1990-12-14

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are three report stage motions in amendment to Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Motions Nos. 1 and 3 are in order and will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2 is out of order. It seeks to introduce provisions requiring a widespread disclosure of information and even distributing criminal sanctions against defaulters. It is well beyond the scope of this bill and the Chair cannot permit the motion to come before the House. In this regard, I will refer hon. members to Citation 778 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.

I will now put motion No. 1 to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-63 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to
33 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"facilitate elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination throughout Canada by the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise in order to contribute to racial harmony in Canada by."
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that at least two of the proposed amendments were accepted. I hope they will be acceptable to the government as well.
Motion No. 1 has to do with the very purpose of this Canadian Race Relations Foundation. It is something that we debated very extensively in committee. Indeed, there were many witnesses, including the Japanese Canadian Association and if I recall correctly, the Congress of Black Women were particularly adamant that in the purposes of this bill there must be specific reference to the main purpose of establishing this foundation, which is to eliminate racism in Canada and all forms of racial discrimination throughout Canada.
I know from discussion in committee and from the minister's response that this certainly was the intent, but in the present wording of the purposes and goals, it is far too wishy-washy, if I may use that expression, and refers just to the development, sharing and application of knowledge of expertise. We are very much afraid if this is not spelled out more specifically as the purpose being to eliminate racism that we will have a foundation that is largely a rather passive research institution, an academic kind of institution. That is not what people are asking for.
We have had an escalation of racism in Canada, I regret to say. We have really a very serious situation. This foundation is one of the most important steps of the government and it is a considerable investment hopefully to have a strong movement to make changes in Canada. Therefore, Motion No. 1 is an amendment to add the

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
phrase that the purpose of the institution is to "facilitate elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination throughout Canada-" I hope very much that the government will accept this amendment.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take a moment and thank the members of the legislative committee for their very dedicated efforts. Certainly they have brought forward on behalf of the many witnesses who appeared some very constructive suggestions that I believe and know have strengthened the bill.
My own impression is that this particular motion really adds nothing further to what we already have. Indeed, trying to contribute to racial harmony in Canada already causes some new discussion and new dilemma. As far as I am concerned, I am thankful that we did hear all the witnesses, that we did work very closely together, members on all sides of this House, in strengthening the bill.
However, I do not feel that this adds anything and, therefore, cannot accept this suggestion. I heard the member say that she is very pleased with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and would hope that that would indicate that we could see an early approval, so that we can get on and actually have the foundation in place in Toronto and begin to do the work it was intended to do.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as a member on the committee, I thank the minister for his acknowledgement of some serious work done by committee members.
One of the elements of that serious work is reflected in this motion. Not only is it important for this Parliament to consider the principle of the bill itself but to provide the kinds of directions and purposes that give focus to the activity of the foundation.
Otherwise it will be a foundation in name only, in generic, philosophical principles that no one can dispute. However, in terms of its practicability and its ability to deliver something to Canadians, it will be absolutely worthless.
This motion addresses itself to the intention to provide some direction, to provide some purpose, and to give a sense of meaning to some of the work that must be done.
We must keep in mind that none of that is going to be of enormous weight, inasmuch as the operations of the foundation will be generally funded by a fund of $24 million. If we also keep in mind that fund managers tell us that we can draw a maximum of 5 per cent from such fund in order to maintain the fund, quite frankly we are going to be providing very little toward the elimination of discrimination and racial discrimination, unless we put in the bill something specific that gives direction both to the board of directors and to the executive director.
Unfortunately the minister has to note, even in trying to promote racial harmony and racial co-operation in this country, that there seems to be a resistance. However, this Parliament owes it to all Canadians to be much stronger than that resistance, that reaction to initiatives that are positive and worth while for all Canadians.
We support this motion. It enhances the bill and gives it that purpose which it sorely lacks.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Ms. Mitchell) negatived.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-63 be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 37 at
page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"siders appropriate, subject to the approval of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship of the House of Commons."
She said: Mr. Speaker, before I go into the details of this amendment, I would just like to qualify one of the comments that was made by the minister.
While I think it is extremely important, and so does my party, to have a race relations foundation, we want a race relations foundation that has real meaning and is not just something that is going to rubber stamp for the government and be a forum of political recognition or political appointments to the board and so on.

We are not supporting this race relations foundation as the government has proposed it. We have worked very hard, along with the other opposition party and along with witnesses, to try to get major changes. I am very disturbed that the minister refused Motion No. 1, which we have just been debating.
Motion No. 3 in my view is not nearly comprehensive enough to make the major change that is needed in the structure of this foundation. We tried in committee to persuade the minister, as did witnesses, that this new foundation must operate as a step detached from government. It must be a separate agency. It must be able at times to criticize government and certainly to press the government to make administrative and legislative changes that are necessary to help in the elimination of racism in Canada.
In committee we proposed that there be a more independent board, rather than a board appointed by the minister, in other words political appointees he would choose, with some consultation with groups, but groups of his choosing. We have seen that he has very strong likes and dislikes in groups that come to him about ethnocultural matters.
We have proposed that there should be an independent board and that nominees for that board should come from the whole community of ethnocultural groups and groups concerned with race relations and intercultural relations.
We asked that there be a procedure-and I think it would be an important model for other similar kinds of institutions-for these communities of organizations to put forward nominations for board members, and that the minister then take these nominations and present them to cabinet. In this way it would be far more democratic and we would ensure much greater credibility of the board of directors.
The minister refused this request in committee and he also refused to change the method of appointment of the executive director of the new foundation. It seems incredible that a board of directors of an agency, in this case the Race Relations Foundation, would not have the power to choose and hire its executive director, the senior staff person who would be carrying out its policy. That is exactly what has happened. The minister again
Government Orders
refused to change the act. Under the present act, the executive director is appointed by cabinet. He or she will not be hired by the board of directors. Again it will be a political appointment recommended by the minister and appointed by cabinet.
This is a ridiculous way for what should be an independent organization to operate. It only says to us that the minister does not want this foundation to be independent, that he wants to keep it under his control. Certainly most of the witnesses who appeared at committee objected very strongly to that.
Indeed I was speaking just last week to representatives of the National Council of Japanese Canadians who were the instigators of this foundation. It was part of the redress settlement for Japanese Canadians who suffered many injustices during World War II. They felt very strongly also that this foundation should be independent of government and therefore should have a board that is not simply a board of political appointees.
As I say, the minister turned down this request in committee. We were very serious in trying to approach this in a non-partisan way, because we really want this foundation to work in an effective way. Since he turned it down and since we cannot reintroduce that motion in the House today, Motion No. 3 is somewhat of a compromise.
We appeal again to the minister to give more credibility to this board. He may not intend to make it a vehicle for political appointments, but that is the perception that will be out there. That is the danger in the present structure.
In order to have a monitoring effect, we are proposing in Motion No. 3 that Bill C-63 be amended to state that the minister's recommendations and the proposed appointments by cabinet should be subject to the approval of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship of the House of Commons. Granted, it is dominated by government members, if it ever meets, which I regret to say it has not been doing. Certainly this would give cause for it to meet. It is dominated by government members, but it would give an all-party group the power, in co-operation perhaps with community groups, to take a look at who the minister is nominating. It would give far more credibility to the nominees who are being proposed.

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
I would strongly recommend that the minister accept this proposed motion.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member of the other opposition party who can never remember my party's name. It happens to be the party that led most of the opposition to this bill. That party is the Liberal Party, and we have two questions about this motion.

The motion should address itself, in its intent, to the function of committee. In our legislative committee we tried to point out that there is a very important component of this foundation which should call into question the viability of parliamentary committees. If we are to establish a foundation with a board of directors solely responsible to the Governor General in Council and an executive director with only one source of responsibility and accountability, that is to the Governor General in Council again, it calls into question the credibility and legitimacy of all of the operations of such a foundation.
By suggesting that perhaps that accountability should also be transferred over to a standing committee of the House of Commons, we would then have access to a direct pipeline to the deliberations of this Parliament, both to sensitize Parliament and to return to the intentions with respect to that foundation.
One of the most important questions is: How do we finance some of the philosophies the minister says this foundation addresses? It might be instructive to point out to everyone here, even my colleague in the other opposition party-


An hon. member:: The real opposition.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That which is dormant, yes, I agree.
For example, while we are applying some moneys to this foundation to the tune of $24 million, $12 million of which is coming from the Japanese Redress Foundation, we are taking away some moneys from heritage language studies. Those are activities which enhance the co-ordination, integration and harmonization of peoples in our country.
What did they do? They attacked a very viable and very effective method of creating racial and social harmony in this country, for example, one that served in the city of Toronto alone 100,000 young boys and girls. It addressed a total of 1,000 teachers on those subjects. It leveraged other activities in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and other areas around the country. They took away $16 million to do what? They will finance something such as this, at a time when all heritage language-type programs together, in total, are exactly .015 per cent of government finances or government expenditures. That is one and a half hundredths of 1 per cent. Now they are going to establish a foundation, and its board of directors and executive director will have only one source of accountability, and that is to the Governor General in Council.
Canadians need to be empowered. They need to have an understanding that their voices are heard. They need to know that the moneys they put toward the financing of this country serve their needs and their interests. We cannot do it by separating the function of the board, the executive director, from the people itself.
This motion deserves some support. We are happy to give it, even though it comes from a dormant third party.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the hon. member's suggestion with respect to this motion.
This motion calls for substantial change in established practice. Since 1985 all Governor in Council appointments are open to review by a standing committee of Parliament, which can call for review of any Governor in Council appointment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the CRTC appointments?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Listen, you might learn something; for once.
This motion contradicts the principle of ministerial accountability for Governor in Council appointments. These are serious machinery of government issues. This motion would change established practice by making the Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and


Citizenship ultimately responsible for appointments to the foundation. We therefore reject the motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion negatived, on division.
Motion negatived.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that the report stage of Bill C-63 be concurred in, as amended.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do I have the consent of the House for the bill to be read the third time?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to begin third reading debate on Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
This legislation articulates more than the technical workings of a government initiative. It expresses our national commitment to multiculturalism and to greater cross-cultural understanding among Canadians.
We are a people unlike any other. We inhabit an immense land, one-sixteenth of the earth's terrain. As vast and as limitless as our land is the diversity of the Canadian people. But it is not our diversity alone that makes us unique. It is our ability to recognize and even
Government Orders
welcome our different cultures and backgrounds. It is our belief that in this vast territory of ours there is enough room for everyone.
We have declared Canada to be a multicultural nation and in so doing we have helped to define the Canadian identity itself. Multiculturalism is at the heart of who we are. It represents a confident vision of ourselves and of our future together. It is a progressive force in the ongoing process of building a strong, dynamic and unified country.
That is the essential message of multiculturalism today: unity within our diversity, political unity within our cultural diversity.
The true source of our unity resides in the thoughts and beliefs of the Canadian people, in the honourable and timeless ideals that have guided our development and shaped the lives of every Canadian, past and present. It is difficult to pin down and express the values that have inspired Canadians through the generations. But they are reflected in the kind of society we have created for ourselves; our democratic way of life that encourages a plurality of views and perceptions; our judicial system where equality and justice are a promise made to every Canadian man and woman; our social system that seeks to assist the disadvantaged in our society; our belief in the free enterprise system as a means of achieving national prosperity.
These are some of the values that set us apart. They are the foundation of our hope for Canada and for our future together. All of us want a better life for our children and for our children's children. We all want to build safer communities free from social problems like family violence and drug abuse. Each of us has a vested interest in ensuring that our health care, our educational system and our economy are prepared to meet today's challenges.
The finest hope that we can have for our country is that it will support and lead the human struggle for equality; that all our citizens will have the opportunity to lead productive lives, free from the destructive forces of racism and racial discrimination.
Will that day come? We know it will not come as the result of a single initiative or one sweeping act of Parliament. It is the sum total of our actions as Canadians that will allow us to move forward and to achieve our ideals.

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
Today in this House I believe that we are making progress towards that goal. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is a foundation for and about people. It represents a significant development in Canada's evolution as a multicultural nation.
As the legislation outlines, the foundation will promote the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise that will contribute to eliminating racism and all forms of racial discrimination across Canada. That is a challenging mandate, but one for which Canadians recognize the need.
The legislative committee on Bill C-63, which listened to a broad range of groups, institutions and individuals, concluded that there is widespread support for the establishment of the foundation.
I want to take this opportunity to again thank members of the legislative committee, whose efforts have brought us to where we are today. I know there are other members in this House who have contributed in a positive way to this bill. To them, I express my thanks also.
We must continue to match goodwill with action. Within Canada today there is a growing need for reliable research and new race relations resources. The race relations foundation will meet that need. The best expertise in the country will be used and developed by the foundation, along with a comprehensive information bank, accessible to all Canadians.
The foundation will be of direct benefit to people working on the front lines. It will serve community groups, policy makers, business and labour organizations, researchers, private and public institutions, as well as interested Canadians.
By using the foundation's research and services, the initiative of educators, advocates, managers and decision-makers will be more focused and effective.
It will be a valuable resource for government also, by providing informed and objective information on race relations issues.

The foundation is not intended to replace special interest community groups and organizations or to impinge on their legitimate role in defending human rights.
Although the foundation will be based in Toronto, its mandate as the Canadian Race Relations Foundation will be national in scope. The legislation provides that the foundation and its services will be open to all Canadians.

The foundation will be a sound investment in our future. As such, it must start operating with a solid funding base.
The federal government is establishing an endowment fund of $24 million. Half of that amount will be contributed on behalf of the Japanese Canadian community, in commemoration of the injustices suffered by Japanese Canadians during and after the Second World War.
The foundation will also be incorporated federally as a charitable organization, in order to enhance its fundraising potential.
The over-all responsibility of the foundation is one shared by all Canadians, to overcome racism and racial discrimination in our midst. The foundation will provide a national focus for this effort. By gathering expertise and knowledge from across the country, we will be able to share and use all existing Canadian expertise. In this way, we will be able to find creative solutions to the problem of racism.
The race relations foundation is an expression of the hope and determination of Canadians to realize a multicultural vision for this country. It is a symbol of our unity of purpose and of our shared citizenship values.
Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court that upholds the constitutionality of the Criminal Code's anti-hate law can only serve to underline further both the importance of that vision and the work this foundation will undertake.
We know this foundation will not create magical solutions. It will not solve the problem of racism and racial discrimination in Canada, but it will contribute to our efforts to find new answers. It will be good for Canada.
Hon. members, I ask for your continued support in the passage of Bill C-63. If our work in establishing this foundation unlocks even one door, if it improves the life of even one Canadian who would have otherwise known

only discrimination, then it will surely have been worth all the effort.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister with great interest. I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to say a few words on Bill C-63.
It is veiy important that a foundation such as this be set up. We on this side are in agreement with the principle of this bill. We do, however, have certain concerns about the implementation and the ability of the foundation to function given the constraints of the bill.
Canada is a rapidly growing country. We are opening our doors to more immigration. The Minister of Employment and Immigration announced that we are almost doubling the number of immigrants we admitted in the past. We are attracting immigrants from a different source than in the past. In the 1960s and 1970s, immigrants from Europe were attracted to Canada. We are now attracting immigrants from Third World countries such as Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and South America.
The new visible minorities coming here are more prone to abuse from mainstream every-day Canadians. It is not unusual when walking down the main streets of Canada to hear slogans and slurs aimed at these minorities, often by community members. It is very important that we reach out and teach Canadians that as we progress to the year 2000 we need to be tolerant of each other.
As we grow more tolerant of each other, we will learn to live with each other. It is very important that this foundation function, but as it will not have a free hand and will be very closely tied to the government, I have doubts about its ability to function. Yes, it is there on paper and, yes, it will function, but will it support the new immigrants? Will it enhance their everyday life? I feel the constraints imposed on this foundation might not allow it to fulfil its objective.
The problems we have are many. First, I have a problem believing that the same government which decimates the heritage language program, which was designed to promote harmony and unity within Canada by allowing Canadians to learn the languages and cultures of various homelands, and then says that it wishes to do the same thing with a foundation that is not
Government Orders
mandated to even come close to offering the same service.
As my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence said, the heritage languages funding from this government is very minimal, yet we have a minister who says: "No more. We are going to do away with it". What is the signal it sends out to the ethnic communities of this country? Does it send a signal that it is supporting their work? Does it send a signal that yes, we want to promote race relations? No, Mr. Speaker, it sends quite the opposite. It sends a signal out that it would like them to come to Canada, it would like them to bring their different heritages, but it does not support them.
The minister was brave enough to stand up and respond to the pressure from his colleagues, the backbenchers of the Conservative Party, who are feeling pressure from some of their constituents, especially the backbenchers from the west. We can see clearly that the pressure comes from the new party, the Reform Party, whose platform is more or less based on white supremacy in Canada. So the members of the Conservative Party who are trying to hold on to their seats in the west forced the minister to take such an position, which was a great change.
Second, I believe that the level of funding for this foundation is so low as to be laughable, $24 million. That is not even a drop in the bucket. What is $24 million going to contribute to such a foundation?
I see the minister is nodding and I thank him for agreeing with me.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Look at the money the guys at Harbour-front are getting in that sweetheart deal.


Jim Karygiannis: There you go. My hon. colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence refers to the sweetheart deal in Harbourfront.
It is very laughable to think that $24 million is going to be entrenched in order for us to project in the year 2000, in order for us to say to the new minorities that are coming to Canada: "We are going to have harmony. We are going to have equality. We are going to be tolerant of each other".
This $24 million is so laughable, it is incredible. I see the minister nodding his head and I want to thank him for agreeing with me, but that is not enough. I would have foreseen perhaps twice or three times the amount. The government that is spending money left, right, and

Government Orders
centre so carelessly could have found it in its heart to allow a few more bucks.
It is very important that we have a budget which is operational. Its yearly operating budget will probably be less than $3 million. Out of this will come the salaries and expenses of the staff. I see the minister nodding his head. He knows what it is like to fly in a director from one coast to another. Five to ten trips a year, and the money is gone. Then there are the rents in downtown Toronto where the minister is proposing to put this foundation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Put it in Winnipeg.


Jim Karygiannis: The critic from the dormant third party says to put it in Winnipeg. I would like to point out that the hotbed of ethnic relations and newcomers is mostly in Montreal and Toronto.
It will be in Toronto, which is in the central part of Canada. I want to congratulate the minister for choosing my home town. It will serve the western part of the country: Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg. It will also act as a liaison to the east. Toronto is going to be the hotbed of race relations to come.
However, it is limiting because of the funds. It is a small drop in the bucket and it will not be able to function. By the time one picks up the phone to call Vancouver, with a three-hour time difference, at the peak time, the funds will be gone. When all the expenses are taken out, the money that will be left over for the program and core funding will be such a small amount as to make the entire foundation a useless shell. I find this totally unacceptable.
I see the minister nodding his head that we need more money. It is interesting that the minister is in the House and he agrees with that. I know that even as members of Parliament we have such constraints running within budget that sometimes we do have a separate office, beside the constituency office, in order to operate. Some members or some ministers might.
I also have the problem with the interference that the minister responsible would be able to cause in the running of the foundation. Clause 15(3) states that the deputy to the minister be advised of all meetings and shall be able to attend all meetings of the board. Also, Clause 5(1) of the bill states that the foundation must undertake to conduct research studies, reports and other documents that the minister requests. I question this. The minister has a department. He can do all these
things through them. Why would we tell the foundation to do extra? Is it that we want to use it for other things? Is it that we want to use it to promote the governing party? Is it that we want to use it for political hand-outs? We have seen the government clearly use foundations and hand-out contracts.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the Liberals?


