of that solution, but that was not possible. Accordingly, the Chair will attempt to deal with the matter in the customary fashion, bearing in mind, however, the constraints imposed on this case by confidentiality and the sensitive nature of the material under consideration.

It is part of the public record that the hon. member's claim relates to the investigation of a Department of National Defence scientist by the name of Dr. Mendoza, and that the Human Rights Commission of Canada is seized with those aspects of the matter pertaining to the human rights of Dr. Mendoza.
The hon. member for Skeena set out his claim in three points. He indicated first, that the matter involved his rights as an individual member of Parliament because the investigation extended to telephone calls to his office and his Prince Rupert constituency office. In the second and third instances, the hon. member maintained that the rights of all members of the House were affected because documents pertaining to the investigation suggested:
-	that Canadian law be violated-by the Minister of National Defence during Question Period -
And:
-	revealed a view by the Department of National Defence that "the House" should not be advised of the specifics of these investigations.
I should like to deal with these latter two points immediately.
In support of these points, the hon. member for Skeena read into the record, and I refer to Hansard, page 8965, parts of what he termed, "the key document, Department of National Defence file number PSIF 438 558 462, Record of Conversation".
There are four minutes in that particular document and two attachments to it. As the hon. member has already read three of the minutes and one of the attachments into the record, I think it important to record the fourth and final item. It reads as follows:
Speaker's Ruling 4. In the end I suggested to-
At this point, the name of whoever it was the author is suggesting "to" is blanked out. It goes on:
-that we at least wait for the question. The draft responses (not used) are attached.
One of these draft responses was that which was read into the record by the hon. member for Skeena as recorded at page 8966 of Hansard.
In his intervention in the discussion of this question of privilege on March 8 last, the hon. government House leader stated in relation to the "key document" the hon. member for Skeena referred to:
- he seems to have a document which describes potential strategy being worked out by some officials that might be deployed by the Minister of National Defence in terms of dealing with a particular political issue. But as I heard the Hon. Member, as they devise strategy they seem to be saying that unfortunately this strategy would involve violating the law. You are able to conclude from that, if you choose, that they went ahead anyway. If there is evidence to support that I would like to hear it. Or, you can conclude that they have sat down, worked out a strategy and found that unfortunately they could not proceed with it because it violates the law-
Having had the opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss all the documents presented to the Chair, and having reviewed in its entirety "the key document", on which the hon. member for Skeena placed so much reliance in developing his second and third points, the Chair cannot find that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out in this respect and accordingly I must, with respect, dismiss the second and third points of the hon. member's claim.
I should like now to turn to the first point the hon. member for Skeena set out in his claim, that is, that his privilege as an individual member had been breached because the investigation extended to, in his words, "accessing of calls made to my offices". In the evidence that the hon. member put on the record on March 8, 1990, it was clear that:
1)	the Special Investigations Unit of National Defence attempted and apparently succeeded in obtaining the hon. member's phone numbers, both in Ottawa and in his constituency; and,
2)	a search warrant was issued by Judge Leven in Calgary Provincial Court to search Alberta government telephone offices at Calgary for records of long distance

June 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
phone calls charged to Dr. Mendoza's residence phone. The warrant was executed.

I think the Chair might be permitted to take judicial notice of the fact that the hon. member's telephone numbers are not closely held. In fact, he lists nine telephone numbers, plus two fax numbers and two Zenith numbers on his official letterhead. That being the case, it could hardly be seriously contended that ascertaining the hon. member's telephone numbers involved any type of clandestine operation or any breach of confidentiality or privilege.

As to the search warrant, it would not appear that the execution of the warrant involved any intrusion into, or interference with, the office or records of the hon. member. It would appear that the investigators simply obtained the telephone numbers of the hon. member which are public knowledge and attempted to match these with the legally obtained record of long distance calls made from Dr. Mendoza's residence. The only information which could be thus obtained was whether or not a call had been placed to the hon. member's office.
As the Chair understands the matter, neither the identity of the parties to any calls, nor the nature or content of any calls would be thus revealed. In these circumstances, the Chair cannot conclude that the hon. member's privileges have been interfered with and accordingly, cannot conclude that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out.
It may be that the hon. member wishes to challenge the information upon which the search warrant was based. In that case, there is a mechanism in the court system for do doing. The Judiciary and Parliament are carefully segregated under our constitution and this House and, in particular, the Chair, cannot sit in review or appeal of the decisions of any court in the land.
In concluding his remarks on this issue on March 8, the hon. member for Skeena said: "When one takes the time to look at the documents that I now have, in sum, one can see that there is something going on that is violating the rights of the members of this House".

The Chair wants to assure the hon. member that the Chair takes this matter very seriously indeed. The Chair has listened with great care to the hon. member, has exhaustively reviewed the documents presented by the hon. member and held discussions with representatives of all parties on this issue prior to deciding that no prima facie case of privilege has been made out in this instance.

It may be that the hon. member could, by the presentation of a cogent argument supported by evidence of true probative value, establish a prima facie case of privilege based on the pattern of events at issue here. The Chair does not preclude that possibility. In deciding as I have, the Chair only signals that such a case has not been successfully made and accordingly, the matter cannot be afforded privileged treatment. In referring to the hon. member's comments of the case, in sum, I repeat, the Chair has taken very serious consideration of the entire situation.
I thank all hon. members for their co-operation and patience in respect of this important matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
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

June 13, 1990

honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 48 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, with amendments.



JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL-TABLING OF SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, in both official languages.



