1990-12-05

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, for six long years the government has taken a meat cleaver to Canada's national institutions. It has slashed and hacked away indiscriminately at passenger rail service, health care services, old age pensions, Air Canada, youth employment programs, and the unemployment insurance program. Now it is the CBC that is on the chopping block.
Canadians are learning today that the CBC is closing as many as 10 of its regional TV stations, including a station in Sydney, Nova Scotia, that serves my entire riding, and a French language station outside Quebec, both of which are building blocks of national unity. As many as 2,000 jobs may be cut.
Surely the federal government has a duty and an obligation to enhance the quality of Canadian life and not a licence to dismantle those institutions that bind Canadians together. The people of Canada will remember this government for years and years, the black days of this government and the butcher from Baie Comeau.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of male violence against women is the foremost and most urgent issue confronting women in our society.
In Metro Toronto from 1984 to 1989, there has been a 48.4 per cent increase in violent crime and a 62.4 per cent increase in family violence. Weapons are now used in 45.7 per cent of domestic cases, compared to 30.9 per cent in 1985. To November 30 of this year, there have been 513 family violence incidents involving firearms, compared to 465 for the whole year of 1989.
Are large urban centres unique? No. StatsCan reports that in communities with a population of 5,000 or less, the homicide rate for the last 10 years was 3.1 per 100,000, as compared to 3.14 in communities of 500,000 or more.
Security of person is a fundamental human right denied to most women in our society everywhere.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, for 18 weeks several thousand families in my community have been trying to eke out an existence on $100 a week or less. We have failed to reduce the callback threshold so that employees will be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
The mood of steelworkers has gone from frustration to desperation to anger. These people are victims of an arbitrary, unjust, inconsistent unemployment insurance program which defies interpretation by even the federal courts of the country.
We ask Algoma to call back 1,870 people as soon as possible. We ask the local UI office to have staff available for the extra workload. We ask the minister to expedite the process, as she indicated to me the other day that she would. Perhaps she could delete the waiting period so that these families in Sault Ste. Marie can enjoy Christmas just like the rest of Canadians.

December 5, 1990


COMMENTS MADE BY MR. LAWRENCE WILSON
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have always said there were smart people in the Liberal Party. Mr. Lawrence Wilson just confirmed this today in the Journal de Montreal. Chretien's chief party organizer feels more comfortable with the ideas of Brian Mulro-ney. Last Sunday, Mr. Wilson was seen at the Conservative Party brunch, and this is what he said: "I like what I hear. I like the direction Brian Mulroney is taking."
Mr. Wilson also said that Mr. Chretien was afraid to run in Quebec. He also objects to the Liberal leader's stand on the GST, and I will quote what he said: "I am in favour of the GST) Mr. Chretien is against the GST, and I don't like the way the Liberal senators are behaving under the leadership of Mr. Chretien."
Bravo, Mr. Wilson! Welcome to the Conservative Party. Again, I am sure the Liberals will finally get the message. Welcome to the Conservative Party, next to my leader, Brian Mulroney!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the CBC is going to announce later this hour the most severe budget cuts in its histoiy.

One employee out of ten will be out of a job, which means a total of 1,200 jobs lost. That is what this government has done, by forcing the CBC to cut its budget by more than $100 million.
The CBC is the latest victim of Tory attacks against our national institutions.
This action by the government has caused 10 regional television stations to be closed, four of which are in the Atlantic region.

These cuts will hinder national unity, prevent the CBC from operating effectively, and strangle the future development of the corporation. This is yet another blatant attempt by the Conservative government to manipulate and censor the media outlets in the nation.
It is also about time the national media wakes up and calls off the honeymoon with the Conservative government, as the Canadian people already have.


THE LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment today about leadership.
The majority of Canadians are calling for lower interest rates. The NDP leader says she wants lower interest rates.
The majority of Canadians wish to see the GST cancelled. The NDP leader called for the GST to be cancelled.
The majority of Canadians want more money spent on the environment. The NDP leader wants more money spent on the environment.
The member for Yukon states she would like leadership, but she is prepared only to show Canadians leadership by fellowship. Like a hyper pup chasing its own tail, the NDP leader gets herself dizzy just by thinking about leadership.


WORLD UNIVERSITY SERVICE OF CANADA
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my regret at the collapse of the World University Service of Canada and at the government's policy on it. It is not enough for the government to pay for the funeral. The World University Service of Canada needs to be sustained and kept going.
However much bad luck of management is responsible for the problem, there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by WUSC or anything other than its long-standing dedication to service to humanity in a great Canadian tradition. That service has benefited both people abroad and
'	"	'	V,,
December 5, 1990

thousands of Canadians, often young Canadians whose commitment to service is validated.
I was a WUSC student myself when I was at the University of Toronto and so were many others in the House, including my seat-mate, the hon. member for Papineau. Nothing I did in school shaped my future as much as my WUSC time in West Africa.
It is more than an error, it is absurd for the government to allow WUSC to go under, and it is certainly not too late for the government to reverse its stand.


NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, on November 26, Dr. John Stephens appeared before the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. The services offered by Dr. Stephens consist in identifying the sex of the fetus. Unfortunately, some of his patients have used his expertise to abort female fetuses.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Stephens has decided to take advantage of the perception among some cultural communities that a male child is preferable to a female child. In a country like ours, where women are supposed to be equal to men, it is unacceptable that such practices should be tolerated, and I strongly condemn this application of a medical technique that equates the life of a woman with that of an animal.


CORPORATION TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is time once again for the corporate welfare bum of the week award.
This week's nominees are Empire Life Insurance, which paid no taxes in 1989 and made $8 million in profits, plus received $500,000 in government hand-outs; Insurance Corporation of B.C., which in 1989 paid zero tax with a profit of $90.1 million; and the third nominee is Sovereign Life Insurance Company, which in 1989 made $6.5 million in profits, plus received $500,000 in government hand-outs.
The envelope, please.
The winner is the Insurance Corporation of B.C.
Congratulations to all our life insurance nominees for this unrivalled longevity as the most successful tax busters. They are shining examples of how to live long, prosperous, and tax-free corporate lives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the NHL Board of Governors will select which North American city will receive an NHL franchise.
On any given weekend, I can visit hockey arenas on Hamilton Mountain and find dozens of young aspiring Wayne Gretzkys honing their hockey skills.
If there is any truly Canadian symbol, it is the sport of hockey. For these reasons, I urge the NHL board of governors to select a Canadian city as the new home of the NHL team. What Canadian city? Well, Hamilton, of course.
As chair of the Hamilton Wentworth regional caucus, I am pleased to inform the House that Hamilton's was the only bid to meet virtually every criteria set out by the NHL. The recently built Copps Coliseum seats 17,000 people. The level of enthusiasm in our city is so great that in a 72-hour period organizers sold over 13,000 season tickets.
An NHL franchise would relieve some of the pressure that the people of Hamilton are currently feeling under this made-in-Canada recession. Members of the city council estimate that a franchise would create over 200 jobs and bring $79 million into our local economy.
I call on the Prime Minister to publicly announce his support for a new Canadian NHL franchise.


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting of the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development held yesterday morning had been scheduled several days ago. The committee had to cancel its meetings twice last week because opposition members were absent. Yesterday morning, none of the opposition members were present at the specified time, which was 9 a.m. All

Oral Questions
government members were present. Finally, forty minutes later, one of the opposition members had the decency to report to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, this committee was going through a very important phase because it had to finalize its report and submit it to the House. This is one more example of the careless attitude of the opposition.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries confirmed to the House for the first time that in Atlantic Canada there would be a quota assigned to the inshore fishery. That is going to affect adversely tens of thousands of people in Quebec in particular, as well as in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. On top of that we have the Dunn report which calls for further cuts in northern cod. In short, we have a fisheries in absolute crisis, the inshore fishery. We have a minister who is not lifting a finger. I never thought I would have to say this, but he is not lifting a single finger. People out there are in agony. They are hurting. They are looking to him and to the government for some help in this crisis situation, and he is basically thumbing his nose at them. That is sad. It is uncalled for.
I ask him to return to his earlier attitude when he was a freshly-minted minister and do something for those people who are looking to him at this particular time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada increased the operating hours of the regional control tower at Val-d'Or in March 1989 in response to complaints from the airlines, but today, public servants in Ottawa and the Canadian government prefer a reduction in services and a commensurate reduction in wage costs.
From now on, the Val-d'Or control tower will start operations at eight o'clock, local time, to avoid overtime. The tower will close Saturday evening at 6.15, always in
order to save money, with no regard for quality of service.
 * *


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Solicitor General of Canada on his handling of the Maxime Gariepy case. As you know, two days ago, the Solicitor General signed Maxime's transfer to Canada. It is now up to the U.S. authorities to approve Maxime's transfer to our country.
Mr. Speaker, even when members do not rise in the House, it does not mean they are not doing a good job. We have the necessary tools to put pressure on ministers and senior officials, and I am thinking of our regional, national and provincial caucuses. In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, of which I am a member, has discussed Maxime's case. So, chin up, Maxime, and don't despair. Soon you will be back in Canada!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today Canadians were shocked to learn that the CBC is shutting down stations and services in the Atlantic, Ontario, Quebec and the west, including places like Windsor, Ontario, that have no other Canadian broadcasting station. This is part of this government's effort, its campaign to dismantle vital national institutions and unravel the very fabric of this country.
The Prime Minister goes around making speeches about national unity. He spends millions of dollars setting up committees on national unity all over the place. When he has a chance to do something tangible about it, he goes in the opposition direction.
If the Prime Minister believes in the unity of this country, will his government give the CBC today the money required to maintain these vital services it is cutting, or is he saying to the people of Matane, Windsor and Sydney that to him they are not part of Canada? If so, I say to the Prime Minister that they and other

Canadians will never, ever accept this from him and his government.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is confusing the issue, as he so often does in most of his statements.
In a few minutes, the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will announce a restructuring of the Corporation in order to cover a shortfall caused by a drop in advertising revenue and additional costs due to inflation, and also by operating costs incurred through exhaustive and unscheduled coverage of major international events and national crises.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Government of Canada did not make any new cuts in the CBC's budget.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications talks of restructuring. It is not the restructuring of the CBC, it is the dismembering of the CBC, and this is being done because of this government. It is this government that told the CBC to cut $140 million from its budget in three years. It is this government that approved the corporate plan of the CBC. And, Mr. Speaker, this morning the president of the CBC met privately with the Conservative caucus and cabinet, which undoubtedly approved those cuts, just like they approved the slashing of VIA Rail, another vital national institution. I ask the Prime Minister again will he, today, provide the funding to the CBC to keep these services going or is he saying that what is going on is just a step toward the privatization of the CBC and the ending of it as a vital national institution?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition mentioned that the President of the CBC met with government members. I think that the President of the CBC is willing to meet all parliamentarians, collectively or individually, to explain CBC's policy and its managerial responsibility.
Oral Questions
He would be honored and pleased to meet the leader of the opposition or members of the Liberal Party.
The leader of the opposition also suggested that the government made unwarranted cuts in the CBC. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker! In 1988-1989 for instance, the government provided the corporation with extra funding, some $65 million, for its rebroadcasting station project in Toronto. In 1988-1989, the CBC received another $130 million or so from the government for its broadcasting policy.
These new funds, Mr. Speaker, combined with the regular increases for salaries and other requirements, will add up to over $300 million for the next five years. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not do that were it not confident of the CBC. On the contrary, the government reaffirmed repeatedly its confidence in the CBC and will keep doing just that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will have no confidence in the government in view of the cuts it ordered.
This government recently struck a blow to communities like Matane, Rimouski and Sept-iles when it closed down their television stations. If it is really concerned with the well-being of these communities, then why not provide the funding required to allow the stations to survive? Is the Prime Minister serious when he says he wants to secure the future of these communities and that of the whole country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. First of all, this government, year after year, had a greater percentage of augmentation for the CBC than for the general government as a whole. So when the Leader of the Opposition says that the government has been unfair to the CBC, I think this is false.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before this House states, and I quote, that "the programming provided by the Corporation should be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of En-

December 5, 1990
Oral Questions
glish and French linguistic minorities". In that regard, it will become a real joke if this legislation is passed.
Here is the question I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Does the government intend to withdraw the bill respecting bradcasting until such time as the conflicting mandates have been sorted out? Or is the government prepared to provide sufficient funding to the radio and television networks of the CBC?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian community will continue to be served by a CBC television station. The budget cuts will not affect the range of the broadcasting services. The Corporation will remain, as always, the mouthpiece by excellence of the Canadian people. In 1990, it is producing better programs directed to larger audiences than it did six years ago, when the Liberal Party was in power.


