1990-03-09

Mr. Speaker:: On Tuesday, February 6, 1990, the hon. member for Kamloops raised a question of privilege claiming that the Department of Finance had acted in contempt of the House in its recent publication and distribution of a brochure on the goods and services tax.
In presenting his argument the hon. member recalled the situation that arose last fall when the former Leader of the Opposition raised a question of privilege challenging the right of the finance department to advertise information about the proposed goods and services tax, without due regard to the role of Parliament in approving such a tax. He maintained that this new case was similar because, in his words, "the Department of Finance was employing a communications strategy in advance of a House of Commons decision". Such a campaign, he argued, could only be prejudicial to the work of the committee which, as he put it, is charged with amending the GST bill.

For his part, the Government House Leader pointed out that the brochure prepared by the Department of Finance did not assume that the GST proposal had already become law. The minister assured the House that all advertisements and information material prepared by the department since the ruling of October 10 have heeded the Chair's warning about due regard for the role of Parliament.

The October ruling, as hon. members will recall, found the advertisements of late August on the GST to be cavalier and almost bold in tone. In particular, the offending passage declared that "on January 1, 1991 the federal sales tax system will change". Furthermore, readers were requested to save the advertisement, since it served as a notice of the new tax system. The Chair found that these advertisements had been ill-conceived but that they fell short of offending the strict definition of contempt.

The hon. member from Kamloops claims that the recently printed brochure offends the dignity of Parliament in a similar fashion and that the action of the Department of Finance amounts to a contempt of the House.

I have had an opportunity to examine the brochure. On page 1, the very first sentence of the text reads: "Legislation to implement the goods and services tax (GST) is currently before Parliament". The text goes on to state that on January 1, 1991 the government proposes to eliminate the existing federal sales tax, FST, and replace it with the GST.
Such language is quite different in tone and substance from the advertisements of last August, and in the opinion of the Chair in no sense vitiates the debate on the GST in this House or in committee.
How the government seeks to promote its policies may well be a matter of concern to hon. members and to the Canadian electorate. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the government has a right to communicate with the public about its policies and programs. Indeed the government has a responsibility to inform Canadians about what it is seeking to do, particularly on issues of great complexity or controversy.

March 9, 1990
Government Orders
The role of the Chair is not to judge the nature of or the necessity for such communication. The Chair is strictly limited to examining cases where the role or dignity of Parliament may be diminished and to take whatever action is necessary to keep that from happening.
In the case before us the Chair finds that the role of Parliament has been duly acknowledged, and that there is no affront to the dignity of the House.
I thank hon. members for their contribution to this particular matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of TVansport) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was last debated on Friday morning, January 26, when there were not many more people in the House than there are here this morning. Nonetheless, there are many of the same faces who are vitally interested in this piece of legislation.
I just want to take a few moments to thank the legislative committee for its work under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Peterborough and the other members who sat on the committee, and also to read into the record the names of communities that wrote in an submission.
The county of Camrose, the village of Donalda, the village of Edberg, the village of Big Valley and the
county of Stettler will ring a bell in your heart, Mr. Speaker. I can see a smile on your face already as you recognize them. I have never been to any of those places, but knowing the size of them it reminds me of where I was born and raised back on the prairies myself.
What we have before us today in third reading is a piece of legislation that amends two sections of the National Transportation Act. That act was passed in 1987. We are aware of a single company on which it has an effect, that is the Central Western Railway. For this reason we want to pass it today and send it on to the other place so that it will be brought into conformity with the National Transportation Act.
I am sure my hon. friends opposite will have comments to make on this piece of legislation.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I too want speak for a few moments on Bill C-5.
The parliamentary secretary is correct. We had a good, constructive session of the legislative committee on this bill. The work of the committee was undertaken in a responsible fashion.
Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 applies to one short line railway company in Canada, the Central Western Railway company. It applies to no other railway company. More to the point, in future this bill will have no implication for any other railway company in Canada.
The Central Western Railway, located in Alberta, is the only railway company which through the luck of the draw is not part of the new provisions contained in the National Transportation Act provisions for short line railways. That is because the Central Western Railway came into being before the NTA was passed. Henceforth, all short line railways will be treated in an identical fashion. Because of the luck of the draw and getting out of the gate early, previous to 1987, those regulations for short line railways do not apply, that is the jurisdiction does not apply to the Central Western Railway.
All this bill attempts to do is to treat this company in exactly the same fashion as every other short line railway in Canada. We could have a debate in the House about the evolution of short line railways. We could have a philosophical discussion in the House about whether or not the evolution of short line railways is a good or bad thing, but that is another question. Given that we have a set of regulations that apply to all other short line railways, should one company be treated differently? I think it is the conclusion of sensible members of the

Government Orders
House that the answer is no, it ought not to be treated differently.
For the record, because I do not believe in pretending there was no objection, there was an objection to this bill, a fairly strenuous objection to this bill. It was made by the executive secretary of the Canadian Railway Labour Association, Mr. Ed Abbott. He indicated the association was in the middle of a discussion regarding jurisdiction by the union for that railway. Mr. Abbott has done exactly as any union representative should do. He has looked initially at the position of the employees of the railway an0 their rights. He has been determined to ensure that their rights are maintained and their jobs preserved. That is the job that any union should do, and that was the initial focus point for Mr. Abbott's interjection with respect to Bill C-5.
Members can say, notwithstanding the valid objection by Mr. Abbott, that we are satisfied. We have heard firsthand from a representative of all of the employees that the employees in question support Bill C-5. The workers believe, and say so unanimously, that they now have a very constructive working relationship with the Central Western Railway. They believe the unique and small nature of this company with such a small number of employees is conducive to a positive working environment. More important, for Canadians generally, the safety record and standards of this company are indeed good and have been maintained.
It is worth pointing out to Canadians who are wondering about the evolution of short line railways that at least in the case of this railway, without prejudging what may happen in the future, this company has pumped a very substantial amount of its revenues in the few years it has been in operation into upgrading the line. It bought the line from one of the two giants of Canada and it has spent millions upgrading that line in a short period of time. In fact, as much as 35 per cent or 40 per cent of the revenues of the company have been immediately pumped back into ensuring safety and improving safety. That backdrop is important.
Members of the committee have heard from the employees. I might add that the employees were unanimous in wanting this bill passed. It is in their interest, in the interest of the company, and in the interest of the region the company serves, the short line route. We have also heard from the village of Donalda, from the village of Big Valley, from the county of Camrose, and from many other communities and farmers served, and happily so, by this short line railway. They would like to see Bill C-5 passed to allow this railway to continue its work, to clarify the question of disputed jurisdiction quickly, and to allow it to grow and build.
It is worth pointing out and acknowledging as well that we initially had some union representation, and we understand that representation. Not only are the employees satisfied, not only are the communities affected satisfied with the operation of this railway, but I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Gordon Wright, member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta-and I am not used to promoting New Democratic members of legislative assemblies-who is as aware as I am and who has written an excellent letter.
Like many of us, he well understands the prerogative of the union to represent its employees. Like many of us, he is sensitive to the right of the unions to intervene in these types of circumstances. Also, like many of us, he has judged this case on its merits. He has read no more into Bill C-5 than there is and no less, and he has come to a conclusion. We can understand the sensitive position he is in as a member of the New Democratic Party that in fact the swift passage of Bill C-5 is an appropriate act for Parliament to undertake. I will not quote from the letter.
We in this party support Bill C-5. We want to take an opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Tom Payne, President of the Central Western Railway who is truly an example for all of those doubting Thomases across Canada that Parliament can work from time to time. Mr. Payne has single-handedly come to Ottawa, single-handedly made his case to all three caucuses, all three parties, without the help of high priced lobbyists, without the help of high priced lawyers, without the help of political opportunists. He has appealed to the inherent-occasionally it is there-common sense of members of Parliament. His

March 9, 1990
Government Orders
odyssey here in Ottawa and hopefully the passage of this bill today is a tribute to the common sense of Parliament and a tribute to the inherent belief that a single Canadian can from time to time move mountains and make this place work in a sensible fashion.
We will be supporting Bill C-5. We encourage all members to do so, and we hope it will be swiftly passed by the Senate.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-5 was read for the second time in this House on January 26, I stated that this legislation had more far-reaching consequences than the government wanted us to believe.
While it is true that the Canadian Western Railway Corporation provides what is described as a good service to many farmers in Alberta, and while it also true that this service is essential to farmers of this region, what I tried to point out to this House before is that Bill C-5 has more far-reaching implications than to allow this small railroad company to avoid entanglement with many levels of legislation which is according to its owner threatening its survival.
In committee, the owner of the Canadian Western Railway and labour representatives testified, which reinforced my opinion that Bill C-5 should not be passed and that if it were not passed it would not result in any injury to the farmers of that region who need this branch line to get their grain shipped to the coast.
Before I again explain to this House why I oppose this bill, I would like to point out a few things that will hopefully show farmers in that region of Alberta how the passage of Bill C-5 should not-and I stress that point-affect service to them.
Without Bill C-5, the CWR received a $1.7 million grant to commence the operation of this branch line. According to the owner of this company, the money was paid to CN as a down payment. Some of it bought equipment, some of it paid pre-start up operation costs. That is a pretty substantial sum of money to help a company get started. Without Bill C-5, CWR has managed to cuts the costs of operating the railway line and that made it cheaper to haul the grain.
When testifying before the legislative committee studying this bill, the owner of the railway in question stated:
This line was a high cost line. In the hearings, it was shown to be one of the higher cost lines on the Canadian prairies, operating at a cost in excess of 44 cents per tonne per mile for the grain carried. All costs into the system have progressively lowered themselves from the first year of operation; we are now costing the system approximately 22 cents per tonne per mile.
That does not strike me as a company being in an impossible situation. It seems to be doing very well. Why Bill C-5, then?
The lines and tracks used by CWR were constructed between 1909 and 1911 by the Canadian Northern Railway. Shortly thereafter, the Canadian Northern Railway, like many of the regional railways built during the railway boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, found itself in financial difficulty and by the year 1919 the Government of Canada acquired ownership and control of the Canadian Northern Railway company.
The portion of the line under consideration in Bill C-5 was the former Canadian National Railway's Stettler subdivision. Its primary function then-and it is the same now-is to transport grain from the elevators along the line to CN's main track for delivery to the ports in Vancouver. This line has been designated as an integral part of the basic railway network and became protected against abandonment until the year 2000.
It is to be argued then that the Central Western Railway remains connected with other provinces and continues by its main function to be advantageous to Canada.
There is much more at stake than allowing a small company to fall retroactively under the National Transportation Act proviso for short line railways. Again, we must wonder about the intent of Bill C-5. Because of the far-reaching implications I have mentioned, and the need to protect this railroad line, I would argue that in effect the passage of Bill C-5 would be to the disadvantage of grain farmers rather than to their advantage.
The federal government has been generous toward the CWR in the past, but without federal involvement can we assure the grain farmers that the railway will be able to continue to operate? It seems to me that these days this government is more inclined to cut grants rather than to give them. When the government is reduced to slashing funds to such groups as veterans, women and
March 9, 1990