Jim Karygiannis: It is interesting that the NDP talks about the Liberals. May I point out to the NDP that, in Ontario when it was just elected, Bob White flew right into the Skydome. Before you start talking about the Liberals and what the Liberals did, look in your own back yard.
These clauses give the minister a great impact on the direction taken by this organization and could lead to it becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece for government policy. It could lead to the assumption that the foundation is more of a political organization than one of a proactive association for the needs of the furtherance of race relations.
This is very important as we head into the 21st century. As we are inviting more groups of visible minorities to come to Canada, it is important that this foundation is allowed to function properly. With $24 million, it is going to be nothing but a tokenship of "we have it here, we are trying to bring everybody together". I see the minister nodding his head that he agrees with me that, first, this will not be acceptable. Second, it will not be able to work. Third, we will need more funding.
It is also interesting to note that the minister said it is a charitable organization and can also fund raise. Are we going to try to use the $3 million that we will have yearly in order to raise funds and send out letters? Or, are we going to give it a real mandate and say: "You can work. You can do what you were set out to do"? If that is the case, then we need more funds for this. We need more funds in order to make it a viable tool to bring all the races right across the country together.
There are countries where the groups within it, the same countrymen, cannot live with each other. I would like to point out that we can learn lessons from Pakistan. In Pakistan, there is an Islamic republic in which there are three different sects of Islam, two being the Sunnis and the Ahmadis. The Sunnis outlawed the Ahmadis, telling them that they are not Muslims, that they cannot
December 14, 1990

walk the streets and say greetings in the Islamic religion. If they do, they will be put in jail.
This foundation, I hope, will act as a means and a tool for those people from different lands who come over bringing hatred with them. From Sri Lanka, there are the Tamils and the Sinhalese. From Pakistan, there are the Ahmadis and the Sunnis. From many other countries there are different divisions. From India, there are the Hindus and the Sikhs. When they come here, they tend to bring their conflicts to this country.
This foundation will also have to act as a means and a vehicle for the hatreds that are brought over to be forgotten. It is very important when we come to Canada that, first and foremost, we pay allegiance to this country. Second, we must educate those people who are coming over to live in this country that we must live in harmony.
The funds that are available will not allow the foundation do that. The funds that are available for this foundation will act only as a means and a vehicle for the government of the day to put out its policies. It will act only as a vehicle for the government of the day, which today is formed by the Conservative Party, to place into position people who are supporting it. Probably, it will put as president of the foundation somebody who raised funds for the government. We saw clearly what happened in the other place.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Not another Tory hack.


Jim Karygiannis: My hon. colleague from Eglinton- Lawrence says: "Not another Tory hack".
We saw clearly what happened in the Senate. The Speaker of the other place was promoted and put there by the government. What did he do? He more or less closed debate. We have the GST that passed through.
I say to the minister across the way, and I hope that he takes this to heart, that all the appointments that will be made will be very neutral. I cannot tell if the minister is agreeable to carry it through or not. The government will probably appoint another Tory hack which is incredible.
Government Orders
I remember the Prime Minister saying, in 1984: "We are going to place every living, breathing Tory". We are going to have another Tory appointment to this board. We realize that the Tories did such a bad job with multiculturalism that now they are trying to come back and do a little bit of vote-buying. Well, it ain't going to work.
We have seen in the recent past a great rise in the number of racially-motivated attacks on ethnic minorities in Canada, a trend which will only increase unless the government takes seriously the impact that the large influx of new Canadians is having upon Canadian society.
We know that this proposal would act only as a shell. It will be nothing but a big bag of wind.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate at third reading Bill C-63, an act to establish a race relations foundation in Canada. I expect that we will finish third reading today and that this bill will, very shortly, go into law and, hopefully, the foundation will be established in the very near future.
However, as I have said many times, I truly and very sincerely regret that we did not have acceptance from the government, particularly from the minister, to strengthen this bill. We tried very hard in the spirit of non-partisanship to propose positive amendments which would have helped to strengthen this bill and, specifically, would have made it very clear at the outset that this foundation has as its major purpose the elimination of racial discrimination and racism.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Unfortunately, there were many, many, more who wanted to appear but we did not have agreement with government members to hear more than 10 witnesses. They were from across Canada, but there were many others. I apologize to people who would have liked to have appeared that there was not the opportunity for them to do so. We do thank them, and we thank them for their submission as well.
The establishment of a race relations foundation is a very important component of the redress settlement which was a government commitment to Canadians of Japanese origin who suffered from racial discrimination and displacement during World War II. I would like to

join today with my colleagues in paying tribute to these Canadians and to the elders who are no longer with us who suffered so much during this period in our history.
I know that most Canadians feel that this was a very disgraceful period and I commend the government for achieving redress. It helps all of us to wipe out some of the shame of the injustices that Japanese Canadians suffered. They were Canadians, many of them bom here in Canada. I pay tribute to these Canadians and particularly to the Japanese Canadian Citizens Association. By having this redress and by putting the facts into the history of Canada, our children will leam about these injustices. They will also leam that as Canadians we condemn these injustices and we put our money where our mouths are, through redress.
One of the results, of course, of the redress is the fact that half of the $24 million which is committed as capital for the foundation came from the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, the holiday season is around the comer, and soon we will be starting a new year, full fo hope and promise.
I want to take this opportunity to wish all Canadians, my colleagues and especially my constituents, a Christmas full of peace and love. May the New Year bring you health and happiness and may you succeed in every endeavour.
During this time of family celebrations it is good to renew the bonds of friendship that the current pace of modem life prevents us from savouring as often as we would like.
I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to get together with your relatives and friends, so that you will be able to start the new year, with fresh reserves of energy and optimism.
Personally, I shall continue to defend the interests of my constituents and to consider it a privilege to represent them here in Ottawa.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, due to this government's lack of funding, CBC has been forced to use its dwindling resources to produce only news and information, eliminating all extra activities. Unfortunately, this includes such extra activities as telethons.
The lack of support that this government has provided to CBC has placed in jeopardy the future of the Izaak Walton Killam Hospital for Sick Children's telethon.
The IWK Hospital for Sick Children is the only paediatric hospital that serves Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The loss of this telethon will be devastating for the service that this hospital provides to the maritimes as it raised $3.5 million last year.
This government's lack of support for CBC is having deep-reaching effects in our communities across the country. I call on the government to look into this matter to ensure that these telethons will not become another victim of this government's cutbacks.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the National Transportation Agency of Canada announced on December 5 that a refusal by Ontario Express to transport Mr. William Hoch because of his disability
December 14, 1990

constituted undue interference with his ability to travel. The complainant, a paraplegic, was denied access to the aircraft, a Jetstream 31, because he was unable to get on the plane without assistance.
In September 1990, the NTA ordered the carrier to make its airline accessible to disabled persons. In response to this order, as of November 26, 1990, Partenaire canadien agreed to drop its policy of denying access to certain disabled individuals, thus making its airline accessible to all.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, events in the Persian Gulf are diverting world attention away from major famines looming in Africa.
This week the United Nations confirmed what relief and development NGOs have been saying for some time, that over 10 million people face imminent starvation in Africa. At least 5 million people face starvation in Sudan alone. The food and agricultural organizations say that a major and immediate relief effort is required to avert large-scale food shortages and human suffering in the coming months.
The FAO is calling for $1.3 million tonnes of food aid if disaster is to be avoided in the Sudan. In West Africa, countless continue to die from hunger and lack of medical attention as the result of the bloody civil war which has torn Liberia apart. Again, the UN and other agencies indicated this week that food and medicine are needed immediately if a disaster is to be avoided. These are only two of the distressed areas in Africa.
I call upon the government to take immediate steps to provide additional emergency aid to those parts of Africa where lives are in serious risk.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, Focus on Inputs is an association of some 10,000 prairie farmers who seek to reduce agricultural input costs. These farmers through Focus on Inputs are contributing over $1 million of their own
funds to establish a pilot plant to determine if generic glyphosate, a herbicide, can be made economically on the prairies.
Western Economic Diversification yesterday announced a repayable contribution of $750,000 to assist Focus on Inputs with this pilot project which fits in well with the objectives of Western Economic Diversification by encouraging new production and import replacement.
If the production of generic low-cost glyphosate is feasible in western Canada and leads to a commercial scale operation there would be significant benefits to farmers and prairie agriculture through reduced input costs, increased chem fallow and soil conservation practices and better weed control.
We salute Focus on Inputs and Western Economic Diversification for getting together in partnership on this veiy important project for the betterment of western agriculture.


JUSTICE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak of a travesty of justice. I speak of the plight of David Milgaard who has spent the last 21 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. Yet for the last two years the Department of Justice has been sitting on an application to reopen his case.
The facts are overwhelming. One of the main witnesses now admits that he had lied at the trial. Dr. Ferris, a well-known forensic pathologist, has stated: "I have no reasonable doubt that the evidence presented at the trial failed to link David Milgaard with the offence and that in fact could be reasonably considered to exclude him from being the perpetrator of the murder". Investigators have also identified the person who is most likely the true killer.
But rather than review these conclusive reports, rather than appreciate the agony and trauma of the Milgaard family, the Minister of Justice has refused to act.
I am sure the House will join me in asking the minister to reopen the case. Too many years have been wasted and a human life irreparably affected. The time to act is now.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1990
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have here a copy of a letter dated December 6 written by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and addressed to Ms. Joy Langan, MP for Mission-Coquitlam, regarding the statement made by the member for Mission-Coquitlam on December 6 which included the following:
Across the country are those who would like to deny the reality of violence against women. The Speaker of the legislature in Alberta refused to allow any remembrance of the event. He said it would not be an appropriate observation for the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.
I go on to quote:
Unfortunately this statement is not only totally untrue and misleading but also contains selective references from a memorandum of mine to a member of the Alberta Legislature for Edmonton Avonmore, Marie Laing, released without my knowledge and consent.
Ms. Langan had requested that 14 roses be placed in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta by way of remembrance. Both correspondence from Ms. Langan and the Speaker were sent to Joy Langan so that she would not in fact take any comments out of context.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. I apologize.


CANONIZATION OF MARGUERITE DWOUVILLE
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, there was great rejoicing in many churches throughout the world last Sunday and perhaps particularly in many cities, towns, and villages in Canada, and certainly in the federal constituency of St. Boniface, as Sister Marguerite d'Youville was canonized by Pope John Paul II.
Let me quote a short excerpt from His Holiness' remarks on this historical event:
For the first time in history a woman of Canadian birth is inscribed among the Saints whom the church has raised to the glory of the altar.

Although we are all very proud of the fact that this brand new saint is a Canadian, we are especially proud of her accomplishments. She founded the Congregation of the Sisters of Charity, later known as the Grey Nuns.
From the outset, the Grey Nuns looked after the needs of the poor, providing shelter, food, and clothing, and cared for the sick and handicapped. This excellent work continues today in such places as St. Boniface, where the Grey Nuns are still involved in the St. Boniface Hospital which they founded.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Vancouver East.


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, we applaud yesterday's decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which overturned the Alberta Court of Appeal's ruling in the Keegstra case. Canadians value freedom of speech but do not want our society poisoned by hatred and racism. The court confirmed this by deciding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not allow the right to promote hatred against identifiable groups of Canadians.
Some suggest that minorities may be hurt more than others by this decision, but no one has the right to promote hatred. Lawyer Doug Christie's statement that western Canadians have a different view of free speech is particularly offensive. The court decision clears the way for a similar decision in the New Brunswick Malcolm Ross case.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Now the government must demonstrate its commitment to eliminate racism by strengthening hate propaganda to prohibit distribution of racist paraphernalia by enforcing mandatory affirmative action in the Multiculturalism Act. It must provide adequate funding for the Human Rights Commission and must make the elimination of racism a primary goal of the new race relations foundation.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, finally, after 50 years of discussion but inaction, Canadians are going to have a federal sales tax system that will no longer be outdated, inefficient, unfair, and unreliable.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Out with the MST and in with the GST. Why will the GST be good for Canadians? The GST will replace a tax system that is estimated to lose annually $9 billion in revenue and jobs for Canadians. The GST will stop penalizing our Canadian manufacturers, which, under the present system, have been at a competitive disadvantage in world markets as exporters and importers. The GST will be fairer than the current system because it provides refundable tax credits for low and modest-income Canadians.
The 8.7 million families and individuals earning less than $30,000 annually will benefit because they will receive a credit cheque four times a year.
By next week the first cheques will be sent to those 8.7 million families and individuals before the GST goes into effect on January 1, 1990.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry. The hon. member's time has expired.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, I am here to tell you about the GST that stole Christmas. In fact, the tax man cometh.
The greatest parliamentary fraud in the history of Canada was perpetrated on the taxpayers last night. The second greatest fraud is that Canadians are going to save money as a result of this initiative.
Let's look at one specific area, the brewing industry. One would argue that since the FST is gone, we should save money in that particular area. Not only has the federal government slapped a 45 per cent increase on excise taxes, the effect of the GST on beer will mean an increase of 73 per cent in federal government revenues across this country.
In one week, I have collected 600 signatures from my riding. I can tell you that Canadians do not want a 76 per cent increase in federal taxes on beer. If that is the kind of savings that Michael Wilson is bragging about, I say to Michael Wilson and the GST, a pox on both your houses.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, the federal government places a high priority on our agricultural food industry.
Since 1984 the federal government has spent $22 billion in support of the Canadian agriculture industry. As well, on November 23 Agriculture Canada tabled supplementary estimates seeking parliamentary approval for $316 million for the fiscal year 1990-91 to assist farmers hard hit by depressed commodity prices and dwindling markets.
Farmers, as well as consumers, realize that the future of the agri-food industry may rest on the success of the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments on the GRIP and NISA proposals, the long-term safety net insurance and stabilization programs. This government's record clearly demonstrates our commitment to the farming community and its future economic success



Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians I want to thank my Liberal colleagues in the other place for fighting the good fight against the GST.
They and they alone stood in the Senate against this government, clearly out of control and out of touch with Canadians, and stood to fight on behalf of 80 per cent of Canadians who oppose the GST.
They alone fought for the protection of our parliamentary rules and traditions as the Conservatives chose to trample over the rights of parliamentarians and the laws of this country in a desperate attempt to save a dying agenda.
To the Liberal senators, we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, now that the cruel, brutal, mean, unfair and disastrous goods and services tax is a reality, let all Canadians know that

Oral Questions
such is the case because the Conservatives introduced the legislation and the Liberal senators allowed it to become a reality.
The Liberals in the Senate had the majority and could have defeated the GST when leave was sought to introduce the GST, when the vote was taken at first reading stage, and when the vote occurred at second reading.
The Liberals also had the majority and could have defeated the GST when it was in committee during April, May, June, July, August, September, and October.
Madam Speaker, let all Canadians know that if the GST is a reality today, it is because the Conservatives forced the legislation through the House of Commons and the Liberals allowed it to pass in the Senate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Last night, in a flagrant violation of parliamentary procedure, the artificial Conservative majority in the Senate forced though the GST, the most unpopular, the most unwanted tax in Canadian history.
Speaking about the GST, the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: "It is going to be extremely messy".
Given the views of so many business people, given the views of the overwhelming majority of Canadians who say they do not want this tax, I ask the government if it will take this one last chance, listen to reason, and not have the GST given Royal Assent today so that it will not be imposed on the backs of Canadians.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told this House that at that time there were over 900,000 businesses that had registered and prepared for an implementation date on January 1.1 am glad to announce today that, as we sit here in this Chamber, we are quickly approaching the 1 million mark of registrants in the business community.
We have systems and technology in place to be able to go through and process all the forthcoming registrations. We expect between 1.2 million and 1.4 million businesses to register at the end of the day.
Revenue Canada has been preparing, at the advice of the Auditor General, for the last 18 months precisely for this period of time. As of this morning in a press conference I made it very clear that we intend not to work against members of the business community who have not yet registered, but with them by providing them with the tools, by providing them the information, by providing them the necessary assistance to make it as smooth and as easy for the change from the federal sales tax to the GST on January 1.
Therefore there is no question in our minds that the GST is to go ahead on January 1 in relatively as smooth a fashion as possible.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, Canadian business people and Canadians generally simply do not believe this minister and this government.
Tbday, Statistics Canada reported that the rate of inflation is 5 per cent. This government has said that its GST will add 1.3 percentage points to the rate of inflation, an increase of more than 20 per cent above the current rate.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Will the government assure Canadians that it will not respond to the inflation caused by its own GST by having interest rates go up? If this happens it will push the economy even further into recession than it is already.
Better still, will the government take this one last chance, listen to reason and not have the GST given Royal Assent, so it will not come into force at all? Will it take this one last opportunity to show it has the interest of Canadians at heart?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that the CPI rose to 5 per sent in November. It is up from 4.8 per cent in October. If we were to exclude food and energy-and energy is the major factor-we would be at 4.2 per cent in November, virtually the same as October at 4.3 per cent. It is indeed going up and, as we have said, it is very important to contain these inflationary pressures. This is what we are trying to do. The GST, as we have agreed, will of course cause a one-time
December 14, 1990

increase of 1.25 per cent or 1.5 per cent over a period of time. The governor of the bank has indicated that in his mind this could easily be fitted in.
It is a one-time increase, but we have to maintain the discipline at the same time and make sure that these pressures go down. We have been successful. We saw the bank rate go down this week by 15 basis points, basically two points over the last four months. We are heading in the right direction.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board speaks about a one-time increase in inflation. If this government were serious about inflation, it would agree with me when I say that this one-time increase due to the GST is one time too many and not talk about discipline, which is a hidden signal that this government wants interest rates to go up again.

Mr. Speaker, if the government will not come to its senses and prevent the GST from receiving Royal Assent today, when will the minister at least table the amendments the government is suggesting to lessen the impact of this tax? More specifically, when does he intend to lessen the impact of this tax by exempting books and periodicals?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has covered a great deal of ground with his question. I suppose if I took the trouble to respond to every single point, hon. members would think I was taking far too long.
He says that we want interest rates to go up. That is entirely false. We want interest rates to go down. This is necessary and essential for our industry, for our economy and for all Canadians. We want interest rates to go down but we also want them to stay down. With an overly generous money supply policy, inflation might resume, and in fact today, according to the latest reports, the Consumer Price Index has gone up from 4.8 per cent to 5 per cent. So we must maintain a policy of consistently and constantly monitoring these movements.
As for the GST, the Leader of the Opposition refers only to certain aspects. In fact, he zeroed in on one particular aspect. However, the GST will also have
Oral Questions
extremely positive effects on the economy, something the opposition has never acknowledged, which includes removing the burden of a disastrous tax that has prevented our small businesses from being competitive.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This morning in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans abdicated his responsibility for the fisheries in Canada. He ignored the Harris report and the Dunn report which called for cuts in total allowable catch to conserve and preserve fish stocks for future generations. He set a three-year quota that is too high. He ignored the total collapse of the cod stock in the gulf region. He indicated absolutely nothing would be done to stop the continued overfishing by European fleets off Canada's 200-mile limit.
I want to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Given that cuts are continuing in Canada, given that thousands of fishermen and plant workers are being displaced by low catches, stocks that are absolutely shattered, why is Canada accepting the fact that the Europeans who caught 70,000 metric tonnes of fish last year, far too much fish, are announcing that they are going to catch 70,000 metric tonnes this year in the face of our conservation measures? Will the minister redirect some of his Rambo-like tendencies to the Europeans and save our fish?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we do not accept that practice by the Europeans, not at all. We are very disappointed at the recommendations of quota levels that have come from the technical committee of the community, and it is coming before commissioners of the European Community.
We are intervening with those commissioners directly to indicate to them that not only would those higher quotas recommended by the committee not be in the interests of fishing anywhere because of their effects upon depleting stocks, but neither would they be consistent with the tone of the discussions that have occurred

December 14, 1990
Oral Questions
between Canadian ministers and representatives of the European Community over the last several months.
We are making those representations now, and we hope to be able to have some success in causing the European Community to recognize that not only do they have a bilateral obligation to Canada, they have an overriding obligation to ensure that their practices do not destroy basic fish stocks which are of fundamental importance to us, and indeed of interest to them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, in the last six years thousands of fishing families have been displaced. Thousands of fishing families have had their livelihood, their homes, and their communities shattered. For six years we have heard the same buzz words: disappointed, intervening, can't understand it, nasty, naughty tone, diplomacy. For six years nothing has happened.
Whether or not the destruction of the cod stocks on the east coast of Canada is a national issue, it is a question of Canadian sovereignty and is in the national interest. Will the nation respond to preserve the fishing communities of eastern Canada and respond now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, of course it is a national responsibility and a matter of profound national concern.
The member asked me a question as to whether it is a matter of national concern. I told him it was. He then said the answer to the specific question he asked is something he knows already. If he knows it already, why does he detain the House of Commons asking questions, the answers to which he already knows?