Sheila Finestone: Anything to not take responsibility for their actions, that is this government's approach to leadership.
As the cuts announced today by the CBC make it impossible for this vital national public broadcaster to fulfil its legal mandate toward the special needs of the region as spelled out in the new broadcasting act scheduled to be imposed today, all we are now going to get is the voice of English from Toronto-

-and the voice of Quebec, of French, from Montreal. [English]
Will the government restore the necessary funds for CBC to get to take on its regional mandate and to fill its legal commitments, or is it prepared to withdraw the bill until it can be properly concurrent with the needs?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we have the mandate Parliament gives the CBC, renewed by the bill now before this House. On the other hand, there are problems with a shortfall in the CBC's operating budget. Regarding this shortfall, first of all, the CBC estimated that this year, advertising revenues would total $395 million. Recently, however, this estimate had to be revised downwards to $300 million. This shortfall is one
of the problems facing the CBC, and all television companies in Canada are facing these problems, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
On November 7, 1984, just after the Prime Minister was elected to this House, in his first speech he said: "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this countiy."
In less than six years, the awful truth of those words is becoming abundantly clear: VIA Rail, Canada Post, Petro-Canada and now CBC.
Important national institutions have been underfunded and privatized. Tools for building a better Canada have been abandoned, and now today's announcement of 1,200 jobs lost and 10 regional stations at CBC.
With the widening swath that this government has cut through the heart of this nation's achievements, what is the Prime Minister prepared to do to assist the CBC in retaining its objective of serving as an instrument of this nation's identity and unity?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the member of the opposition has every right to recall the commitments made by the Prime Minister of Canada. A few years from now, this countiy will be quite different because the economic situation will be different and the government will be in full control of its spending. By taking economic measures we will be able to develop our social services and provide for the cultural, economic and social development of this country, Mr. Speaker.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, during last night's debate on Bill C-40, the Broadcast Act, the parliamentary secretary said in the House that this government was doing everything it could to help the CBC.
I wonder if the Prime Minister might answer this question: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the hatchet job of $140 million cut over the next

four years and the loss of 1,200 jobs is going to do anything to help the CBC?
Can he explain how the closure of regional stations in Comer Brook, Goose Bay, Sydney, Sept lies, Tbronto, Saskatoon and Windsor as well as other areas will help the CBC to fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the serious question raised by my hon. friend. This year the Government of Canada will provide over $1 billion in grants to the CBC, in addition to which the CBC has advertising revenue which, as the minister has pointed out, is in the neighbourhood of $400 million.
There is a shortfall on that which accounts in substantial measure for some of the CBC's problems this year, as there are shortfalls in private sector broadcasting, newspapers, and all media outlets across Canada.


Mr. Tobin:: There's a recession, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend yells at me that there is a recession. Indeed there is a recession, and all elements of society including the CBC must deal with this new reality, which means tightening our belts.
The total resources of the CBC, including commercial sales, have increased to nearly $1.5 billion this year. This is an increase of nearly 30 per cent since 1984. I think that every year since this government has been here we have given more money on a yearly basis to the CBC. We have proceeded with the construction of a new CBC headquarters in Tbronto. We have authorized the creation of Newsworld.
I know my hon. friend is offended by the idea of privatization, but he is probably more offended by the fact that the post office is now making money.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the 103 people in Windsor who have just been told their jobs are dead were told that the major reason for it was the lack of funding from this government. That is what they were told.
How can this Prime Minister and this government possibly justify the destruction of community news in a
Oral Questions
part of this country where there is no option, where there is a saturation of TV coverage from the United States?
Why is this government not prepared to keep 500,000 Canadians as part of our country by preserving community news in Windsor?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with my hon. friend, if that is the decision that was announced by Mr. Gerard Veilleux, the president of the CBC.
I point out to my hon. friend, and I hope he will agree, that in the six years since we have been here we have increased the amounts of grants to the CBC every single year. They are in excess of $1 billion a year.
The CBC's anticipated revenues from sales are down, but my hon. friend would acknowledge that they are down in the private sector in all areas of the media.
I point out to my friend that the total resources of the CBC have increased in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent over the last six years, while other government operations, which account for $17 billion-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my hon. friend, so that he can put it in some kind of fair comparison, that the cost of government operations, basically the cost of running the government which includes the personnel costs of public servants, administering government programs, and so on, in 1984 were $17.4 billion. This year they are $17.3 billion, a decrease of $100 million.
While the contributions to the CBC were going up by over $100 million, the entire cost of running the Government of Canada because of the frugality of the approach of this government has gone down by $100 million, and I think that is fair.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is about the CBC crisis.

Oral Questions
At the very time when Canadians are concerned about the future of this country, this government is taking away from the CBC its mandate to contribute to national unity.
But it does not stop there. We are told today that due to lack of funding certain regional operations of the CBC will have to be closed. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this will impair the ability of the CBC to keep this country together.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Harvard: I know the Prime Minister has been-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


John Harvard: I know that the Prime Minister is a bit run down these days, but I want to ask him: Has he lost all faith in public broadcasting? Have he lost all faith in the CBC, and has he lost all faith in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt my friend, the Minister of Communications, but this was the political party that founded the CBC. Because of the management we are trying to bring to the public finances of the country, we are going to return sanity to the public finances so that the CBC can stay alive, grow, and prosper in the years to come. That is what it is all about.
My hon. friend can judge by the fact that when we were keeping our own governmental expenditures down by $100 million over she years, this government found in difficult times the money to build the broadcasting centre for the CBC in Toronto and we found the money to fund Newsworld. Those were major innovations for the CBC and for Canadians.
I think this indicates our commitment to public broadcasting in Canada. Gerard Veilleux is the first to recognize, as the former secretary of the Treasury Board, that the CBC or any other government agency cannot function in isolation. We are all in this together, and we all must control expenditures so as to strengthen the economy in the longer haul.


John Harvard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives started the CBC and it looks like they are going to end it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Harvard: We have all seen the rise of western alienation, but still CBC operations in Calgary and Saskatoon will have to be-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor. I would ask members to give him the courtesy to allow him to ask his question.


John Harvard: CBC operations in Calgary and Saskatoon will have to sacrifice programs throughout the west. They will be lost as a result of these cuts today. Western Canadians will lose yet another means of expressing to other Canadians their feelings and their concerns.
If the Prime Minister will not allow his own Tory MPs from western Canada to express the concerns of western Canadians, why will he not let the CBC do it?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that across Canada, in both western and eastern Canada, all Canadian communities will continue to be served by a CBC television station.
The CBC's budget problems are largely linked to advertising. I may remind the hon. member that about 30 per cent of the CBC's budget consists of advertising revenue, and I would also like to remind him that the corporation had budgeted $395 million in revenues this year, and it now has to revise this downwards to $300 million. This is not due to the impact of the economic situation but also to the fact that Canadians have more and more television services, and that the competition and specialized services will tend to fragment TV audiences, as they are indeed doing today.
In the Montreal area, the English network has lost 20 per cent of its audience in the past 2 years, and the French network has lost 17 per cent, because there are more television programs and more TV networks, and because more interests are involved in the television sector in Canada, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
December 5, 1990

How could the minister possibly say that there are more and more television shows in Cape Breton? CBC is the only network operating out of Cape Breton. How would he know, anyway? He is never in the country.
I remind him that the station in Sydney is closing. Why is this government trying to create two levels of Canadians? Will he accept the fact that people in Cape Breton and in the other regions of this country do not want to be second level Canadians?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the region of Sydney, like in other regions of Canada, there are more televison channels than in 1984. The residents of Sydney have more opportunities to watch television because there are more television services, including specialized services that did not even exist before. The fact that the same number of viewers have more televison channels to choose from translates into a loss of advertising revenue for the CBC. In the region of Sydney as elsewhere, the CBC will continue to offer services as it does to all Canadians.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the CBC in Sydney will be lucky to be left with a mobile unit. The problem is that this is not about services to the people. The government is systematically cutting back the revenues of the CBC until it reduces its operations and programming to such a level that the government feels it can be privatized.
Why does the government not admit that this is not about people, that the government is not concerned about the interests and the welfare of Canadians, that all it wants to do is get rid of the CBC?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that the government is systematically cutting back on revenues to the CBC. He has it exactly wrong.
The government has been systematically increasing its contribution to the CBC every year since it has been here. The Government of Canada now contributes in a lump sum a cash amount in excess of $1 billion a year to the CBC.
Oral Questions
As the minister has pointed out, CBC's anticipated commercial revenues have encountered a shortfall, as has the private sector station in Sydney, as has CJOH, CFTO and all other stations across Canada. It is part and parcel of the difficult economic times that we are going through.
The actions of the Government of Canada are not designed to minimize the CBC. They are designed to strengthen the economy so that as the economy strengthens we can continue to do more for the CBC and the CBC can continue to play its important role in contributing to national unity and strengthening the fibre of the nation.


GUN CONTROL
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
As early as the spring of 1989, this government promised Canadians stronger gun control laws. Then came the winter of 1989 and Marc Lepine made gun control a woman's issue. Since then the women of Canada have seen nothing from this government but the spectacle of a self-described 'feminist' sidelining her own bill.
On this first eve of the Montreal massacre, the women of Canada want action on gun control. They want action now. Where is that promised action?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was aware of the package that I deposited in the House of Commons in June of this year, she would be aware that the gun control initiative consisted of three parts: Bill C-80, legislative changes proposed to the Criminal Code of Canada, and proposed use of the regulatory power. That included some existing regulatory power and some use of regulatory power that would come into being with Bill C-80. Third, the proposal to create a national advisory council on firearms to provide me with a plan to implement the training provisions, which have been in the Criminal Code of Canada since 1978 and have never been proclaimed, and to provide me with advice on criteria by which we might implement some of the advice that students at Ecole Polytechnique gave me and was reconfirmed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to outlaw military and paramilitary firearms. That does not require new legislative authority,

Oral Questions
but what it does require is very careful consideration of what criteria we would use to designate military and paramilitary firearms.
The legislation and the proposed regulatory changes are now in front of a special committee. I am sure the member is aware that if we had confined ourselves purely to dealing with second reading in a legislative committee, the scope of the regulations would not be appropriate for that committee to consider. In this contentious area my proposed legislative and regulatory changes are now in a public forum.
I announced yesterday the make-up of the National Advisory Council on Firearms, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Jacques Flynn, which will address itself to the question of the training provisions, which I think are very important, to assure all Canadians that those who purchase firearms in this country have satisfied a requirement of competence and safe handling of those firearms.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, last April when the minister was appointed she said: "I hope people will be able to identify a difference that was made by a woman justice minister." There does not appear to be any difference.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Is she comfortable knowing that because of government inaction, a 30-round clip, similar to the clip used by Marc Lepine, is advertised in catalogues across this country, and is available at neighbourhood hardware store catalogues, right next to kids' sleighs and camping gear. Is the minister comfortable with that?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I propose to limit the size of clips and magazines which are available for semi-automatic firearms. That is one of the proposed regulatory changes which I will be empowered to make by virtue of the provisions of Bill C-80. She also knows it is very contentious.
The question of 30-shot clips is not so much one of contention as the level of threshold that we have suggested in the proposed regulatory changes. I expect to be able to bring into effect provisions limiting the
availability of those large high-powered magazines for semi-automatic firearms.
The short answer to her question is no, I am not satisfied with that. That is why it is part of my proposal for change. I also believe in the democratic process. I also believe in a process-


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is being devastated by the largest per capita cuts in jobs and programming by the CBC anywhere in Canada.
Seventy of 315 positions are being permanently eliminated. Two out of three TV production facilities, one in Comer Brook and one in Goose Bay, are being permanently closed. All local programming is being cancelled and cut of some $5.6 million in Newfoundland and Labrador alone.
In recent weeks the Prime Minister has expressed serious concern about the state of national unity. Does he realize that when you tear Air Canada, when you tear VIA Rail, when you tear the post office and now, the CBC, out of the regions of this country, you destroy the unity and the glue that has traditionally kept us together. Is he concerned about that? Will he address it now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address it.
The fact that Air Canada has been privatized and is now found in the hands of Canadians, including many of its employees, and its unionized employees, was a gesture that was widely encouraged, not only by the employees of Air Canada but by most Canadians.
The fact that we have had to act to reduce a subsidy to VIA Rail that was approaching $700 million a year, to try to restore a degree of balance to that, is not something I hope that will offend my hon. friend.
From time to time, there are periods of retrenchment and this happens to be one of them. In the 15 years that preceded 1984, program spending in Ottawa increased at an average rate of 14.1 per cent every year, irrespective of declines in productivity and irrespective of declines in trade. That is 14 per cent a year in program spending every year for 15 years.