natives, as well as transfers to the provinces, how can grain fanners be assured that this railway company will be able to continue on its own?
I would like to go back to the question of why Bill C-5. It has been argued, as I pointed out before, that if the Canadian Western Railway had come into existence 39 days after it did, that being the time that the new National Transportation Act came into play, it would not the face legal entanglements that it faces today. That is not exactly true.
The jurisdictional problem would still have been raised, as it has been by the railway unions representing the employees on the Canadian National Railway, for successor rights pursuant to Section 144 of the Canada Labour Code.
Furthermore, if Bill C-5 were to pass, federal jurisdiction over Central Western could be upheld on the basis of Section 92 (10) (c) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Canada Labour Relations Board has held that the Central Western Railway fell under federal jurisdiction. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. The company appealed this decision. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to be heard on March 19, 1990.
The government has been quite efficient this time in trying to get this legislation through the House. It could be argued that such zealousness might prejudice the court case should the bill become law before the Supreme Court has been able to hear the case. I hope that this is not the intent of the government in trying to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
I raised the question of safety as well during the last debate. I would like to raise it again.
We were assured that employees of the Central Western Railway hold an "A" card under the uniform code of operating rules and that their examination had been filed with both provincial and federal authorities. I pointed out before, and I would like to point out again, that should Bill C-5 tip the scale and should ultimately CWR be declared outside federal jurisdiction, there would be no guarantees that this railway would continue
Government Orders
to be governed by the federal safety standards once the railway is declared to be wholly provincial.
I put to you the concerns of unions in that matter. Their questions were these. Would the employees be protected from having to work in unsafe conditions due to long hours of duty? Would they be covered by the mandatory rest order? If the Canada Labour Relations Board decision is upheld, the unions argue that Central Western Railway employees would be protected by the rest provisions of the agreements that were in place on the Canadian National Railway prior to the purchase of the Stettler subdivision. These agreements give employees the right to book rest after 10 or 11 hours of duty.
It was pointed out in the submission of the United Transportation Union to the legislative committee that there is a distinct difference between a contractual right and the whim of an employer to force an employee to work long hours. It was pointed out as well, and here I quote verbatim, what was submitted by the UTU:
These contract rules and government regulations not only protect
the employees but also serve to protect the public along the right of
way and we believe that not only the Central Western but any other
short line railway should be required to comply with these standards.
In closing, I would simply urge this House to consider the few points I have mentioned in my speech but that I would like to highlight once more.
The Canadian Western Railway seems to be a profitable business venture and its financial health does not seem to be in jeopardy as we speak.
There is a matter of an appeal still to be heard before the Supreme Court at a later date and this House should let this judicial body arrive at its decision without any possible, even if unintentional, interference from this House.
The safety of workers might eventually be at stake if safety measures are not clearly established and controlled.
Finally, grain farmers who depend on this line for movement of their crops must be secure in the knowledge that they would not be at the mercy of a small, although right now financially healthy, business venture.
There is more at stake than the dream of a small businessman. There is the future of workers and farmers to consider.

Government Orders
I encourage this House to stand with me and oppose this bill. I have no intention of supporting it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-57, an act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to begin second reading of Bill C-57, the integrated circuits topography act.
Integrated circuits as perhaps some members know, and probably most do not know, are really the building blocks for tomorrow's technology. These are little microchips that are used in everything from washing machines, video cassette recorders to military hardware and the space arm. Integrated circuits are the heart of modern information, communications, computing, entertainment, manufacturing, medicine, space exploration and research technology.
Although ICs, as they are called, represent only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the value of many end-use electronic systems at the point of market entry, they really determine 90 per cent of the function and performance of such systems.
Canada's industrial competitiveness is closely tied to our ability to tap into integrated circuit technology, and our businesses have been quick to take advantage of the speed, efficiency and compactness that ICs provide.
The most recent figures indicate that Canada's consumption of ICs embodied in finished products amounts to more than $1 billion. Our consumption of individual circuit pieces such as silicon chips is over $600 million.
Although Canada is a heavy user of integrated circuits we are not yet a major producer. Our production of ICs in 1989 is estimated at some $300 million. Of that figure only $80 million worth is for market sale. The remaining $220 million is used by companies for their own in-house needs.
As an industrial nation, we rely upon the rapid development and diffusion around the world of integrated circuits. We turn to foreign suppliers, such as Japan, which produces some 46 per cent of the world market, or the United States which supplies some 44 per cent.
But businesses in Canada have carved out a small but lucrative share of the international market. There are some 25 companies in this country engaged in the design or design and manufacturer of ICs. These companies range from the giants of the industry such as Northern Telecom and Mitel to small scale designers and fabricators.
Although the Canadian industry supplies less than 1 per cent of the world demand for ICs, our companies are developing world-wide reputations for their ability to fulfil specialized niches.
Some Canadian firms have become international leaders in designing and fabricating ICs used in the telecommunications industry, a sector in which Canada's technological achievements are second to none.
In 1988, Canada exported $750 million worth of telecommunications equipment, 55 per cent of which went to the United States.
Other niches include the ICs used in hearing aids and amplifiers. Linear Technologies Inc. of Burlington, Ontario is estimated to have captured about 45 per cent of the world market.
LSI Logic Corporation, whose head office is in Calgary, has carved out a market niche by maintaining very close contact with its customers and being able to provide them with prototypes of new chip sets or with application-specific integrated circuits in as little as one week.
March 9, 1990

The strength of the Canadian integrated circuit industry lies in the entrepreneurial spirit of our businesses. Canadian companies have proven themselves able to deliver world-class design services and innovative quality products.
What the industry requires is intellectual property protection that will both encourage and protect innovation. The legislation we have before us today protects our designers from unauthorized copies being made of their products.
At the same time that the law provides a high level of protection for our designers and manufacturers, it does not impose a regulatory burden on the industry or upon the government. The intellectual property rights under this bill will be self-enforced. Designers or manufacturers who believe that their rights have been infringed can apply to the courts to recover damages.
The legislation will bring Canada in line with the protection that is being attached to integrated circuit topographies in the countries with which we trade. It will both serve the interests of Canadian designers at home, and ensure that their topography is protected within the jurisdiction of our trading partners.
Our major trading partner in integrated circuits at the moment is the United States which supplied approximately 83 per cent of Canada's imports in 1987, and was the destination of 89 per cent of our IC exports.
The United States passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act in 1984. This act grants Canada interim protection but the legislation is drafted in such a way that Canadian designs will only be protected on a permanent basis in the U.S. if we prepare and pass similar legislation in order to protect circuit topography in our country.
Clearly, it is within Canada's interest to provide protection here, and to ensure that our IC topographies are protected abroad. None of the existing intellectual property statutes, including the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Copyright Act provide the protection and flexibility required.
Government Orders
This government's decision to enact specific and specialized legislation to grant intellectual property protection is in keeping with current international trends in intellectual property rights.
A clear international consensus has emerged to treat intellectual property in chip topography as a sui generis, regime outside the framework of traditional intellectual property legislation, such as copyright or patents.
As well as putting Canada on an equal regulatory footing with other countries, providing protection for topography will help to attract domestic research, production and marketing of IC products. It will also make Canada a more inviting place for international designers and manufacturers to invest.
Under the FTA Japanese and other IC manufacturers may wish to establish operations here in Canada. The creation of an integrated circuit is a major industrial project requiring the investment of millions of dollars. That kind of investment is less likely without a law to protect against the manufacturing and marketing of unauthorized copies.
The legislation before us provides adequate protection for our manufacturers and ensures potential investors as well as our trading partners that Canada is a safe place to develop IC technology. In preparing the legislation the government has benefited from an extensive series of consultations.
Price Waterhouse submitted a study of the Canadian integrated circuit industry in April 1986. One year later, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, along with the Department of Communications released a study paper for the interested and expert public outlining the scope of the proposed legislation and asking for advice and comment on a number of recommendations.
In consulting widely with those working in the IC field, the government has recognized that technology moves rapidly and that expert advice from those in the know is essential if we are to provide legislation flexible enough to keep abreast of this rapidly changing area.
I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the minister and the department to thank all of those who participated in these consultations. They have helped us

March 9, 1990
Government Orders
draft legislation that is an innovative and timely response to rapidly unfolding developments in information technology, international trade and intellectual property.
In order to be protected under the integrated circuits topography act, a topography must be original. Its design must be the result of an intellectual effort and not the mere reproduction of another topography or a substantial part thereof. Topographies that are commonplace among designers or manufacturers of integrated circuits are not protected by the act.
Subject to specific exceptions, the integrated circuits topography act gives the rights owner of an original topography control over the following: first, the unauthorized copying of a protected topography or any substantial part of it; second, the unauthorized manufacturing of an IC product incorporating the topography or a substantial part of it; third, the importation or commercial exploitation of a topography or a substantial part of it or of an IC product made without the consent of the IC owner; and, fourth, the importation or commercial exploitation of an industrial article which incorporates an IC product that embodies a protected topography.
I am sure that it is crystal clear to everybody. When they read Hansard, maybe it will become even more clear.
In short, the legislation enables the designers and manufacturers of an IC topography to control unauthorized reproduction, distribution and importation of infringing technologies.
The legislation provides for the full range of civil remedies, including injunctions, damages and exemplary damages.
The doctrines of first sale and exhaustion of rights apply to IC products manufactured anywhere in the world and put on the market with the authorization of the rights owner. After the first lawful sale, the topography owner has no statutory right to control its lawful use, rental, resale or redistribution. This will permit parallel imports of technology, and will facilitate diffusion of the design.
In order to design business with the secrecy it requires to protect the expensive investments needed to research and develop their topographies, the disclosure requirements for compulsory registration have been kept flexible.
Authority is given to the Governor in Council to adopt flexible deposit requirements so that the applicant may refrain from disclosing information protected by trade secret and other confidential information.
Under the act, an original topography can be protected for as long as 10 years. Applicants are given a two year grace period following first commercial use of the circuit before registering the topography.
The protection commences at registration. However, if the applicant has taken advantage of the grace period, either for the full two years or less, then the 10 year term of protection is computed as beginning following the first commercial exploitation anywhere in the world either of a chip that embodies the protected topography, or of an industrial article incorporating a chip that embodies the protected topography.
Mr. Speaker, this will be very clear when you read it carefully in Hansard.
Consistent with usual industry practices, marking of IC products will be required only to allow identification of the product so users can determine whether in fact it is registered. These features of the legislation reduce the regulatory burden of the legislation while providing full protection to designers and manufacturers.
The three exemptions to the statutory rights provided by the act go further to create an environment in which the transfer of integrated circuit technology can proceed without impediment.
The first exemption applies to the unauthorized copying of a protective topography for purposes of teaching and research.
The second exemption allows a protected topography to be copied as a first step in a process of analysis and redesign. It also allows topographies created by this process to be exploited if they themselves are original.
This exemption encourages competition and innovation by allowing reverse engineering. This is a process in which a product is taken apart and then reproduced in order to discover information about it. Then another topography is created based upon the original design, but with sufficient modifications to meet the originality requirements of the act. Reverse engineering is a vital feature of the growth and development of the Canadian
March 9, 1990