Brian Vincent Tobin: What are you going to do, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to what we are going to continue to do, I have just told the hon. member who is perhaps more interested in making a dramatic Rambo-like case on the floor of the House than he is in having a resolution to this problem-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have just told the him that what we are going to do is make it very clear to the commissioners of the European Community that the recommendations they have received with respect to quotas are not acceptable to Canada and are not consistent with the representations that they have given to us in meetings between Canadian ministers and commissioners of the European Community.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Once again we have seen the inflation rate go up. Consumers are now going to be hit with a 7 per cent tax on everything from books to funerals to hamburgers, whatever Canadians are going to buy or whatever service they are going to get, because this government insisted on ramming through a tax at the worst time in our economic history caused by policies of this government.
What the government has said is that the inflation rate will go up by 1.3 per cent. The minister said that this can be fitted in. Other economists say the inflation will go up from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. What this government's economic policies have done is create over a million unemployed in this country.
When will the government bring in some economic policies that will really address this difficult situation and get Canadians back to work instead of destroying the economy?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, from time to time we hear in this House very conflicting views. When we explain to the hon. Leader of the NDP that interest rates are high because there are inflationary pressures, she rushes to tell us that it is not the case. When they are there, she wants us to reverse our policy.
We are intending to maintain the course of a sound economic policy because it has worked in the past. We are the party that has provided the highest rate of growth of jobs in Canada ever. We intend to continue this road of prosperity once we have settled the problem that
December 14, 1990

arises from a transition to record growth from slower growth. We are doing that now, and I think that it is working. Interest rates are coming down, and I think this will help everybody.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the minister about contradictory messages. On the one hand, the government stands day after day and says that its main goal is to fight inflation. It has to keep those interest rates high that are killing businesses, killing farmers, making it impossible for consumers to buy anything. The government says: "Our main task is to fight inflation". Today it is asking for Royal Assent on a measure to ram through the GST, which is going to add to inflation, and it expects Canadians to buy it. Canadians are not stupid, Madam Speaker. The government also said that the manufacturers' sales tax was a silent killer of jobs. It seems to me the government has put the most noisy killer of jobs in place, the trade deal and the GST.
I want to ask the government how many more jobs does Canada have to lose before this government comes to its senses?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, one of the very great qualities of the GST is precisely that it helps businesses and helps create jobs. The hon. member does not seem to understand that we have presently built into the cost of all our products in Canada a very destructive tax, the federal sales tax, which makes it so that a huge country like Canada, with a small population, which needs to export more than anybody else, is the only clumsy country that maintains this system. We are changing it to allow all of our businesses and our companies to compete, both at home and outside. This is a modem reform and this is the bill which will receive Royal sanction today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I presume that this is the same modem reform that has cost 165,000 Canadians their jobs since the trade deal came in.

Madam Speaker, hundreds of thousands of businesses did not register for the GST; hundreds of thousands of businesses did not buy the material they need to comply
Oral Questions
with the Bill. Business is not ready and neither is the government. The government is still working on the regulations concerning the GST.
There is confusion everywhere. My question is this: What will the government do to put an end to that confusion?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, if there is any confusion anywhere, it is between the ears of the hon. member who just asked the question. I repeat what I said in answer to an earlier question, and that is that close to one million businesses have already registered and prepared.
Let me quote a Deloitte-Touche independent study done on the retail sector over a month ago. The majority of the retail sector is comprised of small businesses. According to the independent Deloitte-Touche study, 60 per cent supported the GST in the retail sector, 89 per cent understood the legislation and 82 per cent had prepared, at that time, for the implementation of the GST on January 1.
It is true that there are still between 100,000 to 300,000 businesses which have yet to register. We have an outreach program, a pro-active program, that is reaching out to those businesses in a fair, tolerant and co-operative manner. We will be working, not against those businesses but beside them, to make the system as easy, as beneficial, and as simple for them to comply with as possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. minister will have other occasions to answer the same question.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it follows along the line of questioning of my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, to which the minister said that we are going to do nothing more than we have done, for the last six years, and that is whining and complaining to the Europeans. When is the government going to show some guts? When is it going to impose Canadian quotas that adequately reflect conservation measures? When is it going to follow the advice of its own officials and set

December 14, 1990
Oral Questions
Canadian quotas that are meaningful, to preserve the most important resource that we have?
Second, when are we going to show some guts with the Europeans? If the minister wants to know what to do, he should answer this question: why does the minister not now unilaterally extend jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, because we are the only coastal state in the world that does not have jurisdiction to the end of our continental shelf? Will the minister do that?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, as you know and as my colleagues know, the minister is in the maritimes today to announce the new multi-year program which will set the levels of ground-fish that will be harvested in the region. The minister has struck-I think he is announcing it even as we speak-a balance that is responsible and proper considering the conservation needs and the economic imperatives in the region.
The minister will be back in the House on Monday to answer all of the questions on the details of the plan that he has announced.


Bill Rompkey: My supplementary, Madam Speaker, is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There is one member of cabinet who has some compassion, some knowledge and some understanding in this House.
I want to ask her this. The question is veiy clear. The Government of Canada allows Europeans to overfish the cod stocks. The Europeans are allowed to fish outside the 200-mile limit and inside the 200-mile limit. The Government of Canada refuses, on the other hand, to give native co-ops and aboriginal people on the coast of Labrador access to northern cod in spite of the fact that the minister's own industrial adjustment committee recommended that this is the only alternative to preserve the jobs in those plants. Will the minister demand of the Minister of Fisheries that he accede to the recommendation of her own industrial adjustment committee and allocate a supply of northern cod to native aboriginal co-ops on the coast of Labrador? Will she do that?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, certainly the report
from the IAS committee on the coastal problems in Labrador is something that we take very seriously in our department. We are always careful to accommodate the recommendations as far as we can.
I have been working closely with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a package of measures that we hope will help people on the coast of Newfoundland and in other areas. I am always prepared to discuss with him potential solutions that are raised by the hon. member and I am certainly prepared to do so again.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I am hoping that she has something new to report today in the David Milgaard case. This case has been dragging on and on and on. People are frustrated, nerves are on edge. I do not know whether the minister is aware of it, but Milgaard himself is taking it very hard. He has spent many days in recent weeks in prison hospital.
Is the minister aware of this? Is she aware of the frustration? I want to know whether the Minister of Justice can give us a report today.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, no I cannot.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I am veiy disappointed. It is typical of this minister's stonewalling. I want to make it very clear to this House. This minister has said over and over that if the Milgaard family would only stop giving new information and new arguments, her department could come to a decision. She knows very well that the Milgaard family has not provided any new information, any new arguments since summer. She does not have an excuse. It is time for her to make a decision.
I want to know from this minister. Give us a commitment, give us a promise as to when she is going to face her responsibility and make a decision.


A. Kim Campbell: I take my responsibilities to review cases under section 690 of the Criminal Code with great seriousness.


John Harvard: How many years?


A. Kim Campbell: The hon. member knows that I have never made the statement that he attributes to me.


John Harvard: You have made it many times.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Harvard: You are the minister of excuses.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member was offered the courtesy of being listened to. I would say that the hon. minister deserves the same. The hon. minister has the floor.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have never made the statements the hon. member attributes to me, on the contrary. First of all I have never made reference to information put forward by the Milgaard family. I have referred to Mr. Milgaard's counsel who has carried the case.
I have indicated on a number of occasions in this House that I am not prepared to see the case dealt with until Mr. Milgaard's counsel has, in fact, had the opportunity to bring forward as many submissions as he wishes to.
Over and over in this House, I have said that that is the policy of the department. I am advised by Mr. Milgaard's counsel that they have completed their submissions. The last interaction between Mr. Milgaard's counsel and the Department of Justice was a discussion on October 1 of this year.
The case is complex, and the advisory process is continuing. When it is complete, I will exercise my very serious responsibility under section 690 of the Criminal Code and make a decision based on the highest principles of justice and fairness.
I believe that is what I owe to all parties concerned, and most particularly to the system of justice in Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, last week the CBC shut down its local broad-
Oral Questions
casting in Windsor. This week, as this memo from the Ontario Minister of the Environment indicates, CBC staff is discussing moving PCBs from Toronto to store at that Windsor TV site.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Will he see to it that the Windsor TV is not turned into a PCB storage site at the very time the community is working as hard as it possibly can to get government to recognize the need for local broadcasting once more in our community?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well our commitment to eliminate all federal controlled PCBs by 1996. I will be happy to look into this specific case and give him a very specific answer in the next few days.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, this is a case of adding dangerous insult to the massive injury which has already taken place in my community.
What I want to suggest to the minister is that this memo says very clearly that complaints have already been made. "The Windsor office of Environment Ontario was told by Environment Canada that any requests for improvements to the site would not be enforced. They laughed at us".
I want to ask the Minister of the Environment how he can possibly justify an attitude like that on the part of the federal Ministry of the Environment to complaints, concerns and statements that have been made by the provincial ministry of the environment in my city of Windsor? What is he going to do to protect our TV station for the future?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, perhaps with a little less emotion, I would like to answer my colleague and say that I have already undertaken to look into this specific case very directly and answer him.
If he has any written material that I would benefit from, I would appreciate getting it from him.

December 14, 1990
Oral Questions PENSIONS


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Today, a group of former wives of armed forces personnel gave up on getting any justice out of this government. They are going to court to stop the injustice of military spouses of 30 to 35 years getting no pension at all and even being deemed to be dead, thereby denying them a pension.
Is taking the government to court the only way these women can get justice? Is this the only way they can get the government to admit that separated women are not dead?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would tell the hon. member that this is a question that we are presently looking at.
We are looking at it very actively. We are working on the over-all problem of superannuation. These aspects are also included in it, and I am sure that fairly soon we will be able to report to her about it.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, five years ago the government forced private pension plans to conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it refuses the same justice for its own employees.
Thousands of women live in poverty because since 1984 the government has sat on this legislation and given Treasury Board absolute discretion over whether or not women get a pension.
Will the minister stop this farce now and, with the full and speedy co-operation of the Liberal Party, will he bring in a bill that gives fair pensions to these women in time for Christmas?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the hon. lady has raised a very serious issue and she knows that this government cares about that. She knows that I care about that and I am working on a particular government action with regard to this.
Since I have arrived at Treasury Board, I have made many gestures to indicate to her that I usually deliver on what I promise. I will come forward with some plan of action from the government on that particular aspect fairly soon, in the new year.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Revenue.
On October 29,1 asked the minister about his department's practice of reassessing the disability deduction of disabled Canadians. Not only are these disabled Canadians being told they no longer apply for the disability deduction, but the government is asking them to repay the amounts they have already been granted, plus interest. Surely, the minister has to agree that this is a barbaric practice. I have written to the minister and have talked to him about this.
Can the minister now tell us what he is going to do to stop this vicious practice against disabled Canadians?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is true that the hon. member and I have had discussions on this matter. It is true, as well, that I have looked into the matter and have asked my officials to study it as clearly as they possibly could.
It is also true, to confirm what I told the hon. member on the floor of the House last month, I believe, that the policy, in as far as Revenue Canada is concerned in this respect, has not changed from the previous policy which even the former government, of which he was a member, operated under at that time. It is the same policy today as it was in the past.
Having said that, we are in the process of reviewing the situation to try to see how more compassionate we can be with the reassessment procedure because we want to take every possible step and effort to be as fair and compassionate with disabled people as with any other Canadians across the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, with due respect to the minister, there

have been changes in this practice. The department is canceling this disability deduction without even giving these people the benefit of the medical examination.
Surely the minister can also see the stress that he is causing to these people with disabilities when they have to worry about paying this money back to the government, money which the government had approved to them in the first place.
Why is the government persecuting these people? These people deserve to be treated as more than just a file.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I do not accept for a moment that we are persecuting these people or any other people across the country through the tax system.
It is also not correct on the hon. member's part to say that there are no medical examinations in the reassessment. In fact, there are medical examinations that take place by professional MDs, approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As a result of the hon. member bringing this matter to my attention, previously and today, I repeat what I have just finished saying. That is, I have directed my officials to look into the situation to try to improve a system that has been place for a very long time, even under the leadership of the government which the hon. member represented.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Minister of Finance, who knows that medical services are exempt under the GST, but that medical practitioners have to pay GST on approximately half of their business input costs. Under the GST, medical practitioners are not able to claim a rebate of those input costs, nor in most cases are they able to pass on the incremental costs.
Now that the nonsense in the other place is over, will the minister examine this situation and will he consider reviewing it insofar as to allow medical practitioners to claim a rebate of the tax paid on the input costs in their medical practices?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would like to remind him and the House that physicians currently pay a very substantial amount of direct federal sales tax on office equipment and supplies, such as computers, office furniture, medical equipment and telecommunication services. These taxes will be removed.
The government's objective in developing its policy in the health care field was to ensure that Canadians do not pay GST on basic medical services. This objective is met in Bill C-62. There is no GST on services of physicians, hospital care, and prescribed medical devices. So, they will not pay GST on their inputs, as they are presently paying the FST now.


THE SENATE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question concluded with an interesting concept that suggested that the nonsense was over in the other place.
My supplementary question is this: Will the government, now that the GST is through, finally bring in a motion to finally abolish the Senate?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose part of the question, Madam Speaker, is whether, with the best will in the world, one can protect the Senate against the grotesque behaviour by some of its members, particularly on the Liberal side last night.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister-in-waiting.
The current office-holder of the Prime Minister's Office made the statement three years ago that there would be massive adjustments available to those who lost jobs through the free trade agreement. He then appointed the deGrandpre commission that recommended a $3 billion budget be established for readjustment payments and training for those workers.

Oral Questions
One hundred and sixty-five thousand workers have lost their jobs. They are now facing a very bleak Christmas. Three years have gone by.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell me what the government intends to do to make good the promise that the Prime Minister made to provide retraining and assistance to those people who were replaced in those jobs?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I am amazed at the question because the hon. member and his party did not support the $800 million that we are putting into retraining under Bill C-21. That is exactly what it is directed at, regardless of whether or not the need for training comes from free trade.
Training is a high priority with workers. It is a high priority with employers in Canada as they look to globalization of trade in the future. It is something that we are taking a lead on with business and with labour in terms of the programs that are being put into place.
I think the hon. member should be congratulating us on the kinds of breakthroughs that we have established for training in the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would thank the new Acting Prime Minister for her answer. The reality is that no such transfer payments took place. As a matter of fact, the $800 million the minister speaks about was taken from other programs. No new $3 billion was created and, furthermore, $3 billion was cut from unemployment insurance by the government.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


David Barrett: It is a bleak Christmas for those people.
Is it Scrooge over there, or is it a sense of fairness? What is the government going to do for those people this Christmas who have had their lives ruined by the free trade agreement and the fact that it has not kept its promise? Fess up and do something for those people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I had the unfortunate experience of living in British Columbia while the hon. member was premier.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me just tell you what we have done for the economy and the prospects for the workforce in that province.
We have added by way of our new programming additional programming for Community Futures, additional programming for the long-term unemployed, additional programming for older workers and additional programming for social assistance recipients. Just hang on to your hat, Madam Speaker, and watch it all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


HARBOURFRONT CORPORATION
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works did not provide satisfactory answers to questions posed by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence and the hon. member for York Centre.
I remind the same minister that the councillors of the City of Toronto have made it very clear that leasing the land versus selling it would make Harbourfront self-sustaining and still provide the benefits for the taxpayers who own it.
Why is the minister abandoning the people of Toronto in favour of the developers, when these same people are the hardest hit by the recession, which I might add is caused by his own government?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this question because at least it is not prefaced by the kinds of wildly inaccurate figures that were put on record in the House yesterday.
As my colleague knows, this particular concept for Harbourfront was, in effect, interrupted a year ago by the then Liberal government of Ontario. Since that time there have been negotiations that have been looked upon with great favour by Duncan Allan, who at that time was acting for David Peterson, and by the mayor of Toronto.
December 14, 1990

Any of these disputes involving the values of property, or the concepts of leasing can very well be provided for the hon. member, but I should remind him that the object of this is to give the waterfront back to the people of Toronto, to fund proper programs, and to do it in a far more business-like and expeditious way than was formerly possible.
I suggest to him as well that nothing has been abandoned. Nothing has been perverted or anything else. If he wishes more information, I would be glad to give it to him. So would other people who could provide him with the kind of detail that he obviously needs.


Jesse Philip Flis: The minister is still skating around the real issue which is the swap scandal of the land. My supplementary question is to the same minister.
On Wednesday in the House, I asked the Minister of the Environment what his so-called green plan was going to do to clean up the Tbronto beaches. The minister did not give me an answer.
Will the Minister of Public Works reconsider this Harbourfront land swap scandal, recommended by the Tory hand-picked liquidator, Darcy McKeough, and commit instead that $36.4 million to clean up our Toronto beaches?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: What Mr. Darcy McKeough, a very distinguished Ontarian, did was largely to ratify and to modify to some extent, what the Liberal government of Ontario then recommended, as well as agree with David Crombie, another expert in this area.
There is no scandal. There are no difficulties. The figures that were put on the record yesterday by some of his colleagues are completely inaccurate, as anyone can understand if they would just take time to look at it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He is aware, I am sure, that in dealing with
Oral Questions
matters of the environment we can no longer afford to say that this is a provincial matter or that this is a municipal matter. We are all in this together.
The minister knows that a good deal of the pollution in our water systems is caused by the inadequate treatment of sewage from municipalities.
How much of the $3 billion provided in the green plan over the next five years will be available to municipalities? How much will there be to help them improve sewage treatment facilities which are among the main causes of the deterioration of our water quality in Canada? How much?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, first, we have a significant amount of money to provide for better water and sewage treatment under federal jurisdiction on native reserves. With respect to the municipalities, I believe the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. We want to respect the jurisdictional lines. We will certainly encourage the municipalities and the provinces to do the job they have' to do on their side.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Agriculture, but I will direct it to the Minister of the Environment.
A serious problem exists in southern Ontario along the Sydenham River basin which drains over half a million acres of the best farmland in North America, while thousands of tonnes of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers violate the Sydenham every year.
Will the Minister of the Environment consider as part of the green plan the $3 million commitment the Deputy Prime Minister made to this project when he visited my riding in 1988?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, the problem that my colleague opposite raises is a problem that exists in many communities across this country. We are already undertaking discussions with farm organizations. We want to get to the root of it. We want to make sure that farmers throughout the country will be able to participate fully in dealing with environmental problems that we know of through that kind of situation.