ENVIRONMENT-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on the Environment, the first part of our Changing Atmosphere series.
I want to emphasize that this report comes at a very key time with respect to the meetings in London shortly, which will be renegotiating the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer.
In our view, we must act urgently to deal with the CFC problem. If all the CFCs presently in existence were to be released into the ozone layer, it would likely be so badly damaged that it would be destroyed. We must take action now. This report is an attempt to set out a framework and a way in which we can find suitable substitutes and act together. Without an international action with respect to the threat to the ozone layer and to the atmosphere of our planet, we are indeed in great jeopardy.
Routine Proceedings



BILL C-37-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, with amendment and in both official languages.



FINANCE-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
During the hearings on the goods and services tax, the finance committee received many submissions that the government ought to review its expenditures. The finance committee struck a subcommittee to allow those who had that opinion to further elaborate. This report deals with that subcommittee.
I might add that I find that, as members of Parliament, we have some responsibility to further educate our constituents as to how we, the Government of Canada, spend their taxes.



BILL C-55-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I have five motions to present to the House.
The first one is the following, I move:
That pursuant to subsection 14(1) of An Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, Chapter 34, 2nd supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be the committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of sections 21.2 to 21.6 of the Parole Act and the schedule thereto and subsection 25(5) to (7) and Section 26.1 of the Penitentiary Act; and that the said Committee report no later than Monday, December 31, 1990.

June 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marcel Danis: The second motion is the following one, I move:
That, further to Order made June 27,1989, the Special Committee on the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security Offences Act report no later than the first normal sitting day after Labour Day, 1990.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Marcel Danis: That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland from July 8 to July 11,1990, to attend the Annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the next motion is the following, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources be empowered to travel to Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Lloydminster and Calgary during the week of September 16,1990 in relation to its study of the Oil Sands Project, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


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


Some Hon. Member:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Marcel Danis: That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Calgary on September 28, 1990, in order to hear witnesses from Western Canada on Canadian initiatives regarding disabled persons and in order to continue its work in the area of economic integration of disabled persons, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 13, 1990
[Stage Direction]


Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians from Newfoundland. The petition was received by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
These Canadians object to the government's proposed GST which they consider unfair, and your petitioners call upon this Parliament to reject the tax.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition from some 2,484 persons living in many different parts of Canada who are concerned about the government's policy of low-level flight training in Labrador.
The petitioners ask Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador, and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada, in opposing the use of their lands for NATO-NORAD attack training.
They ask Parliament to oppose establishment of NATO operations in Canada and to demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada and to redirect Canada's NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and livelihood toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 1,145 people from many parts of Canada who are concerned with the government's policy against VIA Rail.
The petitioners ask Parliament to reject any proposed reduction and elimination of VIA Rail service, to modernize existing equipment so that VIA Rail can provide a world-class service to Canadians, and to build a high speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 3,590 Canadians from all parts of the country who are concerned with one particular aspect of the government's goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that since Confederation, and without hiatus, it has been the policy to apply zero rate of tax to magazines, books, and newspapers, but now the government proposes to include them in the goods and services tax. Because they believe that uninhibited dissemination of the printed word, as a corner-stone of democracy, culture, education and a literate, productive society, would be negatively affected by this application of the GST, they therefore call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to present a petition that describes the proposed goods and services tax of the finance minister as an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to ensure that, if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform will not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, on behalf of a number of citizens of Nova Scotia and Ontario, petitions which point out that the government's taxation system is unfair, that changes to it in the form of goods and services tax just exacerbate the unfairness, and that the government should reject that proposal and go back to the reform of the tax system from the basic principles.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by many constituents from my riding of Victoria who oppose the goods and services tax, call on

Routine Proceedings
the Parliament of Canada to reject it, and call for a proper reform of the tax system so that it is fair.
I have the honour of presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition opposing vigorously the visits of nuclear vessels to the harbour of Victoria.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been signed by approximately 500 residents of my constituency of Essex-Windsor, and adjoining constituencies, calling upon Parliament to address the goods and services tax in a different approach than that which has been taken.
The petitioners suggest that the government has not addressed the unfair tax system that is currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing low and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
The petitioners are also very concerned about the attempt to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins, and home heating fuels, and they suggest very strongly that the goods and services tax should be withdrawn by the government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on a totally different topic. It is a petition organized by two Yorkton mechanics, Allan Pilon and Randy Moore, regarding some of the changes that mechanics would like to see in the income tax legislation.
Their petition was signed by approximately 7,000 Canadians and it calls upon the following: "Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to establish a one-time deduction from taxable income of the value of existing tools and equipment owned by registered journeymen and apprentice technicians. The said tools and equipment are essential in order to earn a living and to support our families. Therefore, we humbly request a full tax credit for all tools and equipment purchased
annually in order to earn a living to ensure that the tax burden is fairly spread among all taxpayers."
I think they have a very valid point for having this exemption from income tax for the tools that they buy to carry on their livelihood, to cany on their work to support themselves and their families. I hope the government will take heed of their request and implement very soon into legislation the appropriate amendment to the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present another petition against the goods and services tax.
The people of Canada, regardless of whether they are on the west coast, the east coast, or in central Canada are speaking out with unanimity and stating that they do not like the particular tax that this government has put before them with the goods and services tax and they are asking, they are pleading with the government to come to its senses, stop the goods and services tax and bring in a tax that is fair to all Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions to the House. The first is signed by Canadians from a host of communities, Toronto, Winnipeg and others all across the country calling on the Government of Canada to bring in legislation that would ensure essentially that we end up with a modern and efficient VIA Rail passenger rail system.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): The second petition is regarding the grief and suffering tax, as it has come to be known. This petition is signed almost completely by the residents of 150 Mile House in the central interior of British Columbia. The petitioners call upon the government to withdraw the goods and services tax and bring in fair tax legislation. They share my concern that the Liberal Senate has already given second reading to the GST bill and they express their shame and outrage at that.
June 13, 1990
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise to present a petition to this House signed by approximately 200 people from the Kapuskasing area in northern Ontario.
The petitioners, like millions of other Canadians, oppose strenuously the government's goods and services tax. They see it as making an unfair tax system even more unfair and placing higher income Canadians in a better position vis-a-vis lower income Canadians. They call on Parliament, and I presume they mean those parliamentarians in the other place who can still act on this measure, to act to withdraw this tax now and kill the tax.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, which brings the total now in excess of 20,000 constituents who have registered by petition their opposition to the goods and services tax.


