1990-10-22

['Mr. Speaker, nearly two months before the implementation of the GST, Canadian businesses and customers still do not know what is happening with the goods and services tax.\nThe liberal Senate and Jean Chretien continue holding the government hostage and ridiculing democracy, with the consequence that our business people and the public in general are thrown into insecurity. Seven million Canadians are waiting for a cheque before Christmas to compensate some effects of the GST. Unfortunately, we still do not know if these 600 millions dollars or so will be payed in time for Christmas.\nMr. Speaker, in view of such abuse of power, let us wish at least that the people of Beausejour realize the rotten deal Jean Chretien has in store for them if he gets to represent them here in Ottawa.']
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast) moved:: That, whereas the Constitution Act, 1867 provides in section 17 that there shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate and the House of Commons;
And whereas it is expedient that the electors of Canada be more directly involved in the legislative process;
And whereas an initiative and referendum process is an appropriate mechanism for the determination of questions of national interest;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada should be bound to enact any measures necessary to implement decisions of the electors of Canada on questions put to them by referendum;
Now, therefore, the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.



[Stage Direction]
1. The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by inserting, immediately after section 19 thereof, the following section:
"20. (1) A referendum on any matter coming within the classes of
subjects enumerated in section 91 may be initiated by proclamation
of the Government of Canada or by petition of not less than ten per cent of the electors of Canada addressed to the House of Commons.
(2)	A decision of the electors of Canada in a referendum held pursuant to this section is binding on the Government and the Paliament of Canada and shall, within a reasonable time after the holding of the referendum, be implemented by them in a manner consistent with their powers and authority.
(3)	The Government of Canada shall implement any legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada pursuant to subsection (2) within a reasonable time after such enactment.
(4)	No referendum shall be held on a question that is substantially the same as a question on which a referendum has been held within the previous four years.
(5)	The Parliament of Canada shall, before the expiration of the first parliament following the coming into force of this section, enact a measure consistent with it to provide a reasonable procedure for the orderly administration of referendums to be held pursuant to this section."
2. This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1990
(referendum).
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for having graciously seconded my motion, despite the fact he finds it controversial. He may not agree with everything it contains, but I am grateful to him for seconding it.
[Stage Direction]
My motion before the House is to consider amendments to the Constitution that would put in place a process of referendums. This process would create a direct democracy. I believe that what we have today in Canada is a parliamentary system that is in need of reform. In order for that reform to take place all leaders and members of this House must show a will for reform.
However, I am not convinced that the leadership or the will is there. Leadership is courage. Leadership is the ability to take risks and leadership is trust.
I use as an example the Quebec referendum of May 20, 1980. I believe that Mr. Rene Levesque showed courage, took the risk, let the people decide and lived by the outcome. Equally, leadership needs the support of the people to function effectively. That means the electorate must not abdicate its responsibility, look for short-term solutions, or hope for messiahs, and they have not.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
I believe that, as evidenced in the GST battle and the Meech Lake Accord debate, Canadians did have a vision, accepted their responsibility, but had no effective means to express it. One of the problems is our electoral process.
We have a system which, in effect, places our leaders for a period of five years in a position that is quasi dictatorial. During that time, great irreparable damage can be done to the country. Examples of this is uncontrolled deficit spending and for the west, the national energy policy. So from time to time, between elections, referendums are essential on major issues. By the referendum process I mean that either the government, Parliament or the people, may initiate that process. My motion today puts in place criteria that would allow such a process to take place.
I do not put forward the concept that referendums are the only reform necessary for a more democratic country. In a Parliament that abides by 18th century tradition like caucus secrecy, bizarre rules of the House and men with whips, there is lack of input by individual members and derailment of all intelligent and logical ideas.
To make my point, I would like to quote from the McGrath report of 1985 at page 1.
As a new Member of Parliament, I do not know the mechanics of this institution as well as some of my colleagues. I am absolutely amazed at how little input private members have into the formulation of legislation, policies and/or regulations. It appears to me that most of the time we are told what the minister will be announcing in 48 hours and we do not have access, any means to study or contribute or change the finished product. But members must go back to their constituents to explain and support the decision of the government. Sometimes this is very difficult.
This was said by Barbara Sparrow, member of Parliament for Calgary South at that time.
I wonder how she can defend the GST. This phenomenon occurs because a bill is drafted by the department responsible, is put before Cabinet and considered in confidence by cabinet. For that reason, members cannot see a bill or a budget before it reaches first reading in the House. At that time, major amendments are ruled out of order because they could contradict the principle of the bill. The result of this is that amendments are virtually all cosmetic.
Another point to be made is that most legislation passed by the House is enabling legislation, which allows the department to draft regulations by the thousands. It has become a second level of law which has not been debated by duly elected members of the House.
When I was sitting on the committee which reviews those regulations, we found regulations which have been in place for 10 years and there was no enabling legislation permitting them and still the ministry refused to withdraw them. Not only do we have bills that have not been initiated by members of Parliament, but by officials of different ministries. We also have budgets which are not being formulated by members of Parliament of the ruling party.
I would like to quote the right hon. Prime Minister, in his leadership book, Where I Stand, at page 49: The Prime Minister stated:
At a time when governments are supposedly committed to greater openness and accountability, the budget-making system remains cloaked in secrecy. At a time when virtually all other policy decisions are subject to an elaborate system of checks and balances within government and Parliament, the budget remains the exclusive prerogative of a handful of officials within the Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office."
The Prime Minister further states:
But the present budget-making process itself contributes to bad decision-making and therefore to bad government. Clearly, it is time for a serious debate in Canada on how we can make the budget process more responsive and more effective to the benefit of all Canadians.
I do believe that the Prime Minister's honourable intentions which resulted in the McGrath report of June 1985, has been derailed. Why? The simple answer is that we function in a parliamentary system of the 18th century which is in need of reform. That system includes not only the House of Commons, but our Senate as well. I remind members of the House of the necessity to have regional input in Parliament with a Triple E Senate, but none of those reforms, if taken singularly, would be a total answer to our dilemma. This, then, brings me back to my argument in support of a referendum process.
Do we need a process of referendum in Canada? I ask that question, and I would argue, yes, because there is no referendum mechanism at the present time to poll people on very important issues, such as changes to the federal Constitution and taxation.
October 22, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
I would just like to mention a few recent examples where polls were not taken: free trade and the goods and services tax. Those who argue the opposite point will say that we already have a democratically elected government in Canada, and, therefore, the consultation is taking place each time that a federal election is called.
Recently, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in speaking about the goods and services tax, said: "If people don't like what we are doing, they can always turf us out at the next federal election."
I would like to remind the Prime Minister and all those who oppose the polling of people that in the last election the main issue before the electorate was nothing else but the question of free trade. There was no debate about constitutional changes or taxation such as, for example, the goods and services tax.
An hon. member:: Nonsense.


Alex Kindy: An hon. member says that it is nonsense. I was going door to door and I had to defend free trade, and I did it, because I believed in it. But there was no question about the goods and services tax. I was asked whether our social programs would remain intact. I had to respond, yes, our government is faithful, it is going to keep our social programs. Then there was the change in that Unemployment Insurance Act. I am really ashamed of that.
The last election was a one-issue campaign. It was free trade and nothing else.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Alex Kindy: And what were the democratic results of that election? The Conservative Party that campaigned so hard for the free trade agreement got approximately 43 per cent of the popular vote. Those who opposed the free trade agreement got approximately 52 per cent of the vote.
It could be argued that a majority of the people are opposed to the free trade agreement and therefore it should not be implemented, but because of the way our electoral system is structured, the Conservative Party elected a majority of members to the House of Commons. Even so, it got only 43 per cent of the vote.
We should ask if the Conservative Party got a mandate from the people to implement the free trade agreement. According to our Canada Elections Act, the answer is yes. If we believe in polling the people, the answer would be simply, no, it did not get it. But because the Conservative Party elected the highest number of members of the House of Commons, it was able to pass the free trade agreement. Therefore, I would argue that our electoral system is flawed.
In Canada we need a system of checks and balances. This can be provided by the direct poll of people, a referendum process.
I would like to ask hon. members, if a question was put to the people today on the goods and services, tax whether or not the people would favour it. The result would be no. The answer would be a resounding no.
Where is the mandate of the government elected by only 43 per cent of the people and one that campaigned on free trade and not on the goods and services tax? It is now trying to implement the goods and services tax. As I said before, there is no mandate.
Why do some members oppose a referendum process, the polling of people? They would say it is expensive to consult the people, that people are not well informed, that they are not smart enough to make intelligent decisions, and that the issue would be a divisive one. I believe all those arguments are self-serving and do not reflect the real issue, the polling of people.
I personally believe in the intelligence of people. They have only one vested interest, and that is the good of the country. The people have that vested interest. Politicians are different. They have all sorts of vested interests.
To give a few examples, I will quote from a book entitled The Referendum, by John St. Loe Strachey. On page 53, he states:
In speaking of the referendum in America the writer in the British
Weekly said:
Members of the Legislatures, they say, may be"lobbied, wheedled
and bull-dozed," but the citizens are too numerous to be threatened
or be fooled.
So, the argument that people should not be consulted does not hold water. If we look historically, democracies such as Switzerland and the United States of America have referendums. In the United States there can be no constitutional change at the state or federal level with

October 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
out the people being consulted. The same applies in Switzerland where there is a binding referendum at all levels of government and people are consulted regularly.
Switzerland, like Canada, has many languages and cultures and the referendum process has united that country. I would like to point out that Switzerland is a united country and has four languages. Therefore, the argument that we could not have a referendum process because of our two official languages and many cultures is inappropriate as well.
In conclusion, to make our country a better place in which to live we need a referendum process which can be initiated by the people, by Parliament, by the executive branch of the Crown, and which would be binding on the government of the day.
I hope at the end of the debate, but before the hour expires, members will show trust in the Canadian people and allow a vote on this motion to take place.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate.
This motion proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow for referenda to be initiated on any matter coming within the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. Once a yes or no decision has been made in a referendum, the Government of Canada would then be forced to implement it. I have a number of problems with that and with the whole notion of referenda in general.
First, the reason I oppose this motion is that it implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system of government, that the parliamentary system we have does not work, and that this Chamber does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of Canadians. I have opposed suggestions like this thoughout my life.
As the Chamber knows, in the early seventies, a previous Prime Minister indicated his belief that the present system was not good enough for Canada. It spawned a whole cottage industry of suggested changes to the British North America Act.
One of the questions I raised in an academic setting, and which I would like to raise it here as well, is that surely the onus rests on those who indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong with our parliamentary system. The onus is on them to demonstrate why there is
something wrong and what it is that they are proposing that is so much better.
The hon. member who just spoke talked about the systems in the United States and in Switzerland. I have heard it all before. People point to the European republics and to the experience south of the border. I always ask them the same thing: What is there about the Government of Italy, France, Switzerland or the United States that you believe works so well that our system has to be the one that is radically altered?
I have maintained that, yes, there are mistakes. This Chamber has made mistakes. But over the existence of the House of Commons these past almost 125 years, our record compares favourably with every other democratic government, or any government in the world for that matter. I suggest to them that the onus should be with them to show why this parliamentary system of ours does not work.
As well, I oppose this motion for what it says about the role of a member of Parliament. The hon. member just said that everybody talked about just the free trade agreement. I am not going to get into the strategy of the Liberal Party.
I said many times during the election: "I am prepared to talk about all issues. I am willing to say where I stand on all of them." If the Liberal Party said that the only thing it wanted to talk about was free trade, that is a decision that it made and that it will have to live with for the next two to three years. I believe there is a greater obligation for members of Parliament to say exactly where he or she stands on some very difficult issues.
In the 1984 election, the subject of abortion was not an issue, but I believed-and I think I share this with other members of Parliament-that on the most difficult moral question of the 20th century a member of Parliament or anyone who stands for public office has an obligation to say exactly where he or she stands.
When it comes to things like that, I do not think it is a question of the changes of public opinion. I had many people say to me: "I am sure you have taken polls in your riding. I am sure you have seen a Gallup poll. The majority of Canadians do not agree with you." I do not want to be in this position. I do not think members of Parliament should be in a position where they say: "I

October 22, 1990

have certain principles, but if they are out of fashion, I am certainly willing to change them."
I happen to believe that the free enterprise system is good. There are people in the Chamber who will say to me: "For heaven's sakes, your home province has embraced socialism. Maybe you should be a socialist." I say that time will tell whether I am correct on that or not, but I believe in the free enterprise system and I have an obligation to make that known to the constituents of my riding and let them make the decision. Once the decision has been made after I have fully informed people where I stand, then I have an obligation to act on it.
With respect to tax changes, let me say that the hon. member who proposed this motion was a part of the government. He knew as well as I and anyone who is interested in the subject of tax reform that it was a proposal of the Progressive Conservative Party in the election of 1988 to overhaul the tax system. On every public platform, we were all asked questions on this, and I did not shrink from answering with what I believed was the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, which is what we have implemented. To those people who say to me "You know, the GST is not popular. " I say, "Look, I will tell you why I support the present legislation. Because the manufacturers' sales tax is a bad tax. I am opposed to a tax system that encourages job creation in Rochester, encourages job creation in Chicago and not in Canada. That is why it has to be changed." Assuming that the MST is a bad tax, this is not a popular tax. I have to agree with people who say that. I do not like taxes. When I pay my municipal taxes, I am not too happy. When I pay any tax, I am not too happy. But it is one of the facts of life.
I heard a radio announcer ask people what they thought heaven was going to be like. When I get to heaven, I expect to see many similarities between Canada and heaven. One of the exceptions will be taxes. Taxes will not be there. They are a part of life here in Canada.
This government was elected not just to take popular decisions. We are here to take tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, you will remember in 1984 when this government was elected. In the newspapers the next day, they said: "If this was a mandate for anything, it was a
Private Members' Business
mandate for the Mulroney Conservatives to make tough decisions." We saw where easy decisions led us. With the previous government we saw where easy decisions were leading this country inevitably, into bankruptcy. Those were the easy decisions. Our job was to make the tough decisions. I say to members of this House that we have a responsibility to be sensitive, we have a sense of responsibility to inform ourselves as to what our constituents think we should be doing and we have a responsibility to be honest. Ultimately, our responsibility, as Edmund Burke said, is to use our judgment in the implementation of public policy. This is what this government has done these past six years. I have been very proud to be a part of this government and to be a part of this great parliamentary system.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Calgary-Northeast.

I can sympathize with the statements that the hon. member made concerning the advisability of proceeding with a referendum. I must say at the outset that I believe referenda are foreign to our system of parliamentary government. I choose not to support the motion in spite of the sympathy that I feel for his position.
It is important that we in the House realize the position that he has been placed in by reason of the disgraceful conduct of the government opposite which has the House to a position where it has to consider a motion such as this.
It is my view that we are debating such a motion because the level of competence of the government is so dreadful that people are looking for salvation outside of this House rather than looking for it here. They know the hard-hearted attitude of the government majority in this House. It is prepared to bulldoze the wishes of the Canadian people anywhere at anytime. It is prepared to bulldoze the opposition anywhere and anytime to have its way. Canadians are fed up to the teeth with it. They want this government out. They are willing to consider referenda.

October 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
That is why the hon. member for Calgary Northeast has been driven to propose this kind of motion to this House. He, at least, has seen the light. He has realized what dreadful government the Progressive Conservative Party has brought to Canada. He jumped ship and got out of that party before his own career was destroyed. Many hon. members opposite are going to find their careers come to a very short end come the next federal election.
What is it that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is really saying in this motion? He is saying that Canadians are entitled to express their own views very directly on a number of key issues that this government has brought to the fore, and to which be believes most Canadians are opposed. I do share his views in that respect. Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax. They are opposed to the cuts in unemployment insurance. They are opposed to the cuts in VIA Rail. They are opposed to the selling off of Crown corporations. They are opposed to the budget cutbacks. They are opposed to the clawback provisions that the government has introduced. A whole string of bad legislation has been introduced in this Parliament by this government.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls rants and raves about how on every platform he was on during the campaign he spoke about the goods and services tax. Well, did he speak about cuts to VIA Rail? No, he did not. Did he talk about unemployment insurance cutbacks? No, he did not. In fact, the Minister for International Trade said there would not be any changes in the program. Lo and behold, the changes came in within months of the government winning the election.
This government set out to mislead Canadians in the last campaign. It succeeded in misleading Canadians. They were duped into voting for this government in spite of a shocking string of policies that were hidden from view and which we exposed and said: "This kind of thing is going to happen. This government is going to do these things that they are denying today." We asked the questions. We got the answers, and then the answers all changed after the election.
Canadians were misled in 1988. They are now demanding referenda on various issues that this government has brought before this House because they did not know what this government was going to do when the election was held.
In other words, the referendum is an alternative. They are saying: "Look, we are so angry". Canadians are so annoyed at having not been able to choose their representatives on the basis of the facts that they are saying: "We now should have a second crack at this through a referendum." We should be able to have a particular bill brought to us for consideration so we can look at the bill and pass judgment on it and say is this really what we want in this country. There are too many bills that this government has brought in that Canadians do not want, that they are fed up with, and they do not want them passed into law.
I am a staunch supporter of this institution and of our parliamentary government. I firmly believe that, as the hon. member for Niagara Falls has said, over the years this House generally has been representative of the wishes of the Canadian people. Over the years, in a general way, this House has served the Canadian public well and the method of decision-making that we have where the government proposes and the House disposes generally has worked well.
There are problems. I do not say it is perfect. I would be the last person to maintain that but, to use the old quotation, I believe attributable to Sir Winston Churchill, democracy may not be the best form of government, and may be the worst, but it is better than all the others.
I say that bearing in mind the way this Chamber operates. Sure we could improve it, we can make it more representative in various ways and we all look at different ways. But I do not believe the referendum is one of those ways.
Having said what I have said, over the years we have been a Chamber which generally reflects the will of the people of Canada. At the present time that is no longer the case. I say it because this government has done so many things that it did not promise and, indeed, that run completely contrary to its stated promises and intentions.
Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry to make it sound as though I am being partisan on that issue, but I can understand the frustration of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast in bringing this in. After all, he was driven out of the Conservative caucus
October 22, 1990

by reason of his opposition to a tax that he believes is fundamentally wrong.
It was not just the tax. He has opposed several other policies that have to him seemed absolutely and fundamentally wrong. They were wrong because they were contrary to the promises made in the election in large measure, and they were wrong because they are bad for Canada in the second measure. We have been saying that for ages. Yet all we get for our efforts is closure. Every time the government says: "We have heard enough from the opposition on this bill after a day or two of debate. We will apply closure. We do not want to hear any more of your reasons for objecting to this bad legislation that we are proposing. That is our policy. We are going ahead with it. We do not care what Canadians think. We do not care what the opposition thinks. All we want to do is get the legislation passed into law. We will take our chances, thanks, in 1992 or 1993."
That is a new approach to government in Canada. I think it is detrimental to the way we operate in this House. Generally in the past debate has been slightly longer. There has been opportunity for more input into the decisions that the government has made through debate in this House. This government has chosen to limit debate at virtually every opportunity and to ignore Parliament as much as possible. I submit that that is a bad practice.
The hon. member for Abitibi suggests that maybe I am incorrect in that. If he is suggesting that the government is in fact acting in a way that supports Parliament and supports our democratic institution and supports the rights of members to participate in debate, I suggest he look at the record. I could cite the list. I do not have it with me today, but I could give the list of times that closure and time allocation have been applied in this House in this Parliament. I could give the hon. member the dates when Parliament was not sitting when in accordance with the rules it might well have been sitting. I can tell the hon. member that the reason for all the closure, the reason for all the time allocation, and the reason for the non-sitting of this House is attributable directly to the government.
I have spoken on this subject before in this House. He can look back at previous speeches and get the figures. I invite him to do so.
Private Members' Business
If the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is correct in his statement that in fact his move to this side of the House and his support of referenda generally is attributable to the fact that the government lacks the confidence of Canadians, which I submit is the case, then what I can say to him as a solution to the problem is why will he not urge more of his colleagues on the other side to join him on this side of the House. Certainly, we would welcome more members here to help vote against the government. We would be delighted to have them voting against the government. Whether they are in the Liberal Party or whether they are independents on this side of the House, as long as they are prepared to cast their votes against the government, I am happy to answer the question put by the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
We need a larger opposition that can force this government out so we can have an election and see whether in fact it has the confidence of the people, because that is the normal route. If the Prime Minister chooses, he can always dissolve the House and put us into an election. We in the Liberal Party are ready for an election at any time, not a referendum, but we are certainly ready for an election at any time. Indeed, we would welcome an election at this stage. Perhaps the hon. member for Niagara Falls would urge the Prime Minister to call an election so we can find out if the Canadian people support the policies that the hon. member says are so widely supported and so popular across Canada.
I can tell him, returning as I have from a weekend in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, that this government is notoriously unpopular in Kingston and the Islands. They are not in a position where people feel they can support the policies that the government is advocating and indeed, they would not support them if they were in a referendum or if they were put to them in a general election.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has expired and thank the House for its indulgence.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for bringing this motion to our attention today in terms of a Private Member's Bill on direct democracy or referenda. As has been said already, this is something that is really different or foreign to our Canadian system in terms of a citizen initiated referenda. I also remind the House that the time has come, in my opinion, that we should look

October 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
very seriously at making the Government of Canada more accountable to the people of this country.
I say, unlike the member from the Conservative Party, that this institution is not working, that Parliament is not working, that there is a failure of this institution to respond to the needs of the people of this country. Our party, because of that, has established an action group to go across this country to try to get ideas from the Canadian people as to how to reform the Parliament of Canada to make it more responsible to the people of this country.
I find, for example, that a majority government in this country does not seem to work. It does not respond to the wishes of the people. In an election that is held today in terms of the issue of the day might be fiction in about two years time. We have a system in this country of responsible government which in theory is very good, but I ask the question of responsible for whom. Is it good enough to have an election every four or five years? I suggest it is not good enough to have an election every four or five years. A responsible government today is responsible not just to the people of this country but responsible in the main to the government side of the House and the majority Parliament in the House of Commons and that is not good enough.
The motion today by the member from Calgary is one on referenda. I am not sure whether or not he goes too far when he says there has to be a citizen initiated referendum that will be binding on the government as well as referenda initiated by the government itself. I think we should take a serious look at that proposition. We should debate the pros and cons to see whether or not this is one of the reforms to our parliamentary system. It is perhaps an idea that is much more popular in western Canada than it is in eastern Canada.
The Liberal and Conservative parties both put forward a spokesman from Ontario. If you look historically in this country, there have been since Confederation some 42 referenda conducted by provincial governments. Some 31 of them had been conducted in the four western provinces, three in the province of Ontario, two in the province of Quebec, and six in Atlantic Canada. Historically they have been used much more frequently in western Canada, perhaps because of the alienation or the grievance that many western Canadians feel about the central government and Parliament.
On the national level a referendum has been used on only two occasions. One of them was back in 1898 in terms of the prohibition of liquor. The other one was on conscription in 1942.
There are many recent examples as to why we must examine the effectiveness of our parliamentary system. We have, for example, a goods and services tax that most Canadians oppose strenuously but feel very helpless to do anything about because the government says it has mandate and, come hell or high water, that goes through regardless of the consequences.
We had a Meech Lake process. I supported very strongly the substantive part of Meech Lake which the members of this House know. The process of negotiation, which is not entirely the fault of this government but was inherited in many ways from the previous Liberal government, is a process that is too secretive. It is a process that is restricted to too few people. It is a process that must be opened up.
We also have in this parliamentary system of ours a Senate which is not democratically elected, a Senate where the Prime Minister can use an archaic constitutional provision, section 36 of our Constitution, and swamp the Senate with eight additional senators, something that is highly undemocratic.
On the other hand, there can be a majority in the Senate or a minority, as is now the case, that can override the wishes of the elected House. On either count, I do not think that is a proper way to go. We have had a situation this summer where we have also sent Canadian troops to the Persian Gulf, into a potential war zone without the recalling of Parliament. The Persian Gulf, the GST, the Meech Lake process, and the Senate are examples of why we need some reform to make this Parliament more sensitive to the wishes of the Canadian people.
We have to look at issues of whether or not we need a second House. Do we need an elected Senate? What power should that Senate have? Should we, for example, have in this country fixed election days so that government cannot manipulate an agenda to its purposes and forget about the purposes of the nation as a whole? Do we in this country need to have a look at proportional representation so that different points of view can be
October 22, 1990

represented constantly at the centre of this country, which is the Parliament of Canada?
Perhaps our country is too diverse for a majority government to work. A majority government might just respond to the huge population centres and forget about the smaller populated areas of this country.
Should we take a look at our confidence votes in the house? Should we give members of Parliament more freedom, regardless of party, to vote the way that they see fit?
What this motion is about is a question of direct democracy. It is a direct democracy versus representative democracy. Should we have the power to recall members of Parliament when they do not listen to the wishes of their people in their own ridings? Should we give the people of this country the power to initiate referenda that are binding on the Government of Canada and on this Parliament? Should the Government of Canada itself have the power to initiate referenda.
The first part of that question was answered several times by a previous Liberal government. I remember back in 1975 or 1976 when it proposed that the government have the power to initiate referenda on the Constitution. I remember the constitutional patriation act back in 1980 when Mr. Trudeau suggested that the Government of Canada should have the power to have referenda on constitutional amendments. I remember Pepin-Robarts back in that same period of time, back in the 1970s, suggesting a referenda procedure. It has been looked at very thoroughly.
The other part of this resolution that is new and different coming from my friend from Calgary is: Should the Canadian people have the right to initiate referenda? He is saying that with 10 per cent of the voters signing a petition they should have that right.
I did not take a serious look at that. It is a major deviation from what we know today, but I also want to suggest to the House that we look at a warning as well because we may indeed go too far down that road.
An example of that today is the state of California. In California there are about 13.5 million voters, and I believe it takes only about 3 per cent of the electorate to initiate a binding referendum. It takes 372,000 people, and I think that is far too few. It allows special interest groups to manipulate the system. If we take a look at the proposition seriously, we should make sure we do not go too far down that road. There is an election coming up
Private Members' Business
on November 6 of this year in that state. There will be 20 referenda questions on the ballot, 20 different initiatives. The ballot booklet explaining the vote is 144 pages long. They are estimating that the campaign, surrounding these referenda in California, will cost around $200 million.
This is an example of referendums gone wild; they have gone too far in the direction of referendums initiated by the electorate. Also in the state of California, for example, we have found that referendums now have become a cottage industry. They are in the hands of a small group of people who represent special interests.
We must guard against that in this country and indeed we should look very seriously at this kind of a proposal. As well we must look at the idea of whether or not referendums unite people or divide people.
A referendum can be very, very divisive. That is something we must consider very seriously. It can be divisive. It can be, as it is in California, a process which is hijacked by special interest groups.
There was a referendum in California, for example, in 1984 about state lotteries. The campaign for that referendum cost $2.6 million, but $2.2 million of that came from one company that manufactured lottery tickets. That shows you, Mr. Speaker, that they can become captives of special interest groups. They can be hijacked by special interest groups. In California now it apparently costs up to $2 a name to campaign to get names on a petition to initiate a referendum. I leave us with that warning.
I see my time has run out. Let me refer to an article in The Globe and Mail of October 15 which refers to a referendum law in California that was explained to a B.C. Social Credit Convention. They warn that this cannot used by ordinary people but can be used by special interest groups such as big business to promote what they want. I think we have to be very careful if we go down this road that we do not go as far as they have in the state of California.
With that, I think we should take a serious look at this idea. My friend from Calgary is saying that it should not go as far as California. Indeed one needs 10 per cent of the voters of this country to initiate a referendum, rather than 3 per cent or 4 per cent as it is in California. Let us at least take a look at it in terms of referendums on constitutional matters. Let us debate this. Let us open

