1990-10-02

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary Union. This is the report of the official delegation that represented Canada at the interparliamentary conference on disarmament held in Bonn, in the Federal Republic of Germany, from May 21 to May 25, 1990.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MOTION TO APPOINT ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: After consultations, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. members for Ottawa-Vanier and Kamloops:
That Mr. DeBlois, member for the electoral riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans, be appointed Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that the Opposition has been consulted by-


Mr. Lapierre:: Only the Official Opposition.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -the government. I heard the member for Shefford say "the Official Opposition", Mr. Speaker. There is only one Opposition in this House, and it is ours.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I might remind our vociferous independent colleagues that tradition is such that Opposition members support any appointment to the Chair or to the chairmanship of Committees of the Whole.
We are therefore very-


Mr. Boudria:: You have to be familiar with the Standing Orders!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -pleased to support the motion to appoint Mr. Charles DeBlois Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. We know he is a diligent worker and that, even though he sits on the government benches, he will be impartial when occupying the Chair. For the time being and until notice to the contrary is given he can count on our full co-operation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker I, too, want to lend my remarks to those of the opposition House Leader, in terms of saying that, yes, consultations have taken place, that we in the New Democratic Party also support the position, and that we assume that the tradition of non-partisanship will continue while he is conducting business on behalf of the House.
I wish to say we are looking forward to working with the hon. member and wish him well.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, as an independent member who has yet to be recognized by this House as a member of the Bloc quebecois, the member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead was not consulted and, of course, cannot give his approval.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: On the same grounds mentioned by my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my consent.


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.


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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the House and I abstained from voting because I was not consulted, as is customary in the House on these matters.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons given by my hon. colleague, I did not vote, although I was in the House. However, I have every respect for the member who was appointed and he will have my full support. This is a matter of principle. I have nothing against the hon. member but against the fact we were not consulted.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


PETITIONS
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 61 of my constituents in Plate Cove East and Plate Cove West.
(Division No. 292)

Members
Angus	Atkinson
Barrett	Blaikie
Boudria	Cadieux
Comuzzi	Cooper
Crosby (Halifax West)	de Jong
Dingwall	Edwards
Fee	Feltham
Fontana	Friesen
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Hawkes	Larrivee
Layton	Littlechild
MacAulay	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Milliken	Nicholson
Oberle	Pagtakhan
Pickard	Reid
Riis	Robitaille
Saint-Julien	Samson
Simmons	Tetreault
"Rimer (Halton-Peel) Vezina-39	Venne
++NAYS
Duceppe
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Members
Lapierre Rocheleau-4
This petition is against the unemployment insurance system overhaul being done by the government through Bill C-21. They are terribly concerned about the difficulty being caused by this bill. With the lack of the variable entrance requirement, in a lot of cases they cannot qualify for unemployment insurance and have a bleak winter ahead of them.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reintroduce the variable entrance requirement and to overhaul the unemployment insurance business in a much more meaningful manner.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here, signed by the great constituents of the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.
These great constituents of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell have asked me to table in the House a petition against the government's proposed goods and services

tax, which in a recent magazine cartoon was called recently the good Samaritan tax or the GST.
Several hundred petitioners from a number of communities in my riding, such as Hawkesbury, Vankleek Hill, L'Original, Plantagenet and all those other wonderful places that I have the opportunity to represent in this House, have asked me to table this petition calling upon the government, while there is still time, to abandon its foolish plan to impose a goods and services tax on practically everything.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present to Parliament this petition calling upon the government to rescind the GST and especially to lambaste this government for taxing education. In light of what the Prime Minister said at the United Nations and what the minister of health said about the bureau for children, perhaps he might start by scrapping the GST as it relates to education.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from the Syndicat des Metallos (FTQ) of Malartic, in the Abitibi area, which since 1965 has been asking that the status of miner be legally recognized by the Government of Quebec; that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended to provide for complementary unemployment insurance benefits when a mine is shut down; and that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended to provide that relocation allowances will cover all costs incurred for a worker laid off after a mine is shut down.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present this petition to the House. It concerns the opposition Canadians from coast to coast have with regard to the GST, and in particular the opposition Canadians have with regard to the tax which will be put on books.
Routine Proceedings
This petition hopes to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in a tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
These four petitions are from individuals from across the country including the great province of Alberta and, of course, the great city of Edmonton, Alberta.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to have an opportunity to rise today to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Petitioners from Kamloops, Logan Lake, Chase, Clearwater, Little Fort, Savona and a variety of other communities, who are still very concerned that the government seems to be determined to proceed with its very unpopular goods and services tax, point out a long list of reasons why they oppose this proposed tax.
The petitioners call upon the Liberal dominated Senate to do whatever it needs to do to ensure that it never becomes a reality in our country.
Mr. Speaker, on another issue, again the petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia and from Chase, British Columbia point out that the government has decided now to do something that has never been done before, that is to tax reading.
The petitioners find that this is an odd thing to do in light of the government's concern regarding the high levels of illiteracy in the country.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to smarten up and simply stop this idea of taxing literature in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, again unrelated petitioners from Kamloops point out that they believe that in a time of increasing oil prices and recognizing that the passenger rail service is the most environmentally friendly way to move large numbers of people. They are calling upon the government now to do what most progressive countries in the world have done.
The petitioners want the government to expand their VIA Rail system, invest in new equipment and enable people to use this as a way to move from one part of

Government Orders
Canada to another, rather than do the regressive act of cutting back on VIA Rail service in the country.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of many people from across this country, and particularly from some of my friends in Thunder Bay, who want to impress upon the government to do away with the goods and services tax as proposed.
More so, the petitioners want to do away with the goods and services tax if it should go through on the cultural and educational tools needed in this country by our children.
If it is going to be the year of the child, as I heard, let us put our money where our mouth is and let us not tax those tools of education that are needed by the children in this country.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 327 will be answered today.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	With 1800 guests invited to the state dinner in Toronto on June 18, 1990 in honour of Nelson Mandela, why were no Tbronto Liberal or New Democratic Members of Parliament invited and every Toronto Conservative Member invited and given tickets to be allocated to supporters?
2.	Is this official event, paid for by Canadian taxpayers, an attempt to bolster the fortunes of the Conservative Party and, if so, will the Prime Minister so inform Mr. Mandela?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Twenty one Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament were invited to attend the official government dinner in honour of Nelson Mandela.
2. No. The dinner was held to honour Nelson Mandela, a leader who has dedicated his life to the cause of a free and democratic South Africa. The reception included Canadians from all walks of life; from Parliamentarians belonging to different political parties, to representatives of various ethnocultural and community groups to leaders of the academic, arts, religious, business, journalism, science, trade union, and local and provincial government community.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp:
That, in relation to Bill C-44, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and, one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean had four minutes left. Since he is not in the House, I will have to recognize the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following this particular debate with great attention because, of course, it is an issue that very deeply affects Newfoundland and is of great interest to most people in Newfoundland.
Let us be kind. This debate has not been without its virtues. Like all debates, we have learned a few things. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that you and I have learned the following: We have learned that the NDP has discovered economic viability.
October 2, 1990

The NDP, whose principal credo is that the state should give everybody a free ride, now spits out the term "government subsidy" like it is some kind of a new strain of malaria. It has discovered economic viability.
The NDP, which has made no secret of its belief that all businessmen and businesswomen should be taken out, drawn and quartered, now stumbles almost fluently over something called the bottom line, lb say it differently, the president of the temperance society is keeping us still. I say to the NDP: you cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time.
I see my good friend from Halton-Peel. He is recovering well from the pressure he was under to continue as chairman of the committee. Everybody was terribly upset. Tell them they will get over it. I have been telling them, hang in there, our fearless fighter from Halton-Peel has new causes to fight, he does not have time to be chairman of the piddly little committee of the House of Commons. I have been fighting for him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Could I have a little order please. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's has the floor. It is only 11.25 a.m.. Wait until about three or four o'clock this afternoon.


Roger Simmons: My good friend, the Minister of Supply and Services, says talk about Hibernia. I am sorry, I say to him, if we were completely over his head that time. I was pointing out to him, to the House and to the public that the NDP, in attacking this very good bill, and the minister and I agree that it is a very good bill, the have your cake and eat it too NDP crowd suddenly discovered economic viability. They were suddenly beating their breasts for the poor big businesses out there which might not be able to make it all by themselves. They were suddenly making a brief that somehow we should not be dipping in to the public treasury, no matter how good the calls. They were suddenly doing an about-face. That is off the bill, I apologize to the minister and I will not say another word about it.
I was talking about the things we have learned so far in this debate, and this debate is far from over. I invite all of you to stick around because it is going to get better. Here is the second thing. It is not like my friend from B.C. to be nasty like that. He has had his nasty pills. Audrey got them all in a room, and told him to say things he does not
Government Orders
believe in again. I have also learned that the bloc-the new heads on the blocks-

People who are heading towards the guillotine. [English]
-the bloc has discovered Canada. They have discovered that they are fighting for Canada. Every one of them is Captain Canada.
Joey Smallwood, the former premier of Newfoundland, as premier arranged in 1966 to have a plaque put on the floor of the ocean where Hibernia is, claiming the oil for Newfoundland. All this nonsense about who did what to whom last week is about 24 years too late because Smallwood did that a long time before you were out of your cradle. Putting a plaque on the floor of the ocean claiming oil for Newfoundland was actually done. In 1966 a diver went down in do it. There is a plaque down there saying the oil is ours.
That says two things: one, that somebody had to go down and do it and, two, that Smallwood was aware as early as 1966 that there was oil there, 24 years before today. But I digress. The bloc has discovered Canada. It was Joey Smallwood who used to quote that line or two from the famous Methodist hymn as follows: "While the light holds forth to bum, the vilest sinner may return." In other words, for my friends who are behind me in many respects,-

As the prodigal son found out, it is never too late to go home.

As the prodigal son found out, it is never too late to come home. To say it one more way, where is home? It is Canada-that is home-as the bloc discovered last week when it finally put down a motion here, the only merit of which is that it recognizes something it tried to deny the existence of up until now.
They are fighting for Canada. They do not want more benefits in Quebec. No, no. Let the record show that it is not Quebec in this motion. They want them in Canada. They want them in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. That is my idea of a true unselfish Canadian.

Government Orders
What they wouldn't do for the folks in Prince George, I say to the minister. His heart must be touched that this bunch of fearless fighters are out there fighting for people up in Bulkley Valley. It is exciting, isn't it? My wife comes from that valley. It will tickle the cockles of her heart when she knows these people are really just separatists in disguise. They were fighting for the Annapolis Valley all the while, as well as Bulkley Valley and the other valleys and hills in this great and beautiful country. The Ottawa Valley, God knows, needs some people fighting for it. To say it one more way as we are still talking about the bloc-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Do you support the amendment?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, that gentleman has actually spoken more since he has been back there than he did all the while he was down here with us. Did you notice that, Mr. Speaker? He has finally found his tongue. If he could only find his head-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: To say it one more way, the fearless fighters for Bulkley Valley, Annapolis, the Codroy Valley in Newfoundland, and all those other places-


Don Boudria: And the Ottawa Valley.


Roger Simmons: The Ottawa Valley and the Bow Valley. I must not forget the Bow Valley near Calgary. To say it one more way for them, the arsonist has become chief of the fire brigade.
Now that we have dealt with the new kids, the new heads on the block, now that we have dealt with the "have your cake and eat it too" New Democratic Party, let us come to the question of closure. Closure is put in the rules for a very good reason. Its beauty is that it must be used sparingly, very rarely, only in the most extreme of circumstances.
I can understand the anger and the frustration of my good friend, the minister of energy, when he yields to the suggestion that maybe closure would be a weapon to be used here to try and beat down the closet Canadians who call themselves separatists. I understand that, but I want to say to the minister of energy that maybe there was another way. I say to him that if his problem is the new heads on the block, then that is a problem we can deal with very quickly in this House, because this House by its
veiy nature is for people who believe in Canada. That is what it is all about.
I will vote for a motion any day at all that runs this crowd clean out of this place once and for good. I will go for that motion because they do not belong here. They do not belong here, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to get this bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. On debate, the hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.


Roger Simmons: By leave, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to hear the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think
there is unanimous consent. Is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca rising on debate?


Mr. Barrett:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has the floor on debate.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this debate on the basis of some comments by my good friend from Newfoundland and some comments about other members in this House.
My good friend speaks about the business aspects of this deal. He condemns my colleagues, suggesting that we would hang, draw, and quarter business persons who are involved in the great enterprises here in Canada.


An hon. member:: Who said that?


David Barrett: My dear friend is obviously one of those great corporate social workers who hands out welfare in the billions of dollars. If this deal is so good and this government is so business attuned, and if that group over there of handout artists wants to present itself as an alternative to the Canadian people as a government then it should take an equity position for the taxpayers of this country who are putting up the money for this operation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

%

October 2, 1990


David Barrett: If you are such clever business people, then you know very well that when you hand out money for nothing you get nothing in return. Only the Liberals and Conservatives-and Lord knows where those guys are because they are all over the ball park-hand out money with no return whatsoever for the Canadian taxpayers who are footing the bill.


An hon. member:: Shame on them.


David Barrett: It is $2.7 billion, and they call it smart business to give it away. If you have any brains at all, any sense of social responsibility, you will say that the first profits from that operation come back to the people of Canada who put the money up.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: I challenge any one of those oddballs over there who believes in this corporate welfare bum system to come to Newfoundland with me and we will debate it publicly. I believe the people of Newfoundland should have the right to say where the first profits should go. I believe the premier of Newfoundland has a right to suggest that if the Canadian taxpayers are putting up the money, there should be integrated in the indigenous economy of that island a complex of petrochemical industries involved with that resource. However, what are these yahoos doing?


Mr. Nystrom:: Ross Reid.


David Barrett: They are setting about by giving $2.7 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to an oil company so that they can ship the oil to the United States and the Americans get the benefit of our subsidy to those international oil companies. Who owns the Government of Canada? It is the oil companies. They can suck up to this government and walk away with $2.7 billion without any obligation whatsoever to the taxpayers. The member from Newfoundland has the gall to come into this House and suggest that this is good business. It is dumb-bell business.
You find more ways of giving away money than any other government I ever heard of and that group over there wants to emulate them.


An hon. member:: That is right.


David Barrett: If that money is to be shared by the people of Canada then let the job stay here in Canada.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: We are not in business of raising taxes here in Canada to buy jobs in the United States. Do you think you are elected to run George Bush's economy? What kind of dumb-bell outfit are you anyway? You want to reduce the deficit by $2.7 billion, and you hand it over to the international oil companies. You embarrass me. You shame this country. You shame the unemployed people of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, which one of us has the floor? Two of us are rising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a pint of order.


Don Boudria: I was going to get to that once my colleague sat down to give me the floor.
I am sure the member meant no disrespect, but when one refers to you in a condescending way in this House, assuming that "you" means the Speaker, that message is aimed that way. I am sure that my colleague did not mean any disrespect for the Speaker. Perhaps, then, he should address the government as the hon. members across or the government rather than you, because you should only be used in reference to the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Knowing the hon. member I was not offended, but anyway the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has the floor.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: I can call the government dumb-bells, can I not?


Some hon. members:: Sure.


David Barrett: Yes.


An hon. member:: He called you a yahoo.


David Barrett: No. If the shoe fits, Mr. Member, wear it. I cannot be responsible for that. I called the government dumb-bells. I called the Official Opposition yahoos. They both support giving away taxpayers' money. They are giving away taxpayers' money to the international oil companies. How do you want to describe that? As a

Government Orders
generous Christmas present? As some kind of benevolent charity organization?
The native people of this country have had their lousy little budget cut for running newspapers. The women of this country cannot even get funding for battered women's services, but when the oil companies come begging they cough up $2.7 billion and they call it a good business deal. Mr. Speaker, how would you describe that? I describe it as dumb-bell.
What about the rest of the people of this country who are putting up the money? Mr. Speaker, do you think that this is the kind of thing that they can go and defend in their ridings by going back and saying: "Guess what we have done. We are going to pass the GST and we are going to use the money to give it to the oil companies. Aren't you all happy? Applaud the government for giving away money to the oil companies"? I can see it now. The Minister of Finance will say: "This is our first step toward reducing the deficit of the oil companies".
They are moving the oil to the United States. The jobs will be in the United States. The Canadian taxpayer will pay for it. The indigenous people of this country get nothing. The ordinary working people of this country get nothing. Newfoundland does not get an integrated economy. All that member could speak about was a plaque on the bottom of the floor saying this is what we got.


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


Mr. Rompkey:: Just as a matter of interest and for the edification of the hon. member-perhaps other hon. members, but certainly this one-I would just like to tell him that the correct pronunciation of the island and therefore the province too is Newfoundland. It rhymes with understand, which probably now you do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has one minute remaining.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I do not see that on the Order Paper. That is a spurious point of order. The member is attempting to interrupt my intelligent discourse that is embarrassing the government and the opposition.
The simple matter is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are going to hand over $2.7 billion to the oil companies with no return whatsoever. Whether I speak in English or in French, whether people pay the taxes in English or in French, they are not paying their taxes to fatten the oil companies of this country.
What about some legislative action to ensure that the oil stays here in Canada, goes to Come-By-Chance in Newfoundland and that the Newfoundland Come-By-Chance refinery provides jobs for people in Newfoundland? They will not care whether the cheques come in French or English. They just want a paycheque. If they are going to hand the money out, hand it back to Canadians.
I want to just conclude my remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You have just concluded.
It being 11.44 a.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the standing order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. The House has 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
yeas have it.
And more that five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister, on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to inform the House that I was held up by traffic. I was unable to vote because I arrived late. However, if I had voted, I would have voted for the government, Mr. Speaker.
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Kindy
Lapierre
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Manley
McCurdy
Mifflin
Murphy
Nystrom
Plamondon
Rideout
Robinson
Rompkey
Simmons
Stewart
Tobin
Walker



[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Members

[Stage Direction]
Allmand
Anawak
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Boudria
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Copps
Dingwall
Duceppe
Fisher
Fontana
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gerin
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare
Callbeck
Catterall
Comuzzi
Crawford
Dionne
Ferguson
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.

October 2, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the standing practice of the House has been that the opposition is consulted and apprised of the work called before the House of Commons for debate.
The Projected Order of Business today states that the item to be called after we had dealt with the time allocation motion would be Bill C-73. I just heard the clerk say Bill C-74, which is a totally different bill. I would like to have some explanation from the government as to why it changes these things without notice.
I know the Order Paper states: "subject to change without notice," but I just wondered if it really has gone out of its mind and is trying to play games with members of Parliament.


Mr. Andre:: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated in the House on a number of occasions, most recently last Thursday in answer to the usual question about House business, this institution works a lot better when we can solve and agree to the agenda and so on.
We did have an agenda. I laid it out last Thursday and intended to follow it. It was thrown off track by a motion of concurrence by the New Democrats on Friday which lost us a day, something we were led to believe would not happen and which came as a surprise. Of course, it was thrown off yesterday by a totally unnecessary double vote on first reading of a bill and then by an excessive number of petitions in order to delay and make it impossible to proceed.
I agree with the House leader of the Liberal Party that this institution does not function very well when there are surprises coming at each other from each side of the House.
We will be meeting this afternoon at a House leaders' meeting-our regular meeting. I am quite prepared to sit down, talk about an agenda and stick to it. If the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party would like to re-establish our practice, I look forward to doing that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize what the government House leader has just said. That is, last week when the House leaders met, he laid out an agenda for the House of Commons.
I think we have to tell the government House leader that it is not he alone who decides what happens in the House of Commons. We have a number of political parties. We have a number of independents.


Some hon. members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should get on with debate. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls wants to get on with the debate, but I will listen to the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have to make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, if the government is going to punish the opposition for using the rights that opposition members have to oppose legislation, then that is a new ball game. If vengeance and retribution is what the government wants, it will get it.
The spirit of this House today is such that it is not to be told to think that the government House leader is going to take it out on the opposition because yesterday we used the rules of the House to oppose the introduction of a bill. We will continue to fight the privatization of Petro-Canada, whether he likes it or not.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Furthermore, I am going to tell the government House leader that this debate on Bill C-44 was started on June 16 last. We never heard about it since. He brought it forward today as a surprise to us, with no notice, nothing. He has done it before. The House leader is well known for his little tricks. We will be done with that, Mr. Speaker. We want to operate within the rules of this House and we do not want to be criticized for using those rules.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: The hon. House leader of the Liberal Party has said that they are free to use the rules of the House. Of course, they are. But he expressed outrage at our use of the rules of the House as somehow being unfair.
October 2, 1990

The New Democratic Party House leader indicated that the rules of the game were that we were to lay out the schedule for the week, but that they had no obligation to indicate to us their intention to use a day of government time last Friday, as they did.
The House leader of the Liberal Party said he is opposed to the PetroCan privatization bill and that is fine, but the deliberate use of votes, delays-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Those are the rules of the House.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member says it is the rules of the House.
The deliberate use of votes, petitions and so on to prevent the schedule to proceed in an orderly fashion is regrettable because it makes life uncomfortable for both sides of the House. I do not see how the hon. House leader can get so outraged at our use of the rules of the House, while claiming he can do the same.
I again repeat that we serve the people of Canada better when we talk about these things. Every other legislative body in the world works with some form of usual channels. That has been our regular Tuesday afternoon meeting. We can meet and discuss the agenda for the week and operate however this House wants to operate. We do not have control of the House. We are forced to use the rules. All I ask is that the rules be used in an appropriate manner to serve the needs of Canadian public.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the remarks by the government House Leader are-I would not use the word intentionally because that would be a distortion of the facts-indeed somewhat misleading, in this sense: a motion for concurrence was put forward by the third party. I did not hear any objections coming from members opposite, particularly the House leader for the government or, indeed, his parliamentary secretary or, indeed, any minister of the Crown opposite. There was not a word of opposition. There was not one scintilla of a sentence put forward to express their disappointment or their disapproval as to what my colleagues in the New Democratic Party had done.
Second, with regard to the two votes which were exercised by the Official Opposition in terms of the introduction and first reading of the Petro-Canada bill,
Government Orders
members should know, both on this side as well as members opposite, that there has not been a practice in this House that on every bill which is introduced are there votes at first reading stage, but this particular bill is of such significance and importance to our party and to the people we represent that we wanted to register a very sincere and a very forceful protest with regard to the actions of the government. Mr. Speaker, if that is in any way contrary to the rules, I would hope that in your adjudication you would bring that to my attention and to the attention of my colleagues. But let it be understood, Mr. Speaker, that the government, by the incompetence of the House leader of the governing party, will now run the risk that on each and every bill, on each and every motion, and on everything that it wishes to do, we will have now to resort to numerous tactics in order to get the government back to the bargaining table to deal fairly and within the traditions of this House.


