1990-06-04

["Mr. Speaker, several months ago over 10,000 students across Canada entered a national chess competition to help raise money for projects in the Third World. This year the funds will go to Sister Mona Kelly, a nurse from New Brunswick, to help disadvantaged children in Brazil.\nOn the Victoria Day weekend in May, the winners from each province played off and national champions were declared:. Grade 1-Andrew Ho of Vancouver, B.C.; Grade 2-Lefong Hua of St. Laurent, Quebec; Grade 3-Erez Davy of Windsor, Ontario; Grade 4\nOral Questions\n-Jonathan Beer of Madoc, Ontario; Grade 5-Anthony Castillo of Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 6-Jean-Franfois Gratton of Laval, Quebec; Grade 7-Radu Butan of Toronto, Ontario; Grade 8 -Alexandre Marcil of Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 9-Martin Glass of Westmount, Quebec; Grade 10-Luc Tran of Chicoutimi, Quebec; Grade 11-Leonard Morrissey of St. John's, Newfoundland, and Grade 12-Thanh-Nha Duong of Anjou, Quebec.\nThe Quebec team won the over all championship for the second year in a row. Congratulations to all of the participants and the good work they do for the disadvantaged children of the world."]
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands) moved: that Bill C-222, an act to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act (country of origin), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin debate on Bill C-222 by explaining to the House and to the viewing public the kind of tortuous process that a private members' bill goes through.
This bill was first put on the Order Paper over four years ago by the hon. Jim Manly, since retired, who was the member of Parliament for the then riding of Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands, portions of which are now in my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. It has been on the Order Paper for four years, and it has only now been drawn. For the people out there who wonder about the haste or the speed of government, they have cause to wonder.
The intent of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act (country of origin), was to address what I consider a major flaw or an omission in that act that countries of origin be made clear.
My amendment is that no person shall sell or offer for sale any produce unless the country of origin is shown clearly and legibly on the produce or the packaging thereof or on a sign placed near the produce.
Not only is the private member's bill a tortuous process, but the way this bill has come forth is also somewhat tortured. Until the end of last week we did not know whether the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act actually existed or whether it had been repealed. There was conflicting opinion as to whether or not it existed. Just 10 minutes or 15 minutes ago the Clerk of the House of Commons approached me in the corridor and assured me that yes the bill that I was seeking to amend did exist. Therefore I do not have a procedural hurdle to go over.
I ask the indulgence of the House and of the viewing public because this is complex but it is important for people to understand the route of bills through all devices of the House and how we get to where we are.
Right now the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, first passed in 1935, is in effect but on February 15, 1990 the government tabled the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act and referred the bill to that act. It has been put in a hopper. It is a house cleaning measure. It knows that it has the Canada Agricultural Products Act passed in August 1988, but as a means of trying to house clean the statutes the government has put the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act in the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act.
The intention was to repeal the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act and to give force of the bill to the Canada Agricultural Products Act. This is why there is confusion and this is why the Clerk of the House was good enough to confirm with me that there is a bill which I am now attempting to amend.
There were a number of people in the House who were asking me whether or not I was going to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw this bill, but I felt it was important to speak on it to let people know the kind of Byzantine structures that exist here. What I want in this bill, that is that no person shall sell or offer for sale any produce unless the country of origin is clearly or legibly shown, is important.

June 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
Canadian consumers want to know the country of origin of the produce they buy for a variety of reasons. I will get into those a little later. The state of flux that I refer to on the whole mess that we are dealing with will be absolutely gripping television. People will be sitting on the edge of their chairs for the rest of this hour making sure they know all they want to know about fruits, vegetables and honey.
Obviously the country of origin was a concern of the government. The new Canada Agricultural Products Act under Section 32(i) provided for a way of looking at country of origin, but it is far too weak for my liking. It says:
32.(i) providing for systems to ascertain the places of origin or destination of agricultural products;
We can see that the language is not quite as clear as what I have proposed in Bill C-222.1 think it is in need of clarification because there is a lot of confusion not just about the country of origin but also about the kind of regulations which attend that.
There is lack of clarity regarding regulations. First, as to fines in the original Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, there is provision for fines of up to $50 for violations of the act. That must really scare people away. Firms like Loblaws or Save-On-Foods in my riding must be really scared of a $50 fine if they do not label certain products. There is also confusion about the kinds of produce subject to the labelling requirement.
In the regulations there are 27 listed products, whereas the Minister's office states there are 29. We are talking about products available both in Canada and elsewhere, such as apples, apricots, asparagus, beets, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloup, greenhouse tomatoes, and so on. There are 27 products listed in the regulations and 29 according to the minister's office. Therefore Bill C-222 makes it clear that it is important for people to know the country of origin.
My former colleague, Jim Manly, was motivated to introduce this bill over four years ago for three very important reasons; health, politics and the environment. I am not trying to say there are artificial divisions between those three but I use them as categories for reasons which will become apparent.
Concerned Canadians want to know where their food is coming from. If they participate in a boycott of a product or country, it is important for them to be aware of its origin. If a store carried Chilean grapes labelled when the Chilean regime was particularly repressive people could opt not to purchase those grapes.
Political boycotts of products can only be successful if such products are clearly identified. The present set-up appears to be ad hoc at best. There are only 29 fruits and vegetables now required to be labelled. The 29 are all products which are also grown in Canada. Bill C-222 is an effort to broaden that list.
I want to go back for a moment to grapes. Grapes are an important example because it was not just Chilean grapes that people wanted to boycott, it was also California grapes. This is where the health and environmental questions come in. I think the grape example embodied all three reasons why naming country of origin is important.
Consumers are bombarded with information with respect to the harmful effects of pesticides and chemicals. In Tblare County in California, the heart of the grape-growing region, over five million pounds of toxic pesticides are used annually. It is estimated that this is only one-third of the annual amount used as growers are only required to register certain pesticides. Companies do have an obligation to ensure the safety of the products they produce, but, unfortunately, this is not always the case. I think history has confirmed that we cannot always depend on an agri-food company to give us all the information we require.
I want to give some startling statistics regarding the whole grape question. Since 1986 in the community of Earlimart, California, five children have been diagnosed with cancer. In McFarland, California, 14 children have been so diagnosed. State medical officials claim that these figures represent a percentage per capita which is 12 times higher than national standards. What is interesting about these sad cases of childhood cancer is that the parents of all of these children worked in the vineyards. Several of the mothers of these children were working in the vineyards while they were pregnant.
We have some rather horrific statistics and data to back up the concerns. Five compounds, captain, pyre-
June 4, 1990

thrum, methylbromide, dinoseb and phosdrin, have been targeted for immediate ban. All of them are still being used in Canada. Many of these compounds are carcinogenic and have been identified as being particularly harmful to children when they are still in the womb. Also, pesticide residue is likely to show up in 20 per cent of the California grapes coming on to the Canadian market.
Consumers do require more information when they are buying products. One thinks of the five million pounds of toxic pesticides that are used annually in the California grape market, which only represents those pesticides required to be registered. Canadians should be aware that this is happening and this is the intention of Bill C-222.
I like to buy Canadian produce if I have an option. Obviously, if I want to buy a mango or a papaya, the likelihood of finding a Canadian product like that is rather remote. In wintertime we enjoy eating Granny Smith apples. I would like to know whether or not they are coming from a country such as New Zealand, which I would like to support for a whole range of issues, or whether they are coming from a repressive country.
New Zealand has an admirable record on many things, particularly its anti-nuclear stand. As a consumer, I would like to use whatever impetus I have to boost its economy. If it means buying a bag of Granny Smith apples, so be it. That is my way of supporting that kind of political development in New Zealand. The intent of the bill is to be able to show support for a country as well as to boycott one. If I want to purchase produce from New Zealand, I can do that. If I want to avoid purchasing goods from Romania, I can do that as well.
This bill is very timely. I know the Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General is examining what to do with the Fruits, Vegetables and Honey Act in light of the Canada Agricultural Products Act. I urge my colleagues in the House to send a message to those people who are reviewing this legislation that the indication of country of origin is important.
I urge support of this bill for the political reasons I have outlined, so people can boycott or support certain brands of politics. I urge its support for environmental reasons, to show concern for the kind of pesticides used and concern for the health of the workers involved in the
Private Members' Business
growing of produce. This is something that is concurrent with Canadian values.
Also, regarding environmental concerns, as a world we know we are one. The degradation of agricultural land by overuse and misuse of pesticides does not only hurt the area that is involved, it hurts us all because there is a decreasing amount of arable land. The more land goes down to the devastation of agricultural degradation, the less arable land we have. In conclusion, I urge the House to support Bill C-222 so that Canadian consumers can see clearly the produce they are purchasing and where it comes from, so they can make informed judgements when they are purchasing fruit, vegetables and honey.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the government believes that all Canadians should have the right to information about the food they buy, including the geographic origins of fresh produce.
The bill before us today recognizes that right and attempts to enforce it. The problem is that this legislation is not necessary. Laws and regulations requiring country of origin declarations for fresh fruits and vegetables are already in force.
Bill C-222 attempts to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, first passed in 1935. This bill proposes to amend that act which prohibits the sale of fruits and vegetables unless their country of origin is shown on their container or on a sign nearby.
The Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act was amended in 1942 to prohibit imports of produce which the importer purchased later than 24 hours after shipment from the point of production. Not only did this promote a more efficient use of rail cars during the war years, but it also effectively controlled the consignment selling of fresh fruits and vegetables in this country.
When the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, the CAPS act, was introduced in 1955, it consolidated a number of existing acts, including the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. However, the import provisions contained in regulations pertaining to consignment selling, Sections 56 and 57 as they were commonly called, were not consolidated but remained under the original act.

June 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
For over 40 years these regulations controlled imports on as consignment basis. In other words, imports could only enter Canada under a prior-purchase agreement.
However, in January 1983, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations examined the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. It ruled that the act did not have the enabling authority to regulate consignment selling.
During the following five years there was no attempt to enforce the regulations. During the summer of 1987, it quickly became apparent that Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable markets were vulnerable to surplus products from abroad. These surplus products are sold on consignment and can be sold at depressed prices, in direct competition with Canadian production and pre-pur-chased imports.
Without controls on consignment selling, produce can be imported without firm purchase agreements. Distressed or spoiled produce can enter the market, causing price disruptions in a market that is already price-sensitive.
In order to assist the Canadian horticultural industry, amendments to the CAPS act were brought before this House in June, 1988. With widespread industry support and all-party agreement, a new act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, CAP act, received swift passage.
Statutory authority for regulations to control consignment selling of fresh fruits and vegetables was restored. Swift passage of the bill was important to the entire agri-food industry. However, it was especially crucial to Canada's horticulture sector. The Canadian Horticultural Council and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association considered the new CAP act essential to continued orderly marketing of their products.
Two years ago the remaining two sections of the fruit, vegetables and honey regulations made pursuant to the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act were entirely replaced by the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. The regulations were recently revoked and the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act is in the process of being repealed through the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program.
There are 14 different regulations made pursuant to the CAP Act. The fresh fruit and vegetable regulations
relate to the marketing of agricultural products in import, export and interprovincial trade, provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products and for their inspection and grading.
Marketing is defined in the act as, among other things, the preparation and advertising of agricultural products. Preparation in turn is defined as including processing, slaughtering, storing, inspecting, grading, packaging, assembling, pricing, marking and labelling.
Similar authority to regulate the marking and labelling of agriculture products was contained in the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act and was the authority under which country of origin labelling requirements were written into the regulations.
The CAP Act, however, as I previously reported, replaced the CAPS Act and indicated the government's desire to regulate specifically country of origin labelling when it provided in paragraph (1) of Section 32 the authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations that provide for systems to ascertain the places of origin or destination of agricultural products.
Specifically, it is paragraph 38(1)(F) of the fresh fruit and vegetable regulations which requires a country of origin declaration on shipping containers for bulk produce, and paragraph 38(2)(B) for consumer-sized prepackaged products. The fresh fruit and vegetable regulations made under the new CAP Act prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of 29 fresh fruit and vegetables grown in Canada, if the country of origin is not declared on the packages.
We are, however, expanding this labelling requirement. Within the next few months, through a regulatory amendment to the fresh fruit and vegetables regulations, the country of origin labelling regulation will be extended to all fresh fruits and vegetables. This regulatory amendment is one of a series being processed by the government to bring about greater uniformity in the regulation of all commodities regulated under the CAP Act.
Following the final promulgation of the amendment, the country of origin regulation will apply to all types of fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, and edible fungi. This amendment will not only bring country of origin labelling
June 4, 1990

to all these products, but it will also permit inspectors to examine, analyse and take regulatory action as required.
This will ensure that imported food products are safe, wholesome and free of contaminants for the Canadian consumer. This is something that Canadians have come to expect from their government, and we have committed ourselves to this endeavour.
In addition to the Canada Agricultural Products Act, many provincial laws regulate the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables at the retail level and call for country of origin labelling. For example, Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Ontario Farm Products Grades and Sales Act and regulations state that there must be a declaration of country of origin on all fresh fruits and vegetables sold in bulk at the retail level. Sections 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Quebec regulations contain the same requirements. There is also Section 7 of the Fruit and Vegetable Sales Act, Regulation 222/84 in Manitoba; Section 7 of the B.C. fruit and vegetable regulations; as well as Section 11 of the Natural Products Grades Act, Regulations 81-56, are administered by the province of New Brunswick.
We do not disagree with the idea of Bill C-222. Canadians should be informed about where their fresh produce is grown. But the fact is we do not need to amend this legislation. The right of Canadians to know is already fully protected by existing federal and provincial laws and regulations.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as assistant critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I am pleased to speak on this bill, since I am extremely interested in regulations on labelling.

Bill C-222 is a Private Members' Bill to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act of 1936. The act does not provide for the countiy of origin, something that is extremely important for Canadian consumers. The Canadian consumer is now extremely learned.

He knows what he wants, he knows his product. Canadians today are aware of chemicals, they know about pesticides and they would like to know what there is or what was used that could affect the fruit, vegetables and honey sold.
Private Members' Business
The proposal-

The bill proposes:
No person shall sell or offer for sale any produce unless the country
of origin is shown clearly and legibly on the produce or the packaging
thereof or on a sign placed near the produce.

I find this proposal very reasonable. It refers to legislation-

-a law which is soon to be repealed, the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, which does not talk of the country of origin as far as labelling is concerned.
In the case of there being no grade established, there is tropical fruit, for example, which comes into the country ungraded and, therefore, unregulated.
As the member who spoke before me said, there was an act passed in 1986 called the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, but this particular act does not cover ungraded produce. For example, Canadian apples are regulated and graded. If apples come from outside the country, they would be similarly graded. But there is produce that comes from other countries, is not grown in Canada, and does not need to be graded. Therefore, it is not marked as to the country of origin.
I would also like to refer to the basic labelling requirements under the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. While country of origin is required on such items as clothing, it is not required for food. Food is extremely important for the Canadian consumer. We are not any longer the consumer of the 1930s. The consumer of the 1990s is extremely literate and aware of the affects of pesticides and chemicals in food or on food. As a very literate consumer community, we want to know what is in the food, what has touched the food, and where the food comes from. It is a reasonable amendment to ask that the country of origin be included.
Perhaps the member should have added to the labelling requirements the question of meat. One million pounds of beef comes into the country in carcass or package form that is not graded. It is not marked as to the country of origin. This has resulted in the destruction

June 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
of our beef industry in Ontario, causing the closure of six packing plants last year.
I have in my hand a well-illustrated brochure put out by Canada Packers Incorporated. It shows two pictures of striploin. It states:
The striploin in picture #1 came from a carcass similar to this.
It graded Canada Grade A. To receive that Grade from the Federal Government grader, it had to meet these specifications.
a)	Youthful-Youthful carcasses mean tender meat. Notice the smooth shiny bone texture, A sure sign of youthfulness. Tenderness is the #1 quality criteria by which consumers judge your meat.
b)	A minimum fat cover of not less than 4mm and not more than 19mm-a certain amount of fat coverage is necessary to ensure good quality beef.
c)	Meat that is firm -to provide a pleasant texture for the consumer.
On the other side of this brochure it states:
The striploin in picture #2 came from a carcass similar to this-
That refers to the first picture on the front of the brochure.
Notice the porous hard texture of the bone. This animal was not youthful-the meat would look fine, but generally be tough to eat.
This cow carcass in Canada would grade D or may not be graded at all.
In the U.S. the carcass would often become "No Roll" boxed beef.
Consider these facts!
1)	There are no government quality standards for "No Roll". The packer can use whatever he wants including cows!
2)	Over one million lbs. of "No Roll" product is ending up in Canadian establishments like yours every week!
3)	Consumer studies prove that on average only one in ten unhappy customers complain to their restaurant or store, however they do tell numerous friends and associates.
I am thankful to Canada Packers for informing the consumer community. I wish that the Canadian government would respect Canadian consumers as much and publicize the differences between these meats.

So, Mr. Speaker, I note that it is necessary to indicate what country a certain product or meat comes from. I would also mention that I would even have added "meats" to the amendment.
The NDP member mentioned other reasons, political, working conditions, etc. I would simply say that we have many new Canadians here; of course, we also have many Canadians who might want to encourage buying products from some countries and maybe also discourage buying certain products, but all Canadians would have a choice if they knew the country of origin because it was indicated.
In conclusion, I sincerely and strongly support this motion to indicate the country of origin on the label of all products sold in Canada.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on Bill C-222 which was presented by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I have always had a very keen interest in food production. Certainly, the consumers of the country would want to know that their health interests are protected by the rules and regulations imposed by the government. I can tell you, Sir, that there are probably not too many other countries that have the standards that Canada has.
My association with exporting products has been one that has certainly made me proud to be a Canadian. We have set some of the very best standards in the world, not only in terms of what we import but also in terms of what we export. I can assure hon. members that the government needs take no direction from the other side of the House with respect to the things it has done to continue that tremendous tradition.
Let us just look at a few ideas that were put forward here this afternoon. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, brought forward the fact that we are repealing the old act that was in place and replacing it by the Canada Agricultural Products Act. Even while we are sitting, activities are taking place to improve the quality and the standards that we have set with respect to goods and food products from other countries.

June 4, 1990

As a matter of fact, if the hon. member had done her research, she would have considered the fact that in the next 12 months, according to the new act, all fresh fruit and vegetables sold in Canada will require a country of origin declaration. That is the thrust of her bill. Had she looked at that, we would not have had to detain the House for a whole hour on a Private Members' bill that is totally redundant, in effect, because its concerns are being looked after.
The government did not sit back and do nothing, as was often the case in the past. It has taken measures that are strengthening the consumers' concerns with respect to the importation of foodstuffs.
We brought forward-


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to point out that the hon. member is talking about regulations. The intent of my bill is to place such a measure in the act itself so that the Parliament of Canada would be responsible. The regulations may do that. It is important that consumers be given that protection in the body of the act itself, something with which I think the whole House agrees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: With respect, I should tell the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands that she has had her time during this hour. She is now bringing up a matter for debate.
I will turn again to the hon. member for Portage-Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into a direct debate. I am here to inform Canadians and this House about this bill. Although I think most people will agree it has some credibility in terms of the hon. member's desire to show that she is concerned, and she illustrates that it in the form of a bill, all too often the New Democrats throw everything including the kitchen sink into a private members' bill and hope something gets drawn. Often, they do not do their research. In fact she should have withdrawn this particular piece of legislation. Yet here we are discussing it.


Lynn Hunter: So says you!
Private Members' Business


Felix Holtmann: So says the whole side of this House, because we know that this government has taken very concrete steps and measures that have improved quality controls.
If the hon. member would look at the actions we have taken with respect to some of the chemicals used in this country, she would see that we withdrew Alachlor. This probably was not in the best interests of farmers, but we as a government felt that its withdrawal was necessary to protect consumers. If we are doing it here in Canada, we certainly would not want it to be used anywhere else. We do import goods and products from elsewhere. The Department of Health is very much up on the concerns in these situations.
Under this particular legislation we are looking at trade marking grade names to make Canada's inspection system even more effective and credible. The new act will benefit the consumer by ensuring consistent quality of safe agricultural products.
In the past, the Government of Canada did not have the right to go to foreign countries to look at their processing centres to investigate and to ensure that their products were handled in a correct and hygienic fashion and packaged correctly. Under this act, that is now possible. Consequently, the consumer can be reassured that this government is not sitting on its laurels, but is looking at matters of deeper interest and concern, of which the hon. member obviously was not aware. Had she done a little more investigation as to what the Canada Agricultural Products Act is doing she would have seen that within the next 12 months all fruits and vegetables will be identified by their country of origin. It seems to me that is pretty strong wording. It is a pretty strong commitment by this government. I am sure the member would want to applaud that particular action.
Could it have happened sooner? I suspect that may be a case in point. The fact is that it is moving right along, and I think Canadians ought to know that.
The legislation opens up to us the establishments where products are being prepared. We can now see for ourselves whether the places from where we buy our food abroad meet our manufacturing and sanitation standards.
In fact, this is not just taking place with fruit and vegetables. It is also taking place in the slaughterhouses of South America from where we may be bringing in meat supplies, as well as in the United States and

June 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
Europe. We go right in there and they have to meet our standards. In most cases I suspect our standards are far higher than in those countries. Consequently, we have the right to restrict product coming from those particular areas.
Let me talk about the violations. The law has been strengthened in terms of the penalty. It is interesting to note that anyone who abuses Canada's law with respect to the issues we have talked about face a penalty which has gone from $2,000, an insignificant amount, to $100,000, which strengthens the fact that we mean business. Who knows, maybe that is not high enough yet. But it is certainly a tremendous improvement over what we have had in the past.
The CAP act also gives us the authority to regulate consignment sales of fresh fruit and vegetables. As I have said, the CAP act is addressing the food safety concerns of Canadians. At the same time it is helping the country's fruit and vegetable industry. Because we do have high standards and because Canadians do want quality products, Canadian standards are the ones we use with respect to what we import.
As the hon. member knows, these producers are vulnerable to surplus products sold on consignment. Without controls on consignment selling, produce can be imported without firm purchase agreements and spoiled products can enter the market.
The controls that we have put into place are there to assure Canadian consumers that this government has acted in the best interests of safety and health standards. Clearly, we have to be vigilant at all times because we are a large importer of fruit and vegetables due to our climatic conditions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: I thank the hon. member for Portage-Interlake, who came in just under time. To take us to the top of the clock I recognize the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the House is debating amendments to the bill before us. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, the justice committee is also considering the fruit, vegetables and honey act. It was referred by this House to that committee in February.
The committee is not trying to amend it. It is trying to repeal it.
The bill before us today is not necessary. As was mentioned earlier, this debate is not exactly gripping television drama. Given the problems faced by our country these days, we should be putting our time to a lot more productive use.
The fact is that the amendments found in this bill are redundant. They are already covered in the Canada Agricultural Products Act. That is why proposals have been made to repeal the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act through the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program.
The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program was established about 15 years ago in 1975. Since then five acts have been enacted.
This program permits minor amendments to be made to a number of federal statutes without having to wait for the particular statutes to be opened up for more substantial changes. This program is a means of correcting anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in federal statutes. Enactments that have expired, lapsed or ceased to have effect can also be repealed through the program.
Anyone may propose amendments for possible inclusion in a set of proposals. However, most of the current proposals come from government departments or agencies.
The legislation section of the Department of Justice is responsible for receiving and reviewing proposals. As well, it prepared a document entitled "Proposals to Correct Certain Anomalies, Inconsistencies, Archaisms and Errors in the Statutes of Canada" to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
This document is tabled by the Minister of Justice in the House of Commons and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. The proposals are also tabled in the Senate and referred to its Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Consideration of the proposals by these committees has always been thorough and conducted on a non-partisan basis. I would like to emphasize that if any member
June 4, 1990

of one of the committees objects for any reason to a proposal the proposal will be dropped.
After the committees prepare their reports a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill is prepared. This bill contains only the proposals which are unanimously approved by both committees. Historically, the bills have been passed quickly, given the usual understanding that they will receive all three readings in each House without debate.
The discussion of these proposals is usually completely uncontroversial and a routine process. This is partially due to the fact that there are strict criteria for the types of proposals that the committee will consider. For example, the proposal must not be controversial, involve the spending of public funds, prejudiciously affect the rights of persons, create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
Essentially, the proposals under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act represent an attempt at legislative housekeeping. Members from all parties are in agreement with the process.
Last February when the former justice minister stood in this House to table a proposal, the member for York Centre, a member of the Official Opposition, commented on the useful nature of the process. Because I notice he is listening very intently I will quote him accurately from page 8349 of Hansard of February 15 where he is reported to have said:
I consider it a very useful device for achieving necessary changes in the laws of Canada of a non-controversial nature and also reflecting legal advice and second thoughts about certain clauses of the legislation. I have always regretted that the miscellaneous amending process is not used more openly and more generously than it is.
After that hon. member spoke, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway representing the New Democratic Party stood up to agree that his party was also in favour of the proposed process. He indicated that it could be extended and used successfully to eliminate sexist language from legislation.
This year the justice committee is considering some 75 different acts that have been proposed. Up for repeal, for example, is the Trade Marks Act, overseen by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Paragraphs 45(4)(A) to (C) of this act were excluded from the
Private Members' Business
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 because they deal with the renewal of the registration of trade marks that were registered under various predecessor acts of the Trade Marks Act. These paragraphs require that registration of a trade mark under the predecessor acts be renewed under the Trade Marks Act not later than July 1, 1979.
Once renewed under the Trade Marks Act, the registration of a trade mark is subject to renewal within a period of 15 years after the last renewal. As the renewal of the registration of trade marks is now governed entirely by the Trade Marks Act, there is no need to retain these transitional provisions, which are now spent.
Another statute up for repeal under the current proposals is the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. This act meets all the criteria for consideration under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. It is not controversial. It does not involve the spending of public funds. It does not prejudicially affect the rights of persons. It does not create a new offence.
In fact, the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act does not do anything anymore. It has been replaced by the regulations made under the Canada Agricultural Products Act. Therefore it is not necessary to pass these amendments.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today unnecessarily proposes to legislate the declaration of country of origin for fresh fruit and vegetables. This requirement already exists in the Canada Agricultural Products Act.
As members of the House may know, Canadian fruit and vegetable producers are protected in other ways.
During the drafting of the free trade agreement, this government negotiated special measures to help Canadian fruit and vegetable producers compete. The free trade agreement provides for the elimination of all tariffs between Canada and the United States by 1998. In view of the sensitivity of the horticultural industry to import competition, tariffs on fresh fruit and vegetables are being eliminated in 10 equal stages.
A special safeguard provision was negotiated at Canada's request to protect fresh fruit and vegetable producers from abnormally depressed prices. Article 702 of the free trade agreement allows both Canada and the United States to impose temporary or snap-back duties

June 4, 1990
in addition to any applicable FTA customs duty up to the most favoured nation rate of duty in effect.
Certain conditions must be met before the mechanism can be triggered. Import prices must, for five consecutive working days, be below an historical average and planted acreage must not have risen above-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Simcoe Centre. However, it now being 2 p.m. the House will proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.



Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week, and more than 500 community events will be organized across the country.
My region is one of those that pioneered recycling in this country. Selective garbage collection, recycling at source and many local initiatives have made Bois-Francs and the riding of Lotbiniere leaders in protecting the environment. Involving residents, elected members of government and local leaders is essential to save our planet and meet the environmental challenge.
The Green Plan tabled by this government is intended to meet the most pressing needs of Canadians. It is meant as an instrument for permanent change, to protect our environment and our heritage. It will also help Canadians make wise decisions relating to the environment.


MARK STRAND, U.S. POET LAUREATE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, during the past week a former Canadian and former Prince Edward Islander, Mr. Mark Strand, was named Poet Laureate of the United States of America. Born in Summerside, P. E. I., Mr. Strand lived the early part of his life there before moving to the eastern United States.
The inspiration for much of his early work came during his youth spent in Prince Edward Island and from summer visits he made to Prince Edward Island and other parts of the Maritimes with his parents.
Mr. Strand holds degrees from Antioch College, Yale University and the University of Iowa. In addition to his long and distinguished career as a poet and short stoiy writer, Mr. Strand has held teaching positions at a number of prestigious American universities, including Yale, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard. At present he is Professor of English at the University of Utah.
His work has brought him recognition and awards from the American Academy and Institution of Arts and Letters and the Academy of American Poets. He has also been a Fulbright scholar, a Rockefeller fellow, a Guggenheim fellow and a MacArthur fellow.
Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that we recognize the contributions of this former Islander to the world of literature and we congratulate him in his recent appointment as U.S. Poet Laureate.


GUATEMALA
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, human rights abuses in Guatemala are once again on the rise. Allegations of corruption and misuse of development funds raises grave concerns about this government's decision to renew bilateral aid to Guatemala.
The militarization of Guatemalan society extends to army control of economic growth and planning. Development projects must fit into the army's counter-insurgency plans and the need for a cheap labour force for export crop production.
Amnesty International reports that humanitarian workers, trade unionists, clergy and academics have faced an escalation of abductions, disappearances and killings over the last three years. Increased activity of the notorious death squads further demonstrates that the current government has failed to break the military stranglehold on power in Guatemala.
Resumption of Canadian bilateral aid to Guatemala at a time when human rights violations are rampant is counter to stated Canadian policy. We must find a way to assist the oppressed without giving legitimacy to a corrupt and vicious regime.
June 4, 1990


CHARACTERS INCORPORATED
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in New Brunswick we have many wonderful ways to express our feelings for our province and our country. One of the most inspiring and entertaining expressions is being delivered these days by a group of young performers called Characters Incorporated.
This singing and dancing group of students from high school and university classrooms in Fredericton has for the past years been proclaiming, in both official languages, the joys of being Canadians. They are truly les jeunes ambassadeurs du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Characters Incorporated attained national stature when they stole the show at the 1989 Jeux Canada Games in Saskatoon. This year, in fact this month, they embark on the international stage representing Canada in Czechoslovakia and in Holland. In July they will perform at Walt Disney World in Florida. I ask this House to wish them well in the weeks ahead, and before this year is over I hope to recruit the help of many honourable colleagues to bring Characters Incorporated to Ottawa where we all may witness their moving expressions of pride, joy and love for our great nation.


ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week. During the past year, we watched public concerns and demands for action escalate. When we look to the government for leadership on environmental legislation, we are told to wait.
The government has stated over and over again that it will show leadership on the environment, but Canada is far behind other countries. When will this government focus on Canada's environment?
Canada needs to take firm action on the clean up of the Great Lakes and toxic waste dump sites, air and water quality and chemical spills. It's lack of regulation and enforcement, not cost, has been the major reason for these environmental problems.
The environment embodies many issues such as public health and safety. The threat is real. People are demanding action.
We need strong federal regulations, national standards and a change of focus now. Previous legislation has been reactive. Canada must now adopt a proactive environmental policy. As the theme of Environment Week states: "It's in our hands."
* *
[Translation\



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Environment Week started yesterday, a reminder that more than ever before, the environment is our business. This year, the emphasis is on increasing public awareness of everyone's ability to contribute, in the course of their daily lives, towards improving the environment. Considering the astronomical quantities of waste we throw in the garbage and down the drain, there is certainly room for improvement.
In my riding, Louise Boyer of the Amos Standing Committee on Environmental Protection is one of those people who stopped to think how their way of life was aggravating environmental problems, and who are now trying to do something about it. This week, her project will be to show the people of Amos how to separate their garbage into vegetable waste and dry matter, and thus add composting to the recycling operations of Contrex, a local company.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the environment is an integral part of our lives and that we are each responsible for protecting that environment.
* *


FINANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Mulroney government has stalled the long promised financial reform legislation; this time until fall or more likely next year.
This is the same government that gave the giant U.S. corporation, American Express, licence to become a bank in Canada and do the kind of business our own

June 4, 1990
Canadian banks, under Canadian laws, are not permitted to do. At that time, our banks were promised that legislation would be forthcoming very soon to make things even.
The Conservative government's stalling tactics tell our banks to go outside the laws of Canada and engage in business not previously allowed. Financial reform in Canada is to be achieved by Canada's banks deregulating themselves, or through the provinces.
This is shear incompetence on the part of the government and shows it has no more business running a corner grocery store than it does running a government.


LIBERAL CONVENTION
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, not to be outdone by the NDP micro-electronics geniuses, the Liberal party will allow hidden microphones at the Calgary leadership convention.
But, there is a catch.
At the Liberal leadership convention, if you are wearing a hidden microphone, you must wear a special hidden microphone wearer badge identifying that you are wearing a hidden microphone.
That all sounds reasonable enough.
Potential hidden microphone wearers are not being told what the hidden microphone wearer badge will look like for fear of phoney hidden microphone wearer badges appearing all over the convention floor.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a cacophony of Liberal conventioneers in Calgary trying to separate the phoney hidden microphone badge wearers from the real hidden microphone badge wearers?
The job would be just as confusing as trying to choose from among the hidden messages being handed out by the Liberal leadership candidates on the ballot.
It is all enough to make the member for Regina- Qu'Appelle wonder whatever happened to free speech.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the world witnessed the
horror of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, and the news of the latest wave of repression in China is a cause of tremendous sadness for us all.
It is a great shame that while the rest of the world is celebrating the joyous outbreak of democracy that these changes are not being mirrored in China. All of us remember watching the faces of the student protesters and listening to their optimistic opinions on the future of their country.
These were not the voices of violence or subversion as the government tried to portray them. These were the voices of young people who in their desire for change showed themselves to be the truest patriots of all.
The courage of the demonstrators in the face of guns and tanks sends a strong signal to all repressive regimes that the spirit of man's desire for freedom can never be broken.
Mr. Speaker, Canada should demonstrate its solidarity with the victims of Tiananmen by continuing to pressure the Chinese Government to right the wrongs of 1989.
We must keep the memory of Tiananmen alive.


CEREBRAL PALSY
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, last week I received a letter and a summary of a survey that was conducted by the Cerebral Palsy Association of Alberta. The letter emphasized concerns that those who are physically challenged have about employment and independent living.
I found the survey to be both encouraging and discouraging. It is discouraging in that it expressed the frustrations and the challenges facing those inflicted with cerebral palsy; they expressed loneliness, isolation and frustration with the limited opportunities that are available to them.
It was also encouraging in that almost all respondents expressed a desire to be more independent and asked for the opportunity to work and to contribute. This survey complements the kit that was distributed to all members of Parliament last week by the Secretary of State promoting June 10 to June 16 as National Access Awareness Week.
June 4, 1990

As the minister said members of Parliament are in a unique position to make a difference, but we have to understand the problems, and I thank Mr. Keith Branall for helping me understand.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago today the world witnessed the massacre in Beijing's Tiananmen Square when the Chinese government turned against its own people, opening fire on the best of its own youth. Civilians were slain because they dared to stand up for political reform, for increased funding for education, for open dialogue and for personal dignity.
In response the Chinese government ordered the students machine gunned and tanks were allowed to run over innocent citizens.
That event still horrifies us in memory. Families still search for their loved ones.
I therefore urge the government, as Canada marks the first anniversary of that tragic day, to continue with the policy it boldly took then. The Chinese martyrs found courage then to take a public stand. Today, Chinese pro-democracy citizens continue to do so.
Canada cannot do less. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to what it has seen and to its own democratic principles. Appeasement in the name of trade is a betrayal of democracy. Let us by our action continue to give the Chinese people hope that they may conquer fear and persist in their struggle for democracy.


NATIONAL CHESS COMPETITION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago over 10,000 students across Canada entered a national chess competition to help raise money for projects in the Third World. This year the funds will go to Sister Mona Kelly, a nurse from New Brunswick, to help disadvantaged children in Brazil.
On the Victoria Day weekend in May, the winners from each province played off and national champions were declared:. Grade 1-Andrew Ho of Vancouver, B.C.; Grade 2-Lefong Hua of St. Laurent, Quebec; Grade 3-Erez Davy of Windsor, Ontario; Grade 4
Oral Questions
-Jonathan Beer of Madoc, Ontario; Grade 5-Anthony Castillo of Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 6-Jean-Franfois Gratton of Laval, Quebec; Grade 7-Radu Butan of Toronto, Ontario; Grade 8 -Alexandre Marcil of Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 9-Martin Glass of Westmount, Quebec; Grade 10-Luc Tran of Chicoutimi, Quebec; Grade 11-Leonard Morrissey of St. John's, Newfoundland, and Grade 12-Thanh-Nha Duong of Anjou, Quebec.
The Quebec team won the over all championship for the second year in a row. Congratulations to all of the participants and the good work they do for the disadvantaged children of the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the privatization of what is now Route Canada.
Four years ago, in 1986, the government sold Route Canada, the trucking arm of Canadian National, to a man who did not have the financial backing or reputation to be able to get a credit card. At that time there were 3,400 people working for Route Canada. A year and a half after the sale the company went bankrupt, and 1,900 people were out of work. The company was sold after the government did a financial check.
Will the government please explain to the people of Canada and to the people who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars why this government went ahead with this deal?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend's fancy was caught by a headline rather than the facts. In actual fact when the company bought Route Canada the financing was done through the Fingold brothers and not through the individual to whom my hon. friend refers.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the records clearly show that the government was discussing the sale of Route Canada with

June 4, 1990
Oral Questions
Manfred Rhuland a month and a half before it discussed any question of Route Canada with the Fingold brothers.
It is obvious that Manfred Rhuland was the first person the government discussed this issue with, a man who owed money to five financial institutions and who had already at one time declared bankruptcy.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Ruhland and his associates purchased Route Canada without paying a cent of their own money.
I want to ask the minister this: Why did the government pass an order in council to authorize this million-dollar sale, when it was well aware of the suspicious financial past of the buyers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend made a bit of a slip there. He realizes full well, I am sure, that this was a subsidiary of CN and was not privatized by the government. It was sold by CN. The market value of the assets was $55 million. In true Liberal tradition, at the time it was losing $40 million a year and it was sold for $29 million.
Is my hon. friend suggesting that the government should have continued to lose that kind of taxpayers' moneys as did former Liberal governments, or should we have devolved it the way we did?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the assets alone of Route Canada were worth $80 million.
The Minister of Transport says that the government did not do anything because it was a subsidiary of Canadian National. If the government didn't do anything, why did it pass the Order in Council approving of the sale by CN to the Fingolds and Manfred Rhuland?
The government was concerned enough about it that just before the election, when the truckers were on the Hill demonstrating and threatening to follow the Prime Minister during the election campaign with their trucks, it had CN open negotiations with the workers. Those negotiations, unfortunately for the workers and strangely enough, ended a few days after the election campaign was over without anything for the workers.
I want an explanation from the government and the Minister of Transport in particular of why the government did this. What explanation does the government have for the 1,900 innocent victims of this scam perpetrated by the government?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows full well that there were four offers to buy the assets. It was sold on an arm's length transaction with advice coming to the government from CN as to the best offer.
It doesn't quite compare with the government of which my hon. friend was a member in the Maislin loan transaction where $34 million of the taxpayers' money was wasted on a loan to the Liberal party's friends. It doesn't compare that way at all, and that is what bothers my friend.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
CN Route was sold for only $29 million, although it was worth somewhere between $75 million and $80 million. It was paid for by leverage wherein a company buys itself out from its own resources. CN Route raised the $29 million by mortgaging the bonds and assets of the company. It is really a junk bond type of transaction and a bad financial deal. The tragedy in this whole affair was that 1,500 to 2,000 employees were fired prior to the transaction taking place.
How could the government approve such a sale where at least 1,500 employees were fired on the spot in order to conclude the deal?


Mr. Crosbie:: It's all history.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before my hon. friend came along with his business experience I should tell him that it was Liberal party practice to pour taxpayers' money into losing propositions.
My hon. friend knows that if he had an asset worth $55 million and was losing between $30 million and $40 million a year on it, he would get rid of it dam quick for $29 million as we did.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
June 4, 1990

In all transactions such as this there is only one eventual loser, and that is the employee. We have been fighting for the employees of CN Route since the deal collapsed.
Mr. Lawless, Chief Executive Officer of CN, said when he was before the transport committee that CN's people are its greatest asset.
Will the minister confirm to this House today that he will start to treat poor employees from CN Route who have lost their jobs like employees of CN with full pension benefits and the rights of all CN employees?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there were two options available to the government: close the company down or sell it to the person with the best offer, and that is what the government did.


Mr. Peterson:: They don't care.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend is suggesting that the Canadian taxpayer should have continued to lose between $30 million and $40 million a year. I do not think that is a viable proposition for any government, and definitely not ours.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last year all parties in the House supported a motion condemning the brutal use of force and the repression of the Chinese peoples. Canada subsequently placed a number of limited sanctions, but one year later it does seem that it is business as usual between Canada and China. Trade and imports are up.
What is the government doing now to put continuing pressure on the Chinese government to democratize further and to end the repression in China?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing now is following the policy I outlined on June 30 last year in response to the events in Tiananmen Square which were, as the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated,
Oral Questions
roundly condemned and deeply regretted by all members of the House.
There have been important changes in the rules with respect to export development credit assistance, with respect to the activities of the Canadian International Development Agency, and with respect to the level of visits and contacts between Canada and China.
If the hon. member on behalf of her party is changing her party's position and is suggesting that the government should act to isolate a country which contains one-quarter of the world's population, that would certain be interesting news to members of the House. She may change her policy. We have not changed ours.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question which the minister did not answer was simply: What continuing pressure is the government prepared to put on the Government of China? I will ask it again. Amnesty International has released a report indicating continued human rights abuses. It seems to me this should be of some concern to Canada. I am sure it is of concern to the minister.
What is the Canadian government policy to deal with the continuing human rights abuses in China?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we are very much concerned about the continuing human rights abuses in China, and they do continue.
There has been some improvement in at least the legal regime that is being followed in China since the events of a year ago, but it would be misleading and wrong to suggest that there has been a marked improvement in the human rights situation. We continue to make representations as effectively as we can.
I think it is also worth mentioning that while there has been a marked deterioration from the situation in China before the events in Tiananmen Square, there has not been a return-and we think there will not be a return- to the anarchy that marked the situation in China which contributed so much to the threat to human rights that occurred during the period of the cultural revolution.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think the people of China and those in Canada of Chinese origin would like to hear the minister say something specifically regarding his

June 4, 1990
Oral Questions
concern and his government's concern about human rights abuses in China. I will ask another question of the same minister.

It is reported that Chinese students who are waiting for an immigration permit are subject to intimidation by representatives of the Chinese government. Could the minister allay the fears of these students and give them the assurance that they will not be forced to return to China?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are aware there is a possibility that Chinese students may have been subject to a kind of pressure that is not acceptable, and we have indicated to Chinese officials that Canada will not tolerate this kind of pressure being put on Chinese students. There is a dilemma here and I believe parties on all sides of the House will appreciate the problem. We want to keeps putting pressure on the system in China. However, we also want to keep certain avenues open so that the West, including Canada, can have a positive impact on events in China. It is clear that one of the factors that helped liberalize the situation in China, and which contributes and can contribute to improving the situation, is contacts with the West. We have to strike a balance between our determination to show the Chinese that their actions on Tiananmen Square are not acceptable and keeping certain avenues open so that we can have a constructive influence on the situation.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and deals with the same subject of China.
Last year the minister assured us that Chinese citizens in Canada as visitors and as students "need have no fear that they will be asked to leave Canada as long as the situation in China remains threatening for them."
Will the minister today renew this commitment by providing the necessary visa extensions and work permits for Chinese visitors and students in order to be assured that no one will be forced to return to China until we are absolutely sure of their safety?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raises this issue because it is something that we have been following very carefully ever since we announced the suspension of removals, which was our initial announcement on June 16 last year.
The vast majority of Chinese nationals who were in the country at the time did apply not just for an extension of their visas that was intended to give them some time in which to determine what they wanted to do permanently for their futures, but also to ensure that if they decided they wanted to stay in Canada they would be permitted to do so.
We have had 8,700 applications from Chinese who were in the country at the time to remain permanently. Some 8,175 of them have had interviews and there have been 7,666 positive decisions. There are still some cases pending, but I think it is a record that all Canadians can be proud of.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Although the record in the past year may be sufficient and may please the minister, there is still an ongoing concern. My question was not about what has taken place in the past year. I will ask the minister directly in the House whether or not she will provide the same guarantees into the future since we are not yet sure of the safety of these people.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, since the numbers I spoke about did incorporate virtually all of the Chinese nationals who were in Canada at the time, people who came in since then would come in through the normal way, applying for refugee determination and so on. They are in a slightly different position than the people who were in Canada at the time of those very sad events in Tiananmen Square.
It is very difficult for me to make the kind of commitment the hon. member is asking for because people are in different situations. I do think that Chinese nationals who have found themselves in these difficult situations have been treated with great sensitivity. They will continue to be treated with great sensitivity, but it will be on a case-by-case basis since they are in a different position than the others.

*********
June 4, 1990


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last Thursday the Supreme Court ruled that the aboriginal peoples have the right to fish in areas not specifically stated in treaties. The Woodstock Maliceet Band in New Brunswick currently has a case in specific claims which was to be settled, that is, until the dollar amount became known. The Department Indian Affairs and Northern Development then changed its position.
In light of the Sparrow ruling of last Thursday, will the minister now recognize that the band had a right to the resources of the fiddleheads and fishes of the Saint John River area and assure the Maliceet that they will be duly compensated for the loss of these resources?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision of last Thursday in the matter of Sparrow versus the Crown has indeed a major significance for the question of aboriginal rights, and the settlement of aboriginal claims in the future of our nation.
We are studying this finding very carefully. It has significant implications. The court sought to offer guidance in the conduct of our negotiations of specific and comprehensive claims but specifically to provide guidance in the matters which were brought to the Supreme Court under appeal. Given that they have been referred to retrial, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the specific application of the Supreme Court decision to this or other cases.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not satisfactory. The facts of this case are very well known.
My supplementary question is for the minister. The two recent Supreme Court rulings in favour of Conrad Sioui and Ronald Sparrow insure that aboriginal rights will be upheld. That is very clear. I therefore urge the minister and his department to act now, in a timely and just manner, to settle the Woodstock band's long outstanding validated claim and not force this band to have
Oral Questions
to go to court, because the minister and the department know they do not have the resources to take it to court.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose, here in the House of Commons, to intercede in matters which are the subject of negotiation under our specific claims policy. I think it is important that all members recognize the guidance that was given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the carrying out of this government's commitment to resolve claims, both comprehensive and specific, in accordance with the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Constitution of Canada which guarantees aboriginal rights.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: You just don't want to settle it, that's all.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I want to refer him back again to the affair of CN Trucking and the "Road Warrior", the other name by which Mr. Ruhland is known.
According to information from Canadian National officials, at least two credit checks were ordered on the buyers, including at least one of them initiated by the cabinet. The government had to know that it was jeopardizing the fate of the company and of the latest 1,900 employees to be terminated, and yet it did nothing to keep a watching brief on the affairs of this company despite the fact that it knew its track record.
What will the minister do to assure Canadians that such fire sales-nothing down and nothing later-of Crown assets will not happen again in the future? Will he assure the latest 1,900 workers who have lost their jobs that they will not have to pay the price of his government's fiscal mismanagement and bad business deals? Will he launch an immediate inquiry to assure that no more "Road Warriors" become highwaymen?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that when we have been directly involved in privatization of Crown assets we have done reasonably well.
This was a subsidiary of CN which was losing some $30 million to $40 million a year. It was sold to a group of

June 4, 1990
Oral Questions
people on the basis of the credit of the Fingold Brothers and not the individual to whom my hon. friend refers. We received $29 million for it and, as a result, the employees retained their jobs.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I hope those 1,900 people who have just lost their jobs have listened to the minister and know that everything is okay and somehow they have kept their jobs. I know he can pull off a lot of magic tricks, but that is not one of them.
In its indecent haste to sell off Crown assets the government approved the giveaway of this trucking company to this man who had declared bankruptcy in 1981, a man who had defaulted on loans to four banks and one trust company and who could not even get a credit card. Now the company is defunct, creditors are owed millions and 1,900 more people are out of work despite the so-called assurances of the minister.
Will the minister explain how these 3,400 jobs and $100 million in Crown assets, including some of the most valuable downtown real estate and property in Canada, were given away to a bad credit risk and why nobody paid any attention? It is not enough to issue credit checks, Mr. Speaker, somebody has to read them.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly clear that Canadian National wanted to stop the haemorrhaging of the taxpayers' money at the rate of $30 million to $40 million a year. There were two options as far as the employees were concerned; first, to shut down the operation and lay them all off or, second, to sell it as a going concern to the company that bought it for $29 million, and that is what they did.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have here a letter from Mr. Gordon Fairweather, the Chairman of the Immigration Refugee Board, wherein he admits that the decision taken by that board that rejected the refugee application of Mr. Mahmood Hassan Randeree, a member of the African National Congress, is based upon a mistake in assessment of Mr. Randeree's nationality.
In view of Mr. Fairweather's own recognition of the board's mistake and the appeal of over 40 human rights, church and social organizations across this country asking that the case be reheard, will the minister recognize that there has been an error of justice made in this case and undertake to order a new hearing into the Randeree case?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am always quite prepared to take new information and look into any case that requires some additional consideration. If Mr. Fairweather, who is an independent chairman of an independent board, believes that the case deserves another hearing, I am sure that he is in a position to ask for that hearing himself.
When I responded to a question on this person in the House last week I said that there are two other ways in which this particular person can seek entry into Canada, and I encouraged him to do that at that time.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister understands that her unwillingness to intervene in this case, which the Immigration Act gives her full powers to do, will have the impact of tarnishing Canada's international reputation as a being a supporter of the fight for democratic rights in South Africa and that this has implications for the visit of Mr. Mandela in the future and our fight against apartheid. As a part of this government which has led that fight, I think the minister has a responsibility to intervene.
Would the minister undertake at least to have a personal meeting with Mr. Randeree, legal representatives and the coalition dealing with apartheid to listen to their evidence, as she said, to see if there are new facts that can be put on the table? She can then decide whether in fact a mistake has been made and undertake, with the rights and power she has under the act, to correct a serious transgression of justice against this individual.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of what my rights and powers are under the act and I have always tried to deal with them with enormous sensitivity, as I think the hon. member knows.
June 4, 1990

This government has been particularly sensitive to the issues of people from South Africa. I have said to the hon. member that if new information is presented to me I am always prepared to look at it.
The man in question has a wife and child in Germany who also must be given some consideration, and he has family in Canada who are in a position to sponsor him. So, while I have expressed some surprise that he has chosen to come to Canada by this route, I am quite prepared to look at the case again.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Thousands of immigrants from eastern Europe were sponsored to Canada under the designated self-exiled class. This is a very successful program with no cost to the government or to the Canadian taxpayer to settle these immigrants in Canada.
The minister has been approached on various occasions to clarify the continuation of this program. What exactly are the changes to this program and what is being done with those applicants that have already been accepted within the self-exiled process?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the assumption that there is no cost to the government for people who are settled this way. Even with private sponsorships the government pays a considerable amount of settlement costs for people who come under the designated class. We are always happy to do so because we believe that private sponsorships are an excellent way for people to be settled within communities in Canada. There is an open-ended demand for this which we have supported.
In response to the substance of the question, we have not reached any decision on changing the designated class. I think the hon. member knows that with some of the changes that are going on within eastern Europe, once it is determined as a foreign policy matter that those countries are becoming more democratic in a stable and permanent way, we would want to look at how we view immigration from those particular countries. But we are not in a position at this point to have reached a decision on it.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to investigate then why the local
Oral Questions
immigration officers are denying extension of visas to the cases that are being processed so that they cannot even be called for an interview but are asked to return to their country of origin.
My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that the political climate in eastern Europe has moved toward democratic forms of government, as we have already heard from his colleague, and that people coming to Canada in the future from countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary may no longer qualify under the designated self-exiled class, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree to establish full service visa offices in these countries without delay for normal processing of applications for immigration? As he knows, Canada has not one such full service office anywhere in eastern Europe or the Soviet Union.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and as was discussed during the hearings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade last week, we are now actively reviewing how we can move around manpower, persons employed in the Department of External Affairs in Europe. There is no question that we need to put more people into the Soviet Union and into eastern and central Europe. There is also no question that we have very little fiscal flexibility and we have to do that by moving people from another part of the world into those areas.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Hire some more.