Albert Glen Cooper: What about the other 80,000?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question that they raise is, why would we want to tax reading material? For that reason alone they are opposed. I am pleased the Minister of Finance is present. That would make Canada the only country in the world that would tax reading. It is not the kind of thing that you do, Mr. Speaker, when you are concerned about high illiteracy rates-


Mr. Boyer:: Are you presenting a petition or are you on debate?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am just saying that they do not understand why the government would want to tax reading material. Actually there are other items as well. They cannot understand why the government would want to put a special tax on coffins, funerals, home heating fuels and whole sets of other things.


Mr. Cardiff:: It will be less.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, on funerals there are no taxes, to be fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the hon. member would stick to his petition and get it over with.
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not get it over with, Mr. Speaker. I was being provoked here by my colleagues.
To wrap it up, the petitioners are in opposition to the goods and services tax and they too call upon the Liberals in the Senate to do the honourable thing and defeat this tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another topic, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners again from Kamloops, British Columbia are pointing out the increasing number of children in Canada who are living in poverty and are calling on the government to introduce a comprehensive bill of rights for children in an effort to reduce the number and eliminate any child in Canada having to live in poverty in a country as rich as ours.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who are all employees of CN Rail out of Kamloops, British Columbia, are asking the government to reconsider its decision to curtail support for a first-class passenger rail service in Canada and do the thing that every large geographic country is doing, which is to invest in passenger rail service in the country, and the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to come to its senses and do just that.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour this afternoon to present a petition from several dozen Canadian citizens who are calling upon the government to abandon its plan with regard to the goods and services tax.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that this tax is opposed by 69 per cent of all Canadians. So far the government is continuing to press forward, in spite of this opposition to the goods and services tax, which will have an unfair disadvantage to low income Canadians, to people living in the regions of the country and to small business people who will be unfairly penalized by it.
I would hope that the government would respond in a positive way to these humble Canadians petitioning for justice and fairness in the tax system.

June 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
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.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, it appears that this may be the last Wednesday we will be sitting for some period of time, possibly until September, from the rumours that are circulating around this House.
On October 25, I placed a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers on the Order Paper. I have been on my feet at least four times asking for assistance. I have pleaded with the deputy House leader. I have pleaded with the parliamentary secretary. I may even have gone on bended knee to the House leader himself. I do not recall who all I have raised this with.
However, here we are on June 13. We are not coming back probably until September, possibly October, and that will be a year that this motion has been sitting here waiting for an answer.
The conduct of the government in this case has been nothing short of disgraceful. I ask the parliamentary secretary to stand up and let us pass the order today. He can table the documents later, but at least let us get it
adopted as an order of this House. Surely he can agree to that so we can get somewhere with this. It is simply ridiculous what the government is doing to this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I once again want to apologize to the hon. member. I have heard his pleas. I have seen him on bended knee. I have done everything in my power to assist the hon. gentleman because we know he is a most distinguished member of this House. He is the kind of individual we all look up to and we want to, if at all possible, do everything in our power to respond to his needs no matter how trivial or how urgent they may be.
In this case, I once again must apologize. I cannot fulfil this wish and I really do offer the hon. member my very deep personal regrets.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as we are drawing toward the summer recess, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give some indication as to the government's plans with respect to my Motion P-24 which concerns the presence in Canada of one Francisco Nota Moises.
I have been requesting a comprehensive review of Mr. Moises' status in Canada since early in 1989. I have conducted correspondence with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Solicitor General. So far, my efforts to establish a clear picture of the events leading to the decision to admit Mr. Moises to Canada and the reasons for his continued presence in Canada have been thwarted.
By moving a motion for the Production of Papers, I am hopeful that the position of the Government of Canada on this matter will be made clear.
Citizens in the Victoria area are particularly anxious to learn on what grounds Mr. Moises was ever admitted and to learn the results of investigations into his activities with Renamo.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think that is sufficient for the parliamentaiy secretary to give a reply.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I did check into the hon. member's motion in the hopes that we could table it this morning. I understand that motion is in the minister's office for a decision now and hopefully we will have it in the very near future.
June 13, 1990