An hon. member:: Parliamentary war.


David Charles Dingwall: I find it totally unacceptable that the government House Leader would demonstrate those kinds of practices, as he has done here today.


An hon. member:: Shame.


David Charles Dingwall: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to conduct the business of the House as effectively and as efficiently as possible, consultations took place earlier today and, based on the Projected Order of Business, the government indicated that we would be debating Bill C-73, once we had concluded the business regarding Bill C-44. That is what the government said and that is what the Order Paper suggests will be the order and we assume that the government can be taken at its word, that when it says that that is what is going to happen, that that is going to be. Mr. Speaker, from now on, are we to conclude that what the government tells us earlier in the day will be the business may not be the business and that what the Order Paper tells us will be the business of the day, may not be the business? In other words, this is a government that cannot be trusted.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the point of order very long, but I do think it is necessary to make a couple of comments.

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
As one of those individuals who is involved daily and, in fact, hourly in the negotiations that go on to make this House run smoothly, I think all hon. members will know that my personal philosophy is that when members sit down to talk about their various agendas and concerns we somehow, together, negotiate a process that is acceptable to all of us in the House. That is the best way for the House of Commons to run. It is the best, in terms of ministers' use of their time and members' use of their time and, as a result of that, I think it is a better tone for the House.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what has been happening, over the last few days is that we have laid out what we had proposed as an agenda. We had discussed it with the Opposition. It was not set down as an edict from on high. In fact, I can personally say that on Friday I was very much left with the impression that we would proceed with the legislation that was put forward and discussed at the House leaders' meetings as well as discussions I had had with members privately. I had the same impression for yesterday. The House Leader has made a point, and he has made it on more than one occasion, that any time people are going to play a game, it is necessary that they all play by the same rules. Unfortunately in the analogy that he has used, what so often has been happening-it certainly has been demonstrated in the last couple of days-is that we as a government are supposed to play all our cards. Then the opposition will pick and choose which cards it wishes to play.
At best, I am a very amateur poker player. But I can tell you that any time I play poker I keep my cards to myself, unless there is some sort of arrangement made with the others. In fact, what happened is that yesterday and the day before, on Friday, essentially there were discussions going on, and the understanding changed. It was within the rules. I do not object to that. I have no problems with that.
If the members wish to play by the rules, we can play by the rules. What has happened here today is that the government has operated perfectly within the rules, but we have also tried to make a point. I think we have effectively made that point.
The point is this. We are quite happy to sit down any time, discuss, negotiate and co-operate. I think we have
developed a track record along those lines. Certainly, I have.
The point is this. We are prepared to do that. However, if it is only one side that is going to constantly be faced with the situation where it is to play by a certain set of rules and the others are not, then we want to announce very clearly that that kind of game will not work for any of us.
What we are best to do is to sit down, discuss, negotiate, and we have done it. The hon. members say: "Forget it". I wanted to make the offer. It is there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair is the servant of the House. We would be more than delighted to help the cause here.
We have now placed Bill C-74 on the table for debate. Therefore, I am calling for debate on Bill C-74. I am calling the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls on debate.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this bill which is presently before the House for second reading, debate in principle, is brought here by the Government of Canada because we have a serious problem in the fishery. That is why the bill is here.
This is a bill to impose penalties, mainly on Canadians, to send them to jail, to seize their property if they violate fishing regulations by the Government of Canada. That is what the purpose of the legislation is before us today.
We have a problem in the fishery and the Government of Canada is saying: "We are going to crack down on people who do not follow the rules in Canada". That would be fine and dandy. I would not have any objection to that at all if the Government of Canada were not bending over backward and giving away the entire fishing resource to foreign nations inside our 200 mile zone.
The parliamentary secretary is now saying: "Shame." Right now as I speak, there are 14 Canadians aboard 14 factory freezer trawlers belonging to the Soviet Union within our 200 mile zone off the northeast coast of Newfoundland in my riding.
There are three Japanese factory freezer trawlers with three Canadians aboard their vessels fishing within Canada's 200 mile zone. These 17 factory freezer trawlers that are floating fish plants are not little vessels 100 feet long. These are gigantic 300, 400 and 500 footers.
October 2, 1990

These are floating factories. That is why they are called factory freezer trawlers.
I mentioned the Canadians aboard these vessels because if it were not for those Canadians, I would not know that those foreign vessels were there. There was no public disclosure by the Government of Canada that 14 Soviet factory freezer trawlers would be fishing today in zone 3K and that there are three Japanese factory freezer trawlers fishing in zone 3K just off the coast, with Canadian fishermen looking out at these gigantic vessels. They can see them from their front door.
The Government of Canada brings legislation into the House of Commons. I do not suppose we can disagree with it. If a Newfoundlander or a Nova Scotian or a Quebecer or a New Brunswicker or a Prince Edward Islander or a British Columbian went out and violated an agreement-say he took something out of the water that he was not supposed to take-if he had a net out for codfish and a salmon came along and got caught in the leaders, which usually happens, and he takes that salmon aboard his vessel, if he does not throw it overboard dead, if he keeps it, then he can be charged under these new regulations with stiffer fines.
Fishermen are beginning to wise up to these licences that are granted by the Government of Canada. These foreign nations walk into an office in Halifax, Nova Scotia or St. John's, Newfoundland and over the counter they are given a licence for their vessel. They do not pay for it on the spot like Canadians do. They are billed later in the mail. They go out there in those massive vessels and destroy the fishing resource of Canada, using gear and machinery that is foreign to us because we have never got to the stage where we would have a gigantic vessel with gigantic gear all operated by computers in a control room, just like something out of outer space, this incredible machinery operated by these foreign nations. They go out and take a large net. By their computer on a screen there in front of them, they can tell if that is a capelin or a codfish or a salmon. They can tell all the different types of fish by their computer in front of them and where then to put the big, gigantic net out. There are rollers on the bottom. When it hits a piece of rock on
Government Orders
the bottom of the ocean, why that automatically goes up above that rock and goes on. It is an incredible technology. We do not have it.
There is only one factory freezer trawler or maybe there are two in Canada today owned by Canadians that I know of. I believe there are two licences, because we believe as Canadians that that is not the way to go. We believe, which is correct, that the best fish you can take out of the ocean is a fish that is caught by a fishermen in a small boat. He takes the fish over the side, bleeds it, and brings into shore for processing. That is the best fish you can take out of the ocean, Mr. Speaker. That is the best fish you can eat.
I would not eat, as a Newfoundlander, or somebody who knows something about the fishery, some of the fish that come out of these gigantic vessels. They are taken in, squashed altogether, almost like mush, cut and split by machines, frozen into big blocks, thawed out again, put into packages and sold to you. When compared to a codfish, or any type of fish that is caught by a fisherman in a small boat, with hook and line over the side or bait, those are the two best fish. A trap is when you have the fish alive and in an enclosed area; not gill-nets because gill-nets drown fish.
The point is that we have up to about 70 or 80 factory freezer trawler licences issued to foreign nations so far this year to fish as the Soviets are fishing capelin in 3-K. The Japanese are fishing redfish and ocean perch. They fish what we call turbot, which is a flatfish. It is all licensed by Canada now, all handed out over the counter by the Government of Canada. They fish turbot, which is a big flatfish. The only difference between a turbot and a different flatfish is that his eye is further up around his forehead. In other words, the normal flatfish has both eyes and the top of the turbot has one more or less in the centre, just so that you will understand the difference between a turbot and a normal flounder, Mr. Speaker.
Here they are getting licences for this fish. Why? The Government of Canada says that it is an underutilized species. If they were to say that on a wharf in eastern Canada, they would be thrown over the wharf. Fishermen rely on capelin. We had new regulations this year that limited entry into that fishery and that saw full-time fishermen thrown out of the fishery because the Govern-

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
ment of Canada brought in new regulations that there must now be three crew members and no new entrants.
They had a quota in 3K less than the Soviet Union has today in 3K licensed by the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada says but, you know, the Soviets are catching fish that are not spawning. Think that logic through, Mr. Speaker. What is the difference between catching a fish before it spawns, after it spawns, or while it spawns? If you catch the fish it cannot spawn, can it. Then the logic is used that turbot is underutilized. The entire what we call longliner fleet off the east coast of Canada has lived on turbot for years and decades. That is all they fish. Then the Government of Canada says: "Well, these big vessels are out in deep water". I know of a vessel in my riding that fishes 600 fathoms. You might be able to find deeper oceans around Europe somewhere, but we have always fished 400-450 fathoms with gill-nets for turbot. The Government of Canada does not know that. This year, for the first time in our history, we had allocations given to Bulgaria to fish mackerel in what is called 4VN which is around Cape Breton Island.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


George Baker: The hon. member from Cape Breton who just said "hear, hear" should listen to this one very carefully because it was not a good decision by the Government of Canada. Mackerel spawn in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around the coast of New Brunswick and the south shore of Quebec. For the first time we allowed foreign nations to come in with factory freezer trawler licences using these gigantic vessels to catch mackerel.
Canadians want to sell mackerel. Why should we bring in Bulgaria to catch mackerel? The Government of Canada says: "Well, we have come up with a deal. They can catch 5,000 tonnes of mackerel if they bring the next
1,000	tonnes ashore to be processed. Go out and catch another 5,000 tonnes and keep it for yourself. The next thousand tonnes, you bring ashore to be processed".


An hon. member:: Shame.


George Baker: Today there are four Canadian companies including Fisheries Products International that have hired the Norwegians. There are six Norwegian factory freezer trawlers today on the east coast of Canada catching fish, even in 2J. The term 2J probably does not mean much to you, Mr. Speaker, but 2J is a zone on the
southern Labrador coast that goes out for 200 miles. The other Canadian companies have been given permission now to fish their quota, to fish their Canadian quota, utilizing foreign vessels for the first time in our history this year. It was granted the other day, again without a public announcement, without public disclosure to the people of Canada, but we know it because there are observers aboard. These six Norwegian vessels will go up and catch turbot that is up in O, right at the top, and then 2G and 2H in the Hamilton Banks spawning area, and then down into 2J in northern Newfoundland.
We had all these problems of the northern cod, all of the fish plants that closed in eastern Canada because the northern cod stock was in serious trouble. For every single licence granted to those foreign nations today to catch turbot they have an approved by-catch of 10 and 15 per cent of cod.
That means they will put down the gigantic net to catch this flatfish. As you know, codfish operate in the same area as the flatfish, just above the bottom. If you were out jigging a codfish you would put the jigger right down to the bottom and then you would haul it in three lines. That is how far they operate above the bottom of the ocean.
They put out the net to catch the turbot and they bring it in. I have seen the licences. I have copies of the licences. I am not supposed to have them but, my goodness, when you have a government issuing licences like that they are sure to get to me eventually or to some member of the House. One Soviet licence I was looking at the other day had a 30 per cent by-catch approved under it.
In other words, for all of that underutilized species that is granted to those foreign nations they can catch 10 per cent or 15 per cent cod in with their catch. When the observer comes ashore in two weeks and says "they are catching 30 per cent by-catch; it is over the by-catch level," the government moves them two or three miles to the north, south, east, or west, and they keep doing it again.
The totality of the problem is this. We have more foreign vessels fishing inside Canada's 200-mile zone under what we call the offshore quota than we have
October 2, 1990

Canadian vessels licensed to fish inside Canada's 200-mile zone for what we call the offshore quota. Let me run that by you again, Mr. Speaker. We have more foreign factory freezer trawler licences issued in Canadian waters than we have of all the licences for all the ships that take part in the offshore quota in Canada.
These were the very vessels that served Canso, Nova Scotia and the south coast of Newfoundland. This was the reason for the closure of these fish plants. There was a cut in the offshore quota.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at it today and you see that there are more foreign licenses than Canadian licenses inside the 200-mile zone, then you ask: "Why do we have a 200-mile zone?" There is no such thing as foreign overfishing. It is just foreign fishing. They are not overfishing; they are fishing their quotas given by the Government of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


George Baker: How did they get the quotas? Some of them, I mentioned at the beginning, were not disclosed publicly, not announced under the groundfish plan like the 14 Russian factory freezer trawlers today that we can see off the coast of Newfoundland. I will tell you how they got them, Mr. Speaker. They got them through deals that were made. The Government of Canada told me the other day that it had given the Soviet Union 3,000 tonnes of cod in 3N and 30. It has asked the Soviet Union to give it back 2,000 tonnes, and in exchange it would give 20,000 tonnes of capelin in 3K and another
20.000	of something else off Nova Scotia with an approved buy catch of 10 per cent.
In other words, the Government of Canada one day gives the Soviet Union a quota of 3,000 tonnes and the next day turns around and says it will give 50,000 tonnes of something else if the Soviet Union will give us back
2.000	of the 3,000. This was not announced publicly.
Nobody would know anything about this situation today if it were not for people who are working in this country who have been looking at this situation too long and saying: "We're not going to put up with it. This is ridiculous". We would not know today that Canadian companies-perhaps it has never been mentioned publicly but I am going to do it-including Fisheries Products International have been given permission to utilize
Government Orders
foreign vessels to catch their quotas of turbot. This is the catch that we live on on the east coast of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating that I have only a minute left.
There is an expression in the rural areas of Newfoundland that states that right is right and wrong is no man's right. It is wrong for the Government of Canada to issue all of these licences today for foreign nations to fish inside of our 200-mile zone, then turn around in this Chamber and introduce legislation of increased penalties for Canadians because they are catching too many fish over their quota. That is wrong. Right is right and wrong is no man's right.
The Government of Canada has to face the facts if it wants to cure the fishing problems in this nation today. It will have to cancel all foreign licences within our 200-mile zone. If it does not, there will not be a fish left in the ocean. If it does, as the government decided the other day, allow Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels to catch their quotas, then we will not have a fisherman left in this country before long.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I only have ten minutes to comment on a number of the points my fellow Newfoundlander made. He obviously shares the concern of the government over the fishery. As usual, we have had a huge array of pieces of information, pieces of fact, pieces of observation, woven together to create a picture, but the problem we face is that a lot of the very critical information, unfortunately did not make it on to the floor of the House.
I wish to address a couple of things very quickly, if I may. First, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act provides for the same level, or in some cases higher levels, of fines for offences by foreign fishing vessels against the Canadian fishery. That act is already in place. We have substantially increased our surveillance. We spent a fortune increasing our surveillance. We have observer coverage and it will be increased. All foreign vessels carry observers so there is no question that vessels not carrying a Canadian flag who break the law stand a very good chance of being caught.
What my hon. friend talked about is the number of foreign vessels fishing inside Canadian waters. It is important to remember when my friend asks: "where did we get the 200-mile limit? Why have it?" that this

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
country under the former Liberal government decided it was important that we have a 200-mile limit. It was right. That economic zone is designed to protect the resources of the coastal country, but it only happens by consensus, and the basis of that consensus is that the resources not utilized are to be made available to other countries. If we don't or won't or can't catch the fish that is out there, it is incumbent upon us as our part of the deal to provide it to other countries. So when my friend talks about Norwegian vessels fishing turbot, he is absolutely right. It is important to recognize that that turbot is caught, as the hon. member has said, for instance, in 2GH.
The quota for Canadians in 1989 was 11,000 tonnes. Canadians caught 18 tonnes. Therefore, we are making it available to another country to catch that quota for us and we can put it through, as is the case in many of these instances, into Canadian fish plants. In this way, Canadian fish plant workers will have a job. Otherwise they would not be working, because as is clear by some of these quota numbers, the fishery is very tenuous. We do not have the equipment or are not willing to make the investment until we know more about it.
The hon. member talks about cod out of zone O. I stand to be corrected, but no cod was taken in some of those zones during the last three or four years despite a humongous quota. If it is fish that can be made available to Canadian fishermen, it will be. But if we can make a deal so that Canadian quotas can be caught by vessels that we do not have, and landed in Canadian plants, I say do it. The plant workers that I know would like to work. We do not want to make the fish available to others. It should be here for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, surely I have a couple of minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are a couple of other questioners too. If the hon. member would put a question, I would appreciate it. If there is time, I will come back for a supplementary. Would the hon. member like to put the question?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I am really here, Mr. Speaker, to make a comment. I know that my hon. friend will respond, he always does.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not allowed to fish inside the 200-mile zone of any other country in the world. We are not allowed to send our vessels to the coast of the Soviet Union. They have quotas inside of our zone. We do not have any inside theirs. We are not allowed. We would be arrested if we went inside any zone of any other country in the world.
The hon. member talks about having fish in a zone that is not caught. First of all, we have to realize that the scientists have not been very accurate in what stocks are where. Second, fish do not respect lines. They swim. They do not swim along the ocean and all of a sudden come to a line that says, "2G", then back up, turn around and say, "I cannot go across that line. Go down here and meet a line that says 2J". They then turn around and say, "I am boxed into this zone". That is what the Government of Canada is saying. There are fish that are boxed into this zone. They are not going to move from that zone.
We have fished in Canada in every zone that there is. There is a great population of fishermen that go up to these zones in northern Labrador and spend the summers there with their entire families; mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers and little children. They form communities for the entire summer along the coast of Labrador, but they come from Newfoundland. That is where they fish. The turbot stock off the coast of Labrador is the same stock as is off the coast of Newfoundland. There is only one stock of turbot on the entire east coast of Canada.
You cannot say: "It can be given away up there because nobody is fishing with big boats". So it can be given away.
That same fish moves. No other country in the world says: "We have fish that Canadians can fish if they want to." Yet we welcome foreign fishing vessels with open arms. We bend over backwards to all these nations, including France by the way. We bend over backwards, and we allow them to come in and to do with our fishery what they did with theirs, that is, destroy it.
They go on the spawning grounds with those big nets. As you know, Mr. Speaker, you should not disturb a fish during a spawning period. They come in and take the food of the codfish, salmon and everything else. Capelin is what the fish eat.

If you want to catch a lobster, you have to put fish in a lobster pack. It is one thing living off something else. When you allow those massive ships in from all those nations approved by the Government of Canada, they disturb the entire ocean floor. They are destroying the fishery of Canada.
The Government of Canada should be ashamed of itself for issuing these licences this year.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because we only have a few minutes left.
The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is always very entertaining. He has so many moves, I wonder if we should not dip him in batter and put him in the frying pan. He flounders and flits and flots around.
Certainly he represents the views of his riding well. I appreciate all the comments he has made, and his learned discussions to this House about the concerns and problems with the fisheries resource on the east coast.
My question to the hon. member relates specifically to Bill C-74, which we are debating this afternoon. The announcement by the government when it released the legislation talks about some of the proposed amendments.
Among them, the amendments are such to "provide greater deterrence for fishing violation, fish habitat offences and to strengthen the effectiveness of fishery management, including the collection of accurate fishing statistics."
Let us accept at face value that these words are true. How do you ensure that a government, like the members opposite, will actually implement legislation and see that the laws to protect fish habitat are followed? How do we guarantee that, when we know the record of the government opposite is far less than we would expect from a government. We demand much more.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member has a very good point, especially when you consider inland fisheries, the Guardian program and so on.
The point that we would make is this. It is fine to increase penalties if everybody is treated the same. If a Canadian goes out and catches more fish of a particular species in his incidental catch than he is allowed, under
this legislation he really gets jumped on. The penalties are increased.
However, if a vessel from a foreign nation goes out and does it, it is not penalized at all. It is just moved the next week. In other words, the Government of Canada says: "We will allow you to keep your by-catch which is more than that permitted under your licence because we have an observer aboard."
But a Canadian vessel that comes into port with some pollack that he was not licensed to catch as a by-catch, you throw him in jail. Because there was an observer aboard the foreign vessel and can keep an eye on things, the foreigners are excused.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, the unemployment rate is 15.7 per cent, almost twice the national average. The government's proposed reform to the unemployment insurance system will make life a lot more difficult for the unemployed in my riding.
Unfortunately, the government refused to introduce the variable entrance requirement, which would have brought the number of weeks required to obtain benefits down from 14 to 10.
The Conservative Government should not be affraid to give Canada's workers a decent unemployment insurance system.
I urge the government to completely revise its shortsighted reforms. And while we are waiting for the final verdict on Bill C-21, the government should table another bill to reinstate the variable entrance requirement as all previous governments have done.