Private Members' Business
up this process. Let us open up these doors and let the people have a say as to what they want us to do.
I think we should refer this subject to a standing committee, maybe have some hearings on this issue, and allow the people to participate before we make a quick decision either yes or no.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary-Northeast.
Our colleague is urging the House to endorse a constitutional amendment in a measure he calls the Constitution Act, 1990 (referendum). In accordance with this amendment a referendum on any matter coming within the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 might be initiated either by Government of Canada proclamation or by petition of not less than 10 per cent of the electors of Canada.
The purpose of the motion in interesting. Although Canada is among the freest and most democratic countries on earth, it is important always to seek to strengthen public participation in the affairs of the state. Such is the very essence of our democratic tradition, which is indeed the envy of many other countries.
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the recent Meech Lake Accord constitutional debate it is that Canadians want to have their say on important issues in this country.
Still I would suggest that the hon. member's proposition deserves closer scrutiny.
First, is that the only way to let Canadians take part in the business of the nation? No. Referenda are not the only way we have to reach our objectives. Among other options which spring to mind, for instance, we could hold public hearings where Canadians would be asked to speak out about the issue at hand.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of public consultation would enable us to hear the main arguments, and it is a process that can readily be initiated.
Since the beginning of Confederation, this form of public consultation has been used almost exclusively at the provincial level. There were the two referendums held in Newfoundland, in June and July 1948, which gave the population of Newfoundland a chance to decide whether or not the province would enter Confederation. There was also the referendum held in May 1980, in Quebec, on the future of that province within the Canadian Constitution.
There were other instances at the provincial level, especially in the Western provinces. Interestingly, most of these consultations were about prohibition.
Nationally, however, and that is the focus of the debate today, Canada has resorted only twice to this form of consultation since Confederation: in 1898, prohibition and in 1942 on conscription.
Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the debate that took place on this issue in Quebec and the other provinces. Suffice it to recall that on the day of the plebiscite, April 27, 1942, French Canadians in this country voted 80 per cent against the government's proposal, while English Canadians voted massively in favour.
The episode caused profound divisions between French Canadians and English Canadians on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this does not mean we should reject out of hand the possibility of having referendums at the national level. I merely wish to stress that this method of public consultation, attractive though its objectives may be, bears with it a real risk, as we have seen, of polarizing public opinion and dividing Canadians. In fact, it forces a decision without necessarily allowing for further discussion or encouraging consultation. It seems to exacerbate differences, to divide voters into two camps-for or against-leaving no room for compromise.
That is why I find it difficult to support the hon. member's motion right now. Considering the many ramifications and major consequences of such a decision, I think the proposal requires careful study. It would be most unwise to proceed before having been able to analyze all the aspects, all the consequences and before determining how we should proceed, something the hon. member proposes to do after rather than before the amendment is passed.
Mr. Speaker, if we decide that a referendum is the best way to involve the public, we must consider, for instance,
October 22, 1990

on what matters a referendum may be called, who may initiate such a procedure, what the rules would be, how best to ensure that the public is satisfactorily informed of what is at stake-


Alex Kindy: Oh, stop talking!


Guy St-Julien: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast tells me to stop talking! No member from Western Canada is going to tell a Quebecer to stop talking in this Elouse, because it is my privilege, Mr. Speaker!
As I was saying- I see the hon. member for Calgary Northeast who tells me to shut up, but I remember he ran twice in Quebec and was beaten twice. Ele ran in Western Canada where he won, but he always lost in Quebec. And he will not prevent us from talking in this House!
We must also consider how best to ensure that the public is satisfactorily informed regarding the issues at stake, and whether a majority is required in each of Canada's regions as well as a national majority, and any number of other issues as well.
Mr. Speaker, I also think it is important to consider this question within the broader context of the constitutional amending process. The Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said on June 23 and repeated on August 25 in Gaspe, and I quote: "Before initiating further constitutional reform, we will have to identify a new constitutional amending process". This new process will be what Canadians want it to be, and that is more open, more transparent and broader in scope.
The Prime Minister also indicated that we should always look for better ways to amend the Constitution, ways that reconcile the need for public involvement and democratic action with the legal constraints that exist in our Constitution.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am in favour of finding ways that will provide for greater involvement of Canadians in the business of Parliament. However, to vote for the motion tabled in the House today would be to proceed piecemeal, without having analyzed all the aspects of these issues and without consulting the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Manitobans, native Canadians and patrons of the performing arts across Canada, I would like to mark the passing and pay tribute to one of Canada's great young artistic talents. Rene Highway died last Thursday of meningitis at the age of 36.
Born in northern Manitoba, Rene Highway will be remembered for the imagination and innovation he brought to his choreography and dance. He will also be remembered as a talented film and television actor.
Together with his older brother Tomson, Rene Highway explored the clash of cultures between white man and native through theatre and dance. His work celebrated his pride in his heritage and people.
To his family in Manitoba, may I offer my deepest condolences. Canada has lost a young and vibrant inspiration.
In memory of Rene Highway donations will be gratefully accepted by the Native Earth Performing Arts Inc., Lower Level, 37 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
I hope members will join me in mourning a serious loss to this community and to this country.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15, we tabled our negotiating position in Geneva on GATT.

October 22, 1990
5. 0. 31
Canada seeks a reduction in trade distorting subsidies, more access to international markets and clarifications of GATT Article XI, which permits import quotas in support of our supply management sectors, such as the dairy industry.
Also last Monday, the producer group known as Dairy Farmers of Canada launched a publicity campaign to increase consumer awareness of the GATT proceedings. Unfortunately, their television commercial has also had the effect of creating fears among producers that the government has changed its stance on supply management.
I emphasize that this is not the case. In their Toronto news release of Monday, October 15, 1990, Mr. Peter Oosterhoof, vice-president of Dairy Farmers of Canada and vice-chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board stated, and I quote:
The objective of the campaign is to increase Canadians understanding of the challenges facing Canada's dairy industry, and to enlist active public support for the positions taken in international trade negotiations by the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian government.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Competition Policy announced last Friday that it intends to file an application with the competition tribunal in the matter of the acquisition by Southam Incorporated of publishing operations in British Columbia.
This decision provides firm reason to renew the call made for hearings before the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications into concentration of ownership within this and other media. The press, free, responsible and accountable, is an instrument of prime importance to all Canadians.
Because of concentration of ownership, many Canadians fear that the press will not be employed in such a way as to supply them with the full range of views required to make informed judgments. Thus, we cannot be complacent about continued concentration of ownership of the press. Concentration of media ownership is much more than a merger, an acquisition or a bottom line statement.
News and information, vital elements in making decisions, are becoming packaged, homogenized and sanitized. We are heading away from reading all the news that is fit to print toward being fed all the news that is print to fit.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Nova Scotians I would like to express my profound disappointment in the economic policies of the Government of Canada.
The high interest rate policies of this government are hurting consumers from coast to coast, but in particular it is hurting those individuals involved in the resource based industries.
In addition, high interest rates have a profound negative effect on small business across this country. It is they who create the thousands of new jobs which are needed so desperately in this country. However, with high interest rates, the policies being pursued by the government opposite will only serve to shut down small business in this country.
The policy with regard to a high Canadian dollar certainly does not provide any advantages whatsoever to our Canadian manufacturing associations across this country. As a result, thousands of Canadians will be without jobs.
Finally, the GST. Why is the Canadian government putting into place the goods and services tax when we are in the midst of a first ever Canadian-made recession? Why is the government so concerned with seeing its way on the goods and services tax, which it knows will fuel inflation and cost jobs. In other words, it will be extremely negative for the Canadian economy.


LITERACY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the eradication of illiteracy in Canada must be an unabridged priority of our government.
Everyone in Canada pays the price of illiteracy, including lost opportunities, diminished effectiveness, alienation and low self-esteem. The nation as a whole pays because we are denied the fullest participation and productivity of our citizens.
Today there is a growing appreciation that a nation's most important resource is its people. For it is Canadians, their collective ingenuity, knowledge, skills and ambition which will determine Canada's future economic growth.
October 22, 1990

Our government must continue to confront the issues which challenge the growth of our citizenry, such as illiteracy. The societal and individual costs of inaction are too immense.
I call upon our government to continue the fight against illiteracy. Our objective should be each and every Canadian having basic literacy and numeracy skills at a minimum. For Canadians and the country's sake, we should expect and receive nothing less.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on this Small Business Week, thousands of entrepreneurs will have an opportunity to exchange information and discuss business matters relating to the theme "Quality and Productivity: The Competitive Edge".
Today's business people are dealing with world-wide competition and increasingly demanding customers. Canadian businesses must not only match the prices and services of their competitors on a local and regional scale, but strive to be competitive on a global scale. That means providing products and services that their customers want and can count on.
Small businesses and large companies alike must design and implement specific strategies dealing with quality and productivity.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government showed its support by launching the Canada Business Merit Award Program.


BILL C-21
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, tonight one of the most harmful pieces of legislation, Bill C-21, the UI bill, will be passed because Liberal senators have capitulated.
In May, Liberal Senator Jacques Hebert stated:
- not only must we resist until the government agrees to negotiate fairly with the Senate to reach an honourable compromise, but if we do not, we would betray millions of Canadians who have supported us so far, we would betray the most vulnerable among them, the poor and the disadvantaged, the unemployed in this country.
The Liberal deal has betrayed these Canadians. It includes the passage of the clawback on family allowances and old age pensions.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration must recognize that Bill C-21 will be devastating to Canadians as we enter a recession. The new variable entrance requirements contained in Bill C-21 make it even more difficult for displaced workers to collect benefits, even though they have been paying higher premiums since the first of the year.
If the Tories are bent on proclaiming this legislation, then I urge them to do so with compassion. Delay the implementation of new and tougher VERs and implement the old requirements. Workers have been betrayed by the Liberal Senate and now must look to the minister for hope. I appeal to her, take a second look and help unemployed Canadians.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, October 21 to 27 is Small Business Week in Canada.
Small Business Week recognizes the important contribution of small businesses to the Canadian economy and provides a forum through which the exchange of new information can be shared between small and mediumsized businesses throughout the country.
Small business account for nearly three-quarters of the jobs created in the country over the past few years and one-quarter of the profits and wages from businesses which have fewer than 50 employees. It is no secret that small business is the engine which drives our economy in Canada.
The government recognizes the importance of fostering a strong business community throughout the country, and the creation of ACOA and WDO have brought unprecedented economic development and prosperity to the regions.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, dairy farmers on Prince Edward Island are very concerned about the future of their farm businesses and the security of their families and rural communities. By

October 22, 1990
offering to slash price support to dairy farmers by 50 per cent and to open 5 per cent of the Canadian market at the GATT, this government is making a very serious error.
The Dairy Farmers of Canada have never agreed to the position of offering 5 per cent access by volume to the Americans. The dairy farmers were prepared to offer 5 per cent by value and no more than 3 per cent by volume. Let there be no confusion. This government is acting against the advice of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
This government's free trade agreement and its flop at GATT show its failure to protect Canadian dairy farmers and supply management.
I ask the Minister for International Trade to pay a lot more attention to the agricultural talks at GATT and to show a bit of concern for dairy farmers, and indeed for rural Canada.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of our annual Small Business Week. My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is announcing this year's theme, Quality and Productivity: The Competitive Edge.
As we all realize, small businessmen today are confronted with many changes in trading patterns, marketing techniques and the demands of the consumer. It is the disturbing pace of change that has brought these issues of quality and productivity to the forefront.
As the minister has pointed out many times, "to be competitive, Canadian companies must do more than simply match the price, service and design of competitors on a local and regional scale. They must compete on a global scale, and that means providing products and services their customers want and can count on".
In the minister's comments, there can be found the thrust behind this year's Small Business Week. With the federal government's support, we can be certain that our
small businessmen across this country will rise to their new challenges of the ever-changing global marketplace.


BILL C-21
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is shutting the door on worker adjustment programs and on the variable entrance requirement, hoping those affected will take their frustrations out on the opposition in the Senate.
Since July her department has refused resources to those eligible for funding under section 26 for retraining. Officials claim increased demand and a shortage of funds because of Senate inaction on Bill C-21. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At the same time, the minister was able to get a 200 per cent increase in dollars earmarked for ensuring part-time employment for those threatened by lay-offs. This type of employment hides the true unemployment rate. Economic indicators point to some 140,000 fulltime job losses in manufacturing this year alone.
The minister can today do something about both. She can make a commitment that, upon Senate passage of Bill C-21, moneys will be made available automatically to those who have been denied job retraining since July. She can also make the variable entrance requirement retroactive for those who have already suffered in the hard hit areas.
It is time that the minister put action behind her words.
* -M *


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: We have been pressing this government and the Liberals before it to give VIA the resources it needs to get genuine, modern equipment for the next decade and beyond, but our calls have fallen on deaf ears.
And yet perhaps this is not too surprising. From a government that has dumped on passenger rail, this is entirely consistent.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, nearly two months before the implementation of the GST, Canadian businesses and customers still do not know what is happening with the goods and services tax.
The liberal Senate and Jean Chretien continue holding the government hostage and ridiculing democracy, with the consequence that our business people and the public in general are thrown into insecurity. Seven million Canadians are waiting for a cheque before Christmas to compensate some effects of the GST. Unfortunately, we still do not know if these 600 millions dollars or so will be payed in time for Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, in view of such abuse of power, let us wish at least that the people of Beausejour realize the rotten deal Jean Chretien has in store for them if he gets to represent them here in Ottawa.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. This fall, with the Canadian economy in recession, with thousands of workers losing their jobs in the plant closings announced almost weekly, in fact with thousands of Canadians suffering because of the government's high interest rate and high dollar policies, the Prime Minister has said he will not convene a meeting of First Ministers on the economy.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Will the government show leadership on this matter for a change? Will the government announce an immediate First Ministers'
Oral Questions
conference on the economy? Or, is it unwilling to do so because it is afraid to face the music? Is it afraid to face up to the reality of its own mismanagement of the Canadian economy?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, at this very moment, is out in western Canada speaking to people, talking about policies and issues and defending the government's record. He certainly is not acting like a person that is afraid of facing the very hard issues.
I can tell the hon. member, as he is well aware, that under the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord there would have been a process set up on a permanent basis where such meetings would have taken place. Unfortunately, with the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, that has not been implemented.
I can advise my hon. friend that there is a very thorough consultative process that is taking place under the auspices of the Minister of Finance. He is in the course of meeting with finance ministers of the provinces, as he will be meeting with labour and other important representatives of the Canadian economy as he prepares and lays the ground work for a new budget. It would certainly be premature now, having regard for the fact that that process is in fact in place at the present time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when the country needs leadership, the Deputy Prime Minister is confirming that once again the Prime Minister has decided to abdicate his responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that conferences of this kind were convened very often in the past and that the Meech Lake Accord was not the only justification for them. Again I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why, in these recessionary times, is the government not prepared right now to call an economic conference of provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada? We do need such a conference.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that we have

October 22, 1990
Oral Questions
not seen anything constructive in terms of how to deal with some of the important issues emanating from the premiers. One of the reasons that the Minister of Finance is in fact engaged in the consultations is to simply sit down and talk about the issues of the economy and see whether or not they have anything constructive to offer. So far, we have not seen very much.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, thousands of skilled workers are losing their jobs right now in plant closings. One example is the 500 workers at Kelsey in Windsor who are linked with a transaction in which Varity Corporation is paying the government $15 million.
Will the government agree to use this money to set up a new economic development fund to help the private sector begin to create jobs to make up for the jobs that are being lost in communities such as Windsor due to plant closings and in similar communities right across the country? Will the government agree to take at least this one small initial step to begin repairing the damage it is causing every day to the Canadian economy, to Canadian workers, and to Canadian families?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One way, Mr. Speaker, in which the hon. Leader of the Opposition can help is by prevailing upon the Senate to ensure that the government's financial legislative program gets passed into law. That would be doing himself, his party, and the country a lot of good.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was in the House when the Minister of State for Industry, Science and Technology went through a litany of new investments and new job creating activities right in Windsor and the surrounding area. What has to be remembered-and I am sure the hon. member is aware of this because he has had similar experiences; I think he was involved in some adjustments and restructuring of the manufacturing sector-is that adjustment and restructuring is currently under way, but it is also coupled with huge investments by Ford, by General Motors, by other automotive companies. They are upgrading their
operations so that they can compete in the 1990s and into the 21st century.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie -Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the Acting Prime Minister is telling us that the First Ministers have not contributed anything to the debate on the Canadian economy and that bankruptcies are on the rise, does the Minister of Finance still agree, does he still support the policy of Bank of Canada Governor Crow who keeps saddling Canadians with unduly high interest rates? Is he still supportive of a policy which is driving us straight into a recession?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me again take my hon. friend back to the reasons for the policy of maintaining high interest rates.
We had a period where the growth in the economy was outrunning the capacity of the economy to meet that growth. That led to inflationary pressures through 1987, 1988, and 1989 and there are still some elements of those inflationary pressures right now. Unit labour costs are growing in excess of 6.5 per cent. That compares to something less than 5 per cent in the United States, and close to 4 per cent in countries such as Japan and Germany. It is important that we get these inflationary pressures under control. We are working to do that.
We have seen the Consumer Price Index performing reasonably well in recent months. We are concerned as to where this might go in the next few months because of the pressures on the price of oil as a result of the Gulf crisis, but our hope is that we would be able to see a continuation of the drop in interest rates that we have seen during the course of the summer. That remains to be seen, though, because of the problems that we are seeing with the price of oil.
That is the direction in which we are heading, and we are confident that the policies we have been following have been working.
October 22, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue because the minister has decreed now that Canadians will have to pay the GST after the first of January, whether it is the law of the land or not.
Knowing that Canadians are aware they may not be legally required to pay that tax, does the minister understand the chaos and confusion that is going to be caused when angry, frustrated consumers walk in to purchase goods or services in the country knowing that they do not have to pay the goods and services tax if Parliament has not passed it? Is the minister going to go along with this knowing that even the Auditor General does not think he can implement this tax effectively?


Mr. Beatty:: You should speak to Allan MacEachen about that.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would get his facts straight he would know that what I said in the scrum to some 12 or 15 reporters last Friday was consistent with what the Minister of Finance and I and others have been saying all along and that the headline that came out from one of the 12 or 15 reporters was taken out of context. In the next sentence, in a transcript from the scrum, a reporter said: "Are you saying it is going into effect even if legislation doesn't pass?" My answer was: "No, no. I didn't say that. I am saying that I hope it passes sooner rather than later."
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the business community is saying, whether it is the president or chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or others, that every day that the Senate delays the passage of this bill it is costing the business community money as a result of uncertainty. I would hope that the hon. member would have enough guts to stand up, speak to his friends on the Liberal side and make sure this is passed on behalf of the business community of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, because this morning we talked with the
Oral Questions
newspaper journalist who wrote that story and who explained it. In fact, it was a one-on-one interview which took place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: I want to put this question to the minister: Is he saying that the various quotes, extensively put out at length in The Financial Post and which have been taped by the journalist in question, are, in fact, false? Is he denying what is in The Financial Postl


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just explained quite clearly the result of the statement taken out of context.
If he reads the transcript, the hon. member will know that we were discussing as to when, in November, this may or may not pass in the Senate. We were talking about November 1, November 9, and November 15. That is where the quote came from in respect of when in November it will pass. I just said: "The GST is going to go ahead on January 1, 1990, regardless of when it is passed in the Senate", meaning in November. Later on, and I repeat what I just said to the hon. member, I was asked: "Are you saying it is going into effect even if legislation does not pass?" And I said: "No, no, I did not say that. I am saying that I hope it passes sooner rather than later." That is consistent with what I have been saying all along.
The concern with this whole matter is that the business community, as a result of the delay in the passage of the legislation in the Senate, is now confused and is uncertain as to what is happening. We are saying that we are certain that it is going to pass through the Senate, it will become law, and businesses should prepare early for their own benefit.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, frankly the minister is wriggling; he is attempting to squirm; he is trying somehow to escape-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


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


Steven W. Langdon: I put it to the minister that it is time for him to stand up in the House and say very clearly what it was he said on Friday. Is the minister prepared to stand up and, quite clearly, say to the people of Canada that

October 22, 1990
Oral Questions
Parliament still makes the laws of the country, not the chief tax collector?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have been accused, on many occasions, of skating around the issue. This hon. member appears to be skating on the offensive and he is going backward and getting nowhere.
The question that he has asked, I have answered previously on two different occasions. If he is talking about the fact that the House of Commons sets the agenda, draws up the laws, and creates the policies of the country, he is absolutely right. That is why the senators should abide by what the traditions of this Parliament are and pass the parliamentary agenda, as they are due to do, on behalf of the business community of Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a minister cannot possibly avoid responding directly to such an important question.
I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to tell us that it is not up to him to make a decision on that tax? It is up to the Parliament of Canada, namely the House of Commons and the Senate.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same in French.
The hon. member is obviously skating on thin ice, to use the term which he has used in the past. I have answered the question very clearly. My comments on Friday were consistent with what we have been saying all along.
Since the member is so interested in this issue, I hope that he will support what the chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said. I quote Mr. Jack St. Clair: "We believe that business, because the GST is passed by the House of Commons, it has to be implemented now because business is not waiting. Any delay or any cancellation would have a cost effect on us now".
What we are saying to the business community is prepare now, because we believe the GST is going to be launched on January 1. The sooner you prepare, the
sooner you register, the sooner you can take advantage of the benefits accrued as a result of early registration.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The fiscal and monetary policy of this government and this Minister of Finance is killing small business. The high interest rates, the high dollar, and the complicated GST is forcing large pools of capital from Germany and Japan to withdraw and go home.
At what point in time does the Minister of Finance start listening to small business, realize that they cannot operate in this environment and withdraw the GST?