Under this government we have reduced program spending increases to below the rate of inflation, 3.6 per cent, which is one of the reasons why we are in the process of being able to restore a degree of sanity because the 14 per cent a year annual program increase would have really resulted in disaster for Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the legacy of this Prime Minister will not be that he presided over the disintegration of VIA Rail, or the disintegration of the Post Office or the disintegration of the CBC, but that he presided over the disintegration of a country because he did not understand the importance of national institutions.
Earlier today the Prime Minister talked about the privatization of the post office. I want to ask the Prime Minister, is it not the real objective of this government, that sees the country as a Monopoly board, to privatize the CBC?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again I apologize to my hon. friend but the question was really addressed specifically to me in regard to previous actions by other departments. Whether I have any regrets about the actions we have taken, for example with regard to the post office, the answer is no. The post office, after 15 years of losses, is now functioning in the black.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It does not exist in the regions any more.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says it does not exist in the regions. Of course it exists in the regions.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sudbury. [Translation]


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, we are more than one million francophones outside Quebec. Radio-Canada is the only French national network, I repeat, the only French national network outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why cut-backs in the Radio-Canada French network? Why reduce regional services? Why abandon francophones outside Quebec?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, again I can say that Radio-Canada does not
Oral Questions
plan to cut off televison services to francophones. As it has always done, it will continue to make sure that, through its services, francophones will enjoy everything it can offer in terms of cultural and informative programs.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense to shut down the Toronto TV station and reduce services to francophones outside Quebec without notice and without consultations! How heartless, Mr. Speaker!
I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Why destroy French Canada in the regions?


Marcel Masse: First, Mr. Speaker, the government is dealing with this matter today rather than in April or at the end of March because this serves as a three-month notice. That is why we brought the matter up today. The hon. member should not say there has been no prior notification, quite the contrary.
Second, the hon. member will have a severe cultural shock in three months because she will come to realize that there will still be French services for francophones outside Quebec.


WORLD UNIVERSITY SERVICES OF CANADA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs relative to the World University Services of Canada. If WUSC is forced into bankruptcy, the government will likely have to assume significant extra costs in order to hire experts from other NGOs or the private sector to take over the administration of WUSC's Canadian government funded development projects, overseas volunteer payments and student payments.
Can the minister indicate what those extra costs to the government will be, and how those costs compare with the cost of the government measures to help WUSC restructure its operation on to a sound financial footing?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would understand, that is a question which requires some detail in

Oral Questions
response. I will take it as notice and try to get that detailed information.
He would also know that a principle is at issue here, which is whether or not the Government of Canada should accept responsibility for the financial standing of companies or of non-governmental organizations with which it has relations. We naturally try to ensure that those companies or non-governmental organizations are in a sound financial position.
Occasionally, very unfortunate events arise, as was the case with WUSCanada. We are trying to deal with that in a sensitive and comprehensive way, and in a way that looks after people who, in Canada or abroad, are relying upon WUSCanada.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, WUSCanada is not looking for a bailout, just for restructuring money.
Some bon. members: Oh, oh.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Just for restructuring time, not money. WUSC just needs time to get its structure in order.
Does the government realize how badly it will appear in the eyes of the developing nations when, just after CIDA has been ordered to hand over nearly $2 million to the government's Persian Gulf fund, it is seen to stand idly by while WUSC is forced into bankruptcy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no fair-minded person, including the hon. member when he has an opportunity to acquaint himself with all the facts, would accuse me or the government of standing idly by.
We have tried to help WUSC. My colleague, the minister responsible for international development, announced some of the steps that we were taking the other day. Unfortunately they have failed.
With regard to the question of the crisis in the gulf, the hon. member must surely know that among the people who are suffering most seriously from this continuing state of uncertainty, with its impact upon increased oil prices, are precisely the poor of the world.
One of the ways in which we could help them most dramatically would be to bring a peaceful end to the crisis in the gulf, which is what Canada is trying to do.


Mr. Karpoff:: Declare war.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member says, "declare war." I do not think that is the position of his party. It certainly is not the position of ours.
Our view is to support the United Nations, and we would appreciate the support of the New Democratic Party for the United Nations in practice as well as in theory.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada who, last Monday, signed and approved the transfer of Maxime Gariepy, so that he may serve his time in a Canadian penal institution. This is my second question, Mr. Speaker, for we know already the reply to the first, thanks to Mr. Jean-Luc Mongrain: Maxime Gariepy will be 18 years old next January 22nd. It is therefore imperative for Maxime to be transferred to Canada before this fateful date. Could the Solicitor General confirm first the exact date of this transfer and, second, that it will occur before next January 22nd?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: I want to thank the member for the interest she has shown in this case.
The Solicitor General has shown personal interest in it, and yesterday signed the approval of the application to have Mr. Gariepy transferred to Canada.
That application is now going through the various levels of government and authorities in the United States. We hope he will be transferred as soon as possible.


AIR CANADA
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has cut and will cut 150 jobs in Halifax by next spring.
Customer care is history, and Atlantic Canadians get it in the neck again. Will the Minister of Transport undertake today to use his considerable influence with Air
December 5, 1990

Canada's board to revoke its decision to close Air Canada's reservation centre in Halifax.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that Air Canada is now a public corporation. The shares are widely held.
I think the last thing in the world the shareholders of Air Canada want is the government telling it which reservation counters to keep open and which ones to close.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the shareholders of Air Canada, but I can tell you that the people of Atlantic Canada would like a government minister to speak for them just once in a while.
One hundred and fifty jobs are gone from Halifax. There has been a ruinous increase in landing costs. Our trains are gone. The ferries are going. Our planes are next, and we will not have CBC to tell us about it.
Air Canada and Air Nova have a 60 per cent market share in the Atlantic. The government's privatization policy and deregulation policy are strangling a profitable endeavour.
When will this minister move to normalize this industry and protect our vital transportation links in the Atlantic?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that under deregulation the number of flights in Atlantic Canada has increased some 20 per cent over the last five years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend asked what we could do to help Atlantic Canada in terms of transport. My hon. friend will know that we have approved the increases in the holding room capacity at Halifax airport and just last week I announced a new taxi-way for Moncton and the first gate at the Moncton airport.
We are doing what we can with limited funds where we belong and that is in the infrastructure, not flying the airplanes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Privilege


FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A few days ago, the police force of the Montreal Urban Community announced that is 1991 they would step up their effort against drug trafficking and drug abuse with the slogan "Zero-Tolerance".
Is the minister planning to do the same, since it has been clearly established that following the arrival of "crack" on the market and the establishment of many shooting galleries, violent crime has increased by 40 per cent in my riding and everywhere else in Canada?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian strategy is to attack both supply and demand. The government has increased its control and seizure capabilities at the borders. We have updated our information collecting methods and reinforced our contacts with the various police forces throughout Canada. Thanks to the new Proceeds of Crime Act, the various police forces will have better tools to fight against organized crime and money laundering operations.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as both member of Parliament for York West and chair of the parliamentary Liberal caucus on a question of privilege. I believe that my rights as a member of Parliament and those rights enjoyed by my colleagues in the Liberal caucus have been seriously breached because of the comportment of the CBC vis-a-vis the national government caucus.
Upon my return from the usual Wednesday caucus meeting today, at 12.30 p.m. I returned to find a message from Mr. Pierre Blaine of the CBC, offering a full briefing to my parliamentary caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party. The message as very clear and concise and was basically that the briefing would not be available before 2.30 p.m. today-2.30 being the time of the press conference by the CBC-with a preference that the

Privilege
CBC would do a full briefing for the Liberal caucus next week.
I find that absolutely offensive, in light of the fact that the government caucus, at their regular caucus meeting this morning, received a full briefing from the CBC, in terms of the cut-backs that have savaged the CBC.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Sergio Marchi: I wish to say to Your Honour that all members of Parliament, irrespective of where they sit in this illustrious Chamber, are equals and that the CBC, as a Crown corporation, should not be allowed to discriminate between supporters of the government and supporters of the Official Opposition. The CBC, as a Crown corporation, belongs to 26 million shareholders who happen to be Canadian citizens and it is responsible to them through this parliamentary Chamber.
Not only have we been discriminated against, but the information that I have received from the CBC, as the chair of the parliamentary Liberal caucus, has been completely mischievous and misleading in terms of any sense of equality. I find this treatment of our caucus, and perhaps of the New Democratic caucus, absolutely unacceptable and irresponsible.
It would be my respectful submission that in order to stop this from being a precedent, that you, Sir, kindly look into this situation, because it is absolutely intolerable. We will not accept this on the face of it.
The CBC does not belong in the government's back pocket. The CBC belongs to Canadians and we have every right to be informed on an equal basis about the affairs of the nation, which includes the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I believe if you will review the Question Period proceedings you will be aware of the fact that the Minister of Communications, in answering a question from this side about the cuts that are going to be made, started to read from a statement on his desk about what the president of the CBC was about to say at a press conference that had not yet occurred.
I think if you review the tapes of Question Period, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Marcel Masse had a copy-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -of the statement that was about to be made. That also is a clear breach of the arm's length relationship that should be existing between the CBC and the government.
If you review the "blues", Mr. Speaker, you will see that the Minister of Communications stated in the House that there were comments about to be made by the president of the CBC.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in light of the revelation by the Minister of Communications that he had forewarned knowledge about communiques coming from the CBC, clearly the arm's length relationship has been breached by this Minister of Communications. He is directing the CBC and he is further directing the CBC-


Mr. Speaker:: I have the point of privilege raised by the hon. member. The hon. minister may want to respond.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I find all this very strange, especially the comments by the last member to speak.
First of all, I do not have any statement or press release from the CBC, none whatsoever.
Second, the hon. member should expect the Minister of Communications, who is responsible for the CBC in the House, to have, at the very least, some information on the developments over the last five years and on the projections, which are available to the member if she would care to look at the documents regularly delivered to members.
I am quite surprised, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for the hon. member's credibility, but I did not use any press release that the President of the CBC might have been about to publish. We already knew at 2 p.m., and even a few hours before, that he was going to hold a press conference at 2.30 p.m. It was in the papers. If the hon. member had read the papers, she would have known.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I would never dare say, like the hon. member on the other side, that the party in power has more information. I would never dare, Mr. Speaker.

I do say to her that the President of the CBC, as I already said in the House, would be willing to meet with individual members or groups of members regardless of their political affiliation.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, on the same question, I would like to rise to explain the deep concern that we in the New Democratic Party also have with regard to this particular issue.
As my colleague from York West has indicated, the government had previously met with the directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was provided with the intricate details earlier this morning, well before the press conference, while both opposition parties-the Liberal opposition party and the New Democratic opposition party-have not been allowed that same privilege.
This has placed the opposition parties at a distinct disadvantage to the government in terms of finding out the details of the very serious situation with regard to the CBC cuts. It has in large measure inhibited our capacity to represent the situation, as well as to represent our constituents fairly and effectively.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a point of order and I will deal with that in just a moment.


David Charles Dingwall: It has to do with the same matter raised by my colleague from Hamilton East.


Mr. Speaker:: I think from a procedural point of view we should be fairly careful here. The hon. member for York West has risen on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Hamilton East has spoken on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap has spoken on a question of privilege and I would like to deal with that first. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a point of order and I, of course, will hear it, but I think I have to deal with the question of privilege first.
I have listened carefully to the hon. member for York West and I will consider the matter. By saying I will consider it, I am not saying that it is necessarily a question of privilege, but I will look at the practice very
Point of Order
carefully and perhaps I can report back to the House for the assistance of all members.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us listened very carefully to the words of the Minister of Communications today and, as alluded to by my colleague from Hamilton East, reference was made to a particular document that he certainly had in his possession which obviously other members of Parliament did not have in their possession.
I wish to remind the Chair of the provisions of Beauchesne's, particularly paragraph 327 which states:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a
despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be
prepared to lay it upon the Thble.
I would hope that just out of courtesy to all members of Parliament, since we all saw-and I am sure the television cameras would reaffirm what I am saying-the minister read from a document which ought to be tabled so members on all sides of the House would then have a full opportunity to examine it.
I hope the minister would comply with Beauchesne's, paragraph 327.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can show you all the documents. Not one of these documents belongs to the CBC. This document here is the budget of Telefilm Canada about which no question was raised. The hon. member could have learned that in 1984 Telefilm Canada had a budget of $51 million and that, thanks to the interest this government has taken in Canada's cultural endeavours, the 1990 budget now amounts to $150 million. I have this document and I can table it. It can be found in all official papers, particularly those of Telefilm Canada.
Second, this is written at the bottom of the document: "CBC building in Tbronto. Tbtal cost of building: $385 million". It goes to show that Canadians and the government are interested in the future of the CBC and that to

Government Orders
that extent the contribution of our government-your government, I mean-to the future of the CBC in that building has been $65.5 million, Mr. Speaker.
I can also refer to another document here which has to do with the over-all resources of the CBC and which can be found in all budget documents tabled here in the House. For instance the hon. member would learn-
Mr. Speaker. I think the remarks of the minister are very interesting, but we do have a very specific question.