Charles Joseph Clark: The NDP suggests we should hire some more. Their solution to every problem is to spend money we do not have. That is not an option that is open to reasonable people.
We are going to be looking at the reallocation of our personnel. I hope that either the Minister of Employment and Immigration or I will be able to make an announcement in the near future that will satisfy him.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Sir Shridath S. Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

June 4, 1990
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, in spite of her protests to the contrary, has made a decision which to many appears lacking in humanity, compassion or understanding in that it will result in the departure of an ANC refugee to East Germany. This decision threatens to become a cause celebre just as we are about to welcome Nelson Mandela to Canada.
Before making this decision, did she engage in any kind of consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the implication in terms of Canada's position in its fight against apartheid in this whole scene?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the person in question has been given a departure notice. That means that he can go to any country of his choosing. He is not being deported; he can go to any country of his choosing. It is a departure notice, not a deportation, and it was a decision that was made by an independent board.
If the head of the refugee board feels that this is worthy of another look, I am sure that he will do that. I would remind the hon. member that this is a quasi-judicial process.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, among the countries to which he might go, and which the minister has mentioned, is East Germany where his wife has no rights as a citizen and where Fascist, racist reaction has made it very difficult for people of Randeree's origins.
My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This ANC refugee is the son of an ANC activist with close connections and friendships with the ANC leadership. Has the minister reflected upon the impact of removal of this refugee, should this arise during Mandela's visit, particularly when Mr. Randeree, Mahmood's father, has written specifically to Nelson Mandela to ask for his intervention?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my colleague has indicated to the House on several occasions that there are options open to the individual. She has also indicated to the House, in response to a question from the member from Winnipeg South Centre, that if there is a recommendation by Mr. Fairweather that will be considered very seriously.
Now the hon. member is putting forward a quite remarkable proposition in the House, that is, that the policy of Canada should be changed to take account of the situation of people who are welcome visitors to the country. That would be an absurd proposition and certainly not one that we would want to follow here.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In the past few months, I have sought several remedies in the House of Commons, in the form of petitions and motions, to advance the payment date for the September family allowance cheque and give Canadian families much-needed help just before school starts.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Could the minister tell the House today whether his department is prepared to allow this change this year, as part of the family allowance review plan?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
I am very much aware of this issue, but although the proposal has its merits, I am not prepared to introduce the change at this time. However, I can assure the hon. member that the proposal will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis as part of the review plan for income security programs.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. What concrete and specific commitment did the Deputy Prime Minister receive from the president of the
June 4, 1990

U.S.S.R., Mr. Gorbachev, last week, with respect to renewing Canadian wheat sales?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that issue did come up in the course of the discussions with the Soviet delegation. We were very encouraged by the prospects of renewing the longterm agreement. We are also encouraged by the fact that they expressed an interest in some immediate additional purchases which members of the Soviet delegation will be dispatched to discuss with officials here in Canada.
We hope that, not only will we be able to negotiate a renewal of the long-term agreement, but we might be able to orchestrate some additional sales at the same time.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister will know that the Americans concluded a massive sales deal with the U.S.S.R. over the weekend. In fact, it is for 50 million tonnes over five years. He will know as well that Mr. Gorbachev really had very little choice if he was going to get most favoured nation trade status, and he may not yet.
What impact will this particular sale have, coupled with the impact of the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, which provides huge subsidies to U.S. farmers, on our own wheat and other grain sales to the U.S.S.R.? Is the Canadian farmer gradually, little by little, being squeezed out?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a massive sale, and then he talks about a massive contract for a long-term agreement. They are two quite different things. What is negotiated under the long-term arrangement are the minimum sales.
We have had long-term agreements with the Soviet Union for a long, long time. We are considered as one of the reliable suppliers to it. It likes doing business with us. We will be seeking a continuation of that long-term agreement, hopefully in an expanded form.
As I indicated to hon. member, we were encouraged by the response of the Soviet Union. We have done business with it in the past. We are doing business with it now
Oral Questions
and we are going to continue to do business with it in the future on behalf of the Canadian farmers.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Acting Minister of the Environment, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1987, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment endorsed the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. The keystone of that report was that there be full public review of the environmental effects of government policies.
How can the government justify then exempting government policies from its own environmental legislation, legislation that has already been too long in the waiting?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is in Toronto today officiating at the celebration of Environment Week. At that event he is pointing out once again the importance of international co-operation in meeting the objectives that need to be met and the Canadian government's commitment to the international accords that have been signed.
As well, my colleague is in Toronto to point out to Canadians how important it is that each individual gets involved in environmental questions. My hon. friend can take from that that consultation with Canadians is high in our priority before we begin arbitrarily to legislate targets that cannot be met.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, back to the question. It is nice that the minister is off celebrating, but it would be better if he was back here doing something about the environmental assessment legislation that we have been waiting for for years.
I will give the minister another chance to answer the question. The question is quite simply this: Given that we have been waiting years for environmental assessment legislation, given the rumours that it is being watered down from even the present guidelines, and given the fact that the government has totally ignored three court decisions that told it what its duty is for environmental assessment, how can the minister or anyone else expect Canadians or international governments to take this government seriously when it wants to

June 4, 1990
Oral Questions
exempt itself from the very requirements it is going to put on everybody else?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I had to assume that my hon. friend was in the House often enough to know that the minister, on many occasions, pointed out that the environmental assessment legislation is in the final stages of preparation and will be introduced in the House, hopefully before we recess for the summer less than a month from now.
Surely the hon. member can have patience. She should restrain from making negative comments until she sees what is being tabled.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Latest Statistics Canada figures show that from 1986 to 1989 the Canadian dollar rose some 16 per cent against the U.S. dollar, making Canadian purchases in the United States increasingly lower in price. During that same time, the number of Canadians travelling to the United States on same-day visits surged by 54 per cent. The correlation of a high Canadian dollar to this surging exodus of Canadian consumers is not merely coincidence.
Is the minister prepared to acknowledge that the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy, which has artificially inflated the value of the Canadian dollar, has in fact driven Canadian consumers south of the border causing severe haemorrhaging to our national economy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate the point that the hon. member has made. However, the hon. member has to consider the alternatives. Do we let inflation just run away with itself? Do we ignore the problems of increased unit labour costs that are going to undermine our competitive position as a country? Do we ignore the fact that that is going to cost us jobs which will cost us business and result in a much less healthy economy? These are the questions that one has to consider when
one makes these bald, very narrow minded statements about the impact of the Canadian dollar.
It is important to understand the reasons behind the policies that the government is following. Our policies are designed to improve the health of the Canadian economy, which health has been demonstrated over the last five and a half years as Canada has been second only to Japan in economic growth in the major industrialized countries.


AGRICULTURE
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is about the same question but is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
A case in point is that British Columbia dairy farmers are losing more than $20 million a year due to B.C. residents buying inexpensive milk products in the United States. In the Okanagan Valley alone, the loss is approximately $2 million a year.
In light of our high interest rates and our over-valued Canadian dollar, what steps is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to take to curtail this loss to the dairy industry in particular resulting from Canadian purchases of U.S. products?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been looked into by a task force. An assessment has made in the province of British Columbia, one has been made in the province of New Brunswick, and one is being completed in Ontario. It is hoped that when all this data is gathered we will be able to sit down with the industry to see if in fact any steps can be taken.
I want to remind the hon. member that if there was to be a severe tightening up at border checkpoints, it would cause a great deal of congestion. Those are the kinds of things that would have to be taken into account. I do take the hon. member's representation seriously and, as I have indicated, we are acting in that regard.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
June 4, 1990

minister will know that there is an ice blockade on the Labrador coast at the present time preventing fishermen from fishing, yet their unemployment insurance ran out on May 15.


John Carnell Crosbie: Happens every year.


Bill Rompkey: It doesn't happen every year as the Minister for Trade says. That is inaccurate.


Some Hon. Members:: C-21, C-21!


Mr. Masse:: Talk to the other side.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Walk down the hall.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


Bill Rompkey: The level of concern is impressive, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister intercede-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: With Allan MacEa-chen?


Bill Rompkey: You're holding the purse strings.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans intercede with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to extend unemployment insurance along the Labrador coast. Or will he take responsibility within his own department, as he did last year, to take special measures, a special emergency response feature, for those fishermen who cannot fish, through no fault of their own, and who cannot collect unemployment insurance? Will he do that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and I have worked very closely for the last couple of years on solving some of these problems in the Atlantic fishery. We have come up with a very expensive and useful package to help the fishery throughout Atlantic Canada and that is something that the hon. member should be applauding.
If he wants to talk about the specifics of unemployment insurance, I would suggest that he talk to the people in the other place.
Routine Proceedings Mr. Speaker: A short supplementary.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Fisheries to do something he can do.
Will he allocate a special capelin quota to the coast of Labrador, as has been requested by fishermen there? Will he do that, so that they do not have to depend on the other place or handouts of any kind, but can earn income on their own? Will he allocate a special capelin quota?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I guess he is right, he should not rely on the other place because they will never do anything for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
As for the request-


Bill Rompkey: Just call the election.


Mr. Valcourt:: In three years time you will get it and you will have fun.

You see, Madam Speaker, they ask questions but they don't want to hear the answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a report by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board entitled: Reports of the Retirement Benefit Committee on the Level and Structure of CPP Retirement Benefits.

June 4, 1990
Point of Order


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-307, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Langelier.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Deblois: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Langelier and Minister of State (Finance), Mr. Gilles Loiselle, has asked me to table this bill. Its purpose is to change the name of the electoral district of Langelier to Quebec and thus make the name of the riding more representative of the communities which together form the City of Quebec. In fact, my own riding is right next door. I welcome this opportunity to table this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Selkirk.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand for the first time as a new member to present a private members' bill. This bill is important because we
wish to change the name of the electoral district of Selkirk.
What we bring to this recommended name change is the feeling that everybody who is within what is now called the electoral district of Selkirk has the ability not only to deal with their member of Parliament but with their whole community. So I am looking forward to debate when this does come up.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order regarding notice of a motion appearing on the Order Paper for Monday, June 4, on pages 12 and 13, under the item "Motions".
Madam Speaker, the Official Opposition maintains that the motion is erroneously listed under this item and that in doing so the government has made use of an unusual and possibly irregular procedure. I will give a short explanation, Madam Speaker, of my reasons for making this claim.
The notice of motion concerning the appointment, by the Minister of Justice, of two individuals, one as Information Commissioner and the other as Privacy Commissioner, was given, at least publicly, on June 1, last Friday. This notice of motion appears on page IV of the Order Paper under the item "Notices of Motions".
Madam Speaker, it is customary when the government tables motions for these to be transferred to government orders. I made a quick search, and I can say that although the Standing Orders were amended in 1987, if I am not mistaken, the old Standing Orders provided that when a notice of motion given by the government was called, the Chair was to transfer the motion to government orders.
Since 1987, this has happened automatically, unless- and that is the point I wish to make-the government decides to proceed by notice of motion, under the item "routine proceedings", which is now before the House. To us there is a rather considerable difference, which
June 4, 1990

may cause a number of problems. I would like the Chair to reflect on this procedure and inform me of its decision as soon as possible.
Is there a difference? Madam Speaker, I would say there is a substantial difference. Why did the government decide or insist on having these two motions for approval of the appointment of two individuals to two important positions- Why should these two appointments come under Routine Proceedings? According to us, Madam Speaker, the appointments are intended to fill two positions of officers of Parliament. The words "of Parliament" are the key words. By listing the motions under Routine Proceedings, the government approached the question as though these people were to be officers of the House. A distinction should be made between an officer of Parliament and an officer of the House.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I believe the government used Standing Order 67 ip), which I will read to you and which refers to motions that are called for debate.
67. (1) The following motions are debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers,-
The rest, Madam Speaker, is not relevant to my case.
Standing Order 67 (p) provides that the appointment of an officer of the House of Commons may be debatable. This is the argument the government is using today to bring this proposal before the House. According to us, Madam Speaker, these are not officers of the House but officers of Parliament. In other words, this House will express its position on the appointment or the proposal to appoint these two people. The Senate will also have to give its opinion. After this debate, there will be an Order in Council to appoint these two individuals. And after that, Madam Speaker, the Order in Council will come before the House for referral to and consideration by a committee, if the committee deems such is appropriate. As we know, the Standing Orders were amended some time ago, in accordance with the suggestions and proposals for parliamentary reform made by the McGrath Committee. Therefore, any order in council appoint-
Point of Order
ment is considered by committee, if the committee deems such to be appropriate.
Madam Speaker, the question before the House is quite clear. Once these appointments have been approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, once these two people have been appointed as officers of Parliament, are they responsible to Parliament or to the government? Madam Speaker, with respect, I submit that these two people are officers of the Parliament of Canada and not, strictly speaking, of the House, and certainly not of the government. My point is that they should have been transferred to Government Orders, so that the question could be debated under a quite different item.
Madam Speaker, the difference is quite substantial. I was looking at precedents, and I went back to 1983 to see what the procedure had been for appointing the two people who had occupied these positions until June 1, this year. At page 5929 of the House of Commons Journals of May 26, 1983, we find:
The following Notices of Motions, having been called, were transferred to Government Orders for consideration later this day or at the next sitting of the House,-
This was done-
- in accordance with Section 53 of Schedule II of an Act to enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act- this House approves the appointment of John W. Grace, Esquire, as Privacy
Commissioner.
The motion, once transferred to Government Orders, was called for debate on May 27, 1983. The debate appears at page 25796. It was initiated by the government, on motion of the hon. Mark MacGuigan-

-Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice, who moved then, in accordance with Section 54, that these people be named. There was a debate. The Hon. Walter Baker, the former member for Nepean-Carleton, took part in the debate, even seconded the motion. The debate was quite prolonged and interesting. Svend J. Robinson for Burnaby spoke for the NDP. The motion was adopted and we proceeded with these nominations. By order of this House, under orders of the government, that is Government Orders, a debate was held and the nominations were made.

Point of Order
Today we have a different procedure. We have under Routine Proceedings a situation where the government is treating these two positions as agents, officers, if I may use the word, of the House of Commons. They are not, Madam Speaker, I humbly submit to you, officers of the House of Commons. They are officers of Parliament.
The government has given notice under Standing Order 67(l)(p) which, in my view, is not in order. I humbly submit that we should scratch or eliminate that reference in our Routine Proceedings and also on the Order Paper and that the proper procedure be used, that the government transfer these two nominations to Government Orders as required, in my view, by the importance of the nominations, by the impact they will have, and also in my interest and this caucus' interest in our willingness to tiy to get the government to give an opportunity to Parliament to discuss all appointments, as we do today. I would like to see that done in the near future, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, it was precisely for that purpose that we proceeded in this way. The hon. House leader of the Official Opposition seems to imply some sort of conspiracy here or some attempt to bypass in some irregular way or some such notion. I suggest that he is perhaps thinking back to practices of previous governments because no such thing was intended.
The law in respect of both of these appointments requires a resolution of this House so as to make it clear that these individuals when appointed are not public servants in the same sense as being accountable to the government. The government does not have the authority under the law to direct or order those individuals. They are like the Auditor General. They account to this House for their actions and report through the appropriate committees. Yes, there is a minister who has responsibility administratively.
The Governor in Council appointment of these individuals, after resolutions of this House and the other place, is almost in the sense of a formality to give them the legal rights to collect salaries and have offices. But, in fact, these individuals are officers of this Parliament. What we sought was an appropriate means to get a resolution of this House. Standing Order 67(l)(p) states
that such motion dealing with the appointment of officers of this House is appropriate. So we moved forward under that heading to get a resolution of the House.
Why the hon. member thinks that a resolution of the House is somehow more sanctified if it comes as Government Orders, making it clear that we are talking about a government directed government decision, as opposed to having a resolution of the House under something that is not so clearly Government Orders but in fact a reflection of the House is beside me. Why he should get so worked up about it is ridiculous.
It would seem to me more appropriate to have under a provision of the House as opposed to Government Orders this motion coming forward because the individual is an officer of this House and of Parliament, not an officer of the government, not a part of government.
In Government Orders we bring forward things that the government wants to do for the benefit of the government, motions and otherwise.
This being an allotted day, I do not want to cut into the time of the opposition by proceeding with this. It seems to me a bit of a silly point since all that is being sought is compliance with the law that requires a resolution of this House and a resolution of the other place. How that resolution is done does not matter in terms of the law. This seemed an appropriate way. If it is not, there are the usual channels where we could discuss this and we need not further waste the time of the House.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the government House leader would treat this matter in such a cavalier way. I will be very brief because I recognize we are taking up time on an important debate concerning the role and responsibility of the other place to which I know the government House leader will want to contribute.
Nevertheless, there are some sections of Beauchesne's that are relevant and that in considering this matter the Chair will want to have regard to. I refer to citation 361 of the sixth edition which states:
The motions allowed under Routine Proceedings are those
relating to the business of the House or to the discussion of
committee reports.
June 4, 1990

It has nothing to do with the appointment of officers of Parliament. But I want to stress "relating to the business-"


Harvie Andre: A resolution of the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Obviously the government House leader did not hear me read this. I will read it again, Madam Speaker.
The motions allowed under Routine Proceedings are those relating
to the business of the House or to the discussion of committee reports.
The business of the House means the hours of sitting, the order of business and so on. It has nothing to do with the appointment of officers of Parliament.
I refer also to citation 560 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's which states:
Pursuant to Standing Order 56, Government notices of motion are
placed on the Order Paper as an Order of the Day under Government
Orders.
I am asking that the Chair, as did my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, direct that these notices of motion be transferred from Routine Proceedings to Government Orders where they would be discussed.
While the government House leader may say that this is unimportant, the significance of it is great in that the time for the discussion of those motions will be under Government Orders and are government business and not under Routine Proceedings. It is my submission that that is where the motions ought to be placed on the Order Paper in light of the words of the Standing Orders and in light of the citations in Beauchesne's. My hon. friend for Ottawa-Vanier has given you the words of the Standing Order and I have invited the Chair to have regard to the citations in Beauchesne's to assist in that decision.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The procedural point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is very interesting. I thank the government leader and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for taking part in the debate. The Chair will examine the question, consider all points raised by hon. members, and get back to the House as soon as a conclusion has been reached.
Routine Proceedings


PETITIONS
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, duty and responsibility today to table, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by residents of Watson, Saskatchewan. These petitioners are anxious to save our national postal
system.
The petitioners from Watson, Saskatchewan, say that rural post offices not only provide the service that is needed but also offer an important federal presence in rural communities.
They call on the House of Commons and Parliament to insist that Canada Post end its shameful practice of opening retail postal outlets in communities where, as they say, perfectly good federal post offices exist. They also state: "We did not ask them for retail postal outlets. We do not need them and we certainly do not want them".
The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from putting retail postal outlets where there are existing post offices.


Guy St-Julien: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Madam Speaker, I present a petition from Chibougamau in the federal riding of Roberval concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Your petitioners reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas, and they ask that Chibougamau be designated as an isolated region under the terms of the existing tax benefits system.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of a number of Canadians, many in my riding, who bring to the attention of the House the plight

June 4, 1990
Supply
of a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo, who is also a citizen of Taiwan, who was arrested and is being held in prison in that country.
The petitioners urge the government to issue a public statement expressing Canada's concern over the violation of the rights of a Canadian citizen, to appoint a lawyer to handle the case, and to request Canada's allies, who have direct relations with that country, to intercede on his behalf.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is a petition from residents of the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who are concerned with the goods and services tax that the government is jackbooting through Parliament. They call upon this government to immediately withdraw the GST and to enter into proper tax reform in this country that is fair to all Canadians, and certainly average Canadians.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Rodney Edward Laporte: I also have a petition from a number of farmers in Saskatchewan who are concerned about the way this government is handling the Canadian Wheat Board. They are particularly concerned about the withdrawal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and they call upon this government to immediately reinstate oats and give oats and barley the same protection that wheat has under the Canadian Wheat Board, namely, that before it can be changed it has to come in front of this House to be debated by this House to protect farmers of western Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous people in Hamilton, Ontario, who express their opposition to this government's taxation policies, particularly its thirty-second consecutive tax increase in the form of the goods and services tax.
These petitioners indicate that they feel they are paying far too many taxes to this government already and that their moneys are being wasted. They ask that the government and this Parliament reject the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to begin my comments on this very important motion by gently rereading the motion which states:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons.
One could reasonably ask why I would sponsor such a motion, considering that in the years past and to this very moment my position on the other chamber is to abolish it. However, since no previous government has taken my advice or direction on this matter, I am now forced to debate this issue in a new context facing us in this country with a number of crises that we have on our hands.
There are three crises facing this country. One is the Meech Lake Accord, one is the free trade agreement, and last, but not least, is the infamous goods and services tax.
Earlier today we heard the Minister of Finance suggest incorrectly that Japan and Canada have the same economic performance, or relatively the same. That was part of his answer in Question Period.
June 4, 1990

I would like to refer to a report in today's edition of The Financial Post. Why am I referring to it in the context of this motion? I want it clearly understood that if there were ever a time for the Senate to prove to the Canadian people that its existence served some purpose in the context of the crisis I am going to outline in a few moments, this is the time for the Senate to kill the goods and services tax.
I want to alert my colleagues on my right in more ways than one, since they currently dominate the other place by way of appointment rather than by election. If they were serious about stopping the goods and services tax, they would not only support this motion but they would immediately call a joint caucus meeting and instruct their colleagues to block the GST in that chamber.
There are some cynics out there and some cynics in this Chamber, particularly on the government side and some of my colleagues, I must admit, who suggest that the Liberals really want the goods and services tax, that the Liberals are happy that the government brought it in, that the Liberals do not want to impede its progress, and that the Liberals want it to pass so that if and when the Liberals win the next election they will wring their hands in mock anxiety and say: 'Oh my goodness, we have inherited this terrible tax. The only way we can improve it is by bumping it from 7 per cent to 9 per cent".
Far be it for me to suggest nationally that the Liberal party would do such a thing. It would only do such a thing if it thought it would have a chance to do it. I do not suggest that the Liberal party has been absent of any sense of responsibility. Its own record does that, but I am concerned Canadian people will get the impression that the goods and services is a fait accompli when indeed we know for a fact, based on the research I did on this motion, that the Senate could stop it.
How could the Senate stop it? By a simple vote in the chamber. How could it get a majority for a simple vote in the chamber? Simple, it is a Liberal dominated other chamber. If it is temporary or not, let the government be responsible for its own actions. I know my colleagues over there are hurting because they supported this legislation and they do not like to set up someone else for a victory out of their initiative. If they were serious Liberal senators could publicly come out and say: "We
Supply
are Liberals and we are going to kill the bill". I do not think they are going to do it.


An Hon. Member:: You don't?


David Barrett: No, and that goes back to my earlier comments about abolishing the Senate.
I believe when we really get down to it, as much as I regret to say this after my many years of public service, there is really no difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party.


An Hon. Member:: You're kidding.


David Barrett: No. I know that there are some differences. The most glaring difference is that one party is in and the other party is out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: I am not a very good dentist, but I will keep drilling anyway. Perhaps I have touched a nerve. I notice how quickly they respond. The fact is that they both serve the same master, only some are on the job a little while longer than the others. What has happened throughout history is that Liberals have been able to fool more people more of the time than have the Conservatives and that, no question about it, is another aspect of the difference.
Through this motion I want the Canadian people to understand if the Liberal party is truly opposed to the goods and services tax. We know where government members stand. They have decided to take the bull by the horns or whatever part of the anatomy they play with bulls with and push this bill forward. They have done it and they have used a lot of bull materials to push the legislation.
Nonetheless, the fact is that in a legislative order it is now in the other place and could be stopped there. Do you think for one moment, Madam Speaker, that a party as hypocritical and as cynical as some historians suggest the Liberal party might be would even dare to say to the public that its position is pure, decent, and honourable and that it will have the Senate kill the bill.
I have not heard Liberals say it. This is their chance. This is their time to go on record and say everything we said in committee, everything we fought against when we went to public demonstration, every speech we made on free time on CBC, and every memorandum of intent we have sent out to the voters. As we wait with bated breath for a new leader of the Liberal party, their first pro-

June 4, 1990
Supply
nouncement will be to instruct their colleagues in the Senate to stop the goods and services tax.
Voters who are seriously intending to reflect on the next election and place their support with the Liberal party, contrary to their instincts toward the Tories particularly in some areas of Ontario where it is tweedle-dee or tweedledum, should do so.