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That,
on Monday, June 18,1990, Mr. Nelson Mandela, Deputy President of the African National Congress, address members of House of Commons and Senate, in the Commons Chamber, at 11 o'clock a.m., and
That Mr. Mandela's address and customary related remarks by the Prime Minister and Speakers of both Houses be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons debates of that day, and form part of the records of this House, and be televised according to the House guidelines.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-67, an act to prevent the importation, exportation and spread of pests injurious to plants and to provide for their control and eradication and for the certification of plants and other things, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, it appeared as though the House was going to accept Bill C-67. If we
Government Orders
are going to have debate on it, I would want to put the government's position on the record at some time. If the hon. member would prefer to speak first, I would agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I did not see the hon. member rising, therefore, I will recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture on debate.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting Bill C-67, the plant protection act, which proposes amendments to the Plant Quarantine Act.
It has been 80 years since the first formal pest control and eradication act was passed in Canada. Over time, a number of adjustments have been made to deal with emerging issues affecting our plant-based industries.
In 1952, for example, Canada responded to growing international concern over the spreading of pests by signing the International Plant Protection Convention.
In 1968, the Plant Quarantine Act was introduced. Over time, however, it became apparent that this legislation required amending because of changes in the world market-place.
In 1982, Agriculture Canada set out to assess the effects of market-place changes, new technology and current legislation on our programs. This has been a time consuming and demanding process and I am pleased to confirm that the results of this review have been well worth the effort. In fact, the legislation before the House today represents a major step in ensuring the continued viability and strength of Canada's plant-based industries.
We anticipate benefits from this legislation in three areas.
First, the act will serve as a demonstration of Canada's commitment to prevent the spread of plant pests that have economic importance to our global trading partners. The net result will be improved opportunities for marketing Canadian plants and plant products and other things internationally.
Second, the new legislation provides for recovery of the costs of program delivery from those who directly benefit from some activities administered under the act. For example, we will be able to recover costs for conducting inspections and issuing permits and other documents to those who import or export plants and

June 13, 1990
Government Orders
plant products. Fumigation, treatment and quarantine of such items will also be cost-recoverable.
A third important thrust of this legislation is to reduce the threat of introducing or spreading a plant pest within Canada. The value of our Canadian plant-based industries is simply too great to risk the significant loss and damage that can be caused by pest infestations.
Having outlined the main objectives behind the new Plant Protection Act, I would like to focus on some of the specific provisions.
A particularly important aspect of this bill is the increased authority it grants to Agriculture Canada inspectors to do their job more effectively. For example, these provisions grant authority to the department to issue permits to persons importing material; to designate where and under what conditions an imported item or an item for export will be inspected; to order the removal, treatment, quarantine, or disposition of items found to be in contravention of the act; and to stop or enter vehicles, ships, rail cars, and other conveyances for the purposes of enforcing the act.
In addition, the responsibility to prove that individuals deliberately spread plant pests will no longer rest solely with the department. In the past individuals have challenged the department to prove such deliberate intent. This has proved to be a serious hindrance to the government's efforts to keep plant pests from entering or spreading within Canada.
The new act has sufficient flexibility to allow for the control or eradication of plant pests without creating undue interference to the transportation and marketing of agricultural and forestry products.
Other amendments update and simplify legal requirements. The penalties for contravening the act have been restructured to make them more effective. New penalties include ticketing for minor offences. This provision will eliminate the need to go through lengthy and expensive courtroom proceedings to prosecute those who plead guilty to such infractions.
Yet another important area addressed in this legislation concerns compensation. Bill C-67 clarifies the conditions when the department will pay compensation and how people can appeal compensation claims.
While we have focused on finding ways to control or eradicate plant pests in Canada, we have also made provisions to keep plant pests from ever reaching our shores in the first place.
Two sections of the act touch on this problem. First, in those cases where the department has reasonable grounds to believe that goods destined for Canada may be infested, officials will be authorized to carry out inspection at the place of origin prior to shipment.
Second, we are interested in working with other companies to help them improve their plant pest control and eradication systems. This act authorizes the department to provide financial aid and technical expertise to foreign countries.
In view of safeguarding our industries, the act also allows material to be detained for longer than the current 90 days. This will be increased to 180 days or longer.
Two new sections of the act provide the Minister of Agriculture with the authority to require operators of land, air, rail and sea terminals to allocate, if required, at no cost to the Crown, space and facilities for the services provided for the proper administration of the act.
Procedures and responsibilities of the department have also been clarified. The process of declaring places to be infested and the powers of the minister and inspectors in this action have been carefully spelled out. The process and authority to prohibit or regulate the introduction or movement of plants, plant products or other things, are also more clearly explained.
We have made every effort to take into account the legitimate and practical concerns of those people who are affected by the decisions taken by inspectors.
Provincial governments, appropriate federal departments, industry, and other interested groups have all had a chance to study and respond to this proposed legislation.
I am very pleased to note that all of those whose efforts contributed to the new act agree that the amendments are necessary and support the principles of the bill.
Our plant based industries rely heavily on our plant protection programs. Their future depends on the improvements and changes found in Bill C-67. For them it will mean improved protection against the spread of plant pests, greater confidence on the part of domestic
June 13, 1990