Mr. Andre:: Contempt for the House of Commons.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that he is looking for leadership. I would suggest that he look within his own party for leadership.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Here we have Jean Chretien back in January 1980: "I don't think this tax should be implemented". On March 5, 1990: "It would be irresponsible for Liberals to promise to scrap Ottawa's proposed GST without offering alternatives". September 27: "I want the tax dead".
Last weekend: "We'll repeal all taxes. There might be a GST. I don't know the result". I will give you some examples. He said service should never be taxed. Then he said: "Already, I am in the process of forming a committee to look at the alternatives." They are just starting now.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It seems to me that on June 23, he said: "We have work to do". He waited four months to form a committee, to talk about what the alternatives might be. Here he is thinking of getting the Liberal senators in the other place to stop the GST. Where is the alternative? "We have work to do. I am thinking of forming a committee within the party to start to look at the alternatives".
October 22, 1990

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for leadership. That is not leadership.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. Once again, he puts a bunch of clips and quotes together. He knows that our leader has stated categorically that this tax will be undone when he is the prime minister of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The Minister of Finance will not answer the question. He skirts the question. He diverges. Let us try a very simple question for the Minister of Finance.
The Small Businesses Loans Act, which could help small business in this country, needs reform. It is a policy initiative which everyone in this House agrees is a good policy initiative. When is he going to do something simple like trying to reform the Small Businesses Loans Act which can help that vital sector of our economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that John Chretien is being absolutely categorical. I think that was the word he used, categorical. He said: "The GST will be on the table. There might be a GST, I don't know the result." Is that very categorical, Mr. Speaker? Or is it the same sort of cynical Liberal politics that in 1974 said: "We will not have wage and price controls". In 1975, what did we have? We had wage and price controls.
In January 1980: "We will not allow that 18-cent a gallon tax to go through". What did we have a few months later? Fifty, sixty, seventy cent-increase in the price of gas. Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of cynical-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On September 20, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a full inquiry into the entire Kanesatake situation and related events at Kahnawake. On October 16 the Prime Minister said in this House, and I quote: "There is a motion to refer the whole matter to a parliamentary committee".
Oral Questions
Is the federal government content with doing nothing, or will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the government today to establishing a full federal inquiry into this summer's tragic events?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, there was a motion before this House which the government wished to have brought to a vote, but which the opposition did not wish to have brought to a vote, and would have referred the whole matter to a committee of the House.
The hon. member knows, and other members of this House know, since this government implemented the reform of the committee system, committees are the masters of their own fate in the House of Commons. They may establish at any time any mandate that they wish which they feel is in the interest of the Canadian public.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is totally unacceptable. It is cowardly, it is not directed-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not want to use that kind of language. Would she please put her question.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Withdraw.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House that a parliamentary inquiry is indeed justified and will be established? Will he quit beating around the bush?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the response that my colleague put forward to my question deserves an answer at this time, but I would wait until the end of Question Period to review what was said.
My colleague knows, as every member of this House knows, that it is within the power of every standing committee of the House of Commons to undertake work which they believe is important to the people of Canada.
I can inform the hon. member that if she would wish to bring that motion to a vote today, then I am sure there can be an arrangement between the House leaders respecting the motion that was put forward, which the government wished to bring to a vote but which the

October 22, 1990
Oral Questions
opposition parties did not wish to have brought to a vote. Maybe they would like to reconsider their opinion at this time.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As of 2.15 this afternoon the federal government still had not filed with the courts an injunction concerning the Rafferty-Alameda and the ongoing construction. As I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the Saskatchewan government is proceeding with construction around the clock. So far they have not started work on the downstream channelization on the Souris Basin site and they have not started work either on the Souris Basis reservoir, which would be the most damaging to the wildlife habitat. Why has it taken the government four days to attempt to seek an injunction? When will it file the proper papers with the courts in order to seek the injunction and will it ask the court to render an immediate decision?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, who is in Washington meeting with Mr. Reilly and other American officials on the goods news relating to the passage of amendments relating to the U.S. Clean Air Act, I am happy to have this opportunity to inform the House that lawyers representing the Government of Canada are in fact in court this afternoon in the process of serving and filing the documents in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench with respect to the injunction which we announced last week we would be seeking.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am still concerned about the length of time it has taken. On May 2 of this year, I drew to the attention of the then minister of the environment the construction going on. At that particular time there were members of the panel who were threatening to resign from the panel. In fact, the minister of the day stated to me: "We are in the process of checking out what those activities are. If we find out that they are not justified for safety reasons,
et cetera, we will step in and take the proper decisions". Why has it taken the government almost half a year to come to the conclusion that the Saskatchewan government has been breaking the agreement and why has it not attempted to stop the Saskatchewan government from doing the construction much earlier?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, during the course of last week, members of both official parties were on their feet day after day, demanding that the government go to court to seek an injunction to stop the work in Saskatchewan. When we announced last week we would do that, the opposition parties somehow or other immediately decided that that was not what they were seeking. Today, when I announced in the House of Commons that we are in court this afternoon, again there is no support for that proposal. Instead, they go back into history to try to ignore the issue which they proposed last week.
Mr. Speaker, the true facts of the matter are that we are in court this afternoon. We are doing exactly what both opposition parties wanted last week. For once I think it would be helpful if they stood on their feet and supported us.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Will the minister tell the House and the Canadian people how the Persian Gulf task force operation is being financed? Is it out of the current operations and maintenance budget or is it from a separate funding arrangement?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members knows, the Persian Gulf crisis was not something for which the government or any other government would have been able to plan.
The member asks whether it is from operations and maintenance or from a special fund. I can inform the hon. member that the resources needed to support the
October 22, 1990

men and women in the Persian Gulf and to fulfil the commitment made by the Government of Canada to deter aggression and to enforce UN sanctions are being put forward. Resources will be available throughout the crisis, but at this time they come from the total budget of the Department of National Defence.
I can inform the hon. member that we are having discussions with colleagues at this time as to the impact of the Persian gulf crises upon our resources. Once again, I would like to assure the hon. member and other colleagues that the resources necessary, to ensure that the men and women who are serving Canada are able to serve it in a way which would make the risk acceptable, are in place at this time.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the question because I fear we may be getting to have a negative impact on the operation, and this concerns me very much.
I had several telephone calls over the weekend. From the calls I understand that certain defence contracts have been terminated for lack of funding. As a result, weapons maintenance for the Persian Gulf force may be or will be impaired. Can the minister give the House the assurance that the Canadian task force in the Persian Gulf consistently gets the best support that money can buy?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the first part of the hon. member's question, if I could, because it is important.
There have been statements made in the press by a certain individual, Mr. Gerry Lanigan, which are totally inaccurate. The hon. member does not have to take my word for it, he can take the word of the president of Mr. Lanigan's company who has apologized for those statements and himself said that they are inaccurate.
I can assure the hon. member that we are providing the resources to do the job. We are trying our utmost to assure the people of Canada that the men and women who are serving and performing on behalf of the people of Canada are being provided the equipment that we can provide at this time regardless of the cost in dollars.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have information that the multinational force in the gulf region has approximately 27 ships and submarines which are equipped to launch between 375 to 500 nuclear missiles. Considering the serious risk of war and the state of tension in the gulf, would the minister take action through the United Nations to have the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union remove all nuclear weapons from the region immediately?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as he normally does chose his words with care. He used the words "equipped to launch". He then made a logical leap to suggest that there was some intention to launch. He knows that is not the case.
He also knows that it is the policy of the Government of Canada, and indeed of the various governments that have come together in this remarkable show of opposition to the aggression of Iraq in Kuwait under the auspices of the United Nations, to act under those auspices as much as that is possible.
He will know that there are discussions going forward now to see if there is some way in which the United Nations mandate may be extended. He will also know that it is the hope of Canada and of the other countries involved that this matter will be resolved without the use of force and that Iraq will withdraw from its unacceptable invasion of a neighbour. We can then get on to the serious question relating to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the region, that is to try to have some means in which the stores of Iraq and those of other countries can be gradually controlled and eliminated.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons.
In those circumstances, would he not urge our allies in the gulf to pledge publicly a no use policy of all nuclear

October 22, 1990
Oral Questions
weapons in this conflict and remove whatever weapons are there immediately? Would he not do that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has followed these issues for some time and is one of the genuine students in the House of procedures at the United Nations.
He knows that discussions in the Security Council now, which have so far yielded extraordinary consensus, are continuing with an eye to see if that consensus can be extended. I think that on reflection he would understand that a call by Canada or anyone else for some kind of unilateral action on nuclear weapons, on some nuclear weapons, because that is what he is talking about, could well have a counterproductive effect.


VARITY CORPORATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
As he knows, Ontario has used every cent of the $9.4 million in compensation that it received from Varity Corporation for the benefit of workers who are affected by plant closures in Ontario. Evidently the federal government has simply pocketed its $25 million share and put it into the general fund.
Why does this government not show the same sensitivity to the plight of workers as has the New Democratic Government of Ontario and allocate its share to the benefit of workers?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct my friend. It was not $25 million but it was $15.6 million.
Second, my friend knows very well that the agreement we had regarding Varity with the Government of Ontario and Canadian Autoworkers was a global agreement within which there were four or five different parts that the Government of Ontario agreed with.
The $15 million, as all money used by the government, will be used in the best interests of the country. I will not give any guarantee that it will be automatically for or put into any kind of program which is determined in a specific way.
I would like to say again that it is a good deal. We believe that the Varity answers were good for the workers, for the country and for the Province of Ontario. I believe it is all everybody wanted, and it is what we reached.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right. The federal government's share is $15 million out of $25 million.
This is a government that desperately needs to demonstrate that it is concerned about workers. I repeat my question: Why can't this government show the same sensitivity as the New Democratic Government of Ontario and earmark those funds specifically, which have been generated by the actions of Varity and which have affected workers, or delegate those funds specifically for the benefit of workers and not his corporate friends?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario decided to use the money in the way it wanted to use the money. The Government of Canada could make another decision. It does not mean, as my hon. friend hinted, that it will not be done for the workers.
There are different means for the government to delegate money for workers and those companies. He is yelling at my friends from the business community. I think it is very helpful sometimes when those companies that my friend is yelling at for a little while could create jobs. I believe it is very good as an answer for the Government of Ontario. It is good for us too to use the money in the way we believe we can help Canadians.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Seven million Canadians are supposed to receive a cheque before the GST becomes effective. These cheques are supposed to reach them in December, before Christmas. Considering the fact that the Liberal senators and Jean Chretien are continuing their obstructionist tactics to delay the coming into effect of the GST, will the minister nevertheless be able to send these cheques to Cana
October 22, 1990

dians, or will there be an embargo on the cheques as long as the GST has not been adopted by the Senate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the GST credit cheques. After royal assent, it should take about two or three weeks before the cheques can be sent to low-income Canadians so they will have them before Christmas. The Senate must adopt the bill as soon as possible.


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. For several months, CN and VIA management in Montreal have been working together to phase out railway passenger transportation in the ridings of Abitibi, Roberval and Temiscamingue. Is the minister going to go so far as to accept the recommendations of these people who have no consideration for isolated areas?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor announced a special study to examine cost-benefit options for transportation for genuinely isolated communities. I am waiting for the results.


MANITOULIN AIR SERVICE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Manitoulin Air Service has announced that it will stop its regularly scheduled air service between Elliot Lake, Manitoulin Island, and Pearson International Airport, Toronto, November 1 because the government is imposing massive new landing fees amounting to $56,000 per year.
Why is the government destroying this vital air service between northern Ontario and Pearson International Airport in Toronto?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will realize that under deregulation there has been a great expansion in the number of routes
Oral Questions
over the past five years and in the number of flights taken; some 20 per cent in the north, I believe.
In the course of trying to operate our facilities as efficiently as possible, we have undertaken some cost recovery. The cost recovery which he speaks of is part of that program. It is happening all across Canada, in an effort to run the operation as efficiently as we can. For that reason there is cost recovery.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that good air service is vital to the economic survival and development of northern Ontario. In Elliot Lake we have already lost 2,400 jobs this year in the uranium mines. We want to diversify that economy.
In view of this need in northern Ontario, will he roll back these new landing fees and maintain this vital air service?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario and Quebec are interested in service. I can tell my hon. friend that service in Ontario and Quebec increased by 16 per cent over 1988. There is an increase of 24 per cent for non-jet weekly flights.
It is the function of cost recovery and user pay to operate the system as efficiently as possible. That is exactly what we are doing.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister and is with regard to the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson Airport.
Given that this government's airline policies of deregulation and privatization have been a dismal failure, why did the minister try to privatize the two terminals at our largest airport in the country only after three unsolicited private bids were deposited with this government rather than conduct a full public hearing process that would have truly determined if privatizing the terminals was in the benefit of the travelling public and the Canadian taxpayer?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know-and I am sure he did not mean intentionally to mislead the House or the public- that we are privatizing or turning over to private enter-

October 22, 1990
Oral Questions
prise on a long-term lease basis the non-aviation services at Pearson Airport.
My hon. friend may think that it is the duty of the government to decide whether it should be five coffee shops or four. We happen to think private enterprise can do that job better.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
At his announcement last week in response to a question whether the private firms would protect the existing jobs, this minister said among other things, and I quote: "I am not in the business of saving jobs".
I ask the minister who is yelling and is agitated how he can allow himself to make such an irresponsible statement when there exists 14,000 Canadian jobs at those two terminals and following thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs in the airline industry in the last two weeks alone.
Will the minister ensure the safety and security of these jobs rather than be glib? It is the same thing that they said to Air Canada employees: "Don't worry, be happy". Now there are 3,000 people who are not very happy.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said unquote. I am going to give him the whole quote. I said: "I am not in the business of saving jobs. I am in the business of creating opportunities". That is what I said.
You should have been there like the NDP critic. You should have been there. The NDP critic was there. Why weren't you?
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us talk jobs at Pearson. Why do you not ask me for the figures? There are 450 Transport Canada jobs at Pearson; 275 of them will stay with Transport Canada. My hon. friend is talking about 175 jobs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised the people of British Columbia that there would be a full public hearing into Alcan's Kemano completion project.
On October 12 cabinet passed an Order in Council exempting the Kemano project from public hearings and from environmental impact assessment. Why?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the hon. member knows, there were indeed hearings set up by an independent panel of very distinguished citizens in Canada, including the president of UBC, Dr. Strangway, who is a significant scientist in his own right.
This panel held public hearings. It accumulated some 22 volumes of scientific evidence and came to the conclusion that the conservation and protection of the Chinook fisheries resources of the Nechako River could be achieved by a program of mitigated measures. It came to the conclusion-and it is the conclusion of this government-that in fact the study which it had done was the equivalent of the EARP process.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The three lead federal scientists who looked into this project have now suggested publicly that there was political intervention by this government in relation to the decision on Alcan's Kemano project. Four ministers of fisheries in a row-James McGrath, Mr. Speaker, Romeo LeBlanc, and Pierre de Bane-all promised that there would be a full public inquiry and environmental impact evaluation of the project.
Why has there not been a full public inquiry and an environmental impact assessment of a project that will lower the Fraser River by three feet?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: First, if I recall correctly, and I stand to be corrected if the hon. member wishes to correct me, it is my understanding that he is on record as supporting the agreement when it was reached earlier on, about three years ago.
To address the question he has just raised, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this House that there is no basis whatsoever, according to information available to us, in respect of allegations respecting a cover-up. If the hon. member has such evidence or any other individual has such evidence, surely they have a responsibility to lay it before this House so it can be
October 22, 1990

properly evaluated. But I would think it is passing strange to suggest that a panel of this nature, headed by such a distinguished British Columbian as the president of UBC could, in fact, be accused of such a cover-up.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for reconstruction and development.


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

Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to my question regarding the federal inquiry into Oka, I want to request unanimous consent for a motion. My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and reads:
That the subject matter of the events at Kanesatake and
Kahnawake during the summer of 1990 be referred to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that of course, was part of the original motion which we were not able to bring to a vote when that was discussed. I wish the hon. member had raised this with me before moving the motion. As I indicated, the government, by having brought forward that motion, indicates that we are quite willing to have the subject matter go to committee. But as her House leader is often prone to tell me, "no surprises, no surprises; I don't like surprises".
Routine Proceedings
But to show that I am able to react to surprises a little quicker than the hon. House leader of the opposition, we agree.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the matter, the government House leader indicated that the original motion had that clause attached to it. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that it was to be referred to the justice committee, not the committee on aboriginal affairs. Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding was that it was to be sent to the justice committee. I wonder if he could clarify that point.


Harvie Andre: You are right, that was the issue at stake. But as my colleague, the Minister of National Defence indicated today, the committees of this House are quite capable now, under parliamentary reform brought in by this government, of selecting their own subjects of study. So we have no particular problem in allowing to be done that which could be done anyway.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader indicating that as opposed to the policy of the Conservatives in the transport committee, he will actually let his members of the aboriginal affairs committee come to a committee meeting so that they can ask for that particular subject to be studied.


Harvie Andre: Just a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Again we have the New Democratic Party trying to impugn the motives of members of this side of the House, and I object.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion before the House is that the subject matter of the events at Kanesatake and Kahnawake during the summer of 1990 be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I take it that there is consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 95 of my constituents. They are from the Elliston, Duntara, Bonavista, Spillars

October 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Cove, Catalina, Little Catalina, Melrose, and the Port Union area.
These constituents are very concerned about the high unemployment rate in Newfoundland which is the highest in the country, and that they need 14 weeks, as it now stands, to qualify for unemployment insurance. They are not very happy with that. They want it reduced to 10 weeks by the variable entrance requirement, as has been done very year since 1976.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to introduce the variable entrance requirement without delay, but immediately-now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents from Clearwater, British Columbia, Logan Lake, British Columbia and Kamloops, British Columbia, who simply cannot believe that the government plans to impose a special tax on reading material, as a result of the goods and services tax decision.
They point out that in a democratic society, the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy and to tax it would make us the only country in the world that does so. They say forget that.
On another topic, Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents from Kamloops point out their opposition to the goods and services tax. After pointing out a whole set of reasons why they oppose the tax, they ask the government to reconsider proceeding with it, but to implement instead real fair tax reform.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: I have the honour to present four petitions from quite a number of people from the great riding of Vancouver East.
These people continue to say that they are opposed to the goods and services tax. They reject the current proposal of the government. They want reform of the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
The petitioners want to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on the sales tax measure, this reform will not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab. They want the government to cease with this proposal which will shift the tax burden
on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of citizens of Saskatoon-Humboldt and the area surrounding Saskatoon-Humboldt to present a couple of petitions which state categorically their opposition to the goods and services tax. They call upon the government to reject the tax now.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am honoured to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Kent. The petitioners request that the government withdraw this despicable GST bill and axe the tax.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have two sets of petitions I would like to bring to your attention. The first is a petition which notes that the Government of Canada has introduced charges that will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the cost of long-term care.
These veterans also note that they have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Sheila Finestone: The second set of petitions, Mr. Speaker, relates to the GST on books. We are in receipt of hundreds of petitions which bring to our attention the fact that books have never been taxed in this country and that for the first time this government wants to apply the GST to magazines, books and newspapers. This is a very nefarious tax. It hits the printed word which is the cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society.
We will be celebrating Literacy Day next week. I call upon this government to reconsider this tax on reading, this tax on intellectual understanding of the society in which we live.
October 22, 1990


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: All summer long, Mr. Speaker, we wanted Parliament to be recalled to debate an important issue, namely the gulf crisis. On Monday, September 24, the Secretary of State introduced a motion. On September 27, my colleagues of the Official Opposition moved an amendment, and the New Democratic Party moved a sub-amendment. At 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 16, the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister who is the Government House Leader rose to seek the unanimous consent of the House, saying 'I got it, I ask that the NDP sub-amendment and the Official Opposition amendment be withdrawn. The minister's absence notwithstanding, I move, with unanimous consent, that a new motion be introduced'. So much for that. Here is one small detail which is recorded on page 14251:1 refused to give unanimous consent. On Wednesday, the 17th, debate got under way in good faith on the resolution of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and on the amendment of the Official Opposition as well as on the sub-amendment of the New Democratic Party. The debate went on in good faith on Thursday.
I had drafted two speeches. I appreciate my colleagues calling to commend me for the approach I took while defending my role as a French Canadian, and I said so in French. I did not get any negative response in Quebec. I spoke about international issues. That is the speech I wanted to make instead of the other one I intended to deliver and which is written. I have it here. That one would have hurt. The House gave its unanimous consent, that tonight at 1 a.m. or earlier whenever members have spoken the question will be put, it will be accepted and the division on the sub-amendment, the amendment
Point of Order
and the resolution will take place tomorrow at 6 p.m. As a matter of fact, on October 9 the Minister of State for Youth had served notice that if the debate did not end he would eventually-and that is his right. He did not. But that is noted in the documents on which I worked throughout the weekend.
The debate ended Thursday night, in good faith. I went home at 4.30 Friday morning. The security staff will confirm that I went over the whole debate. They would not know whether I did, but they saw me leave my office after 4 a.m. I was satisfied that at last every member had been allowed to speak freely on a good resolution.
But on Friday the 19- You know, Mr. Speaker, I learned one thing from the hon. Claude Ryan and that is to tell the truth straight out. I can make mistakes, but I do not beat about the bush. So, between 10 and 10.30 a.m., in the absence of the people who could say otherwise, the same motion was put. This is, in essence, what was said: "Notwithstanding what has been agreed last night, unanimous consent is requested to withdraw the NDP's sub-amendment, the Official Opposition's amendment and the government's motion and to vote, next Tuesday, not on what the House has just discussed but on this new motion which was not debated."
The hon. members should read the excellent article Andrew Cohen wrote for the Financial Post on September 24, in which he said:

"Is combat role in the gulf best for Canada?" [Translation]
That is what I wanted to talk about. But yet another sudden surprise prevented me from doing so.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an abuse of the parliamentary process. I would even say further that it is an abuse by consent.
I regret the hon. minister responsible for the House is not here. On May 24, during the abortion debate, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby tried a quick one, saying: "Let's withdraw the abortion debate." My good and esteemed friend, my good colleague and an honest man, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Ri-viere-du-Loup, was taken by surprise. The government

October 22, 1990
Point of Order
almost lost its abortion debate because of that kind of trickery.
What happened on May 25? I wish my colleague, once and for all, would read how outraged the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House was, as I am. He blasted the NDP for what they tried the night before. They cannot have it both ways.
Do hon. members want me to read it? I will quote, Mr. Speaker. I have been very succinct. I have worked night and day since Thursday night because I feel it is an insult to intelligence. It is not the way to conduct our affairs. We may disagree, esteemed colleagues, but let us do it in open. This is not the way to run parliamentary affairs.
The government is almost making me upset over having decided, with the greatest joy of my life, to run for this office on February 10, 1964.1 still say my respect for this institution is growing every day. We do not want to bring what is going on in the Senate into this House. I know some senators will disagree, some friends and colleagues of mine. I do not wish to break all my friendships with everyone today, but this is not the way to conduct our affairs in this House.
Now, my young friend, the assistant leader, is having a lot of fun because he succeeded while someone was washing their hands on Friday and someone else was absent. Those who were interested were not here. He passed the motion that I disagreed with on Tuesday night.
I know some will say that the Liberals are fighting with each other during this debate. I am waiting for those would try to pick a quarrel with Liberals because that would not enhance the debate and that would not enhance the respect we should have for this House. How many times do I have to repeat that respect for this House, respect for the parliamentary process, and respect for our country?

That is right for our country, Canada, as I stated on Thursday evening. I said I was proud to be a French Canadian, which we are, and to be here for two main reasons. I insist, Mr. Speaker, that nobody was abusive toward me over the week end. Everyone who phoned me said: "It was a very interesting debate."