December 14, 1990
Privilege


NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Last week the government announced a program on northern tax benefits. As a result of that program, some communities which have no road access whatsoever are not even going to receive the 50 per cent northern tax benefit.
I again ask the government: Will it allow an appeal process for those communities that have been affected by the government decision to ensure that it is not just a decision by bureaucrats and by the cabinet, but that it does allow public participation so those communities can make their case and explain why they deserve a northern tax benefit?


Gilles Loiselle: I think we understand well the preoccupation of the hon. member, Madam Speaker. The decision we have taken comes at the end of a long process where there has been a lot of consultation throughout by experts. We will stand by our decision.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege. I see someone else rising now, but I have not received notice of it. I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


PRIVILEGE
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege which again goes to the fundamental right of Parliament to be the first court of public information from this government.
On Monday, during the course of the proceedings in the standing committee on external affairs, the minister mentioned that he had submitted a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, containing various proposals on behalf of the Canadian government. At that time I specifically requested of the minister that he would table the report and make it public, so we knew exactly what would be in the report and we could respond at the committee and in Parliament. The minister categorically refused.
On Wednesday night it was drawn to my attention that during a CBC report, the contents of that letter had been given to a CBC reporter who had enumerated point by point the contents of that letter. Once again, it was clear that the government considers it more important to give its information to a CBC reporter than to members of Parliament.
I consider that to be a real derogation of the rights of Parliament and it is indicative of the general disdain with which the government holds this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on that alleged question of privilege, the hon. member is alleging that there has been the publication of a letter which has not been published. It has not been published to the committee. It has not been published to him. It has not been published to anyone.


Lloyd Axworthy: It was given to a CBC reporter.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was not. The hon. member is making an accusation that I categorically deny. It is false.


Lloyd Axworthy: Who's the leak in your office?


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand, Madam Speaker, that when the Liberal Party has no policy, as it has no policy either on the gulf or on support for the United Nations, then it has to indulge in this kind of misleading position in the House of Commons.


Lloyd Axworthy: You know what our policy is. Our policy is against your policy, that is what it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: There we are, Madam Speaker. He and this party of great principle say their policy is against our policy.
Our policy is in support of the United Nations. The Liberal Party says-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have listened very carefully to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. This obviously arises from the work of the committee. It is my understanding that there was no formal motion made in committee for that document to be made available.
December 14, 1990

I think the hon. member would have another avenue if he wants to pursue that line of thought rather than make it a question of privilege, which I do not think it is at this moment.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago in Question Period, we heard the Minister of Public Works refer to figures introduced by myself in the House yesterday as being wildly exaggerated and completely unfounded.
For the instruction of this House, I want to give an indication of just where those figures came from. They came directly from a report made by the Harbourfront Corporation, which is directly responsible to the government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is very difficult for me at this time to let the hon. member go on.
It is not a question of privilege, but a question of debate.


An hon. member:: It is not debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: For one member to say he or she does not agree with another member's statement is not something very uncommon in this House.
I do not think that members' privileges are abused any time one member disagrees with another. I do not see it as a question of privilege at this time.
I will hear the hon. member further if he has something else to bring forward.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I feel that my privileges were abused inasmuch as I gave very specific references yesterday. I even cited a source. Today, I was told that they were in fact lies. They are not such. They come from an appraisal by an independent source, funded by government finances.
If the minister will just take a look at the board, the corporation that is responsible to him, he will see the same sources and come and give this Parliament the facts that we need to have.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: On the same point, Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has made a very clear reference.
The issue at stake here is germane to the entire debate. The minister of the Crown can take time away
Routine Proceedings
from the House to allege that the hon. member is incorrect, and is using false figures on a very important issue.
I think it is germane to the debate we are talking about. I believe that there is a case here of privilege.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that at least the hon. member should be able to have a "late show" on it to debate the issue.
I would suggest that today he be at least allowed to bring that point into debate or to use the "late show" as soon as possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think what is happening now is what we call a dispute as to facts. I do not think there is really a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with Section 48 of the Official Languages Act, I welcome this opportunity to table, in both official languages, the Second Annual Report on Official Languages in Federal Institutions, for the year 1989-90.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 18 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 14, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report on the preliminary meeting for the twenty-third annual assembly of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's- Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing -Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is one of major historic significance to the House of Commons for it is the first time in parliamentary history, since the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in August 1989, that the Public Accounts Committee has considered and concluded on the denial of access to information by the government to the office of the Auditor General.
The Public Accounts Committee considers the denial of access to ministerial travel receipts by the government to the office of the Auditor General to be a most serious infringement of the rights of the Auditor General as it in effect limits the Auditor General's ability to fulfil his statutory responsibility under the Auditor General Act. Such a denial of access to information, in your committee's view, undermines and weakens the financial process by which the House of Commons can hold ministers accountable for their travel expenditures, sets a very
untimely and dangerous precedent and erodes Parliament's control of the public purse.
Madam Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee strongly supports the principle of audit as a critical function in the parliamentary accountability process. For, without audit, how can members of Parliament be assured that all expenditures by ministers are spent in accordance with parliamentary authority? Your committee, Madam Speaker, recommends that the government consider allowing the Auditor General of Canada access to ministerial travel documents to the extent that he can discharge his statutory duties by means of an authority and attest audit of the accounts of Canada under the Auditor General Act.
I want to thank all members of the Public Accounts Committee of this House for their constructive and forthright input relating to this report. Madam Speaker, your committee has requested a response in writing from the President of the Treasury Board by March 31, 1991.



BILL C-260- REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (spousal agreement), with amendment.



BILL C-88-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, with an amendment.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members of that committee, who acted with such alacrity and dispatch. We had our organizing meeting just three days ago and were able to move this right through to report today.
[Editor's Note: See today's votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions, signed by residents of the city of Toronto. Both of these petitions have numerous signatures and concern the goods and services tax and the unfair, unjust, and
December 14, 1990

really quite wicked application of that tax to books and to the printed word.
Canada is going to become one of the very few countries in the world that taxes the printed word in this way, if this particular bill receives Royal Assent, and I note that it passed, lamentably, in the Senate last evening. I know, in presenting this petition, that it calls upon Parliament to reject this bill. Parliament has three constituent parts: this House, the other place, and the Governor General.
I urge the government to advise His Excellency, the Governor General, to refuse to give Royal Assent to this bill so that the wishes of these petitioners could be complied with in that regard.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition to this House.
This petition deals with the issue of drift-net fishing in the Pacific. It draws attention to the real ecological disaster that is occurring in the Pacific with drift-net fishing, particularly from Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese fishing fleets.
It calls on the government to use every possible measure to deal with this disaster including, if necessary, economic sanctions against the countries that are offending.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise once again and it is with a sad heart. After thousands and thousands of petitions this government has refused to listen to people who feel that their democratic, cultural, educational and literary skills are being impacted negatively by the goods and services tax. I would implore you to call upon the Governor General to refuse to agree to the goods and services tax on books.
The people of Halifax and across this land from as far as the Vancouver Island call on this government to reconsider a very negative and hurtful tax on the literacy of this society.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Routine Proceedings

I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition protesting the tax on books. The government should reconsider its intention to tax books, especially during this International Year of Literacy.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to lay upon the table four petitions from people as far away as Kentville, Halifax, Dartmouth, Truro, Tatamagouche, and other communities throughout the province of Nova Scotia.
All petitioners, in view of what took place yesterday in the upper chamber, call upon the Government of Canada to advise His Excellency the Governor General to withdraw the provisions of the goods and services tax, in particular as it applies to books, newspapers and magazines.
It should be duly noted that this tax, if proceeded with on January 1, 1991, will have extreme negative effects on Canadian consumers across the country as well as on small and medium sized-business.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of some concerned Canadian citizens.
I would like to make specific reference to the publishing industry in the north which is aggrieved about the GST being imposed. It has made a valiant effort in developing an industry in publishing using northern authors and settings. Now that is going to be threatened with the 7 per cent GST, because it already operates under a very high overhead.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 present a petition on behalf of Canadians to exempt the books from tax.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 393 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 393 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders


Mr. McGuire: For the fiscal years (a) 1989-90 (b) 1990-91, were any expenditures made in the province of Quebec under the Small Craft Harbour Divisions and, if so, by (i) federal riding (ii) harbour location, what were they?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weiner that Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Vancouver East has 15 minutes remaining.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period I was speaking about the Japanese redress and paying tribute particularly to the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
The race relations foundation, as we know, will have $24 million committed as capital for an endowment fund. I am sure it will be very short of funds, particularly for initial operation, even though there will be some startup funds transferred from the race relations directorate.
We are very concerned that these funds may be far too limited to do an effective job. New Democrats support the establishment of a race relations foundation and therefore we must support this bill even though we are
very disappointed that our amendments to strengthen the bill were not accepted.
We worked very hard on these in committee and I will not take time to repeat the details. The political rigidity of the minister is very disappointing to us and I am sure to groups across the country. The main purpose and thrust of the bill must be to eliminate racism. We do not want a passive research centre located in some ivory tower in the middle of downtown Toronto that is going to be inaccessible to native people and others across this country who are the victims of discrimination and racism.
We also feel that the foundation should be based on sound analysis. It should not just document examples and put out educational materials. It must analyse the causes of racism in order to develop and recommend positive strategies to eliminate discrimination, to change attitudes in our society, and to help create improved legislation that will ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians.
We also hope very much that the government will take steps before the foundation is established to deal with the question of redress for Chinese Canadians regarding discriminatory legislation in the past such as the Chinese head tax and the Exclusion Act. We would like to see this done before the remaining elderly survivors leave us.
We deplore the escalating racism in our society and have spoken many times against these acts. I will mention just a few: the racism in our justice system and law enforcement agencies which lead particularly to injustices against native people, and the systemic discrimination that still exists in our own Public Service exemplified by the cases of Dr. Ben-Thhir, Dr. Chander Grover and others.
Canadians were sickened last summer by the over-racist attitudes when effigies of native people were burned. We saw this on television and also saw people throwing stones at native women, children and elders.
For 200 years black people in Nova Scotia have lacked equal opportunities. In B.C. there is a chronic outcry against Asian immigrants. Racist fears are often fanned by media stereotyping.
This government inflamed racism across the country by refusing for many months to change policies to allow Sikhs who join the RCMP to wear turbans, until it was finally forced to do so as a result of the charter.
December 14, 1990

I can cite many more examples but unfortunately there is not time. There are many examples in our history and these we must not forget. I hope the foundation would document these so that school children and all other Canadians will be much less complacent and more aware of the need for positive intercultural relations and the elimination of racism.
There is no question that we need a race relations foundation, but it must be a catalyst for change. It must promote better understanding of where the problems exist. It must put pressure on the government to improve legislation such as the employment equity bill which should be mandatory. It must challenge racist attitudes and stereotypes in society and promote positive intercultural relations.
We have a number of concerns which I would like to recommend to the new board of the foundation and the staff it hires. We hope that this new board will be accountable to the community and regret that it was not structured to always ensure that.
The foundation must be accessible to users to be effective.
We oppose Toronto as a location because it is too isolated from other parts of Canada. Also because, being probably the most multicultural community in Canada, there are probably many resources there. It would be nice to have a centre in all parts of Canada including Toronto.
However, that is where it is going to be. We must recommend strongly to the foundation that it operate in a decentralized way with an outpost in the Atlantic region; in the prairies, particularly in Winnipeg so that it will have some relevance for aboriginal people; and in British Columbia where the concerns of Asian communities, in particular, are uppermost. French language services must be available, especially in Quebec.
Perhaps this kind of outreach can be done by hiring decentralized workers operating out of local facilities, but it must be done. We urge the foundation to consult all organizations concerned with racism and intercultural relations as a first step, in order to solicit their views and concerns, to determine their priorities, and to find out what they are doing.
Government Orders
We anticipate that some of the following urgent issues will require analysis in the beginning; analysis of the causes of racism and solutions that will be formulated and hopefully advocated by the foundation.
First, systemic racism and discrimination in government and public institutions, with solutions for more effective means to eliminate discrimination against visible minorities. Second we want racism and stereotyping in the media analysed, with solutions for changing attitudes and methods of reporting on the part of journalists and others to promote positive race relations.
We want discrimination in the justice system and law enforcement systems of Canada analysed, with solutions to change attitudes and practices of judges, police and even governments.
We want an analysis of organizations and movements, which we have seen on the increase in Canada, that promote hatred and racism, with solutions to curtail hate propaganda. We are pleased with yesterday's decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the Keegstra case.
Public myths and misinformation which promote discrimination regarding immigrants and immigration is another priority and requires, solutions to promote positive public education and change attitudes. I know there are many more concerns that we could list, and there will be very limited resources, as the minister himself has acknowledged, to deal with these effectively.
It is evident that one of the first priorities must be for all of us, including the government, to help to find new sources of funding to develop a computerized data base that will be essential to put out publications, and to make sure that they are serving all of Canada, not just metropolitan Toronto. I do not have anything against Toronto, but I would have loved to have seen this foundation in Vancouver, as I mentioned in committee.
The foundation must not be just a passive research centre. It must analyse the causes of racism and actively promote positive changes in governments and in our broader society. This is a very difficult thing. It is difficult to change attitudes. We must ensure that this foundation has the resources and the kind of staff and board that will really bring about changes that will allow all citizens of Canada to be treated equally and have the opportunity

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
to work and live without discrimination. This is a very tall order. We know that more funding will be needed.
However, I do not want to extend the debate too long. In the interests of getting this bill through today we are just putting up one speaker. We have expressed many views on this in the past and will continue to work in any positive way we can to support an effective foundation.
We wish the foundation every success in this most important task of changing attitudes, eliminating racism and discrimination, and promoting positive intercultural relations in Canada.
This is one of the very important tools we hope will help to make Canada a country that recognizes and treats all people equally, regardless of their race or country of origin.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my views with respect to this bill.
Having served on the legislative committee that deliberated the merits and demerits of the bill, I think it is appropriate for us to think for a moment about the kind of bill that we are going to put through this House.
I would like to concentrate on a couple of aspects of the bill itself. For one thing, we can accept the principle of having a race relations foundation. I do not think anybody in this House or elsewhere can be against this principle.
If we are going to be for something, we need the mechanisms, resources, accessibility and the means whereby we can at least achieve the objectives outlined in those principles. And so, what have we?
All of the witnesses before the committee said that this foundation cannot be allowed to be a passive resource centre. The only way to ensure that it would not be that would be to give the foundation, or at least its executive director-and I use the words of one of the witnesses-some sort of subpoena powers in order to ferret out information that would be appropriate for decision making.
As my colleagues have pointed out, it is absolutely useless to have a foundation that is going to gather information on race relations in one city and not in
others, especially when all we are doing is collecting a library.
The University of Toronto, like many other universities throughout the country, already has vast resources of material available for the general public. We had witnesses who came from St. John's, Newfoundland as well as from as far west as Victoria, B.C. who have the same kind of resources.
All we are doing is allocating more of the passive research type of resources for a foundation. We are not giving any powers to this foundation or to its director to ferret out information that is important for integration and that relates, for example, to employment practices both in the public sector, which is extremely important if we are going to demonstrate leadership, and in the private sector, especially among the larger employers.
If we are not going to have access to that kind of information, how in heaven's name are we going to engage in the promotion of multicultural ethic and inter-racial harmony? If we do not have the material before us that would give us the opportunity to analyze the status at which we find the various levels of Canadian society, how can we make a decision on the appropriateness of any initiatives we might begin?
Once we begin, what do we do? Where do we go? Do we have any enforcement mechanisms? Do we have any monitoring mechanisms? Do we have any means whereby we analyze what is happening on jobs for job discrimination or social integration or for what is happening in the Public Service?
Have we found the means by which this foundation is going to do its very best to succeed where other policies have failed? Let me give just one example, Mr. Speaker. Under Secretary of State, there is already $7 million in the budget. I think those were the figures that were given to us by department officials before the committee. There was $7 million last year for race relations.
That sounds like an impressive figure. It is not an indifferent figure, but the foundation's total operating budget will come from a $24 million fund, at the very best. If the real rate of return is 11 per cent per annum, we are not going to get much more than $3 million per annum. However, we will not be able to take out 11 per cent.
December 14, 1990

The very best we are going to be able to take out is about 5 per cent, so we are looking at an operating budget of just over $1 million. What in heaven's name are we going to accomplish with $1 million in terms of race relations, harmony, co-operation and integration? If we are truly serious about doing something, how do we ensure that the 40 per cent of Canadians who do not have origins which are English or French are integrated into the other two mainstreams? We have to put money where our mouth is.
We have heard a lot of good philosophy about multi-culturalism. We have heard a lot of good ideas about where we are going in this country. I notice I have awakened one of the members way off in the deep recesses of the comer and I am going to ask him a question or two concerning this debate as well, Mr. Speaker. He comes from a part of the country that, as the minister said earlier on in the day, is challenging the very principles that the minister enunciated as being germane and central to the government's philosophy or policy of multiculturalism.
If we truly believe in racial integration in a multicultural society, we might do better than we did last year in our public accounts where of the total amount of money spent on multicultural programs, running the whole gamut of heritage language, cultural programs and any other variety of recreational or social activities that do not fall under any other umbrella other than those that we would normally attribute to ethnoculturally different Canada.
How much money did we put into those activities? Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Of the total budget of Canada, a grand total of .076 per cent was spent on multiculturalism. We have a party developing in western Canada, the Reform Party. One plank of its platform is getting rid of multiculturalism because it costs too much.
What do we do as a Parliament, as a country, as a government? We stand in this House and say that we have to be sensitive to these kinds of movements and we have to respond. Then we cut the funds for multiculturalism which, as I said earlier, was .076 per cent of all money spent in Canada. It seems to be the target of all our cuts. As I said earlier on an amendment moved by a
Government Orders
colleague, heritage language receives a grand total-I was generous and gave it a grand total of $21 million last year and we have received cuts. That $21 million as a percentage of all government expenditures is a mere .015 per cent.
But when the government had to cut the deficit, where did it go? It went to heritage language programs. When we come back into this House the government has the unmitigated gall, despite the very high-flown principles enunciated by my colleague the minister opposite, to say that it is doing something for multiculturalism, doing something to bring this country together again.
The Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that we have to heal the wounds that tear this country apart. How do we do that when we do not have the resources to heal those wounds? Well, if the resources and mechanisms are not provided, the opportunity to bring people together is lost. Do we have to create a fund that comes at the expense of other programs in the same area?
Mr. Speaker, those of us who want to have a more harmonious development of peoples look with great admiration at Secretary of State policies that said we were going to spend $226 million last year for the promotion of official languages, both English and French, throughout the country. It is an admirable effort. It means that the Government of Canada is really serious about turning this into a bilingual country. Those of us who make an effort to learn a second, third, or fourth language applaud these kinds of efforts because they are backed up by dollars. If we believe in something we should get behind it, put our resources behind it. If we do not believe in it, at least shut up.
That $226 million is a substantial amount of money. About nine million Canadians who would have access to a mere $21 million, which is the figure I gave a few moments ago with respect to heritage language programs, in order to maintain a sense of dignity and self-worth while they integrate themselves into the mainstream can hardly be impressed by the government's desire to cut and then establish a race relations foundation that has the same sort of high-flown principles without the basis and resources to carry them out.