October 2, 1990


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, now that the warriors at Oka have laid down their arms, I would like to pay tribute to the Canadian Armed Forces for their role in the restoration of law and order at Oka.
The Armed Forces were called in under the National Defence Act to assist the civil power when the situation became impossible for them to control. I commend the soldiers for their professionalism, discipline, and selfcontrol in the face of extraordinary provocation, exemplified by Private Patrick Cloutier-the young soldier who stood his ground coolly in the face-to-face challenge.
I also commend the government for remaining firm on the principle of the rule of law and its equal application to everyone in Canada and that one does not negotiate any issue at the point of a gun.
Now that the guns are down, I urge the government to do all in its power to do justice to our first citizens through the many concrete and comprehensive proposals mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech in the House on Tuesday, September 25.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, we all know sometimes that politics makes strange bedfellows and we know that applies to the Liberals and Conservatives. But in politics, it is important to define one's views and to choose one's political friends carefully.
What is the definition of a Tory according to Websters?
tory-(a hunter, applied to bogtrotters and outlaws.) 1. A name originally given to one of the numerous mosstroopers who, during the civil wars of the sixteenth century plundered people-
-they plundered people, Mr. Speaker-
-in the bogs of Ireland, being in arms nominally for the royal cause, but really to afford a colourable pretext for their own lawless proceedings.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada)):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six years the Government of Canada has been making appointments to boards and commissioners and whenever those appointees were either Liberals or New Democrats, they were met with deafening silence from the opposition benches. But let one Tory be appointed and we could count on the member for Kamloops to shout: "Bagmen, flacks, hacks." He did it so often that it could be counted on it as being an established principle of the opposition parties.
Now we have a brand, spanking new government in the province of Ontario. I would assume that it will adopt the principle which the member for Kamloops has established so clearly in the House. There will be not one NDP worker who has worked so hard for the establishment of an NDP regime in the province of Ontario, not one of them, will want to line up for an appointment. It will be only Liberals and Conservatives who will now qualify for appointments there, and if it does by mistake appoint a New Democrat, then I know the member for Kamloops is going to get up and talk about the hacks, flacks and bagmen in the province of Ontario.


THE LATE DANIEL MACDONALD
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember the passing of a dear friend and former member of the House, the Honourable Daniel "Dan" MacDonald.
Dan was a distinguished war veteran who lost both an arm and a leg in his service to Canada during the Second World War. But this did not slow him down. After the war he got married and started a successful farm.
In 1972 Dan was elected member of Parliament for Cardigan and was sworn in as Minister of Veterans Affairs. In this department Dan served with great distinction. As Minister of Veterans Affairs, Dan gave the department a human face, a face of compassion and understanding.
October 2, 1990

Daniel "Dan" MacDonald died on September 30, 1980. His service to his family and country was unyielding. As member of Parliament for Cardigan today I often hear people speak fondly of Dan.
To his wife, Pauline, and his seven children, I say that his example of service is one that is an inspiration to many. We will always remember him.


BILL C-43
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has stated that the new abortion legislation will not affect the relationship between a woman and her doctor.
Yesterday we learned that 200 doctors will no longer perform abortions in Canada once Bill C-43 imposes criminal sanctions on them. Today we find that Ontario doctors are trying to protect themselves by requiring a woman to sign, not only a normal medical consent, but also medical files confirming that she has considered all alternatives.
Women will have to endure forced life-style counselling.
Given these new impediments to choice, the Minister of Justice can no longer pretend that Bill C-43 does not restrict a woman's right to reproductive choice. We again call upon the minister to abandon a restrictive and unworkable abortion bill.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, today marks an historic event in the history of Europe and of the world-the reunification of Germany. In a sense, it marks the final end of World War II. We must put the past in the past but without forgetting.
It is with cautious optimism that one notes that this third unification of Germany has not been greeted with the same sense of national euphoria as on previous occasions.
This can also be a time for Canadians to reflect on the state of unity in this country, and to ask the simple question: What progress are we making toward Canadian unity? Members of the government might ask: What role am I playing toward the development of unity among
Canadians? Members opposite might ask how their approach to national issues contributes to national understanding and unity among Canadians. And members of the national media, especially the electronic media, should ask themselves if their approach to covering issues and informing Canadians is intended to foster unity or disunity in Canada, to create understanding or to confuse? Do they wish to contribute to bringing Canadians closer together, or to driving them apart.
We wish the German people well with their unification, but we must also think of our own country, Canada, and its need for unity.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, October 1 to 7 is National Family Week. This year's theme, "Sharing Family Traditions", is meant to reflect our multicultural identity as a nation and to encourage greater appreciation of our cultural differences as a people.
That the week commenced following the end of the United Nations World Summit for Children adds special meaning to this year's celebration since children are the corner-stone of any family.
Hence, I welcome the creation of a national children's bureau to help co-ordinate all federal policies dealing with children and ensure the need to respect children's special needs is recognized at all times.
As we express our feelings to our families, I remind the government that it abandoned its promise to double the number of day care spaces shortly before the 1988 election and abandoned its promise to create those spaces shortly after that election. I further remind the government that it promised nearly a year ago that a new child care program would be "in place, not promised, not progressing through Parliament, but in place" before the next election.
Since the government has deemed it timely now to create a children's bureau, I now challenge the government to deem it timely to introduce at once the long-awaited day care program so urgently needed by our children today.
As we celebrate this year's family week, let us remember that children continue to grow and they with their

October 2, 1990
parents cry out for the urgent attention of the government to create now a national day care program.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the conflict between the House of Commons and the Senate is confusing and offensive to my constituents and probably all Canadians.
What they should realize is that this debate is not over the concern or quality of the bills held up, such as the UI changes in Bill C-21, the tax back on large corporations in Bill C-28, or, of course, the GST in Bill C-62. No, it is purely politics.
In the late 1970s, the Liberal government twice introduced changes to the UI system and the Liberal Senate passed them in one day. The Conservative changes have now been held up in the Senate for 205 days with no sign of relief.
In the four years between 1980 to 1984, one bill each in two years was held up in the Senate for more than a month. However, in the last two years, 23 bills have taken longer than a month-some more than 200 days and again with no relief in sight.
Make no mistake about this, we are seeing politics at a very low level and it is no wonder Canadians are disillusioned about their politicians.


THE LATE ALICE PARIZEAU
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House today to the passing away of a great Quebecer, Alice Parizeau.
Mrs. Parizeau was 60 when she died, leaving behind an impressive literary legacy; works of fiction; scientific writings to help the world's children, who certainly need help, as we were reminded at the First World Summit for Children; and writings that reflect a commitment to the aspirations of the people of Quebec and also to her native Poland where she worked in the underground movement and was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp until her release in 1945.
Alice Parizeau was always actively involved in the Comite d'aide a la Pologne to help her compatriots.
The Polish community, in recognition of the work done by this great Quebecer, will be represented at her funeral tomorrow by the President of the Canadian Polish Congress, Mr. George Rawiez.
Quebec mourns a great lady, a great writer and a great Quebecer. A brilliant exponent of modem Quebec, both in her literary work and her commitment, she is a symbol of todays openness, energy and confidence.
To those in the House who would like to join us in expressing their sympathy, we suggest making a contribution to the Borowa Wies Fund.
Borowa Wies is a small Polish community near Katowice, where a rehabilitation centre is being built for about 100 handicapped children and young people who will leam all about working on a farm.
It will come as no surprise that Alice Parizeau wanted to further the cause of Poland, even after her death.


THE SENATE
Guy St-Julien: On June 4 last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York Centre said in the House that "nowhere is there more dissatisfaction than there is with the place of the Senate in the Constitution of Canada".
He went on to say: "I do not like to admit it but the Liberals were defeated in the last election. Our basic principle is democracy. We have to accept the will of the people. It is not for the Senate, although controlled by a majority of Liberal members, to contradict the result of the last election".
Mr. Speaker, why does he not explain that to his leader and to the democracy-gashing senators?


HOUSING
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the lack of affordable housing in the country has forced over 600,000 households to spend more than 50 per cent of their income to pay for shelter. The government's refusal to promote the construction of affordable hous-
October 2, 1990

ing amounts to 1.4 million Canadians living in inadequate housing, more than 566,000 of whom are children.
Over a half a million Canadian children are spending their childhood in inadequate housing and forced to stand in line at the food bank because the rent used up most of their families' incomes.
The United Nations met in New York on September 29 and 30 for the World Summit for Children to discuss the welfare of children around the world.
Canadians must have compassion for all children, but we must never forget the children growing up in poverty and desperation in our country. The government, as its first order of business, must commit itself to adequate and affordable housing, right now.


THE LATE DR. NGUYEN NGOC HUY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, with much sadness, I would report the passing of the much loved Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Huy in July in Paris. Over half a century, he became a giant among those in the world seeking an independent and democratic Vietnam, so much so that he earned the title, "the Gandhi of Vietnam".
He founded that country's New Nationalist Party in 1965 and the Nationalist Progressive Movement in 1969 whose goals were fundamental human rights and a more liberal national policy. He was a member of the South Vietnamese delegation to the Paris peace talks.
Since the fall of Vietnam, Dr. Huy has worked at the Harvard Law School on the legal history of Vietnam and China. He was an honorary member of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam, a scholar, a scientist, a speaker of simple and easy-going style, and a prolific writer with many short essays, books and poetry.
His death leaves behind him several unfinished projects, among them, "a free and prosperous Vietnam". No one has worked longer or more diligently in the cause than he. He will be greatly missed.
5. O. 31 BILL C-21


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Family Week, a time when new mothers and, for the first time, new fathers in Canada should be enjoying the benefits of the new unemployment insurance legislation. This bill would allow for up to 30 weeks, during which both mothers and fathers could participate in the nurturing of their newborn children. This progressive bill clearly supports our nation's families.
The unaccountable Liberal members of the Senate are blocking this much needed family legislation. The irresponsible, uncaring actions of these Liberal senators are also preventing thousands of families in areas of extreme unemployment from receiving much needed unemployment benefits.
In the House we are celebrating the week of the family. Perhaps members opposite can implore their leaders in the other place to join us and allow this legislation which supports families to pass.


LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader in absentia seems to have a serious credibility problem. Some would even say a credibility gap. It all started when Jean Chretien's advice to Canadians after the failed Meech Lake Accord was to take the summer off and, just like the Prime Minister, he did. He was nowhere to be found when events at Oka and the Persian Gulf heated up. When he finally surfaced and was asked about the constitutional implications of swamping the Senate, his response was a mind-boggling "I am not a lawyer". His former clients at the law firm of Lang, Michener, Lawrence and Shaw will be surprised with this news.
Interviewed last week about his absence, Chretien stated that he had toured Canada three times in the last two months and, if the third time you go to Flin Flon, Manitoba, it is no longer fun.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has not been to Flin Flon three times in the last few months. According to Flin Flon residents, he has not been to Flin Flon three times in his life. And he was not there once this summer.

October 2, 1990
Oral Questions
Not only does Flin Flon deserve an apology but the Liberal leader must start telling the truth. Can Canadians ever expect open and honest leadership from a politician who forgets his own profession-


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that the composite leading indicator, a measure of how the economy is expected to perform, is down for the sixth month in a row. In releasing this information, Statistics Canada said: "In the past, six straight declines have always been accompanied by a recession in the economy."
I ask the Prime Minister if he and his government agree with their own statistical agency which is indicating a recession and will he admit that this recession is a direct result of his government's own misguided economic policies?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is taking a very short time frame when he asks the question.
He neglects to say that over a period of seven and a half years we have had extremely strong growth in the economy and that led to an overheating in the economy. It is a natural phenomena that when the economy overheats, it has to slow down. We are in that period of slowdown right now because it is important to get the inflationary pressures out of the system so we can get interest rates down, get ourselves back on to a track of non-inflationary growth so we can have another long session of strong growth as we have had during the course of most of the 1980s.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to avoid and evade accepting the facts that his and his government's and economic policies are creating a recession in this country.
I would like to ask, particularly, why the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are trying at this point in time, while we are in a recessionary period by his own admission, to force on Canadians the horrendous goods and services tax, a tax which Canadians say is the wrong tax at the wrong time, especially now if we are entering into, if we are not already in, a serious recession.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of members opposite that 13 years ago Jean Chretien said this: "It worries me that serious structural problems have been identified in the manufacturers' sales tax. These problem areas in the law cannot be tolerated indefinitely". In fact, they were not tolerated indefinitely because in 1981 Allan MacEa-chen, then Minister of Finance said: "The federal sales tax which is imposed at the manufacturers' level suffers from a number of structural defects" and then went on to show how it hurts exporters and favours importers.
Mr. Speaker, members opposite say they know that. If they know that, why are they resisting a change from a sales tax which needs to be changed to one which will address those problems? The only answer that I can give is that it is pure partisan politics, that when they are in government, they-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the twisted logic of this government that it wants to replace a tax with problems with a tax with even more problems with a tax that is even worse.

Why does the minister refuse to face reality as interest rates soar, as our over-valued dollar chokes our exporters, as the bankruptcy rate gains momentum, and as the statisticians of his own government now point to a recession? Why is the government standing still instead of stopping the recession which threatens our economy, and why is the government bent on imposing its GST which, given the prevailing context, will make the situation even worse and cause untold harm to the Canadian economy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about twisted logic. Let me ask him to consider the twist in this logic. Senator MacEachen in 1985 said: "I think if we did
October 2, 1990

amend the bill in any serious way, or if we defeated it, I think that it would be quite arrogant".
Senator Frith about the goods and services tax: "We oppose the principle of the bill and we do not intend to unduly delay it". Now he is saying they are going to kill it.
Senator Hebert on Bill C-55: "The non-elected representatives should give way to the elected representatives, leaving the people the choice to elect another government". If there is any twisted logic, it is the logic in the other place, supported by the Liberals in this House who are saying: "We don't like this bill. We want to see the Senate kill it".


Mr. Duhamel:: Call an election.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: But, they are saying: "We support the supremacy of the House of Commons". You cannot have it both ways.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the latest horror story caused by his department's multi-million-dollar misinformation campaign on the GST.
In the latest example which is now in all the newspapers, Air Canada, the nation's largest airline, indicated to a consumer last week that it had an obligation to collect in advance the 7 per cent GST on travel that will not take place until next year, and indeed, that if the consumer refused he or she would see the reservations cancelled.
My question is this. Will the minister order his department today to notify all the businesses in Canada that they do not have either a legal obligation or the right to demand prepayment on a tax which is not yet law in the country?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: No,
Mr. Speaker, because I did that on August 9, 1990.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister who supposedly is responsible to protect the rights of consumers across the country.
Oral Questions
My question is this. How could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs possibly have sat at the cabinet table and endorsed the multi-million-dollar propaganda campaign that has now caused havoc and confusion for consumers from coast to coast to coast in this country, and what steps will he take today to inform Canadian consumers of their right to just say no to the advance collection of the 7 per cent goods and services tax?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as I just pointed out, on August 9, 1990, we advised Canadians by way of a backgrounder and transitional rules and press releases. We have continued to do that and I made it very clear last week when I stated that no consumer is obligated to pay the GST prior to January 1, 1991, and no business is obligated to collect it prior to January 1, 1991, but businesses will be accountable for any GST that straddles the date from September 1 to the implementation on January 1, 1991. If the hon. member is so interested in the GST, I suggest to him that instead of trying to confuse the public with irresponsible questions of this nature, he go to the other place and make sure it stops hijacking democracy. That is what he should do.


THE SENATE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Despite the justice minister's assurances yesterday, there still appears to be a great deal of concern that the government, in its haste to ram through the GST, may indeed have made a very serious error in appointing the eleventh senator from New Brunswick.
As the Prime Minister knows, the stacking provision that he used, which allows for either eight senators to be appointed or four senators to be appointed, that the four appointments, had he done so, would have required one maritime senator while eight appointments would have allowed for two.
The Prime Minister will know that there was only one extra maritime seat available for the Senate without disrupting the balance between the Senate and the House of Commons. With only one maritime seat available, the Prime Minister was limited to the appointment of four new senators.

October 2, 1990
Oral Questions
I ask the Prime Minister: Is the fact that he refuses to make a referral to the Supreme Court on this issue simply because he is afraid that he will not be able to continue to ram through the GST?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows full well that the government has received the full assurances of the senior legal advisers of the Crown, that all the actions that we have taken have been pursuant to the statutes, convention and appropriate custom.
If my hon. friend has any trouble with that, then I know that she or some other member of her party will feel free to contest it before the appropriate courts.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, a good many people are worried because they wonder whether the steps taken by this government to ram the GST through might not undermine the legitimacy of all proceedings in the Senate and in the House.
A parliamentary institution whose membership is contested might prompt a court to rule against the validity of any legislation adopted by this Parliament.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Can he table in the House the opinions of his advisers which, he feels, justify his inaction?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I already gave a general answer to the question of my hon. friend. I am surprised to hear her state that many Canadians are concerned and wonder whether we are casting doubt on the Senate proceedings. I would suggest that many people would indeed question the approach of Liberal senators, including their most recent effort which resulted in Liberal senators giving themselves $153 a day simply to report for work.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
The Canadian people have a right to know whether the actions that this government has taken in reference to the Senate are legal and will not be challenged, and that the actions that it has taken are based in law.
The Prime Minister has not agreed today to table the expert opinions on which he says he has based his actions.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to withdraw the tax, which would be the honourable thing to do, will the Prime Minister table the opinions of the legal experts upon which he has based his opinion?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to my hon. friend that the Government of Canada has acted pursuant to legal advice received from the law officers of the Crown.
We have respected both the constitutional provisions and customs that apply. If my hon. friend or anyone else has any difficulty with that, then of course they will avail themselves of all the provisions of access to the courts.
Inasmuch as my friend is the leader of the NDP, I thought she would be interested in paying heed to the comments of one of Canada's most distinguished NDPers who said on Canada AM-


An hon. member:: It is old.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is new. I am not going to quote Stephen Lewis. I will quote Gerry Caplan who said:
It is creating-
This is the NDP now.
-a terrible, terrible precedent, that one day the rest of us will rue, for these Liberal senators to say that they have the right to stop the functioning of the elected government.
Listen to the people and listen to Gerry.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend our Prime Minister led world leaders in New York in a chorus of Save the Children.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.

Oral Questions


Diane Marleau: Meanwhile, here in Canada his government seeks to impose a GST which will tax children-


Some hon. members:: : Oh, oh.


Diane Marleau: Their clothing, their boots, even the heat that keeps them alive in the wintertime. Will the Prime Minister, for the sake of Canada's children, today withdraw the goods and services tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that I expected from the Liberals-and I know that they have difficulty in resisting partisan cheap shots-is that they should have left the children out of this particular fight because-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the summit dealt with the world's neediest children and I would have thought that the Liberals would, for once, have the decency to stand up and applaud a measure in favour of the world's children that goes much beyond partisan politics.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You know that, Paul. You know it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The New York Times, Mr. Speaker, reported yesterday that:
Leaders from more than 70 nations came together here today in an extraordinary show of concern for the world's poorest children. The Declaration of the World's Summit for Children pledged the participating nations to work together in an effort to save the lives of at least a third of the 14 million infants who now die each year before the age of five.
This is an enormous human tragedy, particularly visited upon the poorest of the poor nations of the third and developing worlds.
I know that all members of the House support the Government of Canada in its attempt to help in that particular area.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Even in Canada we have poor children. Do we want to create more?
On Sunday in New York the Prime Minister said: "The World Summit for Children has galvanized political will to help children".

Is the Prime Minister prepared to show that he has the political will to protect Canadian children? Charity begins at home. Is he prepared to scrap the GST today?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Government of Canada has shown political will in taking some 260,000 Canadian children out of poverty since coming to office.
Additionally, the hon. member refers to the goods and services tax. The Liberal members opposite, if they are honest, must recognize the fact that families earning less than $30,000 a year are ahead with the GST. It is time that they were honest with Canadians in recognizing that fact.


GST ON CHILDREN'S BOOKS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the minister responsible for children has the necessary authority to implement policies that provide for the mental and physical health of our children. As an initial official gesture, will the minister explain to the Minister of Finance that the mental development of children is not the unique preserve of schools and libraries but is also and above all a matter for the home, and that parents would rather buy books for their children? Could the minister responsible for the mental and physical health of our children explain this to his colleagues and have books exempted from the GST?

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the hon. member's question as to whether or not I have the powers that are necessary to enable me to serve the children of Canada, the answer is yes. I am very, very pleased to say that the Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate on behalf of the Government of Canada the response to the World Summit. We have acted immediately by creating a children's bureau in the Department of National Health and Welfare.

October 2, 1990
Oral Questions
I was delighted to see the op-ed piece in the Montreal Gazette today by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wherein he endorsed the idea. I am pleased to say that we acted upon it even before the hon. member could get his article published.
In so far as tax on reading material is concerned, the hon. member yesterday was arguing that it was discriminatory against poorer people. Keeping in mind the fact that families earning less than $30,000 will be ahead of the game with the GST, the GST will be beneficial to those people and make it easier for them to be able to cover the cost. By arguing that we should stick with the iniquitous and unfair manufacturers' sales tax, the Liberal Party would seek to penalize poorer Canadians.