It was a very interesting debate. I have made my point. I do not want to go on, but I could, Mr. Speaker. I depend on you to give me guidance. I know that we can do anything by unanimous consent, but it is an abuse of the parliamentary process to proceed that way. It is an abuse by consent.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to address this point because I also share the sense of deep concern expressed very eloquently by the member for Saint-Denis. I think it is important that we recognize the history of this matter.
On Tuesday, October 16, there was a suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that a substitute motion to the motion that was then before the House dealing with the question of the crisis in the gulf should be put. At that time, the hon. member for Winnipeg-South Centre, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, and myself, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, agreed in good faith to that substitution. That agreement was predicated on one very important element.
As I stated in the House, as recorded at page 14250 of Hansard:
I just wanted to underline the point made by the member for
Winnipeg South Centre, as well, that it is certainly our
understanding that this new motion would indeed be open to
amendment as its predecessor was.
It was on the basis of that understanding and that understanding alone, that on Tuesday, October 16, we did agree to allow for a substitute motion to be put.
Without going into the reasons for this, that substitute motion was not put at that time. We continued debate on Thursday well into the evening, until nearly 10 p.m., debating the motion in its original form together with the amendment of the Official Opposition and the subamendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. That was the focus of the debate. I was present for the entire course of that debate.
That was also the basis for the decision to allow the vote to be deferred by agreement to Tuesday at 6 p.m. What was being deferred very clearly was the original motion, the amendment, and the subamendment. All members left the House on Thursday evening assuming
October 22, 1990

that that was the end of the matter and that there would be a vote, in fact three votes, on Tuesday at 6 p.m.
At approximately 10.20 on Friday morning, things changed. With respect to my colleague from Saint-Denis, it is important to be very clear as to the basis for that change.
My colleague, the Whip for the New Democratic Party, was approached, not by the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, but by a rather breathless deputy House leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Kingston and the Islands. That member urged my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, our Whip, that the House agree to the speedy withdrawal of the original motion which was before the House and, in turn, indicated that this was the subject of the earlier agreement. My colleague, the Whip, was not present during the earlier discussions and assumed, in good faith, that in fact there would be an opportunity, as had been agreed previously, to put the amendment. On that basis he agreed, as did the Whip of the Liberal Party. That was the basis for this substitution to which the hon. member for Saint-Denis refers.
When I learned of this, and I did not learn of it until some time after the decision was made, I immediately approached my colleagues, both the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader and my colleague and friend, the member for Kingston and the Islands. I pointed out to him that the earlier understanding had clearly been that there would be an opportunity to vote on the subamendment, which we had put before the House.
He indicated, and I appreciate his undertaking, certainly that was his understanding.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, I said I did no know.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands indicated-and if I am misstating what he said, he can certainly rise in his place-but, during my conversation with him, it was my understanding that he indicated he was not aware of the fact that it had been agreed that the subamendment would be put as part of an earlier package. I think that is a fair summary of what the member has said.
I have subsequently discussed this matter again with the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader. He has indicated that he is in fact prepared to
Point of Order
allow the subamendment to be put to the House. I would certainly hope, and I assume that the member for Saint-Denis would share my view, that the Official Opposition as well would agree to that which was in fact the original understanding.
The final point that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. I did consult this morning first thing with the Deputy Clerk who was very helpful. She indicated that of course the House is the master of its own proceedings and, if the House wishes to proceed by unanimous consent, it can do so. I want to emphasize the profound danger of this approach when the House has agreed to defer a vote following debate on a particular item then, whether by unanimous consent or otherwise, to change the nature of that vote after debate has concluded is very dangerous. Again, I recognize that, while it may be procedurally in order, I would certainly hope that this is not something which will ever be repeated in the House again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, who is one of the most senior members here, has risen on a matter and is supported by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on matter which I think is very serious indeed. I think it is serious because debate took place on a motion, the vote was deferred and hon. members expected to be voting on the motion that was debated. For reasons that we do not need to go into, by consent, the motion was changed. That means that hon. members will go to vote on a different motion than that which was debated. I very much regret this.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis has said that an abuse of Parliament by consent is just as much an abuse. We are at a time when the country is watching this institution very closely. Much of what the country sees, it is not happy with. All of us are going to have to make a much greater effort to give an example that is in keeping with the great traditions of this place, in keeping with the history of it, and in keeping with what I think most of us want this place to be in the hearts and minds of Canadians.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has stated correctly that the House can by consent do what it wishes. The reason that that is so is because ultimately this is the place where the people of Canada have sent all of us to do what we think is in the best interest of the country. If the House agrees and there is consent, then no matter what other rules we may have or whatever

October 22, 1990
Privilege
customs we may have, we can abridge those to do what the whole House consents to do.
There may have been, and there may well be, sound reasons under the circumstances where it was felt by some that it may have been in the national interest to change the motion. I do not want to get into that side of the debate. What I have to say to hon. members is that, in my view, what happened was improper and an abuse. I am not in a position to change it, but I view it as a very serious matter. However, I want members to know, and I want the public to know, that it was done by consent and we are now all bound by it. I would hope that not again for a long, long time, if ever, would hon. members, such as the hon. member for Saint-Denis, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, or others, have to rise to complain about an event which, while procedurally proper because of the consent, in my opinion, ought not to have happened.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. You rose, and I simply wanted to comment on what the Chair and my colleagues just said.
Friday, unfortunately, I was in the House as well. I was called to the telephone, so I had to leave for a few minutes. However, I must admit we had been told the same vote would be taken Tuesday on the amendment, the sub-amendment and the main motion. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the House made its decision and I also understand your comments. I feel it is inappropriate for the House to proceed in this manner, and I wish we could reconsider.


Mr. Speaker:: I have other points of order. I am aware of them and will deal with them as I can. I think in deference to the hon. member for Calgary West and maybe another member, we should proceed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, the point of order just concluded is of some interest to me, both in the fact that it was argued before the question of privilege and that it would indicate your personal sense
of importance about it. Your comments in conclusion are in reality a reflection on the leadership of the House that was present on Friday and the leadership of the House officers charged with certain responsibilities in the Chamber which, in part at least, is an essential element of the question of privilege about which I wish to speak.
I want to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your good offices in bringing the hon. member for Kamloops and myself together for close to one and a half hours just prior to the commencement of Question Period.
The meeting came to no conclusions other than the conclusion that we could share with the House so that all members would be aware that we had met and met under your auspices, seeking perhaps, Mr. Speaker, to reach a solution to the considerable tension between us.
As we are both House officers in this place and both members of the Board of Internal Economy, I as chief government Whip and he as House leader for the New Democratic Party, it does not serve this institution well for that level of tension to continue. It does not facilitate our responsibilities in terms of the Board of Internal Economy and our responsibilities to govern the House in terms of its budgets, facilities, and so on and does not serve us well to have this level of tension between us in terms of ordering the business of the House, which is part of our daily existence.
I would like to signal at this time that, provided my right to continue this point of privilege is protected, I would be willing to continue with the hon. member for Kamloops, under your auspices, a series of discussions to see if we could resolve most, if not all, of the matters that lie between us in what might be the best interests of the House, its management and the importance of this democratic institution. It would have to be done on the understanding that the both of us would cease talking to the press in the interim until we had either agreed to disagree once again in public, or to agree that we could resolve the issue and are prepared to share with the House and the Canadian people the results of that resolution.
That would be sort of the one precondition. I have tried to be patient for close to 10 days now on what I take to be some very important matters. I have not always succeeded. I have talked to some press people in the interval. Maybe when I hear some of those words reported back to me I will not feel as good about saying
October 22, 1990

them as I did when I said them in the heat of anger and in the heat of the moment.
I felt a deep sense of anger on October 11 because I felt we had reached collectively such a firm understanding and such an important understanding about dealing with something very important.
When we open the Parliament of Canada Act, it is the one piece of legislation that in statute form sets us all apart from everybody else in society. It is a piece of legislation that deals only with the Parliament of Canada and the parliamentarians who serve either in the Senate or in the House.
We are unavoidably and inescapably involved in a question of conflict of interest from the moment we start until the moment we conclude our business. Those of us who serve on an actual committee, given that responsibility on behalf of the other members of the Chamber, feel that pressure more perhaps than do all members.
In the final analysis, we have to vote in an atmosphere where we have that conflict because the act itself determines how we are to be governed. The act itself talks about our financial compensation, our use of resources and all of these things.
It is something that I felt we had collectively agreed to work on collectively, which is a slow process. Sometimes if governments are supposed to be responsible for something, they can do it more quickly. When we are trying to reach 100 per cent consensus in this place with 295 potential people in the House of Commons and ultimately with the Senate on something as central to our existence as that act and its relationship to the reputation of our institution, it is something we should be very careful about making comments.
These are comments which any of us believe to be untrue, on any side of this House, and which reflect discredit on individuals and ultimately on this institution. In that atmosphere, they are very serious indeed.
If the delay in arguing this question of privilege could perhaps accomplish a return to the tracks of all the members of this House in bringing about a successful resolution of these matters on behalf of the Canadian people in this democratic institution, I for one am prepared to be a little patient, provided that the war does
Privilege
not continue either inside or outside the Chamber, in terms of talking about it, until we have either agreed to disagree or agreed that we have something to agree to.
I would just like a response to that. Mr. Speaker, if you are willing to have an answer to that and if there is a preference to proceed at this time, I am quite prepared to do that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what the hon. member for Calgary West was referring to in a number of those questions, but I want to make very clear that regarding the opening of the Parliament of Canada Act in an effort to resolve some concerns that members and other have, we have indicated from the very beginning an interest in co-operating as much as humanly possible and working together as a team in an effort to resolve this issue.
I want to say that at this moment, that same motive exists and hopefully will exist into the future. I have discussed this matter in the last hour with our one representative on the committee, and I can only say that he indicated an enthusiasm in continuing working in a co-operative effort to resolve what is obviously a concern of members of Parliament in a way that we can all support, hopefully a consensus of agreement, and that is our goal.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that at the outset. Also, I want to say that over the past number of days my friend, the member for Calgary West, has made a series of allegations and has claimed that my behaviour personally has infringed on his privileges as a member of Parliament. He has condemned me both on the record in the House as well as in the committee.
With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to reply to at least some of his comments in the following way.
I think it is only fair that having heard from my hon. friend, the government Whip, for nearly half an hour of House time, that I be permitted at least a few moments to respond to the allegations that he has made. I will briefly summarize my understanding of the hon. member's concerns and I would like to address each of them briefly, yet separately.

October 22, 1990
Privilege
If the hon. member for Calgary West or any other members of the House have other concerns or charges they wish to make, I will deal with them afterward, but I hope there will come a time when the members of the government front bench cease from this and, in fact, to reflect his own words, that we develop a sense of civility once known in this House and get on with the business of the country as people expect us to do.
The member for Calgary West made the following allegations: He said that I infringed the privileges of other members of this House when I criticized the committee report on Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, before the report had been made to the House.
He also said that I made a series of false statements concerning this bill. Among those allegedly false statements were the following: The member said that I was wrong in saying that the government used its majority in committee to reject the opposition amendments to sections 52.8 of Bill C-59. That particular section, Mr. Speaker, is something that has been called the tip-off clause. It says: "No criminal process may be applied for, issued or proceeded with unless the applicant for the criminal process has requested and obtained from the board an opinion concerning the use on which the offence is based".
The government Whip also said I infringed his privileges or was contemptuous of-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Calgary West wants to say something about keeping the record straight. I will hear him very briefly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if we are entering into the points of privilege which I intend to raise, I caution the House that I think it is my right to raise those first.
On the specific point for which I interrupted, I have attended many legislative committees on clause-byclause review of bills. The clause is a great deal larger than the part of the quote that was just read into the record. For instance, the clause as he read it was the committee's clause of the fourth report which the House endorsed unanimously, including the House leader of the New Democratic Party. But Bill C-79, when it came back from cabinet had a definitional section of that clause which restricted the words "criminal process' to what in effect are court processes and have nothing to do with investigations, but simply with evidence that must be provided before a court. Those courts are in place in
our criminal process to protect all of us from the potential abuse of police authority.
If the hon. member wants at this point to enter a part of that total clause on the record, I think we should, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, put the total clause on the record, including that part of the clause that restricts the words "criminal process" in statute form, to what are in effect six court processes. I am sure his former justice critic sitting behind him would know that they are viewed in our kind of society as essential protections for individuals.
Partial information to the Chamber is not going to be helpful in resolving this issue because it may be in fact the source of the difficulty. It should be complete information, Mr. Speaker, if you are allowing him to head in that direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the two hon. members whom I think are trying to help the Chair. The hon. member for Calgary West has made a tentative suggestion or offer that these differences could be discussed further, after the discussion that took place today in my chambers.
The hon. member for Calgary West has tried to indicate that perhaps some of the things he said, if he had to say them over again, might be said in a different way.
The hon. member for Kamloops in responding is, I think, trying to make clear to his colleagues and to the House that among a number of specific things that were said, he stands in disagreement. I am not sure that we necessarily need to be debating the sections of the bill here.
If it would help in clarification, perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops, if he agrees with the information which the hon. member for Calgary West just gave to the House, could accept that as part of the factual presentation. Of course I am going to let the hon. member for Kamloops proceed at least for a few more minutes. I hope that he would be able without going on too long to meet, for my information, the suggestion that the hon. member for Calgary West has put forward.
I should make it very clear that while I attended a meeting with both hon. members this morning, it was a lengthy meeting, that meeting was asked for by one of the members. If I can be helpful, I would be more than prepared to carry on attending a continuation of that meeting in the interests of resolving these difficulties, as
October 22, 1990

the hon. member for Kamloops said and others have said, in a civil way.
I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops for a few minutes so that I can get a sense of where it is going. I will come back to the member for Calgary West. If there cannot be some arrangement to continue the discussions, a continuation might be helpful. The hon. member for Calgary West has all his rights under his question of privilege.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think your intervention is appropriate. I read from both the committee report and the proposed legislation. I accept in part what the hon. member for Calgary West has indicated, but only in part. Obviously there are obvious areas of either disagreement or areas requiring further clarification. I do not think this is the place to get into the nuances of Bill C-79. We have a committee that is struck especially for that purpose. It has done an incredible amount of work to date. I hope that that committee will continue in that same spirit.
Considering some of the allegations my hon. friend has levied at me, I feel some obligation on behalf of my constituents to respond. I plan to do that briefly and concisely. I will simply leave the continuation of a comment on section 52.8.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt. Could the hon. member provide us with his reference for those allegations? Some of them that he has mentioned so far are in my question of privilege which I have not delivered yet. I am not sure where the allegations have been made. It may be that I did make them on radio or in some other place. If he could do the courtesy of letting me know where I made those allegations so that I could look at the full text, I would appreciate it.


Mr. Speaker:: It might help the Chair and the House if the hon. member for Kamloops were to summarize what he thinks is the gist of the allegations and express what I am sure he is going to express, that is that he is in disagreement with the hon. member for Calgary West with respect to those.
That is quite obvious to all of us. I certainly will allow him to get that on the record. If there is going to be some further discussion with the idea of trying to resolve this in a careful way, I do not know how much need there is
Privilege
to be absolutely specific. I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to help my hon. friend, on October 12 he spoke for about a quarter of an hour about the various allegations. It is from that source in Hansard where I take most of my comments in terms of his utterances. I do not know if he made other comments publicly or not.
I will simply say that the Whip in those proceedings suggested I infringed his privileges or was contemptuous of the House when I said that: "The government insisted on that clause in response to pressure from its Quebec caucus." Similarly, he objects to the statement attributed to me in the press that the majority of politicians who are the subject of the investigations which prompted the introduction of Bill C-79 came from the province of Quebec.
The member for Calgary West also alleges that I have established a consistent pattern of undermining the work of the Board of Internal Economy by speaking publicly about matters which are the subject of discussion in the board. At the outset, I would like to comment that the Bill C-79 committee met and made its decision in public. The committee has yet to report to the House. For the member to suggest that we should refrain from commenting on the committee's deliberations until a transcript is published and the bill is reported to the House demonstrates what I suspect is a lack of respect for the public comment on these important public issues.
Let me first deal with his allegation that I am wrong in saying that the government has a majority on the special committee on the review of the Parliament of Canada Act. What was reported in The Kamloops Daily News was that "The Conservatives have with the Bloc Quebecois voted to place MPs above the law". That is essentially what I was saying. Mr. Fife, in The Ottawa Sun, reported: "Riis attacked the Tories yesterday for using their majority on a Commons committee".
What was alleged was that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Calgary West, said in the House on Friday, October 12, as reported at page 14106 of Hansard, and I quote:
He says things that are simply not true.

October 22, 1990
Privilege
There is a reference in one article-that came out of the paper yesterday about the government having a majority on the committee. The government does not. People who are not supporters of the government represent four votes on the committee and supporters of the government represent three.
The fact is that the committee was struck with eight members, five representing the government, two from the Official Opposition, and one from the New Democratic Party. Because one of the members on the committee now defected from the government ranks and now sits as an independent, the current membership list shows that four members of the committee are Conservative caucus members. Four of the eight may not be a majority, in the Whip's eyes, but it certainly is no minority. I would suggest that in fact the government still controls five seats on that committee and that the independent member holds a seat at the pleasure of the government Whip. After all, as is well known, it is the Whips who have the power to send in a form and replace any member of a legislative or special committee.
I would suggest that the Speaker may rule that the government Whip could replace the member who was on the committee with the simple stroke of a pen; but he need not because in this instance that member supported the government. In this case the government most certainly had an effective majority of the committee.
The government Whip's next allegation is equally easily dispensed with. He says that I impugned the government by saying that it insisted on this version of Bill C-79, in response to pressure from its Quebec caucus. In fact his exact words taken from Hansard of October 12, at page 14107, are and I quote:
- the member says things about the motivation of members who cast
a ballot in committee -
For the member for Kamloops to be out and about impugning the motivation of the members of this committee, the officers of this House, is a dastardly deed.
What was reported, Mr. Speaker, in The Ottawa Citizen of October 11, 1990 was, and I quote: "The NDP Whip charged that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had insisted on the clause requiring the RCMP to check before beginning investigations on the Hill in order to try to keep his Quebec caucus intact, earlier this year".
The facts are as follows: it was widely reported earlier this year that the pressure for this bill was coming from the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party. I have a series of press clippings, copies of which I will send over to my hon. colleagues if they are interested, which
demonstrate the wide coverage of the special interest of the Quebec caucus in this measure.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to clarify. Is the hon. member up on his own question of privilege or is he responding to certain allegations which have been alleged to have been made by a member opposite? I am just not certain that I am following.
I thought the hon. member was going to raise a question of privilege. I did not hear his case but now I hear, I think, a rebuttal. It is uncertain for me as to what the procedure is here. In view of comments that have been made maybe it is well in order for the hon. member to be proceeding, but I am at a loss; I do not know. Is this a reverse question of privilege or what is it?


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Calgary West in a moment.
The hon. member for Calgary West has in effect put a suggestion forward. The hon. member for Kamloops is tending to respond, seriatim, to a number of statements which he says the hon. member for Calgary West has made. I can understand that, but the difficulty we are getting into, to which I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is alluding, is that we still have an unfinished argument by the hon. member for Calgary West. The question of privilege which is before the House is the question of privilege of the hon. member for Calgary West. The hon. member for Kamloops has not filed a cross question of privilege, although he might deal with his own objections and concerns in the argument as he is already doing.
I do not want to cut off the hon. member for Kamloops if there is any hope at all of having further discussions between the two hon. members. My worry is that the longer we go on maybe the chance or possibility of the two hon. members being able to work out their differences, or at least some of them, and with dignity being able to let us know where it is not possible to work out some other differences may diminish if we get into too much debate at this time.
I am wondering if at this time in order to keep the procedure tidy-and I am indebted to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for raising the point; it has been concerning me for the last few minutes-the hon. member for Kamloops could give the Chair any indication as to whether and under what circumstances he might be able to postpone this matter in the Chamber
October 22, 1990

and carry on the discussions which commenced this morning.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond raised an interesting point. I was beginning to wonder whether or not I was beginning to initiate my own question of privilege in terms of the personal attacks that the government Whip had made on October 12; I suppose in a sense a reverse question of privilege. I do not want to pursue that.
My point was simply to respond to some of the very personal attacks that I had experienced coming from, to be precise, the government Whip, the hon. member for Calgary West.
We have had discussion. We have two opportunities. Presumably, in the personal attacks by my hon. friend, he had not finished those. We are at a point where we can continue to hear those personal attacks and allow me to respond in total as opposed to only part of them, which I was attempting to do now, or set aside these personal attacks. I do want to respond to the personal attacks at some point.
The other matter concerning Bill C-79 is relatively straightforward. I think all parties have indicated an interest to pursue it and resolve it as quickly as possible. What I am talking about, just on a very personal level, is that these are not attacks against the New Democratic Party or against the opposition. They were personal attacks against myself, levied by a single person from the government benches.
I simply want a right at some point to respond in some detail to what I call another disgusting performance. If the hon. member wants to continue with that performance now, he can do so. If he wants to set it aside while we maybe discuss some aspects of Bill C-79, I am quite prepared to do that; but I do want an opportunity, either now or later in the day after further attacks or at some later date, at least to respond to the allegations the hon. member has made of me.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, what I am after in my question of privilege is the referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for a report back to the House, because I think the attacks on
Privilege
members of the committee themselves, including myself, made by the member for Kamloops about Tory members and cabinet generally are of a nature that they pass well beyond the bounds of reasonable criticism, that they are indeed false, and that they indeed bring damage to the reputation of individuals, to members of the House, and to the House itself.
I would be quite happy to give you the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that members on this side of the House would give unanimous consent for such a motion to be moved and the subject matter sent to the committee, including, if he likes, a subset on the supposed slanderous behaviour of the chief government Whip, myself, in relationship to personal attacks on the member.
I am quite willing to have a committee of my peers examine my comments, each and every single one of them, within the context of a total evidentiary picture to determine whether those comments were justified or were not justified. I think people out there in the community would have some difficulty following what are supposed to be my allegations without page numbers and episodes in Hansard and so on.
The question of privilege I wish to bring forward is reasonably well documented in terms of exact pieces of paper, which I will put in your possession showing exact pages and exact procedural documents and so on. I do not think that this is the kind of an issue, given the importance of the subject matter and its implications for the reputation of this institution, where we can get by with sloppy research and sloppy half truths.
Sitting here listening to it, I throw out for consideration the possibility of unanimous consent but I am nervous about it. Perhaps in the next half hour we could agree on a motion to refer the matter to committee involving the independents in the House and the leadership of the Liberal Party. Maybe we could bring forward a motion that we refer the subject matter of this entire problem to that committee. I would think members on my side of the House would be willing to support that, even though I have given up the opportunity to lay the whole matter out before the Canadian public in Hansard in some detail.

October 22, 1990
Privilege


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to pre-judge the decision that you may make or this House may make in terms of the appropriateness of sending any matter to committee for further discussion.
I would wish to point out to you, Sir, that it would be totally unfair for such a matter to be referred out of this House until my House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, has had an opportunity to at least take as much House time in responding as the government Whip did in attacking him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West has made an offer. That offer amounts to simply this, that we adjourn this discussion with all rights retained and the hon. members go away, or come to my chambers, and continue the discussion of this morning.
It is not for me to tell hon. members what to do, but it might be helpful. It would be done on the basis that both the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Kamloops return to this Chamber if they cannot agree on some sort of accommodation between them.
There are really two issues here. One is the question of Bill C-79 and the work of that committee. The other is the general complaint by the member for Calgary West that there are times and places in the working of this House where hon. members have to be very careful what they say because of information which they may have gathered in either confidential or quasi-confidential places.
It seems to me not particularly helpful to debate Bill C-79 this afternoon unless it is only mentioned in order to support or to refute the question of privilege. But there is here a matter of importance to the House, to both the hon. members, and to probably other hon. members. There are two ways to proceed now.


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could continue and I will certainly hear the hon. member.
There may be three ways to proceed at this moment. One, we can continue the question of privilege. To do that I would, of course, go back to the hon. member for Calgary West. The second is to pick up the offer and adjourn the matter with all rights retained and to have some discussion to see if some resolution in a civil way
could be reached. The third is the possibility that if the House wished, by consent, to put the whole matter over to a committee, at which place the matter could be pursued in front of a-if I could put it this way-a committee of the peers of the two members.
That is where we are. I of course want to be helpful if I can.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion or the offer made by the hon. member for Calgary West is a reasoned one, as are the comments which have been made with, I believe, genuine sincerity by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, both on the substance with regards to Bill C-79, as well as comments which he alleges have been referred to him personally, I think are serious and require either some airing at some point or after an adjudication.
But perhaps the musings of the Speaker may be appropriate in resolving this matter. Further discussions should take place with the caveat clearly understood by the hon. member for Calgary West, as well as the the House leader for the New Democratic Party, that all the rights are retained so that if they wish to pursue other courses of action on the completion of their discussion, they would have that right.
It would seem, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of not only those hon. members but in the interest of the institution which is so important to us all, that we would want to proceed with caution and reason. We would like to have an airing of the matter in a way which is tasteful to all individuals, making certain that their rights in this institution are not infringed upon in any way.
Your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the matter be adjourned for further discussions with you in your chamber, from my perspective as a deputy House leader of this party, may be the fairest way to proceed at this time.
I take no issue with any of the sentiments which have been expressed by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, or the hon. member for Calgary West.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fairly brief, but I do want to make a few points at this time with regard to the suggestion made by the member for Calgary West and reiterated as one of the possibilities to which you yourself alluded. That is that the matter not be judged by
October 22, 1990

Privilege
you at this time, and then possibly sent to a committee, but that it be sent to a committee directly.
I think that before any member of this House chooses that route, they should consider what we are dealing with at the present time. We have a number of charges that were half made by the chief government Whip since October 12, both in this House on more than one occasion, but also in front of the committee. I understand charges were made at times when the member for Kamloops, the House leader of the New Democratic, was not here.
The problem is if we send this matter to the committee, this committee has a Conservative majority. The Conservative majority is appointed by the government Whip. Substitution in many ways is the responsibility of that same Whip. Permanent membership on that committee is the responsibility of that Whip.
Other privileges of the Conservative members on that committee, whether it is trips abroad or other assignments, is the responsibility of that Whip. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, without making any reference to the motivation of the chief government Whip, that this particular committee would not be perceived in any way, shape or form as an impartial panel that would listen to both members and be perceived by the public, or anybody else, as a body that could truly, impartially judge the facts, the motivations and the activities of the two members.
On that point, I do not believe that this is an option by which any member in this House can abide. I believe that it is possible for the two members to resolve some of their differences outside this Chamber and I think that that might be the approach that should be followed.
I think all of us have learned a lesson on what has happened since October 12 on this issue. I think this is an important lesson because the whole purpose of the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act was to make sure that members did not find their names out in public, allegations made without them having a chance to defend themselves or without people understanding what the rules and regulations of the House of Commons are.
What I find interesting is that we seem to be going through that same exercise within the House as a result of our procedures and because the member for Kamloops had business elsewhere. We had on a continuous basis from October 12 until last Thursday the chief government Whip getting up in this House or in committee and starting on his process of making charges and always ending by saying, "But I won't raise those issues here. I will deal with them when the member gets back".
However, the damage was done. The charges were, if not made, at least alluded to. There was some damage done to the reputation of the member for Kamloops. That member has never had an opportunity in the House or in the committee to respond. That is the problem. To say, "Let us have peace now, the member for Kamloops should keep quiet, should not go to the press and we will resolve this outside the Chamber or inside the Speaker's office or by getting together over a beer" does not resolve the problem in many ways. The allegations were made.
It is like charging someone, a member of this House, with misspending his budget, or saying he has hired his own relations or friends of his family for jobs that should not be done. Once the charge is made, the damage is done.
I think that if the chief government Whip considers what he has said in this House about the member for Kamloops, what he has said in the committee about the member for Kamloops, he would recognize that he has engaged in the same sort of exercise that the committee was established in the first place to try to prevent.
I am quite willing to see the two members go out and see if they can resolve the issue quietly, but at the same time I think it is a lesson for all of us that if we are going to get up here and make charges against one of our fellow members, then we should at least expect those people to have the right to reply.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we may be getting somewhere. I accept totally the comment that once the charge is made, the damage is done. Forty-five minutes after the committee meeting on October 10, charges were starting to be made about my behaviour and the behaviour of my colleagues and the damage was done. They were printed on October 11.