Government Orders
I did not want to elaborate too much on it because it is important for us to understand that there are no resources behind this idea. It therefore remains simply an idea, something that is empty.
On the subject of emptiness, one can get absolutely enraged as a parliamentarian when one sees what is happening in Toronto at Harbourfront, for example. I have pointed out figures that come from a government appraisal of some of the land deals that have been swapped so that the government can privatize some cultural programs and some other activities. $36.4 million is going into the hands of three developers.
We could have done so much with that government money. Those are public funds that could have been put towards either heritage language or race relations. $36.4 million. We are scrounging around for a measly $24 million to establish a fund. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry at this initiative.
I had occasion to be in Vancouver and met with groups of people who were involved in racial integration on a daily basis. They do it through language. They do it through social and recreational activities. They bring people of different origins, from different linguistic groups, religious groups, racial groups together.
I do not know how it happened but they decided to finally get up the courage to protest the cuts in heritage languages. They gave me the petitions they had gathered, petitions that have been ruled completely out of order. But for those people who come from B.C., at least I can give them an indication that there are several thousand people who objected to those cuts and who felt there was no one to hear them.
If we are going to be talking about a race relations foundation, I think we would do well if we listened for a moment to our own rhetoric. We say, here is an institution that epitimizes the best in democracy. If we understand what we mean by democracy, it means little more than empowerment.
If we empower the citizens of this country to participate in the decisions of this government and Parliament, then we have to put resources behind it. Those resources are not there. Not only that, we do not even have the regulatory mechanisms to make this a viable foundation.
All of those people from those communities who want to be a vital and vibrant part of Canada and its mainstream regret the weaknesses in this bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-72, an Act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On the Order Paper, there are three amendment motions at the report stage of Bill C-72, an Act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.

All three motions were moved and disposed of in the legislative committee. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(5), they will not be selected for debate. We will therefore proceed to the concurrence motion.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: that Bill C-72 be concurred in at the report stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. members:: Now.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-72, as amended, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us for third reading Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission.
A little over a year ago, on November 24, 1989, during the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union, he announced that the Canadian Polar Commission would be established. This announcement was made in recognition of the need in Canada for a more focused and integrated approach in order to maintain and improve polar knowledge.
The Prime Minister has continuously acted on his commitment to enhance Canada's role in the international forum. The establishment of the Canadian Polar Commission is a culmination of this leadership in advancing Canada's role in circumpolar and scientific affairs.
Based on a concern for the state of polar research in Canada, as well as the rapidly changing nature of polar science, two studies were commissioned by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The first, Canada and Polar Science, a report produced by an expert study group, was released in 1987. It strongly recommended the creation of a Canadian Polar Commission. A subsequent report released in 1988, The Shield of Achilles, by Professor Thomas Symons, studied the feasibility of establishing a commission and once again recommended its creation.
It is clear that a polar community as geographically dispersed and institutionally buried as Canada's requires a co-ordinated system to provide access to information on the Arctic and better serve the Canadian public.
The decision to create a Canadian Polar Commission was the result of extensive consultations and discussions with territorial governments, aboriginal people, private enterprise, research institutes and universities. It is very important to note that it had been their continued support and active involvement that has brought us to where we are to date in the establishment of this commission.
Government Orders
I would now like to highlight some of the specific purposes the commission will pursue that have been established. The commission will monitor the state of knowledge about the polar regions in Canada and elsewhere. In response to concerns raised by the legislative committee on Bill C-72, this term "knowledge" is now specifically defined to include traditional and aboriginal knowledge.
The Canadian Polar Commission will promote development of such knowledge by co-operating with organizations, institutions, and associations, both private and public, national and international, in the determination of scientific and other priorities.
The commission will also encourage Canadian organizations, institutions, and associations, both private and public, to support the development and dissemination of polar knowledge and it will provide information about polar research and Canadian organization.
Moreover, increased access to polar knowledge will, in accordance with Canada's foreign policy, enhance Canada's international profile as a circumpolar nation by fostering international co-operation and by increasing international attention on the Canadian Arctic. It will address such issues as resource development, legal and jurisdictional questions, security concerns, and global environmental problems including the greenhouse effect, the depletion of the ozone layer, and water and airborne contaminants in northern regions.
The commission is not intended to be a funding body for basic scientific research, nor is it expected to carry out such activity. The two reports I mentioned before strongly recommended against this since Canada already has such institutions.
The creation of the Canadian Polar Commission will lead to the development of a comprehensive Canadian polar information system which will build upon and be linked to currently existing government, academic, and industrial scientific data, information and biographic systems. It will also be compatible with the international polar-related information systems.
The commission will provide support for the publication of studies on polar subjects, as well as recognize achievements and contributions in polar matters. It will initiate, sponsor, and support conferences, seminars, and

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
meetings. In this way it will give prominence to scientific research and its application in Canada's polar regions.
During these times of fiscal responsibility, funding for scientific research obviously cannot be lavish. But the commission will bring a greater focus and efficiency to the diverse and dispersed Canadian polar research community and will link research efforts more effectively.
The Canadian Polar Commission will receive core government funding of approximately $1 million annually, but it will be encouraged to seek non-government support for its endeavours through cost-recovery initiatives, such as information services or by entering into contractual agreements to study particular polar problems and/or issues. The commission can also receive additional funding through donations and bequests.
The activities of the commission will be managed by a board of directors consisting of up to 12 members, including a chair person and two vice-chairpersons. It will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and will serve term appointments of three years.
Persons appointed to the board of directors must have knowledge that will assist the commission in the furtherance of its purpose and membership will include northerners and will reflect the ethnic, linguistic, and regional diversities of Canada's polar region.
Amendments made by the legislative committee to clauses 13 and 14 of the bill allow the commission to establish such offices in Canada as the board considers necessary for the furtherance of the commission's purpose. Keeping in mind that the commission has a mandate to promote polar knowledge within federal ministries, national granting councils, and other national bodies, clause 14(1) stipulates that one office of the commission must be in the national capital region. To enable the commission to maintain close constant contact with the full spectrum of interests represented in the north, clause 14(2) stipulates that at least one other office must be established in a place north of 60 degrees north latitude.
Under clause 5 of the legislation, the commission can exercise powers to initiate a wide variety of activities to address its purpose.
The commission's legislative mandate will be primarily that of an advisory body. The commission will provide advice to the Canadian government at a senior level and will be responsible for periodically reviewing the needs and progress of polar research in Canada, for recommending steps to be taken by the federal government to improve the relevance and effectiveness of Canadian polar research, and for facilitating international and domestic liaison and co-operation in polar research.
It is expected that the commission will report on these matters to Parliament through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The commission may, however, be asked from time to time to investigate specific problems or issues in the polar regions at the request of the government.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members of the legislative committee who worked together to improve Bill C-72, the legislation that is before us. I know that they share with me the sense of how important this commission will be and what it can achieve.
This bill is a significant step toward enhancing Canada's future as a northern and polar country, and as a leading member of the circumpolar community of nations. It also ensures that this commission will be dynamic and responsive to northern issues as they emerge.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker it is my pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-72.1 hope that, in years to come, Bill C-72 will be a reflection of what I see the Arctic as portraying.
Bill C-72 will perhaps express itself in the eventuality of having the Arctic as a peace zone and eventually having the development of a world-class centre for excellent environmental studies in the north and perhaps even the development of a university of the north where we could specialize in such things as cold weather climate technology.
With the creation of the polar commission, we could also work in the area of winter city studies and also further the efforts to date in the whole area of traditional knowledge.
December 14, 1990

Another area that will be expressed through the efforts of a polar commission would be cultural studies in the area of languages and the arts, which is very important to the people of the north.
As the member for the Western Arctic I am pleased to speak on this long awaited bill to establish a polar commission. In my previous work as assistant deputy minister to the Government of the Northwest Territories, I attended the first meetings to explore the idea of a polar commission. I had the opportunity to share with the people who were behind the establishment of a polar commission, Dr. Fred Roots and Dr. Symons.
Having said that, there have been efforts of many who will go unnoticed in an effort to establish a polar commission. I want to take the opportunity to say that their efforts are much appreciated, specifically people like Walter Slipckenko, who is responsible for circumpolar matter especially as it relates to the Soviet Union and their exchange.
Since I have become a member of Parliament and travelled extensively across the country, I have noticed that for most Canadians the Arctic remains an enigma. I have realized that knowledge and appreciation of the range of northern policy issues is limited to a small minority of Canadian public.
Over the past 30 years the Arctic has experienced substantial changes, many brought about by activities in foreign regions, including the foreign north. All of these activities are having increasing influences in the Canadian north. For example, there are resource exploration and industrial development in foreign circumpolar regions with their attendant environment disturbances and impacts; atmospheric and oceanic pollution, including climatic change because of world-wide pollution; the depletion of marine stocks; international social, economic, and political developments including greater native participation in government; and the formation of international native organizations, such as the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the World Council of Indigenous People, and Indigenous Survival International.
Specifically, in looking at the developments taking place, Greenland, with its Home Rule and its devolution of powers, is having an effect on what is happening in other parts of the world. In Alaska, there is the implementation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
Government Orders
the movement toward tribal sovereignty which affects native people throughout the world, the recent United States Arctic Science Policy initiatives, the International Porcupine Caribou Agreement, and the possible developments in the Arctic National Wildlife Range. In the Soviet Union, there is the offshore oil and gas development with the possibility of sales of offshore equipment, and there is air pollution occurring in a number of their large industrial centres. Of course, this air pollution is occurring all over the world.
Whether the issue is military, strategic, political-economic, environmental, or some combination of all these, new ways of thinking about the regions are required if national and international policies are to meet the gathering challenge of change.
International Arctic science co-operation extends back 100 years to the creation in 1879 of the International Polar Commission which led to the International Polar Year of 1882-83. Eleven nations, including all polar nations, sponsored 14 polar research expeditions. In 1932-33, the second International Geophysical Year was initiated, with scientific investigations in both polar regions. In 1958, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research was created as a scientific committee of the International Council of Scientific Union.
A series of different types of scientific activities with Arctic components have taken place which can be grouped under seven extended categories: first, large co-ordinated regional or circumpolar single programs, such as the polar segment of the International Magnetosphere study; second, Arctic components of complex and highly organized world-wide or global research programs, such as POLEX; third, scientifically focused wide-ranging programs to explore new concepts, gather data or compare phenomena such as the Arctic Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment conducted in the Beaufort Sea from 1969 to 1976; fourth, programs for collaboration by a number of researchers or agencies in one area or for taking advantage of an outstanding opportunity will benefit many others; fifth, studies that are so sophisticated and so expensive that no one country can provide the expertise or facilities so that international collaboration is essential, such as the Marginal Ice Zone Experiment and the Greenland Ice Sheet Program; sixth, programs designed to facilitate the sharing and exchange

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
of experience and knowledge or to compare the results of similar studies, such as the 1984 Canada-U.S.S.R. Arctic Science Program; seventh, programs designed to combine data or information from several sources into a common format or synthesis that can be useful to many countries, such as the Bathometric Map of the Arctic Ocean produced in the General Bathometric Chart of the Oceans series.
I would like to go on to the whole issue of bilateral agreements. The initiative to develop a co-operative ethic with our northern allies began in earnest with Lester B. Pearson when he visited the Soviet Union as Secretary of State for External Affairs in October, 1955.
The following is a sequence of main developments concerned with Arctic co-operation with the Soviet Union. I think this is a particularly interesting area to go into in that it is reflective of what is happening these days. The walls between countries are coming down, the barriers are coming down both politically and in a sense from a defence perspective. I think it is interesting that here we have in a zone, which I hope one day will be a peace zone, a nuclear-free zone, that we are developing a polar commission that will express itself in a number of activities that will bring even more freedom and sharing among circumpolar allies.
Canada, prior to the 1989 agreement, was involved in three bilateral agreements with the Soviets dealing with environmental, cultural and scientific arrangements.
First, in 1983 the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Denmark for co-operation relating to the marine environment which covers ships and offshore pollution under which research and other areas is possible was established. The second is the Canada-United States Agreement on Arctic Co-operation which generally agrees to facilitate navigation by ice-breakers in Arctic waters and which provides for the sharing of research information in order to enhance the understanding of the marine environment. The third is the Protocol of Canadian-Soviet Consultation on the development of a program of scientific and technical co-operation in the Arctic and in the north which was signed in 1984 and renegotiated on February 26, 1987, and which has become known as the Canada-U.S.S.R Arctic Science Exchange Program and provides for the
development of a program of scientific and technical co-operation in the Arctic and in the north.
I would like to speak about the Canada-U.S.S.R. Arctic Science Exchange Program as I feel that it has demonstrated real northern co-operation between Canada and the Soviet Union. The Government of the Northwest Territories record of circumpolar relations dates back to the early 1970s.
At that time the head of the government, Steward Hodgson, went to Greenland and in 1971 to the Soviet Union with the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Jean Chretien. Dick Hill, who founded the research lab in Inuvik and Walter Slipchen-ko, who is now Director of Circumpolar Affairs for the Government of the Northwest Territories, were also along. It was the start of what became a series of formal and informal exchanges between officials, local residents, and business people.
These exchanges have demonstrated to northerners that the people of circumpolar countries share common problems, be they social, economic, cultural, scientific or technical. On many occasions there is greater commonality or understanding between ourselves than northerners have with national central agencies in Ottawa.
This leads me to the discussion of Bill C-72 and the several points I want to review. The bill proposes that the headquarters of the Canadian Polar Commission be located in the nation's capital region and that one regional office be located north of the 60th parallel. When the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a commission last November in Moscow, he stated that one of the regional offices would be in Quebec City. I wholly support that in that I feel the headquarters should be located in the north. That was the amendment which we put forward and which was defeated. There is no reason why we should not have the polar commission located north of 60.
In a time when we have recession in full swing, in a time when we have the high overhead that we have, there is always the pull to withdraw regional offices first. What we need is a commitment to have this particular headquarters north of 60 in that it gives it the credibility that it is just not another Arctic club where the name polar is used but, in fact, it is out of its location. This was our objection and this was something about which we

were sad because the government would not agree to have the headquarters actually north of 60.
My position is that polar issues should be studied in polar regions. I am extremely concerned that this may become one more Arctic club, none of which are based in the Arctic. The people I have consulted on this matter have told me, frankly, that we must avoid the general game of the old boys club and, if there is one thing I have learned since I have come to Ottawa, it is that you really have to put forward a strong case on a regional basis to be heard.
The north has the infrastructure to house the Canadian Polar Commission. There is a science institute in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and, as well, both territories have Arctic colleges. There are federal agencies in both northern capitals which manage the environment, fisheries, geological surveys, energy, mines, and resources. The GNWT is responsible for forestry, housing, public works, and construction in the Arctic. There are research labs in Inuvik, Igloolik, and Iqualuit. We have a consortium of experts in the scientific community in the north who have worked there for years and have contributed. I would guess that they are some of the outstanding scientific people in Canada and they would contribute to the polar commission. They would help us build those circumpolar alliances and that would bring down the walls even more for more freedom and sharing with our circumpolar neighbours.
There are so many possibilities in having the north being the centre for the Canadian Polar Commission, in which case the National Capital Region could locate one of the regional branches. It is about time this government started to break up the central bureaucracy and spread the resources around the country. The United States has focused its northern studies out of the University of Alaska, in the northern region. The Science City of the Soviet Union is in Siberia in Nora Sabers. Its Permafrost Research Centre is in the Yakuts region which is very remote.
The directors of the commission is another issue that we took to task and on which we put forward an amendment. We wanted 50 per cent of the directors to be from north of 60 if it is going to be a polar commission, and that was defeated. I do not believe that there was any tangible reason, any viable reason, for defeating that amendment. If you have a South Ameri-
Govemment Orders
can region or a South American institution, you get predominantly South Americans on the committee because they have the expertise and the knowledge. There are northern residents with doctorate degrees in geology, geography, and communications, and many who have tremendous experience with the polar land, the environment, and the polar peoples. We wanted those people on the commission but that was defeated. We wanted to have the highest lines of reporting to the government on this one.
In addition, the bill states that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be responsible for the commission. Again, the people with whom I consulted agreed that there needs to be discussion on this point. Is an institute with global, external, and international responsibilities, best directed by a minister who does not participate in the inner cabinet? I believe, because of the circumpolar implications of this bill, that we need the absolute highest authority if it is to be recognized and be credible because it is going to be begging for international co-operation and recognition. We need the highest lines of authority to be expressed in whom this commission reports to.
The authority of the commission will be legitimate, depending on the budget allocated to it. If they are not the kind of allocations that are required, what you will have is a commission in name only, not in what it can actually do. We cannot depend on anything but legislative commitment, so we wanted that.
Never before has the need for Arctic co-operation been so pressing. Never before has the need to learn and to develop global solutions to Arctic problems been so great.
From an environmental perspective, to many Canadians the Arctic has always symbolized all that is good; clean water, clean air, majestic landscapes, an abundance of wildlife resources, fish stocks and a richness in underdeveloped mineral and petroleum resources.
Let me present you with a truer picture. In the early years, chicken pox, measles, the flu, and other European diseases imported to the Arctic by explorers just about decimated our northern population. Later on, it was starvation. Today, it is AIDS, Arctic contaminants, and trying to cope with the anxieties created by advanced cruise missile testing, low-level military exercise, the