An Hon. Member:: Tweedledumber.


David Barrett: Tweedledumber, yes. Your chance may come. Yes, that's right. Tweedledumber, your chance may come indeed.
Besides that comment why should this be done? I want to refer to a newspaper clipping which indicates that Canada's global economic standing has slipped a critical notch according to new rankings published by the International Monetary Fund on Friday and that Canada has slipped behind Italy into last place in the G-7 quota ratings. Even the Liberals who have a great deal of ability to mess things up are not capable of doing this. It also indicated that at the IMF meetings in Washington last month the brouhaha about ranking was focused on some of the other G-7 nations. The U.S., all agreed, would stay number one, but Japan's surging economic power meant that it would jump from fifth into a tie for second with West Germany in the IMF quota arrangements.
We should keep that in mind as we reflect on an answer given to a question from a colleague of mine about where Canada is in terms of the economic scale. We heard the Minister of Finance say today in the House that we were equal to Japan's growth.


An Hon. Member:: Did he say that?


David Barrett: That is what he said, but here is what the newspaper said: "Japan's surging economic power meant that it would jump from fifth place into a tie for second. That meant that Britain and France were forced to refight another position. But a funny thing happened to the bottom line. Canada has gone to seventh place, just behind Italy".
One reason we have slipped is the goods and services tax and the inflationary impact it will have on this country.
I want to suggest that it was not just the sell-off of the CN assets that gave us this mess.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: As I was about to say before I was rudely interrupted in this Chamber-and the other one has not even had the chance to interrupt-Canada's economic performance is going down. The inflationary impact of the GST by the government's own statistics is a point and a half.


An Hon. Member:: Tory times are hard times.


David Barrett: Tory times are hard times, and Liberals only compound it. The fact is that the inflation rate will probably be more like 4 per cent or 6 per cent.
This is wreaking havoc on the poor Canadian taxpayer, the small business person, and the outside investor who wants to take a look at some rational, thoughtful, longer term investment in the country.
Canadian people expect leadership. Canadian people expect some sensitivity. The words being used on the other two crises are flexibility, thoughtfulness, compromise, and reasonableness. There is no flexibility on this one. There is no reasonableness, no compromise. It is full steam ahead into a course that is going to do more damage to this country than the other two crises.


An Hon. Member:: It is extremism.


David Barrett: Everything is not written in stone. I would be the first one impressed if I heard the Liberal party members pledge that they will instruct their Liberal senators to block the GST and that they will insist upon it as a political party. I have not heard the Liberals do that. They are even more cynical than the Tories are. At least the Tories have taken the heat because of their ideological commitment.
Sitting over there giggling, snickering, chuckling, chortling, happy with the turn of events is the Liberal party because it knows that it can have it both ways. That is what I am trying to prevent. The Liberals are schizophrenic enough without being able to talk out of both sides of their mouth and smile in both conversations. This is a move to demonstrate-and I have the support of all the Tories in the Chamber-that politics cannot override responsibility and that the other chamber will be instructed to block the GST. I have thought about this a great deal, this one last appeal, as I reach the twilight years in my political campaign, this one last appeal to reasonableness, to sensibility, to fairness, and all I get is laughter from the Liberals.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


David Barrett: It hurts me to the quick.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Even your own members are laughing.


David Barrett: It hurts me to the quick, Madam Speaker, to have to go back to the Canadian people and tell them that they are getting fooled again by the same group that says one thing when they are in opposition, thirsting and lusting for power. They will say anything. They get back into power and laugh and giggle that they got the GST and they are going to keep it.
I am sorry that it is still early in British Columbia. I hope my grandson is in his afternoon nap. I do not want my grandson, like another generation of Canadians, to be a witness to how cynical the Liberal Party is. But, so be it, Madam Speaker, that is the case.


An Hon. Member:: It is extremism.


David Barrett: I will conclude my comments, and I welcome questions and requests for interpretation, because I certainly will do that. Many people have asked whether there has not been enough debate about this. If
Supply
it were a simple matter, there would be no point in bringing forth this resolution. If it were a simple matter, if it is a fait accompli, there would be no point.
I want to make an appeal beyond what we have heard so far. I want to make an appeal to those people in the other chamber, should they hear my voice, or should I put it in writing that their colleagues who have subscribed to a non-elected chamber, who have packed that chamber with their political supporters, now call the chit and demand that they stop the goods and services tax.
If we see no evidence of this it will be proof positive of the thesis that I present today. It will be proof positive to every Canadian who is opposed to the goods and services tax that it is a shell game. It will be proof positive that the Liberals have only been playing games and the only real opposition to the goods and services tax is by my party, and I am proud of that.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Member for Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca.
I would like to remind him that the New Democratic Party constitution in Article 5.2 states that the convention shall be the supreme governing body of the party and shall have authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution. Let me remind him of the resolution the party adopted in the federal convention in 1981 where it was stated "Be it resolved that the NDP will continue to fight for the further changes, including the abolition of the Senate".
When the hon. member was running for the leadership of his party, on December 1, 1989 in Winnipeg, a press report stated "I'm for a Triple-A Senate", said B.C. MP Ian Waddell Abolish, abolish, abolish."
Another article states: "Front-running contenders Yukon MP Audrey McLaughlin and B.C. MP Dave Barrett agreed: Abolish the Senate and use the savings to clean up the environment', said McLaughlin. 'The Senate should and must be abolished', said Barrett."
Madam Speaker, when the hon. member was a member of the legislative assembly in British Columbia, he said on December 11, 1980, in the British Columbia Hansard:

June 4, 1990
Supply
I will never give approval to appointing people to legislative bodies that have no accountability to citizens through the democratic process.
Speaking of the premier, he said: "He supports the continuation of an appointed Senate-an anachronism in this day and age of a sovereign nation. The Americans did away with it, as my colleague reminds me, in 1913. Why we have fostered and continued that hotbed of irrelevance, that hand-picked retirement bone-yard for old party hacks, and call that a Senate in terms of response to the electoral needs of the people of this country, I don't know. But when you ask me to pay tax dollars to keep that Senate going, when I've never had a chance to vote for them, then I say nay, nay, nay-never!"
What he should have said afterwards, in anticipation of this day, is, "Unless, of course, I saw some partisan advantage for the New Democratic Party". That he might have said.
I can go on at length to quote from that party but I know it is unparliamentary to use that famous word that starts with H and ends with Y and rhymes with"pocrisy". When the hon. member was talking about comparisons to Italy, he reminds me of a fellow who said, "Well, Mussolini at least got the trains to run on time". The Senate at least can kill GST. He is willing to make a pact with the devil if there was a partisan advantage. Could the hon. member stand up and tell us the difference between him and Dr. Faust?


David Barrett: My dear friends, may I respond to the last question first. Dr. Faust wore no clothes and, like this government, is easily exposed. If members wish for me to go on in poetry, I can think of other ways to do it. However, I am glad my friend, the hon. minister, reminded the House again of my position, which I will restate. I want the Senate abolished; the sooner, the better.
I am not in power. I hope some day, in my lifetime, that social democrats are in power. However, if it is my hon. friend's position and the Liberal Party's position to keep the Senate, then be responsible in your request if you want it to work. Is it just a burying ground for old political cronies? Is it just a place to pay off political debts, like I have always felt?
The simple answer is to prove that it has some worth and not so much for the Tories but for the Liberal Party who has consistently fought and packed the other Chamber which I oppose. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say in this Chamber they are opposed to the goods and services tax and sit back without a Liberal Party commitment to attempt to coup it within law that exists in this country.
Madam Speaker, the Senate exists.


Harvie Andre: Do you believe in democracy?


David Barrett: My dear friend, if you want to elect the Senate, that is another argument. But it is not elected, it is appointed and they do have influence.
What is the philosophy of those appointees? If it is the Liberal Party philosophy, then we expect consistency. I am glad my colleague entered this debate. I am glad my colleague reminded the Canadian people of my position. My position has not changed.
If they have the legal power, and if that Party over there supports the concept, which I do not, then prove once and for all that the reason the Canadian people support the Senate is because they want to see it act and they want to see it act consistently with their position. The hon. member talks about the word beginning with H and ending with Y. You cannot have it both ways. I say we should abolish the Senate. It is there legally and I do not have the legislative authority to abolish it. You justify it and you want it, so I say to the hon. member, "Don't kid the troops".


An Hon. Member:: Maybe the Tories should abolish it.


David Barrett: They won't. The fact is we are seeing a political game here and I do not think it is very healthy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I hope to seek the floor to make an address myself. I am not going to be as tough on this question as was the minister from Calgary Centre, because I am willing to allow the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca to walk both sides of the street. Let him call for the abolition of the Senate and let him also call for the Senate to fulfil this remarkable role that he chooses to lay out for it.
I am glad he mentioned that he hoped his grandson was sleeping while he was making this speech and while this debate was going on. The question that went through my mind and that I wanted to address to the
June 4, 1990

hon. member when I read the resolution put forward in the hon. member's name is, "Where is Shirley"? Was Mrs. Barrett in town when the hon. member drafted this resolution? I hope this question will not be ruled out of order, but she is a sensible, intelligent woman and I am wondering whether such a mischievous and pointless resolution was put forward after some family consultation?


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, normally the House does not permit us to refer to spouses but in this case my colleague is correct. He knows I do consult my wife on almost everything I do, including the amount of the allowance that I get. In this case, she agrees completely. This is the only way I could word the resolution to put the Liberals on the hook. I consulted with her, we sat down, and I know that she is going to send me a bill for her consultation. I know she is going to send a sharp letter of reprimand to my good friend, maybe in Chinese. None the less, my wife and I agree the Senate should go, but as long as it is there and your parties justify it, then make it work. I suggest to the Liberal Party that it be consistent about how to make it work.
This is the closest I could come in the resolution and stay in order. They would not allow me to be any more specific at the Table. I do not blame them, they are hide-bound by 400 years of rules that do not permit clear-cut language to interfere with politics in this Chamber, so I had to explain what I could not put in writing. It is up to you Liberals. If you really mean it, tell the senators to kill the bill. I do not think you mean it; I think you have been playing politics. That is okay for a few things but not this issue. The convention is coming up. The Liberals will not bind their leader to cancel the GST, not a fig of it. My wife agrees with me on that one.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel)-Government funding: the hon. member for Nepean (Mrs. Gaffney)-Fitness and amateur sport; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins)-Public accounts.
Supply
Resuming debate. The Minister of State for Finance.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to tell you that of course I oppose this motion and also to give you the reasons why.

I think that we have just witnessed a magnificent demonstration of the NDP's great capacity for principles. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said that he was flexible. He has given us a very good demonstration of his flexibility and, on matters of principle, I would suggest to him that this is a bit dangerous. I could quote from him when he said, some months ago, that, "The Triple E Senate offers no hope for worthwhile changes and the Senate should and must be abolished". Therefore, it is with some dismay, I must say, that we see this motion before this House because there is here a danger to democracy.
The hon. member said he felt the need to use this motion in order to fight a measure, the GST, and that we had the economy all wrong. He quoted from an article which stated that Canada now ranks behind Italy, and so on.
It seems to me that the NDP fails to understand anything about the economy. He was referring to the quotas set up for different countries. We are very close to Italy, with a population less than one-half of that of Italy. The performance of Canada is strong and getting stronger, but the hon. member gets everything mixed up so that we do not really know where we are.

Madam Speaker, I strongly disapprove of the message that the authors of this motion are trying to put across. What is the message? Very simply, that they think it is quite all right for a non-elected unrepresentative Senate to oppose as it pleases the decisions of the elected body, the House of Commons of Canada.
We must be very clear on this. For decades, the Upper House served a very useful purpose by studying proposed legislation in advance and by sharing its concerns with us in the form of committee reports, but never interfering in the legislative process itself. Over the last several years, though, this useful non-confrontational approach

June 4, 1990
Supply
has deteriorated and we are left with a situation marked by confrontation and polarization. The motion before this House today not only endorses this unfortunate trend but seems to want to perpetuate it.
This motion must be examined in the light of the situation today and the way our parliamentary system works. For example, we must consider it taking account of what the Upper House is today, a body of appointed individuals who have no constituency and therefore no mandate from the Canadian people.
We must also consider this motion without forgetting that it was presented by a party whose goal was to abolish the other House, as we were reminded so well a few moments ago. They are not even interested in reforming the Senate. They only want to abolish it once and for all.
Finally, we must examine this motion in the light of the reasons given to justify some actions taken there. This motion seeks to support the action taken by the Upper House when it considered Bills C-21 and C-28 and the action it is threatening to take when it considers Bill C-62. It seems that polls are their only justification since they indicate that these bills are not popular with Canadians and were not part of the government's platform during the last election in 1988.

I would like to go into some detail. If we were to accept these premises, that position would make it impossible for any government to take unpopular actions.
To take a non-partisan issue as an example, I remember that members of the party opposite were strongly in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. They voted that way in the House even though the polls showed clearly that a majority of Canadians were against abolition.
Should the unelected chamber have opposed the will of the House of Commons in that case? Those opposite would have been livid at such a move because they, and many other members of the House, believed this policy was right. This motion, however, would have encouraged the Upper House to do just that, and that we cannot have.
Also, the position underlying the motion seeks to change our present parliamentary system. Representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, recognizes that one cannot function on the basis of daily or weekly referendums on every policy and decision. When fundamental change to the nature of a country is at stake, or when society is equally divided on an issue, then direct reference to the people may be necessary. But the basis of our system of government is that governments are judged at elections, on the basis of their past actions and their proposed policies. If the people do not like what they see, then they will elect another party to power.
By supporting the actions of the unelected second Chamber, on the basis that specific policies are unpopular, this motion seeks to bootleg into our system of government what amounts to a system of referendums. If those opposite want to change the system, then that is their privilege. But they should do so openly and clearly, and in a fashion that permits a debate on that particular subject to take place. They should not be trying to change our system of government in this way.
Finally, in terms of the context in which this motion is being put, I want to consider the moral authority behind these policies. After all, the basis for the actions the other place has been taking, or is threatening to take, is that the people do not want them because of what polls tell them. Our system of government relies on the concept that platforms are presented at general elections and that the people judge those programs. I have heard it argued that the policies in these bills were not before the people in 1988 and therefore it is legitimate to hold them up.
In fact, these policies-not in their details but in their principles-were an integral part of the policies before the people in 1988. They are firmly based in the economic actions we took from 1984 to 1988. They respond clearly to concerns we have had since 1984 and which were before the people in 1988.1 cannot accept that the results of the election of 1988 had nothing to do with our economic record and our approach to economic issues.
As I have said, there are three specific pieces of legislation at issue right now. In concrete terms they are what this debate is about. Their measures respond to urgent needs. They were developed as part of an over-all
June 4, 1990

economic strategy we have been following since 1984, and which has already met with some success in strengthening and energizing the economy.
Let me look briefly at each of these bills from the viewpoint of economic policy.
Bill C-21 carries out badly needed reforms in our system of unemployment insurance. The system we inherited in 1984 was in desperate need of changes-everybody admitted that. We proceeded carefully and on the basis of consultation. In Bill C-21 we proposed a set of changes to the system which makes it more flexible and more responsive to the concerns of those who really need it.
At the same time we were able to redirect some of the resources in the system to enhance the role of retraining and education. Part of our economic reality is that there is a need for people to gain new skills and to get better training. That is the key to higher employment and greater prosperity. By delaying the legislation as it has done, many individuals have been deprived of benefits and opportunities to which we believe they are entitled.
Bill C-28 implements the Income Tax Act related amendments from the 1989 budget. I want to recall that one of the greatest economic challenges we face is inflation. The damage it does to the economy and to individuals is something we experienced in the early 1980s. We do not want to go through that again.
Since 1984 our government has been engaged in a battle with inflationary pressures. One important way in which we have done this is by working to lower the deficit fairly and acceptably. Right now, as a result of the size of the debt and the deficit we inherited, as well as the effects of compounding interest on the debt, 35 cents of every revenue dollar must be spent on paying that interest.
Limiting government spending and increasing revenues are the two ways in which the deficit can be brought down. We have moved on both fronts. The measures in Bill C-28 are part of our over-all policy to fight the deficit in as fair a way as possible. This policy has met with some success. We have moved from the 1984 situation, where spending on programs exceeded revenues by $16 billion, to the situation outlined in the February budget, where revenues exceeded program
Supply
spending by $10 billion last year. If we are to build on this progress, however, we must continue the battle. By delaying the implementation of the measures in Bill C-28, the other Chamber is harming and not helping this effort.
The third piece of legislation in question is Bill C-62, which implements the goods and services tax. I want to remind all hon. members that this is not a proposal suddenly produced out of the blue in 1989. Tax reform was urgently needed by the economy, and our government's concern about this has been known from the beginning of our term of office. Initially, we proceeded by closing loopholes and administrative reform, while a larger reform of the system was studied. We proceeded with stage one of that reform after a great deal of consultation before the 1988 election. We have continued to work toward a better system of taxation for Canada.

We have also made it clear from the start that the manufacturers' sales tax reform was an integral part of our tax reform. The flaws of that antiquated tax were pointed out time and time again. They have been disclosed on many occasions both within and outside this House. We indicated clearly that the second stage in this tax reform would involve the transition to a different system, with as wide a base as possible. Once those provisions were made public, we stayed tuned into the public and made a number of changes based on the needs that were expressed to us.
The principles that were going to be used were laid out in the Budget in 1987 and 1988. This motion seeks to encourage the other place to withold, amend, or, better still, reject the provisions of Bill C-62 without any regard for the principles of electoral democracy. It jeopardizes the economy of this country.
I would also like to ask those who support this motion to tell me where all this will lead us? We have three bills in abeyance. All are very important for the economy as well as for the well-being of Canadians. All are an integral part of the economthe elected govemement of this country. Still, if that motion were to be taken seriously-there are times when one wonders-all bills passed in this House, even uninanimously, would be dealt with the same way. We would convert to a system where the legislators elected by the people would systematically clash with a body of non elected individuals

June 4, 1990
Supply
that does not have a comparable moral authority and does not have to account for its actions.

The motion therefore seeks to undermine the principle underlying our system of elections and responsible government. It ignores the fact that the measures which they oppose were part of the election platform of the government in 1988, and that this government won re-election on the basis of that platform.
I stand in favour of the elected House and its historic rights. I stand in favour of the government elected by the people of Canada. I stand in favour of the economic policy presented to the people in two successive general elections and approved by them.

On the other hand, Madam Speaker, I must say in concluding that I object to what the non-elected members of the upper House have been doing and to the role they have given themselves. They should never have taken on such a role, which they had never sought to play until these past few years. I object to them claiming a moral authority equivalent to that of this House. Finally, I oppose this motion whose purpose is to legitimize their actions and alter the very nature of our system of government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in principle, we must always take seriously the resolutions that are presented and debated in this House. With this in mind, I would like to discuss the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Since it is very short, I would like to start by reading it:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it
has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming
from the House of Commons.
But, Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the Order Paper and resolutions, I stress that this resolution is not to be taken seriously, as I believe our New Democratic colleague himself admitted.

This resolution is a piece of mischief which is designed as a matter of NDP strategy to make it look as if the Official Opposition, of which I am very proud to be a member, is in favour of the free trade agreement and the goods and services tax.
You have to go a long way to try to make an argument like that. I want to suggest that the resolution that has been put before us just does not do it. It is not a resolution that can be taken seriously in any sense of the word.
It is ironic that a joke should be put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at a time when there are so many serious things to discuss about the Senate and about the relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons.
We are sitting in this House doing our work, knowing that the more momentous events of today for the future of our country are taking place across the street. They are in the hands of the duly elected representatives of the legislatures of the provinces of our country, and of our national government, who is not a Liberal but a Progressive Conservative, who are working across the street to try to find a solution to the constitutional impasse that faces us. That is where the important things are happening today.
But if there is going to be light at the end of the tunnel, it is bizarre and ridiculous, and I am not going to put it any higher than that, for the New Democratic Party to take today to tell us that the Senate should be abolished and to remind senators that they have the constitutional right and power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons. What does that have to do with anything?
What I want to reflect on today in these brief remarks is what we should be saying about the Senate, what we should be asking about the Senate. Starting from a very simple first principle-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. However, I recognized him on question or comments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought I had the floor.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think there was someone rising on questions or comments. I should recognize him and then I will come back to the hon. member for York Centre.
The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I must admit that hearing the hon. member launch into his
June 4, 1990

speech has whetted my appetite for the question and comment period following his remarks as well.
However, to return to the hon. member on the government benches, he noted during the course of his remarks-and I was taking this from the translation and believe I got it correct but I may be out a bit-that the motion seeks "to undermine our system of elections and democracy". He said that about half way through his remarks. Toward the end of his remarks he said that the motion seeks "to change the very structure of our system of government".
I am wondering if by this he means to imply that the Constitution of Canada, which provides this power and authority to the Senate, seeks "to undermine our system of elections and democracy", and that the Constitution seeks "to change the very structure of our system of government". If so, how does he propose to make sense out of that contention?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I do not mean that the Constitution of Canada would in any way threaten our system.
What I said was that this motion threatens to legitimize a process which we in this House agree would not be acceptable, that is to say the supremacy of an unelected House over an elected one. Nobody would agree on that.
This motion seeks to confer and to get the authority of the elected House of Commons to approve the Senate in this kind of action, something which is totally unacceptable. Statements by members of his own party have been quoted at length indicating that to them the very existence of that House is an abomination. I could quote the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Broadbent, who said that it is an abomination.
Yet hon. members of the NDP forget that, switch to the other side, channel 2, and still say that it is an abomination. It is as if they are saying: "We are against nuclear arms, but until such time as they are abolished, use them". This is the consistency of the NDP. This is the party of great principle. I feel today very relaxed in the knowledge that principles may not be on the your side of the House.
Supply


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister a question.
If the minister agrees, as I believe he said, that "the Senate has no moral authority" to veto any action by the House of Commons, will the government now agree, or will he agree to recommend to the government that it should introduce a motion to remove the legal and constitutional authority of the Senate to pass on the decisions of the House? The Prime Minister himself hinted that he might be prepared to do just a couple of years ago over another issue when the Senate was balking at the action taken by the House of Commons. Surely, the Senate should not have the constitutional right and power to do what it has, in the minister's words, "no moral authority to do".


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would tell the hon. member, as was stated a little earlier by my colleague from the Liberal party, that we have at present here in Ottawa very important discussions going on. An item of these discussions, as we are led to believe, is the Senate. It is hardly the time to come up with these kinds of ridiculous discussions.
Maybe I have not taken the motion too seriously. With this type of motion coming from an NDP member, one wonders if it is not done in a way that is not veiy serious. Of course, maybe the timing makes it particularly unpleasant to deal with. I do not think when it was introduced that it was meant to be this way. However, I think we should discuss these problems where they have to be discussed.
What I do not like about this motion is that it would give the appearance of support from an elected House, which is this House, to powers that we do not recognize in the Senate. The tradition, which is very important in our British parliamentary system, has to do with what the powers of the Senate are. We have seen them over the years, and we may not like them. But we must not want to diminish or abolish them while at the same time wanting to make them greater.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If there are no other questions or comments, resuming debate with the hon. member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will spare the House a repetition of the brilliant remarks with which I opened my intervention. I would like simply to pick up on the question asked by the NDP member who rose to ask the minister a question. He asked him to admit that under

Supply
our Constitution the Senate has the power, as the motion states, to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons. The answer to that question is, yes, the Constitution does give that power to the Senate.
But that is not the end of the issue, as the minister pointed out. Unfortunately, to the NDP that does seem to be the end of the issue. Let me tell him and the other members of the NDP that our Constitution needs to be updated. It needs to be updated in more ways than one and in more places than one. If he would care to pay some attention to the national debate that is going on in the country, nowhere is there more dissatisfaction than there is with the place of the Senate in the Constitution of Canada. We want to do something about that.
As I mentioned, while we are sitting here, the constitutional impasse which is labelled "Meech Lake" may be working itself out. If I can give some more news to the NDP, one of the great benefits is that then we may be able to do something to reform the Senate. We may be able to make out of it an institution which a democracy will recognize as having a legitimate function that it can exercise.
It is in an awkward situation now because, unlike a lot of anachronisms, this anachronism is a living organism. It is an organ of Parliament. It is composed of well-meaning Canadian citizens determined to do their duty for their country, hidebound somewhat by the inappropriate amount of power that is awarded to them under this anachronistic and hopefully soon to be revised constitutional aspect of Canada.
I have had the pleasure of being a member of Parliament during the time when our party was in power and in control of the Senate by having a majority of members of the Senate also of our party. I have also served in this period when we are in the Opposition in this party but in the majority in the Upper House.
That exercise of constitutional rights of the Senate, under those circumstances, in eveiy case and on a wall to wall basis of agreement with what the Opposition in the Lower House would like would defy a basic requirement of a democracy.
I do not like to admit it with members of the Conservative party present in the room, but the Liberals were defeated in the last election. I see nods of agreement. We were defeated in the election of 1984. It is very important that that be recognized in the way that Parliament operates.
Members of the NDP say that the Liberal party, in spite of having been defeated in 1984 and in 1988, has this anachronistic, constitutional power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons, and that we should do it or else we are not being true to our principles. Our basic principle is democracy. We have to accept the will of the people.