and the world IC industry and helps in the free market in semiconductor chips and the spread of chip technology.
The third exemption allows anyone to reproduce a topography, or manufacture or import an integrated circuit for either a private or a non-commercial purpose.
A defence in an infringement action is also given to innocent infringers who were unaware and had no means to find out that an IC product had been manufactured without authority.
This bill will provide the protection and the flexibility the Canadian IC industry needs. It will keep us in line with our trading partners and provide an environment for investor confidence.
I would like to remind the House that providing intellectual property protection for our industries is but one element in the government's industrial strategy designed to keep Canada on the leading edge of international competitiveness.
At the same time that we are protecting our innovators, we are taking steps to make sure that their products move quickly from the lab bench to the shop floor. In the past months, the government has introduced several major programs to ensure that Canada's industrial future is a high-tech future.
The designers and fabricators of ICs will benefit from the Strategic Technologies Program which promotes networks and alliances, particularly in the areas of pre-competitive development of technology and its diffusion to Canadian industry.
Information technology, of which circuit topography is a vital component, has been identified as one of the three strategic technologies targeted by the program. The others are biotechnology and advanced industrial materials including silicon and ceramics which are of interest to the integrated circuit industry.
As well, the integrated circuit industry in Canada will benefit as a result of the national Network of Centres of Excellence program that is a key component of the government's InnovAction strategy.
Government Orders
Through the Network of Centres of Excellence program, a consortium of 12 researchers from nine Canadian universities will receive $14 million to research and develop micro-electronic devices, circuits and systems for Ultra-Large Scale Integration. These researchers will respond to the technological challenge of squeezing more than 10 million functioning electronic components onto a microchip layer smaller than a fingernail and thinner than soap film. The technology is expected to become the mainstay of the next generation of telecommunications and computer systems.
The Canadian integrated circuit industry has room to grow and to pioneer new innovations. It has proven to be a leader in telecommunications, in finding new ways to serve the specific needs of customers, and in seizing international market niches.
Canadian firms are moving ahead in such areas as analog ICs for speech and handwriting recognition, machine vision, robotics and industrial process control. They are contributing to the progressive miniaturization of IC technology.
The legislation before us gives the integrated circuit industry in this country an essential tool to remain competitive, to attract investment, and to ensure that our products are protected in the markets of our trading partners.
It is legislation that responds to the needs of the industry for adequate protection. It gives them the tools to protect their interests and investments without undue regulation or without the restrictions that would hamper technology transfer.
I hope that the members of this House will join me in supporting a bill that is important to our future as a high-tech nation. The future holds tremendous promise and potential. Our integrated circuit industry is ready to seize that promise and fulfil that potential.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put what this statute does into layperson's words. So that people know what these little microchips are like, they are layer upon layer of circuits with silicon covering. It is a bit like designing a high-rise tower. The officials, when they explained it to me, gave the analogy of a high-rise office tower. Somebody has to design where the pipes go through, the

March 9, 1990
Government Orders
water, and all of these systems. That is what these bright people do in this integrated circuit topography.
But without having any patent protection they tend to move off to other countries to do that where there is already patent protection for them. What this bill does is to give to the 25 companies that are spread out across this country, in many of the ridings of hon. members in all three parties, patent protection so they will make the investments here and build these microchips here so we can play a part in that world industry. It is the industry of the future and the words of which I do not even understand. However, I understand the concepts. It is real, and I guess we have to get into it.
Certainly, young people understand it. I know that when my son and daughter they sit down at their computers seem to understand this stuff instinctively. Frankly, think I would rather hire somebody else to do it for me.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, one never knows in the practice of federal politics in Canada what one may be doing on a given day. I must say that to be before the House today to speak about integrated circuit topographies is a very pleasant surprise for me.
I am happy to say that we are able to support Bill C-57, which gives protection to integrated microcircuit topography. I am also happy to say that perhaps because I am younger than the previous speaker I do happen to understand what it is, largely because of my previous occupation when I had the task of acting as lawyer on behalf of some of the companies in the national capital region which engage in the design and production of integrated microcircuits. I am aware that this is a very important aspect of our high technology industry.
We are supporting this bill, but I think the presentation of it in the House today gives us an opportunity to think about a few other things which are related, not just to the microcircuit technology itself, but to Canada's role in the globally competitive world. What we face at this time is a challenge to our ability to increase our standard of living, to maintain our standard of living and the kinds of advantages that Canadians have come to enjoy. That challenge arises not so much from within as from the world outside our borders.
It is true that Canada has achieved very high levels of growth of economy in relation to other OECD countries.
What Canada has failed to do in comparison with many of our competitors is to increase our rate of productivity.
In Canada we lag behind our major trading competitors in growth in productivity. This reflects the fact that for many years now in Canada we have failed to invest to the extent that we need to do so in education, research and development, and science-based innovation.
While we welcome a bill like Bill C-57, which is going to give protection to some of the high-tech companies both in the national capital region, of which I am proud, and in other parts of Canada-we need it and support it-it is too little, too late.
What we need in Canada is a government that has a vision for science and technology, a government that has some clue where it wants to go in the world.
Why can we not set as a challenge for Canadian industry to be the best in the world in environmental technologies by the year 2000? Why are we not setting up within the Government of Canada a plan of action to move us forward in the new technologies?
Why is it at a time when we are suffering from shortages in the high technology areas of skilled and qualified people we are cutting back transfer payments for post-secondary education? Why is it that we are going out to compete in the world with an arm tied behind our back?
The reason is that there has been a lack of vision and willingness to act. Bill C-57 is great and we support it. What we need is more bills like it and more initiatives to show the way to the future for Canadian industry and Canadian technology.
It is with a great deal of scepticism that we hear that the Prime Minister of Canada is receiving an award for his contribution to research and development.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Manley: When compared with eight comparable countries, our gross R and D expenditures as a percentage of GDP is the lowest at 1.42 per cent. Our industry funded R and D as a percentage of GDP is the lowest at .76 per cent. Government funded R and D is the second lowest at .34 per cent. In terms of government performed R and D we are at about the middle. In higher education R and D we are the lowest at .32 per cent. In terms of the number of domestic patents granted per

hundred thousand inhabitants we are the second lowest, and on it goes.
These are trying times and difficult times. We need to compete in the world and we need the tools to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been weathering the cold icy practices of this Conservative government, but I want Canadians to take heart because spring is on the horizon.
Canadians are against the proposed goods and services tax. The GST is truly regressive. However, it is the Liberal Party that is giving Canadians from coast to coast an opportunity to say no to the GST. Canadians can help fight this GST any day of the week next week by picking up the phone and dialling 1-900-720-6052. That registers their no vote to this GST.
Canadians know that this government and this Minister of Finance have raised their taxes 32 times since taking office, yet they have not managed to bring the deficit under control. Although the Minister of Finance has called the present manufacturers' retail sales tax a silent killer of jobs, it did not stop him from raising the tax from 9 per cent in 1984 to 13.5 per cent today. Canadians also know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Samia-Lambton.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Sarnia- Lambton, like a number of border communities across Canada, is in transition. A number of recent developments, including the implementation of the free
trade agreement, has fostered many new conditions and changes in our community.
Within this context I have joined with other government members who represent border communities to form an ad hoc border issues committee. The group is studying the issues and problems which have a particular and profound impact on border regions such as Samia-Lambton. Tariff and duty collection, GST rebates for foreign tourists, cross border traffic, and personal exemptions are just a few.
It is my hope that the committee can develop positions and possible options which may help the government address the problems which we face collectively. I believe that the committee's activities will help alleviate the special circumstances which confront those of us who reside in border communities.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago marshal law was declared in Tibet. Since that time Tibetans have been subject to indiscriminate arrest, beatings, pass laws, surveillance by troops armed with automatic weapons, and jail sentencing up to 20 years for advocating independence in Tibet.
Thirty-one years ago saw the popular uprising in which thousands of Tibetans were cruelly killed by Chinese security forces. There has been no improvement since that time.
Two years ago I stood in this House and asked the Canadian government to support the demands of the Tibetan people. Nothing has changed. Tibetans are still seeking their independence and their freedom. They are still seeking basic human rights. Canada should not wait any longer. Tibetans have the right to self-determination and Canada must respect and support their cause.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this week's budget debate proved to the Canadian people a number of things. Two points in particular were crystallized in the course of exchanges. The first is that the opposition parties have yet to return from

March 9, 1990
fantasy land and are still seeking magic wand solutions to problems they are unwilling to face in the real world.
The second point is that our government is firmly committed to showing leadership in bringing our deficit problem under control and managing the Canadian economy. There are no easy answers to the question of fiscal responsibility and this Minister of Finance has taken the measures necessary to ensure that our children and our grandchildren are not burdened with the debt created by the previous government.


WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the pride I know is shared right across Canada over Kurt Browning's victory at the World Figure Skating Championships.
I remember quite well sitting with Ed and Lucille Broadbent in Calgary at the Olympics when Kurt competed for Canada. He went on to be the first skater to perform a quadruple jump in competition and his resounding victory last year in Paris put him in the great Canadian tradition of Donald Jackson and Brian Orser. Now he is the first Canadian man to win two world figure skating championships.
I think Kurt did us the proudest when he led the Halifax arena in the singing of O Canada. That was one of those rare electric moments, moments that are so important in these days of strained unity. Isabelle Bras-seur's and Lloyd Eisler's silver medal and the stellar performance of the Duchesnays are making this a world championships for Canadians to remember for a long time.
I know the members of this House join me in saying thank you for making us all so proud while at the same time offering encouragement and best wishes for those Canadians still competing.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


STUDENTS
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to commend the efforts of the student leadership group at the Lord
Selkirk Regional Comprehensive High School in my riding of Selkirk.
This group is committed to developing their skills in peer counselling. As a result of a work shop which the student group attended, they realized their need for further training in this area. Thanks to our government's national drug strategy program, a significant grant has been provided to the school. This grant will prepare these students to be peer counsellors for sessions geared toward chemical dependency topics.
I applaud both the efforts of the students and our government in this important endeavour.


RCMP DRESS CODE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General of Canada has been attempting to avoid the issue of turbans in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for almost a year. As early as April, 1989, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recommended that turbans be permitted. The former Solicitor General promised a decision by the end of February, 1990, but he was incapable of making up his mind. The Prime Minister replaced him.
The new Solicitor General must act. The Prime Minister now supports turbans in the RCMP, according to recent press reports. The delay in decision-making in this matter is exacerbating race relations across Canada. We in the Liberal party urge the Solicitor General to stop dithering and show some leadership, leadership that this government so sadly lacks.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I was preparing some notes for a presentation on the Nova Scotia economy the other night and even I was surprised at the positive numbers. I would like to put them on the record.
From 1985 to 1989, unemployment in Nova Scotia has declined from 13.6 per cent to 9.9 per cent. The Gross Domestic Product has increased every year from 1984 to 1989. Building permits have increased every year from 1984 to 1989 after a decline in the early 1980s. Exports have increased every year since 1984, with an all-time
March 9, 1990

record in 1988. Investment has increased steadily with a record investment of $4.7 billion in 1989, encouraged by the leadership of ACOA.
Yes, we do have some problems and challenges in Atlantic Canada, but these actual numbers paint a very positive picture for Nova Scotia.


CBC FARM BROADCASTS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to George Price, one of agriculture's finest champions and a golden voice in broadcasting who is scheduled to retire from CBC Radio this June.
For the past 31 years, listeners across Canada could hear his parliamentary items during the daily radio noon show. He has survived many rounds of CBC cut-backs. He has watched as some stations sliced time from the farm show. He has seen commentators leave without replacement and he has watched many food and farm reports become resource reports. Now with his retirement his position will be cut and that hurts. It hurts George to know that his work is considered unnecessary, but it hurts rural Canada too.
It is a further slap in the face from a government that has been steadily reducing communications funding and services to rural Canada. Rural Canadians need informed and accurate reports on events that shape their lives. CBC may be reflecting what the government wants when it makes this cut but it is not what rural Canada needs.


CANADA AND INDOCHINA
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Cambodian community was both saddened and distressed when it heard about the statement on Indochina made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in the House of Commons on January 25.
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of meeting, at my office, a delegation headed by Mr. Sarindeth Duy, President of the Khmer Association for National Action, who, with other members of this groups, including Simon Yim, Buddhi Klok, Seng Phlang and Chan Dara, expressed their concern about the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because Canada, which so far had always been neutral and had taken a very independent position on this matter, now seemed to be siding with those who had caused such widespread persecution in that country.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about what is taking place in my country. My parents were bom and raised in Shawville, Quebec, not 50 miles from here. My dad homesteaded in southern Saskatchewan. He and mother fanned there for 60 years. I was bom in the "dirty thirties". I know what drought and depression are. I am Canadian. This is my country, the best country in the world. But it seems there is a constitutional depression. There is a drought of ideas. We are tearing ourselves apart.
I, for one, do not want this to happen. We need to bind our country together into one united Canada. The constitutional discussion revolving around the Meech Lake Accord seems to have reached an impasse. I would encourage all 11 of Canada's first ministers to reconsider their positions. There has to be a way of resolving our differences.
I would compliment the Premier of British Columbia for trying to find alternatives to bridge the gap. We must be creative. We must do our utmost to find a way to affirm who we are, and to confirm that we are all equal partners. I beseech Canada's first ministers to meet and keep meeting until this impasse is resolved.
There is a place for all provinces in Canada, just as there is a place in the provinces for Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, why has the federal government repeatedly refused to challenge the national lending institutions in Canada by declaring a moratorium on farm foreclosures and by

March 9, 1990
initiating realistic debt restructuring in the Canadian agricultural industry.
Rather, the government has facilitated the process of dispossession through the Farm Debt Review Act, which was deliberately structured in such a way that the Farm Debt Review Board is unable to arbitrate settlements between farm debtors and their creditors.
As a consequence, the lending institutions remain unscathed and are now in legal possession of thousands of acres of farmland, millions of dollars worth of farm buildings and assets, and the levels of repression grow daily. The dispossessed, once people of the soil, farm families proud of their abilities to produce and pursue a rewarding way of life, are migrants or tenants of the corporate masters on land that has, in many cases, been in their families for years.
When will the government intercede to stop this corporate take-over of farms? Stop the lending institutions from profiting on the unfortunate circumstances in which some farmers temporarily find themselves.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, it is not often in our lives that we encounter historic moments when our own convictions may truly constitute leadership toward an important national purpose.
The Meech Lake Accord presents such a moment, and the unity of Canada is such a purpose. As we contemplate the frustrating discord to which the Meech Lake debate has now deteriorated, it is timely to reiterate our individual convictions that the Accord presents a unique opportunity for Canada to become whole and to renew our collective resolve to help make it so.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada needs Quebec and Quebec needs Canada.

As colleagues in all comers of the House, we reflect the unity that is Canada. In the critical weeks which remain let us individually and collectively intensify that
reflection upon the Meech Lake deliberations in every way that we can.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to a very urgent matter which concerns the people in the riding of Chambly, and more specifically, the residents of Saint-Basile-le-Grand. I received a resolution that was passed unanimously by the town council of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, which says that the people of this town feel they have been abandoned by the federal government with respect to the storage of PCBs that were partially burnt in a fire eighteen months ago. These people would like the government to set up a joint committee that would settle the storage problem once and for all and deal with the problem of adequate compensation for the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, because these people feel they have been abandoned by the federal government.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: 
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, since its birth in 1867, Canada has experienced a number of problems. There are problems today, and there will certainly be other problems in the future. Canada's anglophones and francophones have not always shared nor will they always share the same vision of this country we call Canada.

But, over-reacting to all our constitutional problems does not help Canada, does not help Quebec or any other province. Despite all the historical difficulties this country has experienced in the past, all members of this House on both sides of the issue must remember that Canada is still a wonderful place to live, to bring up a family and to build a better future for our children.


COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Six Nations have gone through a number of environmental crises over the last few weeks: asbestos found in their schools, contamination in their drinking water, air contamination resulting from the Hagersville fire.
All this time the community newspaper, known as The Tekawennake has enabled the people of the Six Nations to keep informed of these issues.
In the last budget the Secretary of State has cut funding for these community newspapers, and I call upon him to reconsider his decision to make these cuts in order to help these community newspapers keep open the lines of communication that are much needed on the reserves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the
Oral Questions
growing concern as to what is happening in this country on the matter of constitutional change, exactly what is the Prime Minister doing in a positive way at this time to bring about constitutional change of a kind that is broadly acceptable to Canadians generally?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Senator who is the Minister of Federal-Provincial Affairs, and other ministers have been in ongoing discussions and consultations with the premiers and other officials of the provinces in an attempt to draw together a better degree of consensus and understanding so that there may be some basis for advancing this particular issue.
I am sure the hon. member is referring specifically to what occurred in the legislature in Newfoundland yesterday, and the notice of the intention of the government of Newfoundland to revoke the resolution that was previously passed.
I should remind my hon. friend that the Prime Minister and indeed all first ministers had given the Premier of Newfoundland an undertaking that the Meech Lake Accord or any variation of it would not be implemented until the legislature in the province of Newfoundland would have an opportunity to reconsider the matter and express its approval or its disapproval. In return the Premier of Newfoundland had agreed that the legislature would not in the meantime rescind the resolution that has already been passed in the legislature of Newfoundland. We can only expect that commitment to be upheld and honoured.
While it is included in the Speech from the Throne, there has not been any specific date as to when it maybe rescinded. Therefore I think that it offers the opportunity for further discussions and consultations to continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about the mood in the country generally. In light of what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said I want to ask him if the Prime Minister will call an immediate first ministers' conference on this very important matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the good intentions of my hon. friend I am not sure the word "immediate" would be appropriate, inasmuch as I think

Oral Questions
there would have to be some movement and some indication that the parties are coming closer together.
Hopefully the result of the ongoing consultations and discussions will result in drawing closer together all the parties involved to bridge some of the divergent views.
At an appropriate time, the Prime Minister may very well consider the very valuable suggestion the hon. Leader of the Opposition has proposed. Perhaps, at an appropriate time that might be the logical course. It is very much in the Prime Minister's style to tiy to build a consensus on these important issues. I think he would agree that there probably has to be some further groundwork done before that could take place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why he and his government do not think there is any value in providing an opportunity for the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister to sit around the same table and discuss the situation. I also want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why he won't give Canadians a chance to hear about the government's plans in this respect, considering that the deadline for adopting the constitutional mechanism is June 23, which is not far off. We need more information on an issue that is vital to the future of this country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting for one minute that there is no value in the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition.
What I am saying is that it is a matter of timing and at the appropriate time, perhaps that might be a logical course of action. As well, I can assure the hon. member that at the appropriate time the Prime Minister will be outlining the further approach the federal government will undertake to help resolve the impasse.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Will the government at least recognize that it was an error, as we pointed out three years ago, to regard the Accord as a seamless web to which only egregious errors could be admitted. Will he recognize that there should be public participation, that the concerns of western alienation, the concerns of the northern people, so many of the concerns of the economic union of Canada, over the last three years all of these matters should have been considered?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree today that the consideration of the constitutional reform will be enlarged so that there will be some assurances that all of these concerns will be dealt with?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is outlining a new version of the official position of the Liberal party. It would seem that way.
This was a resolution that was passed by the House of Commons. It was supported by all political parties and the government is very grateful for that. While it was never suggested that the proposal was perfect, it was clearly suggested that it formed a basis for bringing together in a constitutional framework all the provinces and addressed many of the issues that required addressing.
It set the stage for the resolution of further ongoing constitutional issues, such as Senate reform, greater participation by the provinces in the appointment of the Senate and greater participation in the appointment of members to the Supreme Court, plus certain flexibilities that in a more accurate way reflect the diversity of this country. We felt, and obviously 10 of the then premiers felt, that this was the first step and was important enough to advance the whole cause of constitutional reform to more accurately reflect the reality of Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, what has become clear over the last three years is that the Canadian people are not prepared, and for good reason, to accept the promises of the Prime Minister to deal with events subsequently. That is the reason we are urging and ask now that the Prime Minister show leadership again. Call the first ministers together and develop a concrete method of assuring that these subsequent stages will be arrived at in good faith and that they will be gone through.
March 9, 1990