consumers, and more opportunities for access to foreign markets.
I trust that all members of this House will consider these benefits and give strong support to this legislation.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a couple of words on the third reading stage of Bill C-67.
This is a highly technical bill, one which perhaps does not catch much notice of members in the House of Commons. However it is very important to our agricultural industry because it has to do with the control of plant diseases and protection from pests. This is very important in a day and age when we have large cargo and passenger planes carrying hundreds of passengers into and out of airports in this country and ships plying the oceans.
This bill expands the existing legislation from about 8 pages of legalise to some 25 pages. I do not say that that it is necessarily good to increase the amount of verbiage in a bill or in an act, but in this case I believe it is.
As we might expect it provides for cost recovery. This government has a penchant for demanding more and more fees from Canadians, as the Minister of Finance has done in every budget since he has become the Minister of Finance on September 19, 1984.
We have tried to get specific details from the government at report stage and in committee, but we have not received a great deal of specifics with regard to the cost recovery. We do believe that certain types of economic activity by groups and individuals where they incur costs for their own benefit are justifiable, whereas where plant diseases inadvertently occur we believe the government has the full responsibility to pay for those costs.
This bill puts an onus on highly technically trained people and researchers to notify the government when they become aware of important diseases from other countries that would have an adverse impact on our agricultural industry. I am not sure the existing legislation puts that onus on people who have the skills to identify foreign pests which could have an adverse
Government Orders
economic impact on our country, but this bill provides for that.
It gives more authority for inspectors to take samples and to identify them for legal activity and prosecutions. That is necessary in this realm of protection of plants in this country.
It provides more flexibility for hiring specialists on a part-time or casual basis who are fully qualified to act as agents of the Crown. That is wise, because in a day and age when we are concerned about costs to the government it is probably better to hire a highly skilled and trained person rather than have to move people all over the country for specific problems that occur.
It provides for compensation to owners of crops that are damaged by pests and infectious agents where it is in the best interests of the nation to pay compensation.
It also provides for the location of inspection stations abroad, for instance, where we are importing plants which could be harbingers or vectors for infectious agents. The example given in the committee hearings was bulbs which are brought into Canada from Holland. It is to ensure that those plant products are investigated and inspected abroad so that we do not run the danger of introducing infectious agents into the country.
There are new offences provisions in the act for higher fines and for ticketing. All of us are familiar with the experience of signing a customs declaration where we state that we have brought no plant or plant product into the country. This will provide for a ticketing system where someone illegally imports plants which may be carrying infectious diseases or pests that could endanger our livestock or our plant industries.
The fact that a ticket can be provided rather than a conviction or charges being laid may be beneficial in making people realize just how important and serious the dangers are to our industry from bringing in plants which are not properly inspected or authorized.
In summary, this is quite a technical piece of legislation. It brings the act up to date. It provides for the changing world in which we live where there is greater transportation, a greater flow of people, products and materials between countries, not only between Canada and the United States but other countries around the

June 13, 1990
Government Orders
world. It generally provides for the protection of the Canadian agricultural industry which is so important to the economy of the country.
We support this bill at third reading and want to see it ultimately implemented by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on Bill C-67 to amend the Plant Quarantine Act so as to protect plant life in the agricultural and forestry sectors of the Canadian economy. This is a revision of old acts in an attempt to bring procedures up to date.
There are few questions that some observers may have about the bill. For instance, it grants the authority to operate an import permit system which is absolutely necessary if our country is to control the importation of pests with plants or with parts of plants, including diseases and fungi that might come in with seed.
Something that we will have to wait for and watch is whether this import permit system operated by Agriculture Canada will become noticeable. If and when we ever get to an import basis on American wheat under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, External Affairs will take over the issuing of those permits for the granting of import licences.
However, we presume that Agriculture Canada will still be required to make certain that those imported seeds and grains are free of disease so that international trade does not override the need for the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle on both sides of the border of the trading countries. This will also keep available Canada's reputation as a country, which is relatively free of plant diseases and plant pests, to utilize in international trade for our own grain trade.
The changes to the act spell out some of the powers that the Department of Agriculture will have. It will be able to stop and enter conveyances whether vehicles, ships, or rail cars for purposes of enforcing the act and to make the inspections that are required to determine whether there are plant products on board and whether those plant products contain diseases or pests. It clarifies that the importer of all items governed by the act is responsible for presenting those items for inspection. It
sets out that there must be rooms and space made available for those inspections to take place.
It is quite a flexible act in that it covers a wide variety of plant material. Changes down the road can be reacted to, it is spelled out in the bill, by changes in regulations at that time. This is basically permissive legislation.
Understanding fully how the new rules will apply is virtually impossible until we see the regulations. Because this type of act has been in place in this country for close to a century we in the opposition parties are prepared to take the department's assurances at face value that these regulations will continue to carry out the functions that the Department of Agriculture has carried out in the past, that it will continue to act responsibly in the future and that regulations will in fact protect producers, consumers and the general health of the population as far as domestic use is concerned, and for the continuation of our good reputation in trading relations.
I am prepared to let the bill have speedy passage and will close my remarks so that that can happen.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do I have unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-66?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-66, an act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is one motion set down on the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill C-66, an act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be trans-
June 13, 1990

mitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals. That motion is in order.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-66 be amended in Clause 64 by striking out line 3 at
page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) requiring animals to be treated in such a manner as to avoid or minimize the infliction of pain, suffering or injury on or to animals".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. During the course of the committee hearings on this piece of legislation we heard from quite a broad range of people who are involved in the animal industry in this country as producers, consumers, handlers and processors.
One of the suggestions that came from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was that while it had no particular criticism of the bill it would feel better if there were a better description of humane treatment of animals. It suggested a definition something like this which we have translated into parliamentary language which would lay the ground work and the rules for all future regulations concerning the treatment of animals.
As you read, Mr. Speaker, it simply states that it would require animals to be treated in such a manner as to avoid or minimize the infliction of pain, suffering or injury on or to animals. I think this permits Parliament to put in place the ground rules for the humane treatment of animals. I presume that we would have no great discussion on this, that it seems to be reasonable and acceptable and therefore could be passed forthwith.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out two or three items.
The present wording of the legislation covers the governing, care, handling and disposition of animals. These words have been chosen because they are used in the title of the recommended codes of practice for the care and handling of animals.
The department has provided funds for the development and publishing of the codes. The codes have been developed for poultry, swine, ranched mink and foxes, veal calves, dairy cattle, and so on.
Government Orders
The development of the codes is co-ordinated by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Representatives from industry groups such as producers, truckers and slaughter plants all have input into those codes.
Professional organizations such as the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Society of Animal Science and the American Society of Agricultural Engineers provide the expertise in the development of the codes.
The wording of the paragraph proposed by the member for Mackenzie, while interesting, would appear to limit the section to areas where pain, suffering or injury could be inflicted on animals.
I believe that the current wording gives the clause a broader mandate, without the necessity of proving the possibility of pain, suffering or injury.
In addition, the concept of minimizing pain, suffering or injury could be difficult to interpret and might limit the regulations that could be made under this enabling clause.
I would also like to point out that words such as those proposed by the member can be put in the regulations that are prepared under this act. For instance, the current regulations which are made under the Animal Disease and Protection Act use the words "likely to cause injury or undue suffering" to tell people what standards must be met in transporting animals.
These words are more appropriate because they have been tried and tested in prosecutions under the current act and are therefore understood by the industry and Agriculture Canada inspectors.
By putting such words in the regulations rather than in the act each area can be addressed using appropriate words for the specific concern.
We do not believe that the amendment would help the present legislation and could cause us some problems in some ways.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate in the legislative committee on Bill C-66 we had a number of groups, such as the dairy and hog producers, who outlined to us their code of practice for the maintenance of various livestock groups.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to advise the House that the House will adjourn at five o'clock so that members may attend the hon. Speaker at the farm.
Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion (Mr. Althouse) negatived.


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles James Mayer: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present to the House for third reading Bill C-66, the health of animals bill which proposes changes to the Animal Protection Act. The reputation of Canadian animal products is second to none in the world market-place.
You will probably find that Bills C-66 and C-67 are very similar, with many similar clauses. Therefore, some of my remarks might be very close to those made earlier.
The reputation of our animal products in the world market-place has been earned over the years and we are not willing to compromise it in any way.
Bill C-66 represents the corner-stone of the determination of the government and the agri-food industry to keep our standards high in animal health. Legislation covering this area was first passed in 1869 and was last
June 13, 1990

amended in 1974 as the Animal Disease and Protection Act.
In preparing this legislation Agriculture Canada has consulted more than 40 groups including representatives from all the agriculture sectors, provincial departments of agriculture, regulated areas such as semen production, embiyo transfer, exporters and importers, and the animal welfare movement.
There must be consensus among all the players if the agriculture industry is to continue to compete and survive in today's complex market-place while adequately addressing the present environmental and food safety concerns.
Bill C-66 confirms the government's authority to prevent animal diseases that threaten animal and human health from getting into Canada.
The legislation will strengthen programs that work toward the prevention of food-producing animals becoming contaminated with diseases that can affect human health. Salmonella is an example of such a disease.
The bill authorizes the government to control animals and animal products that have been exposed to or contaminated by toxic materials and prevent their entry into the animal and human food chains.
The legislation would permit the Governor in Council to regulate the movement of people, animals and vehicles where an area was affected by a serious animal disease.
A national identification system for animals will enable identification of animals suspected of harbouring disease-causing agents. This is essential in controlling and eradicating diseases.
The bill will also empower the government to assist other countries in their efforts to control or eradicate animal diseases. This new authority would allow Agriculture Canada to provide financial and technical help to foreign countries to reduce the risk of those diseases spreading to Canada.
The legislation we are discussing provides for cost recovery or designation of responsibility for costs of some of the services provided by the government. The bill will allow qualified people, other than public servants, to carry out the duties and functions of inspectors on behalf of the government. This will allow for privat-
Govemment Orders
ization of such things as laboratory services, inspection and testing for animal diseases.
The legislation enables Agriculture Canada to obtain facilities needed to administer the act. At international ports of entry such as airports, harbours, bridges, tunnels, roads and so on, the minister may require that space for inspection and enforcement be provided.
Control of genetic diseases of animals is also addressed in the health of animals bill. The new definition of "disease" includes genetic diseases, as well as diseases of humans that can be transmitted by animals. Many insects, so-called vectors, spread disease from one animal to another. The department will be able to control imports to prevent their release into the environment.
In addition, the authority for the department to collect information and statistics on animal diseases will be enhanced. This information is crucial to our success in negotiating conditions for the export of animals and animal products.
Many Canadians are concerned about the welfare of animals-how animals are reared under intensive modem farming conditions. The legislation provides new powers to regulate the way animals are kept to ensure that they are treated humanely.
In addition, the power to control what is fed to animals has been expanded to include all animals. The power to prohibit feeding of materials that might be suspected of spreading disease or toxic substances has been added.
I have outlined the major changes found in the health of animals bill. Now I would like to highlight some of the provisions that will continue to be in force under this new legislation.
Agriculture Canada's powers to control an outbreak of a severe disease or a toxic substance spill remain intact. Compensation will continue to be paid for any animal ordered destroyed under the health of animals bill or for one that is injured in the course of being tested by an inspector and must be destroyed.
The amount of compensation paid to a producer will continue to be the market value of the animal, minus the value received for its carcass. Maximum values may be set for all types of animals under the program. Producers will also have their costs covered in cases where the