I would ask the hon. minister if he read from a document, as has been suggested by the hon. member. If his response is no, then that is the end of the issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3.15 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, December 3, 1990, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to clarify for the House that members of my party did not vote-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: -because they wish to register their total disgust with the Minister of Communications and the Prime Minister, not only for the content of Bill C-40 but because of the massive cutbacks to CBC; totally disgusting.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that this government holds Parliament in complete contempt. What it has done-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is this a point of order?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is not allowed to comment on the vote but, if there is another point of order, I would like to hear it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I guess the question on which in the New Democratic Party have to ask you to rule on: What is the purpose of parliamentary debate if the government-


Some hon. members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear the point of order of the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I would like a chance to address is this: The purpose of Parliament is quite clear. We are here to vote on legislation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Why didn't you?
Point of Order


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear this point of order, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose for debate and for voting is being denied in any practical sense-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -if a government deliberately announces its decisions, which are effective cuts to CBC throughout this country, after all possibility of debate is ended.


Steven W. Langdon: That's right. Absolutely.


Rodney Edward Murphy: This party and the Liberal Party went to great lengths on Monday and Tuesday nights in order to debate the Broadcasting Act, only to find out that after all possibility of debate is ended, the axe falls the following morning.
It affected community after community which members of Parliament represent. They were not given a chance to speak on the legislation after the government made the announcements.
Our whole purpose as a Parliament is being destroyed by the deliberate actions of this government. It is not acceptable. It is certainly more than a point of order. It is a point on the whole question of what Parliament is here for, and why it is important that government respect Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to say that the member may have a grievance but that is debate. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. On November 23, 1990 the House was given Supplementary Estimates (B). The rules of this House allow for committees to immediately upon receipt of those supplementary estimates begin study of those estimates.
We had a total of $1,841,442,306 of budgetary estimates to be voted. The vote is to be taken next Monday, December 10, as stated in our standing orders, that being the last day of this supply period.

December 5, 1990
Point of Order
The standing orders also say that the estimates must be reported to the House, or at least to have been deemed reported five days prior to that, which is today.
My point of order is simple. No committee has met on those estimates. Over $1,800 million has not been looked at by this House. There has been no examination of those estimates because basically the chairpersons of those committees did not call meetings.
Mr. Speaker, I think that you would recognize that this is most important. The purpose at hand is to look at expenditures. That is what this House does best. That is what ought to be done in Parliament. That is what we do with the estimates.
I will quote Beauchesne.
I am quoting from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition: "The purpose of the estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the government for the current fiscal year."
Humbly but forcefully, Mr. Speaker, I submit that Parliament does not operate smoothly when the estimates are not seriously examined by the committees. Since no committee sat to study these estimates, I make the following suggestion, Mr. Speaker. There are three possible solutions. First, that the vote not be taken Monday on the last allotted day, but that that day be deferred to Thursday, December 13.


Mr. Ricard:: Send it to the Senate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you want to speak, stand up!


An hon. member:: He would not know what to say. [English]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The second solution would be for this House to recognize that since the process has not been the best, we should not today take it as the last day for the estimates to be deemed to have been returned to the House. Therefore, we would wait until Monday at three o'clock. That would be acceptable to us if the committees were to meet today, tomorrow and Friday. We would have no objection to that.
The third possibility would be that by consent, this House would recognize the importance of this process and would not at this time have Monday next, the last day in this period-and I have a motion to that effect which I have given to the government and to the NDP.
By the way, the NDP agrees with me that this order should be adopted by this House. That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 81, (1) the last allotted day for the business of supply for the present supply period shall be Thursday, December 13, 1990. (2) Supplementary Estimates (B) 1990-91 shall be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 1990. (3) All of the provisions of the said standing order shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider seriously this problem. If you do not see yourself in a position to find a solution now, may I suggest you do what you do best, which is protect minorities, protect the opposition in its right to look at these estimates by ordering the committees to sit today. If you do not want to do that, Mr. Speaker, then I would put it to you that you should at least ask the House if there would be a disposition to accept my motion to resolve this problem today.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Liberal Party certainly gave a creative description of the estimates' procedure and what is involved.
The procedure for spending estimates predates both his and my entry into Parliament some 18 years ago. It was brought in by a Liberal government. It provides for fixed supply periods, for estimates to be tabled and to be deemed referred to committees, and then to be reported back on specific days when the supply period ends. This supply period currently ends December 10 and that is very clear in the Standing Orders.
The procedure provides, interestingly enough, in each supply period for the opposition to have allotted days, or opposition days, when they can raise and debate in the House the expenditures in these estimates. They have the opportunity to argue about the estimates, to claim that we are spending too much or too little-it is usually too little we are spending, they always want us to spend
December 5, 1990

more and more-they have the opportunity to do that. Not once, on any of the opposition days, have they chosen to take that opportunity. They have chosen to debate every other subject under the sun except expenditures. Then the accusation is made that committees would not meet.
I made a very quick survey of those within earshot. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology intended to meet but did not have a quorum because no opposition members showed up. At the defence committee, the opposition members agreed they would not meet because they were all attending the Future of Russia conference. Those are the only two committees I was able to very quickly discuss.
I reject absolutely the accusation that no committees have met. I reject absolutely the contention members have not had an opportunity to discuss the estimates. On any one of the supply or allotted days they could have discussed the estimates.
I wait with bated breath to hear one single suggestion from any opposition member of any significant cuts to government spending because all day long today I heard, "We want more money for the CBC, we want more money for VIA Rail, we want more money spent on the post office. We want more money spent on everything." To hear the opposition complain that they do not have an opportunity to examine expenditures and cutbacks is an absurdity.
The Standing Orders are very clear. The hon. House leader of the opposition is always after me to "stick to the rules". Well, let's "stick to the rules."


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if for once the government wouldn't give Parliament some credit and give us an opportunity to look at these estimates.
The government House leader says that it is not true to say, "no committees have been meeting." That is true. It is also true to say that the consumer and corporate affairs committee has not been meeting and has not had an opportunity to consider estimates because they do not have a chairperson who can call them to meet.
Point of Order
We do at least have one committee which cannot meet. We have another committee, the defence committee, which has not been able to look at these estimates to date.
I do not want to take too much time but there are large numbers of dollars involved. It is appropriate for Parliament and for committees to consider the estimates. It is appropriate for us to have enough time to give serious consideration to those estimates. All that the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is suggesting is that we extend by about three days the opportunity for committees to give proper and due consideration to the estimates. Surely this is a reasonable proposition, one which would help the process along and for once show some respect on the part of the government to Parliament and Parliament's processes, rather than trying to ram these things through without proper consideration.
I wish to support the resolution of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and ask the government, for once, to do something reasonable and give us an opportunity to consider these estimates. Three more days is surely not of great inconvenience to anyone in this process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts should also be put on the record. The minister got carried away in his arguments and his facts were completely wrong. There have been no opposition days or supply days since the estimates were tabled on November 23,1990.1 made that point in my remarks. Therefore, his argument that we could have debated these things in the House is completely wrong and absolutely beside the point.
Mr. Speaker, I can give you a list of committees; aboriginal affairs, agriculture, communications and culture, multiculturalism and citizenship, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, and so on. All these committees were given estimates to study. None of them have met. I think that is absolutely uncalled for and I resent the government House leader's arguments. They are completely wrong and misleading.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief point. The government House leader suggested that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs somehow has an opposition agreement not to discuss the estimates. That is not entirely correct. It is important that we have an opportunity. The committee is meeting this afternoon. It has a witness on another

Point of Order
subject, but it would be important, and I do intend to raise with the committee even at this eleventh hour, the importance of having witnesses appear on the estimates themselves. But until now, we have had no opportunity to consider the supplementary estimates.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, there is a particular case that I want to bring to your attention in relation to the supplementary estimates. The Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations cannot meet. It does not have a chairman.
I wrote a letter, along with three other colleagues in the Liberal caucus, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's being one of them, and two other members, asking the clerk of that committee to cause this committee to meet. We wanted to study, among other things, issues involving Canada Post as well as the estimates.
I received a letter from the clerk of the committee, which I am willing to lay on the table of the House, which says that our committee cannot meet. The clerk is unable to make it meet as we do not have a chairman and the government will not appoint one. So in that particular case, we cannot study the estimates. There is nothing we can do about it because the government will not and has not appointed the chairman.
I am willing to table this letter in the House of Commons to prove the point. In at least that particular situation, the case is even stronger why the estimates cannot be deemed to have been reported because the committee could not have sat no matter what it had decided to do. That has been caused by an action, or rather an inaction, of the government across the way.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to this debate with regard to the lack of committee meetings that has pervaded this place.
When I was first given the critic's responsibility for communications, arts and culture, which was just before the session began, I was quite anxious to have an opportunity to take part in the committee meetings that would be taking place.
Since that time, there has not been a single committee meeting, to discuss estimates, to discuss concentration of the media, to discuss the budgetary cutbacks to the CBC, to discuss nothing. I looked at the options that I had as a member in order to force the committee to meet and I ran up against exactly the same roadblock as the hon. member just pointed out.
The fact is that the communications, arts and culture committee has no chairperson. The former chairperson does not want to play chairperson any longer. We have no chairman. Therefore there is no procedural way that we can put in a legitimate request for this committee to meet to address the very important needs that we need to address.
This is an abdication of the democratic responsibility of the House and it is a shameful misuse of the privileges of the House by the government. It has to stop, and it has to stop now.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the members' arguments with great interest.
There are a few points that I think are essential to put on the record. First, the issue has been discussed at House leaders' meetings and there were some discussions about specific concerns, one of which was the committee on defence. At that point, I talked to the chairman of the committee and asked him about what was going on in the committee and their intention to look at the Estimates or the opportunity to meet. It was he who advised me at that time that there had been an agreement among all parties not to have the committee sit, I think last week or a part of this week-I have forgotten the exact dates-so that they could attend this conference on the future of Russia.
I also know that several other committees, including the aboriginal affairs committee which the House leader for the official opposition has mentioned, have been meeting. In fact, just the other day it recommended a study on the issue that arose on the Oka situation this summer.
Mr. Speaker, my point is this. First-


Ms.   Blondin@: That's not the estimates. You stole them before we could study them.
December 5, 1990


Albert Glen Cooper: Oh, I see. It is really interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the opposition who are very quick to play both sides of the fence.
In fact what has been happening is that a number of the committees have been meeting, but the members of the committee have preferred to look into issues rather than study the estimates. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is a habit the House been tending to fall into for some time now.
It is very clear. Committees are masters of their own destinies. They have had an opportunity in most cases to study those estimates, with a few exceptions. In those few exceptions, we have advocated-and I renew the offer again today, if we can by unanimous consent-has to proceed with the report of the Striking Committee of the House of Commons and in fact we can have all of those committees up and running very quickly and allow them to do what has to be done.
In fact, what we are seeing instead is that the opposition continues to try to score political points, while at the same time taking full advantage of committee meetings to pursue other issues which they consider to be of importance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just want to wrap up. Having heard what the government has to say, I believe that we should put some facts. There were 108 votes in these estimates-and these figures come from the Ihble, by the way, so they must have some element of truth-referred to 17 committees. None have met on these 108 votes and none were called to discuss the estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with you to use your authority and to order, today, those committees to meet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have listened to hon. members and I think that I should say something about this at this time.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier may well have a grievance. Committees are masters of their own agenda. It may well be that the committees have not reported the estimates, but the House will have an opportunity to consider the Supplementary Estimates B when they are before the House on December 10, next.
If the hon. member would like to propose the motion, we will ask for unanimous consent.
The motion reads as follows:
Point of Order
1.	That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 81(1), the last allotted day for the business of supply for the present supply period shall be Tliursday, December 13, 1990;
2.	That Supplementary Estimates (B) 1990-1991 shall be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 1990; and
3.	That all other provisions of the said standing order shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, there is not unanimous consent.
I will listen to a point of order from the hon. opposition Whip.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would just supplement what my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said.