Ross Harvey: Like with the UI bill in the Senate right now?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to make two more brief points and then I will be very happy to have questions from my hon. friend.
My first point is how can we operate in those circumstances where the majority of members are Liberals, where they do not agree with the GST, the free trade agreement, or with a government which is trying more and more to eliminate the middle class and to divide Canadians into a two-Canada idea of a rich powerful centre tied very closely to the United States to the exclusion of the rest of the world and the regions of the country which are to be, in its way of looking at it, a source of population flows into the greater populated areas of our country. That is its vision. It is proud of it. It has people in the country who support it and who help it to achieve those objectives. We do not. It is not for the Senate, although controlled by a majority of Liberal members, to contradict the result of the last election.
I did not vote Conservative in 1984 and I did not vote Conservative in 1988. But, enough Canadians did vote Conservative to put this House under the authority of that party. In the Senate, where there are a majority of Liberal members, I think they have been very creative, very respectful of the democracy which is Canada, and I think they have achieved a lot. They have spoken as an Upper House in a federal system should for those who are not fairly represented by the basic application of one person, one vote. They have spoken for depopulating regions of our country where industries are being pulled out by the government, or are being pulled out by the operation of the so-called free market established under the free trade agreement. They have spoken for the
June 4, 1990

francophone minorities in parts of the country where they do not represent enough of a population to have a real democratic voice. They have spoken for cultural minorities. They have spoken for aboriginal people. They have spoken for the poor. They have spoken for religious minorities within the country. And in each case they have not said, as it states in the resolution "We have the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons and we intend to do it". They have said "Look again at what you are trying to do". They have said to Canadians "Look again at what this destructive government is trying to do to our beloved country". That has been the role of the Senate under present arrangements.
If there is light at the end of the Meech Lake tunnel, the light is that we can develop and I am confident that we can do it. I hear so many talk about the obstacles and the vested interests. I do not believe it. I believe there is a great will in this country to have a Senate that will work for us.
A lot of people believe that Ontario and Quebec will never relinquish their control of the Senate in terms of the numbers of seats they have in relation to the other regions of our country. Madam Speaker, I know it is not news for you, but I think it is news for a lot of Canadians to know that that is just not true.
The number of seats from Ontario and Quebec do not constitute a majority of the number of seats in the Senate. They constitute less than a majority and, speaking as a member from Ontario who has watched the Senate over the years, I cannot remember when it was significant in any of our decisions that the Ontario delegation was more substantial than the delegation from two or three other provinces put together. That is not the way the Senate was inclined to operate.
I want to talk for a moment about some of the evidence that did not get the attention that it should have, that was brought before the committee chaired by the hon. member for Sherbrooke on which I had the great honour to serve, about some of the interesting features of the Senate. Ontario now has 24 seats. If you go by population, it should have 37.1 would like to say, if I may interject, that this is evidence given by a lawyer from Winnipeg, Patrick Riley. These are statistics that can be confirmed.
Supply
Quebec has 24 seats; by population it should have 27. So already the two big provinces are disproportionately under represented. The Senate is a legitimate voice for more than just rep by pop. British Columbia has six; it should have 12 by population. The reverse. Alberta has six; it should have ten by population. Manitoba has six; it should have four. Saskatchewan has six; it should have four by population. Nova Scotia has ten; it should have four. New Brunswick has ten; it should have three. Newfoundland has six; it should have two. P. E. I. has four; it should have one by population. Then, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, by population, should not have any seats; they have two. I do not agree that this is good advice. I do not think what the composition of an improved Senate should be. I am very taken with the idea of equality. The triple E is one that I am anxious to know more about and to discuss. But here are the facts.
When we are looking at what will follow Meech Lake, we should be looking at things like this. We should not be looking at the historic and anachronistic fact that in 1867 a deal was made on the establishment of the Senate which, even then, was the most controversial issue in the formation of Canada. There were more arguments about how the Senate should be formed and what delegations should come from each province than there were about almost any other issue, including the place of minority language rights in our country.
We have been complaining about our Senate for 120 years. Here is a member standing up, wanting us to pull the trigger that the Constitution gave us 120 years ago, over the democracy which we have built by having senators who have been restrained, discreet, intelligent and effective when they have chosen to speak up for interests that this government has cared so little for and has done so much to abuse.
I know this motion is not coming to a vote. I am hoping, as much as a patriotic Canadian can hope, that the serious issue of Senate reform is soon before us because it will mean that we are moving ahead in building our country not moving backward, as the NDP wants to suggest for a cheap political shot.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

June 4, 1990
Supply
Among those instances of admirable reticence, judgment and calm deliberation which he claims characterizes the work of the Senate, would he number the instance in 1988-1 believe it is in the order of 20 instances in the history of the country when the Senate has defeated a House of Commons bill-when his own retired leader directed the Liberal majority in the Senate to hold up the free trade agreement, let it go nowhere and make it the subject of an election as an example of the polite and retiring reticence he thinks characterizes the Senate's work? Or would he number the current activities of the Senate with regard to the unemployment insurance legislation in which they have rejected outright certain aspects of the government bill that has passed the House of Commons as an example?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not going to fall into the trap of saying I agree with every single thing that the Senate has ever done, and that it always acted in a way which he and I would have agreed appropriate in a particular case.


Ross Harvey: Are you repudiating what you said?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, no. I do want to tell the hon. member that the story is not over on a lot of these very important matters that are before the Senate.
The Senate has heavy handed tools to use to achieve the subtle goals and objectives that I suggested. I think one of the Es to which we will want to move-

-would be to find ways whereby the Senate could more moderately, if not make specific changes in the legislation, at least clearly show the people that the opposite is unacceptable and on every issue ensure that Confederation represents the interests not only of those in large numbers but of minorities and takes account of their demands.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the point that the hon. member for Edmonton East was making. He referred to 1988 when the Senate refused to abide by the government timetable on the free trade agreement, thereby letting the people decide how they felt about the free trade agreement and
how each party behaved during the campaign when they did not make the free trade agreement a centrepiece of their election campaign, as the Liberal party did.
The hon. member said that this motion is a cheap political shot by the NDP. I would like to know his thoughts about how the New Democratic Party behaved during the last campaign when it had an opportunity to defeat this government. The free trade agreement, this legislation, the GST, UIC, VIA Rail and all these things we are now dealing with, and which it purports to be so much against, would not be with us at all if it had fought on the side of the Canadian people in 1988. It would have saved us a lot of heartache since then.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has made a very good point. It is not required for us to even make the allegations. The history is out now and enough stories have been told by insiders about the NDP strategy to make it clear that there was a critical moment when it had the opportunity to save our country from the free trade agreement and it chose another course. It puts in doubt, if one wants to challenge credibility, their own credibility about where they stand on the free trade' agreement.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I am just wondering if we could have agreement among the members in the House and the parties, that future speakers might divide their time 10 minutes and 10 minutes, with five and five when it comes to questions and comments, rather than each speaker having to take the entire 20 minutes. It may facilitate further, provided that they give notice of their intent to the Speaker prior to the commencement of their first speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there there be unanimous consent for that? The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Nicholson:: Perhaps the way we could do it is if the members of the NDP would like to do that. I know a number of speakers on our side were prepared for 20-minute speeches. Perhaps we could agree for the members of the NDP and if the Liberals are interested in doing that. We will continue as we have been on this side of the House.
June 4, 1990

[Translation\


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is no problem, Madam Speaker. The Official Opposition began that practice a good many years ago already. As long as the member says so at the beginning of his or her remarks, I think that the Chair, being aware of the situation, can take the appropriate measures. Each member must make clear that he or she intends to share the time with a colleague, otherwise it will not work.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. Member. Indeed, if each member advises the Chair at the beginning of the speech the Chair can keep track of the time. Otherwise the Chair simply cannot signal members, or we will end up in a situation where a member will exceed the allotted time and we will no longer know where we stand. I quite agree, provided of course each member tells the Chair whether he or she will take only ten minutes. There is no problem if the allotted time runs to 20 minutes.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say it is my intention to speak only for 10 minutes, perhaps less. I am sure that will come as a source of considerable joy to the members here today. My colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap may also get in on the debate. I consider it, let's say, an indulgence in the desires of the Elouse.
I would like to say at the outset that like my hon. colleague, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I too will attempt to avoid the use of the h word. It is not going to be easy but I want you to know that I am going to do my best to avoid that word in addressing what is in fact the nub of the matter before us today. That is, can the Canadian people trust the Liberal party to put their Senate majority where their mouth is. That is the only question before the House today, although for the purpose of the observance of the parliamentary niceties, it was necessary to draft the motion in a somewhat less straightforward fashion.
I would like to suggest that the Canadian people are finding out that no, they cannot trust the Liberals where they have the ability to abolish the GST to do so. They
Supply
can trust the Liberals to rail against it impotently in the House of Commons but they cannot trust the Liberals to use their Senate majority to defeat the GST in the other place. We know that for a fact because of May 3. May 3 was the day on which the other place passed the GST bill at second reading. That was the day on which the Senate, in which the majority of members are Liberals, approved in principle the GST. That is something that all Canadians should remember.


Mr. Horning:: There were headlines in The Toronto Star.


Ross Harvey: I wish that were the case. I wish I could have surreptitiously sneaked into the House this afternoon and could have stood here and held up, although I know it is against the rules of the House, a copy of The Toronto Star with a 96-point headline on the front page stating: "Senate Liberal Majority Approves GST". It grieves me deeply that I am unable to do that because to the best of my knowledge no such 96-point headline was ever featured in The Toronto Star.
Why that is, of course, must remain a matter of speculation. What must not remain a matter of speculation, however, is the performance of the Liberals in the Senate. They had the chance on May 3 to defeat the GST and let it slip by quietly, rather like a weasel nosing around the chicken coop at night.
There are some in this Chamber who believe that the New Democratic Party seeking the action of the Liberals in the Senate to defeat the GST somehow constitutes an abandonment of the party's principled opposition to the Senate. I would like to assure the House of two things. First, the NDP is in no way lessened in its absolute and fundamental opposition to that other unelected, undemocratic-I must stop myself before I get into territory of perhaps unparliamentary adjectives, Madam Speaker, suffice to say that the NDP remains absolutely opposed to the current other place and given a day's chance would abolish it.
What comes after? What form might some subsequent second house in this Parliament take? That is a matter for legitimate debate. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, as I believe to be the case in other caucuses in this House. In the NDP caucus there is a wide variety of opinion as to what form some future second chamber might take. There is no wavering in our caucus in its absolute

June 4, 1990
Supply
opposition to the current nonsense that we call the Senate.
People are having trouble this afternoon getting around the fact that we can both favour the abolition of the current Senate, acknowledge that it is there, and call upon it to do something the overwhelming majority of Canadians want done.
I would remind the Liberals that when they held up the free trade agreement in 1988, they did so when public opinion polls showed, roughly, on a good day that 50 per cent of Canadians were in clear opposition to the deal.
I have not seen a poll of Canadian public opinion with regard to the unemployment insurance bill. My guess is, as sad as it is to have to admit it, that the majority of Canadians are unaware of that bill now before the Senate. Yet it is being made the subject of rigorous action by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
With the GST we have a tax initiative by the Conservative government that is opposed by up to 80 per cent of Canadians. In the last poll I saw a clear majority, in excess of 50 per cent, wants it defeated in the Senate. It does not trouble them.
In an attempt to clarify the question of how one can both favour the abolition of the Senate and at the same time favour the current Senate's destruction of the GST, I would like to give the House a little analogy. I am hoping this will make it a little easier to understand.
Let us say you just bought yourself a house. It is a nice old house. It has clapboard siding, solid hardwood floors, high ceilings, and a big backyard. It is a beautiful place, but in the middle of that big backyard is the largest damn crab apple tree you ever saw in your life. You have nothing against crab apple trees, Madam Speaker. The little old couple next door when you were a kid used to give your parents delicious crab apple jelly every fall. There is lots of fun to be had in climbing big, old crab apple trees.
However, the trouble with this crab apple tree is that it is so huge and so obstructive that nothing much can grow in the backyard. It shades virtually the entire area, making a vegetable garden impossible, and its root system sucks virtually all the water and nutrients out of the soil so that not even a lawn can grow well.
As much as you do not mind crab apples, you resolve to tear this tree down. You want to put in a vegetable garden. You want a nice lawn. Having decided that you are going to get rid of the big, old crab apple tree as soon as you can get the money and time together to do so, are you being somehow dishonest, unprincipled or two-faced if you take advantage of the crab apple tree in the meantime?
Are you going to ignore the crab apples that the tree produces and just let them rot on the ground, or are you going to eat a few and maybe tty your own hand at making some crab apple jelly? Are you going to tell your kids: "No, no, you cannot play in that big, old tree because some day we are going to get rid of it."? Are you going to refuse to seek shelter in its shade on blistering hot days? Of course not. That would be dumb as a bag of hammers.
In doing any of those things you are in no way abandoning your long-term goal of tearing down the tree and replacing it with a nice vegetable garden and a lawn. "Aha," some may say, "but what if in using the crab apple tree as it stands you get to like it or even cherish it so that finally all thought of tearing it down disappears," to which sensibly, Madam Speaker, you would reply: "Sure, I might like it, but I know I will like having that vegetable garden and that nice lawn a whole lot more. If I really got to like having a crab apple tree around, hell, I will plant a new one, but it will be smaller and in a different location."
It is just so with the Senate. The fact is that it is there. We can ignore it, but that will not make it go away. We can offer our perfectly reasonable and long overdue arguments to the effect that, in its present form at least, it ought to be abolished, but at present we do not have the power necessary to effect that policy. In the meantime it is there. In fact it does not matter a tinker's damn what we think of the Senate. It is there.
The only question is: It being there, will we call upon it to do the right thing for the people of Canada, an overwhelming majority of whom have identified a clear wish regarding the GST? Or, will we confuse principle with wishful thinking and try to pretend that the damn tree is not even there?
The alternative to myself and my colleagues in the NDP is clear. Again let me state and close with the obvious. The Liberals have a majority in the Senate. They can use that majority to axe the tax, to kill the bill, to get rid of the GST. Their failure to do so-I predict that it will be a failure to do so-can only in future be
June 4, 1990

seen by Canadians as a clear statement by the Liberal party that they favour the GST.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am always astounded by the intellectual elasticity of my NDP friends. How they can whistle and suck at the same time is beyond my understanding.
Nevertheless I want to ask a question. We have a motion before us today that says that the Senate should defeat any bill including the GST, the clawback, and the pension bill. The Senate should have the authority to defeat any bill that comes before the House. Then we have on page xiii of today's Order Paper a motion in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops opposing the estimates. It says:
Notice is hereby given of opposition to Vote 1, in the amount of
$27,605,000 under	Parliament-The	Senate - Program
expenditures-
In other words, on May 31, two or three days ago, the New Democrats wanted to take all the money away from the Senate. Today they are telling Canadians that they want to tell the Senate to defeat the bill.
Where do members of the NDP stand? I know they do not have much of a stand on anything. We always think they are either coming or going somewhere, but are they for the Senate, for the Senate's money or not? If they are not for it, okay. If they are for no budget, how can you operate without any money? If they are not for having a budget how can we have this motion today, which would be consistent? How about some consistency in the debate for a while?


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for raising that most cogent and praiseworthy motion by our hon. House leader to abolish the budget of the Senate. It is utterly consistent with the policy of the New Democratic Party which is to abolish the other place as currently it stands. I do not want anybody in this House to harbour any doubts in this regard. The NDP unequivocally favours the abolition of the current Senate, without any exception or reservation whatsoever.
In this as in so much else we have, it must be admitted, experienced a wee bit of difficulty in convincing the rest of you of the wisdom of this position, the case in point being the fate of that very motion at the end of May. We
Supply
are left trudging along with this sclerotic, nonsensical other place for the time being. That being the case, let me say again that the point of the motion has much less to do with the Senate and much more to do with the Liberal party. As I said at the beginning, what it boils down to is: Will the Liberal party or will the Liberal party not put its Senate majority where its mouth is?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I would just like to read some quotes to show the elasticity of the NDP's position. The hon. member for Edmonton East says that it is utterly consistent and absolutely in favour of abolition. I would like to refer to an magazine article in the Alberta Report magazine which reads:
Many in the western wing of the NDP recognize there is widespread popular support in their region for an elected, equal and effective Senate. And Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow now concedes there is an alternative to abolition.
That is how utterly consistent they are. It goes on to say:
Mr. Romanow, among the four western NDP leaders, seems most willing to consider some kind of Senate reform as an alternative to abolition. But the others appear willing to listen, at least. "I am open to ideas on (Senate reform)", says Mr. Doer.
There are two NDP leaders in the west who are not in favour of abolition but in favour of reform. It goes on to say:
- Mr. Waddell professes to be a Senate abolitionist, but he too concedes that reform is worth considering. Some NDPers are coming to accept that it looks like the Senate is going to be around for a while longer, so we might as well have one that does something.
And it concludes by saying:
Mr. Romanow clearly understands these political realities as well or better than most. "Let's face it", he says, "I've been in politics in Saskatchewan for a long time, and the name of the game is more of a voice for the West".
I would like to have the hon. member respond to these utterly consistent remarks that the NDP has made on this situation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It will have to be a short rebuttal from the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, as I was to the previous Liberal speaker, I am indebted to this one for raising the obvious fact. I will repeat it, and I hope it sticks this time. The NDP is absolutely, utterly, without exception, consistent in favouring the abolition of the current Senate. What is to replace it? That is a

June 4, 1990
Supply
matter of debate in our caucus, as in yours, and as in theirs, but the question of the current Senate in its current form, no.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I would just like to read the motion to get us back on track:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it
has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming
from the House of Commons.
There are many divergent opinions in terms of the relevance or irrelevance of the Senate and the future of that body. That argument, itself, is irrelevant to this currrent debate. The fact is that we do have a duly constituted body with certain legislative authorities, and we are calling on that body to exericse those legislative authorities.
Canadians throughout this country I think honestly believe that the GST is now essentially a fait accompli and that they have no more room to manoeuvre, to debate, or to discuss. The fact is that the GST still can be stopped.
The Senate is currently studying this legislation. Not all Canadians realize that the Senate has the capacity not only to recommend changes, not only to study the bill, but to kill the legislation, to stop it DOA. The Senate has a legitimate role in our parliamentary system and this is one aspect of that legitimate role.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it is a role that has become increasingly relevant because of the very unparliamentary jackboot tactics that have been used by this government in ramming some of the legislative initiatives down the throats of ordinary Canadians. It has used closure well over a dozen times in only the last legislative sitting.
Peter Hogg has written in The Constitutional Law of Canada, 1985 that the Constitution Act, 1867, gives to the Senate the same powers as the House of Commons except that money bills must originate in the House of Commons.
Essentially, the Senate has the same legislative authority as has the House of Commons. One might ask if the Senate ever before defeated legislation from the House of Commons? In 1920 the Senate rejected measures that were forwarded to it by a minority Liberal
government. Between 1925 and 1930 no fewer than 48 bills were amended by the Senate and 12 bills were rejected. In the 1930s five bills were defeated by the Senate.
So legal precedents have been established which ascertain the Senate's authority and capacity to deep six bad legislation. The Senate has a responsibility to act. It has established that responsibility and it should exercise that responsibility.
Why do my colleagues and I call for Senate action? The fact is that this government has used every opportunity available to it to shut down the democratic process, to deep six any real debate going on in this country about the goods and services tax. It has used closure time and time again and has essentially disenfranchised opposition members of Parliament from carrying out their duties in bringing forward the concerns of their constituents.


David Barrett: And illegal closure in committee.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: As my colleague from Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca adds, illegal closure at the committee stage of the GST legislation.
This is why we are asking the Senate to exercise its due authority. We are asking the Senate to kill the bill and that request is not at odds with any perception of whether the Senate should be reformed or abolished. That argument is irrelevant. We are asking it to do the job that it has authority to do right now.
We have called for the Senate to study the bill. To allow it to study the bill and do nothing about it would be hypocritical. If you are going to give the Senators the bill to study, you have to give them the authority to defeat the bill if they so desire. Asking the Senate to defeat the bill could, certainly, provoke a constitutional crisis. Well, so be it. That constitutional crisis may hopefully provide some initiative for real Senate reform.
The Liberals want to rag the puck on this one, make no mistake about it. Have a look at the numbers. The Liberals now dominate the Senate with 54 seats. The Conservatives have 33 seats, there are four independents, 1 independent Conservative and 12 vacancies. The Liberals are just trying to rag the puck until this Tory government comes in and stacks the deck so it can ram through the GST legislation and the Liberals can stand back and say: "Gosh we tried to defeat it but those nasty Tories went and stacked the deck against us. How could we defeat the legislation when that nasty Tory govern-
June 4, 1990

ment came in and stacked the deck by appointing new Tory Senators? We could only do what we could."
The Liberals want to see this legislation passed. Their leadership candidates have been strangely quiet on this. They have been rubbing their hands in glee just waiting for the Tories to come in and stack the deck in the Senate so that they can ram it through. They want to let the Tories take it on the chin for bringing in the GST and likely go down the tubes as a result of it, then they can sit back and become the beneficiaries.
I have criticized this government many times, but at least it deserves credit for sticking to its ideology. The Liberals have had no ideology on this except the raw pursuit of power. They have been laying in the weeds on this one. They have been praying that the GST comes through and that they can capitalize on it in the long run. The Liberals should not be allowed to fool the Canadian people.
This Liberal dominated Senate has a duty to the people of Canada, and that is to kill the bill now. The people should be encouraged to write their Senators, to write the Liberal leader and urge the Senate to block this GST legislation. Better yet, perhaps the people of Canada should call the toll free number to the Senate: 1-800-267-7362.


Ross Harvey: What was that number again?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: 1-800-267-7362. Anybody in Canada can call that number.


Ross Harvey: I am sorry, I didn't quite get that.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: My colleague asks for the number again. It is 1-800-267-7362. Pick up the phone, dial the number, tell the Senate to kill the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, my colleague with the New Democratic Party is surely trying to sell water beds to the House of Commons. The motion placed before the house is also-I do not want to use the word "misleading"-but I think doing a disservice to the Senate. The Senate is there to refine, review and modify legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons. It is not there to kill
Supply
anything. It never was there to kill anything. My friend in the New Democratic Party does a disservice to the Senate by suggesting that its role is to kill anything that has been created by us in this House of Commons.
I would like him to square what they are really after here with the reality of the function in the Senate. If there were, by happenstance, a member of the Senate here in the gallery of this chamber watching, he or she would be aghast at the perception of the Senate perpetrated by the member representing the New Democratic Party here. I think that is very unfair to the Senate. The knowledge of the Senate by those on that side of the House is perhaps too sophisticated by half. Their ignorance is showing through here this afternoon.
Would the member offer the Senate something constructive that is in keeping with the Senate's own function?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, when legislation is debated fully in any parliamentary procedure it is not done with the threat of closure used not once, not twice but over a dozen times. It is not done with the threat and, in fact, the sanction of illegal closure at the committee stage of legislation, as was the case with this legislation.
We are saying that because this government has abrogated the responsibilities of this chamber by the illegal use of unparliamentary procedures, it has in fact disenfranchised the vote of every Canadian taxpayer out there. Because of that we are saying that the Senate has at this point become the locus of democratic dissent in this country. The Senate should carry out its responsibilities because of the fact that this government has not allowed full democratic participation. Use the Senate to kill the bill.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, does the member truly believe that if the Liberal Party wanted to kill the GST it could kill it in the Senate? Are there precedents for this? Could they not be instructed, as Liberal appointees, to do what they say they want done? In light of the fact that they acknowledged in this House in the earlier debate that closure was the wrong thing to use in committee, that closure was the wrong thing to use in the House, is it not logical that they would follow through? Give the members one or two precedents to ease their conscience.