Sheila Finestone: Come on, that is just nonsense. Stop talking, stop lecturing. I think the minister should stop lecturing and start listening. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians said that they do not want books taxed.
As the government tries to move to its good news, good bear, jolly news agenda, will the minister for children bring children good news, withdraw the very negative tax on books, and make them accessible to all levels of society?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks that I stop lecturing. I might put the same suggestion back to her.
I might also suggest to her that if she is concerned about Canada's children, it is time to lift the Liberal barricade in the Senate and pass parental leave benefits that are being stalled by the Liberals in the Senate.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Prime Minister signed another statement in support of children's rights, and a year ago his government supported the goal of eliminating child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Last weekend also the Prime Minister said that it was political will more than money which is the decisive factor in the war on child suffering.
It is fine for the Prime Minister to posture on the world stage, but here in Canada his government has capped the Canada Assistance Plan, clawed back family
allowance, and cut funding to the provinces for health and post-secondary education.
If the Prime Minister truly wants to help Canada's children, will he promise this House today that he will ensure that this legislation which impacts so negatively on Canada's one million poor children will be scrapped immediately?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians have a right to be tremendously proud of the leadership that has been shown by Canada and by the Prime Minister of Canada on the international scene.
Let me simply recall for the benefit of the House what it was said last night by Sahira Piracha, the children of Canada's representative on the Canadian delegation to New York. She said: "To tell you the truth, I was optimistic going into it and being there. I can honestly say that I have come back and I am very proud that Canada took the initiative to co-chair the summit and I couldn't even think of the words to explain how Mr. Prime Minister represented us. He did just a wonderful job".
That is the case. The children of Canada and those people who attended the international summit have tremendous pride in what has been achieved by Canada. They recognize the fact as well that under the leadership of this Prime Minister we have reduced child poverty in Canada by over a quarter of a million and that we are determined to carry on until child poverty is eliminated in Canada.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, Canada has become a world leader with a million children hungry and the number of children at food banks increasing day by day. If that is the sort of leadership this Prime Minister is giving, I do not think Canadian children need it. It is time that the Prime Minister responded to his critics and not let his ministers do it. He is speaking on the world stage for Canada. It is time he fessed up to those criticisms.
Bill C-69, which puts a cap on CAP, limits the number of child care spaces available, and limits transfers to the provinces, is in direct violation of articles 24 and 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that he says he wants to ratify. If he is so committed to ratifying this

convention, will he withdraw Bill C-69 from the Senate today?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's credentials to give legal opinions are about comparable to mine. I do not know what sort of legal advice he got with regard to the provision of the convention if he says that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that that is the case.
What I can indicate to the hon. member is that significant progress has been made with regard to child care under this government. Almost $1 billion is being spent each year on child care in Canada by the federal government, a significant increase since we came to office. We are committed to having a full program in place during the life of this Parliament. There would have been one in place by now if it had not been for the Liberal senators.
Finally, when the hon. member talks about provisions relating to children, it should be kept in mind that this socialist party is the one that takes the position that family benefits should be provided to rich families instead of being concentrated for poorer families. The vast majority of Canadians disagree with his party on that.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who is now fully aware that Peter Lush received a $400,000 commission on the sale of land to the harbour commission of which he is chairman. The minister is also probably aware of the Prime Minister's own conflict of interest guidelines which say, and I quote: "Public office holders shall not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit".
Given that Mr. Lush personally negotiated first and then accepted a $400,000 payment as a commission contingent upon the sale of the land to the harbour commission of which he is chairman, will the minister now relieve the harbour commissioner of his duties?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a letter, which I received this after-
Oral Questions
noon. It is addressed to me as Minister of Transport. It reads:
Dear Sir:
It is with regret and personal reluctance that I tender my resignation to you as Chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
In undertaking my duties with the Hamilton Harbour Commission I have sought the best available advice, including a legal opinion, as to how I might strictly follow all relevant guidelines. As I have repeatedly said, I believe that I have always maintained an appropriate separation between my public and private activities. However, with the recent allegations made against me, it is clear that both my own reputation and that of the Harbour Commission will be subject to continued assault. I am not willing to subject the Harbour Commission to this situation.
Minister, in stepping down from the Commission, I would ask that you move as soon as possible to establish an independent review of these circumstances in order to set the record straight. I would welcome such a review and assure you that I will co-operate in every way possible.
I want to thank you, Minister, for the honour of serving on the Commission and I look forward to having this matter resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I will be naming an independent law firm to conduct this review, in the very near future.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport said: "I bet the allegations are untrue". Well, he lost the bet. What was the wager? What is this minister now going to do? He says he is going to set up an inquiry by a law firm.
We want to know, is the bet, first, a return of the $400,000 commission to the Canadian taxpayer? Is it, second, an independent audit and impartial inquiry into this entire matter or is it, third, the resignation of the Minister of Transport who did not know what was going on in his department six months ago when I raised this issue?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in relation to six months ago, my hon. friend raised a different issue at that time vis-a-vis conflict of interest. At that time the following took place. Mr. Lush wrote to me and said:
I have taken the appropriate steps to dissociate my group of companies as to any consulting, planning, engineering, marketing and/or agency relationship with the J. I. Case lands in Hamilton as from March 13, 1990, until such time as the Case company and the Harbour Commission have finalized one way or another, any purchase and sales arrangements on their surplus lands-

Oral Questions
On March 14, my hon. friend is quoted in the Hamilton Spectator as saying: "I am satisfied with that. I can live with it. I think this whole thing-".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ms. Copps:: He took the money and ran.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, while we on this side of the House welcome the justified resignation of Mr. Lush, we do not condone the stonewalling of this government and this minister, because in a parliamentary democracy there is something called ministerial responsibility and ministerial accountability. This minister only muddied the waters of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Lush has resigned, we would like to ask the minister if he is prepared, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, first, to recoup the $400,000 that has gone into his pocket and, second, order a full and impartial inquiry. We do not want an inquiry through a law firm, but a full impartial inquiry that would allow the subpoena of witnesses so that we can get to the bottom of this.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome my hon. friend to his duties as transport critic. I am sure that once we put this behind us we will be able to get on with more constructive matters.
My hon. friend referred to some traditions. I think one of the most basic traditions in this country is that people are innocent until found guilty. That is a tradition to which we all should pay attention. I suggested that I will be naming an independent law firm to review this matter. When that report is ready, it will be made public.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, when is enough enough? We advised the minister six months ago. The facts are simple. On August 3, 1990 the Hamilton Harbour Commission paid J. I. Case $10 million. On the same day Mr. Lush received $400,000 from J. I. Case.
The Prime Minister has advocated these conflict of interest guidelines, not only to the country but to the world. In light of the accusations and in light of the facts, is he not prepared to have a full and impartial inquiry that will allow a full public airing, not only of this issue
but to ascertain if any other illegal transactions have gone on in the harbour?


Mr. McDermid:: Make those accusations outside the House.


Mr. Speaker:: There are certain fundamentals that we have to take into account during Question Period, and one of them is one I have had to remark on in the past. For the most part I must say the hon. member has respected it.
A question put in such a way that it carries an allegation of wrongdoing is wrong. I am not going to define the wrongdoing. I am just saying it is wrong, because first of all it cannot be answered. Second, it is done without any basis of fact.
There is a way to make an allegation in this Chamber. It is formal and it requires facts.
The questions on this matter that I have allowed both yesterday and today have for the most part been dealing with facts that are out in the open. It is not for me to say whether there is or is not a conflict of interest.
In any event, there are certain facts from which it might be argued that there is or is not a conflict of interest. That is one thing. But suggestions that there is something else going on here, without any basis for saying it, is not appropriate.
I know the hon. member, who feels very strongly about this issue and is pursuing it, would understand that there have to be guidelines, especially when we are talking about accusations or allegations about somebody who is not here and without a basis upon which a charge can be made.
It is a very serious matter. I do not want to overdo my intervention, but I know hon. members will understand what I am saying.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is very simple. Will he agree to order a full, impartial public inquiry so that all the facts may be known and then dealt with?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you, Sir, on the way you laid out the rights of an individual in this country to a trial by a court or an appropriate authority, and not a trial by allegation on the floor of this House of Commons.
October 2, 1990

The individual in question has asked for an independent review. I am in the process of ordering that independent review. I have offered to make the results of that independent review public and I undertake to do so.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs).
The United Nations affirms "the inalienable right of all countries to exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources in the interests of their national development".
However, Canada signed away most of that right with the free trade deal. Now this government is proposing to sell off Petro-Canada, our last major public policy tool for spurring Canadianization, energy security, energy diversity and conservation.
Why is this government so determined to turn the energy fate of Canadians over to an industry dominated by foreign multinationals that could not give a tinker's damn for the interests of ordinary Canadians?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the point that has to be made is that we have a varied energy supply in Canada ranging all the way from thermal, coal, natural gas, and including nuclear in the province of Ontario where it gets over 50 per cent of its electricity on a competitive basis, on into oil and oil products. At the present time we have a surplus which we sell at approximately 275,000 barrels a day.
If one looks at the work of the International Energy Agency, at countries which are not in a self-sufficient position in oil and are asked to put in strategic reserves, Canada has been exempted from that for the very reason because, with the market driven approach that we have taken, we are not not in the position which other countries find themselves in, but are in the enviable position of increasing our reserves. As well, we have increased the amount of oil available to us and to legitimate customers.
Oral Questions


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Yankee Doodle dandy over there. The bill introduced yesterday-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


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


Ross Harvey: The bill introduced yesterday provides for ownership percentages, languages used by the corporation, head office location, control of upstream and downstream assets, but no green provisions whatsoever.
Why are there no provisions requiring Petro-Canada to lead the way in recycling used engine oil, to set up capture stations for ozone destroying CFCs, to provide propane and compressed natural gas pumps at service stations, and to provide ethanol fuel blends?
Why has this government completely ignored all environmental considerations in its privatization legislation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has mentioned the matter of alternate fuels and I draw his attention to the increased emission standards in California. Other than suspended particulates, Canada has already met those standards.
The point that I make is this. In Canada at the present time we have substantially more cars or vehicles on propane or natural gas than California, plus the transit system in California is quite different from that in Canada.
I would suggest that he take a look at what has been done with alternative fuels. We are well ahead in many areas, even those he purports to put forward here-even though he does not like anything about the United States except when he can use standards which he thinks for the moment suit his purposes.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It also concerns the Lush affair. Because the Prime Minister is solely responsible for the conflict of interest code of his government, will he commence immediate action to recover the $400,000 paid to Mr. Lush while he was

October 2, 1990
Points of Order
the chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission? Yes or no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend surprises me. Questions have been raised. The Speaker quite properly admonished all members to proceed with great care when the reputations of individuals are involved.
The question just put presupposes that that amount of money improperly found itself into the hands of Mr. Lush. It presupposes a violation of guidelines, and it presupposes some degree of illegality, against which the Speaker has just admonished the member.
With respect, I say this to the hon. member-


Mr. Foster:: Why did he resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My Liberal friend says: "Why did he resign?" That is alien to a Liberal but he resigned because he wanted his reputation cleared. That is exactly what an independent agent proposes to do.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister could complete his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The minister has fully responded and indicated an appropriate course of action. I would have thought that my hon. friend and his Liberal colleagues would have learned over the last three or four years that the rat pack philosophy leads to certain defeat. You are at it again, and you are going to be defeated again.


An hon. member:: That's the big rat talking over there.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the following supplementary for the Prime Minister who seems to think that the whole issue is so straightforward. I would like to ask him why the government has appointed a law firm to examine the issue of privately. Why not have a public judicial investigation of this matter right away? What is the government trying to hide?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the individual in question has resigned because of the continued assault
on the Hamilton Harbour Commission. He says he is not willing to subject the Harbour Commission to this situation.
There will be an independent review by an independent law firm. The results will be made public and I will make it public in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill on a
single question, please.


INCOME TAX
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
For a year, the minister has had in his hands the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas. Yet, because of his inaction, employers, employees, and their families face 1991 with uncertainty.
Will the minister denounce the acknowledged shallow findings of the ask force and bring in a system of fair taxation for all northern residents?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is well aware that we have tried to broaden the benefits under the northern and isolated post benefit provisions so that more people can be beneficiaries of this. We are trying to do this in as fair a way as possible.
The hon. member is very well aware that this is a complex issue. It took well over a year for the task force to come to its conclusions. There have been some difficulties with these conclusions that we are trying to work our way through. As soon as I am able to provide a decision to the House, I will announce it.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Transport would be so kind as to table in the House the documents to which he referred today. I am talking about all of the documents that he referred to, not just one. I think he referred to several.

Second, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from an hon. member on this side, the Prime Minister made reference to a $153 allowance which was made by the other place. It should be noted that, at page 1835 of Hansard of the other place, the motion for the increase was moved by the former Conservative Deputy Premier of Newfoundland, now Senator, William Doody. The Prime Minister should be correct in his facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. minister rising on the same point?


Philip Derek Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker. There has been a request that I table the letter from which I read and naturally I am pleased to do so.



['Perhaps after the hon. member has seen Hansard it may or may not be necessary to pursue the matter any further. In any event, I would ask hon. members not to pursue it any further, especially because the hon. member for Hamilton East is not here. If the matter should be pursued further, I will of course receive a notice of a question of privilege and it will be heard some time tomorrow.\nOrders of the day.']
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I have wanted to ask a question today and other days. It seems that the supporters of the government do not have many opportunities to ask questions, even though we have more members than the opposition. This is one way we have of doing our job and fighting for our constituents.
I wonder if Mr. Speaker could clarify the rules on what we can expect in the way of questions for members of the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member was seeking the floor and there were others who were seeking the floor. I have indicated to the hon. member that if he rises tomorrow I will remember that he was rising today.
I have 45 minutes. There is a lot of contest in the Chamber now for questions and I do the best I can.
What hon. members will notice is that if the hon. member and maybe somebody else were not recognized today-watch it day after day. I am trying very hard to even it out. It is not an easy task and I ask hon. members' co-operation.
I know that the hon. member has an important matter and I know that when the hon. member cannot rise, it makes it difficult, especially with respect to serving his own constituents. I am very aware of that.
The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Points of Order REMARKS BY SENATOR


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very serious matter, a matter that has just been brought to my attention, and one which I believe is deserving of your attention, as well as attention of all hon. members of the House.
The issue that I am about to raise , I believe, not only affects the privileges of the members of the House of Commons and are comments that I find most offensive and disturbing. More importantly, what I am going to raise, I believe, strikes at the very fundamental pillars of our parliamentary democracy and that is, namely, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.
I refer to an interview that was carried by TVA-CHOT, on September 30, at 7.30, involving Jean-Pierre Ferland and Pierre Nadeau who were interviewing Senator Jacques Hebert. The interview was conducted in French and I will translate it into English. It was an interview about the current issues of the day in Parliament and indeed, the GST. Senator Hebert is quoted as follows:


Sheila Maureen Copps: He doesn't dare speak French.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is right, Mr. Speaker, I do not speak French and it is one of the misfortunes of my life and I regret it very much.
The quote is as follows: "We have a perfect right to amend it", namely, the provision before the Senate, "which would have been impotent because it is too bad a law, or to block it, which we intended to do until Mr. Mulroney went to bribe the Queen." In other words, the words that were used were: "soudoyer la reine". I looked in the dictionary to try to define the word soudoyer, and it means to hire, to hire an assassin, or to have in one's pay or to bribe.
I firmly believe that these comments constitute an unfounded and unwarranted and indeed, a scurrilous and shocking attack against the Queen of Canada, not to mention a scurrilous attack against the Prime Minister of Canada. I am sure and I would hope that in the best interests of our parliamentary traditions, and I know that this is raised-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Deputy Prime Minister would want to assist the House and the Speaker, but I am finding some difficulty in finding exactly what relief the hon. minister is asking for or whether I am in a

October 2, 1990
Points of Order
position to give it. I wonder if the hon. minister could wrap up.his remarks very quickly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What I do propose to put to the House and seek the unanimous consent of the House to put is an appropriate motion, but I think it is important for me, before I put the motion, to explain precisely what we are trying to do.
If we are interested in preserving the traditions of the House, in preserving the long-standing parliamentary practice which is a practice and a tradition not only upheld in the House of Commons but indeed in the Senate, we have to deal with these kinds of situations. To cast a reflection against the Queen of Canada is a serious violation-


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Deputy Prime Minister's point. My difficulty is procedural. If the hon. Deputy Prime Minister is rising and seeks the consent of the House to put this matter to the House, it may well be that that consent would be given, or it may well be that the consent would not be given. The matter is now moving beyond just a point of order or just seeking the opinion of the House.
I see other hon. members wanting to rise on this matter. What seems to be the situation at the moment is the hon. Deputy Prime Minister is seeking some kind of unanimous support from the House with respect to this complaint.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant attack on Her Majesty the Queen of Canada and I, as President of the Privy Council, will not stand idly by and see that happen.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Therefore, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That this House, as one of the constituent-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If I could have order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister is asking the consent of the House. Would he please put his motion?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am asking the consent of the House to move the following motion:
That this House, as one of the constituent elements of Parliament together with the Senate and the Crown, hereby condemns the disrespect for the dignity and authority of Parliament and the scandalous and unfounded allegations made by Senator Jacques Hebert during an interview on the TVA network on September 30th, 1990.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister started his comments by saying that the matter was an important one and affected the privileges of the members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, our privileges have been affected only by the fact that the Minister took the time of the House to table a motion we consider entirely unacceptable in this House.
It is unacceptable in the context of this House, and second, Mr. Speaker, only a government that is pretty desperate would waste the time of the House with a proposal as inappropriate-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor and I know that hon. members will give him the courtesy of listening to his remarks. The hon. member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, none of the privileges of any member of this House were affected by the comments made by Senator Jacques Hebert, either directly or indirectly, not even those of the royalist Minister of Communications.
Mr. Speaker, we believe this motion comes at a time when it is very convenient for the government to use the Senate to do its dirty work in this House.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the government has no reason to raise a question of privilege when in fact, nothing the senator said affects the privileges of this House.
I listened to you, now you are going to listen to me!
October 2, 1990

Mr. Speaker, the minister rose on a point of order. He used the time he was allowed to present a motion which, according to my reading of the Standing Orders, is highly unusual. It seems to me that it was highly irregular for the Chair to accept a motion on a point of order.


Some hon. members:: He is right!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, he did not have the floor to present a motion. Furthermore, if he did have a question of privilege, the Chair had a duty to decide if there was a prima facie case before the House, that-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will you keep quiet! I know what I am talking about. A prima facie case-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if we could just reflect for a moment. I am going to hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but I think it is appropriate that we reflect for a moment on exactly where we are.
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister rose on a point of order. He talked about privilege. What the Deputy Prime Minister was doing from a procedural point of view was seeking the unanimous consent of the House for something. That happens regularly around here. It may be a contentious issue, but that is what the hon. Deputy Prime Minister was doing, and I had to hear him.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor and he is entitled, as did the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, to be heard and I am going to hear him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just remember a few things about procedure. The first thing is that we need to have order in this House. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot bootleg this kind of motion without getting unanimous consent to put it and I am telling him now he will not get unanimous consent to put the motion.
Mr. Speaker, they will not drag the Queen into an argument between the Senate and this House. I think it is rather uncalled for-


An hon. member:: Scandalous.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And scandalous, yes, scandalous for that government-desperate is the word-to call the Queen into question at this time.
Points of Order
I will not give this thing any more importance than to say, you are all wet.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his privileges had been breached by the fact that a single Liberal senator has made some public utterances. I want to say that many of us feel that our privileges are breached by the mere existence of the Senate.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Kamloops would want to assist the Chair in this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this enthusiastic response on behalf of the government members, perhaps we should consider the abolishment of this unelected Senate as soon as possible.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member for Kamloops that that is something that I cannot do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I accept your gracious comments. I guess I could say on behalf of my party that we certainly would give unanimous consent right now to consider a motion to abolish the unelected Senate.


An hon. member:: Write it out right now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on this issue, the Deputy Prime Minister knows the rules of the House probably as well as anyone in the House, and he knows that this incident happened back in September and there has been ample opportunity to consider this.


An hon. member:: Two days ago.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Two days ago, my apologies. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a matter that ought to have been raised in the Senate. There are Conservatives in the Senate. If there were privileges that were breached, they would have been senatorial privileges. I say to my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, that if he was serious in seeking unanimous consent to deal with this issue, there is a procedure that we always follow. He knows the procedure-he has been part of it for many, many years-where a discussion would have taken place and we would have sought to discuss this in a serious say.
The motion is debatable and we would have set aside, presumably, time today during the government's agenda to debate this important issue. If the Deputy Prime Minister is interested, we are prepared at the House Leaders meeting that will take place momentarily to

October 2, 1990
Points of Order
discuss whether this is the appropriate place for this question to be raised and whether this is the time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just briefly on that point. I had intended to make that comment. This has just been drawn to my attention and I have raised it at the earliest possible time.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that given the fact that the motion has just been presented, if members across the way want some time to deliberate on it, we would certainly be pleased to give them that time and it could be discussed at a House leaders' meeting. We would be prepared to debate it and we would be prepared to vote on it.
I thank the hon. member for his submission. [Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is suggesting that the privileges of a member may have been breached by the statement made by Senator Hebert last Sunday night-hardly 48 hours ago-on the TVA network.
And the hon. member for Hamilton East takes the Deputy Prime Minister to task for using a translation. I have always thought that, unilingual or bilingual, English- or French-speaking, all members of the House of Commons are full-fledged citizens.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: When it comes to national unity, I should think that the Deputy Prime Minister's record is second to none.
As to Senator Hebert's statement, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote him because he did refer to me personally: "Either we will block it, and this is what we wanted to do until Mr. Mulroney, forgetting all conventions-" Listen to the statement of Senator Hebert: "Mr. Mulroney, forgetting all conventions, bribed the Queen-I would not know how-to appoint-" The interviewer interrupted him: "Senator, what you have just said, 'the Prime Minister bribed the Queen', is a very serious statement on the part of a senator". Senator Hebert: "Do you see the danger inherent in live programming?
Nothing can be changed. However, what is true and what surprised me the morning after the eight appointments is that I did not see anything in the press about a heavy tax burden being imposed on Canadians thanks to the co-operation of the Queen, the Queen of England. That would have been some headline".
What he said was that the Prime Minister of Canada bribed the Queen, whom he insulted by calling her the Queen of England when she also happens to be the Queen of Canada, the Queen of all Canadians. And if the Liberals had the least bit of common sense-

-they would call in Senator Hebert and they would kick him out of the Liberal caucus right away for what he just said.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you please tell this House what procedure is being followed at this time? Is this part of the debate on the motion? I would like to know because many of my colleagues want to participate in that debate.
I will however remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that, in Beauchesne's, 6th edition, Comment no. 19 simply states that:
Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be
used as the basis for a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, Senators or Members, it is all the same thing. So, it is our opinion that a statement made outside the House should not be the subject of a question of privilege.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, I think it should be clear to you and clear to all members that what is being debated here today is not whether or not an insult was offered to Her Majesty, the Queen.
It is clear from the comments as attributed to Senator Hebert that a statement was made. It is equally clear there was no serious suggestion whatsoever that either
October 2, 1990

the Prime Minister offered abroad or that Her Majesty the Queen accepted abroad. That is clear.
What is equally clear and what is shameful-and let me say that I have as much affection for Her Majesty the Queen as any member of this House-is the partisan attempt participated in by no less than the Prime Minister himself to divert the attention of Canada from the GST by dragging the Queen into this debate. That is shocking and shameful.
I suggest if we are to be serious here about our responsibilities and serious about any kind of concept of respect for the sovereign that the Prime Minister, followed by the Deputy Prime Minister, would apologize for the shameless spectacle today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point in regard to the question raised by my hon. friend about dragging the Queen in.
On Wednesday of last week, the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte who just spoke said: "I asked the Deputy Prime Minister: Why has the Prime Minister of Canada deliberately misled the Queen of Canada about paralysis in the Senate?"
A final point. My hon. friend expresses his affection and respect for Her Majesty the Queen and I have no doubt about the sincerity of his commitment whatsoever. I think the evidence of that should be that he should join all members of the House in asking Senator Hebert to immediately repudiate an offensive and unacceptable statement about Her Majesty that this party and this government will not allow to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford is seeking the floor. I understand the hon. member has a matter to raise which is not the one that is presently before the House.
I am going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair, and I am going to advise the House that it is important that we understand where we are.
What is in front of the House right now is a request put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister asking unanimous consent for a motion.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is probably right. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether, given all the circumstances, there is necessarily a breach of privilege here. I do not have to decide that.
Points of Order
The hon. member is absolutely right in saying that that is another argument. Procedurally, we have a request from the government for unanimous consent on the motion that was read out. That is the position.
I have allowed some comment, but I do not think that I am allowed or ought to extend the debate for the rest of the afternoon on this matter.
The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


M. Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to wait until there is order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have recognized the hon. member for Shefford on a question of privilege.



Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if you can hear me- This morning, I heard the member for Burin-St-George's make frankly offensive remarks concerning some of us, but I would like to reserve the right to check the transcripts of the debate and comment on this question of privilege tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member has given notice.

I have been given notice. Tomorrow maybe.


REMARKS BY SENATOR
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, regarding the point of order on which the Deputy Prime Minister stood, I was trying to get the Speaker's attention to make an intervention.
I am asking for instructions from the Chair, not necessarily in terms of the substance of its ruling. Why it is that members opposite, particularly the right hon. Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are allowed or seem to have the right to stand in their place not to make comments but to make very lengthy

Points of Order
speeches. While they were in their place, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you-and I look for your guidance in this matter-that they have cast aspersions upon all hon. members, particularly within my own party.
It is rather interesting to note that when the Deputy Prime Minister raised in his place this very, very important point of order-and he talked about certain comments made by an hon. member in the other House-I did not hear the hon. Deputy Prime Minister or the right hon. Prime Minister, at any time inside or outside this Chamber, stand in their place and defend Her Majesty the Queen when hon. members in the back row were renouncing their oath to the Queen. Where was the Deputy Prime Minister? I have never seen such hypocrisy, such two-faced-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has made a point. I do not think it is a point of order and it is not a point of privilege,but he has made a point.


David Charles Dingwall: My question in terms of seeking direction from the Chair is the following: Why is the appearance allowed to go on and unchecked for members opposite, particularly the right hon. Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, not only to make comments but to make speeches and to lecture those of us on this side and on that side of the House, and we are not allowed to have similar rights in order to respond to the most deceitful arguments ever.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier did have the floor, and extensively, on behalf of the Liberal Party.
The hon. member for Hamilton East on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister, in developing his strategy to save his doomed GST here in the House, suggested that I was criticizing the Deputy Prime Minister for raising a point about the Queen in English. He beat his breast and made a wonderful extemporaneous speech about a person is a Canadian in any language, leaving the impression that I somehow felt one language was better or worse than the other.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty I have with the prime minister's point of view is that he was perfectly prepared to get very close to the Queen in the English language, but not in French.
The point is not the choice of language, but-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have a complaint, but this is clearly a matter for debate.
If there is a question of privilege, it is very difficult for the Chair to find one in this exchange.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me what we have been subjected to as members of Parliament in the House is an abuse of the rules of the House by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to further their own political agenda.
Yesterday, during Question Period my colleague, the member for York Centre, began to make a statement about Senator Pat Carney concerning her statement about another senator, Senator Con DiNino. Before he was able to complete his statement-


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that I interrupted the hon. member. There was also an exchange afterward. If the hon. member is raising that particular incident of another day as a question of privilege or a point of order then perhaps I ought to hear it. It seemed to me that the matter was settled and I indicated that I may very well have interrupted the hon. member more rapidly than I should have, but that is the end of the issue. Otherwise,it just becomes a reargument about whether or not the Speaker made an error. If I made an error, I made it. I cannot undo that, but I do not think it is appropriate to be raising that again today.
With respect to what happened this afternoon, I tried to make it very clear. One can argue about the issue and there is lots of argument about it, as is obvious, but basically what happened is that consent was asked for a motion and consent was not given. That is the procedural situation, and I tried to be as even-handed as I could be.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


John V. Nunziata: If I may finish-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South- Weston.

:'

t

*
October 2, 1990


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am not criticizing your ruling, Sir. I am criticizing and asking you to take into consideration the hypocrisy and the double standard of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Whatever the hon. member's complaint may be, if he rises now he can rise on a question of privilege, if there is one, or he can rise on a point of order but not on a matter of debate. I am prepared to discuss with all hon. members, and especially the hon. member for York South-Weston, if there are errors made or if there is a better way to do things in here. I would be only too pleased to try to do that, but I do think I have to recognize a senior member here, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, traditionally, when a minister or the Prime Minister reads a document in the Elouse or reports what was said by someone, they have an obligation to lay the document on the Table. In his comments, the Prime Minister mentioned that Senator Hebert said such and such. I understand that at the end of the interview, Senator Hebert apologized. I think that for the purposes of this debate, hon. members should know the conclusion and in fact the contents of the entire interview. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary whether they could give us the complete text, without any-


Sheila Finestone: Embellishments!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -without any embellishments or omissions and table the document in the House so that everyone can read it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will relay the message and concern of the hon. member, and we will do our best to comply.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we witnessed some very unfortunate, nasty remarks being hurled back and forth across the aisle. I simply want to raise this point of order that on October 1, reading from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you admonished members in terms of the way they were accusing other members in this House and in other places of doing
Points of Order
various things. You said, Mr. Speaker, at page 13609 of Hansard for October 1, and I quote:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any
of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person
administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words
against either House, or against any Member thereof.
I think my hon. colleagues were making the point that what the Prime Minister had to say about the hon. senator was anything but honourable in terms of the words which quite frankly were very offensive in terms of the allegations levied against the hon. senator.
I simply want to say that if this was used for admonishment of members of the House a few days back, I think the same thing could be done to the Prime Minister of Canada today.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I know that you had asked for unanimous consent. I would have thought that the issue would have died several minutes ago. However, the debate continues and I cannot let that ride.
It is very clear that what both the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister were doing was not calling into question Mr. Hebert or his reputation or anything of the hon. member in the Senate. What they were doing was calling to the attention of the House words that were spoken that had a very serious reflection and implication on the Queen. It had nothing to do with the member himself, but rather his words, and I think that is the true form of debate that all of us should be considering and acting upon.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. parliamentary secretary has a very selective memory. We all heard with great fanfare the quote to which the Prime Minister referred, but the Prime Minister went beyond the quote as all hon. members who were here could hear and of course could see. He went beyond that.
In his description as to what should be done with the hon. member in the other place, I think it was quite clear that in the provisions of Standing Order 18 there was indeed a breach of that particular standing order.
I am glad the hon. member would perhaps now want to agree with me that we should leave that to the direction of the Chair so that the Chair can perhaps reflect on what has transpired and also have an opportunity to review the "blues" to see whether or not in point of fact the Chair can see a prima facie case there that would amount to being a breach of Standing Order 18, with

October 2, 1990
Privilege
which all members including the Prime Minister must comply.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would take that under advisement and at the appropriate time report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I certainly will consider very carefully the comments that were made. If it is appropriate to report back to the House, I shall.
I must also say that I always depend on hon. members for help and guidance along the way. I appreciate the hon. member's comments.
I have a question of privilege of which I have notice arising out of these matters. I really think I must move to it. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Francois Germ (Megantic-Compton-Stans -tead):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate that just took place, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond referred to the members sitting in this row, all of whom belong to the Bloc Quebecois, and claimed they had renounced their oath of allegiance to the Queen.
I say the hon. member had no right to make these comments which may have various implications. It is a very serious matter to claim that someone did not keep his oath. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between someone who does not believe in the constitutional monarchy and someone who believes that Quebecers and Canadians in general would prefer to change the system in a constitutional manner. I don't think this is renouncing one's oath. If we want to change democratically what we consider to be an anachronism and a mere symbol, I think we have a right to do so, while preserving our full allegiance to the people of Quebec and our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention this because it has come up several times since the House resumed sitting. I would therefore ask the Chair to take a position on this matter immediately and ask the hon. member to withdraw his comments. If not, he should be expelled from this House because he is the one who, by making such remarks, will disrupt for a long time the business of the House.
We come here in a spirit of cooperation to put forward our ideas and that of the Quebecers who are our constituents and, under no circumstance, will we allow a member of this House-and we urge the Chair to help us-suggest that we reneged on our allegiance in any way.
It is not to renege to ask for constitutional reform, for one thing, and , at the same time, that the Queen of Canada be replaced by the people of Canada. That stands to reason and I think that even the Queen would agree on that point.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Queen was particularly embarassed, as were all Canadians and Quebecers, when the prime minister went and made her the request he made.
I ask you to support us, Mr. Speaker, by requesting from the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to apologize to this House and to take back what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may reply.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that we would have a member who professes in one statement to be a member of a group that wishes to be a party in this House, and on the other hand he says very clearly that they have taken their oath of allegiance and their oath of allegiance is now to the Queen, when in point of fact-


David Barrett: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a point of order.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, to what particular motion are we speaking? What order are we dealing with? What is the point we are dealing with?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could help the hon. member. I heard others crying for help too.
October 2, 1990

The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead rose just a few minutes ago on a question of privilege. That is what I am hearing. As I understand the argument, he takes offence to something somebody else has said and feels that his privileges have been breached. I have been listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond in reply. That is where we are at the moment. I thank the hon. member for giving me an opportunity to clarify the matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that there is no breach of privilege. The member has not established a prima facie case. I find it rather peculiar that in public statements in the newspapers, they portray a particular oath, if you will, or allegiance to the Province of Quebec. Now when someone questions questions their oath with regard to allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, they wish to take issue with that.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any point of privilege whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South- Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have received a considerable number of letters, and I am sure you have, on the subject of the oath of allegiance that each member is required to swear before taking his or her seat in the House of Commons. At some point, Sir, you will be called upon-and presumably this is the time, given the hon. member's point of privilege-for you to rule on what it means. What exactly does the oath of allegiance mean?
A member of this House was elected as a Bloc Quebecois member. He was quoted as saying in the press that the oath of allegiance that we swear was a mere technicality.
A ceremony took place in the city of Hull several weeks ago where the hon. member said to Canadians from one end of the country to another that he was washing his hands of the oath of allegiance that he swore, that each and every one of us swore, to the Queen of Canada and that his allegiance was to the Province of Quebec. That is fair enough.
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, you will be required at some point to determine whether some hon. members in this House breached that particular oath of allegiance. If it is a mere technicality, then it has to be clearly specified in a ruling of the Chair. I believe that our oath of allegiance is more than a mere technicality. We are pledging allegiance to Canada. I would ask you, Sir, to rule that our responsibility as federal members of Parliament is to be loyal to Canada, loyal to a strong and united country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a question of privilege. He was really rising on a point of order. I may or may not have to deal with that now or at some other time. Of course I can always hear that matter if it is required.
At the moment I have a simple, direct issue arising from the exchange. The hon. member has said that what was said by another hon. member is a breach of his privileges. I will consider that. I will look carefully at the "blues" and I will come back to the House.
On the other issue of the oath, it may well be that that matter could come in front of the Speaker. It may not be appropriate for the Speaker to rule on that but certainly I cannot deal with that on this particular point of privilege. I have to deal with that as I have heard it.
The hon. member for York South-Weston on a point of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question right now. I will raise it as a personal point of privilege, asking you as the Speaker of the House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: I know what the hon. member wishes to do but I would ask him to give me written notice as he would ordinarily do, because I am also bound by the rules. I take it I will be expecting to have written notice from the hon. member.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


COMMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MEMBER FOR HAMILTON EAST
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a question of privilege which does not relate to that raised by my colleagues earlier today. I do so with some hesitation because I know you have already dealt

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
with a number of questions of privilege, but there was an incident in the House today and I do not think I can let it go unnoticed. I am referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton East who, unfortunately, is not in the House as I speak. First, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not expect you to rule on my question of privilege today, for I think the hon. member should be given the opportunity to respond.
Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, when the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council was addressing the House the hon. member for Hamilton East, from her seat in the House, criticized him for not speaking in French. Other members will confirm this. Indeed, the hon. member for Shefford indicates that he too heard the same remarks. I would not want to put words in her mouth, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps we might wait until we get Hansard to find out exactly what she said. But I want to raise the issue for the following reason: in Canada, unless the rules have been changed recently, as far as I know members of this House have the right to speak English or French, and nobody is allowed to criticize them for their choice of language.
I raise the point today, Mr. Speaker, not only as a member of this House but also as a French-speaking citizen because as such I reject this approach and I would not want anybody here or elsewhere in my country to criticize me for speaking French or to request that I speak English when I have every right to speak French. Mr. Speaker, nor would I want my children to be criticized for the same thing some day. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review Hansard or what we call the "blues" and to give us a ruling on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps after the hon. member has seen Hansard it may or may not be necessary to pursue the matter any further. In any event, I would ask hon. members not to pursue it any further, especially because the hon. member for Hamilton East is not here. If the matter should be pursued further, I will of course receive a notice of a question of privilege and it will be heard some time tomorrow.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for South West Nova, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Restigouche- Chaleur-Forestry; the hon. member for Mackenzie -Agriculture.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on this bill. The amendments introduced last June by the Minister of Fisheries increase the penalties for fishermen who are caught in certain violations of the act.
I realize that matters other than the debate may be most interesting down in that end, but there are other people in Canada who want to get on with the debate on this particular bill.
This bill shows the Canadian people just how bad this government has failed in its fishery policy. The minister, when he spoke on the bill last June, told us of the clear measures that will be taken by the government. He said:
-unless the government takes clear measures to show its intention to conserve and rebuild these stocks, they will be out.
In other words, knowing that these measures will come about, this would be a reason to conserve and restore the stocks. I will get back to that in a minute. He goes on to say:
We are going to be the country which will have the more stringent
fines for fishing violations. It just shows how important we see this
issue to be.
In other words, he does not talk about this being a country that has a great resource, or that we have to develop this resource within Canada and have incentives that apply to all sectors of the fishery. He says that no,
October 2, 1990

we are going to penalize the fishery. We are going to penalize who, Mr. Speaker? Who do we penalize in this?
I say that most of the present surveillance effort is concentrated on the inshore sector. The new enforcement provided in the adjustment program announced earlier is directed toward the inshore sector as well. It is the inshore sector that gets it again.
It stands to reason that those who will be caught overwhelmingly will be from the inshore sector. And why is that? Because our fishery in Canada has been an inshore fishery and has progressed to the point of being a very efficient inshore fishery. We just have to look at the subsidies which the government has handed out in the last year. They have been to the offshore sector of the fishery to help boost it, contrary to the free trade agreement. We should be self-sufficient in selling into the U.S. First of all, we subsidized National Sea on the northern cod, and more recently in the Seafreez deal where we paid off the loans of Canso and Burgeo that were outstanding for National Sea Products.
We have an efficient inshore fishery. We have an inefficient offshore fishery, and now we are going to bring in stiffer penalties. Who are they going to affect? Well, the bulk of the people are in the inshore fishery. So, the people in P.E.I. who violate part of the Fisheries Act or the small herring fishermen somewhere else who violate the Fisheries Act are going to be affected more by these amendments. I will speak of these penalties in a minute.
With regard to conservation, there are no solutions to conservation from the government by having stiffer penalties. I want to say why it is going to affect again the inshore, because in the past we have not been able to enforce the existing provisions for defying the Fisheries Act against the offshore sector or against the foreigners within our waters.
We do not have the power to do it, number one, because if we are talking about the Americans, they go quickly over the Georges Bank area and quickly get back into their own waters, away from any Canadian enforcement, if we had the capacity even to chase them. We have seen in the past that we do not really have that much capacity.
Government Orders
We do not enforce it in the same way against the foreigners who may get over. This morning, we heard my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls talking about the foreigners having overcaught their resources, but they are not penalized in the same way that an inshore dragger fisherman is when caught overfishing, and not on purpose, but in the abundance of the sea. Then, the vessel will be penalized if it has either to dump it or to bring it in.
We do not talk about the fact that it is that inshore fisherman who goes out every day. He is his own operator of the boat. He owns the boat, operates it, and is the one who is going to be affected.
We do not talk about the few big companies that are going to pay the penalties in the offshore for those fishermen who may have overfished. I find it quite offensive that the act will not differentiate between a violation within the inshore where it is owner operated for the most part, a violation in the offshore which is company operated, and a violation by the foreign fleet which is country operated for the most part. The heaviest burden is going to be on the inshore sector.
The minister hopes that bringing in stiffer penalties is going to provide for better conservation and restoring of the stocks. He does not talk about the dumping that has had to be done because of the poor conservation policy that the government has had in the past in the inshore fishery.
He does not talk about poor biological data that allows a place like the Bay of Fundy to have an abundance of fish and yet the department does not have the willingness to recognize this and allow the fishermen to fish there in a greater number this year.
The minister does not talk about having caught people who perhaps were transferring fish at sea, or dumping by the foreign fleet. He does not talk about providing better biological data.
Certainly, the fishermen would have a lot to tell him if this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would listen. One of the reasons that this bill is so bad is that he has not consulted the various fishing groups or the various associations. Again, it is as the government always does: "Do it our way or no way". It is either "do it" or "suffer the consequences". We have seen this all summer. We have seen it in the fishery in the past. Once again, with this bill, we are seeing that it will be their way or no way.

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
I cannot believe that he could not have at least have presented the proposals in the bill to the fishing industry.
Another aspect about this bill is that it is bad. It is not going to help us with the Americans. Last week, we heard the Minister for International Trade say the government had reached a comprehensive enforcement agreement with the U.S. government in order to penalize the American fisherman who comes over into the Canadian side of the Georges Bank area. Their penalties will have increased.
None of us who have seen the fishery and had dealings with the United States know that there is a fair game in place. The President may say that he will attempt to have this passed by Congress, but there are the eastern seaboard states to consider. Those states have to give up their right to have jurisdiction over enforcement of the fishery. They have to delegate it to their federal government. At no time in the past, whether it was lobster when the Prime Minister said he would talk to President Bush, whether it was on the line of the Georges Bank dispute, or at any other time in the history with which I have been involved, have I seen the Americans give in to Canada when it related to the fishery.
I read in a newspaper that a federal Department of Fisheries spokesman said last Saturday that the tonnage that they catch is hard to estimate but cannot even come up to prosecuting the amount of fish that goes across that imaginary border, or that line that looks like a line but the Americans seem to be able to violate it at will. They just take millions of dollars without Canada being able to enforce our rules against the U.S.
Last week the Minister for International Trade said that they were hoping to see the fine go up on the U.S. side from $10,000 to $100,000, which almost matches what we have here before us in this bill.
I know I do not have a lot of time to speak on this, but I want to say that we have not got a good record in prosecuting the Americans. We have not got a good record in halting foreign overfishing in our waters. Personally, I do not think that we have had a very good record in going after the offshore for some of the overfishing that they have done. However, I do feel that this bill is not going to help to go after those sectors that I feel are offending our fishing rights within our 200-mile limit. I say that because I know that the government has
slanted its policy toward what is big and not the benefit of what is small.
Another area in this bill that is just ridiculous is section 61 regarding information returned. This bill will impose red tape on the small inshore fishermen in Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and on the west coast. Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker. A person referred to in section 61(1), that is an ordinary little fishermen in a 45-foot boat going out to fish, may be required to provide information or to keep records or other documents relating to any of the following matters: the number of fish, the sex of the fish, the size of the fish, the weight of the fish, the species, the product form, value or other particulars of any fish caught, cultured, processed, transported, sold, or purchased.
Now, you tell me, Mr. Speaker, how the ordinary fisherman is supposed to take the fish out of the water, weigh it, look at the sex, look at the size, see what the species is, as the lines are going and other fish are coming out of the water. I do not know what the government thinks or what the burden is that they want to put on the fishermen, but the red tape that this particular section puts on the inshore fishery with is so ridiculous it does not bear talking about, but it is in the bill.
I cannot believe that this minister thinks that this will provide for the conservation and restoration of the stocks. This minister would be much better advised by his officials if he went dealt with the efficiency of the inshore and said: "Can we not get rid of the foreigners in our waters and fish under-utilized?" But, no, today the headlines of The Province, the C section of The Chronicle-Herald states: "Valcourt Sticks by Canso Deal". Mr. Valcourt said: "Silver hake and capelin have not been caught successfully to any extent by Canadian vessels."
Give us a deal. Give us a deal like the Minister of Fisheries gave out a month ago and I will retire from politics and trade the under-utilized species. I can certainly see trading under-utilized species or bartering. Give me an under-utilized species quota like you gave that company, and give every Canadian that.
But the government has never offered that to Canadian fishermen. In fact, it has not even listened to Canadian fishermen or the processors who on this appear to be together. The Fisheries Council of Canada and others are all saying that what the minister did with this deal is changed the playing-field. He changed it altogether. He said that nobody is against Canso and
October 2, 1990