June 13, 1990
Government Orders
government decides that affected animals should be treated rather than destroyed.
The legislation continues to allow for control of places where animals are assembled or sold. Control of artificial insemination and embryo transfer units will continue. The existing act's powers to regulate animal dead yards and rendering plants are maintained.
Provisions dealing with hatcheries and the improvement of poultry have been incorporated into this bill as well. These are not just based on the control of disease but also on the quality and genetic improvement of poultry. Penalties for contravening the provisions of this bill have been updated to reflect present economic realities. Fines for summary conviction offences can run up to $50,000. Where an indictable offence is involved, penalties can go as high as $200,000 and/or up to two years in jail.
The new provisions will permit agriculture inspectors to issue tickets in less serious cases and this will avoid the expense of long court proceedings for those who wish to plead guilty to minor infractions.
In summary, the health of animals bill represents an important tool to keep our animals healthy, productive and competitive and to safeguard the human population against the spread of disease or toxic materials from animals.
A number of industry representatives appeared as witnesses before the legislative committee on Bill C-66. While all were generally supportive, minor amendments were made to the bill at committee stage in response to their concerns. We believe that these changes will help to strengthen further the legislation for the agri-food industry and Canadians as a whole.
I am confident that this bill will receive their full support.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of words to say on third reading of Bill C-66. The bill received fairly extensive study in the committee.
It is an important piece of legislation that has not been amended since 1974. Of course, just as we saw with the plant products protection bill, many things have changed since that time in terms of international travel and the movement of animals around the world.
This bill provides for greater protection for animals. It is designed to control, eradicate or prevent entry into Canada of diseases of animals which is an important move both in terms of human health and economic impact for our livestock industry.
It really broadens the scope of the Department of Agriculture in regard to animal diseases. The old legislation was primarily directed toward infectious diseases such as Newcastle's disease in poultry, rabies in animals, and hoof and mouth disease in livestock, diseases of that nature, whereas this legislation moves beyond that to cover all livestock diseases, especially the contamination of livestock with toxic substances such as PCBs. These are problems which have been with us virtually forever. But over the last five or ten years we have come up with the diagnostic techniques to test for contamination by toxic substances in milk, meat, eggs or poultry products. Thus we really require this additional scope.
Diseases such as salmonella which are not necessarily that harmful to poultry can be extremely harmful to human beings and cause all kinds of illnesses. This bill extends the mandate of the Department of Agriculture to a much broader scope of diseases affecting human health as well as animal health.
This legislation gives the government a great deal more power to enforce control zones. If we had a major industrial accident, as has occurred in other parts of the world, it seems that this legislation would give the Governor in Council and the Minister of Agriculture great powers to control the movement of animals and people into an area which had become contaminated or infected. We hope that that will never occur. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease which occurred in 1951 cost the Canadian livestock industry something in the order of $1 billion. This bill gives the minister and the government greater powers to deal with that kind of a national emergency.
It puts in place a regime for a national identification system. Technology has moved to the point where, with electronic scanners, animals can be easily identified on a permanent basis. It is valuable in the long-term control of diseases to be able to identify the farm where infected animals are raised, as well as to identify where the meat product or other product was produced.
June 13, 1990

It also provides authority for the government to go into other countries where our veterinarians are needed to assist in the control of diseases which might spread to Canada. It gives them legal authority to do that. The instance was cited when, a few years ago, it would have been beneficial for Canada to be able to assist one of the Caribbean islands in the control of African swine fever. That kind of authority is provided for in this legislation even if the funding for it might come from CIDA or some other international development agency. That kind of international assistance would not only assist the host country but would be beneficial as well to the protection of the health of our livestock industry.
As with Bill C-67 there is a provision for cost recovery. Obviously the Minister of Finance had great responsibility in the writing of this bill to ensure that the government gets its pound of flesh. We think that that is counterproductive. When it involves the general health and control of disease in the country where specialized services are being provided for the industry for export purposes, we have no problem with such cost recovery arrangements.
This bill provides as well for part-time inspectors to assist the full-time employees of the Department of Agriculture in carrying out the mandate of this legislation. I think that is a step forward.
Casual veterinarians have worked for years with major diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis. Those diseases have largely been overcome in this country. Thus there is not the need for those people to control those particular diseases, but the arrangement of integrating full-time Government of Canada veterinarian inspectors with the private practitioner was a useful arrangement. This bill provides for that.
It also provides for a data collection system for national immunological studies, something which was strongly supported by all sectors of the livestock industry. It is supported by those of us in the opposition.
It also makes provision for the control and regulation of diagnostic laboratories and research facilities.
All in all, we in the Official Opposition find the legislation to be a definite step forward. We did make a couple of amendments to it in committee to ensure that where animals were being inspected for health or disease
Government Orders
it would be a veterinary inspector who would carry out that inspection and not a lay person.
We made an amendment as well to the French version short title to call it an act for the health of animals rather than the prevention of disease in animals. That was suggested by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association because it thought it would cause less conflict with the name that is used in similar legislation in the province of Quebec. I think it was a useful suggestion.
Those are many of the provisions of the bill. We think we have had a pretty good review of the provisions of it in committee. It should be useful in moving our whole livestock industry into the 21st century, with the new technologies that have become available for surveillance and development of the livestock industry. We support it and want to see it ultimately implemented.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with companion bills.
This one deals with controlling the spread of infectious diseases and the control of diseases among animals. There are only a few things that I would like to say about it.
This is an important bill to the public at large. It covers not only diseases that Agriculture Canada with its Veterinary Services and its Health of Animal Branches monitors. There are those that create economic harm to farmers and the food production chain, such as hoof and mouth disease, blue tongue, Newcastle's disease in poultry or swine cholera. That is just a very short list. We could make it into an extremely long one.
Those economic diseases are extremely important to consumers in that, without their control, we would find it somewhat difficult to get the cheap food that we are used to at the meat counter. I know some consumers bristle at that phrase, but it is cheap food. Relative to the rest of the world, Canadians are buying extremely cheap food at the retail counter.
In addition, there are the diseases that are shared by animals, whether human or of another species. These are the ones with which Health of Animals and Agriculture Canada are very much involved. Rabies can be contracted by humans just as easily as our little mammal friends. Thberculosis and brucellosis, which is sometimes called Bang's disease and which shows itself in humans