Albert Glen Cooper: We've dealt with the point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is very nervous, very touchy, and very sensitive when it comes to matters of this nature, particularly when the preponderance of evidence is so clear and which will dispute any thesis that he wishes to put before the House.
It is very clear here, Mr. Speaker, that on November 26,1990, four members of our caucus did, in fact, write a letter to Mr. Fournier, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I quite agree with the parliamentary secretary that committees are the masters of their own destinies, but there is a restriction on that. It has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. This is the response that came back. It states:
Standing Order 106(3) is quite explicit and it provides that the meeting being requested is to be convened by "the Chairman of that committee". As you are aware, Mr. Garth TUmer, M.P., resigned as Chairman of the Committee on September 18, 1990 and a new Chairman has not been elected.
In accordance with Standing Order 106(3), it would appear that only the Chairman of a committee may convene a meeting pursuant to the said Standing Order-
Yes, Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their own destinies, in accordance with the standing orders. But now you have a clear example, which we wish to table for all members to see, that this committee is being precluded from considering matters which it believes to be important because the government Whip and the Parlia-

Routine Proceedings
mentary Secretary to the Government House Leader refuse to appoint a chairman for that committee.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
The Environment Committee as well has not been meeting and has not had an opportunity to consider supplementary estimates simply because, at the initiation of the chair of that committee, those meetings have been cancelled. That committee has not held a regular meeting since the supplementary estimates were tabled. It has held meetings only to consider future business of the committee. There was no meeting on Thesday. There is no meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the committee to consider the supplementary estimates.
This is especially serious, Mr. Speaker, given that the Committee on the Environment sought, week after week last spring, to meet with the new Minister of the Environment and the previous Minister of the Environment. In fact, our first meeting with the new Minister of the Environment was last week. Because of the inability of the committee to have those previous meetings, this committee did not even table a report to Parliament on the Main Estimates. Therefore, it is doubly crucial that it have a look at the supplementary estimates and how the priorities of the Department of the Environment are being revised, in light of changing government spending priorities and particularly in anticipation of the green plan being tabled next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should get on with the Routine Proceedings. Tabling of documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the earlier point of order. I only want another 30 seconds of the time of the Speaker.
I referred to a document earlier on which I said I would be glad to table. I have now received the document and I want to share only one sentence of it with the House. I do not intend to beleaguer the point, I assure you, Mr. Speaker.
The document which I have received, from the clerk of the committee in question, states that our committee cannot meet, and I quote from the letter, "until a Chairman has been duly elected". It states further that "the only person authorized to convene a committee for the election of a chairman is the Chief Government Whip". In other words, it is only the government Whip who can allow us to study the Estimates because only he can cause the appointment of the chairman.
I have that letter, Mr. Speaker. I will now table it, if the House agrees so that the whole House can see that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement to have it tabled?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a report from the legislative committee on Bill C-81, an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, with amendments. I have the honour to chair that committee, having been appointed by the Speaker.

I would like to thank my colleagues of all parties for their co-operation. What looked to be a very long process was rapidly terminated.
Therefore, it is my pleasure to table the report and to thank the Speaker for his confidence.



HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND STATUS OF WOMEN-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['I have listened to both hon. members and have had an opportunity to consider this. I do not feel that I can allow an emergency debate at this time.']
Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour of presenting a report today from a committee.
On behalf of the chairman, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and Status of Women. This report, entitled Amateur Sport: Future Challenges, has been agreed to unanimously by the Subcommittee on Fitness and Amateur Sport and also by the Standing Committee.
It has been an honour to chair this committee and it certainly has been a pleasure.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a response to this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this procedure is correct, but I see the vice-chairman of the finance committee here and I wonder if he might like to give a report on the extensive meetings we have been holding in the last week or so.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Routine Proceedings
Speaker, Thursday will be the anniversary of the tragedy of the murder of 14 young ladies in Quebec. On Thursday morning a number of members from all sides of the House are going to be in Montreal for that particular occasion. As a result of that, we would ask that there be consent given for the following motion:
That on Thursday, December 6, 1990, that at three o'clock p.m.,
the House will revert to Statements by Ministers, with the usual
responses.
This will simply allow members to attend the events in Montreal and yet to come back to the House at three o'clock that afternoon for the ministerial statement rather than the usual time, so that we can pay our respects in the House as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have five petitions to present in opposition to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners are from across Canada and in particular from here in Ontario. They too find that the proposed goods and services tax with regard to magazines, books, and newspapers to be totally unacceptable.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax immediately.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions from 537 residents of the community of Port Alberni in British Columbia to add to hundreds of names previously submitted criticizing the government's destructive mismanagement of Canada Post Corporation and its tendency to ignore Canada Post Corporation's 1981 mandate to improve customer service and labour relations.

Routine Proceedings
In the Comox-Alberni riding, Canada Post shut down rural post offices, closed down sorting facilities, privatized parcel and counter services, and the result has been a decline in employee morale and customer services.
Specifically, my constituents request that Canada Post Corporation be instructed to keep existing outlets, operate longer hours, expand revenue generating services, stop privatizing and start increasing services to raise revenues.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition today that is signed by residents who live in Scarborough, Ajax, Etobicoke, Oakville, Mississauga, Toronto, Whitby, Whitevale, Pickering and London.
The petitioners are most concerned about the packaging of food and the labelling on the packaging as a result of the death in Scarborough of a young 15 year old. The mother of the 15 year old lady who passed away has instituted petitions across the country to try to get some changes made to the regulations relating to packaging so that other young people will not have the same result of this severe allergy reaction that Robyn Allen had a few months ago.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in pre-packaged foods.
Additionally to this is to require restaurateurs and food retailers to provide to customers the list of all ingredients that are used in the prepared foods.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from residents of Senneterre and Belcourt, in which your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government of Canada to scrap the so-called Hill project which would spend $68 million on an underground parking garage and shopping mall under the Parliament Buildings, and to acknowledge the need for preserving the environment and historical character of the buildings and the Parliament Hill site in Ottawa.
Your petitioners also state that members should continue to park as they do now, behind the Parliament Buildings and outside, like factory workers, and that the Government of Canada has more important priorities than building an underground parking garage and shopping mall on Parliament Hill.


Marcel Prud'homme: What a harangue!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the greater Toronto area who spend their lives with life threatening allergies and whose health and possibility of normal living would be improved if packaging legislation listed the ingredients in those packages.
The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will enact legislation that would give them that protection.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 336 and 364.
Due to the length of these questions, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Saint-Julien: 1.	Have Transport Canada, CN and Environment Canada conducted a flood control study involving the town of Malartic (Malartic River) and, if so, what was the cost of this study?
2.	Have any flood control programs been funded and, if so, which ones?


Harvie Andre: I am
informed as follows:
1. Transport Canada, CN and Environment Canada have not conducted a flood control study concerning the town of Malartic (Riviere Malartic).
December 5, 1990

2. Transport Canada, CN and Environment Canada have not funded any flood control programs involving the town of Malartic (Riviere Malartic).


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. MacWilliam: Is any work done by the Department of Communications for the Department of National Defence and, if so (a) what is its nature (b) in particular, is any work done for the Communications Security Establishment and, if so (i) what is its nature (ii) out of which departmental or agency budget is it paid for (c) in particular, is any work done for the Canadian Armed Forces Supplementary Radio System and, if so (i) what is its nature (ii) out of which departmental or agency budget is it paid for (d) do any representatives of the Department of Communications serve as members of the Communications Research Technical Group (CRTG) or successor bodies to the CRTG and, if so, what is (i) the name of the body (ii) the specific purpose of the DOC representative on such a body?


Marcel Masse: In
January 1969, it was agreed between the Postmaster General and the Minister of National Defence that the newly-created Department of Communications would carry out defence-oriented projects. Research and development activities have been carried out on behalf of the Department of National Defence since that time.
a)	The nature of the work is defence-oriented communications research and development, with emphasis on communications which do not rely on satellites.
b)	All of the work done by the Department of Communications for the Communications Security Establishment is negotiated with and sponsored by the Chief of Research and Development at the Department of National Defence, through the Defence Research Establishment-Ottawa.
c)	All of the work done by the Department of Communications for the Canadian Armed Forces Supplementary Radio System is negotiated with and sponsored by the Chief of Research and Development at the Department of National Defence, through the Defence Research Establishment-Ottawa.
d)	The Department of Communications has no involvement with the Communications Research Technical Group or any successor bodies.
Routine Proceedings
[English\


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have two questions on the Order Paper, questions Nos. 379 and 380 that were tabled on October 15.
They result from a lay-off of several hundreds of people across this country from various companies that have received government bailouts, including Varity Corp. and Tridon. The list goes on.
All I have asked for is a simple listing of all four profit corporations that have received government funds, under what programs have they received these funds and for what purposes.
The government is muzzling this issue because it is hiding the true fiscal facts from the Canadian taxpayers. I want an answer to these questions. Canadian taxpayers deserve to know why the millions of dollars that they use to prop up companies like Varity Corporation and Tridon are now being used to subsidize companies' hasty exit from Canada as they go to the United States.
I need this information to do my job as industry critic. I resent the fact that the ministry of industry and the government is preventing me from doing my work by keeping these figures secret. I would hope that at the earliest opportunity my Order Paper questions will be responded to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member is getting so upset. Her rather simple question requires us going through 16 departments to pursue this information. As a result of that, the questions are being looked at at the moment. The answers are being prepared, but it does take a fair amount of time to go through 16 departments.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 5, 1990
Government Orders
Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P-33 standing in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland.
[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents
related to the report prepared by the Canadian International
Development Agency in August 1990 for Treasury Board regarding
CIDA's decentralization program.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested cannot be released because they contain cabinet confidences as defined under section 69 of the Access to Information Act.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