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this government have shown leadership in advancing the Meech Lake Accord. I regret that the hon. member is now having some second thoughts about the support of his party. That is regrettable. I indicated earlier that the-


Robert (Bob) Speller: You are playing politics.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member suggests playing politics. It is his own colleague who is trying to inject politics into this. Maybe once the junior member has been around here for a little while he will realize the difference between politics and sincerity.
What is happening is that the consultation process is going on, as I indicated to his leader, in the hopes that there can be a drawing together of the opinions in bringing the parties together in an attempt to follow through perhaps with a first ministers' conference. We are certainly not ruling that out. I indicated that I appreciated the recommendation by the Leader of the Opposition and suggested to him that at an appropriate time that might be a possible course of action.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of our party that we urge the government to hold a first ministers' meeting as soon as reasonably possible on the future of the Constitution and Meech Lake.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is now a constitutional impasse in this country and a great deal of concern about the unity of Canada from one part of this country to the other.
On February 23 in the national press theatre the Prime Minister held a press conference. He said in part: "I will be meeting very soon with Senator Murray and I will be talking to some of the first ministers, no doubt. I will let you know as the events unfold".
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to bring the House up to date on what has happened in the last two weeks? Premier Wells said yesterday that he had not heard from the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been meeting with Senator Murray? Has the Prime Minister called the first ministers? Can the Deputy Prime Minister bring the House up to date on what has
Oral Questions
happened in the last two weeks since he held that very important press conference?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tenor of the hon. member's question and his expressed concern for the national unity of the country. I can say on behalf of my colleagues in the House that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has always been in the forefront of providing leadership on behalf of his party and the constituents which he represents in promoting national unity.
The senator has travelled across the country, as he was instructed to do, on the basis of the agreement reached at the first ministers' meeting in November. He has been in the process of exploring possible accommodations, including the idea of Premier McKenna's parallel accord.
The dialogue among all the provinces is continuing. It is going on at this very moment and has been going on at the level of the Prime Minister and the premiers, various cabinet ministers and officials. I want to assure to the hon. member that the federal government has not given up in this very worth-while process. We will continue to work and I am sure at the appropriate time the hon. member and other members of the House will be brought up to date.
The developments of yesterday and recent developments have obviously caused a greater sense of urgency. I want to give him the assurance that we treat this as an urgent matter and will invite the participation-and I am sure the Prime Minister would agree-of all hon. members, as we have in this House before. It is more than simply a government initiative, it is an initiative by Parliament, it is a resolution that has been supported by Parliament and we respect and appreciate the support from the hon. member and his party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us if during the last two weeks the Prime Minister has been in touch with other first ministers in this country? There are a few confusing signals coming out of this as to whether or not the Prime Minister himself has been in touch with First Ministers. Is the Prime Minister willing to look for some mechanism, to seek some accommodation of some of the

March 9, 1990
Oral Questions
concerns and some of the suggestions regarding Meech Lake?
The Deputy Prime Minister knows, of course, that in this House there is very strong support for the five conditions of Quebec. He knows about some other concerns and some other suggestions.
Has the Prime Minister been in touch with the First Ministers? If he has not been in touch, why has that not happened, or will he soon be in contact with them with a view to having a First Ministers' conference, if necessary, to resolve the impasse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge he has been in touch with all of them. I know he has been in touch with a lot of them and my understanding is that he has been in touch with all of them. I know that the senator has been in touch with all of them. I know that other cabinet ministers have been involved as have officials been involved in this process.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to look for an accommodation. If it is timely and appropriate and if there is a drawing together of the parties and the divergent points of view, I am sure that the Prime Minister would convene a First Ministers' conference.
However, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I am not sure that the timing is appropriate right now. I think there has to be some further work done and I can assure the hon. member that that is going on.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the main factor that is contributing to the concern in this country about the Meech Lake impasse is the government's silence.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House when the Prime Minister will report to the House on what his government has done to get out of this impasse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member would make that observation because I think many hon. members and, indeed, the country know that the opposite is true. We have not only been not silent, we have been consistent, and the Prime Minister has laid out in very clear and concise terms-


Robert (Bob) Speller: Where have you been speaking?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me where I have been speaking. I would not expect him to have the energy to follow me around the country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to assure the hon. member, as I assured the member for Yorkton-Melville and the Leader of the Opposition, that the work is ongoing and will continue. As far as the Government of Canada is concerned, while there are some difficulties at the present time, that does not for a moment lead us to believe that this issue cannot be resolved.
  #


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the revelation that the government is indeed recruiting RCMP officers to enforce the proposed goods and services tax.
I have in my hand a copy of a memo that was sent to the RCMP on December 13, 1989, recruiting individuals to assist, and I quote: "in the development and implementation of an intelligence unit aimed at gathering information and maintaining an intelligence data base on tax".
How can this government possibly explain this deceitful and unsettling development? Are small business people now going to have to watch their alleyways for undercover agents in trench coats and dark glasses?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this government has made it very clear that it believes in the fundamental honesty of Canadians to deal with their tax matters in a very honest way. We do
March 9, 1990

know, however, that there are some people in the country who will take advantage of tax systems.
What has been proposed here is no tax police, nothing in that order, but a precaution to ensure that the measures developed in this new GST system are appropriate, taking into account the possibilities that could arise through tax evasion and fraud.
I think that this sort of precautionary measure is supported by Canadians because if there is not the precautionary measure taken it just puts a greater tax load on honest taxpayers in Canada, which is certainly not appropriate.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister and it concerns the same bulletin. I quote again from the bulletin:
With the introduction of this new tax as with any such far-reaching
program, the opportunities for fraudulent activities are of concern to
us.
Over and over again in this House the Minister of Finance and his colleagues on the front bench have indicated that the GST is a simple tax and that there would be no great problem with compliance. If so, how can the minister possibly reconcile this tax police recruitment bulletin and campaign with his rhetoric of simplicity echoed daily by himself and other members of his front benches?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the goods and services tax is a simpler tax than is the existing federal sales tax which has 22,000 separate special deals between Revenue Canada and the taxpayers. So clearly the complexity of the old system is prone to tax avoidance and tax evasion and one of the reasons for moving to the GST is to try to avoid that.
But in any system, in any country, there are opportunities for tax evasion. Thx evasion is breaking the law. The GST will be in place. It will be a simple, far less complex tax system, but people can still break the law.
If my hon. friend from Dartmouth is saying that he is quite comfortable letting Canadians break the law, if he is quite comfortable encouraging the government not to take precautionary steps to stop people from breaking
Oral Questions
the law, then I think that it is a very interesting policy that he proposing for the Liberal Party of Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the tax is so simple. I am sure it has not escaped the minister's notice that he is going from 75,000 taxpayers who pay the MST directly to about 1.25 million businesses that are going to be collecting the new tax. Is that simplicity?
I would like to ask him a question on the same point. Given the reference to fraudulent activities and given the fact that billions of dollars go back to businesses through the GST system, through the input tax credits, will the minister indicate to the House how much his department anticipates will be lost to the revenues of Canada through fraudulent activities given the size of the business input tax credits that will exist?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the design of this goods and services tax will avoid the loss to which my hon. friend is referring. In the system that we have today the total consumption tax is centred on 75,000 taxpayers. There are great pressures on those taxpayers to try to minimize their tax liability. That surely would suggest to me that the existing system is much more prone to tax avoidance than the new system which will be more equitable because it is broadly based and because there are not unfair advantages given to some people in a tax system who are not taxed and others who are.
That is one of the key benefits of moving from the existing system, which is prone to that sort of avoidance, error and evasion, to a new system which is far more equitable.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I take the minister's answer to mean that he does not expect any loss through fraudulent activities and therefore he begs the question of why this memo has gone out saying that the government anticipates fraudulent activities and needs to hire tax police in order to prevent it.
I would like the minister to explain why, if he is not going to lose anything through fraudulent activities, the government is out trying to hire people with RCMP credentials to prevent loss through fraudulent activities.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the naivety of my friend is stunning. Does he think that everybody in this country is going to be

March 9, 1990
Oral Questions
perfectly honest? Does he think that everybody who is going to be a part of this tax system is going to be fully honest and not do anything wrong?


John Paul Manley: I asked you how much you thought you were going to lose and you said "nothing".


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hope nothing and that is precisely why we are taking these precautionary steps to see whether there are differences in this tax system which the experts on fraud in the RCMP should bring to the attention of Revenue Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Don't you know that yet?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend from Windsor says don't we know it yet. These are things that we have been working on for some while with Revenue Canada, with the RCMP and will continue to do so because we believe we do have a responsibility to honest taxpayers to ensure that dishonest taxpayers, of which unfortunately there are a few, do not take advantage of the system.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Conservatives' Mr. Shaight-from-the-cuff has spoken! Yesterday the Chairman of the Finance Committee admitted that the only way to raise new taxes was to hit the middle class. Will the Minister admit that this is true, and that his philosophy behind the GST is to hit the middle class as hard as he can?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I do not agree with that. I would say to my hon. friend that in income tax reform in 1988 we introduced a number of changes in the corporate income tax system that will increase the effective tax rates on corporations. It will result in a number of corporations paying tax which previously did not pay tax. These are things which I think my hon. friend would support which will result in a much fairer tax system.
We have done the same thing in personal income tax reform as well through the years to remove a number of loopholes, a number of tax breaks that were in the personal income tax system that favoured people in
upper income brackets. So the result is that after tax reform there will be a greater burden of tax on both upper-income people and corporations.


TAXATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the details which were given to the committee yesterday by tax experts showed very clearly that the various cost of living gaps which the government has built into the tax system lead to reductions in the percentage of tax paid by higher-income groups as compared to middle-income groups. It is the middle-income people in this country who are carrying the burden, and the minister has to recognize that.
Is the minister not prepared at this stage to take some initiatives to see to it that those at the top of our income scale start to pay a fair share? These initiatives could include eliminating the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption, putting an inheritance tax back into place, and seeing to it that wealth taxes exist. Is it not possible for this minister to be fair to middle-income and lower-income Canadians and not just to favour the rich?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a minimum tax on corporations. His party has been talking about a 20 per cent rate. What is he going to do with the 12 per cent rate that is charged on small corporations, small businesses that make up the vast majority? About 90 per cent of the companies in Canada are small businesses. Is the member going to support an increase in the tax rate of 12 per cent to 20 per cent just to satisfy his philosophical interest?
He talks about a tax on wealth. There is a deemed realization on the capital gains of people when they die. That provides revenues to the Government of Canada on the death of people. Is he saying that he wants a wealth tax on top of that? That would be double taxation. Is that fair?
I ask the hon. member to consider the effects of wealth tax. In 1972 when inheritance taxes were removed in this country, they raised something like .07 of 1 per cent of revenues. The key reason for that is that upper income people are able to tax plan their way out of paying those wealth taxes. The result is that the wealth tax is paid by those people with middle incomes who
March 9, 1990

cannot afford the tax help from the expensive lawyers and accountants.
The reason we have followed this philosophy of taxation is because it is fairer for Canadians.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns the assistance plan for workers in the fisheries industry, which the government intends to set up right away. Will one of the plan's priorities be to keep the jobs in fishing communities so that the workers will be there as soon as the fisheries get back to normal? Will the jobs be there, in order to keep the people in these communities?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the hon. member, with her experience and representing a riding where the fisheries are extremely important to her constituents-I would have thought that the present crisis in the Atlantic fisheries would have made her consider whether the solution, whether the programs to be implemented should be aimed at improving the fishermen's income or whether we should put the emphasis on creating jobs in this sector. This is a fundamental issue. Do we want to keep using the fisheries to create jobs or do we want to make the fisheries an economic activity that will be worthwhile for the fishermen? I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that after only a week and half in this department, I was surprised to see that our Atlantic fishermen have incomes that are well below those of most Canadians and that 41 per cent of their income is derived from unemployment insurance. I think these are some fundamental questions that must be addressed.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to learn not to turn the question back here. He is the minister now. He is going to have to work with his colleagues and find solutions.
All I asked was that with the assistance this government is providing will he allow programs to keep the people there. We know the situation will return to
Oral Questions
normal. We know that there will be a need for those people to be there? We want to keep the people there. I do not care about unemployment insurance. Most of the people in southern Nova Scotia did not always need unemployment insurance when the fishery was healthy.
Will the minister use the money that is coming in a project to employ fishermen to help his department- which will not listen to fishermen-with the scientific research in the Scotia-Fundy? We need an assessment of stocks before we start saying what we are going to do. We do not know what the stocks are like there and his former department would not listen to the fishermen.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for the question.
If the hon. member would give me a chance, I will answer her question.

The member said that now I have to make the decisions. Well watch me. I think you have heard that before. We will be making the decision.
However, if you ask me today to again tell Atlantic Canadians that we will guarantee that every person who has a job in the plant today will have that job tomorrow, I cannot make that promise. It would be fooling them.
Everyone talks about overcapacity in harvesting. We talk about overcapacity in the processing plant. And the member is grandstanding on the issue and telling me to ignore this. Well, I will not.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the government assured me yesterday that a broad based telecommunications bill will be introduced in due course, but added a little caveat that the Minister of Communications still has some consultations to be concluded with the provinces. Given that the business community and consumers are very worried and anxious, and given the Prime Minister's stated support for ending fragmentation of telecommunications interprovincial regulation-given all this-will the Deputy Prime Minister show federal leadership today and direct the Minister of Communications to table the bill next week? Will he give

March 9, 1990
Oral Questions
the assurance that unfettered federal jurisdiction found in Bill C-41 will be included in its integrity?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to the hon. member's question. No, I do not believe that the Minister of Communications will be tabling a bill next week because he has undertaken to meet with some of his provincial counterparts next week. That is a necessary step prior to the tabling of such a bill. That is a commitment made by the minister at the outset of the telecommunications policy, as the hon. member said yesterday, some five and a half years ago, and he is honouring that commitment of consultation.
Once those consultations are satisfactorily concluded, and that is now in sight, then a bill will be introduced.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the parliamentary secretary assiduously avoided committing to Bill C-41, which is the federal jurisdiction. I find that very regrettable. I sincerely hope that it was just by omission and not commission.
Does the Prime Minister realize the risk to federal jurisdiction that the Minister of Communications has permitted in the new broadcasting bill? Does he realize that Keith Spicer of the CRTC has clearly warned in unequivocal terms that federal authority shall be challenged before the Supreme Court and we could fritter away broadcasting activities if the activities of cable and television stations are allowed to be split as the minister is doing in the new Broadcasting Act? Is the government going to chance the dissipation of this key area of federal jurisdiction as well?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of abandoning federal jurisdiction in any of these areas. Bill C-41, to which the hon. member refers, is before this House. The principles contained in Bill C-41 are the lifting of the Crown immunity of the three prairie provinces' telephone companies. Those principles will be enshrined in the new telecommunications bill, but there
will be consultation and discussion beforehand, as I know the hon. member would expect there to be.
With reference to the chairman of the CRTC and his comments on the broadcasting bill, that bill, as the hon. member knows, is before a legislative committee and she has ample opportunity to state her view there.


RCMP DRESS CODE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Solicitor General. He has on his desk a longstanding report from the Commissioner of the RCMP in respect of Sikh turbans, a recommendation that members of the Sikh community who are members of the RCMP be permitted to wear turbans.
He now has the public recommendation of the Prime Minister, his boss, on exactly the same subject. The year-long delay in implementing the recommendation of the Commissioner of the RCMP has seriously exacerbated the racial tensions in this country and has hurt the very distinguished Sikh community in Canada.
Will the Solicitor General now stand in his place and assure this House that the recommendation of the Commissioner and the Prime Minister will be accepted?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unnecessarily delaying a decision on this particular issue.
As I indicated a few days ago, I am completing my verification of all the facts and points that have been made by the interested parties with respect to this particular issue and I will make a decision very soon.


JUSTICE
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister with respect to his responsibilities for the direction of the RCMP, the Correctional Services of Canada and CSIS.
Yesterday the RCMP conceded in Halifax that it had bungled the issue of policing in Nova Scotia. Will the new minister indicate to this House that he intends to
March 9, 1990

take some real leadership in ending discrimination against native people in the Correctional Services, in our prisons, in policing and in the direction of CSIS?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows very well my feelings with respect to aboriginal people. As a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I think I have had sufficient first-hand experience to know what the issue is all about.
I have always supported, not only the fact that there should be no discrimination whatsoever in general but that in particular there should be no discrimination with respect to aboriginal people. I believe that this government has been making every effort possible to correct whatever wrongs may have been done in the past.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Canada is now going through a language crisis. Yesterday, I learned that the Court Challenges Program, which was to stop at the end of March, would be extended for about four months. I would like to ask the minister why the government is hesitant to make a firm commitment to Canadians that the Court Challenges Program will be available to them in coming years.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, there is no hesitation. I said very clearly that the program was very beneficial. I also indicated that I had met with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to consider all the recommendations made by the Standing Committee of the House. We will have details soon, after I consult my colleagues. In the meantime, we announced that the program would be extended for four months and we are now having final discussions with the Canadian Council on Social Development, with Mr. Hunsley, so that it will continue to administer this program for us.
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program has been with us for 12 years. It has been very useful to Canadians in helping them defray the costs of going to court to try to establish their basic constitutional rights in equality and language.
The government has given the program a four month reprieve. Will the minister give a commitment in this House today that after July 31, which is the end of the four-month commitment, there will be a program helping Canadians to have access to the courts and to have the assistance of the federal government in achieving those rights before the courts?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated publicly on numerous occasions how I personally felt about the program and how beneficial I felt it was.
We have received an excellent report from our standing committee with some 19 recommendations from what I remember. Each one of them has been reviewed very carefully and will be responded to veiy shortly.
Just recently a new Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada has been appointed, who I am very pleased has joined us. I am sure that she will be taking cognizance of this particular file. We will be bringing that forward as soon as we can.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Jim Peterson (WHIowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for industry, I should like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government continues its unprecedented high interest rate and high dollar policy. The government has cut its support for science and technology, research and development, small business, education, training, and even for export financing.

Privilege
Could the government tell us why it is deliberately going out of its way to help Canada's foreign competitors by putting down and suppressing our Canadian businesses and our Canadian workers?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, in that question is a melange of inaccuracies.
First, science and technology spending has gone up since the government has taken power at a greater proportion of program spending than existed under the previous Liberal government.
Second, the spending on the National Research Council is going up this year over last year.
Third, in terms of foreign investment to which the hon. member is probably referring, Investment Canada will be taking a look at the Consumers Gas issue if that is what he is thinking about. I hope the Ontario Energy Board will make its recommendations on that matter, as well as the Quebec energy authorities.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us look again at the score card of Investment Canada: 789 approvals, zero disapprovals. That is Investment Canada for you.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The problem is that Canada continues to have the highest level of foreign control over our economy of any country in the world and this level, under this government, continues to go up.
How much of Canada must be sold off to foreigners before the government will come to its senses?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I was in New York two days ago. I opened Business Week magazine to see a supplement in it from the Premier of Ontario calling for more foreign investment in the province of Ontario and calling for Americans to take an interest in the new free trade context.
What we have today is a lower unemployment rate than we had last month. It has just gone down one-tenth of 1 per cent. Investment interest within Canada and outside Canada is strong because of the strength of our economy.