Supply


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, my colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has waxed eloquent once again in terms of the real essence of the issue. Precedence was established many years ago for using the Senate to kill bad legislation that has been brought to the other Chamber by the House of Commons. As I indicated earlier, from 1925 to 1930 the Senate rejected 12 pieces of legislation. During the 1930s no fewer than five bills were defeated by the Senate Chamber.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague, that legal precedence for the Senate's authority and capacity to deep six legislation has been well established.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Jonquiere.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to respond to and comment on the motion of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca which says the following, and I quote:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it
has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming
from the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, first of all I must say it is passing strange that a representative of a party that has constantly demanded the abolition of the Senate in its present form should move a motion supporting the constitutional right and power of the Senate to shoot down a bill coming from the House of Commons.
It should come as no surprise that I wondered whether we should take this motion seriously. Especially, Madam Speaker, when we consider that at this very moment, eleven First Ministers are meeting a few streets down to try and resolve the constitutional impasse and save a country that is on the verge of breaking up. One of the strategies of the 11 First Ministers is to reform a Senate that no longer meets the demands and needs of the day. In fact, all members of this House know perfectly well we must proceed with a number of changes.
However, I had only a brief moment's hesitation, since the motion of the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is certainly an opportunity to discuss a number of very interesting constitutional issues which may have eluded the understanding of the hon. member for the New Democratic Party. It would be a big mistake to hesitate, and it will be interesting, Madam Speaker, to see how the Liberals in the House will vote when the question is put on the motion.
Madam Speaker, like all our activities in the House, this is a proposal that should be approached with the same care as any other measure that concerns the proper operations of government. My concerns in considering the motion are above all practical, especially with respect to C-21 which is now being held up in the Senate. I know perfectly well that the purpose of this motion, Madam Speaker, was to deal directly with C-21, the bill on unemployment insurance reform which has now been shuttling between the Senate and the House of Commons for several months, although we all know the bill should have come into force on January 1 this year.
It is obvious that there has been sufficient debate on the constitutional rights and powers of the Senate. In fact, some people might even wonder why we are talking about this.
All partisanship aside, Madam Speaker, does anybody in this House seriously believe that our responsibility to the people of Canada must be undermined by a non-elected and non-answerable assembly? Yet this protracted exercise has been going on for months, has drawn the attention of Canadians from coast to coast, and even forced the Speaker of the Commons to make a ruling.
Our Speaker's judicious admonitions notwithstanding, the game is still going on and our parliamentaiy system is paralyzed. Democratic precedents, public opinion, common sense, in short everything seems to indicate that the Senate cannot block government legislation, especially when it has an impact on public expenditures.
But it has become obvious that we are in a situation which simply does not relate to democratic principles nor even common sense. For the past few years we have been up against systematic abuse of power on the part of the Liberals.
June 4, 1990

Today's motion is the latest example of the incoherence and opportunism which have been the highlights of the debate. I say incoherence because even such Liberals as Senators MacEachen and Frith once stated that the Senate should yield to the House of Commons, thus acknowledging a parliamentary principle established some 80 years ago.
I would not want to create the impression that the Senate does not have a role to play, but I am sure a distinction must be made between constructive criticism about bills and the weakening of the fundamental rights of the elected House of Commons. The Speaker drew attention to that fact when referring to the important powers the Senate would take away from the elected Lower House.
In his ruling of April 26 last the Speaker recalled a number of precedents in that respect. The non-elected Senate simply does not have a mandate to thwart the adoption of bills to allocate public funds. To tiy to have such a motion passed is potentially disastrous not only administratively but for the Canadian people and for our democracy as well.
In spite of the attempts made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration so that the concerns of the Senate be taken into account in the bill, the Liberal senators keep interfering with the business of this elected House. The dead-end created by such tactic has serious implications for the Canadian workers across the country.
As the hon. members know, Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 is an integral part of the Labour Force Development Strategy based on the establishment of partnerships with the private sector to maintain a training tradition in Canada and to promote the betterment of our human resources skills. As long as Bill C-21 has not been passed, such urgent business will in large part be left in mid air.
In times of technological evolution and increased international competition, Canada can not afford to delay even very slighly the implementation of the Labour Force Development Strategy and other initiatives related to human resources planning.
To delay a bill providing for additional unemployment benefits and training resources may be of no consequence for the Liberal senators, but things are quite different for millions of Canadians.
Supply
I should like to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the members of the Senate are paid every week, their salary is garanteed, and that they do not have to account to the public for anything since they have been appointed for life, while the members of this House must face the public every four years and account for their decisions. That gives you an idea of the difference between us, who must make decisions while taking the Canadians into consideration, and that other group of individuals who is not accountable to the people.
To give you an idea of the implications of the Senate's conduct as well as to show clearly what this motion seeks to do, allow me, Madam Speaker, to take a moment to set some elements of Bill C-21 in the context of the Labour Force Development Strategy.
Madam Speaker, I am talking about Bill C-21 since I travelled across Canada with several of my colleagues to hear what Canadians thought about it.
If Bill C-21 is passed, the government will be able to implement substantially extended human resources planning programs in co-operation with industries throughout the country.
If Bill C-21 passes, the funds available would allow us to launch employment equity initiatives having a direct effect on native people, women, the handicapped, new Canadians, as well as older workers.
Bill C-21 would also help young Canadians by improving entry-level skills development.
Under the Labour Force Development Strategy, students could learn the basic skills needed to enter a complex and rapidly changing labour market.
Bill C-21 also provides for the allocation of several millions of dollars, including $50 million to the Community Futures Program so vitally important for the small communities and rural areas of this country.
In addition, under the Labour Force Development Strategy, the government wants to double the funds earmarked for the industry assistance program which helps employers and workers adjust to change.
Older workers, who find it particularly difficult to secure a new job, would also benefit, Madam Speaker, from this Labour Force Development Strategy. These workers would have access not only to other retraining

June 4, 1990
Supply
programs but also to $100 million in additional funding for training, if Bill C-21 is passed.
Of course, Bill C-21 would play a considerable role in changing the present unemployment insurance plan into a more constructive and effective tool that can help Canadians at a key turning point in their life.
Bill C-21, Madam Speaker, provides $1.4 billion taken from the $12-billion regular UI fund. This $1.4 billion is being re-allocated, $800 million for worker training and $600 for new services, including twice as much maternity leave, better training, UI benefits for people over 65 and other similar improvements for all Canadians.
If Bill C-21 is passed, some 60,000 people will be able to receive training while they collect UI benefits. This bill would release $350 million to give Canadians the skills they need to find challenging and lasting employment.
Moreover, additional funds would be available to help social assistance recipients escape the trap which social assistance benefits represent.
Yet, because of this non-elected Senate's fault, all these essential initiatives have been pending since January last, as well as the crucial training agreements between the federal and provincial governments.
Madam Speaker, this short summary of Bill C-21 should clearly demonstrate to all the Members of this House and to the Senate just how disastrous an additional delay could be.
This summary of Bill C-21 should also demonstrate how absurd the Hon. Member's motion is on the Senate's right to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons. The expression "any bill" is vital, because it means the money bills as well as the other bills with no expenditures of funds.
That, Madam Speaker, is what the House of Commons cannot accept and has always rejected for the past 80 years. It is not merely an abstract constitutional issue; the very survival of our country is at stake. Yet, as Bill C-21 has made it plainly obvious, the Senate's interference with the rights and privileges of the House is leading this country straight to political stagnation and senseless waste.
Madam Speaker, it is not the first time that the Senate with a Liberal majority has blocked the progress of this government's bills.
Let us just think for instance of Bill C-22, the Pattent Act, as well as the Free Trade bill which forced the Government to call an election because the Senate was adamantly refusing to adopt it in an effort to block the free trade agreement. Other bills, such as the one dealing with day care have been blocked by the Senate. There was another bill for which a Member of the Senate felt the need to put his life on the line in an effort to stop the government from cutting Katimavik. Senator Jacques Hebert was ready to die to salvage Katimavik. And yet, today, there is not a single man or woman in Canada who remembers Katimavik. Nobody ever mentions it.
This gives you an idea how far some people will go when they are not accountable to the voters and when they are sure to collect their salaray. These people tend to abuse their power.
Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware that the amendments to Bill C-21 the Liberal Senators insist upon would mean $1,75 billion per year in additional costs for Canadian taxpayers?
Is the Hon. Member aware that by defeating Bill C-21 the Senate would cause the Canadian taxpayers to pay some $2 billion in additional costs?
Is the Hon. Member who moved this motion aware that the proposed amendments would cause an imbalance in the Ways and Means approved by this duly elected House of Commons?
How can anyone be so stubborn, confused and irresponsible to come up with such a motion? If we are completely incapable of answering the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, I am confident that my constituents will remind him that the elected representatives of the people are expected to account for the use made of public money.
Those are its rights, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the Constitution and of our own rules, as well as by centuries of parliamentary tradition during which precedents, practices and decisions have confirmed that the House of Commons is responsible for government finance matters.
It stands to reason, even for Canadians who oppose Bill C-21 but who have not given up on the underlying principles of the Constitution in a futile effort to gain short term support and who are appalled to see the Liberal dominated Senate, which is not even elected, throw sand in the democratic machine.
June 4, 1990

If anyone needed further evidence of the intellectual depth the NDP has reached, here it is. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am curious to see how the members from the Liberal Party will vote on this motion. That should be something to see.
Maybe we will see them do a "flip flop", like some candidates to the direction of the party are doing regarding their position on the Meech Lake Accord. One day, they are against the agreement as it stands, but toward the end of the race, they start mellowing. Flip one way, flop the other way. That is interesting.
The member opposite suggests, let us not forget it, that the Senate has the power and the right to defeat any bill as it pleases. That is what it says. Members of this House will not be surprised to hear such a statement from a member of the New Democratic Party, because many of them doubt that party is committed to the principles it claims to defend.
What a shock it must be for other members of this House who believed the NDP was committed to democratic principles.
The opposition's statement is also preposterous, Mr. Speaker, because it applies to any bill even those our country needs the most. Legislation that could help the unemployed, Canadian workers, people on welfare, older workers and those who would like to get better training, as I say, any bill!
A vote for the motion of the New Democratic Party would be the equivalent of transferring our powers as elected representatives to the Upper House, to people who have not been duly elected by the people. To vote for such a motion would even mean renouncing our responsibilities and it would be a nonsense.
Bill C-21 is such a measure and its basic principle, training UI recipients with UI funds, has the support- Listen to this, opposition members. According to a Decima poll published on May 14, Bill C-21 was supported by two thirds of Canadians. Therefore, the hon. member does not seem to care about the needs or desires of the people with respect to this bill, if we go by his motion.
According to this motion, centuries of parliamentary tradition count for nothing. But the case that concerns us
Supply
today involves more than disrespect for parliamentary tradition; it shows disrespect for Canadians who expect all elected members of this House to do their job, which is to govern the country.
That is exactly what the government is trying to do with our bill and the Labour Force Development Strategy is a key element. Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that Canadians agree with us on these matters. If they do not, they can withdraw their support from us, unlike the senators, at the next election. That is how parliamentary democracy should operate. Only the elected members of this House and not the senators are answerable to the Canadian people. Suggesting that it might be otherwise, as the motion under consideration does, is unacceptable for all who firmly believe in the integrity of our political system and our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time has already expired, but I think that it is important today to tell this House that the motion before us is unacceptable and that it should never even have been introduced. I think it is irresponsible to Canadians.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is a valued member of the House of Commons. He has ample experience in the business of the House and, to some degree I suppose, in the business of the other place. He has, I think, properly described the substance of the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party as being ill-founded and in many ways misconstruing the role and function of the Senate in Parliament.
In criticizing the New Democratic Party and others in such a way as to perhaps make the other place the whipping boy of Canadian parliamentary democracy, the member has failed to touch upon constructive initiative for reform of the Senate, which I think almost everyone in this House agrees should be initiated.
I know the hon. member will say that Senate reform is a viable, legitimate item on any reform agenda in this House and in the other place, but that perhaps some of us would prefer to postpone it until after June 23.
I suggest that the reform of the Senate is a very important issue. It is certainly a big enough issue to consume us here this afternoon.

June 4, 1990
Supply
I would like the hon. member to address, if he could, the initiatives that his government is prepared to take in terms of suggesting reforms and commencing a true debate aimed at reform of the other place.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, first of all, to respond to the hon. member's comment about initiatives for Senate reform, I may point out that at this very moment, 11 First Ministers are meeting a few streets down to try and ratify the Meech Lake Accord, which was duly signed three years ago by 11 First Ministers, with five minimum conditions, to get Quebec back in the Canadian Constitution. The first step towards Senate reform is to make Quebec part of the Constitution, a full-fledged member of the present Canadian federation.
Until Quebec is back in the constitutional fold, any future reform of the Constitution will be practically impossible. Mr. Speaker, Senate reform is necessary, and I think all of us here in the Flouse have seen for ourselves, what is happening to our bills and how the Senate is holding them up, and I think we all realize how pressing and urgent this reform has become. As you know, within our country, various First Ministers have entirely divergent views on what the Senate reform should be. You may have heard some Ministers talk about the Triple-E Senate. You may have heard other ministers saying it should be different. Our first step, however must be to bring Quebec back into the Constitution and make people understand that Quebecers within Canada form a distinct society, and it is that major step that must now be taken by all eleven First Ministers, and three in particular.
Senate reform will be next on the menu because, as we all know, Meech Lake provides for annual constitutional conferences. And I wish the hon. member would make it clear to one of his party's leadership candidates who is now playing with our country's future to clean up his act and send messages to Mrs. Carstairs, Mr. Wells and Mr. McKenna that they must approve Meech Lake as is. That would be an excellent thing to do for Canada, to make this leadership candidate, who is flip-flopping all over the place, understand that Canada is far more important than his own political aspirations.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion concerning the Senate. I can only say how amazed I am that the New Democratic Party would put forward this kind of silly nonsense in a motion. No one can dispute that the motion is correct. But the fact that the New Democratic Party, of all parties in Canada, would today come up with a motion urging the Senate in effect to exercise its undoubted constitutional rights and powers is simply beyond belief.
I took a look at some old speeches made by New Democratic Party members in the past. I want to remind the House of some of the words that have been uttered in this very Chamber by some predecessors of the current membership of that party. Some of those people would be absolutely astounded that their party was putting forward such a silly motion as this today for discussion in this House.
Some of the members must be ashamed even now. I am sure that someone in the leadership of the party got away from things on Friday afternoon and this silly motion got stuck on the Order Paper so that it could be discussed in this House. Now they have got themselves in a bit of a jam.
Let me read from April 6, 1964, as reported at page 1804 of Hansard. I have here a speech made by Mr. Stanley Knowles. I notice that that gentleman, who is normally sitting in this Chamber, has absented himself today. I can understand that when he would have had to listen to the drivel that we had to listen to from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca when he was making his speech earlier. He was trying to cover all bases at once, as these New Democrats are wont to do.
Mr. Knowles on this day in 1964 had brought in a bill to abolish the Senate and he stated:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement the fundamental principle of democracy that the laws of a country should be made only by the elected representatives of the people. Its aim is to remove the possibility of the legislation enacted by the elected representatives being interfered with or delayed by a body of persons which has no mandate from the people of this country. The Senate being such a body this bill proposes its abolition.
That is what Mr. Knowles said in 1964.
June 4, 1990

I have more. In 1965, Mr. Howard, who was then a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, and as I recall the member for Skeena if I am not mistaken in my recollection, went on to discuss the votes for Estimates. The House was discussing Estimates and he was opposed to the Senate getting money. As reported at page 13154 of Hansard the former New Democratic Party member, Mr. Howard, stated in 1965:
Mr. Chairman, before you put the question on this particular item -
It was the administrative vote on the Senate.
I should like to make a few comments. 11 applies to the operation of what is politely or impolitely, depending upon the mood of the individual, referred to as the other place. This has always seemed to me to be a strange way to refer to it and I prefer to refer to it as the Senate because that is what it is, and it is almost always referred to in that way.
The program of the New Democratic party, as was the case with our predecessor, the C.C.F., includes the abolition of the Senate. As that is one of the things we would like to see accomplished I cannot in conscience lend my support to the item before us for the simple reason that by so doing we would be running counter to our belief. We cannot support an item which tends to perpetuate a structure that we would like to see abandoned and cease to exist.
In 1971, as reported at page 10651 of Hansard, Mr. Knowles-and I stress his absence because of shame at this party introducing such a silly resolution-brought forward a motion and sought the unanimous consent of the House so that he could discuss a motion to abolish the Senate. He sought unanimous consent, but he did not get it.
As reported at page 10616 of Hansard on December 20, 1971, Mr. Broadbent, the former leader of that party on my left, came up with this point. He stated:
I will come quickly to the point. In view of the speed with which the Senate is processing the bill, would the Prime Minister take steps in the early future that would result in the abolition of this absurd and undemocratic institution?
I am sure those words were out of order, Mr. Speaker, and why he was not called to order on the point I do not know. But, nevertheless, it reflects the attitude of the party on my left.
On October 30, 1970, as reported at page 758 of Hansard, Mr. Knowles stated:
The hon. member is asking about some of my friends up there -
-referring to the Senate.
Supply
All their lives they have been in favour of abolishing the Senate, and I trust they still are. After they have been there a while they will probably be more in favour of doing so.
In other words, his attitude had not changed from 1964 to 1970. He still believed in the abolition of the Senate.
As reported in Hansard on June 4, 1971, Mr. David Orlikow, then member for Winnipeg North, moved that a special committee be established to look at the Senate. In the course of his speech, as reported at page 6396 he stated:
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to hon. members that I am personally of the view that the Senate plays no useful role in the political life of Canada and that it ought, therefore, to be abolished.
That was in 1971 and I can understand why the electors in Winnipeg in 1988 realized that they had been duped by the New Democratic Party. They threw them all out, and for the simple reason that these people say one thing and mean another.
On the one hand, they say that the Senate is undemocratic and should be abolished, and on the other hand they say that the Senate, as undemocratic and bad as it is, should block these bills. That is what this motion we are debating today states. They are saying to us that we as a Liberal caucus ought to direct our Senate colleagues to block bills passed by this House.
It was not a matter of asking. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca demanded that we do this and that we should insist that our caucus colleagues in the Senate block these bills.
We have never assumed such power over our Senate colleagues. Even before the last campaign when the former right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver Quadra, asked the Senate to delay the free trade legislation so that the Canadian people could speak on the issue in an election, he did not demand or insist.


Ross Harvey: He instructed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He asked. Read the press releases. He said to the Canadian people, "I have asked my colleagues in the Senate to hold up this bill". He did not say, ''I have instructed them". He did not say, "I demand that they do so". He is not Caesar. He is not the government House leader. He is a Liberal and he believes in the democratic principle, unlike the members of the New Democratic Party. They have stuck that name in their party's title to remind people that they are

June 4, 1990
Supply
democratic because they are so undemocratic in their activities.
This motion is proof positive of a lack of democratic feeling on the part of that party. The motion states:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons.
Let us go back to some of the other motions that the New Democratic Party has put before this House more recently.

In this House on March 11, 1985 the hon. member for Oshawa introduced a motion concerning the Senate. On page 2885 of Hansard he moved this motion, and I will read only the last paragraph, as follows:
This House urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces to act as expeditiously as possible to abolish the Senate of Canada.


Ross Harvey: An excellent motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is what Mr. Broadbent stated in 1985. The hon. member for Edmonton East applauds, yet his party policy has changed. He should watch out.


Ross Harvey: (Edmonton East) The party policy is exactly the same.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Edmonton East must have been away. I will correct his misinformation now. He says that the party policy is just the same, that it is to abolish the Senate. Well, we have words to the contrary from the hon. member for Kamloops, who spoke in this House on May 7, 1990. I questioned him at the end of his speech, but he did not answer my question particularly He did say this, and I would like to quote him. Maybe the hon. member for Edmonton East was not at the convention that elected their new leader. Apparently this is where this change of heart took place. Like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, the New Democratic Party apparently saw lights that it had never seen before.
As reported at page 11075 of Hansard for May 7,1990, the hon. member for Kamloops stated:
New Democrats watched intently the assault on democracy which took place last year-
Now they are participating in it, but we will leave that aside.
We exercised our democratic rights within our own party and voted at our December convention to change our party policy on the Senate. Whereas once we were satisfied that the Senate had to be abolished, and that was it, we are now in the process of looking at a variety of options to provide and promote better regional representation in the Parliament of Canada, including but not limited to, proportional representation, an elected Senate, and other options.
Ho, ho, ho, Christmas time was good to the New Democrats. They got off the hook. They got rid of their policy of abolishing the Senate. Then they come up with this kind of silly motion in June. Six months later they have scrapped all their principles, they have scrapped all their policies and they have gone the non-democratic route. It is not the New Democratic Party, it is the non-democratic party of Canada we are dealing with in this House today.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not want the government members to think that I am defending their position in this matter. I hear applause from the other side. Of course they have no respect for the Senate. At least we in the Liberal party hold the senators with reverence and awe; experienced, seasoned politicians who have participated in the democratic process in this House and elsewhere in Canada, who have the capacity for sober second thought and the opportunity to review and pick up faults and errors in government legislation.
We do not urge on them the stopping of bills. We do not say that the Senate should can these bills. We recognize that the elected majority in the House of Commons has its responsibility and it fulfils that responsibility. But, when it comes down to it, we expect that there will be amendments sent back from the other place that may make significant change in some of those bills, because certainly many of the bills this government introduces are seriously flawed.
We try to point out the faults in this Chamber. Sometimes we are successful and sometimes we are not. With the majority the government has, if it is as pigheaded as it often is, it votes these bills through. The Senate then is left to try to pick up the pieces. At least we do not, like the New Democratic Party, urge the willy-nilly defeat of bills in the Senate, saying that the Senate ought to cross the will or wish of this House as
June 4, 1990

expressed by the elected representatives of Canadians, and that I think that is significant.
Let me go on with some of the other quotes from some other members of the New Democratic Party, because there are so many. In 1985, the hon. member for Oshawa again made comments about the Senate.

I believe it was during the March 5, 1985 Question Period, on page 2741. Mr. Broadbent asked the following question, an I quote:
Mr. Speaker, given the views of the Minister of Justice -I am trying to be very temperate -on this institution, and the well known views of the Deputy Prime Minister and, I dare to say, hopefully half of the Cabinet, not to mention 80 per cent of the people of Canada who correctly see the Senate as being useless and costly simultaneously, and since it takes the same section of our Constitution to abolish the Senate as it does to provide any other amendment of substance, will the Prime Minister give us his assurance today that he will propose to the provinces the correct, democratic action, which is to abolish this abominable insitution?
In light of such remarks concerning the Senate, Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the thought that the New Democratic Party would support a motion such as the one we are considering this afternoon. On January 23, 1981, as recorded on page 6533 of Hansard, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, said something else in a debate on the length of the senatorial mandate, and I quote:
- that there is no place in our parliamentary democracy for a body that is not elected, not responsible to anyone and that as the Senate now stands it should be abolished.


Ross Harvey: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Edmonton East applauds and yet his party has changed that position. I presume he was in the minority that opposed the change in the position at the convention. I do not know how that all got away from the New Democratic Party at that time.
The other amazing thing is at the convention they changed their policy and yet the hon. member for Kamloops, who announced the change of policy in this House on May 10, has a motion on the Order Paper which was put there on April 4 of last year. It states:
Supply
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of abolishing the Senate -
It is still sitting on the Order Paper waiting to be discussed. The hon. member for Kamloops now apparently supports his party's ridiculous position where they really do not know what they are doing. They are looking at the options, as it were. They got rid of their policy of abolition and they do not know what else to do.


Ross Harvey: What is the Liberal
policy?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Our policy has been for an elected Senate. The hon. member for Edmonton East wants to know the Liberal policy. It has always been perfectly clear. We have always had that policy.
I want to go on with other quotes. I could quote the hon. member for Churchill.

During a debate on the Senate in this House on March 12, 1985, the hon. member said on page 2958 of Hansard, and I quote:
The image of overpaid Liberal and Conservative fund raisers, campaign managers and defeated or retired candidates who "work"-and I put that word in quotation marks-three days a week and do very little of value, is not too far from the truth. Not too many people realize that in an average week the Senate only sits three days. An average day is usually not a full day.
On the next page of Hansard, he goes on to say:
-To then create another body to control the elected representatives of the people of Canada is completely and obviously undemocratic.
That is the opinion of the hon. member for Churchill. Where is he today? Did he participate in this debate? No, because he clearly disagrees with this motion.

He would clearly disagree with this motion. He would not have supported this based on his previous statements in 1985. The hon. member for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schneider):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: I do truly hesitate to interrupt the flowing waters of the hon. member, however I feel that I really must object to his imputation of opinion to the hon. member for Churchill, especially when that imputation is that he would somehow disagree

June 4, 1990
Supply
with the action being brought forward today by his own caucus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schneider):: While on my feet, I will acknowledge the fact that it is an established practice that we have agreed not to point out individual members when they are not in the House of Commons and to that extent, I thought the hon. member was rising on a point of order. Other than that, the hon. member will have his time extended by 30 seconds.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was a phoney point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate the hon. member's concern. It gave me an opportunity to have a drink of water. I could quote from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, as he then was, who is now the member for Winnipeg- Transcona. Again, I have the French Hansard here.

As reported on page 2273 of the Debates of the same date in 1986, he said, and I quote:
The best thing we could do would be to abolish the Senate.
And on the following page, he added:
The traditional NDP call for abolition is based on the fact that it is not a democratic institution.

Now we have that same party saying that this undemocratic institution should block government bills. I could read the statement of the leader of the New Democratic Party which spouted this heresy in Montreal, but I think it would be wasting the time of the House to come out with that.
I have another authority that I want to quote. I want to cheer up the government benches with this one because it is written by one of their own senators. In case the government feels that it ought to ignore the Senate or that the Senate is not doing the constitutionally right thing, I want to read from one of its appointees to the Senate, the Hon. Gerald Beaudoin who has written a book-

La Constitution du Canada.
In fact, I believe he is considered as the government expert's in the other place on constitutional matters and powers of the Senate.
I have read some of the speeches he has made in the other place and I must say that if he is their constitutional expert, I wonder about the value of his book because his arguments in the Senate concerning constitutional and procedural matters are somewhat questionable.
Nevertheless, on page 98 of his book La Constitution du Canada, he wrote, and I quote:
With these three qualifications, the Upper Chamber enjoys the same powers as the elected House of Commons. Theoretically, it can even reject a budget or any ordinary legislation.