An hon. member:: Transfer for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a letter of notice under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap that arrived before notice from the hon. member for Mount Royal. I will listen to the on. member for Okanagan-Shuswap first and then I will recognize the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier today I served notice by way of written letter that I intended to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek the adjournment of the House for the purposes of debating the imminent closure of the CBC broadcasting facilities in a number of Canadian municipalities.
Although the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports to Parliament through the Ministry of Communications, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as you know, it operates at arm's length from the government.
The only appropriate way for parliamentarians to direct the CBC in its use of public funds is, of course, through parliamentary debate, not through direct government intervention. While some parliamentarians, I submit, had an opportunity to debate this issue directly
with the president of the CBC this morning, they did so in a private meeting with the government caucus earlier today, that same privilege and courtesy was not extended to the members of the opposition. The president did not seek the opportunity in the morning to speak to the concerns of parliamentarians on the opposition side of the House. Nor has the right of Canadians to open public debate on this issue of national importance been fulfilled.
In summarizing, and for that reason, Sir, I ask that the House provide an opportunity for this most urgent debate to occur. For that reason, I beseech you, Sir, with the request that this house do adjourn for that purpose.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the new critic in the NDP Party took my suggestion to heart and wrote a few moments before I did. He pleaded very well for the consideration of the House to adjourn and address a very serious and urgent national issue, the stricken condition of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that with respect to the parliamentary channel which will be affected by these decisions, Radio Canada International, which will be affected by this decision, as well as the people from coast to coast, it is up to this House to debate this very serious issue and I hope you will favourably consider this request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have listened to both hon. members and have had an opportunity to consider this. I do not feel that I can allow an emergency debate at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
December 5, 1990
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill that seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act.
The bill, because of its fairly wide sweeping nature, gives us the opportunity to make a few points about this government's performance and, Lord knows, there is much that can be said about the performance of this government, and not very much of it complimentary.
My friend from Calgary Southeast nods his approval to every word I say. Or, is he just so glad that he is still on the backbench at this particular time and not on the frontbench where he would have to bear direct responsibility for it? He is not completely absolved of course because he is still at least nominally a supporter of the government, and I stress "nominally" because I know his commitment to his constituents and to Canada, a commitment which I suggest prevents him from being a very enthusiastic supporter of some of the things this government is doing at this particular time.
As I said, Bill C-91 seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act in several ways. It allows me the opportunity to pick up where I left off a few days ago when we were discussing another related matter. I was explaining to you, Mr. Speaker, rather concisely, as is my usual form, and to my good friend from Gander-Grand Falls and others who were in the Chamber, as he is always in the Chamber, why it was that I chose to characterize our beloved Prime Minister as a wrecking ball. I was saying that in a somewhat warped sense it was some kind of a compliment. My friend from St. John's East will know exactly what I am talking about here.
A wrecking ball is not something that is flayed without direction. That is a loose cannon. A loose cannon on a deck can do a lot of damage because it has nobody orchestrating its movements but the weather, the wind, and itself. It can go in any direction at any time, depending on the whim of the wind, the slant on the deck, and the direction of it. The result is that it can do untold damage to any above deck structure. A loose cannon is not to be confused with a wrecking ball.
A wrecking ball, contrary to the image that it conjures up, is a very precise instrument. In the right hands and with the right pre-planning it can damage, yes, but damage in a predetermined way. The controllers of that wrecking ball know exactly what it is they want done. By
Government Orders
appropriate orchestration and pre-planning, they can see that that ball does only the damage intended and no other damage. That is the basic difference between a loose cannon, I submit, and a wrecking ball.
Why, then, do I not just go all hog and call the Prime Minister a loose cannon? That would be wrong. He is no loose cannon. He is not just rolling around out of control. He knows exactly what he is up to. He is a wrecking ball, yes. He is doing damage, yes, but it is prescribed and predetermined damage. It is the damage that says, as it did recently when the government decided to reduce expenditures by $350 million, to rural Canada: "We are going to take away from you $12 million in agricultural funding". It is the damage that says to fisheries: "We are going to take away $11 million". It is the damage that says to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: "We are going to take away $640,000". So it goes. It is that kind of pre-planned wrecking ball damage.
If we talk about fisheries-and I am delighted to see my friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in the House-and about finding another $11 million, the question is: How do we find another $11 million without cutting into essential programs?
I will use an analogy that will be understood by most members of this House. Certainly it will be understood in parts of this country where they still use the soup bone to get a last bit of nourishment from the bit of beef they had the day before for dinner. I say to my friend from Gander-Grand Falls that this is the kind of analogy with which he and his people would identify with. They, like my people in Burin-St. George's, often resort to the soup bone. This is not because they are all poverty stricken, although many of them are hurting, but because they are resourceful. They do not believe in throwing away anything. The analogy I am reaching for is that however good the soup bone is and the bit of meat that might be left on it and the pot of soup it might make, you cannot have a steak dinner on a soup bone.
In the same context, you cannot find in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, money that is no longer there. You cannot have the luxury of cutting from fisheries and oceans money that is so desperately needed. Indeed, at this particular time there ought to be a

December 5, 1990
Government Orders
fairly massive shift of funding into fisheries and oceans and other departments.
Let me address the expenditure cuts of last week amounting to $350 million in the context that the Prime Minister brought them forward. In fairness to him, he said that these cutbacks were being implemented in relation to the expenditures we were incurring in the Persian Gulf.
He will find no argument from this member. I believe he will find no argument from any member of this Chamber that we must pay our way if we incur certain expenses in the Persian Gulf or wherever. We must have a financial plan to ensure that we are not out spending like a drunken sailor but that we are spending in a way that we know we can pay the bills when they become due. I have no argument whatsoever with the marvellous concept that if we are to incur expenditures in the Persian Gulf or wherever, we ought to be there with a plan as to how we are to pay the bills.
I also say to the Prime Minister and others who are saddled with the need to find ways to pay the bills in the Persian Gulf, that these are commitments that every Canadian would proudly stand behind. There is a need to ensure that our interests in the Persian Gulf are adequately protected. However there is a but.
I understand that the government has to find ways to meet the financial obligations in the Persian Gulf, and with that I have no argument. I have great difficulty with the way it is being done. I believe it is unconscionable that at a time when fisheries is hurting it cuts even more deeply into the soup bone I mentioned earlier. At a time when agriculture is on its knees, the government is wanting to take another $12 million. At a time when the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is already strapped for funds, it is reaching out once more to take money from it. At a time when we need infrastructure and expenditures in transport in Atlantic Canada, it is reaching in and taking out $31 million. At a time when the government has already cut the guts out of its commitment to unemployment insurance, it is now going to the Department of Employment and Immigration and reaching in for another $25 million.
I have no difficulty with the idea that there is a need to meet our commitments in the gulf. I have much difficulty
with the way it is being done. If the government wants a way to find that $500 million, it is fairly simple. It can renege on that cowardly and secret commitment it made to the Americans. The former member for York-Peel, Mr. Sinclair Stevens, mentioned it a few days ago in the press. He publicly confirmed what we have been saying for four or five years, that there had to be a cooked deal on interest rates. There is no other explanation why our interest rates are 5 percentage points higher. I say to my friend from St. John's East that there is no explanation for that. I have always understood the idea that they ought to be maybe marginally higher.


Mr. Reid:: You told us that we can't manage the economy, and we stabilized the interest rate.


Roger Simmons: I missed the brunt of what my friend from St. John's East was saying. I invite him one more time.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: You never understood me.


Roger Simmons: I understand him all too well. I just do not agree with him. There is the difference. I even admire the way he defends his stands, however wrongly arrived at.


Mr. Richardson:: That's the Christmas season.


Roger Simmons: As I was saying, the member has no worries about his intellectual stature. It is well up there. I have no difficulty with that at all. The physical height was not of his doing, but what he has done with what he had is marvellous and I congratulate him.
Let us get back to the subject at hand. I have something to say to the hon. member for St. John's East and to others. My good friend from Burlington is chafing at the bit to respond to what I have to say, but would he hear first what I have to say. There is no earthly reason he can give this House as to why our interest rates ought to be 5 percentage points higher than they are in the States.
I can buy the idea that maybe they ought to be marginally higher, a point or point and a half, to attract some investment over the border. However, they ought not to be 5 per cent. There had to be some convoluted reason why they were, and Sine Stevens gave us that convoluted reason the other day when he said publicly that there was a deal back there, something that many of us have felt for a long time. Otherwise, in the absence of

an undertaking to artificially keep those rates high, there is no market reason why they would be as high. There had to be tampering, and that is what Sine Stevens told us the other day. I understand that his former colleagues now want to disown him on that, but that is between him and them. I am not here to make the brief for him. What I am saying is that unwittingly or otherwise he let the cat out of the bag the other day. We now know. We now have confirmed what a lot of us suspected for a long time.
I come to the point as it relates to today's debate. If the government wants to find $500 million or whatever amount to finance its gulf operation, I have a suggestion for it. Cut interest rates by 1 per cent, and it will find not $500 million but $1.7 billion, because that is what will be generated. As my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell well knows, what will be generated by 1 percentage point cut in the interest rate will be $1.7 billion.
Let me say it differently. Our commitment in terms of deficit reduction will go down. Our required commitment will go down by $1.7 billion just by cutting our interest rates 1 per cent. If the government wants a sure way, a quick way and a painless way of paying the bills in the gulf, I give that one to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, without charge.


Don Boudria: Carried. Let's do it now.


Roger Simmons: My friend from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, being a charitable man, jumps to the conclusion that the government will take it because it is sensible. I say to him that had it been of the inclination long ago to take things that are sensible, we would be in a lot less trouble in this country than we are.
The reason for which we are in the financial mess we are in is that this government paid lip service right back in the fall of 1984 when the minister brought down his first budget after the September election. It is worth reading. I went back the other night and read it again. I got a kick out of Grimm's Fairy Tales when I was younger, but this one really turns you on. If you want to read a modem day myth, you should hear what the Minister of Finance actually said with a straight face. He said to all of Canada back in late 1984 what he was going to do to bring down the deficit, how it was going to be a
Government Orders
new world, how it was going to be marvellous out there, and everything was going to be hunky-dory.
We are in 1990 and we know what hunky-dory is. Hunky-dory is an unemployment rate of 18 per cent in Newfoundland, higher than it has been in years. The unemployment rate is skyrocketing all over the country. People are being pummelled in terms of their own unemployment insurance. People are being pummelled in terms of their jobs in the fishery. The government allowed overfishing to get completely out of hand before it even began to pay lip service.
I stood in this House in December 1988, soon after the November election that year, and I raised the question of foreign overfishing. My hon. friend from St. John's West, the Minister for International Trade and the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, laughed me out of the place. They literally laughed me out of the Chamber because I would suggest that there was a problem. More to the point, they tried to laugh me out of the place because I suggested that the solution was to start getting tough with the European Community about the overfishing by Spain and Portugal in particular.
That year, 1988, was the fourth year of scandalous, criminal overfishing. The Portuguese and the Spanish as part of the European Community were allowed in 1985 to take 23,200 tonnes. In that year, they took 172,000 tonnes. The next year they took 12 times their quota, and so it went on. Four years after, I was the first person in four years to raise it in this House. Not one person raised it publicly in 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988; it was not raised publicly. I raised it here for the first time in December 1988, and I was told I did not know what I was talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask you to go back and read the words of the member for St. John's West and the minister of fisheries as he then was. Then read the press release put out last week by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from New Brunswick and the Minister for International Trade. Do you know what they said? Almost word for word, they said what I was saying in December 1988 about the nature of the problem over there and what needs to be done about it. They were saying what my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls has been saying and what my hon. friend from Bona-vis-ta-Trinity-Conception has been saying. We three, not to ignore the others from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada, sit literally on the ocean; our ridings sit facing the ocean. What happens out there very seriously im-

Government Orders
pacts the ability of our people to earn a livelihood because their livelihood is the ocean. If the Portuguese, the Spanish and the French take it, our people cannot have the same fish the next day. You cannot catch it twice.
If a government of whatever political stripe stands idly by, or aids and abets the process by silence for four years, then our people suffer and our plants close, not because the resource is not there but because somebody else is getting their claws on it before our people do, aided and abetted by a government that ought to be protecting our interests.
Mr. Speaker, I see from your signal that I am getting close to the end of my allotted time. I know that before you became a very able Acting Speaker, you were a very able football player and I suspect that some of the signals I am getting now are about football. I do not know much about football, but I think the general message is I should sit down fairly soon. I will try to do that within a minute. My friend from St. John's is much more direct. He wants more.
I am sure he will recognize the truth of what I said about the overfishing and the fact that, as they say in French, Mieux vaut tard que jamais, better late than never. Even if my friend from St. John's West and the Minister of Fisheries have come lately to the job, lately to the need, lately to the realization that something has to be done about the overfishing, I say to them, better late than never. A lot of damage has been done, a lot of jobs have been lost, but at least by getting in now, five years late, they are not going to be 10 years late, and for that we can be thankful.
This Financial Administration Act needs amendment. All the amendments in the world are absolutely useless, absolutely beside the point, if we do not have in government somebody who administers that act competently. That right now is the crux of the problem. It is why our people are suffering. It is why the government is going in all the wrong directions to fund our overseas commitment in the Persian Gulf.
If it would instead get a sensible interest rate policy, fire John Crow and get someone there who understands how people are hurting, who understands that government is not first a business. It is an enterprise which
ought to look after the needs of people. If government were a business alone, we would not need a government. We would just have one of the big multinational corporations run the whole thing for us. We need government, but by that, we need a government worthy of the name. That is our problem right now.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's in the course of his comments made the remark that someone had said to him that he did not know what he was talking about. I have to concur with whoever that was.
In the course of his remarks he said that Mr. Stevens had made some comment about interest rates. He should read the newspapers again. There was no comment made about interest rates at all. Mr. Stevens apparently was reflecting on a conversation he had with the former Secretary of Commerce of the United States, Mr. Baldrige. They were talking about the level of the dollar, not the level of interest rates.
They were not talking about interest rates at all and that was confirmed by the Minister for International Trade of the day who is now in the Senate, the Minister of Finance, the chief negotiator for the government, the deputy negotiator for the government and several others who were involved in it. There was no mention of interest rates whatever, no mention of the dollar whatever.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from Burlington. As usual he is half right. Let me deal with the first half first and then I will come to the matter about the interest rate versus the dollar. On the first half he said that I had said that I was told that I did not know what I was talking about. The answer to his question as to who told me was in my earlier speech. The member for St. John's West and the then Minister of Fisheries said I did not know what I was talking about when I talked about the damage overfishing was doing.
If he wants to stand in front of 100,000 fishermen in Atlantic Canada and tell them there is no overfishing, then he had better try harder and shout louder because the message is going to be difficult getting through when people sit in their homes in Seal Cove-I know he does not want to hear this, but I am going to tell him anyway-people sit in their homes in Seal Cove. They
December 5, 1990

see their stocks being raped by fishermen from France, Spain and Portugal. Yes, I knew what I was talking about. Whether the member for Burlington agrees that I knew does not bother me. Let me thank him and say that he is absolutely right on the second. I made an error. I was inadvertently saying interest rates. Of course, what Mr. Stevens had to say was about the dollar. I thank him very much for correcting the record on that.
I believe he will agree that if you follow the argument through that I was making, it applies equally to the dollar as it does to interest rates because the two matters are related.
The argument basically was that there had been a convoluted undertaking by the Government of Canada to a foreign power to give that government a say, leverage, in our internal affairs. The level of our dollar is wiping out the exports in Newfoundland on fish, pulp and paper, and mining. It is wiping them out because of the level of the dollar.
Now we know what we have suspected for a long time, that our jobs in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada-wherever there are resource industries with exports flowing from them-are being sacrificed because according to Mr. Stevens, and confirmed by the minister as the member for Burnaby has reminded us, there was a deal to artificially peg the level of the dollar up around 85 cents to 90 cents-85 at the moment but the objective was close to 90.