October 22, 1990
Privilege
In this House in an S. O. 31 on October 11 charges were made and the damage was done. The charges are false. I believe they were known to be false but some rhetoric crept in, that people can use rhetoric in this place-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I say something? We may be able to find a way to resolve this but I would urge that we do not make more charges at least while we are discussing what we are going to do with this thing. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to us if you were to rise and say that you asked me to delay because I felt that as a charge, that I had asked for delay for the last 10 days. In fact, I think I was starting to present my question of privilege and you rose, and the record will show that the Speaker of the House asked me to delay until the member for Kamloops returned. I think the record will show that the Speaker asked to be notified when the member for Kamloops could be here. The record will show that I rose daily to ask if we had had word and I did acknowledge that, in a corridor I had heard from one staff person that the member for Kamloops would be in Ottawa probably late Thursday evening, but tried to get it on the record so that I could prepare and plan to be present. This is what has been happening.
I want to assure the House that if this item is referred to committee, I will have nothing to do with the choice of committee members. To believe that I would be involved in a conflict of interest of that kind, that I had a hand in the picking of the jurors, if you like, of a trial in which I was involved, is really to provide you, Mr. Speaker, with concrete proof that these allegations that are floating around are interfering with my capacity to serve my functions on behalf of this Chamber.
The very fact that it was raised on the floor that I, as chief government whip-and it was raised earlier in a different context-could have substituted somebody on the special parliamentary committee, and I chose not to because it has never been the intention of the government to dominate the committee. It has always been the intention to try to achieve 100 per cent consensus on everything that we have done for months.
To raise the issue that I, as chief government whip- and the context in which it was raised is essentially threatening the independent member-will, if they do not behave and vote the way I want them to vote, replace them is the context. There is a totally different construction. This is that I, as whip, had an opportunity to make sure that the government dominated the committee and I had not taken that opportunity.
It is a committee which agreed to function in a non-partisan fashion. When one leaves a non-partisan meeting and there is a press conference 45 minutes later slamming part of that consensus, one is in trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is helping by continually repeating the very thing that has caused a lot of the anguish here.
The hon. member has risen and said that he ought not to be accused of attacking a committee. I do not think that is really the issue that I have in front of me.
I might say so that members understand, on a question of privilege, after there has been debate, it is for the Speaker to decide not the final issue, but only if there is a prima facie case. Then, if the Speaker decides there is a prima facie case, the matter goes to the House, this Chamber, and the matter can be debated and can be debated for a long time. Eventually, the House decides whether it goes to committee. When it then gets to committee-and what the House has then said is it thinks there is enough reason to put it into a committee-the whole matter will be heard by committee members and the committee will finally make up its mind. That is where the final decision is made.
In any of these questions of privilege, if I decide it is a prima facie case and if the House decides that it go to committee, those committees are invariably lopsided in the sense that a majority will come from the government side because that is just the nature of the thing. One would have to hope that, whether or not the committee has a majority on the government side, they would understand that they are sitting in judgment of their peers and would behave accordingly. That is what one would hope they would do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if anyone is watching this performance or is listening in on this, it must confirm every suspicion they have ever had about this place. Here we are, hour after hour, costing taxpayers unbelievable amounts of money, and I
October 22, 1990

do not know if we have made any progress at all. But, let us try to resolve this.
First, I will say there is no question that in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, the Parliament of Canada Act and revisions to it, Bill C-79, I have heard time and time again that we all want to resolve it, so let us get on and resolve it. I pledge on behalf of my colleagues a willingness and a keenness to do that. We will get on with it. The same from the Official Opposition, and I suspect from the government benches as well. So, let us set that aside. We will deal with that as expeditiously and as quickly as possible. It is a difficult task, and it is already in process, I understand.
The other matter is these personal accusations. I never referred to my hon. friend from Calgary West, as a matter of fact, I did not even know the name of his riding, so I could not have done that very well. I had concerns about what appeared to be what the Conservatives are doing on a committee. Those are my public comments, the Conservatives on the committee. It was not non-political or non-partisan, the overwhelming majority were Conservatives, some Liberals, and other New Democrats.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That's not true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, Mr. Speaker, in other words, the parties were not equally represented. The largest group was from the Conservative Party. So, I presume that is why I said it seemed like the Conservatives were doing this because the two of the three opposition parties were working together.
Set that aside, Mr. Speaker. Surely to goodness we can deal with that.
On the other matter of personal attacks, all I said is that I want an opportunity to respond to what I perceive to be personal attacks in terms of my integrity in my work as a member of Parliament, in the House, in committee, and beyond.
Let us drop this, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend wishes to retract the allegations, we will leave it and get on with the matter of C-79. If he does not want to retract what are personal attacks, then I do not see any way around it. He must go on and make the accusations, and I will respond, and then in your judgment you will decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. If you do,
Privilege
then it goes on to a vote; if you do not, that is the end of it.
I appeal to my hon. friend. For people watching this, what are they thinking? For people who have to sit through attacks and counter-attacks back and forth, is this what the House of Commons has become? I appeal to my hon. friend. Simply withdraw the allegations to allow us to get on to do the work that, as members of Parliament, we were elected to do.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am searching for the allegations the member made in the House on October 11, and I want to ask him if he will withdraw those first. Can I read them, Mr. Speaker, so that all Canadians can understand them?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I will hear them if I have to.
Both members, of course, could rise in the House and say that, if anything they said has caused distress to the other and are unfair allegations, they would wish that they were withdrawn and that they will get on with the business of trying to work together, as in fact they have to do given their positions on committees and on the Board of Internal Economy. That would resolve the matter. It would not be that difficult, but it is not for me to say what hon. members are prepared to do.
In the interest of not tearing this place apart hour after hour with allegations and cross-allegations, denunciations, and other things, that is clearly an option. It might be the most sensible thing to do, but that is up to both hon. members and their colleagues.
In the meantime, I am getting to the point where I feel that the tentative offer of the member for Calgary West is not being acted upon for whatever reason at the moment and to discuss whether or not that offer could be taken up, which is simply to adjourn this matter for the moment, with all rights reserved, and the two hon. members meet again either in the Speaker's Chambers or by themselves, to see if there is some honourable way to resolve this.
That is the issue that I want answered and, if it is not possible to do that, then I think both hon. members will have to say it is not possible. We will then revert to the question of privilege and we will probably have to listen to a great deal of debate on who said what to whom and about whom, but that is what happens in questions of privilege. Ultimately, I will have to decide whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. If I do, I put it

October 22, 1990
Privilege
to the House as I said. If the House agrees, it sends it to committee. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit of your suggestions, let me respond to what I think was an offer by my hon. friend the government Whip and hon. member for Calgary West. He referred to a statement I made in the House and some comments I made in that statement. He suggested that if I would consider withdrawing those comments, that he would then consider withdrawing the allegations he made against me personally.
Let me read this, Mr. Speaker, and then I have a comment I would like to make. I think it is worth repeating.
Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians awoke to the news that Conservatives want to be above the law. Yesterday-


An hon. member:: No.


An hon. member:: You're just throwing gas on the fire.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I'm coming to a resolution, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday the Tories used their majority muscle in a legislative committee to force through changes in the law which govern MPs and Senators. They want to be tipped off to any RCMP criminal investigations into their parliamentary affairs.
In other words, the Conservatives are creating a two-tiered justice system -one level for Tory MPs and another for ordinary Canadians.
Earlier this year, the Minister of Justice said there could only be one law for Canadians. She told the House: "We cannot pick and choose when we want to apply the law and we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to obey". A few weeks later her colleagues are looking for special laws for Tory MPs.
There seem to be -
Well, it goes on and on.
If it will facilitate resolving this issue, I will withdraw these comments.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I will withdraw any one of the comments I made that he would like me to withdraw, then we could move to the next one. There is a series that occurred outside the House that is equal or of more concern in terms of accusations. That is what I thought if we were to delay, we could resolve.
I am willing to withdraw some things I said. Okay? What this does, I think, Mr. Speaker, is withdraw the allegation that Tories want to be tipped off to any RCMP criminal investigations into their parliamentary affairs. It is my conviction that we have never wanted that. The charge that we did want that was extremely serious-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary West would take his chair.
Now, both members have indicated that, subject to a little bit of discussion with respect to which statements are to be withdrawn, they would be prepared to move seriatim through them. The hon. member for Kamloops has just taken a serious issue and has said, "I withdraw that".
It seems to me that if we exercised a little bit of good sense here, this matter could be adjourned while the two hon. members decide what other retractions they might make, because in the interest of this place the two of them have to work together on committees and, as I say, especially the board.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I really seek your guidance. I understood clearly from what my hon. friend, the government whip, said and I suggested that if he was to withdraw the allegations he has levied against me, then I would be prepared to move on it, accept that, and discuss our concerns regarding Bill C-79, which are very serious.
He then rose and said: "I will consider that if my hon. friend would withdraw his comments that he made in this House on October 11." Hearing his offer, I stood in good faith and in the best interest of this institution and withdrew those remarks. Now surely my hon. friend can live up to his half of the bargain and withdraw the allegations. If he does that, the matter is settled and we get on with resolving the issue. Mr. Speaker, I have just withdrawn those comments to enable this issue to be resolved. I ask my hon. friend to do the honourable thing and do the same.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the the hon. member is talking about the allegations I made in the House, I will withdraw them. Okay? There are some very serious allegations about the behaviour of myself, the committee members, and my members, that were made outside the House, at the 6.45 press conference on October 10 and
October 22, 1990

carried on October 11. They have led, Mr. Speaker, to editorials and so on that would bring the House into serious disrepute.
I will throw another one that bothers me the most, the one that police forces-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member continues to try to argue the case, rather than meet the issue as to whether or not we can resolve this in a civil way by adjourning at this time and sorting out where there could be agreement and where there must remain disagreement. That is an option. It might make a lot of sense. But we cannot keep arguing every one of the allegations and going through them seriatim in this Chamber.
The sensible thing to do would be if the two hon. members are prepared to sit down together and say: "All right, maybe we can fix this up and live together. Maybe we come out with a statement that will at least preserve our own positions without offending others." Surely, that is something that can be worked out. I do not think it can be worked out on the floor of the House, although I think the House has exercised extraordinary patience for the last number of minutes. Perhaps, also, so has the Chair.
I put the suggestion to hon. members that the two of them agree to adjourn this matter, meet and see whether they can resolve it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to do that. I would hope we would not talk to the press in the interlude.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think I made my point clear. I have withdrawn the comments that I made in this House that in a sense summarize the comments made.
If my hon. friend is not prepared to withdraw the personal attacks and allegations upon me, then I say to him: If he wants to attack me personally, he ought to do that now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West responds by saying he has withdrawn everything that was said in the House, just as the hon. member for Kamloops has. That is some advancement. I suggest that we adjourn this matter to hon. members. Their colleagues can discuss it further. All rights are reserved.
Point of Order
If the two hon. members would agree, I think that that would be the appropriate thing to do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I agree. I think that your intervention is an appropriate one. As long as the understanding is there, if there is a need to return to this issue in terms of further allegations, I think what you said, Mr. Speaker, members would have the right to do just that.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly the condition. I see the hon. member for Calgary West is in agreement.
First of all, I want to thank all hon. members who have been here for the last hour and who have exercised great patience in listening to this. Contrary to what the public often thinks, this has been a very civilized discussion on a very difficult issue indeed.
As your Speaker, I am going to say you are to be congratulated on your decorum this afternoon. Second, I want to thank the two hon. members. I hope that this matter can be resolved.
I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary West, the hon. member for Kamloops, and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for his helpful contribution. I want it also clear that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is not in the firing line.
The matter is adjourned.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have two short points of order.
First, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is here. During Question Period, he suggested that I either support or endorse the 1987 Alcan agreement, which I do not. He thereby inferred that I might in some way be happy with the process of exempting the Alcan completion project from the 1984 cabinet guidelines order.
I know he is here. I have had a chance to speak to him. I am sure he would like to have something to say about not leaving what he said on the record.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the same point. As you will recall, I indicated earlier today in Question

October 22, 1990
Point of Order
Period that it was my understanding that he was on the record as supporting the agreement.
I stand to be corrected if he wishes to correct me. I now stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.


BILL C-78
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order is in relation to what is happening with Bill C-78.
As some members will recall, on June 27, page 13173 of Hansard the Minister of State for Youth and the Minister of State for Fitness, and the Deputy Leader of the government in the House moved a motion dated June 26, 1990 respecting Bill C-78, an Act to establish the federal environmental assessment process, that it stand adjourned until Monday, September 24, 1990 with various provisions.
At that point, our Whip the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan pointed out:
I am just wondering if the minister can indicate that once the committee has been established, it will not meet during July and August, and that there may be a short meeting in September to deal with the agenda. The purpose of establishing the committee now is to let people know that the committee is available to receive briefs and that it will be looking for information.
Second, can the minister indicate that the 1984 cabinet guidelines dealing with the environmental assessment review process will not be modified unless the Minister of the Environment has met with the committee?
Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons confirmed that.
The point that I am making is that at that time on the closing day of this Chamber in June, a special committee was struck. For the first time in the history of the House, a bill which had not completed second reading was referred to the special committee so that we could, as I understood it and as other members understood it, redraft a very important environmental piece of legislation for Canadians now and on into the future.
We have only just started our hearings. We have only heard from FEARO, from Mr. Robinson, and we are just about to hear witnesses from across Canada to redraft Bill C-78 as we understood we were supposed to. For three months the special committee has been solely a post box. There have been no witnesses. The members have not been sitting. We did not have a chair. Mr. Stevenson was not appointed until just a matter of days ago to actually chair the committee.
I think hon. members need to hear from the government side on this point of order, how it is possible that we set up a special committee process, and as soon as the special committee process gets going it is collapsed so that second reading of Bill C-78 can be completed, which will force it off to a legislative committee where only minor adjustments can be made. The serious amendments with which the committee has undertaken its study simply cannot be made to Bill C-78 once it goes to a legislative committee.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a point of order.


Harvie Andre: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, what was done was to accommodate the wish that the subject matter of this legislation, very important, could be proceeded with while the House went into recess for the summer and that is what was done.
It is not an unexceptional thing. It has been done in the past. There is no reason in the world why the committee cannot work. There is no reason in the world why amendments to Bill C-78, if appropriate, cannot be made when it goes to committee stage. It happens all the time. That is the purpose. I do not understand why the hon. member is upset. It is desired to have Bill C-78 debated and voted on in principle as soon as possible. Then it goes to committee and, based on the work of committee, amendments can be made if the committee in its wisdom decides they should be made. That is part of the legislative program
To do what the hon. member is suggesting would be to ask the government to withdraw this legislation and bring in something else later on, next year some time, and I do not think it would be prudent for us to wait.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Skeena, but I am persuaded by the hon. House leader that this is something that has been done before. The government has the right to set the order of business. I would urge that if there are concerns from the hon. member for Skeena and his colleagues that those concerns be the subject of further discussions with the hon. House leader.
October 22, 1990

The hon. House leader I think has indicated that the process is such that with a little bit of skill, there can be input from that committee into the progress of the bill.


NATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY OF CANADA
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, since we are getting points of order out of the way, I thought I would try again, especially with you in the chair.
I wish to indicate that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the National Petroleum Company of Canada.
Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours, for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage of the bill.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has filed with me a question of privilege. I have accepted it as being in order. I wonder if the hon. member would want it heard at perhaps a more convenient time than presently-


James Ross Fulton: I certainly would not object to having it put over, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That would be the appropriate thing to do. I thank him for his co-operation.


Harvie Andre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member
Privilege
would let the appropriate person-I assume it has to do with some actions of somebody on this side of the House-know the substance of the question of privilege so that some preparation might be undertaken on this side.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. House leader has made a suggestion which is eminently sensible under the circumstances, especially as the House now knows the hon. member for Skeena does have a question of privilege.


James Ross Fulton: I do not object to giving a quick synopsis, Mr. Speaker, to the question of privilege. It involves the October 12 Order in Council exemption of the Kemano completion project. As I think the government House leader is aware, the Prime Minister and four ministers of fisheries are on the record as supporting a full public inquiry into that project before it was approved.
The other point is in relation to the June 27 agreement that was reached. Effectively what has happened is the October 12 Order in Council exempting the Alcan hydroelectric project from the 1984 cabinet guidelines order removes the agreement that was reached on the June 27. That agreement was that there would be no variance made to the 1984 cabinet guidelines order until Bill C-78 had gone through and become law.
It is a two part question of privilege. One is involving the government endorsation of a public review of an environmental evaluation of a very large project. The other is that an agreement was reached in the House that there would not be substantive changes made to a special Order in Council from 1984 until legislation presently before the House was law.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Skeena for putting the point so succinctly. I hope it is of assistance to the hon. government House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sudbury-Children's Rights; the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood-Goods and Services Tax.

October 22, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-78, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-78 before the House today. This legislation is the cornerstone of our government's commitment to integrate the principles of sustainable development in all federal decisions.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will require the environmental assessment process to start at the beginning of the planning stage, so that decisions are made with a full knowledge of the potential environmental consequences.
Bill C-78 arises from the government's commitment to make the process more effective, fairer and more open. It reflects the main recommendations made by experts and the general public during two years of in-depth consultation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put Canada in the forefront of nations that seek to protect and preserve the environment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Netherlands government, known as a leader in environmental assessment, wrote recently to congratulate the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office on its reform proposals, saying that in their opinion we had gone one step further than they had in this area. That is good news, Mr. Speaker.
The legislation will also ensure that federal authorities are accountable on environmental matters and will also increase public involvement at all stages of the assessment process. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we shall be mindful of our responsibility for administering the process efficiently. We will give environmental assessment of the impact of each project all the attention it deserves, no more and no less.
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill goes beyond providing for assessment of the potential impact of a project. Bill C-78 also requires that measures designed to protect the environment be put in place and maintained. The bill provides for follow-up and for monitoring programs. This bill will oblige us to treat the environment with respect, and that is a veiy good thing. But we also owe it to ourselves, our constituents and our children to see to it that the measures we are enacting be strictly tested and enforced. We will also have to keep a close watch on the evolution of projects so as to judge the effectiveness of the environmental assessment process and as a basis to assess similar projects in the future.
Mr. Speaker, a new agency-the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency-will be established to meet to the challenges inherent in this reform. Quite independent from other government organizations, the new agency will answer to and advise the Minister of Environment. It will also be responsible for implementing and managing the new assessment process within the federal administration.
With a view to concentrating our resources on projects requiring the greatest attention, Mr. Speaker, we will have three assessment approaches: mandatory studies, assessments by category, and lists of exclusions. The first, mandatory studies, relates to all projects likely to have a lasting environmental impact, such as major industrial or hydro power projects which will be the subject of very extensive environmental assessments right from the start.
The federal authority responsible for carrying out mandatory studies will scrutinize all the environmental consequences of a given project. Their report will be made public and presented to the Minister of Environment who will then decide if the project should be submitted to a mediator or a review commission. The project might also be referred to the federal authority for a final decision, but only if the Minister of Environment, enlightened by public input, is convinced that the proposition requires no further consideration.
The second approach, Mr. Speaker, will be used for many routine projects similar to other previously assessed projects, such as formation and road maintenance, to name just a few.
October 22, 1990

I think it would be a waste of our very limited financial resources to reassess the possible impact of such projects. Once the environmental impact of these projects and the appropriate mitigation measures are well known, all further assessment will be done by category. The new act will allow the Minister of the Environment to choose a standard assessment for a model. Assessment of individual projects will then be based on a standard assessment, and also take into consideration local circumstances and cumulative impact.
Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will determine which assessment reports may be used for the assessment by category.
The third assessment approach has to do with exclusions. This approach will be used for projects known for having no environmental effect. No assessment is needed in such cases, and the proper authority can make a prompt decision concerning the implementation of these projects.
In accordance with the spirit of this reform, the people will again be consulted on what projects to include on the exclusion list. So you see, the decision does not lie only with the minister. The people will be consulted, which goes to show the openness and extension of Bill C-78. Of course, some projects will not appear on the exclusion list or on the mandatory study list. These proposals would be subjected to a screening process to determine the possible environmental affects and to decide whether mitigation measures and more thorough studies are indicated.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the process proposed in this bill.
This Government recognizes that it is necessary to balance the needs of this society with those of future generations. That is the only way Canada can start firmly on the way to sustainable development. It is a major challenge. Bill C-78, however, will help Government departments and agencies become more aware of environmental issues and their respective responsibilities.
The puqiose of this bill is to require any federal authority, whether a minister, department or agency, to carry out an environmental assessment of all projects coming under its jurisdiction. It must make sure that the
Government Orders
process is open and accessible to the public. It must take into account and act on the public's comments in the decision-making process. It should not be satisfied with consulting the public, but should respond to its comments. That is a major element in this bill.
Another principle in this assessment process is also very important: the Federal authority must determine as soon as possible during the planning stage the possible environmental effects of each project and the necessary mitigation measures. This way, in the Federal decisionmaking process, environmental aspects will be accorded the same importance as economic and social ones.
From now on, the environment will no longer be the last consideration, for it will be given the same importance as economic and social issues. Many factors will be taken into account when determining whether a project is environmentally sound.
We will look into the changes which the project will make to the environment, including the impact of any environmental change on health as well as socio-economic conditions.
We shall consider also the possible cumulative effects which could result from the completion of a project on top of others, both existing and to come.
Finally, we shall consider the mitigation measures which would be necessary to eliminate or limit the environmental effects of these projects.
In the case of a major project, we look at the purpose of the project, the various ways of carrying it out, the need for a follow-up program and the viability of the renewable resources that are likely to be affected by the project.
The comments and concerns expressed by the public will also be considered.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides for two types of public review for projects that could pose a serious threat to the environment and raise serious public concern, that is mediation and panel review.
We will proceed with mediation when the parties who have a direct interest in or who are directly affected by the project agree to find a way to identify and mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project. Mediation will be preferred to public hearings because it is more efficient.