PRIVILEGE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, one of the principles of parliamentary democracy is the requirement that ministers of the Crown are responsible to the House. Indeed, it is a well-known principle that ministers must maintain the confidence of this House at all times. Another part of it is that ministers have an obligation to report to Parliament. Various Crown corporations share a similar responsibility.
The House maintains records of annual reports, budgets, capital budget presentations and other documents required to be presented in the House from time to time by Crown corporations and government departments. When one looks at the list of those reports that are supposed to be tabled in the House, one can see what is missing. I had the opportunity to examine the records and noticed there is a report that is late and has not been filed. I am getting conflicting information on it.
I raise this matter because I believe the failure of the government to live up to its responsibilities and table these reports in a timely manner constitutes a contempt of the House. The requirements for the tabling of these reports are contained in the Statutes of Canada. They are not just resolutions of this House which alone would be very effective; they are in the law.
The Minister of Supply and Services is wagging his head. I do not know if he agrees or disagrees. I hope he does agree. I hope he listens because he may have some responsibility for some of these late filings.
I am not going to read the list but, according to my calculations, for the period of 1988-89, 73 Crown corporation reports ranging from corporate plan summaries to capital budget summaries and so on were tabled late in the House.
Those corporations are responsible to the House through the ministers who sit opposite and they ignore this problem. It floats around and these things are not done. Most were only one to four days late, but many were up to eight months late.
The point I am making in respect of those items is that those ministers who sit in the House have a responsibility, a very solemn responsibility. They have taken an oath of office to serve their Queen and do their job. Serving their Queen involves reporting for Her Majesty's Crown
March 9, 1990

corporations of the country. They are not producing these reports on a timely basis.
The one I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which was required to table its capital budget for 1989-90 on May 30, 1989. It still has not been tabled.
I made inquiries. I contacted the legislative branch and the Library of Parliament and was told that it had not been tabled. I contacted Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and was given the information that it had been forwarded. They were surprised in fact that it had not been tabled. They thought it had been long ago.
The question is: Where is this report? Where is the responsible minister? Why is the minister not dealing with this issue and making sure that the Statutes of Canada are complied with and that these documents are brought in a timely way before the House?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, through you, that the responsible minister take control of this situation, examine the legal requirements in the Statutes of Canada and ensure that these reports are brought to the House. If they are not brought here, I suggest most strongly, Sir, that it constitutes a flagrant contempt of the House. It shows the arrogant attitude that the government displays in its dealings with the House of Commons.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State to Prime Minister and Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands sometimes gives me the impression he has been reading old editions of Hansard and some of my submissions to the House of Commons.
I did not have the nerve to suggest it was a question of privilege, which it obviously is not, but I do recollect raising a substantial point of order. The Liberal government of the day flagrantly showed contempt, or what have you, by not filing the annual reports, documents and so on required in various Statutes of Canada. I remember working myself up into a rather fine state of indignation and outrage at the arrogant Liberal government. For the life of me, I cannot at the moment recall what retort the then House leader and now Leader of the Opposition in the Senate gave to me, but I remember I did not get very far. Somewhere in the records, there is
Privilege
an excellent retort from the then House leader of the Liberal government, now the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
That being said, with respect to the specific question of the report of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for which he is looking, I will talk to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to determine what reason might be given for the delay. I can think of some right now because of changes that are occurring. Rather than present an inaccurate report that meets the deadline, he may well be delaying to have a more accurate report even though delayed.
I hear the hon. member's submission. I humbly suggest that his claim that this represents a huge contempt and a breach of his privileges as a member will be found from the precedents with which I am familiar not to have any basis.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to both the point raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands and the response from the government House leader. It just goes to show you that things do not change.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond, first to the comment, the gratuitous and unctuous comment, from the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, but it is the government House leader I would like to deal with.
I thank him for the offer to deal with the question of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but in view of his vast experience in this matter and having raised apparently similar issues as a point of order, perhaps that is where he made his mistake. He should have done it as a question of privilege, because I am sure Your Honour will find this is a contempt of the House. I hope that he will urge his colleagues to comply with the law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will take all of these comments into consideration and have another look at the matter. I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has forcibly mentioned exactly what has to be done as far as the government is concerned, and I think we should carry on now and go to Routine Proceedings.

March 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT
Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-66, an act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to prevent the importation, exportation and spread of pests injurious to plants and to provide for their control and eradication and for the certification of plants and other things.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Thomas Siddon moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and to make provision for the application of certain orders.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present, on behalf of constituents of Fraser Valley East, a petition to the House asking that the government and Parliament enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-born child without distinction as to the stage of development.


David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the minister from Don Valley East signed by petitioners from across Canada who call upon Parliament to live up its 1986 commitment to sponsor 5,000 new co-operative housing units a year under the federal ILM program.
They also call upon Parliament to use its influence with provincial ministers of housing to ensure that 50 per cent of the co-op housing units developed since 1986 be made available to low income earners through provisions of rent supplements.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
March 9, 1990

It contains the signatures of over 150 Canadian seniors. They reside not only in my riding of Hamilton West but in Dundas, Burlington, St. Catharines, Stoney Creek, Brantford, Scarborough, Unionville, North York, Grimsby, and Fenwick, just to name a few.
They state that since 1952 Canadians made additional tax payments for the sole purpose of funding the old age security programs and not for the purposes of balancing federal and provincial government budgets.
They request that the federal government immediately affirm the right to all Canadians to receive universal access to benefits of old age security payments by cancelling plans to introduce a clawback tax regime on old age security payments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I trust the House will been with me, because I have several petitions signed by students from the University of Ottawa and elsewhere, in which your petitioners wish to inform the House of theirs views on overcrowded lecture halls, deteriorating laboratory equipment, a lack of library resources, the student-teacher ratio, elimination of certain courses, and deteriorating buildings and facilities. Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a situation that is typical of many postsecondary institutions in Canada.
These students would like the House of Commons to urge the Government of Canada to hold a top level federal-provincial conference that would establish financial responsibilities at both levels of government with respect to postsecondary education and put a stop to the shameful neglect of higher education in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have about 20 petitions to table today, and I appreciate the attention of the House.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday to read into the record petitions from hundreds and hundreds of petitioners who are very upset with the goods and services tax. They find it is regressive and repressive. They are concerned that it is a hidden tax. They are concerned that they will not be able to
Routine Proceedings
meet their bills, and they are very concerned with the potential for higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
In my riding there are many poor people. What I want to say is that the members of the riding of Cote-St.-Luc, Hampstead, Snowdon, Cote des Neiges and the town of Mount Royal plead with this government to withdraw this really repressive tax.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling today a number of petitions submitted by the Canadian Students Federation, in which your petitioners ask the House of Commons to urge the Conservative Government to stop the erosion of quality and accessibility at universities, colleges and postsecondary institutions in this country.
Local students, including students from the University of Ottawa and also students from Montreal, signed this petition because they consider that the Goverment of Canada has a major responsibility in this area and that it must support and assist the efforts of the provincial governments.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I have more petitions sent to me by my constituents, further to the one I presented a while ago, against the government's decision to impose a goods and services tax. These petitioners want to present their point of view to the House of Commons so that it will ask the Conservative government not to implement this goods and services tax which would be extremely hard and extremely tough on the poorest people in our society.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several constituents of Windsor West who are opposed to the GST and ask the government to reject this tax.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by approximately 700 residents, primarily of Thunder Bay, Ontario, but also residents of Red Rock,

Routine Proceedings
Dryden, Murillo, Red Lake and Sioux Lookout, all in northwestern Ontario.
These petitioners point out that the proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay, that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national burden. They call upon Parliament to reject any such tax.
I want to add that I have been assisted in the collection of these petitions by the residents of Patterson Court, a municipal non-profit housing facility, and by one of the local bowling alleys, Galaxy Lanes which are very upset.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition on the goods and services tax to you. It contains 1,003 names. The petitioners say that the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Linance is an unfair form of taxation because it does not take account of taxpayers' ability to pay.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners demand that the government cancel its plan to implement a goods and services tax which would shift the whole tax burden onto ordinary Canadians by means of a regressive consumption tax and that it really go about reforming the present Canadian tax system.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions on behalf of people from Welland, Minden, Vanier, Orleans, Ottawa, and Dunnville who decry the proposed implementation of the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that it is an extremely regressive and unfair form of taxation in that it hits the people who are least able to pay that kind of a tax. They also point out that the government has not addressed the
present tax system and enforced it in the way it ought to be, which would be amuch fairer tax system than the government is proposing.
They also decry the fact that reading materials, haircuts and home heating fuels will be taxed. They ask that the government withdraw this unfair and iniquitous tax.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition to the House from over 2,000 people in Victoria where the flowers even bloom today ahead of the rest of the country. We are very proud of that.
This petition reflects the overwhelming feeling of the people of Victoria that the GST has to be rejected. It calls for a reform of the tax system to include the introduction of a wealth tax and a tax on polluters. It calls for a reorganization of government spending priorities in a way which ensures that our basic priorities in education, health, regional development and environmental protection are maintained, without imposing a tax on the majority of Canadians but by imposing in on those who have the full ability to pay.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 169 will be answered today.


Mr. Murphy: Since May 31, 1986, has the government or any agency of the
government made any payment to the firm of (a) Lapointe,
Rosenstein (b) Byers, Casgrain-Low, Murchison and, if so (i) on
what dates (ii) for what services?


Albert Glen Cooper: See
attached.
I am informed as follows: a) Lapointe, Rosenstein
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Federal Business Development Bank
(i)
February 10, 1988
October 16, 1986 November 6, 1986 November 6, 1986
(ii)
Labour arbitration matters
Corporate counsel/research/opinions Litigation account Litigation account