Don Boudria: By increasing interest rates.


Roger Simmons: In the process, they sacrificed thousands of jobs. Of course, as my friend for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell reminds me, and the member for Burlington will well know, the matter of how the dollar got to be up close to 90 is not exactly unrelated to interest rates and their level, and vice-versa.
I thank the member very much for correcting me. It goes to show that once in awhile one can make a mistake in this House. There is somebody alert here, like the member for Burlington to put me on the right track. I thank him for that. In the process, I thank him for allowing me to make the point that the high dollar is also killing jobs in Newfoundland the rest of Canada.
Government Orders


William James Kempling: You don't know what you are talking about.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, near the end of the member's speech, he mentioned the word "competence", I believe it was. I am honestly surprised that anyone who was in a Liberal government with any knowledge of the spending habits of that party could even talk about restraint.
Let me just give you a couple of figures, Mr. Speaker. In the five years prior to us assuming power in 1984, the average level of spending by the Liberal government, excluding interest rates, if I recall correctly, was over 14 per cent. It doubles in about five years at that rate of expenses. The previous five years to that was a little over 10 per cent as I recall. The previous five years to that, again under the Liberal government was over 17 per cent a year.
In six years, our average annual increase has been a marvellous 3.5 per cent, under the rate of inflation. We never hear them mention that type of thing because they are too embarrassed about their 15-year record-and they should be-when spending got totally out of control by that previous government.
We have turned from an operating deficit to an operating surplus, a turnaround of about $25 billion. They have the nerve to question the competence of the track record of this government. I wish he would look back on his own and maybe we could chat a bit about that when I see him in the gym tomorrow morning.


Roger Simmons: I say to my friend for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville all of that was fair play except the last sentence. The last sentence is getting dangerously into my personal life when he talks about our being in the gym at seven o'clock in the morning trying to keep in shape. He is very good company. We do not always agree, as I am sure you have just seen, but he is very good company.
I thank the hon. member also for bringing to the debate-and this is the beauty of this period, this 10-minute question and answer-it puts another flavour on the debate. He has brought the debate to another side of the issue.
He talks about not having the courage-whatever word he used-to put forward the argument. No. He knows the process very well. My job is not to stand here and praise the government for any good things it might do. It is not what I am sent here for at all. I am sent here to keep the government accountable. I fully expect that if the government does some good things I can depend

December 5, 1990
Government Orders
on the competence of the gentleman from Markham to make sure that it is known. Listen to our title-Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We are here to poke holes in what that crowd does, and it is an easy job because there are so many places to poke the holes. We are not here as acolytes for the fellow from Baie Comeau.
Do not ever be under the impression that I am going to be out singing the praises of this government. If it does something that is particularly laudable, I will get up and swallow my pride and congratulate them. But I do not find it laudable that it went off and cooked the Canadian dollar up around 85 cents to satisfy the Americans on the free trade issue. I do not find it laudable that high interest rates are artificially pegged. My people in Burin-St. George's and elsewhere are hurting because they are paying a much higher mortgage than they ought to be.
The gentleman from Markham and I are not really at odds to the degree that he might suggest. He happens to be in a party where he has to be an acolyte. He has to say all the good things about that crowd and shut up about the rest. That is his problem, not mine.
In my case, I happen to be part of the Official Opposition whose job it is to point out that the cutbacks this government has inflicted over the past six years are hurting the poor, are robbing people of their jobs. If he thinks I am going to stand here and ignore what it is doing to my people, I will not. He might shout, but he might keep his cool as well because the effect will be the same on me.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent remarks. I am sure I speak on behalf of most members of this House who probably inadvertently forgot to mention that when they rose to ask a question of my colleague.
Does he not find that the argument of the government that it needed the supplementary estimates in order to pay for the gulf war just a little shallow when, in fact, far more money will be spent to administer the GST than will ever be used in any effort that is presently contemplated in the Persian Gulf? Does he not agree with me
that the funds that will be used to collect the GST, just that surplus portion of $365 million, could be far better used to assist either the fishermen in his riding or the unemployed people in Hawkesbury and elsewhere in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell because he hits the nail right on the head, as he usually does. Of course, it is a very shallow argument. When he mentions the GST, he reminds me, because he has made the first argument so well, I need not repeat it. Let me give him a parallel argument which reinforces the very point that he makes rhetorically in his question.
I heard the other day that the government wants to pay all the people out there the tax credit before Christmas. But it cannot do it unless the big, bad Liberal senators stop filibustering and pass the bill. The government cannot pay or draw money until the bill is passed.
Now, what kind of double-talk is that when the same government that cannot pay tax credits to people who are wondering whether they will have a Christmas or not, sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting to know if they will get the tax return in time for Christmas, and are being held to ransom, being blackmailed by this government, the same government that cannot find the money to pay the tax credit, is actually spending equivalent amounts of money renting four floors in the hotel over here to administer the GST? It had to pay money down for that, did it not? It is spending millions on TV. What Canadian, even those waiting for the cheques out there, has not seen those foolish ads on TV? Do you think they get them for nothing? They cost money. How come? I ask you, Mr. Speaker-and I am just about through-how come the government that cannot find money to pay the tax credit before the bill goes through can find globs of money to rent four floors of a hotel to administer the GST, and for all the other foolish reasons, the hot line and so on. What hypocrisy! What shallowness!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Essex-Windsor. I have to recognize the NDP. The last five speakers have been from the Liberal Party so I will recognize the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.
December 5, 1990


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am spurred, I guess, by the comments of the previous speaker and by the question which the hon. member for Burlington put before this House with respect to the whole question of the value of our dollar and the relationship of that to the free trade agreement.
This is, of course, something which is, one would have to concede, only tendentiously connected to the piece of legislation which is in front of us. But since it has come up in debate, I wanted to add just a few comments in respect of some of the exchanges which have been taking place.
We have not had a chance in the House actually to debate the rather extraordinary comments which a former Minister of Industry in this government made this past weekend with respect to a gentleman's agreement, as he put it, to see to it that the value of the Canadian dollar was raised quite significantly. There was some exchange which took place in Question Period and I happened to be in my constituency at that time. It has been only since my return that I have had a chance to see some of the comments of the Minister of Finance with respect to these comments of the former Minister of Industry of the Conservative government, Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens suggested, on the basis of his discussions with Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige, who was essentially in many respects Mr. Stevens' counterpart in the U.S. administration. He suggested in 1985, according to Mr. Stevens, that it was going to be essential that the dollar be raised in value if a free trade deal was going to take place.
This suggestion by the former Minister of Industry in the Conservative government was met by the Minister of Finance with statements of complete dismissal. On Monday, he put it in the following terms. He said:
- that the statement was absurd speculation, but it is simply also not true.
He went on from that to say:
I would remind my hon. friend that Mr. Stevens was basing his speculative comments on a conversation that he had with a man who was not involved in the negotiations and a conversation that was held some two years before the final negotiations were completed.
Government Orders
That might seem to put an end to this whole issue very clearly and to any speculation that might exist on this side of the House. In tracing this issue through the past five years-since the time that the supposed conversation took place between Mr. Stevens and the U.S. Commerce Secretary-we found that in fact this was not the only occasion on which this question of the value of the Canadian dollar was raised in prominent terms in the context of discussion of the Canadian trade deal, not by Canadians, not by the opposition attempting to suggest that something underhanded was taking place, but instead by senior Americans who were in fact, unlike the reference in Mr. Wilson's statement, deeply involved in the negotiations with respect to free trade. These questions were raised, not just by such people, but they were raised after' negotiations had already started with the United States with respect to a free trade deal.
Unfortunately, many of us would have to put a lack of strong faith into the recollections, five years after the fact, of a former minister of industry of this government who, after all, did have to resign in rather unfortunate circumstances. Despite our scepticism about that minister, the fact of the matter is that in the aftermath of that 1985 period there continued to be right up to 1987, the year in which the free trade negotiations were concluded, continuing comments on the part of key American officials with respect to this issue.
I want to note some of these for Canadians who are perhaps perplexed at the very quick way in which the serious suggestions of the former minister of industry were dismissed by the Minister of Finance. I will first quote from the person who was the negotiator from the United States, Peter Murphy, who wrote a memo in April of 1986. This was considerably after the discussions with Mr. Baldrige. He directed this memo to the members of the Canadian task force senior staff, that is, the people who were in charge of negotiating with the Canadian delegation with respect to free trade.
The memo came from Ambassador Murphy and the subject was Canadian negotiations. It stated: "Now that we have squeaked by in the Senate, the hard part starts. We have to prepare for the negotiations." He went on to review a number of key points which would be important to consider in the course of the negotiations. He noted only six points, so this was one of quite a small number of important points that he made. One of the important

Government Orders
issues to consider was "the direction and situation of exchange rates over the last 10 years, and efforts, if any, to change it, both in Canada and the United States." That might be seen simply as a small point and simply a review of what past exchange rates had been.
It is interesting that at the same time, virtually, in fact about a month later, James Baker, the United States Treasury Secretary at that point, had this to say. We all know that he is now the Foreign Secretary, but at that point he was the Treasury Secretary. The following appeared in a story by Alan Toulin, who now works for The Financial Post: "Yesterday Baker told a Senate committee that entry of Canada and Italy into the G-5 could swing the spotlight on to the economic policies of both countries and require them to meet policy goals set by the G-5."
Again, it was a relatively innocuous comment, one might think, until further on in the story one gets the following comment: "'Re-evaluating the Canadian dollar could also figure in the free trade negotiations slated to begin today,' U.S. Senator Daniel Evans said yesterday in a CBC interview."
One might think that this, again, is a relatively insignificant act, but what is fascinating is that these kinds of comments continue throughout 1986. In a story from September 10, 1986 written by Jonathan Ferguson who reported on U.S. Secretary Malcolm Baldrige speaking before a committee of the House of Representatives in Washington. This is precisely the same person who the former minister of industry in this Conservative government said in 1985 had told him that it was essential to get the Canadian dollar higher. A year later, September 10, 1986, after the free trade negotiations had started, he is saying precisely the same thing and I quote from this story by Jonathan Ferguson: "U.S. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige told a committee of the House of Representatives in Washington yesterday that an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar would help ease the record U.S. trade deficit."
Well, again, one might say this is just an idle comment by somebody who was not deeply involved in these issues.
Then there is a front page story from The Ottawa Citizen of November 21, 1986 in which Peter Murphy, who was the chief United States negotiator in these free trade negotiations, speaks out. This story, written by Wendy Warburton, starts as follows: '"The U.S. Congress would likely want changes in Canada's exchange rate, the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar, before it would pass a free trade agreement,' American trade negotiator Peter Murphy said Thursday."
He went on to say that this was being looked at by Treasury Secretary James Baker. That is a direct quote. "Secretary Baker is dealing with that, but what you cannot do is separate that in the mind-set of the Congress who will vote for a deal, that is for a free trade deal, or vote against it". Here we have Mr. Murphy talking in these terms.
We followed up on some of these comments by these various people who have been noted here. There are, for instance, Malcolm Baldrige's comments from the testimony which he presented to the House of Representatives which has been quoted here from September. It is quite clear. He is talking about the United States dollar and he said: "The U.S. dollar remains strong against the currencies of countries accounting for over half of our total trade, including our largest trading partner, Canada". He went on to say: "We are seeking discussions with a number of countries on the exchange rate issue. Progress there would be beneficial".
James Baker, in his testimony to the committee on finance in the United States Senate said: "There is not a lot we can do about those countries that tie their currencies to ours", and he goes on to talk about other countries, "but I think the fact there has been a depreciation of the dollar, that is the U.S. dollar, will help our trading relationship with those countries by putting more pressure on their markets and less on ours".
Finally, I would stress that despite the fact that Mr. Reisman, the Canadian negotiator in 1987, said: "We will not discuss the dollar in any way, shape or form", January 17, 1987, he did this in the aftermath of the comments by Mr. Murphy, the U.S. negotiator, in which he made it quite clear that the value of the Canadian dollar was quite important in consideration of the U.S. trade deal.
December 5, 1990