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there will be cases where mediation will not be suitable. Those projects will undergo a complete review by a panel. Furthermore, if a mediation attempt fails, the Minister of the Environment can still appoint a review panel.
Mr. Speaker, the evaluation reports relating to all major projects will have to include a follow-up program that will be made available to the public. We are not hiding anything. We are making it available to the public. This will enable us to check the accuracy of the environmental assessment basis as well as the efficency of the actions taken to mitigate the environmental effects of the project.
The aspect I like best, Mr. Speaker, is the increased opportunity for public participation. The public being an integral part of the process, the bill is transparent and accessible to the public. That way, we avoid the risk of things being said and turning out to be different. So, the follow-up process open to the public guarantees the efficiency of Bill C-78.
Mr. Speaker, we also intend to bring to light all actions that have been taken and to ask for the full participation of the public at all stages of the environmental assessment process. Not only in the beginning, in the middle or at the end, but all through the process. Most of all we wish to ensure the concerns of the public will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment process.
Mr. Speaker, there will be public consultation at all stages and in all cases. The public will be kept informed and we will ask for its comments. For that purpose, public registries will be kept. They will be used as information sources regarding all projects. The public will have access to them, and will be informed of all projects.
The ultimate and laudable goal of this bill is to ensure better protection for the environment by giving the Minister of the Environment greater responsibility in that process and facilitating the participation of the public at all stages while maintaining the principle of self-evaluation and keeping various federal departments and bodies responsible for the environmental consequences of decisions they will take on projects.
All those elements considered, the proposed reform deserves our support. The new environmental assessment process proposed here is fair and equitable, and above all, it takes into account the environmental reality of Canada of the twenty-first century.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the process will be balanced. Each project will get the exact qualitative or quantative attention it deserves.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by saying that the process will help us to step from a costly and inefficient environmental approach by which we can only find a cure to a much more profitable preventive and predictable approach.
Mr. Speaker, time has come to cease making decisions on big development projects without taking into account their implications for our economy and environment. Mr. Speaker, reacting to and making up for damages that we were not able to predict as was done in the past is all over. We are debating today Bill C-78 that will allow us to integrate from the outset an environmental concern in the planning of big projects and to see to it that we do not have to fix 15 or 20 years down the road what will have been destroyed for lack of planning or judgment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to support the second reading of Bill C-78, because it is an efficient and open bill, a bill that includes a visible process, that gives the public an opportunity to actively participate in this whole process. Mr. Speaker, I think all members of this House will be very happy with this bill, which is a government's initiative, and will very happy to support it with great enthusiasm, because I know that all members are very concerned with the environment and that they want us, with a bill as excellent as Bill C-78, to be able, right now, to protect our environment and our resources in the interests of future generations, of the future of our children.
So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this House to support wholeheartedly Bill C-78, for the sake of the environment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the deputy chair of the special committee on Bill C-78.1 know him to be a very interested member in the proceedings of the Canadian environmental assessment legislation.
October 22, 1990

I wonder if the member could take a moment to confirm my understanding, which is that on June 27 we created the special committee and for the next three months it acted as a post box. The initiative of the government pursuant to the McGrath recommendations on parliamentary reform was to make use of a special committee so that the bill could be redrafted in a major sense including in terms of the principles.
We have discussed this in committee and in terms of the witnesses we will call. It has been our intention to redraft the legislation dramatically because, as the hon. member knows, we have heard from FEARO. They have indicated that more than 100 acts of Parliament ultimately will be included in the legislation. Surely that should be in the legislation. The projects that are to be exempted are not listed; surely, they need to be listed. The regulations in the legislation are not listed; surely they should be. The mandatory inclusion projects are not listed, and they should be. Even intervener funding is not listed.
I wonder if the member could take a moment to explain to the House his understanding of the process that was intended by having this bill go to a special committee before it goes to a legislative committee. This piece of legislation is described universally by serious environmentalists in this country as a legislative Swiss cheese where the holes are larger than the cheese. I am sure the member knows that we want to make this a good piece of legislation so that future generations can look back and say that the men and women in this Parliament knew what they were doing and knew what kinds of projects should be assessed and how they should be assessed.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his question. As for his desire or intent to bring changes, amendments or that sort of things, I think the hon. member will understand that that is part of the legislative process, which is to say that after the legislation is approved on second reading and sent to a legislative committee, the hon. member will be allowed to propose changes and amendments he feels right and relevant during the committee proceedings.
In the other part of his question, the hon. member compares the legislation to Swiss cheese. I want to point
Government Orders
out, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago in my speech, that the Dutch government, which is recognized as a leader in the environmental assessment area, recently wrote to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office saying that from an analysis of the reform proposed in Bill C-78 they felt we surpassed them in that area. So, we might be eating better Swiss cheese than the Dutchmen.
Nothing is perfect in this world, but Dutchmen are recognized as experts in the area of environmental assessment. And they are the ones who sent us a letter telling us that we have a good legislation, that we are surpassing them and becoming international leaders in the environmental assessment area.
So I feel this legislation is not that bad. But the hon. member has of course every right to find deficiencies in it. Nothing is perfect. On the other hand, I think the hon. member may use all those ideas and suggestions to propose changes or amendments during the committee proceedings after second reading approval.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to commend our colleague from Terrebonne for the excellent speech he has just made on an excessively important piece of legislation for Canada. The hon. member has shown great concern for the environment, Mr. Speaker, and I know for a fact that the people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue are also very interested in environmental issues.
You may or may not know this, Mr. Speaker, but the residents of Abitibi-Temiscamingue have witnessed anarchic industrial development in the last 50 years. Our environment has been marred to the extent that bills like this one take on a special meaning for us. You can readily appreciate the fact that had this kind of process been in place 50 years ago we would not be coping with the environmental problems we have now. This exemplifies the kind of leadership our government has shown since 1984. Given the legislation this Progressive Conservative government has enacted since then, it is clear that it is fully conscious of environmental issues.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Terrebonne. Considering that this bill will have a tremendous impact on the environment, to what extent does this important measure differ from regulations dating back to 1984? Can he point out the difference to show how much further this bill goes?

October 22, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Temiscamingue for his very good question. I know the hon. member for Temiscamingue is having, or has been having environmental problems in his constituency caused by development projects which were planned with no consideration whatsoever for environmental concerns. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, with all partisanship aside, that the constituency of Saint-Maurice is having a similar problem, where Consolidated Bathurst, of which Mr. Chretien was a member of the board, has polluted the Saint-Maurice River. And it is precisely because of our lack of concern in the past that we are having these problems today.
The hon. member asked me why Bill C-78 is so important compared to what we had before? What we had before, as everybody knows, were guidelines approved by Order in Council in 1984 when the Liberal government was still in office. Bill C-78 in a great improvement over that Order in Council, Mr. Speaker. Progress has been made in many very important fields.
First of all, this bill is written in statute form, and will be interpreted as such by the courts. It will not be vulnerable and open to challenge in courts of law.
Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of the bill is the fact that, in the past, when a public review was seemed necessary, the decision making process would rest entirely with the minister, while in the present bill the decision making power rests with the Minister of the Environment, which is going to be now a bit like having the fox mind the geese.
As for the old order in council concerning regulatory bodies and the Crown corporations, just as an example, it was very vague and optional. It means that they could proceed with an environmental assessment, but the decision was up to them. Now, in bill C-78, it is set out in specific rules, Mr. Speaker.
Moreover, in the past the order in council only provided for review boards. Now you can have arbitration as an alternative to review boards, and this again, Mr. Speaker, is an improvement. Then, the public can have access to every step of the process.
We are therefore talking about a bill and a process which are characterized by openners, a process which the public can have access to. It is becoming increasingly
difficult, for whatever reason, to hide anything from anyone. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will financially support organizations willing to take part in the assessment process. We are talking about openness, public participation to the review process and that, to me, appears to be one of the most interesting aspects of Bill C-78.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and give you 15, 20 or 30 exemples of how the bill improves the guidelines of the old order vicouncil but I see that you are letting me know that my time is up and I know you wish to give everyone the possibility to ask questions, so I will end my remarks right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Skeena on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the hon. member would want left on the record a suggestion that there is intervener funding included in Bill C-78, as he just suggested. There is no clause in the bill allowing for intervener funding.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Terrebonne on a point of order.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that there is some indication in the bill about our financing it, but the govemement has clearly stated its intention to grant financial support to those environmental groups and public stakeholders wishing to participate in the environmental assessment process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: End of questions and comments. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued in following the debate and the questions and answers. My colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, certainly painted a picture that would excite most people who are concerned about the environment. I daresay all of us are.
When reading a Canadian Press report dated October 19, I noted that a coalition of the 28 groups of environmentalists wanted to pass its judgment and its
October 22, 1990

views on precisely what the hon. member was speaking about. This group gave the government an/on this issue.


An hon. member:: For fine.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: An /, as with a report card, because the process required for projects under federal jurisdiction obviously does not meet even the minimum requirements.

The French-Canadian press describes the bill as follows: "This legislation is well intentioned, but lacks teeth".

Mr. Speaker, when one reads these kinds of reports from environmentalists about whether the legislation has teeth and whether the proposed law is, in effect, attacking what it ought to be attacking, one begins to wonder. The hon. member for Terrebonne has talked at great length about the involvement of the public and the importance of gathering public opinion. I do not want to introduce an element of cynicism into a debate that should be of interest to all Canadians but, frankly, we have seen public input discarded by the wayside without much ado. We have seen it on the GST and all kinds of other things. We have seen, for example, closure imposed on debates at a very minor whim.
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for us on this side of the House to understand and appreciate the enthusiasm that the hon. member for Terrebonne has for the whole public inquiry process that is going to be implemented through Bill C-78. But, lest I be too critical, what I want to do is draw the attention of the House to the fact that this bill should have had underlined, as its main purpose, in fact its raison d'etre, that it would foster sustainable development, and it would do that through a particular process which is indicated in the title of the bill and that is, "an act to establish the federal environmental assessment process".
When I look at this legislation, and I keep these very minor considerations in mind, I am already calling into question in my own thoughts whether in fact we are missing an opportunity. And the opportunities that we are missing with this legislation are precisely those which have been indicated by the coalition of environmentalists.
Government Orders

This is legislation without teeth.

It is, in fact, legislation without teeth.
The government has called us into question on many occasions, saying: "Give us alternatives, give us positive suggestions, give us an indication, critique, and be positive in the support of any legislation that might come forward." Well, members of my caucus have already introduced an element of criticism in this debate that has been positive and in that positive criticism they have also pointed out, as the environmental coalition group, has pointed out that there are very few, very effective enforcement mechanisms that would encourage the various departments to initiate proper assessment.
We have seen in both a question and answer, as well as in other debates, that this is a very crucial element of legislation. If it is going to have teeth then we have to see that mechanism in place. We have to be able to see it function in order to appreciate it, and the public has got to develop its confidence by seeing those elements in place.
I know that my colleague from Temiscamingue talked about the anarchy that prevails in the kind of industrial development in the sector of Quebec from where he comes. He says it would not have happened over the course of the last hundred years if we had had this.
Well, I am not sure whether he is infusing his own optimism in this, but we are certainly not going to be able to turn back the clock. The idea would be to put in place something that would ensure that under no circumstances would we have any ways out. He is from an area that is very dependent on the kind of industry that is by his own admission degrading the environment, and if he can see that what is required is some effective mechanism for ensuring that there be sustainable development, then surely he would have tried to encourage his own caucus to accept the kinds of mechanisms that needed to be put in place.
He will remember that since 1984 the courts have ruled that, whenever there have been questions on the environment, every minister and every agent of government was required-and I stress the word "required"

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
because that suggested there is not very much discretion and that there is an obligation incumbent on that office, a shall or must component-to do a full environmental assessment of any project that touches on the minister's area of responsibility. This act holds out the possibility that that might happen.
And so we collapse into a direction that suggested that we must act in a particular fashion to one where he may and we cloud that may in words that convey the impression that the minister now has greater power. But the power always seems to be discretionary and so we again collapse into the strength of the minister himself. We collapse into the strength of the political will of the government at the moment. We again collapse into whether there is an acceptance of the public input in the mechanism that appears to be put in place.
The guidelines for the environmental assessment are clearly much, much too vague and leave too much to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment and to those individual ministers who are ultimately responsible for making the final decisions regarding those environmental decisions that impact on their departments.
I have seen in the question and answer session of the last debate that the member for Skeena suggested that the committee on the environment has very fundamental suggestions to make about how to redraft. The key word was "redraft" and not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills to this bill but to alter completely the whole dimension of this bill. One only does that in the context of committee if in fact one sees great big gaping holes, whether one calls into question in fact the entire direction of the bill or the ability of the minister to deliver on what the bill purports to deliver.
I know that my colleagues will also be interested in pointing to certain projects, as my colleague for Temisca-mingue did and others have done in past. The House has debated over the course of the last week on the Rafferty Dam. But this does not specify, for example, which projects or classes of projects, which acts of Parliament or regulations, or which federal authorities will be subject to the bill. In fact, Orders in Council through cabinet will make some of these determinations after the bill is passed. There is no predetermination prior to the passage of the bill. We are going to be faced, as I think one member has indicated already, with a desire to deal
with about 100 or more federal statutes that should be coming under Bill C-78. We are dealing with only about eight of them.
We are making a big deal of it. We are making a small step and it is a big deal, because it suggests that there is a frame of mind that is going in the direction where we are finally accepting responsibilities for sustainable development. We are finally accepting responsibilities for environmental degradation, and we are going to do something about it.
If, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House, you hear criticism, it is not because we are negative, but because we want to take a reasonable initiative and make it better. What would we do to make it better? One of the things that we would like to do is make sure that we can pinpoint those departments or ministries that have to come into play.
For example, the minister and members of the government side have pointed out that we cannot apply our principles to everything. For example, we cannot apply them as well to things such as the Export Development Corporation or CIDA. We would have some obligations that extend from our understanding of the environment for us in Canada as Canadians, but understanding, as well, that environment is a global issue. We have incumbent responsibilities to ensure that the kind of principles that guide us here also guide us with our dealings with any of our partners, whether they be on a business side or through CIDA which is also business.
Just as a trite reference, for 1990-91, there is a projected budget of $399 million through the EDC and $2.1 billion under CIDA. Both of them are going to be exempt from this bill because we are waiting-and I am paraphrasing the minister and the government-until the international community comes to an agreement on whether this is acceptable or not.
If we accept the principle, certainly we ought to be able to do it on our own. We need not wait until the international community approves of something. There are certainly ways that we can influence how we as Canadians are going to have an impact on the environment. We do not have to go very far for that advice. We can go to the committee. I am going to make reference to the committee on the environment, because it has
October 22, 1990

produced an excellent interim report that I think the government has ignored, to be very kind.
One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance component of the bill certainly is very lacking. There is absolute indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of government comply, particularly when they set up their own review mechanisms.
I think all members here are very familiar with the events surrounding the Rafferty-AJameda Dam, and they need not be raised again in this debate. It certainly tells you, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems we have to address. If we cannot do it in a bill that is here before the House right now, and if we cannot sit in the committee and allow for some of these suggestions to come through as amendments and toughen up this bill, when are we going to do it?
That committee presented its interim report only on October 11. That is not a long time ago. It includes members on both sides of the House. To read the report, one would be very surprised that this would be coming from a committee that has a majority of government members.
The last three recommendations are made on page 15. The committee wants to address the concept of compliance and enforcement, eliminating the may component from the minister's power and introducing a must and shall requirement component.
For example, in recommendation 15, the committee recommends that the Minister of the Environment have the responsibility and authority to develop policies, programs and regulations that span a full range of activities of the federal government, analogous to those of the Minister of Finance for financial and economic affairs.
In a subsequent recommendation, the committee asks for the establishment of an environmental audit function to ensure that all federal departments and agencies have implemented environmental assessment processes and to monitor the effectiveness of those environmental programs. It continues with setting and attaining targets for greenhouse gas emissions, as one component of what Canada must do with respect to addressing environmental issues.
Government Orders
Finally, the seventeenth recommendation is that all federal departments and agencies report on the direct and indirect impacts of their operations on global warming and set annual targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I refer to those three because I wanted to point to a particular area that the government might have addressed in its bill. It has not done that at all. One asks oneself if the government is putting up a bill in the absence of a context that the House's committees bring forward for consideration.
The very first thing that is missing in this bill is the definition of sustainable development. Presumably, the bill is designed to ensure that we have sustainable development. Second, it shows a lack of direction. Once we have removed the purpose, we removed its sense of direction. Yet, that committee recognizes, on behalf of the government, enormous obligations for Canada.
In its report, it cites the World Resources Institute Report of 1990 that ranks Canada on a per capita basis for emissions and air pollutants at fifth, even though it has only 0.5 per cent of the population of the world. The only nations that rank ahead of Canada in terms of emitting contaminants in the air are developing countries or countries in the oil producing area.
The government's own committee says it must address some of these problems because there is an obligation. This bill does is alludes to a sense of obligation that the government refers to itself and there is a parliamentary committee that says: "Look, here we are. We have produced a document that should begin the discussions for where we ought to be going." And what are we doing? We are going into second reading.
As the member for Skeena pointed out earlier, on a question of privilege, the whole process of legislation appears to be designed to avoid very constructive implementations of amendments or redrafting by the committee before the legislation is accepted in principle and before it is passed on to the legislative committee where the process dictates that there will be few amendments that will allow the principle of the bill to be altered.
I have alluded to the fact that Canadians and parliamentarians acknowledge that they are offenders in questions of the environment. That same report talks about deforestation and what Canadians can do on

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
behalf of regenerating a very essential element of the quality of air and life that we will enjoy down the road.
Recommendation number seven recommends that the government develop policies and programs which encourage Canadian companies to commercialize and export technologies and equipment that are effective in reducing greenhouse gases and gas emissions, particularly to developing countries, and so on. We might have referred as well to the import of that technology. If we do not have it, there is no reason why we cannot import it.
I refer to an issue that was raised only last year when we had the transportation of waste oil for purposes of re-refining or for the purposes of burning. That has all been put on hold because there has been a conflict of two jurisdictions. There is no question of compliance. There does not seem to be a political will on behalf of the federal government to co-ordinate the activities of provincial and municipal jurisdictions to ensure that there be an implementation of technology.
In reference to the implementation of technology to remove one of the problems, we already have technology in this province to deal with the over 325 million litres of waste oil that comes out of automobiles and other means of transportation. That waste oil can be not necessarily re-refined, although the technology exists for that, but the technology in the province of Ontario alone can only deal with about 100 million litres.
That means that there are about 225 million litres that are left there for people to do whatever. We used to put it on country roads, but there is a system available where the CO2 emissions and other hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced to virtually zero. We do not have anything that allows any of our ministers or departments to capture that. Another one of the mandates that this committee would like to see the government engaged in is, of course, energy conservation by reducing the amount of energy products that we use, or at least making greater efficient use of it.
The technology exists. It does not exist necessarily in Canada, but there are countries that have it readily available and we should be making a concerted effort to get it.
I know I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to add a last point. We do not have sufficient amounts of money available in order to ensure that a proper environmental program be put in place.
The federal environmental assessment review office has had roughly $44 million budgeted for this year. The minister says that we could add up to $100 million. Mr. Speaker, we have to move away from "we could", "we may", and "we might", to "it is a possibility, and this is what we will do". We have to remove ourselves from assurances of the political moment to the guarantees of legislation that is going to put teeth into our principles.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speech made by the member for Eglington-Lawrence. A bill certainly cannot satisfy all our expectations, we all know that. It is impossible. My hon. friend listed, and that is his right, all the amendments, all the guidelines he would like to have inserted in the bill. That is understandable. A legislative committee will surely study all these amendments. My question for him is this: Does he not recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction, that it is very important for a country to give itself such an environmental assessment process? On the same point, I would like to remind him of what one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Davenport, said during a press conference, and I quote:

"I think that it is a good step in the right direction." [Translation]
My question is then quite simple, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask my colleague, in spite of the amendments he would like to add to this bill, if he is in favour of the bill or against it.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the hon. member for Temiscamingue because I know there is no- I don't know the French term-
October 22, 1990



There is no mischievousness in his question. Since he is talking about whether in fact we are going in the right direction, it is important to keep in mind independent studies. For example, Informetrica economist Carl So-nan in a report just last August said that in order for Canada to have a modest effort just in the area of global warming, it would cost Canada $37 billion over 10 years. I am going to give you these figures, Mr. Speaker, so that my colleague can understand the context in which we would criticize this bill. There is another $33 billion for other environmental clean-ups. The environmental clean-ups are not going to happen if we have mechanisms in place that would prohibit environmental damage and environmental degradation.
At any rate, that is roughly $70 billion over the course of 10 years. Now the five-year plan outlined by the Green Plan initially was apparently going to cost us about $5 billion. That is like $1 billion a year as opposed to the $7 billion, but the amount has now been reduced drastically. The money is going to come from cuts elsewhere. Where that elsewhere is, I really do not know. Our information, and I am trying to get the exact quote here, is that over the course of the last several months, the bill from when it was first proposed has undergone enormous revision as a result of the input of some of the heavy duty cabinet ministers around the table. Those heavy duty cabinet ministers around the table might have wanted to draw to the attention-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They are all heavy duty.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Well, the member for Etobicoke Centre is one and the other one is from Alberta. He is heavy duty enough because of his size.
Statistics Canada, for example, suggested that what we ought to do, if we are going to address this properly-and again, it is just a question of suggestion because you will have to read the statistics yourself and I address my hon. colleague through you, Mr. Speaker-is find the statistical means by which the present measure of wealth, that is the GDP, is contrasted with resultant resource depletion. I will conclude in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but rough estimates indicate that between 1984 and 1986, that is just two years, resource consumption in Canada
Government Orders
amounted to between 1.4 and 4 per cent of GNP. That is roughly about $6.9 billion to $17.9 billion.
Those figures are important because what they do is they have to translate into what else Canadians consume. For example, on the question of the environment, if we take toxic pollutants, what that does is boost health care costs and thereby GDP in that area, as it does as well on clean-up of environmental disasters. If you put it in the context of all those moneys that should be spent and are not being spent, but are actually being cut back, in the context of thinking in terms of whether we are putting in an appropriate compliance and enforcement mechanism, one has to suggest to the member for Temiscamingue that this, if it is a step in the right direction, is very likely a minute step in that direction.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with interest and I just want to make one or two points and ask a question.
First, with respect to the question of second reading, I would inform the member, because I do not think he was present in committee, that the official critic for his party did express his agreement with the bill coming back into the House for second reading. In fact, he indicated that he would be quite agreeable at seeing it have speedy second reading so it could go back to the legislative committee and witnesses could be heard, et cetera.
I would ask the hon. member if he could, on behalf of his party, indicate how much money he believes should be made available for the Green Plan. Could he indicate whether his party would advocate raising that additional money in the form of a green tax or would he suggest it be taken from some other department and in which case, from which department.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the parliamentary secretary was paying careful attention to what I said. I think I gave him at least seven figures that he might address in a context of where we would take a look at what kind of moneys have to be spent. They were independently arrived at figures. They were not the figures from this member, nor from members of this caucus. I threw them out to him to give him an indication of what independent members in the community who are interested in the environment, who are experts in the

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
environment, are making as a recommendation to the Canadian Parliament.
I did that very deliberately because I took sincerely the suggestion of the hon. member for Terrebonne suggestion that there be a great move to invite public input and to get the public engaged at every step of the way in order to ensure that Canada would be not only environmentally correct, not only environmentally safe, but it would be a beacon, a lighthouse if you will, a beacon of inspiration for all those countries that are looking for legislation that is going to correct the evils that are being perpetrated on the environment.
As for how much money will have to be there, I would have loved to have seen the member give me a response as to what the recommendation of his own Minister of Finance was around the cabinet table when the cuts went from $5 billion over five years to whatever obfuscated figure is now on the table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Terrebonne has 45 seconds.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech. He referred, and correct me if I am wrong, to the bill's effectiveness as far as projects were concerned in which Canada, through CIDA, provides assistance to foreign countries. I simply want to ask the hon. member on what grounds he says that Bill C-78, the bill before the House today, has no legislative provisions to deal with this. If you look at Section 44 of the Bill, you will see, and in any case it seems to me there are a number of provisions to deal with this. So I would like to know what grounds the hon. member has for saying that projects financed by CIDA outside the country are not subject to environmental assessment.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Certainly, I will be very, very brief. One goes on the basis of what is in the legislation, what the minister says is the intent of the legislation and how he goes about explaining what is applicable and what is not. Take a look at the ministerial statements and the press kit.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate today.
The objectives presented by Bill C-78 are of great importance to all Canadians. I wish to concentrate my remarks today on a particularly important segment of the Canadian population, namely, Canada's aboriginal people and the way in which the bill has been designed to relate to their specific needs and interests.
There have been from time to time criticisms of federal governments, including past administrations, for not giving adequate recognition to the needs, rights and interests of Canada's first nations peoples. These criticisms have been justified in large measure and it gives me great pleasure to be able to indicate to the House today the substantive advances toward that recognition made in Bill C-78.
First, I want to point out to the House the basic scope of the process established by Bill C-78. Whenever an environmental assessment is conducted in accordance with this bill, it must consider not only the effects on the biological and physical environment as represented by the water, air, land and wildlife, but also the effects of any changes to the environment on the health and socio-economic conditions of Canadians. This means that full consideration must be given, where relevant, to the effects on aboriginal people of any development initiatives for which the federal government has a decision authority.
This is a particularly relevant clause because of the great reliance of Canada's aboriginal people on Canada's natural resources. It is sad to note the extent to which these have already been depleted and degraded and the extent to which, as a consequence, the life styles of Canada's first nations people have been changed, in some case drastically and in others tragically.
We are determined to begin to turn this around and we have introduced a number of specific provisions in the bill which will have that effect. I intend to identify and explain for members the key references in the bill to the interests of aboriginal people, beginning with the definition of federal land.
The bill applies to all projects taking place on federal land. Specifically included in that definition are reserves and other lands set apart for the use of bands under the Indian Act. This means that all projects taking place on reserves are subject to the act. To the extent the Minister of Indian Affairs has decision authority over those projects, the minister must ensure that the act is re-

October 22, 1990

spected. However, because the decision regime on Indian lands is somewhat complex, special provisions have been introduced in the bill to deal with that complexity.
First, it is important to note that the act is intended to apply in various way to federal authorities. These are decision-making bodies established under federal legislation that are bound by the provisions of Bill C-78. In order to respect the autonomy and distinctiveness of band councils established under the Indian Act, they have been explicitly excluded from the definition of federal authority.
First nation self-governments will be recognized for the purposes of this legislation as distinct jurisdictions, with the same type of intergovernmental co-operative arrangements being possible as with other jurisdictions. For example, provision is made for joint public review panels to be established with bodies created under land claims agreements and self-government legislation. It should be clearly understood that this marks a significant step forward in reshaping the relationship between the government and first nations people.
I referred a few moments ago to the complexity of decision making on reserves and the need for special measures to take account of that while preserving the important principles of this bill. While reserves are designated as federal land for purposes of this bill, considerable autonomy of decision making rests with band councils. While the federal government does not want to interfere with that autonomy, it must ensure that project related decisions taken on reserves are taken with the full appreciation of the environmental consequences. The more that can be done by the band councils themselves, the better.
To enable the federal government to discharge its obligations under the proposed act for projects on Indian reserves, it is intended that provisions be made in this legislation for the establishment of a special regulatory regime to apply to projects on reserves. This will recognize the mix of federal government and local decision making taking place on reserves and place accountability where it belongs. This means that the federal government will be accountable for the requirements of this act when it makes or explicitly shares decisions for projects.
Government Orders
I want to make it clear that with respect to this special regulation, as well as for others that have been mentioned during the course of debate, the government does not expect to be taken on faith. It has made firm commitments to the principles it will follow in developing the regulations. It has made those principles public and is looking forward to being publicly and openly accountable for the effectiveness of the regulations that will ensue.
If one takes the time to look beneath the skin, one finds very quickly that the Swiss cheese referred to in flights and rhetoric by certain members opposite is in reality very solid indeed and much more reminiscent of a wholesome Canadian Cheddar; but, to be more explicit, in the context of the regulation for projects at Indian reserves I wish to set out for members the principles that have been adopted by the government to apply to that regulation.
First, all projects proposed to be carried out on lands reserved for Indians will be subjected to environmental assessment.
Second, a regulation will be developed to provide for assessment of proposed projects where first nations are the primary decision makers.
Third, the regulation will be consistent with the principle of devolution of authority to first nations and therefore accountability under these regulations will reflect the accountability outlined in the devolution instrument.
Fourth, the regulation will be developed in consultation with first nations and in accordance with the regulatory policy and citizens code of regulatory fairness.
Fifth, the regulation will be drafted in such a way as to avoid the placing of first nations at a competitive disadvantage. Sixth, the regulation will minimize duplication of process with other jurisdiction.
One of the most noteworthy parts of this list is the provision for direct consultation with Indian people in the development of the special regulation. This is the only way to produce a practicable, effective result that will have the commitment of all parties.