June 13, 1990
Government Orders
as undulant fever, are a couple of the categories of disease.
As a result, the department has been conducting vaccination inoculation programs at one time or another. That continues with rabies. It was abandoned with brucellosis because of some detection problems that the vaccination program created. We have moved to an eradication of the disease type of program for TB and brucellosis.
These programs often appear to be controversial. The public, sometimes including the farming public, does not fully understand the need for the rather radical methods that are used to achieve control and eradication of these very important diseases to the human population as well as animal population. Sometimes it stirs up controversy when a whole herd is disposed of when brucellosis and tuberculosis are found.
This act permits some procedures which have been tried and which would assist the department to contain the disease without always going to those methods. Generally speaking, eradication is still the best method. I raise this in the House now even though there is not a great deal of public attention on it. We have a herd of hybrid bison in northern Alberta close to the territorial border which is infected with these two diseases.
works. There has been a move in this act to try to permit larger payments, but it still will not give full compensation for some of the very valuable animals that have to be disposed of, should they become infected one way or another.
That is why we are trying to keep inspections at the borders more secure. Our inspection system has always been very good, but we are hopeful that this bill will permit even more flexibility and permit the borders to become even more secure.
That also raises some of the issues that are proposed in this legislation that some of us have a few doubts about. We permit the passages that allow the Minister of Agriculture to achieve a certain amount of cost recovery because, in some instances, it does make some sense. The service that is being provided by the department is of direct economic benefit to the user.
For instance, if I were to import breeding stock from another country, I would feel quite comfortable about paying the costs of leaving that animal in quarantine for the required amount of time. I am expecting to gain something from the importation of that animal, and this is a part of a cost of my doing business, introducing this new genetic stock to the country.
As far as veterinary medical science is aware, there is no other way to get rid of that disease but to use the eradication program.
Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning environmentalists think that that is too strong a response to disease control but, as a person who raises animals domestically I realize, and I have seen it happen very close to me, that the only way to obtain that kind of control for the health of humans and for the other animals in the area, in this case it affects humans just as readily as the other livestock in the area, is eradication. It is the only route to pursue and it does work.
This bill permits the control by those methods. For the herds that are wiped out, they always consider the compensation package to be inadequate because it is a big disruption. Often production is disrupted for two full years, and that kind of compensation is never provided. Sometimes, for particular individual animals that are purebred and have particular genetic qualities, the farmer sells them, provided he gets the kind of price that he has invested. However, this is the way the system
As well, laboratory testing for genetic abnormalities is an industry advantage. It is an advantage to the person submitting the genetic material for test. I do not think anyone in the industry has a great deal of problem with paying for those kinds of tests that are done by Agriculture Canada laboratories. When we get into disease testing which is for the public good, I think that those costs should continue to be borne by the public and be paid for out of departmental funds. I think most Canadian consumers would agree because it is their assurance that those tests will be done on their behalf, if they are done by officials of the Government of Canada.
As well, if we are exporters or importers, the buyer has assurance that the imported product or the exported product has been properly tested and monitored for disease control. The transmission of pests and any that might act as vectors which would carry any disease would be carefully monitored. We heard in testimony that a great many importing countries look with a jaundiced eye at imports from countries where the private sector is permitted to do this type of testing and provide a stamp or signature on the export papers.

June 13, 1990

The United States uses a system like that. We are told that there have been too many instances of inadequate testing where the foreign buyer ended up getting a product that was not disease-free as the papers indicated. The importing countries are generally much more secure and confident of the system we have developed in this country where those tests are done by public officials.
I hope that this Minister of Agriculture and all future ministers will keep that in mind when considering the utilization of this particular section of the act which does permit the transfer of some of the costs out of the department and on to the public.
The approval of this bill is made with the understanding that this particular section should be dealt with with great care, and that in the interests of our consumers and our commercial relations with other countries we take great care in maintaining and utilizing our public inspectors who do the veterinary work now on imports and exports, and that the government continues to allow the Department of Agriculture to finance and keep control of that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say. We have done a fairly adequate job of hearing from most of the sectors involved in the animal industry in committee. In a very short time we managed to hear from most of the sectors. I think that this fairly modern update of the act which permits the control of diseases in animals and the monitoring of these diseases will continue for at least
Government Orders
another decade. I think that after today Parliament will have set it up in a manner that will permit the department to continue to function as efficiently as it has in the past.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is unanimous consent to call it five o'clock. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I just want to say that in the remaining time if the government were disposed to call Bill C-46 concerning conflict of interest, we would be pleased to proceed with the bill.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be in order to call it five o'clock. I think you would find unanimous consent rather than starting at this time of day with new legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, May 31,1990, and pursuant to Standing Order 24(1) this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 14, 1990