I see the hon. government House leader is nodding his agreement with his colleague in the Senate. I am delighted to see it after the rantings and ravings we heard the other day from him on the evils of Bill C-21 and what the Senate had done to it. He went on and on saying how dreadful this was. I am glad to see that he agrees that the Senate has the power to block any of these bills. It is quite true, they do.
The good senator in his book clearly says that the Senate has the powers that the New Democratic Party mentions in the motion. The surprising thing is that it is the New Democratic Party that is pointing these powers out to the other place. It is pointing them out and encouraging them apparently to use them, indeed calling upon the Senate to use them.
Just to show how inconsistent the members of that party are, I invite Your Honour to look at today's Order Paper. Here we have notice given by the hon. member for Kamloops, the House leader of the New Democratic Party in this House, of a motion to reduce the Senate's program expenditures. It states:
Notice is hereby given of opposition to Vote 1, in the amount of $27,605,000, under	Parliament-the	Senate-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.
Here he is calling on the Senate to block the bills, and then on the other hand he wants to take away their money. How inconsistent can you be? The New Democratic Party has to make up its own mind. It has to make up its mind which way it is going. Either support the Senate and say that it is an important part of our Parliamentary government, or else abolish it. They cannot have it both ways. This motion indicates that they are trying to have it both ways.
June 4, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the hon. minister.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, that was one of the more lucid speeches I have heard from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Most of the time his contributions are more what one might describe as pat. On this occasion he had some actual useful contributions to make. If I sound surprised, you will understand why, Madam Speaker.
I heard earlier when the motion was introduced by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca that this had to do with the GST. NDPers were still opposed to the Senate but in this case they were willing to make a pact with the devil, as it were, to accomplish their goal presumably because Shirley Carr demanded it of them or something. I am not sure of the reason but whatever it was, and as pointed out most eloquently by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and others, they are straddling both sides of the fence. Hopefully it is painful.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca talked about the GST and said that it concerned him. His party's finance critic, the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville, led the battles for his party on the GST. He was there with his pillow and teddy bear and blanket on the overnight filibusters and fought the good battle. Unlike his colleagues back there who gave moral support but went home to bed, he was there all night along.
The following is what the finance critic of the non-democratic party had to say in The Globe and Mail of March 28, 1990 when speaking on Bill C-62, the GST legislation: "I believe the Commons should have the final say. I do not think the unelected body should usurp the elected body".


An Hon. Member:: Who said that?


Harvie Andre: The finance critic of the New Democratic Party.


An Hon. Member:: Did he really?


Harvie Andre: The man who fought the GST. The fellow who gave his all to this battle but at the end of the day
Supply
said: "But I am a democrat, I believe in democracy". Is it a coincidence that he has not been here to participate in this debate this afternoon? I think not. He is probably at home ashamed of his colleagues over there.
I have not seen the House leader of the New Democratic Party either, the member for Kamloops.


An Hon. Member:: Where is he?


Harvie Andre: There were some quotes from him. You may recall, Madam Speaker, the debate on Bill C-22 of the last Parliament, the pharmaceutical bill, when the hon. member for Kamloops, as reported in The Ottawa Citizen on October 30, 1987, said: "Quite frankly I am very disappointed with the Senate because I do not think it has the right to be holding up legislation".


An Hon. Member:: Who said that?


Harvie Andre: This was the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
Isn't it interesting how the more experienced, the more senior members such as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands quoted the former leader Mr. Stanley Knowles and others? One wonders what happened to that formerly great party to have thrown its principles out the window in that fashion for short-term political gain.
I would ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who is an expert on the rules to comment on Standing Order 80(1) which reads:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
I realize they are talking about appropriations, but the GST is certainly in that category. I wonder if the hon. member would comment as to whether this resolution is not tantamount to being out of order by virtue of being contrary to this Standing Order of the House?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has raised a very good point. I had my book open at Standing Order 80, but I ran out of time in my 20-minute speech and I could not get to this point.

June 4, 1990
Supply
I am delighted to have the opportunity to say that it is quite fortuitous that he has pulled out this rule and read it to the House. I need not read it again. Certainly the rule is one that we in this party have supported, as the hon. member knows.
He knows that on Bill C-21 for example, we argued vigorously that the bill was not one affecting aids and supplies and that therefore the amendments were in order. He will recall that discussion. I am glad he has raised it again today. I hope he now agrees with our position on that.
In any event, it is quite true that the situation is covered in Standing Order 80(1) and 80(2). I am tempted to read Standing Order 80(2) to the House. I may in a minute. It clearly indicates that this House in terms of money bills and in terms of bills that grant aids and supplies to the sovereign-and taxation falls into that category-are ones that are not alterable by the Senate.
Standing Order 80(2) says:
In order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not insist on the privilege claimed and exercised by them of laying aside bills sent from the Senate because they impose pecuniary penalties nor of laying aside amendments made by the Senate because they introduce into or alter pecuniary penalties in bills sent to them by this House; provided that all such penalties thereby imposed are only to punish or prevent crimes and offences, and do not tend to lay a burden on the subject, either as aid or supply to the Sovereign, or for any general or special purposes, by rates, tolls, assessments or otherwise.
In other words, the House tries to co-operate with the Senate when it does propose reasonable amendments to government bills. Certainly we feel that the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-21, for example, are reasonable. I want to take the opportunity to do that. I know the government House leader does not share my view, but I hope he is coming around.
However, with respect to the motion that is before us, we have what the New Democratic Party is suggesting in a statement by its leader, of all people. Obviously the others on the front bench are not particularly supportive of that, except the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. The message from their leader is that the Senate should stop the GST legislation, and that is what I find so extraordinary. This appears to be what is intended to be stated in the resolution.
While the difference of opinion there may be very great between the New Democratic Party and us on one hand and the government on the other, we as Liberals at least recognize that the majority wins the day in the House. We have not demanded, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, that our Liberal senators block this bill. We have said: "Look at it. Study it. You may end up blocking it, but it is your decision to that extent." Certainly we hope some amendments will be considered to this legislation that will make it less pernicious.
We would like to see the legislation done away with. We have urged the government to stop it. Through petition and through speech in the House, we have urged the government to stop it. We have been deprived in large measure of our opportunity to discuss the bill as a result of the tactics adopted by the New Democratic Party in stalling the House so that we could not have free debate and discussion.
Madam Speaker, you know this. The hon. government House leader knows it. We are all aware that there has been a real attempt here to stifle discussion in the House to prevent the Liberal party from expressing the valid criticisms of the legislation. The NDP was so bankrupt of ideas on how to criticize it, it did not know what to say.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, my heavenly day, certainly there is great deal to be gone through here.
First, I would like to disabuse the House of any suspicion it may have with regard to the attendance of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. I am not certain, but I believe that since he is a member of the Charest committee he is closely following the developments in the Meech Lake discussion. The hon. member for Kamloops is currently in Kamloops where his mother was admitted to hospital this afternoon.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am sure he is also embarrassed.


Ross Harvey: Yes, quite. There is more than one cause for embarrassment in the House this afternoon.
I would note that it would be less than reasonable for us to attempt to take lessons in policy consistency from members of a party that campaigned vigorously against wage and price controls in 1974, only to impose them after they became government, and that campaigned
June 4, 1990

vigorously against increased in gasoline taxes in 1980, only to impose greater increases when they became government.
I am not certain the moral authority assumed by the previous speaker is all that warranted. However, let me try one more time to point out to him the consistency of the NDP position. It is this: the Senate, as it is now constituted, should be abolished, done away with. There is no reason to retain that place.
Second, having abolished it, it is perfectly reasonable to inquire as to what might thereupon replace it. It is a simple problem. You can try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but once you have that silk purse you don't have the sow's ear any more; you have done away with it. That is exactly what we propose to do with the Senate.
I would only ask the hon. member by way of question: Why is it that he is incapable of understanding this simple distinction?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A very short rebuttal from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, this is simplicity itself, apparently, to the hon. member for Edmonton East. I am a simple lawyer. I only read the words that are put before me. I heard the hon. member for Kamloops make this speech. He said: "We voted at our December convention to change our party policy on the Senate, whereas once we were satisfied that the Senate had to be abolished and that was it we are now in the process of looking at a variety of options."
In other words, the abolition policy is out the window. This motion clearly shows it is out the window. If it should be abolished, you do not urge it to do something.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.
Resuming debate with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate.
There is a number of ways a member of Parliament gets elected to this House and there is a number of ways in which he gets re-elected. Most important, of course, is
Supply
to say what your party is going to do and, if you are as fortunate as we were in 1984 to be elected, to be able to run on what your party has done. Certainly we have done that in all areas.
I remember the pamphlets in 1984, as I am sure other members in the House remember. Jobs, jobs, jobs was right on the front of the Tory pamphlet. We passed out thousands of them in Niagara Falls. As all members of the House know and as you know, Madam Speaker, we delivered on that promise. Those were things that helped me as a member and I am sure other members of the Progressive Conservative Party, in being elected in 1984.
In 1988 we ran on our record. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, it is always one of the things that defines and helps mark the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive Conservative. Progressive Conservatives are always proud to talk about their record in office. The Liberals always say you are being unfair if you bring up matters when they were in power. That is just a fact, but those of us on the government side are proud to talk about what we did between 1984 and 1988, and it helped get us re-elected.


Mrs. Browes:: Excellent record.


Rob Nicholson: Many of the things we have done since then we certainly talked about during the election campaign. I can tell hon. members that I remember on a number of occasions-in fact every public forum I was at-people challenging me with comments made by the member for Mississauga South on the subject of the GST. It was certainly discussed during that election campaign. We have gone forward and implemented those measures.
Those are the things that I think helped. At the same time, if you are lucky you get help from the members of the opposition. That is one of the reasons like the NDP. It is certainly one of the reasons I am pleased to participate in this debate.
Today we got a little bit of help from members of the NDP. For that I know I can always count on them. They have introduced a motion that a message be sent to the Senate just to remind the members of the Senate that they have a constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming into the House of Commons. That is what they have asked us to do.

June 4, 1990
Supply
What I find interesting about it is that this is what as known as an opposition day. The members of the New Democratic Party could have chosen any topic to discuss, anything at all to discuss.


Pauline Browes: Something relevant.


Rob Nicholson: They chose this motion, calling on and reminding the Senate to fight, to reject, to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons. Quite apart from anything else, it was very unfortunate for them to do that. The country is involved with very serious constitutional debates in the city of Ottawa right as I speak. Instead of addressing themselves to those vital national concerns, the NDP decided this was the day it would decide to champion Senate rights. I think that is unfortunate. NDP members could have talked of any number of issues. They could have talked about their ideas for cutting the deficit.
That would be a very short debate and this debate is scheduled to last four or five hours. We do not want to talk about NDP ideas to cut the deficit.


An Hon. Member:: Ideas on anything.


Rob Nicholson: The member for Mississauga West says, "Ideas on anything". Well, this is what the NDP have chosen. They have chosen to talk about the rights of the Senate and championing the cause of the Senate to defeat House of Commons bills.
They could have talked about the environment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State knows as well as I and other members on this side of the House what a vital concern this is to Canadians from coast to coast. There are so many different aspects of the environment, so many different ways in which the House could be a positive force. The NDP could have chosen to talk about that. But, no, not a word about the environment. They decided to take up all of Parliament's time today to talk about the Senate.


Pauline Browes: They could have talked about the Rouge Valley.


Rob Nicholson: They could have talked about the Rouge Valley and all the efforts made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. They could have talked and commended her for all of her efforts in championing that cause in Scarborough. That would have been worth a debate. I would be pleased to have
government members discuss for four or five hours her efforts to preserve that part of the environment within Metropolitan Toronto. But no, they chose not to discuss that.
They could have talked about the problems in Canadian agriculture. I see a former agriculture minister from the former Liberal government. I am sure he would have been pleased to say a few words on the subject of agriculture. There was nothing about that from the NDP.
They could have talked about the problems in the fishing industry. There are many areas of concern and interest to Canadians, but they chose not to talk about any of them.
The NDP decided to talk about what they could do to encourage the Senate to deny, to hold up, to defeat, and not pass the laws of this democratically elected chamber.


An Hon. Member:: That they agreed were necessary. Tax reform they said was necessary.


Rob Nicholson: Well, they chose not to talk about it today.
It should be made clear that this is a reactionary measure. I cannot help but think that former Leaders of the New Democratic Party would have very strong words to say today if they knew that the party they led in the House had now taken on the mantle of Senate rights. I think many of them would be very surprised.
One of my colleagues was talking about J. S. Woods-worth, a former Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Lewis and T. C. Douglas. I do not even think you have to go back that far. I believe that the Hon. Ed Broadbent would be very disappointed if he knew the direction that the party had taken on this particular issue and I do not think you have to go back in the history-


An Hon. Member:: How does Audrey feel about it?


Rob Nicholson: My colleague asks how Audrey feels about it. It looks like it is every person for himself in the NDP these days on issues like this. They argue among themselves. The House Leader of the NDP said one thing on Senate reform, and the member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca is obviously championing it. The member for Edmonton East is against it. Maybe that is a sign of the new leadership in the New Democratic Party: if they speak in three different voices on the subject of
June 4, 1990

the Senate, somehow that is going to win them friends across the country. I do not think so.
I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in the House. I enjoyed his comments, but there is one thing on which I disagree with him. He called this a silly motion. I will always ascribe sincerity to the individual members who put forward these motions, so I certainly do not want to be associated with the comment "silly". I believe the NDP is very sincere on this, and in fact on all the motions they put forward. Other than that, I certainly enjoyed his comments.
I think this is a pattern we have seen in the New Democratic Party over the years. I do not think a motion like this should be viewed in isolation. We have seen a number of tactics and directions like this taken by the members of the New Democratic Party. I am sure members in the New Democratic Party will remember some of their comments about the post office.
If there is any suggestion of technological change at the post office, I think we can all be assured that the members of the New Democratic Party will oppose it. I think that goes without saying. When the government suggests that we remove trade barriers in Canada, Madam Speaker, you can count on the NDP to oppose it. The facilitating of movement goods and services across international borders is an idea that is accepted even by socialists in Europe, but no, members of the Canadian New Democratic Party can be counted upon to fight it.
One member of the NDP thought he could pin me down and said: "Don't you know that your party used to stand in favour of trade barriers? The national policy under Sir John A. Macdonald was based on trade barriers." For heavens sake, that was in the 19th century. Has anybody over there up-dated their view of economics? I would like to hear more about some of the ideas that have found a home in the New Democratic Party. I would like to know how they feel about the Divine Right of Kings. That does not get talked about too often. On the next opposition day, let's get into a discussion about it.


An Hon. Member:: Not a bad idea.
Supply


Rob Nicholson: I think there is a lot of these floating around in the NDP.
We talked about the hon. House leader of the NDP. One day, he had a private members' motion called Magna Carta Day. In fact, he said that the barons had forced the king to sign this document. When he introduced it into the House, I assumed he thought it might become a national or international celebration some day. I am not so sure any more. Maybe he thinks King John got a bad deal. Maybe that is what he wanted to talk about.
Certainly, I am going to be watching the Private Members' hour. I would be very interested to hear the comments of the New Democratic Party on that subject.
Today, the NDP brings forward their concerns about the rights of the Senate and what the Senate should be doing. I have indicated that I am disappointed that they had nothing to say about the rights of the House of Commons. Could the members of the NDP not have made a couple of speeches about the rights of a democratically elected body?
I have heard no comments at all about the rights of democratically elected members of Parliament to pass legislation. There were no comments about our power to review legislation.


Pauline Browes: The will of the people.


Rob Nicholson: The will of the people. Where in the discussion do we hear about that? No. Championing the cause of non-elected members of the Senate. That is what they have chosen. I am disappointed.
The hon. members say that the senators have the power. Yes, they have the power. I have seen the British North America Act and, with all respect, it says: "All power is vested in the Queen." As important as the monarchy is to Canada, who in the Chamber would suggest that it would be constitutional for the Queen's representative, the Governor-General, to hold up or defeat any legislation? I suppose the members of the NDP say: "He has the right and the power." Yes.
When I was at school, I remember a professor talking about the rights and the powers of the Senate that the NDP is talking about today. The professor made a comment about the Canadian Senate. He said: "If the Canadian Senate ever exercised the theoretical powers

June 4, 1990
Supply
that is given to it under the Canadian Constitution, there would be such an uprising in Canada that it would very shortly lead to the abolition of the Senate".
I guess we are still waiting for the national uprising, the coalescing of national opinion on this but we know some of the problems this House has had with legislation. I could go back to the free trade legislation or to the day care bill that was before the Senate and did not get passed prior to the 1988 election.
There were delays on the pharmaceutical bill from the last Parliament. I hope Canadians will pay more attention. If I see that professor again I will tell him that he was not only premature on what public opinion might be but I am sure he would have never guessed that, of all political parties, it would be the NDP that would come to the defence of a non-elected Chamber vis-a-vis the wishes of an elected Chamber.
The members of the NDP have chosen to spend their time this afternoon on this subject. I can tell them that I think it is important for all Canadians to know exactly where members of the NDP stand. I want to make the pledge to them and to the members of the House that I will do everything possible, everything within my power as a member of Parliament, to see that the views of the NDP on this get wide viewing and a wide range of distribution in my riding of Niagara Falls.
I sincerely want all the people of Niagara Falls to know exactly where the members of the NDP stand on this. I will do my very best to get the message out for them in my riding of Niagara Falls as I am sure other government members will do across the country.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a short question of the hon. member who contributed so magnificently to this debate. I think all members would appreciate the fact that the debate has managed to cause a considerable amount of merriment and good feeling, as well as spreading a great deal of long-deserved enlightenment on the issue of the Senate, its powers, and what it ought to be doing to earn its keep.
I would like to comment first on one phrase that the hon. member used when he said it was difficult to get the coalition of public opinion necessary to abolish the Senate. I just want to put the proposition to him that what we are doing in this debate is killing two birds with one stone. We can serve the interests of the vast majority
of the Canadian people who have demonstrated over and over again that they want to axe the tax, kill the GST, by persuading the Senate to fulfil its constitutional authority and responsibilities, and to put up or shut up and earn its keep. We may then be able to serve their desires and interests while enlisting the Conservative Party to the cause that we have held for years and continue to hold, which is that the Senate ought to be abolished.
If we can accomplish those two things at once, we can give the friends of our colleagues in the Liberal Party to our right their well deserved reward and put them out to pasture, without having to pay for it, and still accomplish the objectives of Canadians and the long-held objective of the New Democratic Party to put an end to that body which has sat in the other place without making a major, concrete contribution to the body politic for many years.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the hon. member's comment.
He said that we are having a hard time getting a coalition concerning the abolishment of the Senate. My comments were that I would like people just to be aware, to begin with, of what the Senate is doing so they can make up their minds as to whether they agree with having it or not, or whether they agree, in today's debate, with what the NDP is suggesting that they should do. This is one of the reasons I said at the outset that I was pleased in one respect that the NDP brought this forward. I think all Canadians should know exactly what the NDP has to say on this. So, I am very pleased with that aspect of it.
What I think what the hon. member is getting at is this. The New Democratic Party has ended up third in every election.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Not always.


Rob Nicholson: Excuse me, I should not say that. The hon member for Kingston and the Islands is a student of Canadian politics. Quite properly, he would correct me by saying that the Social Credit Party has ended up third in most of the elections in which it ran-perhaps not in most, but in several elections. So, the NDP sometimes runs fourth.


Mr. Horner:: Never a silver medal.


Rob Nicholson: But sometimes bronze.


Pauline Browes: Usually last.


Rob Nicholson: I think the point that the NDP is trying to make is this. It must be very frustrating to lose an election. It must be frustrating to be always at that end of the Chamber. It must be frustrating to have 18, 28, or 40 members in the House of Commons. If one cannot do it by the democratic process, maybe there is some other way by which the NDP can accomplish what it is it wants to do to Canadians.
It has been pointed out very well that for years the NDP fought against the Senate. The concept of an undemocratic upper Chamber was fought by the NDP. It has changed its mind on this and I think I know the reason. That frustration that builds up election after election-


Ron J. Duhamel: They are progressive, that is why.


Rob Nicholson: That was not the word I was going to use.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands called it the non-democratic party. I was going to use the term the new dinosaur party, but I think I like his suggestion better.
In a way I can understand the frustration of the New Democratic Party. But that does not change the fact that the people of Canada sent the Progressive Conservative Party in overwhelming numbers to this Chamber on two different occasions in the last two general elections. We have every right to bring in the proposals that we talked about during the election. The members of the New Democratic Party, or anyone else, do not have the right to thwart that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I wanted to ask him a sort of hypothetical question, which I know he will want to answer.
One of the things that has happened in my observation over the years is that the New Democratic Party is forever claiming credit for various policies introduced by Liberal governments. One would always think, listening to its members, that somehow they had instituted all the social programs that in fact the Liberal party has introduced and that the Conservative party has tried to break down or curtail in various ways at various times.
Supply
The fact is of course that there has never been a New Democratic Party government in Canada. For example, its members have said by suggestion that if there had not been a Liberal minority government we would never have had Petro-Canada. We hear New Democratic Party members claiming that they are responsible for Petro-Canada because they supported a Liberal minority government.
Surely, if we accept the position of the New Democratic Party today that the Senate should block any bill that it wants, then had the Liberal government wanted to stop Petro-Canada and had not been supportive of it, it would have had the Senate block the bill based on the urgings of the New Democratic Party. Its members would have said: "Yes, here in the House of Commons we will vote for Petro-Canada with the NDP and get it set up over the cries and hoots of the Conservatives who oppose these good things. Then, when it gets to the Senate, we will use our majority there to kill the bill." After all, this is what the New Democrats are urging in their motion today.
Does not the hon. member who just spoke feel that perhaps the New Democratic Party in putting forward this motion is defeating the claims that it has asserted in the past, that somehow it is responsible for the good works of Liberal governments?


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West has cautioned me not to get involved in a lovers' quarrel.
Let me see if I can follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He said that the members of the New Democratic Party say that they are the ones who suggest pubic policy in Canada. The Liberals say that, no, it is their ideas and they are implementing it. The only thing I know for sure is that we are the ones who end up paying for it.
I was not in the Chamber when the National Energy Program came in. I do not know whether it was one of the great ideas of the Liberals, whether they were cheered on, or whether it was suggested by the NDP. Some members who have been in the House longer than I would perhaps know who exactly should get all the credit. Perhaps it should be the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Who should take the credit for FIRA?

June 4, 1990
Supply


Rob Nicholson: The hon. member asks who should take the credit for FIRA. Was this a great idea that the Liberals came up with on their own without any help from anybody else? Is the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands nodding his head? Was this just a great idea from the Liberal Party?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I wasn't even here.


Rob Nicholson: Well, deficit financing was definitely a Liberal policy but, to give the New Democratic Party its due, I know its members cheered them on. They were egging them on to spend more and more money that the Liberals did not have.
I say they are equal to what they have done to the country. All I can say is that we on this side of the House will clean up what they have left.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a topic which makes me a little uncomfortable. I think that those who put forward the motion, in their eagerness to blacken the noble record of the Liberal Party, have decided to use the Senate as a vehicle to pretend to Canadians that the Liberal Party has failed to provide the leadership and the traditions that have assisted the country to address the challenges of this century.
We have all heard many references to a triple E Senate, one that would purportedly be equal, effective, and elected. I know what elected means. I do not know exactly what equal means. Equal to what? Are we talking about equality as between provinces? Are we talking about equality as between regions? There are many other aspects of the country at which we can also look for equality.
None of these concepts have ever been ironed out, analysed, and developed in a cogent and cohesive manner to allow the House and the party in power to put forward a proposal for reform that has a chance of succeeding.
By way of our Constitution, we have in effect divided the constitutional pie into a number of segments; some portions federal, other portions provincial. Each jurisdiction is supreme in its own field. There are a few areas of shared jurisdiction.
I have to note that no provincial legislature makes use of a second body in their parliamentaiy process, yet each province enacts legislation fully as important as that of the House of Commons. The House of Commons and
each legislature in its own field deals fully and completely with its own aspect of the constitutional field. That makes me wonder why a Senate has a role in Parliament. If the provinces can get along just fine without a Senate or an upper House, why can the House of Commons not get along without a Senate? I have not found an answer to that.
I cannot say that the Senate does not perform a reasonable and effective function in many of the tasks that it undertakes in dealing with legislation. It does initiate some pieces of legislation. I have seen Senators of great repute, great experience, and great intelligence undertake tasks of significance to the provinces that they represent and great importance to the country, and carry out those responsibilities with great effectiveness. They have made a significant contribution to the development of legislation and policy in the country.
Yet, members of the New Democratic Party come forward today with a motion that pretends to endorse the functions of the Senate. But they are not being honest with themselves and they are not being honest with the House. The entire thrust of the New Democratic Party, for as long as I can remember, has been to abolish, to kill, to trample, and to change things so rapidly that it is prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water. When has the New Democratic Party ever given the Senate any credit for any of the work it has done?
The only fault the Senate bears is that through tradition in Canada the Senate has not been an elected body. I suppose many of us regret that. If it were an elected body, we would not have so many of the difficulties we now have in trying to determine its proper role.
I have made reference to those non-policies and destructive suggestions of the New Democratic Party, which from time to time are rooted in real democratic initiative. However, I feel they fail to recognize some of the good things we have here in this country. Not only does the NDP take that approach, but the Progressive Conservative Party in its own way has also failed to address Senate reform in the way it should have.
The Progressive Conservative government over the last half dozen years has spent its time cutting deals with Washington rather than trying to reform and to improve mechanisms of legislation in Parliament. It abandoned the Senate long ago. It did not give a care about the
June 4, 1990

Senate. Its goals were expedience and quick fix. I am disappointed in that.
What we have to show for it is a half finished free trade agreement. I say half finished because we have not finished negotiating subsidy. We have a challenge of constitutional reform which has been left for three years. As I stand here, we are now negotiating-truly at the eleventh hour-to put together some rational constitutional reform which has emanated out of the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.
I want to conclude by speaking in opposition to the adoption of the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. It is a motion that is devoid of any real substance and any real constructive initiative to reform the Senate. It is one that attempts to show our party, a party that I am very proud of, as one that has not done the work that it was elected to do over the last several decades.
I challenge the NDP to abandon its bankrupt approach to Senate reform and address solid, positive, constructive constitutional and Senate reform in the months to come.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I was quite interested in my hon. friend's comments. Does he think a joint convention between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party might help them to resolve this impasse in policy between the two parties?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, in the absence of cogent leadership in constitutional and Senate reform on the part of members opposite, I think it might be fun to address that issue with our brothers and sisters in the NDP.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, as I was listening to my friend and neighbour from the Liberal party I could not help but note that he and his colleagues have made it very clear all afternoon that the Liberal party in the Senate has absolutely no intention whatsoever, and never will have any intention, of axing the tax, of using the legitimate authority and power vested in the Canadian Constitution within the Senate, which is a reality, to kill the GST. Every one of their speakers has made that abundantly clear.
Supply
The New Democrats and the Conservatives pay strong attention to the principle that we ought to receive value for moneys expended. Therefore, what is the rationale for the large expenditure of public funds currently being contemplated by the Liberal majority in the Senate in order to go across the country to hear Canadians tell them what they have been telling all of us for months and months, that is, to kill the GST, if they have absolutely no intention whatsoever of using the authority that the Constitution gives them and their friends to put an end to that bad legislation?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, my friend has just exhorted the Liberals in this House to do with the Senate what the labour unions have been doing to the NDP for years, that is, telling the NDP what to do in the House of Commons. Every member in this House knows that it is inappropriate for the people in this House to tell the other place what to do. I am sure the members who sit in the other place will undertake their constitutional role, albeit a little old and cobwebbed, to review all aspects of the GST legislation in the responsible way they deal with all other legislation that is sent there.
No one in the Liberal party in this House has stated what the Senate is going to do with the GST legislation. That is up to the Senate. It is clear that the Senate will undertake to study it, review it, listen to Canadians and report back to the House of Commons. It was always going to be that way. Suggestions by the New Democratic Party that the Senate was either going to vote to kill it or do nothing are wrong. The New Democratic Party in this House ought to wait until all the members of all parties represented in the Senate deal with that piece of legislation and return it to the House.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I guess this is an afternoon to hear of changes in party policy. I thought I just heard the hon. member say that the Liberal party would not presume to tell the Senate what it should do. I know that is a change of policy for sure, because hon. members in the Liberal party will remember their former leader making it very clear just prior to the last election what it was he thought the Liberal Senate majority should do. He told them what to do. That is what was done then.