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
It will also enable us to recognize the differences that exist from one part of Canada to another in the way Indian people think about the environment and make their respective decisions.
The government has already begun preliminary discussions about this with representatives of first nations who have expressed satisfaction with our demonstrated commitment to effective consultation. In fact one of the practical outcomes of even this preliminary work is an environmental assessment training initiative for the first nations people so that they will have a substantive technical basis for implementing the procedures they eventually adopt.
I wish to continue to point out for members the specific references contained in Bill C-78 to the special requirements of aboriginal people. I referred earlier to the provision enabling joint reviews to be undertaken with certain aboriginal bodies. These are contained in clause 37(1) of the bill and are subject to conditions that are spelled out in clause 38.
These conditions ensure that the basic standards required to discharge federal government requirements under the law are in fact met. These are the same standards that apply to all joint reviews regardless of whether they are undertaken with the province, a foreign state, another federal body, or an aboriginal body, as I have already described.
The conditions are as follows: The minister can only establish a joint review panel if the minister is satisfied that the minister can appoint or approve the appointment of the chairperson or a co-chairperson and one or more other members of the panel; the minister may fix or approve the terms of reference for the panel; the public will be given an opportunity to participate in the assessment conducted by the panel; on completion of the assessment, the report of the panel will be submitted to the minister; and the panel's report will be published.
These are important conditions. They safeguard the key principles of the federal process but allow enough flexibility so as not to be unduly intrusive where that cannot be justified. In most instances it is anticipated that the degree of federal government involvement in the review will be commensurate with the significance of the federal involvement in the project decision; but as
always the conditions I have just described will prevail to safeguard the federal process.
A different type of interaction between processes can occur when a body established under federal law has a mandate to conduct public reviews and to consider the environmental effects of project proposals in so doing. An example of that type of body is the National Energy Board. More recently bodies established under land claims agreements have this type of authority, for these bodies when certain conditions are met may be declared by the minister to be substitutes for public reviews under the process set out in Bill C-78. This is a practical innovation which will help avoid undue regulatory duplication and confusion, without sacrificing environmental values.
The conditions that are to be met before such substitution can take effect are not only the last three of those I just described for joint reviews, but also the review body must include in its review the very comprehensive range of environmental considerations described in clause 11 of Bill C-78. This will ensure consistency and continued high standards of federal reviews.
The reference to aboriginal people in this regard lies in the fact that such substitutions can only be allowed to occur with any body established pursuant to a comprehensive land claims agreement. The environmental assessment processes established so far under the land claims agreements have been rigorous and thorough. There is every reason to believe they will deliver sound environmental decisions.
One of the most intriguing and potentially one of the most important and powerful provisions of Bill C-78 is the manner in which the trans-border provisions relate to Indian land interests. The trans-border provisions are to apply only when there is no explicit federal government decision to be taken under clause 5 of the bill in respect of the project such as those decisions which trigger the normal assessment provisions of Bill C-78. Under the trans-border provisions, the environment minister can call for a public review and can issue a stop work order for projects that may have serious transborder effects until satisfied that those effects are acceptable.
In respect of most Indian land interests the term trans-border is somewhat of a misnomer, but the same sort of principle applies as to interprovincial or international trans-border problems. It is intended that the
October 22, 1990

federal government would not involve itself in these matters if the other concerned jurisdictions are able to sort out their differences. This will probably make it certain that they will come to an accommodation, which is the best way as long as the environment is not compromised.
There are four distinct categories of aboriginal lands affected by this provision. These are: reserve lands, settlement lands set out in a comprehensive land claims agreement, lands set aside pursuant to self-government legislation, and lands in respect of which Indians have interests. These categories are quite straightforward, with the exception of the last one: lands in respect of which Indians have interests. This represents one of the most significant departures from the conventional, much criticized government view of Indian interests.
The government has taken a bold step in identifying in law the following four categories of land to which this is to apply. First, land areas subject to a comprehensive land claim accepted by the Government of Canada for negotiation under its comprehensive land claims policy; second, land identified and agreed in respect of specific claims or a treaty land entitlement; third, settlement lands in a comprehensive land claims agreement; and, fourth, lands set aside for the use of Indians pursuant to self-government legislation.
Unquestionably aboriginal people themselves, while supportive of these steps, will wish to see further explicit recognition of their rights to land use in certain circumstances. I am confident that the government will continue its discussions and investigations in this direction during the coming months.
As we can see, the relationship of this bill to the interests of aboriginal people is multifaceted and, for the first time, addressed rather boldly. We still have much to do in this area, but we are on track and confident the track will lead us to a mutually acceptable destination.
I would like to conclude by delving in somewhat more detail into the very innovative and important area of trans-border assessments, which I have just explored as it relates to the interests of first nations people. I believe members should be more aware of the detailed provisions of this key component of Bill C-78.
Government Orders
By providing for the assessment of trans-border environmental effects, Bill C-78 takes environmental assessment in Canada one giant step forward. The present guidelines order is silent on the issue of adverse environmental effects which traverse interprovincial and international borders causing harm outside the jurisdiction of their sources.
This silence produces confusion and consequently inaction. Bill C-78 ends the confusion, uncertainty, and inaction by outlining clearly the steps that might be taken in dealing with serious adverse environmental effects which cross jurisdictional borders, whether those borders are interprovincial or international or simply between lands in which Indians have interests and surrounding Crown or privately owned lands.
In each instance, before undertaking an assessment of such environmental effects, the federal government will give notice of its intention to establish a review panel to all interested parties so that they may participate in the process.
Where serious adverse environmental effects resulting from projects in Canada threaten other countries, the Minister of Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs together will establish a review panel to conduct an assessment. The review panel established will in most cases be one established jointly with the foreign country affected and any provinces affected.
In keeping with its promise made to the provinces during consultations on this proposed legislation, the federal government will not exercise its jurisdiction to establish a review panel to conduct an assessment of the serious adverse trans-border environmental effects of a project if he has reached an agreement with the governments of the affected provinces on another manner of assessing those environmental effects.
It is very likely that in most cases alternative methods of assessing extraprovincial environmental effects will be worked out between the federal and provincial governments through administrative agreements which are provided for in paragraph 54(l)(d) of the proposed legislation. In any event, the review panel established in these circumstances is likely to be a panel established jointly with the interested province or provinces.

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
However, in the hopefully rare circumstances in which agreement cannot be reached, the Minister of the Environment will be able to stop a project from proceeding until he is satisfied that any serious adverse environmental effects will be mitigated.
Section 47 of the proposed legislation creates two ministerial orders which are enforceable by way of an injunction. The first order is made at the time a review panel is established and prohibits any work on the project until the review panel completes its assessment and the minister is satisfied that the project is not likely to cause serious adverse trans-border environmental effects or that any such effects can be mitigated or are justified in the circumstances.
The second type of order is made after the review panel has submitted its report indicating that serious adverse trans-border environmental effects will be caused by the project. This order will prevent any work from occurring on the project until the minister is satisfied that the serious adverse trans-border environmental effects will be mitigated.
This government recognizes that Canadians place an extremely high value on the quality of their environment. This government has demonstrated leadership in environmental protection by enacting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1988.
Bill C-78 is a further manifestation of this government's commitment to move away from the outmoded practice of react and cure and toward the principle of anticipate and prevent. By ensuring that environmental factors are considered early in the planning process of projects, we increase the likelihood that projects will have a good record of compliance with environmental protection legislation such as CEPA.
The pay-off will be more than simply a reduction in the cost and burden of enforcing environmental protection legislation. It will be a healthier environment for all of us, our children, and their children to enjoy.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly interested in the remarks of the hon. member.
Clearly he is the designated expert on the government side in relation to the impact on first nations of Bill C-78, should it become law.
I would not agree with the member's assessment though, because we on the committee have heard the expert evidence of Ray Robinson, who is presently the chairperson and head of the FEARO operation, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. He confirmed to the committee in his recent evidence that Bill C-78, as drafted, does not go as far as the 1984 cabinet guidelines order does.
As someone from Saskatchewan, the member would be well aware of the catastrophic implications of government interpretation of the existing 1984 cabinet guidelines order in relation to the Rafferty-Alameda situation and also the Oldman dam in Alberta, the Alcan Kemano completion project in British Columbia or the Point Aconi coal thermal project in Nova Scotia.
I would like to lay to rest on the basis of expert evidence, the member's allegation that Bill C-78 goes further than the 1984 cabinet guidelines order, because probably the most expert person in Canada who could give such a view has already set that one to rest. The member has obviously researched and written a very thorough paper on the matter of first nations. He listed reserve lands, settlement land, lands affected by selfgovernment and lands in which first nations have an interest.
He went on to point out that those lands that are accepted by the Government of Canada for a comprehensive claim will be able to have an environmental assessment done once Bill C-78 becomes law. I am very interested in that from the perspective of both law, from having studied the bill, and where the member received such information. I would like to know what, in the member's view-speaking on behalf of the government-would trigger an environmental assessment into the 19 comprehensive claims accepted for negotiation in British Columbia, the eight that are being studied by the Department of Justice and the three that are on their way, let alone the 582 specific claims across Canada.
Since the member appears to be expert on this, what is it that triggers an environmental assessment into those comprehensive and specifically claimed lands?
October 22, 1990


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member opposite, as astute as his experience in the House of Commons is, would tend to indicate and recognize that I am an expert on the subject to which I have spent some time speaking.
I would like to advise the member that I am not alone in being an expert in this particular category. I believe that the interest and the intent with which the government has proceeded with respect to Bill C-78 sees the member looking at a considerable number of experts on that particular subject on this side of the floor.
Therefore, I would not only like to thank him for his specific reference but for the opportunity to be able to point out that there are many experts, particularly many people with their hearts and souls behind this bill.
I would hope that when all members consider the development of this bill, we look at it for what it can be for Canada's aboriginal peoples and not try to make it the subject of much debate, which in effect simply prolongs the opportunity for providing the benefits of this bill to Canada's aboriginal communities and as well to Canada's environment.
The hon. member makes some reference to a catastrophic situation in Saskatchewan, and I would certainly like to address that. First, I had thought that it was unlikely that the question, comments and answer period following my remarks could pass without someone making reference to the situation in Saskatchewan.
I will agree with him that it is a rather catastrophic situation, but I believe I have a different perspective of that than he does. I had hoped that the particular situation in Saskatchewan, which has absolutely nothing to do with aboriginal lands, could be set aside for a time. This is the place for a debate on that subject, but perhaps not the time.
However, because the hon. member wishes to address that particular issue today, I would be only too happy to give you my perspective of what I deem to be a catastrophic situation in Saskatchewan.
* Of course, he was referring to the Rafferty-Alameda dam.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I referred to the Rafferty-Alameda but I referred to it in
Government Orders
the preamble to a question. I am not sure whether the member wrote the speech he just gave or whether someone else did, but he made certain suggestions that once this bill becomes law those lands, which have been accepted by the Government of Canada for comprehensive negotiations, will have an EARP triggered upon them. I would like the member to be somewhat more specific and refer other members of the House and the first nations who are watching to the section of the bill to which he refers.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I would conclude that you are likely thinking, as I am, that that was no more a point of order than other things we have seen happen in another place constitutes any order at all within the elected body we represent.
I was leading up to the portion of the question to which the hon. member made reference. I was going to set aside any sarcastic references that I heard made with respect to whether or not I, in fact, had any input into the speech. Surely, I would hope that the hon. member would give me some benefit of the doubt and, in order for me to rise on this particular subject, say that I might at least have an interest.
Second, I likely did refer to some research material to put these remarks together. I am again-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I said what I said was because the hon. member read the entire speech. It is not usually the sign of someone who has prepared the speech themselves.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the gentleman's obvious physical advantage over me, being probably one foot taller and one hundreds pounds heavier, I will totally disregard the insinuation that I do not know what I am talking about, which I think is essentially the point the hon. member is trying to make.
Similarly, may I reflect upon the intelligence behind the question.
The hon. member made reference to a catastrophic situation in the preamble to a question, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to address that before I get into the final portion of his dissertation. I think I have every right to do that.
The catastrophic situation is best understood and appreciated if any member who wishes to criticize that

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
project were to spend some time in Saskatchewan and get to understand a little bit about the naturalness to which Mother Nature has said "Let the buffalo roam on the hay for which I have provided it". But, you, the individual farmer wishing to make a living there is going to have to use more than a little initiative to make things work in the semi-arid region of Canada that we know as the prairies.
Mr. Speaker, if I may continue with the catastrophic situation, subject to the amount of time that you are willing to let me have in which to conclude, is a situation that is caused to be catastrophic by the involvement with those that have political agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with the protection of the environment.
We hear such absolutely silly arguments, saying that the construction of a reservoir might affect some grasslands. Obviously we cannot flood a piece of land without affecting some grasslands and some of those grasslands happen to be wild natural pasture that happen to belong to the federal government which, according to the courts, require that the federal government necessarily bind itself to an environmental impact study. Now, for what cause? For what purpose, other than to delay the project and to embarrass governments that are associated with that particular project?
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the entire catastrophe associated with the Rafferty-Alameda project is caused by politicians, not the validity of the project, not the contribution that the water will bring to the semi-arid portion of the prairies called Saskatchewan, not the likelihood that this will provide for some irrigation spin-off, not the likelihood and the very just economic reason of providing for flood control downstream in the United States area to which these people have agreed to submit substantial millions of dollars towards the causing of that project to happen, none of those are what relate to the catastrophe. Politicians have decided that they are going to take issue because the federal government decided there was perhaps a slightly more convenient way at one stage of the process to proceed with the project. So, no, I say, Mr. Speaker. There was nothing catastrophic about this project that is caused by the project itself, but by the politicians who have their hidden agendas and wish to cause embarrassment to certain governments.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back in my speech and follow up on one of the questions that the member for Skeena put about some sections of Bill C-78 which I think are very important for us to consider, in particular when it relates to the question of first nations and aboriginal people in Canada.
I do not recall that I heard an answer from the member who just spoke. The member for Skeena posed such an important question. We did hear a lot of time being filled in, I guess, but did not hear an answer.
In any case, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-78, to legislate a federal environmental assessment process. I think it is clear today and on previous days that there has been considerable discussion about the weaknesses of this legislation and how it does not in fact result in the kind of rules and regulations governing environmental assessment that most Canadians are expecting from this government, given the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and others on their so-called Green Plan.
In fact, one of the comments that was made the other day at a news conference where one group of environmentalists gave the government an / on how it is doing on the environment, was that Bill C-78 is actually going to put in law the guidelines, which we already have. Those guidelines have become the force of law through the courts and this government has really refused to follow them.
I guess the mockery of the situation as it has developed around the Rafferty-Alameda and now the Alcan Kema-no completion project really shows how much work has yet to be done on this legislation to see that we get something with some teeth and that we can all consider and review, that companies in good faith know what the rules of the road are and that other government departments know as well.
I have a couple of comments that I would like to make on the bill and then make reference to one or two specific examples that I think really shows the confusion on the government's part in current assessment procedures and what we may have as a result of this legislation.
October 22, 1990

In Bill C-78, cabinet decisions are exempted from the legislation. The government has promised that all cabinet documents will have an environmental assessment attached but that only the summaries of these are going to be made public. We are expected to trust the cabinet to do the right thing. When it comes to this cabinet we know that we are going to have to extend that trust a long way to see that that actually happens.
The legislation is discretionary, that is, it is a step backwards from the current guidelines which were ruled as binding on the government by the Rafferty-Alameda Federal Court decision. The member for Skeena made reference to the evidence given by the current chairperson of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, the government's own employee, who suggested that Bill C-78 is actually a step backwards from the Order in Council guidelines that we are currently following.
Another important point is that some very important sections of the bill are left to regulations that have yet to be drafted. It is not even clear what federal legislation comes under the bill or what type of projects will be excluded. A perfect example of that was the questions that were just put by the member for Skeena concerning the application of this legislation to those claims that have been accepted by the Government of Canada, the comprehensive claims process that most members of this House are aware of. The member for Skeena asked the government member on the assumption that these claims and these lands fall under this legislation, what would trigger an environmental assessment review. That is not clear in this legislation. It is not pointed out at all.
I think a perfect example of the point I am making is the Alcan project in British Columbia, which will have tremendous impact on the Carrier Sikanni area. A comprehensive claim was accepted by the Government of Canada. Does that mean that already this government is not following the intent of its own legislation.
I think it is pretty clear that this legislation has a long way to go before it is going to be able to do the kind of work that we have come to expect.
There are two areas that I think point out pretty clearly to the failing of the government to respond and to act as a responsible government as it relates to environmental assessment. The first point is one that I think bears repeating. I mentioned it the other day in the
Government Orders
House, but it is an important point and shows exactly what we have come to expect.
In the forestry committee, I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Forestry an interesting question. Under the guidelines the Government of Canada, under a federally initiated program, is required to do its own internal assessment. I said to the minister: "The forest agreements are an important component of environmental and forestry legislation and programs between this government and the governments of the provinces. Do you have any initial assessments done of these agreements such that you could provide them to the committee so that we could take a look at them on the argument that an assessment here would say that these forest agreements are good for Canada."
The minister said, "No, that has not been done." That is shocking in its first statement, in any case. But he was corrected later by his officials who tugged at his sleeves said: "Mr. Minister, we actually did do an assessment." Of course, I said: "Well that's handy. I would like to see them. Could you provide the committee with these assessments? Let's see how the current Environmental Assessment Review process is being followed by this government."
It took a couple of letters from the clerk of the committee to request those assessments, and lo and behold, a couple of months later when they got around to checking through all the filing cabinets and to see if they did actually have an assessment, despite saying, yes or no, that they did, we found out it was not done. The minister was right for all the wrong reasons. It points out clearly how the government has failed since it has been in office from 1984 to see that indeed it follows these guidelines. It is a Cabinet order.
What if it had something to do with drug dealers? Would the Cabinet avoid the law, as it has with environmental assessment, if it was related to drug dealers? I think not, and I hope not. But that is an indication of just important I believe the whole environment debate has become and how important the whole question of environmental assessment has become as well.
We need to know the guideposts and the milestones so that we can pursue various projects, be they initiated by this government, joint projects initiated by the Government of Canada and the provinces, or projects initiated, of course, by various companies, local governments, what

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
have you. That is a pretty clear example of its failure on that point.
The second issue that I want to respond to has been brought up in the House in the past week by some of the comments that the hon. member for Skeena made. It has to do, of course, with the decision by the government to exempt the Alcan project in British Columbia from the environmental assessment review process. It is an interesting debate. There is a bit of a paper trail so we can follow the twists and the turns of the government on this issue.
Back on May 30, 1990, at page 12047 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Forestry about the Alcan projects and if the government would follow through on a full review as promised by the now Prime Minister in the 1984 election campaign. I do not know if that is a reflection on this particular minister, but he answered:
Of course there was an environmental assessment carried out at the time that the new arrangement was made.
We now have a decision made two Fridays ago exempting this project from the Environmental Assessment Review Process. What is it? Was there an assessment done or not? Or, is the government too afraid to proceed further with an environmental assessment because it knows a lot of the information and concerns that are now coming out would be brought to the public, it would be on oath, and it would be an opportunity for all interested parties to review this particular project.
Earlier today, the discussion in the House of Commons of June 27 was mentioned in the question of privilege raised by the member by the Speaker after Question Period today. The Speaker will be reporting back to the House on the member for Skeena's question of privilege. I would suggest a reading of the discussion in Hansard at page 13173 about commitments of the government as to whether it would proceed with any terms or changes to the environmental assessment guidelines while Bill C-78 was being discussed.
I know there will be a report back from the Speaker. But if it was not the technical word followed of the agreement made in the House, certainly the spirit of that
agreement was not followed by the government in exempting the Alcan project from the agreement made on June 27 in the House. I expect to hear exactly what that most important ruling may be. In fact, the action taken by the Minister of Fisheries two Fridays ago may be a contempt of Parliament. It may have been a contempt of an agreement made in the House that there would not be any fooling around, if you like, when Bill C-78 was being discussed.
Why is this project so particularly important? It goes back for some time. For those who were not in northern B.C. in the 1984 federal election when this issue was being debated then. I do not recall seeing the provincial Minister of the Environment, who is now criticizing the federal officials on this matter, around the campaign in 1984. At that time, a crucial decision was made. The New Democratic Party was the only party at the time that said it should have a full environmental review and it should provide funding to interveners.
There was the election victory by the Conservatives in 1984, with the blessing then of the Liberal Party which did not support funding to interveners at that time. Its position may have changed, let us hope so. It goes back to the debate about what kind of effect and impact this project is going to have on the Nechako River, flowing into the Fraser River.
I quote from a publication called British Columbia Report of June 4, 1990. It is probably not subscribed to by many New Democrats and probably not considered to be a publishing wing of the NDP research group. The title alone suggests the impact: "Alcan's gigantic private fiefdom-They're taking the river from us, bitter north-central residents charge". The article states:
The flow at Prince George will be reduced to 50 per cent of its
pre-1950 flow rate.
This is after the settlement agreement that was signed by the government a couple of years ago to the point now where we have a decision to exempt this whole agreement, this massive project from the environmental assessment review guidelines. It is a shocking condemnation of the government's attitude towards this whole project and the people of British Columbia.
October 22, 1990

I hope that when the Prime Minister is in B.C. today or tomorrow he makes an announcement and that he will not allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment to get away with this. I quote from The Vancouver Sun editorial of October 20. It is questioning that the province of B.C. should call upon the federal government to conduct a full environmental review. It states:
If, as the federal government claims, the studies carried out have satisfied all environmental concerns, then Ottawa and the company have nothing to fear from the full disclosure that's needed to reassure the public that the project poses no serious risks.
That is an important statement because it applies not just to the Alcan project but any other project. Good corporate citizens will ensure that their projects are referred to environmental assessment review procedures so that we know that the project that eventually comes out will be a better project or a fair project and will treat the area properly. Or, if it is not a good project, it will not happen.
I suggest that the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada are not sure what they have gotten into. We do have a commitment now from the provincial Minister of the Environment that, if a pulpwood agreement in the central interior of B.C. looking at the possibility of a new pulp mill in the Vanderhoof area, is issued, that in fact there will be a joint provincial major projects review process and a joint federal environmental assessment review process. Since the Minister of the Environment in British Columbia has already said there will be a joint federal-provincial assessment of this pulp mill project, we should have a commitment from the government that it will in fact participate in that review and that we will not have yet another exemption just because it is on the Nechako River. Hopefully, the residents of that area can ask some serious questions about the impact on the Nechako River and the Fraser River.
It is important that we get the Government of British Columbia there as well. By participating in this federal-provincial Alcan so-called settlement agreement exempting this from the environmental assessment review process, the government is now afraid 40 per cent of the recreational fish stock in the Nechako River will be destroyed by this project and it is going to be the taxpayers who will have to pick up the tab to rehabilitate that fishery. It is an indication of more and more information that is coming out, not just from the three or
Government Orders
four scientists who are now on the public record expressing their concerns about this project.
Clearly, we have some legislation that needs to be tightened up and strengthened. We have to take the guidelines that are there and tighten up the whole process. That will mean that we have better environmental legislation and better government so that companies know what the guideposts are and so that we can put some action and some legislation into the green plan we are expecting some time this fall from this government. It is high time they lived up to the rhetoric of the green plan it has been talking about.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you have ever had an opportunity to take a trip out along the Aviation Parkway here in Ottawa. I suspect you have and I suspect you are well aware of what a beautiful part of the Ottawa area that Aviation Parkway is.
If you have been out there in the Montreal Road area, you have seen the federal housing agency of our government. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's head office is out there in a beautiful setting. It is a park-like setting, a wildlife setting, a ravine setting, right in the middle of an urban area.
That particular location was acquired by the federal housing agency, CMHC, back in 1950. It was acquired at that time for the purpose of building, of course, a head office location for CMHC and perhaps for some other governmental uses. The intention at that time and it always has been since that time, after CMHC and other government agencies made use of the land they needed, was to dispose of any surplus land, to subdivide it and make sure it was put to good use, and to make sure it was used for affordable housing. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as I am, and as all members of the House are that good, affordable housing is something that is very badly needed.
When CMHC turned its attention, after making use of all the land in the area it needed, to what it would do with the rest of the land, it was decided that it should be devoted to housing.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is a very important piece of legislation known as Bill C-78 which is presently before the House, and there are fairly broad parameters to rules of relevance. I am not certain the member is