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
possibility of nuclear-powered submarines and the European boycott of trapped furs, the decimation of our traditional economy of hunting and trapping.
The true north strong and free? People in the Northwest Territories would like to think so. But maybe that is not the case anymore. Maybe the polar commission gives us a small door or window of opportunity to be able to achieve these goals to which we aspire. Maybe we can be the true north strong and free, and maybe the rest of Canada can help us with that, but only if they commit the resources and the political will in expressing exactly in those amendments we put forward to have 50 per cent of the membership of the commission being residents of north of 60, to have the headquarters located in the region and to give very, very specific concern and care to the fact that we want traditional knowledge to play a huge part in the polar commission.
Let me ask a few questions, Mr. Speaker. What if levels of airborne toxic chemicals carried to the Arctic from other areas of the northern hemisphere increase to the point where contamination of the northern food chain forces our population to abandon its traditional dependence on country foods? This is one way in which people manage their budgets in an area where the cost of living is 40 per cent higher than anywhere else in Canada. When all else fails, people go back to the land and hunt and trap. They supplement their diet with country foods. You cannot do this if the food chain is contaminated with pollution.
What if a cultural lifestyle that dates back one thousand years or more is destroyed by the anti-trapping movement? It has been. The trappers of the north will tell you that this is a tough year for trappers. Canadians will know that their commitments can only be expressed in a statement that I made years ago, that fur built this country. This is how this country was created.
What if the guidance system on the cruise missile breaks down shortly after being launched over the Beaufort Sea and it crashes on Main Street, Inuvik? That is a possibility. It has happened before. Trappers have found parts of satellites with contaminated elements in them in the Arctic areas.
What if the United States is asked to test a cruise missile along a corridor originating in northern Ontario
and terminating a couple of hundred miles north of Ottawa? Would the decision to allow the tests have been the same?
What if you do not have freedom from anxieties? Is it still possible to have global peace and security? Can anyone out there relieve Arctic anxieties by explaining the probabilities, the technicalities and the scientific theories to a population that speaks eight different native languages, none of which have the appropriate word equivalences and a whole different psychology with which to deal?
There is a tendency to overlook the people who live there, to forget they have strong opinions and beliefs and an abundant capability of managing their own affairs.
The Northwest Territories is the homeland for a native majority that considers the land a sacred trust. That has been and always will be for the aboriginal people, and where any developments must take serious consideration of that reality.
Equally important, it is a place of residence for people who are determined to exercise control over their land. It is a home to people who want to decide their own political and constitutional futures rather than having them shaped by someone else in a distant national capital by other premiers and the Prime Minister at a First Ministers' Conference through such instruments as the Meech Lake Accord which definitely left us and our Yukon neighbours out of the process, even though we cover 40 per cent of the Canadian land mass.
It leads me to conclude that the time has come to make our voices heard in a manner that will prompt national and international political leadership to respond to the issue of Arctic peace and security referred to by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Murmansk in October, 1987, when he proposed a conference of sub-arctic states to co-ordinate research in the Arctic, including co-operative arrangements in polar scientific, environmental and economic endeavours with Canada and other western countries.
At the same time he proposed that the Warsaw Pact and NATO begin consultations on scaling down militarization and restricting naval and air force activity in the Baltic, Greenland, Norwegian and North Seas. "Such actions", he said, "could lead to demilitarizing the top of

the world", and, as I stated before, turn the Arctic into a zone of peace.
For these reasons I support the principle of Bill C-72. I believe, however, that we need to discuss the logistics, but I want to conclude with the essence of what makes the Polar Commission so important.
Arctic nations share many common problems which require research and scientific data from other regions. Arctic research is difficult and costly, but the results are vitally important nationally, internationally, and particularly to the northern people, the native people who are the majority. Arctic science requires the financial and scientific support, not only of polar but also of non-polar nations. Environmental and social concerns have emerged as among the most important Arctic issues today. Social and political developments in the Arctic regions have altered the demand for knowledge and exchange of information.
I feel strongly that this polar commission is a step forward, not only for science but for the northern people. I am certain that our circumpolar contacts will continue to increase because of the new commission.
I want to say, for Canada and for the people of the north, I hope that the Polar Commission will be a small window of opportunity to achieve peace and freedom and to bring down all those walls that obstruct us from dealing with each other as human beings.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of my party in support of Bill C-72, which would create the Canadian Polar Commission.
The structure of the legislation adheres rather closely to the recommendations of the previous studies which examine the feasibility of this commission, most particularly The Shield of Achilles.
One of the elements that interests me about that latter study by Dr. Symonds was that, in spite of the tendency to emphasize scientific knowledge with respect to the work of this commission, he is quite careful to point out that the breadth of knowledge that is to be treated by this commission should extend beyond the merely scientific. It should extend to include the kind of historic observations that the peoples of the north have made about the north, which give them a more powerful understanding of the north, even in scientific terms, than could be
Government Orders
provided in a brief period of time of conventional scientific study.
In that context, I want to state my admiration for the picture that was developed by the hon. member for the Western Arctic. In her speech she provided an inkling of the kind of knowledge, sensitivity, and indeed love, for the delicate character of the north that few in the rest of the country have an opportunity to share, being preoccupied, as we are, with our own regions and our own preoccupations. The hon. member comes to her knowledge by virtue of her indigenous roots and the sense of historical context from which she derives.
It is equally possible that someone can leave an area, such as that in which I live, and come very quickly to the realization that the north is important. It offers a livelihood which is in balance historically with the environment, an environment that reflects a very delicate ecology, as the hon. member has pointed out an ecology that if it is to be respected is going to require the co-operation of all who share a circumpolar presence.
My leader is one who has adopted the north, or perhaps it would be preferable to say that the north has adopted her emotionally, psychologically, and in terms of her commitment. She shares with equal strength the commitment to this bill and to the north which it expresses.
The bill represents a response to opportunity and responsibility, opportunity that has been too long delayed in its exploitation, in a country that having a true north could have, as it could have done in so many other contexts, developed its own niche in terms of scientific and other kinds of research in the development of a broad scope of knowledge in an area of the world that not many other nations have an opportunity to examine; both in terms of the achievement of pure knowledge and in terms of finding the opportunities that are available in science and technology, in environmental management and so on, that could have provided us with leadership in respect to the rest of the world.
We have then another example of what has happened in Canada for too long. That is the failure to provide the kind of thrust and momentum in scientific research generally; scientific research that on the one hand can create jobs and can create economic growth, scientific research that shall demonstrate the limits of that kind of development, scientific research that would ensure the maintenance of the balance so delicately structured in

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
the north, and knowledge that would allow us in the rest of Canada to have an opportunity to learn, so that when we think of Canada we are not thinking of a part of it but all of it.
The bill also responds to responsibility, responsibility that goes beyond our immediate opportunities and our immediate possession of a portion of the north, a responsibility that recognizes that as an ecosystem we do not govern it all, nor does anyone else, and that all who share a circumpolar existence must not compete for opportunities to exploit it at its expense, but must co-operate to enhance our knowledge of the north, to monitor the knowledge that has been created, to stimulate new science, and to ensure there is an appropriate diffusion of all the knowledge that can be gleaned from there so that all can share in it and protect that delicate, beautiful area of the world, even now threatened from great distances by even tiny amounts of pollutants that can be tolerated here but which can be so disturbing there.
By and large this is a good bill. It does what should have been done, and it does it reasonably well.
There are of course some concerns, and the member for the Western Arctic has cited those. We share in common our concern about the inevitable presumption that all that is good and has value somehow must derive from some portion of central Canada, in this case Ottawa, designated as the place of the principal office.
I cannot understand that. I cannot understand it in any other terms except the preoccupation as is too usual in this part of the nation, in this place, that if there is to be focus, if there is to be leadership, if there is supposed to be real understanding and co-ordination, that somehow it must be here.
I think it most regrettable that the government rejected amendments that would have provided the appropriate location of the principal office in the north. It is something that at least one office will be in the north. We must also be disturbed, although it was argued by the parliamentary secretary that in spite of a lack of specification there would be appropriate representation reflecting the population of the north on the board of directors. It seems to me that it would have been much more satisfying and symbolically significant if the government had accepted, as we tried to get it to accept, that a minimum of half of the board of directors should be from the north, but it ignored that.
There was the possibility of circumventing the problems of rejection of this amendment by ensuring that, as in other similar commissions and institutes, the structure of nominations to the board would have been such that all three parties would have had to approve the nominees, thus eliminating the unnecessary implication of partisan considerations and perhaps patronage in the appointments, and instead had an opportunity to ensure that there was going to be no compromise on appropriate representation on that board of directors.
That is all by the board now. We are going to have the polar commission. It is a significant step forward. It recognizes the need. It recognizes the realities that we must confront. So we cannot but join with the official opposition and the government in applauding this piece of legislation with which we will not burden too long a discussion because we want it completed today. That is our mission to say: "Let's get it done today as quickly as possible".


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.\

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking on this third and final debate on Bill C-72, the Canadian Polar Commission Act.
The bill before us today is a little better than the bill that was introduced last June, as a result of amendments made in the legislative committee. It is still not as good as we would like, or as it could have been, or should have been. I will touch on these defects a little later, but at first I want to elaborate on the background of the legislation.
Bill C-72 will create a corporation to be called the Canadian Polar Commission. Its purpose is to promote and disseminate information and knowledge throughout the polar regions of the world. It will monitor, encourage, and support the development of knowledge about polar regions in Canada and elsewhere. For the most part it will not conduct its own research, although it may

do some. Rather its primary function is to co-ordinate and facilitate the research activities of others in Canada.
It will help develop a comprehensive Canadian polar information system. It will foster international co-operation and attention to polar issues. It is meant to enhance Canada's international profile as a circumpolar nation.
There was a general consensus among interested parties that Canada needs a polar commission.
The need for a polar commission is due to the current lack of co-ordination among Canadian research activities on polar issues and the need to provide a focal point for these efforts. There is much research being undertaken, but it is being done by a number of very different organizations sponsored by different interests and for a variety of purposes. There is not enough sharing of information between all the players and there is not enough support being given to the polar research community.
In September, 1985, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development established a working group to study the feasibility and advisability of establishing a national polar institute in Canada.
The report of this working group entitled "Canada and Polar Science" was released publicly in March of 1987. It recommended then the establishment of a Canadian polar commission.
The subsequent Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development commissioned a follow-up report on the mandate, structure, composition, accountability, activities, budget and location of such a commission. Known as The Shield of Achilles: The Report of the Canadian Polar Research Commission Study", this study was completed in May of 1988.
Both of these reports confirmed the existence of serious problems respecting polar research in Canada. Both reports identified a need for a more co-ordinated, integrated system of research, science and knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Polar Commission we are approving today has been announced at least three times over the past few years. In 1988, the government announced the establishment of the Canadian Polar Research Commission. On November 24, 1989, the Prime
Government Orders
Minister announced the establishment of this commission. The Prime Minister's press release outlined the mandate and structure of the commission and identified the location of its offices. The Prime Minister's announcement was virtually identical to the recommendations in The Shield of Achilles report.
On May 25, 1990, the Canadian Polar Commission was announced again, when Bill C-72 was tabled in the House of Commons by the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
After so many announcements, we are happy to see this long-awaited project finally come to fruition. We hope that it will not take so long to get the commission actually established and working.
The commission will be managed by a board of directors consisting of up to 12 members, including a chairperson and two vice-chairpersons. The directors are to be appointed by the Governor in Council under recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They will serve term appointments of three years. Members-and I stress this-must have knowledge related to the commission's work and should reflect the ethnic, linguistic and regional diversity of Canada's polar regions.
In our view, the quality of these commissioners will be a critical factor in the credibility and the integrity of the commission. I want to make the following recommendation to the government, which we have done through amendments, but I will do so once again. At least half-and we are being generous by asking for half-and preferably a majority of the 12 commissioners should come from north of 60, and aboriginal people must be well represented.
We proposed such an amendment to the bill in committee, and it was rejected by the government members.
We are disappointed that the government did not place the location of the commission's head office in northern Canada. The original bill, as introduced in June, actually placed the head office in Ottawa, and suggested a regional office in the north.
On this side of the House we recommended the reverse. It makes no sense to have a polar commission which is meant to focus attention on the north, with a

Government Orders
head office in Ottawa. I proposed an amendment in committee to put the head office in the north, and a regional office in Ottawa. Unfortunately, the government did not accept that amendment.
Instead the government introduced its own amendment which would leave the location of the commission's offices to the discretion of the commissioners.
I can take some comfort from the fact that the government backed off the Ottawa head office location, but I regret that it would not agree to put that head office in the north. I am very pleased that the government has accepted this.
I am sure that they really had no choice but to accept it. It is the recognition of aboriginal knowledge in this bill. We were advised by the government in committee that the use of this word, in addition to the term "science" was meant to incorporate aboriginal knowledge. "The recognition was implicit," they said.
We wanted the recognition to be explicit. We wanted the recognition to be clear. I, therefore, moved an amendment in committee that defines "knowledge" to include traditional and aboriginal knowledge. That amendment was accepted by the government and passed in committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their support.
I believe that for the first time in legislation, northern and aboriginal people now have their intimate understanding and awareness of their environment, and the wildlife recognized and affirmed.
We have had difficulties in the past with scientific and biological research. Much activity has gone on without our participation and involvement.
There have been conflicts between the traditional knowledge of aboriginal people and the scientific data bases of non-aboriginal researchers. In the second reading debate on this bill, I mentioned a past conflict over the counting of a caribou herd in the Keewatin, and an ongoing dispute over beluga whales in the Baffin region.
We hope that this polar commission will help to avoid these problems by fully involving northern and aboriginal
people in the ongoing and future research into our region.
We canvassed a great number of organizations, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, on the concept of a polar commission. All were very supportive.
Some concerns were expressed, however, concerning the mandate of the commission. It was thought, for example, that the commission should be able to advise the government at any time, and not just when requested, as the bill is currently written. In committee, I moved an amendment which would have given the commission the freedom to advise the government at any time, but that amendment was rejected by the government.
We still have some concerns about the adequacy of the commission's budget, and about its independence from the government. We regret that the government did not seem to want to hear from any witnesses on this legislation. We were told that we would risk losing this bill if we took the time to hear from interested organizations.
None of the groups we talked to wanted to take the chance of losing this bill, so we moved forward, but I still believe the committee could have benefited from the comments of those directly involved in northern issues research.
In conclusion, our members on this side of the House support this bill. It is an initiative which is long overdue.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
December 14, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and to make provision for the application of certain orders as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Pierre H. Cadieux: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I understand there is agreement on this piece of legislation. We know that there have been some technical amendments proposed in two different areas.
I want to thank the legislative committee which considered the bill and received presentations from various interests. I want to express my appreciation for the contribution of the committee which did all of this work. I also want to commend the members of the committee for their time, their input, and for their co-operation in ensuring this bill's prompt review. I hope that we can deal with this piece of legislation very rapidly.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be very brief but you must also realize that we do have some comments on this bill. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak at third reading stage of Bill C-68.
When I spoke at second reading I indicated, on behalf of my party, the Official Opposition, my support for this bill but with some reservations. We support this bill because it corrects an oversight, a negligence of the government. We support the corrective steps in this bill which strengthen the protection of lands withdrawn in the Yukon for the purpose of lands claims settlements.
We continue to regret the negligence of the government which had the unfortunate effect of infringing on the aboriginal rights of the Yukon Indian people and, in particular, those represented by the Kluane Tribal Council. We continue to caution the government that it must take its constitutional trust responsibilities toward aboriginal peoples much more seriously.
The government initially wanted to pass this bill, in all stages, on a single day. We insisted that it should go to a legislative committee so that groups affected by the legislation would have an opportunity to express their views and recommend any changes they thought were necessary.
This was a very useful exercise, as the government will agree because, after hearing witnesses, the government brought forward amendments to its own legislation. It is interesting that the amendments introduced by the government responded to concerns expressed by the mining industry and prospectors. The government did not bring forward any amendments to respond to the concerns of the Yukon Indian people.
I would like to take a few moments to communicate to this House what the Kluane Tribal Council and the Council for Yukon Indians had to say about this bill in committee. They reminded committee members that the need for this bill arose out of a failure of a federal Order in Council which was supposed to protect a portion of the unsurrendered homelands of the Kluane Tribal Council from mineral staking. I want to describe to this House the history and background of the bill and the issues we are dealing with today.

December 14, 1990
Government Orders
For the past several years, Mr. Speaker, the government has, from time to time and for various public purposes, including the settlement of aboriginal land claims, withdrawn various parcels of land in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories from this position.
As hon. members know, all of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are the subject of land claims negotiations with aboriginal peoples. These aboriginal people negotiating these claims have long been concerned about the alienation by third parties of lands which they are claiming while negotiations are ongoing.
The federal government has, in response to these concerns, ordered the freezing or withdrawal of certain lands designated by aboriginal claimants from disposition, pending settlement of the particular land claim under negotiation. The withdrawal of these lands has removed the possibility of third-party interest being created in such lands, at least for the duration of the withdrawal order.
Negotiations between the aboriginal people and the government determine which lands will be withdrawn. There is a general criteria which describes lands which cannot be withdrawn; such lands are lands which are already privately owned. In each land claim area there are more specific criteria used by the federal government in the decision-making, but these criteria are not public nor are they made available to the aboriginal claimants.
In the Yukon, the Council for Yukon Indians has been negotiating a land claims agreement since 1973, and in March, 1989, negotiators for the Government of Canada and the Council for Yukon Indians ratified an agreement in principle.
Several parcels of land have been withdrawn for Yukon Indians pending final settlement of their land claims. Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act permits governments to designate and withdraw from dispositions certain parcels of land.
In addition, Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act permits the Governor in Council to prohibit entry on certain lands for the purpose of locating a claim or prospecting for gold or other precious minerals or stones. The Yukon Quartz Mining Act contains no provision to withdraw lands or prohibit mining on certain lands. However, Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining
Act does provide for exceptions to the general right to acquire mineral rights.
It has been the position of the government that a withdrawal made under Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act should be considered a reservation within the meaning of Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. The government's position, however, was challenged in court by an individual prospector. The prospector had staked 265 mineral claims in an area withdrawn for settlements of the Kluane Tribal Council land claims. These claims were refused by the mining recorder because they were staked on lands withdrawn for the settlement of the Indian land claims.
The prospector brought the matter to Federal Court on July 12, 1988. On February 12, 1990, a judgment in favour of the prospector was handed down. The judgment was based on the fact that subsection 3(3) of the Territorial Lands Act states that "nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting the operation of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, or the National Parks Act". The judge decided therefore that any withdrawal orders made pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act could not have an effect on the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. In other words, he said that claim staking under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act could not be curtailed by orders pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act. The judge ordered that mining recorder to accept the prospector's claims.
The day after the court decision, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced in the House that the government would be introducing legislation to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. He also announced that legislation would be retroactive to February 13, the date of his announcement.
On March 9, 1990, Bill C-68 was introduced. This bill amends two pieces of legislation, the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. It will clarify and confirm the government's right to prohibit mineral claims staking on certain lands which may be required for the settlement of aboriginal land claims by specifying this purpose in both of these acts. The changes are essentially technical changes, and as I mentioned earlier, they are retroactive to February 13, 1990.

This bill closes a loophole in the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which allowed a prospector to stake mineral claims on lands selected by the Kluane Tribal Council and withdrawn by the government for the settlement of their claim. It provides for a greater certainty in the Yukon Placer Mining Act. As such, it is an improvement on the current situation pending a final court determination.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government on March 7 filed an appeal on the February 12 court decision with the Federal Court of Appeals.
There are no strong objections to the remedy provided by this bill. The mining associations of the Yukon are generally concerned about the amount of land which has been withdrawn, but support the land claims settlement process and the bill because it provides for great uncertainty for the industry.
The CYI concluded, however, after reviewing Bill C-68, that it does not go far enough in terms of protection which is to be provided to the unsurrendered lands of the Kluane Tribal Council and the other Yukon first nations. Their primary recommendations to the committee was to amend Bill C-68 so as to prevent staking or mining on the unsurrendered land of the Yukon First Nations until such time as their claims to those lands have been settled, or they have otherwise expressly consented to such staking or mining.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my office did try to frame an amendment between the time the committee had finished with the bill and this debate today to respond to that concern expressed by the Yukon Indians. We were told by legal counsel, however, that our amendment would be out of order because it went beyond the scope of this bill.
Unfortunately, this bill is not constructed in a way that permitted us to strengthen the position of the Yukon First Nations. We regret that, and we wish we could have done more to protect the rights of the Yukon Indians. We recognize that the bill before us at least takes a step in that direction.
In conclusion, we support this bill because it closes the loopholes the government was not aware of. It corrects a mistake caused by the government's negligence. It is an improvement on the present situation but, I stress, it
Government Orders
does not go far enough to protect the unsurrendered aboriginal lands from third-party alienation.
Aboriginal people involved in land claims negotiations continue to see their lands alienated, despite the fact that no settlement of their claim has been reached. This occurs in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, and in British Columbia. Revisions to the land claims policy are needed to better protect aboriginal interests, rights, and titles.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had a long speech to give on this Bill C-68, but my hon. friend from Nunatsiaq has laid it out for the House very thoroughly and comprehensively. I feel I now have to emphasize only two or three points that he made at the very end of his presentation.
I would like to congratulate him in terms of laying out the history of this whole issue, and also to acknowledge the fact that much was done in committee in a very co-operative way to advance the situation that existed in the Yukon. As my hon. friend from Nunatsiaq has indicated, there are still some problems with this bill.
The fact that the Kluane Tribal Council and the Council of Yukon Indians maintain that this bill does not go far enough in protecting their unsurrendered lands in their continuing negotiations over land claims, is something that we, as members, ought not to take lightly.
We are pleased in terms of the progress that it has shown, not only in terms of the land claims settlement in the Yukon, but also the progress shown in this bill. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that these outstanding issues and concerns remain.
Both the tribal council and the Council of Yukon Indians wanted Bill C-68 amended to prevent staking and mining on their unsurrendered lands until the land claims are settled, or they have given consent for this type of activity. The Council of Yukon Indians maintains that our Canadian constitution requires the land claims be settled before their homelands are opened up for use by others. I recall that a legal opinion by Tom Berger supports this claim that the Council of Yukon Indians makes.
Perhaps I can give a moment or two or background in the time remaining. When the British North America Act established the Dominion of Canada back in 1867, the Yukon First Nation land was not part of Canada.