Burgeo. That is such a false argument. I have maintained that if the boats are given to Canso and Burgeo, they will survive because the boats will land the fish there. I have maintained that if the fishermen are given the amount of money that cancels their debts and to go out and equip themselves for the under-utilized species, we would all be fishing. If the amount of money in guarantees and loans given out in this deal was given to plants, they would also be able to fish, process, market, and keep the jobs here in Canada, as well as giving it away to other countries.
My colleague said this morning that we do not go into the other countries' waters. Since 1977 and the declaration of the 200-mile limit, we are the only country that is not fully utilizing a resource that is at its doorstep when there are thousands of individuals without work in the Atlantic provinces. We do not give those individuals the deals. We give it to one or two people. We give it to the big guy. We give it to the National Sea's or we give it to the Seafreez's. I do not think we give it to the people of Canso and Burgeo. If we did, we would be doing it for everybody. You do not change the playing-field by giving some people free fish while others have to go out and buy it.
I cannot believe that the government, is slanted in one direction and one direction only. That is what pleases it and it does not care about the rest of Canada. The government does not care about the little people. It does not care about an inshore fishery that has provided jobs and work for many people on the east coast. This is an example of that type of legislation.
We have asked for good biological studies. The government has said no. We have asked and presented plans to the government. I am not talking about northern cod but in relation to the southern part of Nova Scotia.
We have asked that, rather than cut back and have only one word in his vocabulary, capacity-over-capacity as stated in the Hache report-why did he not listen to all the other responsible people in the fishery as to what they could have done to solve the problem? But, no, he has to do it his way, or as the government says it, "my
Government Orders
way or no way". I think it is almost a song now in Canada. One either does it their way or it is no way.
We just saw the effect of it last week when we got eight new senators because the government did not want to play the game of Parliament. It is just my way or no way.
I know my time is short, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to say that at one point the minister said something and I challenge him. I challenge the minister when he says: "This is why it is proposed in the bill that for these offences the current maximum of $5,000 be increased to $100,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment". That is a drastic increase. He said: "Those who choose to violate the Fisheries Act and jeopardize the future of fishermen in Atlantic Canada as well as the Pacific coast, those who choose to take the livelihoods away from the kids". He may think he is taking the livelihoods away from the kids, but he is taking the livelihoods away from thousands of fishermen. He said: "Those who take the livelihoods away from the kids in Atlantic Canada who may become fishermen and some of them will, they will pay for it." They being the thousands of inshore fishermen.
This bill should allow that for an offshore offence the penalty should be so much greater because it is a much bigger enterprise, and that foreigners caught in our waters which are part of a big enterprise and freezer factory ships should be penalized more heavely. Why does he have to lump the inshore with the foreigners who are overfishing with the offshore who are not? In my view, it is only a company that is going to pay for it and some of them are being subsidized by the government.
The Americans who have been overfishing have been overfishing to the tune of thousands of tonnes of fish on Georges Bank and we cannot prosecute them. The enforcement is valueless until it is agreed to by the U.S. government and that means getting the east coast states to agree to it. This bill is bad legislation. It is slanted against the inshore fishery without, in my view, due justification because they want to conserve and restore the stocks. There are many other ways, if the minister would only listen, as to how you could conserve and restore the stocks in Atlantic Canada in the inshore fishery without having a bill-and I am not against the

Government Orders
penalties being increased for true violations-that does not discriminate between violators that are inshore, offshore, foreigners or American.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very brief. I just want to correct a few things that have been said and point out a couple of things because I think it would be unfortunate to leave some of the impressions that are out there.
First of all, if I may comment on Canso. I cannot recall how many weeks it was in this House that the opposition called for a solution to the problem at Canso. This government, in co-operation with a couple of small fish companies, was able, with the support of the government of Nova Scotia, the unions and the community of Canso, put together a deal that has not only saved that community but I suggest, it saved Burgeo as well. If you want to tell Bill Barry, a little fellow from Curling, Newfoundland, he is a big corporate company, I am sure he would be delighted. I am sure he lies in bed at night dreaming about the day that he is a corporate giant, but it is not the case right now.
If we can take underutilized species and be creative, as we have tried in the past to do, as we are spending tens of millions of dollars today in trying to do, we can save fish plants and communities and to enhance our fishery. In the past, things like silver hake have not been taken up because they do not suit our markets, our consumers or our way of fishing. If we can have others who come in and participate in those fisheries, all the better, we might make some progress.
I have heard a couple of times the comment that we do not go into other people's waters. It is a long way to go to other people's waters, except the United States. The hon. member has no concept of economy. A country like Portugal and Spain can afford to come to Canada. First of all, they have no options. The Portuguese are also fishing off Mozambique, Angola and the Falkland Islands. They are a little south of the fishing grounds. Why? Because they have no choice. The efforts of this government, supported quite a bit by members of this House in trying to reduce overfishing, have been relatively successful.
There has been great co-operation from all parties in this House to try and bring to the attention of the
Europeans the need for action. I would suggest the results of the last NAFO meeting have shown that there has been some success there.
With regard to this problem of the department taking advice from its scientists and advice from its officials, the advice that is taken by the government is based on scientific advice of the best professionals available. We increased the amount of money that we spent on science and northern cod last year by $30 million. Of the $584 million we put in to increase our ability to deal with the problems in the fishery, a huge amount of that was directed toward increased science, not just the northern cod stock, but in the gulf off South West Nova and other areas like that.
With regard to the comment about the Bay of Fundy, my hon. friend had better be very careful. What we have said is that we would take the responsibility of providing the best advice from professionals, not amateurs like politicians. It is not in the interest of the fishermen.
With reference to section 61, empowering the government to collection information, Dr. Harris in his report made it very clear that we needed more information, more knowledge. We have the power to do that in a number of areas. This action makes sure we can collect that information if we so desire and need it. It is in the interests of fishermen that we have that information.
The hon. member knows and I know well enough, that you cannot go in and say to inshore fishermen: "You must take the sex, weight, size and age of every fish before you do anything with it." Be sensible. That is ludicrous. We have programs whereby we bring scientists together with fishermen, at the union level, at the community level. We are saying to fishermen: "You are a little bit special because you are part of this program". We are giving them a designation. It has worked very, very well in New Brunswick. We are doing more of it.
In Newfoundland, Mr. Larry Cody, one of the best scientists in this government has been out dealing and meeting with fishermen, asking fishermen what they do and asking fishermen for their advice. The thought that we could go in or we would or could go in and go through what the hon. member has talked about is absolutely ludicrous.
October 2, 1990

There are many more points. I am sure my friend has a response, she always does. I am also interested in hearing from my hon. friend from British Columbia.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes in case there are other people who want to ask me questions.
I would say, particularly on the subject of Canso, because I was a strong advocate in this House for Canso and Lockeport, that when you take the boats away from a community as was done by National Sea, you take away the whole livelihood of a community.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The boats are staying.


Coline M. Campbell: Now the boats are going to stay in Canso. They have not gone back to Lockeport. All I am saying is that on top of that, you give those boats only the quota that National Sea thinks is fair. That is not what you are talking about. What was wrong in the Canso and Burgeo deal was that you changed the playing field. You gave them underutilized species that they could trade for stocks, barter with the Russians who are going to catch it and then you give them free fish to process and sell. Now most companies in Canada do not get a free product. That changed the playing-field.
I am just saying that when the Fisheries Council of Canada and the seafood producers of Nova Scotia and others all think this deal stinks, I have to agree with them. You are not helping Canso and Burgeo over the long run. When you cannot barter any more, how are you going to get the fish free?
The other thing I want to say is that countries like Spain and Portugal, or any other countries that fish here, foot the bill for the penalties in this act. The little fishermen in the inshore communities foot their own bills if they violate this act.
I say through the parliamentary secretary to the minister that the bill should make a difference. Whether it is a small fishing boat, an inshore or an offshore fishery, or a foreigner or an American the penalty-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The courts will do that.


Coline M. Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker, the courts will only interpret what this Parliament puts into the legislation. A foreign country such as Portugal that supports its fishery and pays its penalty is not hurting the country. It is hurting the inshore. It is no way to improve conservation methods in this country or to
Government Orders
restore stocks by having an attitude that will kill the inshore by heavy penalties rather than reversing and coming up with better policies. And on biological data in the Bay of Fundy, use the fishermen. They can tell you what is there. They can tell you that the foreigners should not be in the silver hake box next to the spawning grounds when they cannot go fishing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there further questions or comments? On debate, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to be in the House and to speak today on Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, which was first read on June 6 and debated at second reading on June 19 and the debate that we are starting today.
I gather that the government had consultations yesterday about bringing this bill forward today and, although not planned, nevertheless we are prepared to participate fully in the debate in the House today, to make some comments about this legislation and about some of the changes that we feel can be identified in it and, obviously, to make comments about what to expect when this legislation makes its way into committee.
First of all, I want to just say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I want to thank my leader, the hon. member for Yukon. Following some recent appointments, I am now honoured to speak on fisheries issues as well as forestry issues. Why I think that that is a smart move on our leader's part is that if we are to truly develop a sustainable development policy for our environment and our resources in Canada, what we clearly have to do is pay careful attention to perhaps two of the most important resources there are in Canada right now, our forests and our fisheries.
I said in a statement yesterday, which I am sure you listened to carefully, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns I have about the policies of the present Conservative government and the Liberals, when they were in power and now in opposition, relate to farms, fish and forests, some of those basics in Canada that we come to rely on to make our livelihoods and also in which to recreate. I think the clear direction that our leader has given is going to develop the kind of policies and directions that I think will be in the forefront and the leading edge of

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
policy that is going to ensure the kind of renewable resource policy that we need in this country.
This bill, C-74, is a bill to amend the Fisheries Act which, interestingly, was likely one of the first pieces of legislation passed by Parliament after Confederation. The Fisheries Act, first passed in 1868, has given, generally, the legal authority to the Government of Canada to conserve and protect fish habitats and to control and manage Canada's fisheries. It has been amended 40 times since 1868, which gives an indication of the amount of time and importance that Parliament gives to our fisheries. It is interesting, as a side note, that a lot of the words we use about the fisheries resource are the same ones that we use in forestry in terms of developing a resource and the problems that we have there.
Let us take a look at some of the issues in this legislation and some of the concerns that we in this party have over the bill. Before I start, I should give some credit to the member for Nanaimo who was our fisheries critic and did a great deal of the important background work on this proposed legislation prior to my taking over the responsibility. I thank him for that because he is certainly well known in that field and has a great deal of knowledge. His will be some big shoes to fill and we will see how it goes.
This proposed legislation, Bill C-74, is primarily oriented toward increasing the fines levied against those who either fish illegally or contaminate or destroy fish habitats. This is essentially the purpose behind the proposed legislation.
There are also provisions which strengthen the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to gather the information necessary for the department to monitor fishing activity. It is one of the areas mentioned by the previous speaker. Clearly, when this legislation is before the committee, it is what we are going to have to take a look at in terms of the detail of that legislation and how it will impact on the small inshore operators.
In this context we are not opposed to this legislation. However, there are some very serious proposals which I will lay out in a number of points about this legislation
that we will have to deal with in committee and in later debate.
First is the importance and need for public participation and debate in this legislation. I know the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I know he will enjoy, and I hope support, our proposal to have the committee travel when it deals with this legislation to have an opportunity to hear from people about this specific legislation and some of the proposals and changes that we will be proposing and making. Of course there will be changes that may come from the other parties as well. It is our intention to introduce those amendments and any others that are required either in committee or in the report stage of the legislation.
Let us take a look at the legislation. Basically it relates in a number of ways to what this government is trying to do in terms of The Green Plan which has not done well to date. I suppose at some point we will hear more from the Minister of the Environment as he tries to recover and gain some high ground with that plan. To date it has been considered by all to be a failure.
Two very important reports on the east coast fishery that have been debated and discussed in the fisheries committee and raised many times in the House are the Harris report on northern cod and the Hache report on the Scotia-Fundy groundfishery.
Perhaps I can add a certain west coast perspective to this bill at this point. There is a complete lack of any substantive background material on what this bill can do to try and crack down on polluters on the west coast. This is an indication of the government's failure to address the whole question of pollution from pulp mills and to try to clean up the Fraser River. There has been no serious attempt by this government. It is one of the shortcomings in the background material. We will be mentioning and referring to that later as we go.
The intent of the legislation is certainly laudable and one that I have said that we can support for that purpose. I put a question earlier today to a previous speaker. You can write all of these fine things into legislation or you can even put them into constitutions, but how can we be assured that those policies, laws, and rules are actually going to be followed up on and be acted upon?
October 2, 1990

Let me quote from a memo that came into the hands of the member for Skeena, our environment critic, about this particular point in relation to controlling polluters and obviously questions about overfishing by foreign countries on the east coast as well. I think it is an important message, not in a partisan sense, for the government to pay heed to and to ensure that it is implemented when we do pass this bill.
This memorandum and internal document from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is quite shocking to read. I want to read it into the record anyway because it shows the problems we run into when there is complete collapse within a department of any serious intent to follow the legislation or to apply the law. I am quoting here:
We (DFO officials) have determined that DFO friendly
corporations-will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act.
The memo went on to state that:
-it must be appreciated that DFO habitat enforcement has reached an all time high in inconsistency-
My friends from the east coast pointed that out in terms of the reference to foreign fishing fleets in this area and the treatment of large operations versus the smaller inshore operations. The memo goes on to say that because of the immunity phenomenon, a large number of violators are not being properly pursued. It continued:
It would appear that Alcan -
And other operators:
-are given immunity from the law and we are just getting after the little guy.
That is not a pamphlet from the New Democratic Party or anything like that. That is a memorandum and some advice being offered by officials within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I would be most interested in any further debate, to hear from the parliamentary secretary or others on how we actually make sure that the laws that Parliament passes are actually applied and followed up on.
A second point that we have some concerns about is the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-74 which will bring the Fisheries Act into line with the penalties imposed on foreign fishing vessels caught operating or
Government Orders
fishing illegally in Canadian waters under the provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Under this act foreign fishing vessels caught operating illegally in Canadian waters face fines up to $500,000 and, if caught fishing illegally, the fine is up to a maximum of $750,000.
When the act I previously referred to was passed, the then member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Mr. Manly, raised the following points in debate which have become quite prophetic. I am quoting from page-2127 of Hansard, for December 15, 1986:
-it is not enough for us to just raise the maximum fine. There has to be some way of getting the message through to the courts that they have to raise the level of fines they are imposing because in some parts of eastern Canada the courts are imposing very low fines when compared to the current maximum. If we are going to raise the maximum, we must send a message to our courts that international fisheries violations are serious enough that they should be considering imposing the maximum fines in a number of those cases.
Dr. Harris, in his final report on northern cod issued in February 1990, indicated that the warning given by Mr. Manly was not one listened to by the government. The provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act allow for severe penalties. However, and I am quoting from the report at page 127:
In practice penalties have not even approached those levels. We cannot escape the feeling that the violation of fishery regulations- are regarded as mere peccadilloes; as if the whole matter of enforcement were a game.
I think members on the east coast have certainly brought much evidence before this House about those particular problems. Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware of all the newest reports from my province of British Columbia where the whole question of habitat damage, with which this bill is going to deal, is certainly going to be looked at very carefully.
One example that comes quickly to mind, which we raised in the House prior to our summer break, was the reference by a retired Department of Fisheries and Oceans official who at a public meeting felt comfortable in making the allegation, as he was no longer in the employ of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that he and other scientists had been pressured into coming up with decisions regarding the Kemano completion project in northern B.C., in part of my riding.

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
We will be pursuing that further, because there is an example of an official from the department who is making a clear allegation. I advised him of how serious his concerns were. We will be following up on those provisions because I think those are some of the issues that we are going to have to deal with when we are discussing Bill C-74.
The third point is actually referred to or mentioned in the release by the minister that the government is packaging this legislation as part of its response to deal with the crisis in the Atlantic fishery. Contained in the package was reference to the intention of Fisheries and Oceans to increase its surveillance and enforcement capability. DFO will increase its patrol capability by chartering additional offshore and inshore vessels.
Two issues are important here. The first is that there was no indication of the amount of funding which would be allocated for such an operation. Second, there is the concern on the issue of privatization.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not just discovered the fact that it is not capable of providing the kind of coverage it is mandated to provide under the Fisheries Act. Another example is: you can have all the rules you want but if you do not have the staff or if you cut back the staff, then you are simply not going to be able to implement the rules of Parliament and very important conservation and habitat protection rules which this legislation is going to try to bring in that we will be reviewing in committee.
Another point is clause 12(1) which if passed will enable the federal government to institute a full surveillance program that would ultimately see every fishing vessel outfitted with a transponder device enabling DFO to monitor every movement of those vessels. On March 19, officials with DFO were saying that a pilot project was planned which would see up to 10 offshore vessels being outfitted with these devices. However, according to the director of Atlantic operations, before there could be any wider application of this program "there would have to be a lot of consultation with industry". The passage of Bill C-74 will turn a pilot project into a
permanent legal requirement which may have to be accommodated regardless of consultation.
I would be interested in hearing from the government on the progress that may or may not have been made in that particular area and, if we are going to be implementing something in law now that we considered earlier at one time, doing it as a pilot project before it actually becomes law.
This is one of our concerns with respect to this legislation as well. Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act reads:
No person shall cany on any work or undertaking that results in the
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
According to the material provided by the minister, the examples cited were where fish habitat is altered as a result of road or bridge construction. No reference is made to, for example, the technology used in the conducting of the offshore fishery during the spawning season.
This is a particularly important part of this legislation. If we work on this legislation to improve it, and if there is good will on the government side and we have an indication that these laws will be followed, the Fisheries Act can and should be a vital instrument in ensuring the quality of our water and the protection of our fisheries resource, be it on the east or west coast or in any particular area where Fisheries and Oceans has jurisdiction. In my particular riding with the headwaters of the Fraser River, with three pulp mills, and with our concerns about the pollution of the Fraser River, a lot has to be done.
Our party is in general support of this legislation, Bill C-74. We think it needs some work. We will see the legislation to committee. It is our view that the committee should travel to hear the views of others on this particular point. I am referring in part to the questions of habitat protection. Also it would give all of us an opportunity, myself included, to tour Atlantic Canada and hear the fisheries concerns in that part of the country as well. We look forward to that debate in committee.
Given some of the debate that has taken place in the House today and given the concerns and attitude of the
government, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


October 2, 1990

Government Orders


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.


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.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today. I just wish I would have had a little more time to get my information together.
By bringing this bill forward the government has shown the same old attitude. It will deal with the fishermen of Canada only when it is good and ready, not when its actions are needed. It is their way or no way.
As a member of this House I have asked the Minister of Fisheries and his predecessor when we could expect an aid package for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. The fishermen were suffering because of federal mismanagement of the fisheries. The minister knew of the situation. Still he waited and waited while the fishermen continued to suffer.
After six or seven months of questioning in the House and protests in the streets of Atlantic Canada, the minister finally decided to act. When the fisheries aid package was announced in May there was a lot of smoke and mirrors but not a lot of new money or new ideas on how to solve the fisheries crisis.
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Gardiner
Robinson
Samson
Butland
Riis
Rodriguez Whittaker-8
++NAYS
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans failed to address some of the serious problems facing the Atlantic Canadian fishery. The problem of foreign overfishing was not addressed in the minister's band-aid package and it is not properly addressed in Bill C-74.
Members
Anderson
Assad
Bouchard (Roberval)
Champagne (Champlain)
Cooper
Danis
Fee
Fontaine
Fretz
Halliday
Johnson
MacAulay
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mills
Rideout
Thacker
Venne
Wappel
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Andre
Belair
Browes
Comuzzi
Cote
Dingwall
Flis
Fontana
Gauthier
Hawkes
Joncas
MacDonald (Dartmouth) McDougall (St. Paul's) Pagtakhan Rompkey
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vincent
Weiner
*Assiniboia)-37
Overfishing by foreign fleets on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is a serious problem. The federal government's inaction is causing the stocks to be destroyed. One of the recommendations of the Harris Panel on the Northern Cod was:
That Canada should seek international agreement to permit its management of all fish stocks-and that failing achievement of this objective, Canada should take unilateral action to acquire management rights in accordance with the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention.
Why was this recommendation not acted upon? When is the government going to wake up and realize the damage that is being done by foreign fleets?

October 2, 1990
Government Orders
Not only is this government not helping fishermen but it is adding to their burdens. For instance, section 61(2) of the bill states that fishermen shall be required to keep records of the number, sex, size, weight, species, product form or other information particulars on the product caught. Other information required includes the time and place of the landing, gear used and other types of equipment used. This is more information than the Cabinet ministers are required to give when they fly on their government jets.
The basic problem with this bill is not so much what it is, but it is what it is not. The government is using its blind-sighted attitude in dealing with problems in the fishery. As far as the government is concerned, extra fines with no enforcement guarantees will solve the problem. Once again, the government does not want to go to the heart of the problem because it is afraid of what it will find.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Valcourt, seconded by-the hon. member for Kamloops.