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
sticking to rules of relevance in relation to the Canadian environmental assessment act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sure the Minister of State (Housing) will want to address the subject matter of the bill.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the hon. member for Skeena is paying close attention to my remarks. I know he is well aware that every housing development entails a whole question of environmental assessment. I know he is well aware of that, and I cannot believe for a moment that a man like the hon. member who is concerned with the environment and environmental assessment, and who is concerned with the legislation before the House, would not for a moment be aware of the fact that all of this entails the environment and environmental assessment.
When CMHC, or for that matter any land owner, wants to build a house, wants to do anything in the way of developing housing, one of the major concerns and factors that have to be taken into account is the question of the environment and the impact of that sort of development on the environment, particularly when the land is owned by the federal government and the federal government will be doing something about developing that land for housing. Certainly the hon. member would agree that the environmental assessment legislation currently before the House is something that should be considered in a case like that. I am surprised that he would even question it for the slightest moment.
After 1950 we had a situation where CMHC developed part of this land it needed on the Aviation Parkway. Now it has turned its attention to developing the rest of it for a badly needed housing subdivision. Of course, that development impacts on the environment and we have to do something about making sure that the environment is protected. That is exactly what CMHC has tried to do with the land on the Aviation Parkway.
That land does not just impact and affect CMHC and the federal government. There are a number of other governmental bodies which also are impacted by that particular piece of land. Some of these are the Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the city of Ottawa, the city of Gloucester, and the National Capital Commission. So, there are a lot of governmental bodies involved in making decisions over what can be done with that land, whether it can be used for housing, and whether or not the whole question of the environment and an environmental assessment of that land needs to be done and what kind of an assessment needs to be done.
As a good governmental organization, the federal housing agency, CMHC, has in fact proceeded with an environmental assessment. It has retained a firm of consultants to carry out an environmental assessment of that particular piece of land for the purpose of putting together a draft plan of subdivision, which would have to be approved partly by the city of Ottawa because it is partly in the city of Ottawa, partly by the city of Gloucester because it is partly in the city of Gloucester, partly by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton because, of course, it is in the region and, of course, partly by the National Capital Commission because it is in the national capital area.
There are a lot of different bodies that are involved in this whole question of the environmental assessment of that land, if it is to be used for housing.
CMHC has retained the firm of Winters and Associates to carry out an environmental appraisal and to assess the tolerance of that particular piece of land and its environment for the purpose of developing housing on that site.
In fact, it is interesting to note that in this day and age, a careful observation is carried out on a piece of land like that by the residents in the area and by various environmental organizations, all of whom are keeping a careful eye on land such as that to make sure that there is an environmental assessment carried out and that that environmental assessment complies with all the rules and regulations that are in place.
In fact, the Ottawa Field Naturalists Club is one of those which is keeping that particular piece of property under very close observation. As one who belongs to the Field Naturalists Club of Metropolitan Toronto, I have great sympathy for the fact that it is keeping a close eye on this particular situation. In fact, it has raised with me a number of concerns about the unique qualities of that
October 22, 1990

Government Orders
particular piece of land and its concerns with respect to what will happen if that is turned into a housing project.
I think that is typical of the concerns that Canadians right across this country have with the environmental impact and environmental concerns relating to housing projects and all sorts of other kinds of projects that may be carried out by the federal government, any of the agencies or Crown corporations of the federal government or by the private sector.
I think it is particularly important that all of us bear in mind the environment when dealing with a situation like this. Fortunately, in the case of this particular piece of property, CMHC has received a report from Winters and Associates, who did this assessment, which concludes that in their opinion as professionals in this field, there are no rare and/or significant environmental features located on CMHC lands. Therefore, no special consideration is required during the construction.
That is an opinion of some professional appraisers, and it may or may not be accepted by the general public, or by environmentalist organizations such as the Ottawa-Car-leton Field Naturalists Club. That assessment and the procedure that is being followed is one that is being followed under the present guidelines and the present environmental assessment regulations that are in place as far as the federal government is concerned.
Of course, we know that as a result of at least two court decisions and concerns expressed on all sides of this House and by Canadians across the country, there is not the kind of confidence in the current rules and regulations that you and I believe Canadians should have in the environmental assessment process that is currently in place for the federal government and for federal government agencies. That is demonstrated as well, to my mind, by a recent survey that I carried out with some of my constituents. I asked them a variety of questions relating to the environment. I asked them a series of questions, eight questions in fact, and asked them to express their opinion on whether they were concerned, unconcerned or very concerned about those eight different areas of the environment. I guess I was not surprised but the results that came back to me indicated that a minimum of 55 per cent of my constituents were very concerned about every one of those environmental questions.
I think that certainly illustrates for me, and I think illustrates for all of us, the feeling that all of our constituents have, particularly these days, about the state of the environment, their concerns with the environment and their feeling that we have a responsibility on their behalf to make sure that the environment is protected and that it is cleaned up where there are pollution problems.
In the light of those concerns, and in the light of the fact that the federal government has a vast number of projects and undertakings which impact on the environment-whether it be the development of land for housing or whether it be some other projects which are intended obviously to be for the public benefit and for the public good, but at the same time intended to bear in mind the concerns which all of us have in relation to the environment-it is important to assess the bill that is before us and to bear in mind, at the same time, the progress and the path that has been taken over a number of years, not only by the present government but by past governments as well with respect to trying to deal with the assessment of projects of this sort as far as the environment is concerned.
You are aware, as I am, Mr. Speaker, that the first environmental assessment process was put in place by the Government of Canada in 1974. That was updated in 1977. In 1984 the present process was put into place. That process was the environmental assessment review process guidelines that were issued, as you will remember Mr. Speaker, by Order in Council. When CMHC or any other federal Crown corporation or any other federal department goes to proceed with one of these major undertakings, they are faced at the present time with these Order in Council guidelines that were put into place in 1984.
Those guidelines do not have the kind of teeth that we and Canadians are looking for in the year 1990. That of course is why the government has introduced the Canadian environmental assessment bill, Bill C-78, the one that we are debating at the moment.
I think it is very significant to point out the differences between that old set of guidelines and the current bill to show what the changes are that have taken place and the way in which this process is being strengthened and strengthened enormously by the bill that is before the

October 22, 1990
Government Orders
House and that is being put forth today for passage at second reading.
The first of those differences is the fact that the process we now have, the process put in place in 1984, is merely a set of guidelines that were put into place by Order in Council. What we have before us now is an actual bill, a piece of legislation that has much more in the way of teeth and much more in the way of permanency in law than an Order in Council. An Order in Council can be revoked at the snap of a finger, as you know Mr. Speaker. However here we have an act which would have to come before this Parliament again for amendment or change in any way.
At the present time under those 1984 rules and regulations that were put in place we have decisions that can be made in respect of having environmental assessments which lie strictly within the control and the jurisdiction of a minister of the particular department that is involved and is putting forward that particular public work or that particular development.
That is changed under this piece of legislation. In fact it is now the Minister of the Environment who will have the say, not the line minister, and therefore the question of the potential conflict of interest which was there when the line minister had the decision-making process as opposed to an entirely different minister will not be there. It is the exclusive responsibility of the Minister of the Environment to protect the environment. That is an enormous change. It is making sure that we do have a minister responsible exclusively for the environment who is now in charge of this whole process.
It is not something which can be decided just by the minister who wants to put forth the policy. It is not something which could just be decided by me any more. For instance, I might want to develop this piece of land. I think it is a good idea. I think it will be of great benefit to Canadians to have some more affordable housing on this land; but at the same time this bill would remove that decision-making process from me and put the environmental assessment aspect in the hands of the Minister of the Environment. That is a real advance on the process in place at the moment.
In addition, the rules and regulations of the 1984 guidelines are currently the ones that we have in place. They certainly are not clear and they are certainly
voluntary. The ones set out in this bill are going to be explicit requirements through regulations. They are not going to be voluntary any more and they are not going to be unclear.
As well it is important to remember that at the present time there is no system or process in place for an ongoing evaluation or reporting on the environmental aspects of any of these undertakings by the government, whether it be a housing development or whatever. Under the bill which we are debating today, the bill which hopefully will be in place with the help and co-operation of all members of the House on both sides, we are going to have a regular ongoing process of examination and reporting.
Under the current rules, regulations, and guidelines that are before us there is nothing in the way of mandatory requirements for environmental assessments, but under the bill before us now there will be a list of projects that will require mandatory assessments.
I have just touched on a very few of the major changes that will be brought about as a result of this bill, but as you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is a very major change, a very major improvement. The bill will strengthen the process immeasurably. It will produce a process in which you and I and all Canadians can have confidence that our environment will be taken into account and dealt with properly by the Government of Canada when it undertakes one of its many, many projects for the good of Canadians, whether it be housing or anything else.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that what we have just heard from the hon. member opposite is an example of what is wrong with the government's thinking on this issue, and what is wrong with the government's understanding of its own bill and what it is trying to perpetrate.
The minister has said that the current guideline orders are voluntary, not mandatory. I think he must be saying that in the absence of having read either of the three court decisions in the last year concerning the Oldman River dam or the Rafferty-Alameda dam, because he would know that the courts have said very clearly that it is not voluntary, that it is not discretionary, that it is required.
October 22, 1990

We put against that what this bill does in giving cabinet a great deal of discretion as to whether an environmental assessment will or will not be carried out and in giving cabinet the ability to exempt major classes of projects from any environmental assessment whatsoever. The environmental groups which have said that the court decisions put us in a stronger position vis-a-vis the environment and the requirement for a public review than this legislation are absolutely correct.
I want to go to a more specific problem that directly affects the minister's portfolio and how he is going to interpret the mandate of his department with respect to the environment and sustainable development.
Some of my colleagues have pointed out that the bill does not deal with sustainable development. It is very clear from the minister's comments that he and probably the rest of his colleagues do not understand or have not even started thinking about the whole principle of sustainable development. If the minister had done so, he would certainly not be satisfied with an assessment from any consultant that simply says there are no environmentally sensitive features on the land.
He would be asking important questions like the following ones. How much housing are we going to be developing? How much energy is it going to use? How much water is it going to pollute? How can we ensure that development on this site takes into consideration all principles of sustainable development, minimizing our use of resources, minimizing our production of wastes, and minimizing our pollution of water? Only then can he as minister of housing say that his department is truly looking at principles of sustainable development in every program it has.
We have a very good example of this in Lebreton Flats where the federal government is coming forward with plans and has paid absolutely no attention to principles of sustainable development, as I have just been discussing them.
I wonder if the minister can tell me if he is prepared to get himself a little more educated, so that when he is responsible for the development of urban areas, as he is in most cases, he will ensure that the developments that his department is funding are in fact minimizing their impact on the environment and on the use of resources.
Government Orders


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard the hon. member's question and her comments as well.
I might say my comments related to the fact that the 1984 rules and regulations or guidelines that were put in place by the former government, of which party she is a member, indeed were intended to be voluntary. Certainly there have been decisions since then of the courts and they have changed the interpretation of those guidelines, but the former Liberal government which put the 1984 guidelines in place certainly never intended them to be anything else but voluntary.
This government is introducing a piece of legislation which will change all of that once and for all, clearly set it out, and we will not have to rely on the courts to tell us that there is something firm in place there.
The hon. member has also referred to the question of sustainable development. While she has touched on two aspects of sustainable development, she has neglected the third aspect which is a very important aspect as well and one which I, the federal housing agency and my officials take very seriously and are applying in each and every case now and will be in the future.
The first is the whole question of the physical environment that is there. We have to take that into account. Also taken into account is the actual development of the housing and the economic factor. Third, taken into account in the whole area of sustainable development is the social factor and what sort of impact that has on the entire social fabric.
One of the important aspects of that is the whole question of ghettoization, the importance of making sure that we have mixed communities and that we do not create social problems by the housing developments we put in place.
Sustainable development is more than just the economy and the environment. It also entails these social aspects and the quality of life. All these are things the Government of Canada, the federal housing agency, CMHC, and I personally, are taking into account. I hope that the hon. member will have a chance to read some of the speeches that I have given in the past on the question of sustainable development. I know she will find them most interesting.

October 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can paraphrase what the minister was saying. He has indicated his concern that the 1984 cabinet guidelines order is unclear but that he believes the regulations to be included in Bill C-78 will clear that up.
I am sure the member is aware of the problems surrounding the Rafferty-Alameda, the conflict between the federal and provincial governments on the Oldman River dam, as well as in relation to Alcan's Kemano completion project in British Columbia that was exempted from the existing guidelines by Order in Council.
The member has stated for the record that he believes that one of the problems with the existing 1984 cabinet guidelines order is that it is unclear. He also suggests that there should be a clearly understood mandatory list where environmental assessments are applied automatically. Would the member not agree that those three projects-the Rafferty-Alameda, the Oldman River dam project and the Kemano completion project-are precisely the kinds of projects that should undergo a full public environmental assessment?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and comments with respect to this bill. They indicate that he shares my concern and the government's concern to put this piece of legislation into place as rapidly as we possibly can.
The old 1984 guidelines were full of flaws and problems. They were certainly unclear. They were intended to be merely voluntary guidelines and nothing else. This piece of legislation will clearly change all that. It will be a change for the better, a great improvement.
I know the hon. member agrees with that and I know the hon. member will want to urge his colleagues to pass this legislation very quickly. He has about one minute left this evening. I would suggest that we allow this bill to pass on second reading unanimously right now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, on October 2, 1990, I directed a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the imposing of GST on children's clothing, boots, and on the heat that keeps them alive in the winter. I had a very unsatisfactory answer to my question.
On September 30, 1990, our Prime Minister was addressing the United Nations, some 70 leaders, regarding child poverty in the world.
I was very pleased to see the Prime Minister taking a leadership role outside our country with regard to children. I think that it is extremely important that we think of our children because our children are our future. However, I would certainly much prefer to see him take a leadership role here in Canada with regard to our children.
When we talk about our children and the GST, we must realize that this tax will, for the first time, impose a federal sales tax on children's clothing. Anyone who has raised a family, who has had children in this country, knows how difficult it is to keep a child adequately dressed for winter conditions. One cannot say: "He will be fine," or "She will be fine". We know they grow very quickly. In the wintertime they need skidoo suits, boots, mitts, gloves, and hats. Children being children, they grow. They outgrow these things. They lose their mitts. They lose their hats. So the parents have go out and buy more. All of this now will be taxed.
We also know that one-third of all of our children in Canada live in poverty. You will say to me, Mr. Speaker: "We have this tax credit, this wonderful tax credit". Let me begin to tell you that this will not come close to
October 22, 1990

helping these people when they have to suffer the nefarious results of this tax on their livelihood. It may help some of the poorer people. These people are already having a very difficult time. They are going to have an even harder time.
Let us speak about our middle income people with families. We are going to be discriminating against them. Again they are going to have to suffer and pay this extra money because they have children. We should be helping them, not hindering them.
We talk in terms of heating our homes. We know how difficult, how large and how cold many of the regions of our country are. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever been cold in the winter time, but it is not funny and especially when you are a little child. How can this government be imposing a tax on heating, on the fuel to heat our homes, for these families with children, these poor families, these middle income families. It is as vital to our life here in Canada as food. Yet this government persists in imposing this tax.
Now we have the crisis in the gulf. This will escalate inflation. It will escalate the cost of heating our homes. Again the tax will come on top of this.
I wanted the government to take note of how difficult life is for families, for just average families, as well as poor families. Can the government please reconsider its tax on some of these items? It is not fair to say to the future generations: "We are going to give you a few dollars today so we can help you out". This tax is extremely regressive. It is extremely regressive because of the size of our countiy.
The parents of a child who live in the far north of our country will have to pay far more for that piece of clothing. By the way, there is no manufacturers' sales tax on clothing right now. There may be minute taxes buried somewhere here and there, but there is no real manufacturers' sales tax on clothing. In any event, added to the cost of manufacturing that piece of clothing will be the cost of shipping it to wherever this child or this family lives. The further away it is, the more costly it is. Add to it the cost of transportation now the escalation in the cost of fuel. Again the cost of this skidoo suit, the hat, or the mitts will be even higher. The farther away one moves from the major centres, the more costly it is going to be.
When we speak about how regressive this goods and services tax is, that is what we mean. We mean that they
Adjournment Debate
are going to cause even more difficulty for those people in those areas that are far away from the major centres, those same areas that have the longest winters and the longest nights, where hydro or light is essential. It is essential if these children want to learn, to go to school, because without light they cannot read.
This brings me to another topic concerning the GST which is to be applied on reading materials. Again we are going to be taxing learning. How do we expect to have another generation of people who can know more and can compete in the world around us. We have said it and this government has said it: training and retraining is the answer. Yet we are going to tax the very books by which they will learn.
It is absolutely incredible that this government persists in imposing this tax at this time when businesses are closing down, when people are losing their jobs, and when fuel costs are escalating.
I beg this government to reconsider, to wait a little while perhaps. If it must have this tax, it should at least wait until this recession slows down and the economy of the country is in a better condition to withstand the harshness of this tax.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury is asking the government to drop the GST. What the hon. member did not say is that her leader, who recently was obliged to declare his position because he is now running in a by-election in New Brunswick, said that he did not know what kind of tax it might be but did not dismiss the possibility that he might keep the GST in its present form, because he realizes that the only way to a fairer tax system is to introduce the goods and services tax.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the situation of poor children in Canada is dramatic. We have been saying this for a long time. It is absolutely incredible. The gap between rich and poor is widening, and obviously we must do something about it. What we can do, as a responsible government, is to take the money from income tax and other taxes and redistribute it to Canadians who need it most.
The hon. member forgot to mention that when we came to power in 1984, we found a horrific debt which is now taking on gigantic proportions. Everyone agrees that

October 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
we must pay off the federal debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker, just imagine all the money we are spending just to pay the interest on the interest on our debt. If we had only 50 per cent of that money to hand out to poor children, I think there would be fewer, if any, poor children left.
We must get at the root of the problem. As I see it, if we go on, it will get even worse, because we will have no money to redistribute.
In her question to the Prime Minister on October 2, she mentioned the world summit on children's rights. I think it was the first time the United Nations, in fact the first time ever that a children's summit was held and an international declaration was drafted on the survival, protection and development of children, with a corresponding plan of action. We are committed to putting in place a national action program to help children. Mr. Speaker, I think much remains to be done. This is one of the issues I am very much concerned about. There are children who are mistreated, but there is also the very distressing question of child sexual abuse. And now, for the first time, there will be a national office to co-ordinate the activities of all federal departments with a mandate in this area, and I think that is a good sign. We need the help of all parties in this House to find long-term solutions. Mr. Speaker, in concluding I think the hon. member will agree that the best way to find those solutions is to get the money, from income tax and other taxes, and redistribute it to the poor children of this country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have participated in the late show, so correct me if I get off track here.
My purpose in speaking this evening concerns a question that I put to the Minister of Finance on Friday, September 28.1 asked him why he continued to say that business in this country was basically supportive of the goods and services tax when, in fact, over 90 per cent of the business in this country is opposed to the GST. I was kind of wondering why he kept saying this when it was a fallacy.
The second part of my question was: In light of this current economy, why would he be proceeding with the goods and services tax when the sectors of our business community such as construction, retail and tourism were the sectors that were hardest hit by the GST?
Of course, in his second answer, the Minister of Finance talked about some visitor that he had to his office. He was nowhere near the answer to the question.
I put this question to the Minister of Finance because I am hearing day in and day out, not just from my own constituents, the small businesses in my community, the butchers, the bakers, over 300 restaurants in Broadview-Greenwood, small and medium manufacturers, that at this point in our economy, we do not need another tax.
When even the largest supporter of business, the group that represents the largest 150 corporations in Canada, the Business Council on National Issues, presented its submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, in the initial pages of the representation, Mr. D'Aquino said that by international standards, we already impose a heavy income tax burden on our citizens.
In 1987, almost 40 per cent of all tax revenues raised in Canada came from personal income tax. This was higher than any any of the G-7 countries.
What we have today is a system in our country. The Minister of Finance is really misreading this whole tax problem. The GST has really become the lightning rod, but the real problem is that our fundamental Canadian Income Tax Act with its regulations comprises a document of almost 15,000 pages, rules, regulations, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions. Most honest tax lawyers and tax accounts who represent these businesses will admit to you that it has gone beyond control.
They no longer understand what is going on in this tax act. So, the Minister of Finance, in the middle of a recession is not only ignoring the fact that the fundamental tax act is wrong, he comes along and adds the GST, a goods and services tax which also has all kinds of rules, regulations and exceptions. People are going out of their minds with complication.
In his answer to me, he said-I give him credit for this-that there are elements of the GST that some parts of the business community do not like. That does not, in any way, take away from the importance to the business community and to the economy of Canada for

getting on with what is widely regarded internationally as one of the best things we can do to improve the competitive position in our economy.
I have been listening. This is something that the Minister of Finance really does not want to participate in, which is primarily what a member of Parliament's responsibility is supposed to be. We are agents of our constituents here. We are supposed to be listening to them.
Do you think I would be standing here talking about this if my constituents were not really delivering me a message? The secret to world class competitiveness is to treat people fairly.
How can you motivate people? How can you change the attitude on the shop floor and in the executive office if there is a feeling of unfairness and the basic system is unfair?
Mr. Speaker, what I am telling you is that phase one of this government's tax reform has not been done. Phase two, which is the GST, is not fair, and this unfairness is a disincentive to productivity, the productivity that the minister hopes we can get in this country.
The minister continually says that there are no alternatives. Professor Brooks has put forward an alternative. You know that I have worked hard with many people across the country on the single tax, which is a much more simple, fair, efficient and workable system which will bring the government the same amount of revenue.
There is also a system from the University of Toronto called the alternatives to the goods and services tax. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish and I plead through you to the Minister of Finance that when he stands up to answer questions in the House that he stop following that line, what is the line we are going to put out, and really try to deal directly with the questions put to him.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to hear my colleague on the other side of the House say that his constituents do not understand and do not
Adjournment Debate
accept the GST. Mr. Speaker, I should think that the first responsibility of a member is indeed to explain to the people the nature of the legislation adopted by the House of Commons. And if the constituents of my colleague do not understand the GST, his duty is to explain it to them, not to criticize it. In response to my colleague's arguments concerning Canadian companies, here is what Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association Vice-President Steve Snyder had to say, and I quote:
The Canadian appliance industry believes that the GST will go a long way towards increasing fairness in the sales tax system.
Stephen Baker, Chairman of the Committee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Canadian Gift and Tableware Association stated, and I quote:
Our association supports the GST because it feels that during the 90s and at the beginning of the next century the GST will lighten the tax load of the manufacturing sector and spread it more equitably among all sectors of the Canadian economy.
Here is another statement, this time from Canadian Manufacturers' Association Vice-President Jim Wright:
CMA officials have been advocating a reform of the sales tax for over 35 years, and they are quite pleased that their proposition has finally been acted on.
For his part, CMA President Laurent Thibault stated:
As you will see for yourself the comments we have had indicate that most of our members support the goods and services tax.
And this from Strong Equipment Corp. President Jordan Sullivan:
The industry is in favour of the GST [-]
Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc. Controller Charles England put it this way:
The new tax will solve that problem because we will no longer have to determine whether a product is taxable. Collecting the sales tax will be simplified.
Stelco Inc. President Frederick Telmer said this:
The new goods and services tax-applicable to consumer goods rather than income-is a worthwhile measure.
And from WCI Industries Ltd. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bill Lutton:
WCI Canada management endorse the tax because we believe the new tax is a positive measure which will make the sales tax system fairer and more readily understandable.

Adjournment Debate
In New Brunswick, Maritime Beverages Ltd. Manager Marvin Corscadden sees it this way:
The GST seems to be more advantageous than we first thought.
Another opinion, this one from steelmaker IPSCO Inc.:
Without the federal sales tax a good many IPSCO customers will be more competitive and, by the same token, find it a lot easier to market their products.
Finally, a word from the Canadian Construction Association:
The GST will lower prices in the non-residential construction
sector.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but instead allow me to give my colleague a list of people and Canadian industries that support and understand the GST.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 23, 1990