Government Orders
Canada wanted to acquire Rupert's Land in the northwestern territory in order to extend Canada to the Arctic Ocean. The conditions, Mr. Speaker, that you probably will recall as a student of history, as well as constitutional history, set up by the Senate and the House of Commons in 1867, said the homelands transferred "-will be considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British Crown in the dealings with the aborigines". Does that not sum it up, Mr. Speaker, clearly for all of us?
This was accomplished through various treaties which allotted lands for settlement by non-natives. This existed until the Klondike Gold Rush, from which time to the present, the Council of Yukon Indians says represents a breach by the government in allowing lands to be used, and if I may say abused, as well, while no attempts were made to settle claims on the unsurrendered lands. Natives claim that Canada is not honouring its constitutional duties to natives in the Yukon because unsurrendered lands are not being protected.
As well, the Council of Yukon Indians, does not wish to reverse development, just to freeze it, until land claims can be settled in order to prevent alienations in the future.
I would refer to the the claims staked by the miner, Mr. Halferdahl, in an area that was desired by the native people. The miner was able to retain these because of a loophole in the Territorial Lands Act. He took these claims to court, as my hon. colleague has already pointed out, and his position was upheld. The point is that if Bill C-68 was made retroactive to 1987, he would lose his claims and would have to be compensated according to the government. Fair enough. If he keeps his claims by virtue of Bill C-68 being effective in February 1990, will the government compensate the Council of Yukon Indians? I think this is a critical question now that we must pursue.
The Council of Yukon Indians has said that it has been involved in negotiations for compensation for many, many years while this particular miner has only been involved briefly and yet the government is prepared to offer compensation to him.
While we in the New Democratic Party support Bill C-68, let us all acknowledge that much work remains to
be done and we look forward to the appropriate committee and those interested members of the House to continue with their interest in this issue in terms of improving it even more in the future.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-82, an Act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and an Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal, and to valid te certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Pierre H. Cadieux: moved that Bill C-82, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. members:: Now.


Pierre H. Cadieux: moved that Bill C-82 be read the third time and passed.


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


David Charles Dingwall: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands and I have had very long speeches prepared to give on this particular bill, but in view of the shortness of the hour, we would concur that the bill be proceeded with and passed at all stages in the spirit of Christmas.
There are a number of problems which our critic has raised and we just wish to echo those which are contained in Hansard for November 5, 1990.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried, on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Ihriff, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act and the Thx Court of Canada Act, without amendment.
*
*



ROYAL ASSENT

["There being no unanimous consent I must say that the time allocated for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.\nPursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this order is dropped from the Order Paper.\nIt being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Private Members' Business
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. John Sopinka, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 14th day of December, 1990, at 2 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

It being two o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



Nelson Andrew Riis: that Bill C-332, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for seconding my motion to allow it to be presented.
This particular bill enables young people 16 years and over to vote in federal elections. I might say that I think all of us have had innumerable experiences as we have met young people in our careers as parliamentarians and recognized and acknowledged the fact that many young people, age 16, 17, and perhaps even a lot younger than that, are quite capable of making a judgment when it comes to who ought to represent them in the Parliament of Canada, which political party, which political persuasion if you like, the kind of person. I hope one day that we can expand this so 16-year olds will also have the opportunity perhaps to elect senators and be senators, to represent a more democratic approach to political decision-making in our country.
I want to make my case by first of all acknowledging the discussions I have had with groups of young people, particularly in a formal sense, from Cariboo University College, from Brocklehurst Secondary School, Norkam Secondary, Kam High, Westsyde Secondary, Barriere

December 14, 1990
Private Members' Business
Secondary, Clearwater Secondary, Chase Secondary, Logan Lake Secondary, as well as a whole host of junior high schools. Also, on a number of occasions with the more senior years in elementary school where we discussed what age would be appropriate in terms of people voting in general elections. After these discussions and recognizing the understanding that young people today have of international affairs and national affairs, the understanding of the legislative process, it is with no hesitation that I say that I believe it is appropriate that we change legislation to empower those youngsters who are 16 and 17 years of age to be able to vote in our general elections.
The reasons for this are many. At age 16 young people are able to join the Armed Forces of Canada. I believe if we say to a young man or young woman that at age 16 with parental consent you are able to join the Armed Forces of Canada and go off to represent Canada in perhaps, unfortunately, places of conflict, they ought also to have the right to decide on those people who will represent them in the nation's Parliament.
At age 16 young people are able to get married legally, again with parental consent, but marriage and the responsibilities of marriage surely indicate that at that age people are capable of taking on the responsibilities of very serious decision-making.
Of course, at age 16 young people are able to drive vehicles, high powered cars, and take the responsibility of driving safely and manoeuvring an automobile down our crowded highways. Surely with that responsibility, we can assume that young people have the ability to make veiy thoughtful decisions in terms of those representing them in Parliament.
We also recognize that many young people aged 16 are working full time, or part time at least, as a result of supporting themselves through their senior level of school. As a result, they are subject to the minimum wage. At age 16 the minimum wage becomes effective. Again we recognize that particular age of change in a young person's life.
We also recognize that as these young people work, they need a full time or part time job, they are contributing to the unemployment insurance plan. They are
paying their taxes if their incomes are of a particular level and contributing to society in a regular way.
I might say also that many young people take on responsibilities now that I am impressed with. I almost consider it to be awesome in terms of the way they approach their studies, the way they are involved in community groups and organizations and make contributions in very serious ways.
I have sat with friends of my sons and discussed national political issues only to be moved after hearing the extent to which these young people are aware of issues and how they are able to articulate their concerns, maturity, thoughtfulness and wisdom of the views that they hold. They are not necessarily always the same as my own.
I recognize that people view a particular item or an issue-nationally, internationally, even locally-with different biases. As a result, they have different views. But I have always been impressed with their ability to analyse.
It is fair to say that these days, as a result of the sophisticated educational programs, of the communications systems that enable young people to be instantaneously informed about issues around the globe, these young people are quite capable of deciding, if they wish, who ought to represent them in the nation's Parliament.
Some people react by saying: "These people are simply too young to make a decision. They are too inexperienced. They just do not have the background". I hate to say this, but not too many years ago people made those same claims about native people. It is almost one of our national disgraces when we think that it was only back in the 1950s when native people were permitted to vote. Again, a very dark mark on Canadian history.
If you look back at the debates of that time, people were saying: "Do native people have the information, experience and the background to make an intelligent decision?" Well, of course, they did and to even think about it and question it now would be an embarrassment.
Not too many years ago, on May 24, 1918, the decision was made to give women the vote. When you look back at those debates and those discussions, it was the same thing: "Are women able to make a serious decision?".

When we think back now, it is laughable to even think that those discussions took place.
When people scoff at or reject the idea outright that young people aged 16 and 17 are incapable of making a decision, let us remember that these same young people are capable of making decisions in terms of participating in the Armed Forces, participating as drivers on our highways, participating meaningfully in the workplace or entering into a state of matrimony.
For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I submit to you that we ought to consider changes to legislation in order to provide young people aged 16 and 17 an opportunity to vote in national elections. I can hardly pass without making the observation that, in all of the discussions I have had with young people who are interested in the state of affairs of the day, and I will acknowledge that many are not, young people do not lay awake night after night worrying about our trade with Bolivia or many of the other items that we concern ourselves with in this House, but many do. The fact is that many young people do take the issues before us and our national political agenda very seriously.
I must say that the times I have spent in discussions, either with clubs in schools or universities and informal and formal organizations across the country, these people are-and I am hesitant to say it but I think it is very true-much more informed than many people who are participating in the electoral process. I often wonder what it is that motivates people to cast ballots in certain directions. I think we probably are not as bad as the United States, but we see sort of creeping into our electoral system reasons for casting political decisions that are somewhat suspect in terms of their intellectual weight and wisdom.
However, it is time that we provide an opportunity for these young people ages 16 and 17 to vote. That is not saying that we require every person at age 16 to vote because many are not interested and perhaps do not feel an inclination to participate in the electoral process. But for those increasing numbers who do, who recognize that the decisions made in the House of Commons of Canada will have a profound effect on their lives, and I do not have to go any further than to refer to what we will do
Private Members' Business
later today, that is the final stage of the implementation of the 7 per cent goods and services tax-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I recognize that my Conservative friends applaud the tax. They think this is a good idea. But I think when young people realize that every video they rent, every cassette they purchase, every time they get a haircut or go to the local movie theatre, buy hockey tickets, or whatever, they will pay a 7 per cent tax to the Mulroney government. Obviously, it will have a profound effect on their lives. If a young person works and spends hundreds and even thousands of dollars during the year, they will have to add a 7 per cent extra tax now to this federal government as a result of the goods and services tax that has been imposed on Canadians. This will have a very special impact on the lives of Canadian young people.
Whether you look at the tax system as it affects young people and the educational policy of the federal government in terms of their futures, colleges, universities and technical and vocational schools, whether you consider the support or lack of support by the federal government in terms of research and development, in terms of economic development, when you look at regional development programs and whether they create more jobs or result in job loss, these are all issues that most young people are very concerned about.
Post-secondary education. When you look, Mr. Speaker, at what the government is doing in terms of post-secondary education, this is a major implication for the young people of today. When you look at fiscal policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, social policy, they all directly affect the lives of our young people. They have a very serious vested interest in the future because they are going to live the rest of their lives there. For that reason, I believe it is appropriate that all of us recognize the value of this bill. It is something that I and my party have recommended to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, a Royal commission that toured the country earlier this year seeking input from various groups and political parties on necessary changes, and I am proud to say that it was the federal New Democratic Party that made this recommendation that when the changes to the electoral laws are drafted, consideration be given to have age 16 as the year where Canadians would be eligible to vote in federal elections.

December 14, 1990
Private Members' Business
I look forward to the support from my colleagues in the House of Commons from the Liberal Party, as well as the Progressive Conservative Party, and look forward to the day when we provide the opportunity for young people to be empowered so that they are involved in a serious meaningful way in deciding on the next federal government of Canada.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know that my speech will probably be interrupted by a number of knocks on the door later on, when we are asked to- I don't want to be rude and ask the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, when he comes from the Senate, to wait a minute-we have been waiting for quite some time-nor would I want the newspapers to report tomorrow that a masterful speech by the hon. member for Beauhamois was interrupted by a member of the Senate.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about the right to vote, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one country in particular, Haiti, which next Sunday, will exercise its right to vote. I worked as chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on Haiti with my colleagues from Windsor-St. Clair, Papineau-Saint-Michel and Chicoutimi, and our friend Leo Duguay, who is no longer with us. I therefore want to wish Haiti good luck. I have visited the country and travelled there at least three times, and I know that to them it is extremely important. While we are discussing lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, they are anxious to exercise their franchise undisturbed, for once.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Kamloops concerning Bill C-332, whose purpose is to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Elections constitute the foundation of our political system and our democracy. It is the way we choose our governments and express the values that influence our public decision-making. That is why the right to vote is so important. I would first like to give a short history of the right to vote in Canada and then explain why the present voting age is 18.
In our first elections, which date back to the 18th century, the vote was limited to male property holders. From 1867 to 1920, the federal franchise was often manipulated in a blatantly partisan fashion by the political parties.
Until 1884, the federal franchise was based on provincial laws and included a property qualification, thus depriving large sections of the population of the right to vote.
During World War I, Canada adopted the War Time Elections Act and the Military Voters Act in 1917. These measures enfranchised members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their female relatives, while disenfranchising conscientious objectors and British subjects naturalized after 1902 who were bom in an enemy country or habitually spoke an enemy language. We have come a long way since then.
In 1918, women were first granted the right to vote federally.
In 1920, Parliament adopted legislation establishing the right to vote across the country and thus constituting the foundation of our present system. In 1948, the last statutory disenfranchisement of Asians was removed. The federal franchise was extended to the Inuit in 1950 and to status Indians in 1960.
It is now 1990. Canada has matured as a democracy and as a nation. Under our Constitution, Mr. Speaker, Canada now has a virtually universal franchise. All Canadian citizens 18 years of age and older are eligible to vote. The only exceptions are federal judges, inmates of prisons and mental institutions, and any person disqualified for corrupt or illegal electoral practices. These exceptions are specified in the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, the present voting age is 18. It was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1970, and I think we should look at the reasons why changes were made at the time and see whether they put a new perspective on today's debate.
Voting rights for young people were a major legislative concern in many countries at the end of the 1960s.
In the Throne Speech on October 23, 1969, why the voting age was lowered. And I quote:
A disturbing element in many countries of the world has been the rising tide of unrest, particularly among young people. It has expressed itself in many ways, in public debate, in peaceful protest and sometimes in violence. Our profound disapproval of the excesses must not blind us to deeply felt and legitimate aspirations. Many citizens in our own country believe that they are entitled to assume greater responsability for the destiny of our society. Such demands, insofar as they do not

conflict with the general welfare, are the expression of a truly democratic ideal. They must be satisfied if our society is to attain its goals of peace and justice.
This was taken from the Throne Speech read on October 23, 1969.
A look at the debate on lowering the voting age as reported in Hansard shows that the proposal was very well received in the House of Commons. In 1970, it was felt that lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was both appropriate and inevitable. This meant that 1,200,000 young people would have the right to vote.
At the time, it was felt that these were students who were well informed, interested and intelligent, and very much concerned about the problems and injustice of this world. Courses in civics, political science and related disciplines were becoming increasingly widespread.
Many people expressed the view that these young people would have a major impact on Canadian governments and their policies, an impact that would be very beneficial to the Parliament of Canada and the entire country.
There were other reasons for this initiative, Madam Speaker. First of all, it was the logical outcome of a process that had been going on for quite some time, especially since the last World War when 18 year-olds had been given technical and often dangerous jobs. Originally, the right to vote was very restricted, in one way or another, and for many years it was considered a privilege of the elite. The age of 21 was considered the age of maturity. In 1970, however, circumstances changed considerably. The decision to lower the voting age reflected a desire to channel the enthusiasm and energy of young people and get them interested in the country's politics, the theory being that out of boredom they might otherwise create a disturbance and get involved in reckless and often subversive activities.
Mr. Mazankowski was also very much in favour of lowering the voting age to 18. On November 3, 1969, at page 427 in Hansard he said:
We hear suggestions from our youth that political parties are irrelevant. They want more than mere participation at the polls at election time. They are looking for, a meaningful sense of participation. We in the various political parties all say that the
Private Members' Business
future of our parties depends on the involvement of youth. But what are we doing to encourage the youth of this country to become more active in political affairs? I hope possession of the franchise will instil in them a real sense of enthusiasm for the building of this country; God bless us, there is a great deal to be done. I am sure it will lead to much the same enthusiasm as many of us experienced in our election campaigns last year.
The feeling in 1970 was that by lowering the electoral age of majority, the government was attracting young people to the centres of decision.
Madam Speaker, at the time parliamentarians were almost unanimous in their support for lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. Most people felt that 18 year-olds were well educated, socially responsible and capable of making their own political decisions.
It is clear that the voting age was lowered for two main reasons: 18-year-olds were considered to be sufficiently mature to take part in our electoral system, and it was also clear that young people between the ages of 18 and 21 were demanding a bigger say in the government's decision-making process.
Personally, Madam Speaker, and these will be my final comments, I think 18 is the right age to have the right to vote.
I don't have the impression society has changed to the extent that we should give young people between the ages of 16 and 18 the right to vote. And I don't think young people under 18 are demanding the right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I think the Canada Elections Act should remain unchanged and should not be amended to set the voting age below 18.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to take part in the debate this afternoon. The previous speaker certainly made a major contribution to this debate. The hon. member for Kamloops who presented the bill expressed an idea that may be new but is nevertheless in the general interest. I am proud to support his bill and I also want to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond East who seconded the motion for second reading of the bill presented by the hon. member for Kamloops.

As election reform critic for this party, I had the opportunity to appear before the Royal Commission on

Private Members' Business
Electoral Reform and Party Financing in connection with its study of the electoral laws of Canada.
In the course of our party's presentation, in which I was a participant before that Royal commission, I was asked a question about lowering the age to age 16. I believe the New Democratic Party had been before the commission just before and had proposed the idea embodied in the bill that has been introduced since by the hon. member for Kamloops. I was asked my opinion of it, and I gave my opinion then.
I will give it again to this House. I am not opposed to reducing the voting age. It just seemed to me there was not a hue and cry in Canada for a reduction in the voting age. If the consensus in the population is that we should leave the voting age at age 18 and not lower it, then I would go along with that.
I said that quite deliberately before the commission. I am repeating my own words because I know the hon. member for Kamloops was not there to hear them. He may find these new. In my view the Canada Elections Act is probably the most public act of any in Canada, except the Constitution of course. In so far as Canadians are concerned, it is the act they feel most close to in terms of interest in it and the way it applies to them. During the course of every election campaign thousands and thousands of Canadians become aware of some provision or another of the Elections Act. It touches our lives very directly. It may only be at specified intervals, every four or five years, but the fact is it does touch our lives at those times in a most direct way. Canadians have a very real interest in the Canada Elections Act and feel more possessive, I suggest, toward that act than almost any other that has been adopted or could be adopted in this Parliament.
For that reason, public input on this issue is vital. The royal commission is doing studies. The royal commission, I am sure, will be conducting some surveys in determining what Canadians feel about various aspects of the electoral law. I look forward to reading those surveys and to seeing the studies that are conducted by the commission before finally making up my mind on this issue. I believe this issue will be before Parliament, not just in the form of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops but in a comprehensive bill to amend the Canada Elections Act which I believe will be forthcoming from the Royal commission. At that time, if the
commission proposes a voting age of any number, I am sure that there will be a committee of this House studying the matter, returning to this House and asking us to approve or not the change in the voting age.
I hope that the hon. member for Kamloops, should this bill not have been passed by the time the Royal commission report comes to Parliament, would propose his amendment again at that stage so that we could discuss it and make a decision on it. It is important that the elected representatives of people make a decision, having heard the views of their constituents and of the public. I certainly would be interested in hearing those views. I would welcome correspondence on the issue at any time.
My impression-and I stress that it is an impression- is that there is not much clamour for a reduction of the age from 18 to any other age, be it 16, younger or older. There is general satisfaction with the age of 18 as is currently the case in the law.
I was interested to look back at the Debates when the voting age was lowered. When I was 18 years of age, I could not vote. I had to wait until I was 21, which dates me somewhat. I believe it was 1970 that the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21. There was a debate in this House about the act at that time. I ran across a quotation which was against lowering of the age, and it was a view that did not prevail. I want to quote it because it was a very distinguished member of Parliament who was a neighbour of mine. He was the member for Frontenac- Lennox-Addington. His successor in this House would be the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Mr. Alkenbrack was the member at that time. He made a speech on this very subject. I would like to quote from his speech at page 7461 of Hansard for May 28, 1970:
I am opposed, however, to lowering the age limit to 18 for those who stand for public office. I do not agree we have to go that far to show our young people that we are with them and that we think it is time for them to become active in government. No man or woman who has just reached the age of 18 has had a chance to receive either a full education or an appreciable degree of practical experience.
I do not necessarily share the views of the hon. member who spoke, but it is obvious that the people of Canada, by and large, shared that view. I do not believe an 18 year-old has yet been elected to hold a position in this House, although we have had some fairly young

December 14, 1990

members, none have been that young. Although the age has been lowered-


Mr. Malone:: I was.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Is the hon. member suggesting he was 18 when he was elected? I find it hard to believe. I did not realize he had been here so long.