[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1990
[Stage Direction]
b) Byers, Casgrain-Low, Murchison
Canada Post Corporation
Canadian Aviation Safety Board Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Federal Business Development Bank
National Revenue, Taxation Petro-Canada
Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices
Routine Proceedings
March 2, 1987 June 11, 1987 September 24,1987 December 3, 1987 July 18, 1988 January 19, 1989 February 15, 1989 March 30, 1989 July 11, 1989
(0
(5 payments)
July 15, 1986 to March 30, 1989
September 30, 1986
April 30, 1986 July 21, 1986 January 2, 1987
Between June 11, 1986
and November 27, 1986		9,770.11
July 9, 1986	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	52,609.36Ocober 2, 1986	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	42,517.54December 18, 1986	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	49,865.98April 23, 1987	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	23,130.45July 3, 1987	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	32,895.95October 5, 1987	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	24,712.28January 18, 1988	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	4,552.76March 28, 1988	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	7,606.88August 11, 1988	Corporate counsel/research/opinions Corporate Finance	13,784.55January 30, 1989	Corporate counsel/research/opinions	1,880.00April 7, 1989	Corporate counsel/research/opinions	3,202.54August 4, 1989	Corporate counsel/research/opinions	5,200.00October 12, 1989	Corporate counsel/research/opinions	3,444.60September 1989	Costs paid to taxpayer's counsel pursuant to court order	444.001986	For inherited and continued services on human resources matters-acquisition	2,200.001987	3,500.001989	1,700.00January 21,1988	Professional services	24,862.86Corporate counsel/research/opinions	47,250.00Litigation account	11,282.89Investment account	3,912.40Litigation account	10,264.02Corporate counsel/research/opinions	27,000.00Litigation account	2,667.43Litigation account	4,551.79Investment account	862.25Investment account	3,690.17
(ii)
Legal services	$ 2,582.55
Professional services	90.60
Legal advice in respect to labour	1,136.50
negotiations	4,478.25
1,057.08
Legal services	25,965.00
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Regional Industrial Expansion	December 15, 1986 March 19, 1987 October 21, 1987	Legal services	5,537.75 10,082.64 426.82The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	June 9, 1986	Consulting services	7,994.76August 5, 1986	Consulting services	6,187.50August 5, 1986	Consulting services	10,441.25September 5, 1986	Consulting services	5,355.20September 9, 1986	Consulting services	11,708.67October 29, 1986	Consulting services	7,682.48December 10, 1986	Consulting services	7,700.17March 3, 1987	Consulting services	12,761.52March 30, 1987	Consulting services	10,653.64July 14, 1987	Consulting services	7,861.56September 28, 1987	Consulting services	10,838.42November 23, 1987	Consulting services	11,544.32December 16, 1987	Consulting services	1,898.44July 8, 1986	Legal services-litigation	6,050.66September 4, 1986	Legal services-litigation	10,118.54September 9, 1986	Legal services-litigation	8,088.77October 15, 1986	Legal services-litigation	11,969.60November 13,1986	Legal services-litigation	12,198.16January 9, 1987	Legal services-litigation	19,535.73February 5, 1987	Legal services-litigation	14,741.26March 18, 1987	Legal services-litigation	24,753.13May 11, 1987	Legal services-litigation	16,428.71June 16, 1987	Legal services-litigation	5,215.29September 2, 1987 (3 payments)	Legal services-litigation	14,974.58November 23, 1987	Legal services-litigation	8,585.83January 27, 1988	Legal services-litigation	4,833.91January 28, 1988	Legal services-litigation	25,286.17February 8, 1988	Legal services-litigation	9,692.13Telefilm Canada	October 1987	Professional services from Nov. 18,1986 to Dec. 31, 1986 -corporate matter	1,508.50Via Rail Canada	June 26, 1986	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	137.50September 16, 1986	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	2,009.75November 10, 1986	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	582.18January 21, 1987	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	509.50May 25, 1987	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	50.00September 21, 1987	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	4,200.00September 22, 1987	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	3,874.74January 12, 1988	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	4,705.41February 16, 1988	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	45.65October 30, 1988	Legal services-litigation and legal opinions	1,079.69
Other Departments, Agencies and Crown Corporations have no information on this subject.
[English]	The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The questions as
enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have Mr. Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand? allowed to stand.
Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-57, an act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate on behalf of my caucus in what is a very important debate.
We have been chuckling to ourselves this morning in the House about the technical nature of the integrated circuits and what have you, but a remark of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs during his presentation this morning made me think. In fact I asked him whether it was a play on words when he talked about crystal clear.
The reality is that we have gone far in this world and in this country in particular in the development and utilization of technology. We have gone from crystal radio sets, which I remember putting together as a young child, with vacuum tubes and transistors, and then into very rudimentary integrated circuits. Now we are into circuits which are so complex and so powerful that they need the protection of law. With the amount of time, energy and resources put into the development of a circuit, we need the ability in law to protect the person or the company that did it from theft of the idea.
I say that my caucus supports this particular legislation, Bill C-57.1 am very pleased that this bill is before the House to extend intellectual property rights to a scientific community which has been waiting for this bill for many years. We had anticipated that these measures would have been included in the much anticipated phase two of copyright reform. Instead of doing it piecemeal on a specific area, we should have had phase 2 brought forward so that we can deal in a proper way with copyright.
It has been five years since the government promised to reform copyright laws. As far as we know, it has only gone a quarter of the way. Even now, there are still some
Government Orders
problems that have been created. What the government brought in was a package of the least controversial aspects of what is a very difficult issue. I make no bones about that.
We are concerned that the government seems incapable of managing a solution to the very real problems of copyright reform. It seems content to leave Canadian schools, artists, users and creators in a legislative noman's land, or should I say, no-person's land, while it dithers over copyright.
I will not take very long, but there are some things I want to put on the record. This act seeks to provide intellectual property protection to the topography of integrated circuits or ICs, as they are known in the industry, known commonly as chips or semi-conductor chips.
I was interested to find that there are 25 Canadian companies that design and/or produce chips. In 1989, Canadian production of IC products was estimated at $300 million.
The Canadian industry is involved primarily in the design and fabrication of customized and semi-customized chips. It is especially so in producing IC products for the telecommunications industry, one in which Canada is a world leader. It is an industry that has a chance to grow in the regions of this country, and no longer has to be located in the golden horseshoe of southern Ontario or the industrial areas of Quebec. It can be located in the Atikokans of the world, or the Sioux Lookouts, and communicate directly by satellite to provide services.
This industry is involved in the production of leading edge technology and high value-added products. Canadian firms producing semi-conductors need to be protected. At least 15 nations, including the United States, Japan, various European nations and the Nordic countries have provided specific intellectual property protection for semi-conductor chips.
We will give our full support to this bill but we want to take this opportunity to remind the government that it has not helped other leading edge Canadian firms such as Connaught and Lumonics.
The electronic circuits of an IC product are contained in a three-dimensional hill and valley configuration known as a topography.

March 9, 1990
Government Orders
This bill will provide protection to the design of the topography rather than to the functions performed by the circuit or the circuit itself. The act will provide protection to owners of rights by giving them exclusive statutory rights to control certain actions. The legislation will provide exclusive rights with regard to the unauthorized copying of a protected topography or substantial part of it; the unauthorized manufacturing of an IC product incorporating the topography or a substantial part of it; the importation or commercial exploitation, which includes a sale lease offering or exhibiting for sale, lease or commercial distribution of a topography or a substantial part of it, or of an IC product which embodies a protected topography or a substantial part of it and, finally, the importation or commercial exploitation of an industrial article which incorporates an IC product that embodies a protective topography or a substantial part of it.
The exemptions to this protection are that the owner of a product will have no control over its use, sale, rental or redistribution once it is sold. Unauthorized copying is permitted for the purposes of teaching and research and it is permitted in the process of taking apart an IC to design a new topography. This act will protect chip technologies for up to 10 years.
One of the things that may occur in the committee stage of this legislation is a specific review of those exemptions to see whether, irrespective of the consultation process that has gone on to bring forward legislation, there are still aspects of those exemptions that perhaps need some tightening up. I do not have any specifics, but it is a question I raise in the context of second reading debate.
Finally, we are encouraged that the government is moving to protect Canadian industries on the leading edge of new technologies. This is also another opportunity to once again highlight the government's lack of action in protecting firms like Connaught and Lumonics, which I mentioned earlier.
In both cases, the arguments were made by the government and the business community that both firms needed infusion of capital to continue to do then-research and development efforts. They were both sold to foreign firms. It does not matter which foreign firms they were sold to. The fact that they were sold to interests outside Canada is the key element. It was done
so because it was argued that Canadian buyers could not be found.
If the Government of Canada is serious about ensuring that these leading edge industries remain competitive and innovative, then its needs to find domestic sources of capital to ensure that we retain control over these vital economic resources. If we do not take those steps, all the copyright legislation in the world will not protect Canadian designers and inventors, because they will not be here. They will be in the United States.
Remember what happened with the Avro Arrow? We lost our leading edge in the aviation industry as a result of another Conservative government. We lost the human resources that were involved in the development of that product. We are seeing it happen time and time again.
It is great to provide copyright legislation to protect the leading edge industries in the IC field, but at the same time we have to make sure that we have the economic protection so that we do not see those inventions or creations never happening here in Canada again.
That is my contribution on behalf of my caucus. I look forward to completing the second reading debate and moving on to other matters.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate the position taken by my colleague that the Liberal caucus supports this bill in principle, although there will undoubtedly be a serious discussion on the details of the legislation at committee stage, if our experience with Bill C-60, the copyright bill, is an experience upon which one can rely. There were so many amendments that I lost track of the numbers. There were well above 50 or 60 amendments.
It is extremely important and I argued this at the time of the copyright bill, which had been five and a half years in development and perhaps many years before that, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the present House leader, should have taken more interest in his part of the bill. It was a shared bill between communications and culture and the minister. He paid no attention to the fact that in this world of rapidly changing technology, the semi-conductor chip was one of the most important and key elements to be reviewed and revised under the copyright law.
The minister did not see fit to pay attention to his duties and so it went unattended to. Here we are with little patchwork quilts coming in. There are major areas of copyright legislation that are uncovered. For example, there is the whole question of our educators and the problems that they are facing, and school children and
March 9, 1990

teachers in the classrooms or in the libraries reprography photocopying which, according to this bill or the old bill, is against the law, and they are subject to fines. I wonder what is going to happen with this bill.
I would caution anyone who presumes to think that they can put this into a legislative committee and it will be a one, two, three affair. The semi-conductor chip has a memory. It is an integrated circuit of topography. It is key and vital to the industry. In my own riding, Paramax is very well known for its role in the development of high technology in the telecommunication field. I have been very impressed with what they are able to do.
I would like to tell the minister and the members of this House that there is a great amount of work that has been done in the field of cable and broadcasting technology. You just have to go and see what Videotron has developed in the way of Videoway. We must protect these people, and consider what will happen if we allow our borders to be open to American and foreign interests without considering the Canadian potential for this wonderfully growing field of great technology. We have been leaders in the past and with research and development we will be leaders again in the future, as long as we protect our interests.
It is about time this government recognized what can be done in the field of technology, but how important well written copyright is.
I caution the government and I suggest that it pay a great deal of attention and care and bring in phase two.
Government Orders
Why is it leaving our people in contempt of court? Let us know what to do about spontaneous news. Let us know what the exemptions are under reprography rights and let us not put people in jeopardy. It is not fair to our children, it is not fair to our educators and it will not be fair to our businessmen.
I would suggest a quick look at this bill because there is a very serious error in one of the clauses which allows, indeed encourages, increased foreign presence in the Canadian market in this particular field, and I think this is a serious issue. I would say to you, Positron, in my riding, watch this bill. I would say to you, Videotron, in the cable industry with the most exciting new technology, watch this bill. Come and read it and compare it with the old act and make sure that the intellectual property is properly protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is agreement to call it three o'clock.
It being 12.37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 12, 1990