An hon. member:: What's going on?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must say I had not intended to debate Bill C-74 today because the projected business of the House was Bill C-73.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Now that we have changed this, allow me the opportunity to say a few words on these most important amendments to the Fisheries Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The hon. government whip.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, we have a question of timing here. It was our understanding on this side of the House that the question had been called. Our observation was that the member who is now speaking was not in his place when that occurred. We are wondering whether or not the recognition of the word "debate" spoken from the back row is sufficient to continue the debate, or whether members have to be physically present in their place?
I am sure the House leader for the New Democrats would acknowledge that when the question was called, he was not in his place, but shouted "debate" from the back. I suggest this is not appropriate in terms of the way that we conduct our business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on a point of order.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, just two points on a point of order. First of all, my understanding is that following a speech, there is an opportunity for questions and comments. I stand to be corrected, but I do not recall the Speaker giving members an opportunity for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Oh yes, I did. I asked for questions or comments. I did not get questions or comments and then I asked for debate. As I asked for debate, the hon. member for Kamloops was coming down the aisle to speak. I recognized the hon. member for Kamloops, but I wish that you would not bring the Chair into this argument, please.
Does the hon. member for Shefford have a privilege or point of order?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but from the moment you recognize a member- Unlike the government whip, you had not asked the real question at the time we were discussing in this House. Therefore, I compliment you for recognizing the member for Kamloops.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to drag you into this any more than is necessary but you quite clearly said it has been moved by the hon. member for Madawaska- Victoria. I heard that quite clearly. My colleagues across the way agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just beginning to put the question. I said, "Mr. Valcourt, seconded by-" and the hon. member for Kamloops was walking into the Chamber. I was going to put the question, yes, but the hon. member for Kamloops, as many members do in this Chamber, walked in as he was ready to speak. Members do have 15 or 20 seconds to walk in from the back to the front and occasionally the Speaker does

recognize a member. In due course I will have to recognize the hon. member for Kamloops again, but I now call it five o'clock.
it being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Geoff Wilson: that Bill C-250, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling), be read the second time and referred to a legislation committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this private member's initiative, which was brought forward on behalf of prairie grain producers who depend, in such large measure, on the export market to move their product.
Hon. members, I am sure, will know that domestic consumption of wheat in Canada amounts to, perhaps, 7 per cent of the crop insofar as human consumption is concerned and perhaps another 10 per cent is consumed by animals. In excess of 80 per cent of the wheat crop has to go to export.
Hon. members will also know that prairie farmers have been beset, over the past number of years, by serious drought and today they face a very debilitating export subsidy trade war between the European Economic Community and the United States. The history of this goes back some years. Back in the 1960s, the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community brought forward massive subsidies which led to overproduction of a number of agricultural commodities, including wheat. Thus, those countries moved from a position of being net importers to the point where they had surplus and, when they had surplus, they began to dump it on the world market.
For a time, the United States suffered the consequences and saw its share of the wheat market decline. But, in the early 1980s, it appears that the Americans had had enough in terms of their loss of market share
Private Members' Business
and decided to enter into battle with the people in Europe. Of course, we all know the result of that. There has been a vicious crossfire in terms of export subsidies. Both of these agricultural superpowers have been prepared to make sales of various grains to importing countries in the rest of the world, at massively subsidized prices. In effect, they are giving away a bushel of wheat for every bushel that an importing nation is prepared to purchase. The result has been a collapse in the world grain prices and very difficult circumstances for Canadian producers. Clearly, it is a buyer's market and has been for some time.
We, in Canada, have a very massive grain handling and transportation system which has developed over many years. It is a system which moves the grain from the prairie farm to the grain elevators by rail, road, canal, river, and ultimately by sea. There are some 37 unions which are involved, we are told, in the handling and transportation of grain at some point in the system and, of course, there are a great number of employers, the railways, the elevator companies, the ports, and so on. Each and every one of these entities, management and labour alike, represents an important cog in the wheel or link in the chain which moves the grain from the prairie farms to export.
Any one of these cogs or links is capable of breaking down and causing a stoppage in that vital flow of grain. When that happens, when the collective bargaining process breaks down and the problems between labour and management are not capable of being resolved in the usual collective bargaining process, a strike or lock-out results.
The question then is, who bears the cost? Unfortunately, it is not the parties in the collective bargaining process. It is not the companies and it is not the workers. Regrettably, it is prairie farmers and ultimately the Canadian public because when the market-place is not working, and it certainly is not working at the present time, it is the Canadian public who has to support the agricultural community, in this particular case the prairie grain and oilseeds sector, through the Canadian treasury. Something in the order of $20 billion, over the past six years, has been paid out to that sector and, unfortunately, because of market conditions more will be required.
The point of this bill today is to try to focus on this problem. Both sides of the dispute, labour and manage-

Private Members' Business
ment, know that the movement of grain is an essential service. They know that if they fail in their collective bargaining process that the government has to come to the rescue. We go through this ritual dance virtually on an annual basis and the unions and the employers are content perpetuate this situation.
One then asks: How many days have to be lost? How many millions of dollars of sales are lost? How much misery is inflicted on third parties, such as the Canadian agricultural producer, before a settlement is finally imposed?
The companies know that they will get the business in the end. Whether it is the grain companies, railroad, shippers or whoever, they know that the grain has to come through their system. The unions as well know that they will get it in the end because sooner or later the grain has to go through the funnel, into the system, and down the chute.
The prairie farmer also knows that he will get it in the end. The problem of the prairie farmer is that it is more of an anatomical question at that point. The producer gets it in the end. It is the producer that has to bear the cost of the failure of labour and management to conclude their agreements. The prairie farmer loses in terms of lost sales, untimely delays, and having to pay demurrage while ships languish in port waiting for the opportunity to load.
The producers have a very difficult situation because, at the same time as they are beset by low world prices and ever-increasing input costs, they face this added possibility of further shut-downs in the grain handling and transportation system. Of course, the Canadian public does as well. When the farmer cannot get what he deserves from a market-place that does not work, whether it is because of destructive and unfair foreign competition, or whether it is because of destructive and unfair problems in terms of domestic labour-management strife, it is the farmer then who has to get it from the government. Canadian taxpayers have to contribute more through the tax system to find the money to help fund the programs that Canadian farmers need in order to survive.
It seems to me that we need to find a better way. Strikes and lock-outs are rather blunt, crude, and
archaic instruments. Surely we can make the effort to seek more workable and more suitable alternatives.
This bill, Bill C-250, as worded, would curtail work stoppages by grain handlers, railway workers, and all those involved in the movement of grain from the farm-gate to export. A mechanism of binding conciliation would be implemented and so on. I gloss over it because it is not very important. In fact, I would urge that members in the House not waste particular time in looking at the wording of this bill, Bill C-250. The proposal in it is only one of many possibilities.
What I wish to do is to focus the intention of the House on the problem to try to secure some relief for the people who suffer when labour and management fail to resolve these problems. The bill is simply an attempt, once again, to get the House to pay some attention to a serious problem.
We are not here right now to union bash or to unduly criticize labour or management. What we would like to do is to try to find a better way. Surely, in our modem society, there is a better way than this sort of blunt instrument.
The subject matter of this bill cannot be dealt with in one hour of Private Members' Business or in five hours. I believe that it requires some study by a parliamentary committee where there is some research and members could seriously consider alternatives and examine them without prejudice and without any preconceived notions. Indeed, I would very much appreciate the consent of the House to a motion which would withdraw the bill and would in fact refer the subject matter to the appropriate committee and I will come to that in a few minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Before the hon. member comes to that, I must advise him that he alone cannot put the motion. He will not be able to put that motion on his own bill.


Geoff Wilson: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member did not let me finish. If he gets unanimous consent, yes; if he does not, he will have to get somebody else to put the motion.


Geoff Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is the understanding that I have and I appreciate your confirmation.
October 2, 1990

It seems to me that if a parliamentary committee were able to take a look at the alternatives, it could examine what is done in other jurisdictions and perhaps it would conclude that what we have now, flawed as it is, is the only alternative and that it is the only workable system. Well, if that is the case, fine. I will accept that verdict. But at this point in time I do believe the situation is worthy of a look. I believe it is worthy of some examination. I do not think we should continue to blindly accept that our system, flawed as it is, is the only alternative.
It is perhaps ironic that we debate this bill today. It is a bill that I filed back in the spring of 1989. Today, there is literally no movement of grain because of the adverse conditions of increasing world supplies and that debilitating, cut-throat foreign export subsidy war we referred to earlier.
As we speak, most of the storage in the country's elevators and terminals is full and no major sales appear imminent. It is a very difficult time for grain and oilseed producers. They need some interim help pending the introduction and establishment of grain and oilseeds safety net programs, the Guaranteed Revenue Insurance Plan and the National Income Stabilization Account. These are programs which are being developed by the grain safety net committee under the auspices of the "growing together strategy" put forward by the Minister of Agriculture last fall.
These conditions make it doubly important that we resolve this problem of shutdowns in the flow of grain, because when the market improves-and sometime in the future it will-and the Canadian Wheat Board makes some major sales and our grain handling system is being pressed to the limit in order to move that grain and maintain Canada's reputation as a trustworthy, reliable supplier of high quality product, at that time the same old anachronistic weapons are going to be trotted out. it is going to be the prairie farmer who again pays the bill.
I circulated the bill among a number of prairie farm organizations for their comments and it is interesting to note some of them.
The United Grain Growers, with some 73,000 members, in fact, call for the Government of Canada to make Canada's grain handling system an essential service.
Private Members' Business
They also ask the government to implement a system of binding arbitration with no strikes or lock-outs.
The Alberta Women in Support of Agriculture state:
Insuring the shipment of grain to our export customers is very important to the grain industry and to the country as a whole. We cannot afford to lose customers or potential customers because our shipping system is not reliable.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers represent some 11,000 wheat growers and they wish to endorse the passage of this bill as it stands. They state:
Our industry is critically dependent upon the services provided by grain handlers and railways. Whenever there is a work stoppage, and there have been many in the past, we face the prospect of lost sales and a damaged reputation as suppliers.
The Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba at recent annual meetings have adopted resolutions calling for the handling of transportation of grain to be declared an essential service.
A number of farm organizations are supportive of the idea behind this bill. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, it appears, is not. I had a letter from the President of that organization, Mr. Stevenson, who stated, and I quote:
-you will note that we continue to use a system of labour relations that places the responsibility for achieving collective agreements squarely where it belongs-on the parties who are directly affected by its terms and conditions.
He goes on to say, and I quote:
As a farmer, I do not want to see the flow of grain stopped; but as the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool I want to ensure that we are able to achieve the goals we set relative to the collective bargaining process. For these reasons, among others, I do not believe that legislation such as you are proposing is appropriate.
I hasten to add that I do not expect this particular piece of legislation to be approved, not at all. It is simply a device to get the subject matter in front of the House in the hope that it may, in fact, be referred to the appropriate committee for some study. Perhaps, in the world today, we are capable of finding a better way to ensure the much needed movement of grain without having to put up with the agony and the costs of these various work stoppages, regardless of whose fault they may be.
I certainly agree with the wheat pool when it states that the responsibility lies with the parties who are bargaining. I wonder what happens when those parties fail to live up to their responsibilities, whether it is one or the other or both. Again, it is the innocent third party, the grain producers of western Canada and ultimately

October 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
the taxpayers of Canada who have to pay the shot. I frankly very much doubt if the positions expressed by the president of the pool is in keeping with that of the majority of the individual members.
The Country Guide in May 1987 summed the matter up in an editorial headed "Grain must keep moving". In referring to a particular strike or stoppage at that time, it stated, and I quote:
This doesn't have to happen. Since everyone is pre-programmed for the government to step in anyway, it makes sense for that intervention to take place before grain movement is disrupted or even threatened with disruption.
The editorial goes on to say:
No one likes to restrict freedom of action by any group. But the accidents of geography, history, economics, and politics have combined to place prairie farmers at the mercy of a handful of individuals who can cut off access to grain and oilseed markets. The balance of power is too one-sided. In the minds of reasonable people, a strike that disrupts grain movement this year is unthinkable. The government must make sure that reason prevails and the unthinkable doesn't come to pass.
I believe that most prairie producers would find themselves in complete agreement with the editorial as expressed by the Country Guide three and a half years ago, but just as valid and poignant today.
In canvassing this situation, I have relied on the viewpoint of individual producers in my area of Saskatchewan and across western Canada who tell me that they are deeply disturbed by this process which seems to go on and on.
I recall dealing with Thunder Bay, the maintenance of ports act in the fall of 1986. In the summer of 1987 we were called back here for the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act. In early 1988 it was Prince Rupert, the grain handling operations there. In the latter part of 1989 it was legislation which sent the seaway workers back to work again.
I am not here to comment on who was right and who was wrong, but we do know who pays the price. The question then is when the collective bargaining process breaks down, what are we going to do? Are we going to continue to allow the grain producers of this country to pay the shot? The whole process seems to me to be
embarrassing. It is costly, unfair, and is simply not in keeping with the structure of modem day society.
We have sophistication in the hospitals. We have all sorts of operations to transplant. We can put people in space with all sorts of sophisticated techniques, and yet the method of resolving problems, the labour-management process, date back literally to the stone age.
The hon. member says perhaps this is not the answer. Maybe it is not. I am not pretending that it is. I am simply asking, can we not in this place refer it to a committee for some study? Perhaps we can find out what they do in other jurisdictions. Maybe it is the same thing. If it is, I will hold my peace. But, I urge members on all sides to not talk this out but rather to consider at least searching for some other alternatives.
I see that my time is almost up, and so what I am going to do at this point is ask whether in this House there would be unanimous consent for me to withdraw this bill and, in fact, refer the subject matter to the appropriate committee which, in this case, might well be the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
I wonder if I could have the agreement of members in this House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid there is not unanimous consent.
The hon. member has 30 seconds left in his speech.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the brief bit of time left to me, let me just say that I am rather disappointed but not surprised. It is pretty clear that the interests of big labour and big business on the one side and the prairie farmer on the other really cannot exist under the same roof. Their interests are very much opposed.
I had hoped we might be able to seek out a solution in this place. It appears that that time has not yet come. I am disappointed particularly with members of the New Democratic Party. Many of them come from the prairies. They come from Saskatchewan. They pretend on the weekends to be in support of the prairie grain producer. On Monday morning, they come back into this place and bow to the dictates of big labour. It is extremely disappointing.
October 2, 1990


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the bill presently before the House.
Let me say to the hon. member who just spoke that there is no alternative. Never did I think that in the House of Commons there would ever be a bill brought in that was going to take away the right to strike from the employees in this country.
It is a fundamental right that belongs to and has been fought for over the years. To think that some member would say in the House of Commons that the right to strike should be taken away from the employees in this country deserves some mention not only from this side of the House but from my friends who I am sure will follow me. Comments like that must be addressed, and at the earliest possible time.
If there is one group of individuals in my constituency-I am sure in many parts of this country-who have been hard done by by the Conservative policies, it is the grain handlers, and particularly the grain handlers in Thunder Bay.
If the hon. member wanted to make comments on how to solve the problems in the grain industry in this country, perhaps he should have been better advised to give some degree of consideration to the St. Lawrence Seaway, the viability of the greatest inland waterway in this country, and perhaps to the largest terminals that are available for grain storage. Those are located in the city of Thunder Bay, the area that I represent.
I do not know how much more the grain handlers in Thunder Bay can take at the hands of this government. We know that the grain business in Canada is affected in three ways. It is affected by legislation, where our markets are and, unfortunately, it is affected by politics.
In so far as the legislation is concerned, the Western Grain Transportation has to be changed. We can no longer rely on the theory that distance is going to be the relative factor in how we ship and subsidize the movement of grain in this country. We have got to change this act, and we have got to start to realize the costing mechanism that is available.
jPrivate Members' Business
I think what we have to do with respect to the Western Grain Transportation Act is to get some accurate costing on what it costs the railways, CP and CN, to move a tonne of grain certain distances in this country and not to relate the cost of those areas in just the distances that are travelled. So the Western Grain Transportation Act has to be changed.
We were led to believe so many times that markets had a great bearing on why the ports in Vancouver and Prince Rupert were so busy, and why they were experiencing the movement of grain up to 60 per cent or 70 per cent of all the grain that we export in this country, until Iraq.
Iraq has always been a traditional market that was served through the port of Thunder Bay to the down river ports and then over to the mid-eastern countries. When the ships were stopped because of the embargo on grain, the ships that were stopped that were loaded for grain and sent to Iraq were not in the down river ports in the St. Lawrence. They were not in the ports of Thunder Bay, but were in the port of Vancouver.
This dispelled the theory that we have been led to believe, that the markets were in the Pacific Rim and not the markets that were traditionally served by that great inland seaway, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the port of Thunder Bay.
Unfortunately it seems, that, although we do not like to acknowledge it, that politics does play a part in where and how the shipment of grain is handled in this country. That is the reason for the disparity and the inequity that is caused because of the absence of grain going through the port of Thunder Bay, using the St. Lawrence Seaway and utilizing the magnificent structures in the down river ports in Baie Comeau and other centres around Montreal.
When I got this legislation, I could not believe what the member was proposing as to how to solve the effects of certain labour problems in the grain industry in Canada. I asked one of my friends who is involved in the grain industry, and I would like to read with your indulgence the views of the grain handlers in Thunder Bay regarding this particular bill.
These views were passed. I thank Mr. Herbert Danih-er, the General Chairman of the Canadian Lakehead Grain Elevators Workers Transportation and Communications Union. He said to me that the hon. member for

Private Members' Business
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is absolutely wrong when he proposes that the right to strike be taken away from all grain handlers in this country.
Let me quote what Mr. Daniher has to say:
The truth of the matter-
I am quoting to his words.
-is Thunder Bay grain elevators have been involved in only two labour disputes in the past 23 years. Both disputes amounted to only a 7-week work stoppage in total. After the 17-day dispute of 1981 the Thunder Bay grain industry accounted for those missed days by moving as much grain through the port in a 4-day period than was moved through other ports the entire year. Again after the labour dispute of 1986, similar records were set. This bill would destroy that type of relationship between the union and the companies.
This bill would make it impossible for the parties to have an effective, productive relationship because the parties wouldn't be allowed to settle their differences and reach an agreement both the union and management could claim as their own during the tenure and length of time of the contract.
Mr. Daniher goes on to say:
It's important that both parties be put to the strict test. If they want to retain or acquire a certain right, is it important enough to go the distance for it? In most cases, due to a relationship developed through many years of collective bargaining, both parties rally to find a compromise or fair and equitable solution to the problem rather than shutting down the industry.
The best result a binding conciliation board could give would be sometimes the result that both parties do not agree to. The imposed settlement would ultimately be made by someone whose job would be not to create a fair, productive, harmonious workplace but whose job it would be to impose a settlement without regard to the effects on the relationship between the parties. The union and the companies would be forced to accept piecemeal solutions versus real, workable solutions hammered out at the negotiating table where labour contracts should be settled.
A bill such as the one before the Blouse today would do nothing but harm the grain industry and the countiy as a whole. If such a bill were passed, does that mean there should be a bill to ensure the farmers deliver their product not when the price is most advantageous but when it is dictated for the farmers to do so.
This bill that is before the House, although it is alluded to help the farmer, would be detrimental to the farmer. That is the very case they find themselves in
today in the west when they cannot get the price that is needed for a tonne of grain. They would be forced, if that bill were passed, to submit their grain for sale when the prices were at a most disadvantageous stage.
The grain industries have been shut down a hundred times longer in our history due to agricultural policies, due to what the United States is doing with respect to labour disputes involving grain elevators, not what is happening in Canada.
Broken bridges, canal walls falling in, the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing policy, surely these areas must be of greater concern to the people who are involved in the veiy intricate business of growing and selling wheat in this country than destroying the harmonious productive industrial relations climate that exists between the elevators and the people in the port of Thunder Bay and those involved in the elevator industry.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude, and I know my time is running short. What we are talking about in this bill that is presented by this member and is before this House today is a fundamental freedom. We almost challenge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. It goes without saying that one of the fundamental freedoms that we have had is the freedom of association, freedom of speech in this country, and we hold that inalienable.
What this member is proposing today is taking away a fundamental right of our workers in this country that they fought so many years to get, that is the right to withdraw their services if they cannot get the deal that they think they should be getting. That is just not acceptable to this party, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to deal with a statement made by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia-that is almost as bad as Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Mr. Speaker-with respect to his motion to have this matter go to committee.
I point out that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is chaired by one of his members. The majority of members on that particular committee are members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are on that particular committee. They have looked at all matters that are drawn to come before the committee
October 2, 1990

and at whether they fit certain criteria to come before the House of Commons as a votable matter.
In this particular case this matter has been chosen not to be a votable matter and to go no further than the debate in the House today. That was as a result of them looking and deciding, for whatever reason, that this particular bill lacked what it took to become a votable matter for further discussion. I point that out simply to make sure that everybody who is watching understands full well what the procedures are here.
If I can turn directly to the bill before the House, I think it is important to look at the crux of the proposed amendment. I would like to read it into the record. It refers to section 89 and I suggest is the crux of the matter. It reads:
Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), no trade union of employees engaged in the handling, storage, transportation or shipping of grain shall declare or authorize a strike and no employer of such employees shall declare or cause a lockout.
That is what we have before us, something that is saying notwithstanding what the law says we are going to single out one sector or our economy and say no fellas, or women, you can no longer use the right to withdraw your services.
As has been pointed out by my friend in the Liberal Party, that is a right that has long been fought for throughout the history of labour. It is the only thing that an employee has to use in order to better his lot.
We do not want to go back to the sweatshop days. We have progressed far beyond that. I do not want to lose sight of how important it is for the movement of grain to continue as uninterrupted as possible to the ports. It is important not just for the farmers, but it is important to the economy of the prairies and it is important to the economy of Canada as a whole. I caution that the way of doing this is not by setting, as unfortunately this member did toward the end of his speech, the trade union or labour movement against the farmers and the farmers against the grain handlers. The provisions are there for an adequate collective bargaining system.
I have been involved throughout my lifetime in strikes when I worked in the trade union movement. I have been involved as an employer in strikes and lockouts as a member of town councils. I have been an employer as a
Private Members' Business
lawyer. I have also worked for the B.C. department of labour in labour standards. I understand the movement and I understand what is going on. I have worked through all of them. I have been involved in a number of strikes and lockouts in both the mining industry and in the pulp and paper industry, as well as lockouts and strikes on the municipal level. I have been involved in the bargaining process on both sides of the fence, on both the labour and management sides.
The collective agreement process works if given the opportunity. We only have to look in the grain industry to this summer in particular when the type of job action anticipated in this bill was avoided by the parties, when an agreement was reached between the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the grain workers' union. Again it shows that the collective agreement process does work.
I wonder if this is the thin edge of the wedge. We legislate now the grain workers-and I agree that the movement of grain is important to the economy of this country-but do we now expand what we are doing here? Do we expand it into those areas in small communities where the community is being devastated because of a lockout or strike situation? Do we expand it every time that there is a nurses' strike, a teachers' strike, or a lockout because it is essential that these people get back to work for the very economy of the communities?
Do we continue in this vein? Do we stick the wedge in, try to split it wide open and gut the collective agreement process in Canada? I suggest no. There are other alternatives.
The conciliation process as set out here in part can and should be given the opportunity to work. People should be given that opportunity to reach an agreement. They should be able to use the right that they have earned in order to withdraw their services if that is the case or, in the case of a lockout situation, I suggest that management can do the same thing.
I do not think we accomplish anything with this particular motion before us but cause heartache and problems. Every time we get into difficulties and if it hurts us personally, the temptation is always there to short circuit the system; let us find a way around the inconvenience. It is natural.