June 4, 1990
Supply
Would the hon. member not agree with me that this change of policy in the Liberal party has nothing to do with respecting democratic ideals, but has more to do with the fact that their next leader, Mr. Chretien, knows that the MST is very bad for Canadians and he sees this as a opportunity to replace that bad tax with a much more fair tax? Is this not what this is all about? Would the hon. member comment on that?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, there is virtual paranoia developing here at the prospect of Mr. Chretien becoming leader of the Liberal party. He is one of four excellent contenders for the leadership of the party-


Some Hon. Members:: Five.


Derek Vincent Lee: -and I am sure in due course the members opposite will have an opportunity to deal with whoever the leader of the Liberal party will be.
In any event, I reject the proposition of the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I challenge him to-


Mr. Nault:: Go to the polls.


Derek Vincent Lee: That is a possibility.


Bernard Valcourt: Are you not going to answer the question?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have another question that I thought I might address to my hon. friend.
He will know that in the 17 years of Liberal administration from the 1960s through to 1984, when common sense prevailed, that the Senate under the control of the Liberal party used to indulge in pre-studies of bills in an effort to make the work of the House of Commons, the duly elected representatives, flow quickly once the bills got to the Senate. The Senate abandoned that once the Conservatives gained control of the House of Commons.
I wonder if my hon. friend could comment on what caused this change of policy in the Senate and whether or not he thinks it is legitimized at all.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that if there existed a valid, workable, effective institution procedurally at the time that the Progressive Conservatives came into power in 1984, it would only seem appropriate that
they exercise leadership and judgment in pursuing that kind of a process. In fact, if that process fell into disuse, I would have to suggest that it was a result, not of the failure of the Senate which does not lead legislation in this country, but of the Progressive Conservative government to make use of processes and of an institution that had validity, and of people who had experience simply because it looked to them like the Senate was filled with Liberals and they did not like Liberals. So they stayed away and they failed to use a good procedure that was there in existence simply out of partisanship.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin the approximately five minutes that are left to us in this evening's debate by reading the eloquent motion put forward by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca earlier this afternoon. It states:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate-
And it needs reminding.
- that it has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons.
At the beginning of this debate my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca made it abundantly clear why this particular language was used. We have been listening for months now to representatives of the Liberal party railing against the goods and services tax, this aberration of progressive taxation from one end of Canada to the other. Quite frankly, we thought it was time to call their bluff.
The Constitution says that the Senate has that authority, it has that power and it has that responsibility. We in the New Democratic Party have said for years that it ought not to have that power but the fact remains that it does have it. We also believe that we ought to get value for moneys expended. The long and excellent financial histories of NDP provincial governments across the country are adequate testimony to that.


Mr. Manley:: What are you wasting money on this for?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We will debate that some other day but the press has already agreed that the facts are on my side and I will not deal with that any further right now. It is not necessary. The facts will speak for themselves.
By this motion we want to ensure that those thousands of Canadians who may appear before the Senate as it
June 4, 1990

travels from one end of the country to the other to hear testimony, give serious consideration and sober second thought to this question of the goods and services tax, this fundamental rearranging of Canada's taxation regime, know that it is a sham, that it does not mean a thing.
One after another my Liberal neighbours have stood up today and said they have no intention, either as Liberals or as members of a Liberal caucus, of having the Senate impose its will on the Parliament of Canada. So it is a non-starter.
To go back in history a little bit, the Senate was set up as the protector of corporate rights, the protector of private property against those radicals who wanted to democratize society. The Senate has many times in Canadian history used its power, its responsibility and its authority to stop good laws. We are asking the Liberal party to request their fellow Liberal caucus members to use their constitutional rights and authority within the Senate of Canada to put an end to a bad law.
In 1926 the old age pension bill was introduced by a Liberal government after the signed commitment received by J.S. Woodsworth and A.A. Heaps in 1921. It took them a little while but they brought in a bill and the action of the Senate was described as its most notorious act of defiance. The Senate killed the popular policy, the aim of which was to supplement the income of all people 70 years of age or over to $365 a year. The Senate killed a good law.
In 1926-27, the Senate twice rejected a bill to repeal section 41 of the Immigration Act, which permitted the deportation of British subjects not Canadian citizens without trial. The Senate feared its passage would encourage communist infiltration into Canada.
In 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 the Senate consistently refused to pass measures to repeal section 98 of the Criminal Code enacted in 1919 to deal with unlawful association. The majority of the Senate held that communism was still making headway in Canada and if the clause were repealed there would be no provision in the Code to deal swiftly with agitators seeking to overthrow the government. Those were provisions that were opposed by every Canadian who was concerned about civil rights. They stemmed from an incident in the Winnipeg general strike in 1919. Madam Speaker, the Senate uses its authority-
Adjournment Debate


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member. It being 7 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this Chamber today to address a number of points which I believe are of critical importance, not only to my colleagues in this Chamber, but to the people of Canada.
Some of you will recall that I had asked when and why this Minister of Finance and his government decided to change their position on the reduction of the deficit, that is their position was predicated on the basis that they felt that there were other ways besides reducing transfer payments to health and education.
I want to quote what the minister said. In 1982, the Minister of Finance said:
The reductions to federal funding of health and education could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on the hospital funding and on the operation of the hospitals. Let us solve those problems not on the backs of the hospitals and universities; let us solve those problems outside of that arena.
That is what the minister said then, but what is he doing now? Supposedly they were not going to touch that formula, supposedly not. They reduced it by 2 per cent in 1986 and they reduced it for two years. They have now frozen it from $86 to $95 billion. There will be $31 billion fewer dollars for health and education. That is just one reduction.
They have reduced funding for training and retraining when they said we would have the best programs in the world. They have done that on the backs of the workers and on the backs of the small business people and other business people of this nation. They have reduced the funding for science and technology by $39 million. You will recall that they said they would double research and development. It used to be at 1.40 per cent gross domestic productivity, half of what it is in the United

June 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
States, Japan and a number of European nations. It is now 1.32. It has slipped even further.
The minister's response, I contend, is one that most individuals would agree to be somewhat misleading, to say the least. Some people would even say it is farcical. Some people have even told me it was somewhat machiavellian, but I wonder if it would not be better to say it is "Michaelvellian" or perhaps "Michaelvillain".
Let us go on to the second part of the question. The second question was would he please agree with me and confirm my contention that transferring cash and transferring tax points were actually quite different. Will the minister please tell the whole truth about cash and transfer payments? That is what I wanted to know.
He gave tax points away, or the government of the day did, 10 years ago and he is still claiming them for himself, for his government. They gave points, not dollars, and there is a difference. I can give you 100 points tonight but I must tell you it is not going to buy you a whole lot for dinner. The minister and his government take credit for points which were transferred over a decade ago, and yet the provinces raised the taxes. Surely that is something that needs to be said and a point that needs to be recognized.
During the last two years the tax point credits were greater than was the cash transfer. Manitoba will have no more cash from transfer payments for health and education by the year 2003 to 2004.1 think that is really quite unfortunate. This is what the minister said in response to my question, quite apart from being rather flippant and a lot of puffery surrounding all of this and I think rather insensitive: "The tax points and cash transfer are equally important to the provinces because in an equal way they provide cash to the provinces."
Here is what an expert, Tim Sale and Associates, from Winnipeg, Manitoba, had to say about tax points.
"Tax points" is jargon which means that the provinces got the right to levy higher rates of personal and corporate income tax in return for agreeing to the federal proposal. In turn, the federal rates were lowered. Provinces raised their personal income taxes by 12 points (each point is one per cent of the federal tax level), and their corporate rates by 1 point. The federal government
could still claim to be funding medicare, but at a lower direct cost to their budget each year. The political price for higher taxes was paid by the provinces.
I could go on and I shall use a couple of other quotes.
The federal government shifted some taxation to the provinces- gave provinces the right to raise their taxes. But the federal government still counts the money that is raised by those provincial tax points as federal dollars.
And it goes on and on and on. The point is a very simple one. The transfer of tax points is not the same as a tax transfer of cash. It is simply not the same. I thought the minister on that particular day had been somewhat arrogant, somewhat pretentious, somewhat pompous and insensitive to the point that I was trying to raise. If that minister discards what I am saying, let him consult with my experts. Let him consult with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Association of Community Colleges, and I could name several others. We can listen to what they have to say. I would be quite willing to settle with their conclusion.
If the minister is so sure of himself and the points that he makes, I wonder why he did not accept my October 13 challenge, which was to discuss the importance of education and transfer payments for health and education throughout the country. In an exchange here in the House one day, I said to the minister that I would love to debate this issue with him throughout Canada. He said he had checked Hansard and he could see no indication that he had undertaken to do that.
The points are very simple.

Madam Speaker, it is because I had adressed two extremely important issues. I was brushed off by the minister, and I believe he was less then honest with me and my collegues. Tonight, in the House, I ask that someone should explain to me why he believes he is right, when I contend I am the one who's right.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's question that he put to the Minister of Finance on March 13, 1990.
June 4, 1990

This government inherited a large deficit, a debt problem, in 1984. The federal government at that time was living far beyond its means. It borrowed $16 billion just to cover the difference between the money spent on programs, services, and the revenues that were collected. It built up a $200 billion debt, a mountain of debt that generated more than $22 billion of annual interest charges.
When we came to power, we launched a broad and sustained attack to reduce expenditures and restore our fiscal house. This was part of a long-term plan. We terminated special tax breaks, closed loopholes and increased revenues. The results speak for themselves. We turned an operating deficit into an operating surplus of $10 billion. Progress on these programs of deficit reduction have been made and the growth of the federal program spending has been held below the rate of inflation.
As a share of the economy, our spending is at the lowest level in 20 years. But more needs to be done, we know that, because of the huge deficits built up before 1984. Public debt is still growing faster than the economy, faster than our ability to pay, and this year alone interest payments on our debt will cost almost $40 billion. That is 35 cents out of every dollar collected as federal revenue, or it means $1,500 for each Canadian.
The best way to reduce debt is to reduce spending. The federal transfers to provinces are simply too large to exempt from spending restraint. Major federal transfers to provinces have grown by 6.5 per cent annually over the last five years. This is well in excess of the 3.6 per cent average annual growth of federal program spending over this period. Cash transfers alone represent 24 per cent of total federal program spending.
Therefore, the budget proposes to hold per capita Established Programs Financing transfers constant for the next two fiscal years. Total transfers under the Establish Programs Financing arrangements will continue to grow with the population, or about 1 per cent annually.
The impact of this measure will be spread broadly and equitably across all provinces and will represent less than 1 per cent of provincial revenues.
Adjournment Debate
Federal program spending will increase about 3 per cent in 1990-91. Our transfers to provinces will also increase by about 3 per cent next year. So we are requiring no more of the provinces than we are willing to bear ourselves.
It is important to remember that in addition to Established Programs Financing, the federal government provides substantial additional assistance to the lower income provinces through the equalization program.
I want to mention particularly to the hon. member that this helps provinces provide better public services in health care and education and that equalization transfers have been exempted from the restraint measures announced in the budget.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, on May 24, 1990 I asked a question of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport concerning the devastating effect the proposed goods and services tax will have on amateur sport in Canada, and in particular minor hockey.
The minister responded by saying that the Sports Federation of Canada is very pleased with the provisions of the GST to amateur sport. However, a report produced by Douglas A. Rollins of Nepean suggests that any provisions the government has put forward do not go far enough to address the problems of a GST on certain amateur sports in Canada.
To better provide evidence of my belief that the GST will have a negative effect on minor hockey in Canada, I will read verbatim from Mr. Rollins' paper:
This paper has been researched and prepared to assess the impact of the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) on local minor hockey associations across Canada, and of individual teams and officials operating in such an association. The purpose of the paper is to provide a clearer understanding of this tax, and to make recommendations as to how these associations could arrange their affairs so as to prepare for the GST.
This paper has been prepared as a "case study". It examines the operations of the Nepean Minor Hockey Association, and of the teams and officials in it. This was a deliberate choice, since by examining the GST and its impact upon one specific organization, other similar organizations would be able to clearly identify the underlying principles of law, and relate these principles to their own particular organization. This would then fulfil the objective of the paper, to provide a clearer understanding of this tax for all.

June 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Material was gathered through examination of existing federal sales tax law, through review of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, and discussions with officials of the Nepean Minor Hockey Association and tax policy officers with the Department of Customs and Excise, and Finance.
It must be clear at the outset that the material presented in this paper, because of the nature of the subject, cannot be considered as definite. This is because the goods and services tax has been introduced into the House of Commons as Bill C-62 but is not a law at this time. Also, in certain of the more technical aspects of the application of GST there is no policy. What is presented is the likely direction such policy will take. These areas of uncertainty have been identified in the body of the text.
Despite these considerations, what is presented here is the first detailed look at this tax and its specific implications for minor hockey.
I do not have the time to read the background and methodology of the report, but I will read the executive summary.
The GST is intended to eliminate many of the flaws and inequities which exist in the current Federal Sales rfax. The vast majority of goods and services in Canada will be subject to this tax, which is essentially a 7 per cent tax on personal consumption. It will require all businesses and organizations in Canada who have annual taxable sales in excess of $30,000 to register for and collect this tax.
The Nepean Minor Hockey Association, like all other hockey associations in Canada, will be affected by this tax. As the organization providing a minor hockey program for players between the ages of five and 19 in the city of Nepean, the NMHA in 1989-90 operated with a total budget of $402,000. The vast majority of these funds come from the sale of memberships to individual players. In addition, other revenue comes from the rental of practice ice purchased from the city, the proceeds from a bingo, profits from a used equipment sale, sponsor contributions and tournament revenues.
It is concluded that the NMHA, given its current operations, would have a total of $206,500 in taxable sales annually. This would require the NMHA to register for GST and collect some $14,020 in taxes yearly. However, by taking eligible input tax credits of $10,185, the net amount of GST to remit would be a total of $3,935. While the NMHA is a non-profit organization, it will receive no special funding, unlike certain other organizations engaged in organizing amateur athletics.
In addition to the amount of GST required to be added to its sales, the NMHA will be forced to absorb a total of $20,406 in GST on its purchases. As a consequence, the NMHA will face a total GST related increase of $24,341. This represents a 6 per cent increase.
There are ways of reducing the NMHA's total amount of taxable sales to less than $30,000 per year, but this would only save some
$3,935 in GST annually. This is due to the fact that the NMHA, being a non-profit organization, does not mark up purchases subsequently resold to any significant amount. By not being registered, by being below the $30,000 threshold, they would not have to keep books and records, and file periodic tax returns, but would save relatively little money.
Individual teams in the NMHA would not be registered for GST as long as their operating budget does not exceed $30,000. In a similar manner, referees, timekeepers and instructors would be below this threshold.
I filed a copy of this report with the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport at the time I asked the question. I hope the parliamentary secretary or whoever responds will have had the time to read the report and to specifically refer to the items that I mentioned.
This report was very well thought out and researched. Even after it took into account all the provisions that were supposed to help non-profit amateur sport, an increase of 6 per cent to an organization such as the NMHA still exists. This could have an extremely negative effect on minor hockey in Nepean and, as is probably the case, all of Canadian minor hockey.
In response to my initial question in the House, the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport praised the Minister of Finance for doing a tremendous job for amateur sport in the GST legislation and stated he should be congratulated. I say to the minister, come on. Put your helmet on and get into the game. Your praise of the Minister of Finance is eloquent but makes no sense. In hockey terms, you do a lot of dazzling skating and shooting but no scoring.
Your answers to my questions deserve a misconduct and I am sure you will be cut from the team when Canadians vote in the next election.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's concerns.
I want to make very clear that the Government of Canada has no intention of scrapping the goods and services tax. We all know the GST is an important part of the government's economic plan. It is a crucial element that contributes to making the economy stronger and more dynamic, to restoring the country's financial health, and to improving the fairness of the tax system.
June 4, 1990

The proposed tax will correct many of the flaws of the existing federal sales tax. It will remove the existing tax burden from many Canadian exports, eliminating the bias in favour of imports by applying a uniform tax rate to imports and domestic goods and services. It will provide a more reliable source of revenue and thereby contribute to efforts to reduce the national deficit.
With a uniform rate of 7 per cent applied to most goods and services, the GST will provide a less complex system for government and businesses to administer. In strengthening the competitive position of Canadian producers, the GST will stimulate economic growth, encourage investment, and create jobs.
Insofar as the amateur sport community is concerned, let me remind hon. members that non-profit organizations as a whole are not now given special status under the existing FST. As a consequence, such organizations currently bear an element of sales tax on their purchases, which presumably they are required to factor in to the cost of the programs they provide.
In developing the GST proposal, the government recognized that, given the broader GST base, such organizations would generally incur additional costs. As a result, important features of substantial benefit to charities and non-profit organizations have been incorporated into the proposed system.
First, government grants or subsidies available to charitable and non-profit organizations in order to carry out their activities are not taxed. They are ignored for GST purposes.
Second, charitable and non-profit organizations which produce taxable supplies will be able to claim full input tax credits on their purchases.
Third, to further mitigate the impact of the GST, charities-and this includes registered Canadian amateur athletic associations-will automatically be entitled to a 50 per cent rebate on GST paid on purchases for non-commercial use, regardless of the amount of funding they receive from governments. Organizations which do not have charitable status, but which nonetheless are substantially funded non-profit organizations, that is, those whose revenues comprise at least 40 per cent in
Adjournment Debate
government funding, will also be able to claim a 50 per cent rebate of GST on purchases of goods and services for which they are not entitled to an input tax credit. This places them in a better position than under the current federal sales tax.
There are a number of other features which have been built in to the design which will benefit sport and other non-profit organization. Among others, these include the provision of an optional simplified accounting method to reduce any additional compliance burden, the exemption of sponsorships from tax, and a special exemption for recreational programs designed for children primarily under the age of 14.
The former Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport helped to facilitate representations by the Sport Federation of Canada before the Commons Finance Committee last fall and also facilitated key meetings between that organization and the Department of Finance. At the present time, officials of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch are working with the Sports Federation and Revenue Canada to ensure as smooth an implementation of the GST for the sport and fitness communities as possible.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to raise an item once again that was first raised in the House on October 23, 1989.
The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee is to study, as thoroughly as it can, the annual report of the Auditor General of Canada tabled in the House each year during October or November. It is the committee's job to study the items in that report where the Auditor General finds weaknesses in financial administration or areas of government that should be corrected. We have hearings and, after those hearings with civil servants and senior officials from government departments and agencies before us, we table our report in the House, not only stating our findings, but also making recommendations on the cures.
On October 23,1 raised an issue in the House because the Deputy Prime Minister had sent out letters to all the chairmen of committees of the House of Commons, asking them for suggestions as to how the deficit could

June 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
be decreased. But he forgot to send one to the chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee.
I raised that in a question in the House and the Deputy Prime Minister gave me a very good answer. He said he was willing to co-operate with us. In a second question to him, I said the Auditor General's report will be tabled in the House tomorrow and it will be permanently referred to the Public Accounts Committee. I asked if he would assure us that no roadblocks will be put in the committee's way as we witnessed, to a degree, in the early stages of this Parliament. The Auditor General's Report was tabled the next day on October 24, and these points were raised:
In 1989-90 we had planned to conduct a government-wide audit of expenses claimed by ministers for travelling on government business. In our opinion, the Auditor General has clear statutory authority to audit these expenses.
The Auditor General went on to say in his report:
We requested access to receipts where ministers had followed Treasury Board's advice to retain them. The Government told us that even if receipts existed they would not be made available to us.
In other words, the government refused access to those ministerial receipts to the Auditor General of Canada who looks after tax moneys given to the government on behalf of the people of Canada.
On October 24 in the House, I rose again and said:
Today we learned that the Auditor General tried to do an audit on ministerial travel, but he could not perform it because he could not get any receipts from any ministers in this government and therefore could not do an audit of the cabinet of this country. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider this to be co-operation.
The President of the Treasury Board replied:
I can assure you that this government is totally committed to accountability and openness.
Madam Speaker, on November 10 in The Globe and Mail there is a report of one of the public accounts committee meetings and it states:
Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet, testified yesterday before the House of Commons public accounts committee that the Auditor-General of Canada will not have access to receipts for government-paid trips taken by ministers.
He said it is up to each minister to decide how to spend his or her time and it is not the role of the Auditor General to pass judgement on where the minister goes or why.
That was not really the purpose of it. It was a request for information for the purpose of bringing forward an audit.
Time went by and the President of the Treasury Board gave us a commitment that he would bring back a report on this.
On February 8, not having a report, I wrote to the President of the Treasury Board and asked him for his report. I said:
At a meeting of the Committee with the Comptroller General on February 8,1990, it was brought to our attention that two reports on the above subject are presently in your hands, one is entitled: "Report to the President of the Treasury Board on the accounting for the Administrative Flight Service provided by the Department of National Defence"; the other is a report on ministerial travel.
We asked the President of the Treasury Board for that information. He replied to my February 8 letter on March 13. He said:
The Comptroller General's study has been provided to me just recently and is presently under consideration. As you know, I promised to table this document in the House and will do so early in the new fiscal year. At that time, it will be available to the Public Accounts Committee.
In other words, Madam Speaker, hurry up and wait. On January 17, I received a letter from the Auditor General. I will quote a paragraph from that as follows:
I thought your Committee might appreciate knowing that the government of the Province of Manitoba has very recently moved away from an honour system for accounting for ministerial travel expenses to a system requiring receipts. The significance of this development is that it leaves the government of Canada as the sole jurisdiction where Ministers' travel expenses are accounted for on an honour basis, i.e. receipts are not required.
It is now June 4. Parliament will be rising this month. This issue that started on October 24 last fall and our public accounts committee still does not have an answer from the President of the Treasury Board. We still do not have an answer from the government.
Madam Speaker, I want to state very clearly that the public accounts committee studying matters of inefficiency and bad expenditures in government can only operate if we get the full co-operation of the government. I want to point out, as chairman of the public accounts committee, it is obvious that on this item we are not getting co-operation, either from a senior official or from the government itself. I would like the government to tell us why and when we are going to get it.
June 4, 1990


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out to the hon. member that when he raised this question on October 23, the Deputy Prime Minister did apologize to him for not sending a letter and wanted to assure us that the government wants the public accounts committee to be the watch-dog committee of the public purse.
As well, the committee can expect the same freedom and independence it has always exercised. Furthermore, as the committee continues to fulfil its important role, we would welcome any ideas, suggestions or otherwise to assist the government and the country in reducing its national debt.
I know the hon. member shares the view that we must find ways to reduce duplication in government and to find efficient methods to meet the program demands of Canadians. We as a government are constantly searching for ways to improve the delivery of programs. But, as he well knows, when an operation the size of the federal government spends approximately $100 billion annually, it has an obligation and a duty to promote efficiency in our spending.
The Public Accounts Committee, which the hon. member chairs, is tasked with reviewing federal govern-
Adjournment Debate
ment spending and with providing alternative ideas and new opportunities. I know the hon. member will be doing just that.
Elowever, we should take time to look at our record. If we take away government spending to service the Liberal national debt, we will find that that the government has gone from a $16 billion operating deficit in 1984-85 to a $25 billion operating surplus in 1990-91.
That sounds impressive. The deficit will drop to $28.5 billion this year. It will be cut to $14 billion in three years and reduced further to $10 billion in the next years.
Given these facts, I want to congratulate the Public Accounts Committee for its hard work in helping to achieve this impressive turn-around. In the same view, I know the hon. member who chairs the Public Accounts Committee would want to congratulate the government for providing leadership in getting government spending under control.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
*
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 5, 1990