Arnold John Malone: In the last election.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: In the last election? There was one who was 18 who was elected? The hon. member is trying to suggest he was 18 in the last election. I appreciate that and I wish it were so for all of us. It is not quite the fact.
Given that, I think that the public at large makes some choice in deciding who will represent the public in Parliament. The preference seems to be for persons who are older than 18. There have been 21 year-olds elected, I am aware of that and there were some in the sixties. But it is unusual to have them as young as 18 years of age.
The other thing that was interesting going back in that debate in 1970 was to find out why the age of majority was put where it was, at age 21 at that time. It has been lowered to age 18 since.
I came across an interesting quotation in the debate at page 7399 of Hansard on May 27, 1970. The member who was speaking quoted from Holdsworth's "History of English Law". The quotation is from that. It is not really from the Hansard of that date but the speaker on that occasion used it. I would like to read the short section:
In Roman law young people were divided, like Gaul, into three parts. First, there was infantia which was ultimately fixed as under 7 -it is perhaps ironical that it is this word whose descendant has come to be used in our law for everyone under 21 -
Of course, that has been changed by statute to 18.
Roman historians state that the barbarians reckoned their young were old enough to cany arms and be counted as grown up at 15. And 15 became the general age of majority in Britain and northern Europe during the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, though not specifically linked with fighting ability. But by the time of the Norman Conquest there was a change of emphasis. The role of the mounted knight became more and more important, the armour heavier and heavier and the horses more enormous as time went on. By the time of Magna Carta the age for those holding in knight service had been raised to 21 and there is strong authority for the view that this was directly linked
Private Members' Business
with the ability to hold up a heavy suit of armour and lift a lance or
sword at the same time.
Perhaps that is an explanation of how we got to 21. Perhaps hearing that explanation our legislators in 1970 decided that 18 was a more appropriate age. In any event, that is the age we now have.
The hon. member for Kamloops and the members of his party have evidently, in convention, voted to lower the age to 16.1 know this is party policy. I assume it was adopted at a convention.
The hon. member has introduced this bill. I am pleased to support it in principle at second reading in order to allow for the matter to be studied in committee in this House where I hope the committee could review the provisions, hear from the public, and ultimately recommend the bill back to the House or not, with or without changes. I am happy to assist in seeing that the bill go to committee. I believe it is one that should be studied and then, if we choose to deal with it in a different way at third reading, we can each make up our own mind, having heard the evidence and having looked at the views of the people of Canada who, I think, will have something to say on this important subject. Those are a few thoughts on the matter.
I should add one more caveat about the Royal commission. The hon. member for Kamloops has this bill to amend the Canada Elections Act before this House. I also have introduced a substantial bill to amend the Canada Elections Act in a more comprehensive way. I have urged the government to accede to a request to refer all of these bills to a committee for study so that we can make a significant number of amendments to the existing Canada Elections Act, in order to have it in shape for the next election.
I have stated before and I will state again my concern that the Royal commission is not going to report in time to allow this House to deal with its report and make the changes to the Canada Elections Act that are necessary, if we are to run another election properly in Canada. I believe that, notwithstanding the very good intention of the Royal commission we, in this House, need to take the Canada Elections Act very seriously, look at it in a serious way and effect changes to it on a prompt basis, if

December 14, 1990
Private Members' Business
we are going to be able to run an election in this country without having the courts make the decisions that should be made in this House and in this Parliament.
So I urge hon. members to look through the Order Paper, study the 10 or so bills that have been introduced to amend this act, and see if agreement could not be achieved to refer those bills to a committee for study and to see if we could not get unanimous agreement among members of the House to adopt those bills as a means of effecting a reform of our electoral law.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, every once in a while when Canadians have come to the conclusion that this place cannot get any more foolish, that this House of Commons cannot get any more silly, when no member anywhere in the Parliament of Canada can come up with a more ridiculous idea, along comes the member of the New Democratic Party and saves us all from that notion that there is no bottom.
What we have before us today is the proposal that we lower the voting age to 16. The argument put forward was that there are capable people at age 16 who know how to vote. I want to say to the hon. member for Kamloops: He is absolutely right.
But, having said that he is absolutely right, exactly the same argument can be made for 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, 13 year-olds, 12 year-olds, and 10 year-olds. There are, here and there, though in diminishing numbers, people of lower and lower ages who have the capacity to make the intellectual judgments about the running of the country and who are every bit as capable as an adult. But I submit that is not the question. One of the roots of the question here is whether or not we have a right, in this society, to make arbitrary judgments. We make arbitrary judgments in many things. We make arbitrary judgments in respect of our driving patterns and our driving laws in this country.
If the NDP would admit for a moment that we should remove those, then we would take down the stop signs which, arbitrarily, tell people at an intersection that they have to stop, look both ways, and then proceed. It is absolutely arbitrary in North America and in much of Europe today that you drive on the right-hand side of
the road. We cannot justify that it is better to drive on the right-hand side of the road than the left-hand side.
So the question really comes to, why do we have a voting age that is defined in any process at all. I think most Canadians would start from the presumption that you have to, in a free and democratic society as is granted by the Charter of Rights but within the reason of democratic capacity to put some judgment to it, not allow everybody from birth to vote. That simply means that you would then have a situation where the adult in that family would bear more influence if they had more children because they would exercise their vote through their children.
When we come to these questions as to whether or not young people ought to be able to vote under a certain age, it seems to me that it is appropriate to ask the question: what was the first principle of Parliament? The first principle of Parliament, some 730 years ago, was to control the King's purse. From the first principle, it has remained the most important principle every since. The most important reason why we assemble here is to control the expenditures of Parliament. That is what Parliament is about. It is about controlling public expenditures. There is no principle more important than that.
The truth of the matter is, in today's society, persons age 16 by law are not supposed to be obtaining permanent work. Yes, they get part-time work and they will work in some places with some dominance such as McDonald's fast food outlets, but they are unable to enter into contract. It seems to me that, at an age where they cannot enter into marriage of their own judgment, cannot enter into contract, cannot take on permanent work, that it is not the kind of life experience that then allows them to come to Parliament or to vote in Parliament for the question of asking the process: "Should I or should I not be able to make a judgment vis-a-vis the question of the public accounts of Canada?"
This silly idea of lowering the age simply because we know some people who are capable begs the question as to how far down do we go. Like the hon. member for Kamloops, I too could name those people in equal numbers to him. I do not know where we would stop but
December 14, 1990

I know of 10 year-olds whose capacity to comprehend Parliament astounds me and for which I give them tremendous credit.
Is Canada better if we open up that process? Is there not also to be viewed a notion that democracy itself is to be so cherished and so privileged that there may well be a benefit from the waiting period and that we come to a level of maturity, understanding, experience, and economic relationships before we are able to exercise our right to vote and to influence our country?
Surely, it seems that if we lower-and for the same reasons that the hon. member for Kamloops said today, I could lower it another year next year-I do not know how low we could go, but I think we could go a long way down and still justify it on the same basis. Is this notion of the vote to have no criteria attached or no privilege? The best judgments might well come from those who have had to observe and experience for a while before exercising their franchise.
I might say, as an aside, if I were to give the hon. member for Kamloops an award-as the hon. member for Nickel Belt would do-for the most foolish idea of the year, the first runner-up would be the Reform Party who I would presume would want to have the voting age raised to age 65.
We talk about this arbitrariness in, for example, driving cars or consuming alcohol. In my province of Alberta, the legal age for the consumption of alcohol is 18. In the province we are in at this moment, Ontario, it is 19. Those are two arbitrary ages and they are different. We know that there are persons who probably could consume modest amounts of alcohol at younger ages without harm, and there are some of them at the age of 53 years, or some other age, who may not be able to consume alcohol, wherever they may be, or ought not, or should not, and never will be able to.
We make those arbitrary decisions in life. We make them about entering into contract.
There are persons who are 18 years of age who should not enter into contract. We say they can because they are 18. There is no other reason. They lose their shirt and everything. It may very well be that, if they had waited until the age 30, they would still have lost their shirts.
There are historical examples of people who entered into business when they were 14. E.B. Eddy, who started
Private Members' Business
across the river here, is one Canadian example. At 14 years of age he entered into the business world. Sir John A. Macdonald was a lawyer when he was 16 years of age. Nevertheless we take society as we see it in the broad overview.
I want to come to another aspect of this question which I think should cause us to pause and reflect. What is the value of youth? What is the value of being a child? Is there not to be a period in our lives when we are carefree, when we have fun, and when we can take life from the imagery and imagination of being youthful, doing those kinds of things ought to be set aside for the purpose of children. They ought not to bear the burden of the workplace. They ought not to bear the burden of raising incomes. They ought not to bear the burden of having to vote or run for public office.
I submit for all the arguments that the hon. member for Kamloops used today to have the voting age go down, the same argument would be just as valid for 15 and 14 year-olds, perhaps even for 12 or 10 years of age. But somewhere along that line we encroach on something more important. We encroach on childhood, young adolescence, and on that period where there ought to be a time for not bearing the burden of the adult world. I submit the development of a human body is as important to protect as is the extension of rights that they ought to vote.
Give children the chance to have time to play. They grow up too fast now. Physical relations are too soon now. Alcohol consumption is too soon now. Why go one step further to ask that they now bear the burden of public office when they can bear in just two years later at the next election. Eighteen years is not a long time to wait to be granted for life the chance to run for public office, to vote, and to take part.
No one is doubting their capacity or their ability. It simply is a better approach to say: "Let them be children as long as they might".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon I would also like to speak to the important tonic raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. Of course, it sounds good to say we will set the voting age at 16 instead of 18.

Private Members' Business
I remember-it seems it was only yesterday-when we were eligible to vote at 21. Most members of this House will recall that they all voted for the first time at the age of 21.
In the 70s, the voting age was lowered to 18. I have noticed, and I am not saying this is due to the fact that the voting age was lowered to 18, that we have had a number of problems since then which I intend to address here. Since the 1970s, parents seem to have shown progressively less interest in their children.
We often hear people say: "You are 18 now, so pick up your things and go and live your own life". This may be due to the fact that at that age they are now considered to be adults. Before, we used to hear this when a young person turned 21. They use to say: "At 21 you can stand on your own two feet, so go out and live on your own". Now this is being said to 18 year-olds. And across Canada, we see all the problems that young people are having. I very much agree with what the previous speaker said: Why do we want to take away the right of our young people to be young? I think that at 16, young people want to be young. They do not want to have more responsibilities than they can handle. At 16 they want to enjoy their youth.
My son is 20, and when he was eligible to vote, at 18-his first time was in 1988-he told me: "I am proud to have this responsibility but I think it is a little too soon". He said: "I may be privileged in having parents who helped me over the years to find out about the history of my country". He didn't necessarily learn all this in school. We told him about the history of our country. In any case, he felt better prepared than some of the kids in his group. He often told me: "Dad, lots of kids at my school went to vote, and they didn't even know why they were voting or who they were voting for". They had not yet developed an interest in government. They didn't realize what being eligible to vote was all about. In fact, it is a major, fundamental responsibility.
When I look at the way parents react and how they perceive their relationship with their children, I wonder whether we should really encourage this trend so that soon, parents will be saying: You are 16? Good. You are eligible to vote, so you can leave home and stand on your own two feet. I am not so sure a 16-year-old would be
able to stand on his own two feet and make his way through life and support himself. That just isn't so. I never believed that and I still do not. I do not think we, as parliamentarians, have the right to take away from our youngsters the right to be young and to have time to mature and to develop their personality.
It seems the hon. member's proposal comes in response to demands made by young people. There are young people in my riding, 15 and 16 year-olds, who are extremely mature. But they are the minority. And where do we find these young people? In all political organizations across the country, whether they are NDP, Liberal or Conservative. They come and they start learning how democracy works. They learn to work within the electoral process in a riding. They gradually form an opinion on how a country should be administered and governed. But they get this opportunity at the age of 12,13,14,15 or 16. I agree that as they get more involved in the political process, they become increasingly anxious to vote. Well, they are eligible to vote at 18. People say: "Sure, but they can drive a car at 16".
I am still not convinced that letting a young man or a young girl of 16 get behind the wheel of an automobile is the best decision we could make in our lives. I am not sure that young people of that age are all very mature. I am not saying that they are all immature, but I am not convinced they all have the same level of maturity. Maybe 1 out of 100 or 10 out of 100 are mature enough to be allowed behind the wheel of an automobile. A car is just as dangerous as a firearm if you don't know how to use it. However, we cannot say yes to some and no to others. I am not convinced it was a very good idea to give them the right to drive at this age.
I remember that when the voting age was lowered to 18, people said that if they were old enough to vote, they were also old enough to have a pint in a tavern. So, naturally, the drinking age was also lowered from 21 to 18. I remember distinctly that I had my first beer in a public place at 21 years of age. If you were caught drinking under age then, you would get into serious trouble with the police, but mostly with your parents.
At 18, it's all right. You are capable of voting and you are capable of controlling your drinking. At 16,1 am not so sure people are mature enough to assess their drinking capacity and keep it within reasonable limits as we say. I am not convinced.
December 14, 1990

I have hardly a minute left, Madam Speaker, so I will conclude by saying that the idea is interesting and that many of our young people of 16 or 17 are indeed mature enough to vote wisely, but not to assume all the other responsibilities associated with that right. With a decision like this we, parliamentarians, would deprive a lot of our young people of two years of their youth, two years which they could enjoy freely without all these new responsibilities. The right to vote is the most important right given to an individual in Canada, and that right must be assumed.
I remember the first time I was told: "Mr. Ferland, you will be voting at such a place". When I entered the booth the first time to mark my ballot, I was quite nervous. It was a big responsibility. I did not spoil my ballot. I made my choice and I knew very well what the consequences were. Why impose such pressures on our young people? I think they have enough pressures as it is, in our society, without adding this new burden two years too soon.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this debate for a couple of minutes. I think that the issue before us is an issue that has obviously been one debated simply not in the House, but across the country. In fact I can remember as a 16-year-old myself taking a look at this issue and thinking it was an important issue and that I was mature and therefore I should have the right to vote and that I, as a young and responsible member of society, ought to have an opportunity to express my opinion on who should lead the country. I do not think I was unique in that.
I can remember several of my friends at the time being quite excited at the prospect of being able to vote at a younger age. Of course at that time it was very much tied to the question of the consumption and purchase of alcohol. At that time in the province of Alberta, one had to be 21 years of age in order to buy alcohol. Of course, many a 16 year old to 19 year old very much felt that that was the kind of thing they should be entitled to do. We would get into these long and great philosophical discussions about the importance of the issue.
I in fact believe that this issue is important enough that I move:
Private Members' Business
That this House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the second reading stage of government Bill C-332, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The item under consideration is not a government order. The standing order that my colleague has referred to permits him to move that the government business under consideration be considered after the adjournment, but it does not allow for Private Members' Business to be extended in this way. I submit therefore that his motion is out of order, since this particular bill is not a government bill. It is Private Members' Business.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, first, I think my friend is not accurate. I am a private member, the same as are other members of this House. We have an opportunity to participate in a debate such as this one. This is an important issue in which a number of members of the House would like to participate. It is veiy clear that in fact the situation would allow members to rise to participate in this debate and to extend the sitting of this House to allow that participation.
In fact, what we see is an issue that is important to a number of Canadians. Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Kamloops has picked an issue. He has put that into the draw. He felt that issue was important enough to warrant his time and the time of the House. In fact, that is what happened. The issue was drawn.
There were a number of members rising when I rose to speak. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock was rising to speak as well. So, you can see, Madam Speaker, that there are several people who are keenly interested in this bill. I think we should have an opportunity to continue at second reading.
It is very clear that if we look at the whole issue you will find that this is not a unique request. In fact, there is a precedent established by my hon. friend's colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. On another issue during Private Members' Business at another time, the hon. member rose to request that this House have an opportunity to continue the debate on the issue that was before the House in Private Members' Business at that time.

Private Members' Business
If my memory serves me correctly, in fact what happened is that there were not 15 members rising to dispose of the motion. As a result, the debate did continue on for some time and a number of members were able to then put their opinions on the record. As a result of that, ultimately the House came to divide.
My memory fails me as to the particular issue, but you will find that in this circumstance, and as you know, there were members rising. There were members who wanted to participate in this debate. I do not believe that we are involved in anything unique here. I think we have every right to move this motion. We have every right to request that this House not see the clock for the next little while to allow two or three other members who would like to make an intervention have every right and every opportunity to participate in this debate. It is important to all of us who are elected to this House, because this question has much more significance to us, because it-


Marc Ferland: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order? The hon. member for Portneuf.


Marc Ferland: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. I am amazed that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands would hesitate to extend the debate, for he was in favour of this motion. I doubt that my colleague from Kamloops would also refuse his consent since this is his motion.
Madam Speaker, a number of my colleagues in the House want to speak to this important motion concerning the young people of this country. I am really amazed to see that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands does not want to extend the debate, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member seems to be getting into debate right now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, what we are doing is highly out of order. Standing Order 26(1) makes it perfectly clear that what is going on now is unacceptable, and I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you call it three o'clock immediately.


Mr. Hughes:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, and following up on the points that were made by my colleague from northwestern Alberta, I believe that
there are several members here who would like to speak to this veiy important issue. I am one. The member has legitimately put forth the intention and the interest in that proceeding. On that basis, I just want to let you know that there are other members here who have speeches prepared and are prepared to proceed. I just want to bring that to your attention.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, you did recognize me to speak on this subject at about four minutes to the hour, so I think you understand that I was prepared and willing and wanting to speak on this motion.
It does seem strange to me that the members opposite who now want to call it three o'clock are the same members who usually complain that there is not enough debate.
Here we are giving them an opportunity to debate an issue that obviously is of some interest to our colleague from Kamloops.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member.
Reading Standing Order 26(1), it does say: "except during Private Members' Business." This motion can be moved, but not during Private Members' Business.
Standing Order 24(3) tells us the time of adjournment of the House.
I am in the hands of the House. Should the House give unanimous consent for this debate to go on as long as the hon. members want it to, I am quite prepared to extend the sitting.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not think this is a matter of consent.
I think that we have very clearly on our records in this House of Commons the right, as was established not by members sitting on the government side or even members sitting in the Official Opposition, but in fact by a member who had sat in the very party of the hon. member for Kamloops. He in fact moved this, and it was accepted by this House.
I would ask that, at a very minimum, before you make a ruling, Madam Speaker, what you would do is take the time to look up that precedent. It is very crucial. We do not want to do anything that is contrary to the rules. Far from that. In fact, it is very important to us that we go by the precedents that have been established in this House.

As I said, to help the Chair, I want to indicate to the Chair that it was a motion moved, I believe, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. I guess the thing that I find really surprising is that the hon. member for Kamloops, whose bill we are debating here at the moment, is not jumping up to his feet to support me.
It is his bill. We want to support him in it. We want to be with him, talk to him about it, encourage him and maybe even look at some amendments. It is very crucial.


Benno Friesen: There was a precedent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There was a precedent.
When the Standing Orders were rewritten, the fact that during Private Members' Business it cannot be done was added at that time. Unfortunately, it is in our new rules and I cannot at this time do anything else.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I did not hear. You said they changed the rules.


An hon. member:: It is three o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On June 3, 1987, a prohibition was adopted against moving motions under Standing Order 26 during Private Members' Business.


Some hon. members:: It is three o'clock.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, the House by unanimous consent at all times can do what the House chooses to do. On other occasions, a division is required so the expressed intent and the will of the majority of the members in the House can prevail. Given the present
Private Members' Business
argument that has been going on about whether or not the House should continue, my colleague has tempted to use a specific part of our rules of order.
I would like to move that this House continue this sitting this day until a majority of the members of the House agree with an adjournment motion put by a minister of the Crown.
I would like to present that motion, seconded by-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member. Such a motion would require a 48-hour notice. I think the hon. member knows that. The motion is not receivable. It would require a 48-hour notice.
Is there unanimous consent for this debate to continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent I must say that the time allocated for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 17,1990