Private Members' Business
I put it into very basic terms as we look at whose ox is being gored. We do not want to turn grain handlers against farmers. We do not want to turn farmers against grain handlers. We want people to be given the opportunity to use a system that in fact works.
If we look at the Canadian Autoworkers' recent strike against Ford, they used the system and in a very short time were back at work. I emphasize once again that the system works.
The hon. member says that the farmers would love to hear that. Farmers want more money, and I think that we should be looking at the over-all picture of what this government has done for farmers. Let us make farming more viable. Let us not tiy to turn one group against the other. Let us get them all working together so that at the end of the day farmers can make an adequate living and the grain gets transported by people who have used the collective agreement system to get that grain across.
We cannot attack a system that has been so hard fought for and hard worked for. I suggest that this bill was found wanting by the privileges and elections committee with good reason. I would not support the bill.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to second the motion of my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia and to spend a few minutes speaking in favour of Bill C-250.
The purpose of this bill is to outlaw strikes and lockouts in the grain handling and transportation industries. It is unfortunate that the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon had not listened to what my colleague said in his remarks concerning him not being hard and fast about the particular wording of the bill being what he wanted or needed. He would be perfectly willing to have the subject matter go to a committee of the House and find that better way that he spoke of.
In my riding of Dauphin-Swan River in western Manitoba we have roughly 25,000 miles of farmland. We probably have some of the best oilseed growing land in the country. Coarse grains, pulse crops, are grown in my part of the province. Strikes and lockouts in the grain handling system are very serious not only for the primary producers in my riding but for all of my constituents,
because in one way or another they all depend on agriculture. It is the number one industry by far so everyone depends on farmers and farming.
As I said, strikes or lockouts in the system are very serious. It is like traffic on a freeway. As long as things are moving smoothly, nobody notices how quickly things are moving. As soon as you have a bottleneck on a freeway, things back up pretty quickly. That is what happens in the grain handling system. It works well. Every piece, every cog in the system is very important: the grain handlers, the grain companies, the railway workers, the producers. They are all very important, but if one of those cogs breaks down the whole system backs up very quickly.
Since I have been a member of this House for a little more than six years, there have been three occasions I can think of where there has been work stoppages in the grain handling system. In each case when the New Democratic Party had to stand up and choose between organized labour and the farmers, it picked organized labour every time.
It has happened many other times in the past, but there are three times that I have personally stood and supported the producers in western Canada and I have seen the NDP across the way stand up and do exactly the opposite. I think it is important that the farmers in Canada know that because, as my colleague said, one thing is said to the farmers on the weekend, they come here, and the other hat goes on pretty quickly.
We are talking about a major industry in Canada. Grains and oilseeds in Canada account for $5.7 billion in exports every year. That is big business. Bill C-250 brought forward by my colleague from Saskatchewan is being brought forward on behalf of grain producers, but as I mentioned it is important that the interests of every cog, every person involved in the grain handling system, be taken into account.
The conflict resolution process, as it exists today, is very tedious and very time consuming. I cannot believe what I just heard from the previous speaker, the member from British Columbia, who said the system works. If I went back to western Canada and stood before a group of farmers and said that to them, I would be strung up in pretty short order because the system does not work. It works fine as long there are no work stoppages, but if you told a farmer in Canada that the system was working when there was a work stoppage, look out. As my


October 2, 1990

colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia has said, there must be a better way.
In the event that Bill C-250 that we have before us today is not the best way, then I think the best way to look at it would be to refer it to an all-party committee of members of this House and come up with the best way. Many of the comments brought forward in the prepared speech by the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon could very well come before that committee and be considered. We are not saying that those are not valid points. They have to be considered along with the others, but the interests of the producers have been ignored every time there has been a dispute to this point, and they have got to be taken into account as well. How could any MP in this House who purports to have the interests of farmers in mind oppose such a move?
Therefore I would like to move the following amendment to Bill C-250. I move:
That the motion be amended-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid the hon. member seconded the motion. Therefore he cannot move the amendment. Is the hon. member finished with his debate?


Brian White: We will come to that later then, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry. I thank you for your advice. I was unaware of that, but I would hope one of the members who speaks after me would move the amendment that was first alluded to by my colleague from Saskatchewan and that I would support as well, that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a committee for further study and to come up with a better way.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this debate on the private member's bill, Bill C-250, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
What I would like to talk about is the kind of charade that is being played here today. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for a moment. As a fairly new member, I was led to believe that when it comes to private members' bills, if you had an idea that you thought made a lot of sense, you put it into a private member's bill and put it in front of the House for debate. You did not just throw out a piece of legislation and tell the people who are
Private Members' Business
going to debate the matter, for or against, "Just ignore that bill, it is not any good anyway. It is just to start the talking".
Mr. Speaker, we do a lot of talking in this House. However, we are being asked to deal with a particular piece of legislation, in this case, a private member's bill which asks for some very specific changes to the Canada Labour Code.
First of all, the changes the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia talks about relate to a right that workers in this country have fought for for over 100 years. They have put a lot of time and effort into learning their trade and they put pressure on governments and on companies to give them the ability to pull their services, if they are not allowed to make a decent living in this country.
Some of us propose that unionism is not a political party. To some of us unionism is the art of collective bargaining, the ability to get a good standard of living in this country. That is exactly what unionism is all about, what collective bargaining is all about and what, in essence, pulling your services is all about, if you cannot make a good deal.
I want to talk about some of the issues and statements made by members of the Conservative Party relating to the fact that farmers always get an unfair deal. If we take a good look at the railway strikes which took place in this country as well as the grain-handlers' strikes, very serious consideration was given to what would take place if we let those individual unions stay out for too long and, therefore, there was back-to-work legislation. That is a prerogative of this House. When strikes go on too long and this House feels that it is hurting the economy as a whole, then we have the ability to legislate a particular group of individuals back to work. If you look back in history, in the case of the railway union for example, they have been legislated back to work after a period of one week, in most cases, and I do not think that that was unfair.
I want to talk a little about the fact that the hon. member feels that because it is an essential service these individuals should have their rights as Canadian citizens and workers taken away.

October 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
Let us just use an example which we saw not too long ago, the nurses in Alberta. There was legislation in place, but the fact is that legislation did not work. What did the nurses do? They broke the law.
What happens when you put a piece of legislation like this into effect that, in essence, stops 37 unions and thousands and thousands of employees in this country from having their right, to choose if they want to continue to work for an employer when they believe that they are getting an unfair deal. Sooner or later, in something of this magnitude, people will be forced to take matters into their own hands. Legislation is only as good as people will allow it to be, if they have respect for its intent. That is why we have used back-to-work legislation versus mandatory non-strike rules which would, in essence, trample all over people's rights.
I want to use another example. What would happen in southern Ontario if we use this same scenario that the member put to us today for the auto workers? In southern Ontario the auto workers are a big portion of its economy. What would happen if we were to tell them that they were no longer allowed to strike, that they were an essential service because of the effect of an the auto workers strike on the whole southern Ontario economy. In fact, I think I can say that it ripples through the whole Canadian economy because that is how big and important that auto industry is to Canada. What we do not say or what I do not hear the members opposite saying is, let's not let the auto workers strike. The hon. member is looking at the situation in very simplistic terms and the fact that the farmer or the producer is the individual who is hurt.
Everyone gets hurt during a strike. Believe me, the workers get hurt, the company gets hurt and yes, third parties get hurt. But the most important part of this whole scenario is that, through a period of many, many years we have built a system, sometimes cumbersome and very slow, but the best system in the world so far, that allows workers to have rights and to negotiate with their employer in good faith. When they feel that the good faith is not there or they are not getting a deal that is necessary to take home for their families and to have the kind of living they are looking for, then they pull their services. That is not too difficult to understand.
I would also like to go back to what the hon. member talked about earlier. Never have I heard a member come forward and say, well, here you go, never mind this but we will use this as a talking point. Are there not other mechanisms to be able to do that?
Perhaps the member could write the chairman of the transport committee and ask him if it is possible for this matter to be put on the agenda for discussion. My colleague from Thunder Bay would tell you very quickly that they would be more than willing to entertain looking at other ways of improving the transportation system, which is what we are really talking about here, and not that we have to pull workers rights to strike or allowing companies to lock out workers or the other scenario when what we are talking about is a transportation system that does not seem to work very well and the modern kind of system that we must have to be competitive.
I would also suggest that the member very seriously consider that over on that side of the House is where the government sits, in case he wondered. If the government feels there are some legitimate problems, it can also put forward a motion that can go to committee that would allow us to look at an issue as large as the transportation system as it relates to the hauling of produce for farmers from the west. To come forward and say, just ignore this bill, it is just a talking point, I do not want to union bash and take away the rights of the workers, but I would like to resolve an issue.
I suggest that he use his staff and the research at his disposal to come forward with something a little more concrete that we can debate and not to use the charade that this is a talking point. In essence, his real intent is to severely handicap workers and not allow them to have their rights. That is not democracy. Democracy may not be the best system in the world for some people but for some of us it is the only system and the price that we have to pay for it is the fact that if we have to allow certain disruptions in this country for a worker to have his rights, then we will do that.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, entering into today's debate on Bill C-250,1 would like to make a few brief comments about the bill and the concerns from someone who comes from northern Ontario and from an area where agriculture is also very important. I also understand some of the frustrations
/ * [DOT]

that my colleagues from western Canada have gone through for the last number of years.
Bill C-250 is intended to outlaw strikes by employees engaged in the handling, storage and transportation of grains. It also prohibits lockouts by employers of such employees. The bill would seek to accomplish the objectives by a blanket prohibition of the right to strike and the right to lock out. The collective bargaining issue in a dispute between unions and employers would be resolved through the appointment of an conciliation officer. The majority of the employees performing these functions are governed under the Canada Labour Code and are subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The framework for collective bargaining established by the Canada Labour Code is designed to encourage the resolution of disputes without work stoppages, and in the vast majority of cases collective agreements are, in fact, reached through the normal process of negotiations provided for by statute.
The government recognizes that an effective, efficient and reliable transportation system is critical to the maintenance of Canada's reputation as a dependable supplier of grain and will continue to assist labour and management in resolving the collective bargaining disputes. I also recognize, along with my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia and also the member for Dauphin-Swan River, how important it is for them to be able to communicate and try to look and see if adjustments can be made in pieces of legislation.
Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-250, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling), be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged and the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate?


An hon. member:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a debatable motion. The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not blocking it again.
Adjournment Debate
I have one minute to make a 10-minute argument and the members opposite do not want to hear it. They are afraid of something.
I do not profess to be an expert on grain handling but I do know a little bit about collective bargaining and what this bill is intended to do. Whether the members opposite want to admit it or not, this bill is the beginning of union busting, plain and simple.
We have worked for many years in this country to give workers rights, to give them the ability to bargain, and to receive fair return for a fair day's work. This bill contravenes all of those efforts.
I understand I have 20 seconds left, Mr. Speaker. If this bill had been introduced in the form of anti-scab legislation rather than in its present form, with its sole purpose being the outlawing of strikes and lock-outs, if there had been an incentive for the employers to sit at the bargaining table and come up with a solution prior to a strike, I think there would have been unanimous consent in this House to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on May 10 last I directed a question to the Minister of Forestiy concerning the serious effects of the government's monetary policy on the forest industry. Here is one of the questions I asked, and I quote from page 11266 of Hansard:
Given the forestry minister's responsibility to protect the interests of the forest sector, and given the disastrous effects on that industry of the

October 2, 1990
Adjournment Debate
government's high dollar policy, what measures is the minister taking
to help ensure that the high dollar will be lowered or, at the very least,
what measures is he proposing to offset the harmful effects of this
policy on the forest sector?
Not satisfied with the minister's response to this question I thought I would try to elicit more information this evening.
The minister knows how important the forest industry is for the Canadian economy. For example, it employs about 300,000 workers and indirectly, gives work to
500.000	more. In 1988 productive forest lands brought in more than $30 million in exported goods. In the Canadian manufacturing sector, one out of seven dollars comes from the forest industry. It contributes in excess of $17 million to Canada's net trade balance, more than the total net trade balances in agriculture, fisheries and mines.
The forest sector is larger than those of the car-making and oil industries. In addition domestic and foreign sales of forest products account for a Canadian annual trade which brings in close to $25 million.

The monetary policy of the government to which I am referring in the question has to do with the high dollar value and that is linked to the high interest rates. I just want to point out the impact that this has had on the economy in general. I want to quote a few statistics here.
In regard to corporate profits and bankruptcies, corporate profits fell 17 per cent last year and are expected to fall an additional 10 per cent this year. During the first six months of 1990 there were 23,651 bankruptcies. That is up 30 per cent over the 1989 period and up over 3,000 from the worst showing during the recession of the early 1980s.
I will put this in context from the beginning as I am not blaming all of this on the monetary policies. There are other factors as well, but certainly it has had an effect.
In the manufacturing and professional job area,
148.000	manufacturing jobs, representing 6.9 per cent of all jobs in this sector, were lost between June, 1989 and June, 1990. Shipments are declining in 17 out of 22 sectors, the worst showing since the 1981-83 recessionary period.
In regard to the budget, Mr. Wilson's 1990 deficit figure was based on an average interest rate of 11.1 per
cent. We know that the interest rate is somewhere around 13.38 per cent on average over the first six months of this year. This means that if Mr. Wilson wants to meet his deficit target he will have to lower rates to an average of 8.82 per cent for the second half of 1990, a drop of 4.56 percentage points. I should have asked how many more jobs have to be lost in the general economy over all.
Since my question had to do with forestry, I want to find out what this monetary policy has done to the forestry sector as well.
Earnings in the forestry sector are down 40 per cent to 50 per cent in all forest products industries for the first six months of 1990 because of the high dollar. Pulp shipments are down 20 per cent for the same period because of the high dollar. Industry spokesmen estimate that 4,500 lay-offs are directly related to the high dollar.
In British Columbia, a one-cent raise in the dollar means a loss of $100 million in revenues, that is one cent on the dollar. Revenues of $5.1 billion have been lost in the forestry sector over the 1987, 1988, and 1989 period because of the high dollar. The loss for 1989 was $2.5 billion, and the loss for 1990 is expected to be higher.
In my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur alone, we suffer from high unemployment, but we are a natural resource-based riding. Again, we see the effects of this: the high unemployment and lay-offs. There are two major companies that look toward international markets that have their workers on strike and are reluctant to come back to the table because of the high dollar. The high dollar is not the only reason they are on strike, but it adds to the whole issue.
The Minister of Forestry has the responsibility to protect the forestry sector. I am not asking to change the fiscal policy, but I am asking him to try to influence the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to see the detrimental effects that the high interest and high dollar policy of the government has on forestry. I think it is imperative that the minister realizes that he has a responsibility to do that.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that at the time, the minister said in

October 2, 1990

Adjournment Debate
response to the question raised by the hon. member that our department did not have authority over monetary policy. In fact, the Liberal Party helped create this department and organize it in such a way that the department would work together with the provinces to develop programs and better technologies to improve and protect our forests. Furthermore, our program's entire policy is based on sustainable development, within the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry.
Of course, the hon. member's question had a budgetary aspect, and I may remind him that our government's policy has borne fruit, insofar as we have been able to control inflation.
I may remind the hon. member that in the early 80s when the Liberal Party was in power, it was decided that the Department of Finance would let inflation run its course. We saw exactly what happened: inflation soared out of control. When the Minister of Finance at the time realized he could no longer control inflation, he started increasing interest rates. The result, Mr. Speaker, was far more disastrous than the present situation.
Obviously, there are problems as a result of the present state of the economy in this country and throughout the world. Interest rates are a problem as well. However, I may remind the hon. member that in 1984, when we were elected, we signed federal-provincial agreements on forestry development with each province. These agreements totalled over $1,750 million, on average, for each province. The new Department of Forestry has worked with each minister to develop the concept of sustainable development, which will help the industry to survive. With New Brunswick, for instance, we have signed a new agreement on forestry development. We have made proposals to each of the provinces on ways to renew agreements that would help alleviate economic problems but also help the industry, the provinces and governments to get through this difficult time and provide present and future workers with jobs in a forestry sector that would be based on the sustainable development of a renewable resource.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, on March 6 I raised one in a series of questions directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Agriculture.
I asked him to give the House the details of what he called the drought assistance program and what the rest of us thought should have been called a farm income assistance program.
There was a shortfall in excess of $1 billion on income which he admitted was, in part, due to subsidization levels from the Europeans and the Americans. While there has been half a billion dollar payment made which is in the pockets of the creditors of most of the farmers across Canada, the situation has not changed greatly.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the answer the minister gave, you will see that the situation has worsened considerably. In his response to me he said that the government is prepared to assist again, but reminds the House that the level of enhancement has been reduced quite substantially, enhancement being the subsidies paid by the Europeans and the Americans to customers in order to entice them to buy their grain.
He reported in March that the Europeans had dropped their enhancement programs from $200 a tonne to the neighbourhood of $80 per tonne and that the United States had dropped their export enhancement program to about $20 per tonne. He was expecting grain prices to continue to rise, because they had risen, as he says, by roughly 50 per cent.
Many things have happened since March 6. Europeans are still using the enhancement program of about $80 per tonne. They completed a sale to Tunisia recently at about $81 U.S. a tonne. However, instead of being at the $20 per tonne level, the United States has surpassed $53 per tonne. In some of the recorded transactions, they are reported to have gone up as high as $58 a tonne.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of the new crop year in western Canada, Canadian Wheat Board initial prices for No. 1 wheat at the elevator came in on August 1 at 22

Adjournment Debate
per cent below the price it had been the day before. This is accounted for by a drop of the federal government's guarantee on initial prices of $20 a tonne as well as decisions by federal government agencies to increase elevation, storage and handling charges, and to increase the farmers' share of the freight rate under the Western Grain Transportation Act. In all, producers of No. 1 wheat received 22 per cent less delivering on the first day of this crop year.
The result is that the prairie pools, who have done a fairly thorough estimate of the potential damage, say that at the end of this calendar year with the assistance that is appreciated of approximately $500,000 to Canadian producers, Saskatchewan farmers on average will have a net income of about $4,000 each.
If we are going to attempt to have net incomes for farmers similar to those of the last four or five years, we will require an addition $1.25 billion to go into the grain sector alone. That is the sector that is most hurt by these actions by other countries.
The livestock, dairy and poultry areas have been more or less holding their own, in part because we have a certain amount of protection for some of these commodities with supply-management marketing boards. Others happen to be just at the low end of the cycle, for instance the prices for beef, while they are not good, are almost as high as they were in 1977 and 1978.
That gives you some idea of how desperate farmers are when they see 1977-78 prices as being very good news. We are only about 15 per cent below that on those commodities.
The point that I want to make to the Ministry of Agriculture is that the problem has not gone away. Their preview of what was to come was much too over-optimistic. The reality is there is still a great shortfall in the country, and at least $1.25 billion is needed in order to bring these farmers' incomes up to a level consistent with what average Canadians are getting.
I would urge that the minister take action as soon as possible. I note that he has always said that the next injection of funds would be through a firm program, possibly the proposed GRIP or NISA. Those programs will not handle this kind of pay-out because the triggering mechanism is on an average price and that would not trigger a pay-out under these circumstances. The cash is needed desperately and I urge the government to act quickly.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the government is very keenly aware of the difficulties facing the grains and oilseeds sector. Over the last number of years we have taken unprecedented steps to help farmers through the difficult times. I believe our record speaks for itself.
We established the Special Grains Program for the 1986-87 crops to ease the burden of low grain prices brought on by the international subsidy wars. This program paid out more than $2 billion over those two years.
Again in 1988, when farmers all across Canada were reeling from the effects of a devastating drought, we provided about $850 million to help them cope again. This year, we announced $450 million in assistance to grains and oilseeds producers.
Agreements have now been signed for approximately $435 million, or 96 per cent of that total. The remaining amount has been earmarked for the fur and horticultural industries, and to support soil conservation projects across Canada.
These initiatives I have just outlined constitute assistance for the grain and oilseeds industry totalling almost $3.5 billion. That is a significant commitment to the industry.
However, these special programs are not enough and we recognize that. Canadian farmers should not be expected to rely on government assistance packages year after year. An improved safety net system is needed to provide financial stability to the sector. A new program may be within sight. Over the last nine months proposals for a new program have been designed by the farmers and governments represented on the grains and oilseeds safety net committee. These people have recommended that these programs be implemented for the 1991-92 crop year.

These new programs, the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan, called GRIP, and the Net Income Stabilization Account, called NISA, are designed to provide the stability farmers need. The committee believes the programs would be bankable. That means farmers would know in February or March their income position for the year. With that information, farmers can go to their banker and negotiate their credit needs.
The GRIP and NISA programs are designed to offer maximum benefits when taken together. The GRIP and NISA programs offer a way of achieving long-term stability which is needed in the grains and oilseeds sector. Our goal has to be long term stability. And whatever we do in the short term must be done with that in mind.
Adjournment Debate
We are aware of the cash flow problems that grains and oilseeds producers are now struggling with. That is why we have been meeting over the summer with farm groups and provincial governments to address this problem.
We know there have been many meetings held across the country and we know that the problems are there. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with those problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 3, 1990