I have to conclude with two observations. The first observation is that Mr. Reisman walked out of the negotiations at a very late stage. It was never entirely clear and he never entirely indicated why he had walked out of those negotiations. I wonder if it was because something which he had said would not be on the table suddenly became crucial in the latter stages of that negotiation. I wonder if that is the case.
Finally, I think we have to conclude that Mr. Wilson's comments that this is not something to consider seriously, what Mr. Sinclair Stevens suggested last Sunday, because it took place well before the trade negotiations started and because it was based on conversations with someone who was not even in those negotiations, that that denial in fact itself holds no water. We can see from these comments that I have quoted to the House today that after that time, in fact after the negotiations had started with the United States, senior figures on the United States side, who were in charge of those negotiations, such as Peter Murphy and James Baker, did in fact talk directly and in terms of joining the question of the value of our dollar with whether or not the free trade deal would be accepted. Given the fact that they spoke in those terms, is there in fact any reason to reject the suggestions which Mr. Stevens made this past Sunday?
I think there may not be a clear smoking gun here, but there certainly is a great deal of evidence from the period when negotiations were taking place, from people who were part of those negotiations that in fact the United States saw the value of our dollar as a key component with respect to the free trade deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. Questions or comments.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the contribution that the member from Windsor has made to this debate.
There is no question in my mind that the exchange rates between Canada and the United States were a key component throughout the trade discussions between Canada and the United States. I wonder how a so-called free trade agreement can possibly exist, unless there are arrangements made to stabilize the relationships between currencies.
Government Orders
As I recall from the discussions we had in British Columbia around the softwood lumber problem and the threat of American trade retaliation against our softwood lumber, the currency was the major issue.
Even though the Americans used the excuse of the stumpage rates in a number of Canadian provinces, American senators and congressmen whom I met when the Gibbons committee travelled to Vancouver indicated to us that, when they saw Canadian lumber coming into places like Little Rock, Arkansas and selling at a price, because of the value of the Canadian dollar, far below what Arkansas lumber fetched in the Little Rock market, their sawmills shut down.
Their lumber workers were out of work, and they, as U.S. congressmen and senators, were going to take any action necessary, legal or otherwise, in order to reverse the situation.
The specific problem that they identified was the decline in Canadian currency relative to the American currency. That precipitated a retaliation by the American softwood lumber industry against Canada.
I cannot see how it is possible that free trade discussions took place between Canada and the U.S. without some currency pegging arrangements being made, whether it was an insistence by the Americans that the government in Canada raised interest rates in order to keep the value of our dollar propped, or whether some other arrangements were made behind the curtain between the Conservative government's negotiators and the American negotiators.
I just cannot understand a free trade arrangement existing without some currency pegging arrangements existing at the same time. I would appreciate if the member would respond to that.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member is quite right in pointing to the fact that the exchange rate was the common issue which American politicians, in discussing trade issues with Canada throughout that whole period, emphasized in their discussions.
We certainly found that to be the case. For example, when a delegation of American congressmen came here to talk about grain issues, it was the low value of the Canadian dollar at that stage which was of particular concern to them.

December 5, 1990
Government Orders
Precisely the same thing is true with respect to the objections under the auto pact which were put forward from Michigan. The various congressmen and senators from the state of Michigan who were concerned about Canadian exports under the auto pact into the United States emphasized the low value of the Canadian dollar.
I think that one has that set of evidence to look at. One has the set of evidence that I have talked about today. One has as well the fact that ever since the trade deal has come into effect, a gap has grown between interest rates in this country and in the United States, which is something which we have never seen historically in this country at that kind of level.
We are talking about a percentage point difference of from four to five percentage points which, given the fact that inflation rates are very similar between the two countries, means that the only conceivable consequence of that huge gap in interest rates would be to raise the value of the Canadian dollar.
We have not seen a reduction in the Canadian inflation rate relative to the American inflation rate. What we have seen is what all these people were suggesting was necessary for the free trade deal and that is a marked increase in the value of the Canadian dollar from the level of about 73 cents, which it was in 1985, to the level of approximately 86 cents, which it presently is.
Of course, that is damaging in the extreme to all of our exporters no matter which part of the country they are in; British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or Atlantic Canada. It is an incredibly damaging blow to our potential as a country to provide jobs and incomes.
The facts, therefore, speak for themselves. It is those facts that we have to look at in judging whether or not Mr. Stevens' comments this past weekend should be taken seriously or not. Do the facts conform with what Mr. Stevens suggested? Unfortunately, for the government, and unfortunately for its suggestions that this is not the case, the facts indeed do conform exactly with what one would expect to have taken place if Mr. Stevens had indeed been telling the truth.
I have to say that the statement of this past week demonstrates yet again the irresponsibility of this government which has led to the damage which this economy is now suffering, the first made in Canada recession which Canada has ever experienced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I understand that I am the last speaker on this particular bill before the House which is- the Financial Administration Act.
I have just a couple of points concerning provisions in the bill that are, quite frankly, bad legislation for the people of Canada. One of them deals with collection agencies. One deals with saltfish, and the other one could deal with air traffic control centres in Vancouver and in eastern Canada.
The first one concerns collection agencies. Clause 5 of the bill enables the Government of Canada to hire collection agencies in any department, in any Crown corporation, in any agency of the federal government to collect moneys that are owed the Government of Canada. Collection agencies.
The Minister of Justice is sitting here. The minister knows the procedure today whereby a department of government collects it money.
First, a person is given a reasonable opportunity to make the payment. If that fails and if the person defaults on his or her payments, then perhaps through a third party attachment the wages are attached. Or, the person who is due money by that agency or that department has it taken off a bit at a time.
That is the standard procedure used by the Government of Canada and its departments. In legislation passed by this Chamber we have clauses in certain bills that terminate moneys owed to the Government of Canada over certain periods of time. In other words, there are two ways in which something can be forgiven. One is, in certain legislation, if it imposes undue hardship on the person involved. Second, in some legislation there is a time limit. In other words, in some legislation it is set out that moneys cannot be collected beyond three years from the date at which the individual was notified that he or she owed money to the department.
Now that is the jurisprudence we have in Canada today. That is reasonable law. What is the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada doing by putting forward this proposed legislation and saying throughout the legislation that collection agencies are now to be used by the Government of Canada, not only in the restricted sense that we have today to collect the student loans that are overdue but in every agency of the

Government of Canada and in every department? Now, circumventing the system, we have the imposition of collection agencies. Shame on the Minister of Justice for permitting this to pass through cabinet.


A. Kim Campbell: I don't chew my cabbage twice.


George Baker: I hope that is on the record. The Minister of Justice has just made a statement; she says she does not chew her cabbage twice. I hope that she chews it at least once. This entire bill is enough to give anybody indigestion.
The second portion of the bill which is really objectionable is a new imposition on Crown corporations listed in schedule 3 of part X of the Financial Administration Act. There are three schedules, Mr. Speaker, as you know.
The first schedule includes government departments. The second schedule includes Crown corporations that are part of government departments, and the third schedule is wholly owned Crown corporations, owned by the Government of Canada. This bill imposes upon those Crown corporations an obligation to collect money and have a reasonable expectation that the corporation will pay dividends.
In other words, the whole intent of the legislation is that the Crown corporation becomes, through another part of the bill and using user fees in some cases, a money maker. That is the philosophy of the Government of Canada. CBC is not included in schedule 3 of the Financial Administration Act because it is considered to be a cultural institution which remains autonomous from section 3.
What will happen if we take the established Crown corporations of today to deal with the natural resources of Canada? I use as an example the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. Last week half of the people employed by that Crown corporation received their lay-off notices. The function of that Crown corporation was to provide marketing, to be the sole buyer and marketer of what we call saltfish, which is a fish that is cut open and then there is salt put on it. It is dried with salt on it.


A. Kim Campbell: Is that a recipe?
Government Orders


George Baker: Back in my day, we used to dry them on what we called flakes, but now it is automatic drying machines.
The Canadian Saltfish Corporation fulfilled that vital function. Now it is in trouble because it owes a lot of money to the Government of Canada. That is a relatively new phenomenon. What caused it? The Government of Canada caused it. The Government of Canada, to my way of thinking, in my estimation, caused the crisis in the fishing industry in Canada.


An hon. member:: How did it do that?


George Baker: The member asks how the government caused the problem. Today I received an update on the numbers of licences issued to foreign interests in Canadian waters so far this year. It comes to 135 factory ship licences issued to Cuba, Japan, U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Norway, Poland, and the U.S.A. That is an increase over last year. That is an increase over the year before last.
Who caused the crisis in the fishery in eastern Canada? If we have a larger fleet from a foreign nation fishing inside our 200-mile zone, licensed by the Government of Canada, a larger offshore fleet than we have in Canada, then we know that something is wrong. I am not talking about outside the 200-mile zone that the hon. member spoke about a few moments ago. I was going to mention to him about the Namibia connection, a recent phenomenon in Canada. Namibia, a country in the southern portion of Africa, declared about three weeks ago that it was going to tell every foreign nation to get out of its waters. It did it. Imagine, the Government of Namibia. I checked and I found that there were about 100 factory ships from Europe in its zone in Namibia. Namibia threatened them. They left about two and one-half weeks ago, and they steamed right up through the Atlantic Ocean. Where did they go, some of them? They went right up, off the east coast of Canada, and they started to fish just outside the 200-mile zone in the shallow water.
Our search planes and survey planes for the last two weeks have been flying over these ships. They take photographs. They have very sophisticated machinery aboard to observe what these vessels are doing. They discovered that some of the ships that were chased from Namibia were out off the east coast of Canada, and they were catching a type of flatfish. They will destroy that particular species. I am not talking about the disaster that is happening outside, because even countries in

Government Orders
Africa that do not have our expertise in the fishery and do not have advanced fishing technology in place, are kicking out those foreign nations. Those foreign boats do not have very many places to go now, so one of the places they pick on is our Canadian east coast.
I am not talking about outside 200 miles, because we do not have jurisdiction, but we have jurisdiction for these licences granted to Cuba, Japan, the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Norway, Poland, and the U.S.A. We have jurisdiction tomorrow when a Japanese vessel comes in to port in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and gets from fisheries and oceans tomorrow afternoon a licence to fish what we commonly call turbot inside our 200-mile zone in areas called 2-G and 2-H off the Labrador coast.
What does that have to do with the bill? That has everything to do with the bill, because the Canadian Saltfish Corporation is paying for the follies of the Government of Canada. It is in a position where it owes money. It is being disbanded. Why else would the Government of Canada issue half or 50 per cent lay-off notices to all its staff in eastern Canada? It is an outrage.
Another portion of the bill authorizes the collection of user fees from the federal government. Imagine one government department charging another government department for use of its services. That is what it says in this bill. Another portion of the bill gives authority to charge provincial governments user fees for their services.
In the last intervention I said that I would mention in conclusion the authority given, as the government had announced prior to this bill, to government departments to collect revenues and to use those revenues as expenditures in their own departments. That is what it does in section 12 of the act. It allows a department to do it. It says that a department may be authorized to do it.
We are faced today in Canada with the probable closure of air traffic control services in western Canada, in British Columbia, and in the far east of our great country. We are facing that because the Government of Canada and the Auditor General, I believe, determined
that the work being done in those control centres could be done in a control centre in downtown Montreal.
That is one side of the picture, but that department of the Government of Canada collects revenues that far exceed their expenditures. What happens to those revenues? They go into what we call the Consolidated Revenue Fund. They do not go into the Department of Transport to keep these operations going. If we examine the figures of air traffic control stations in British Columbia and in eastern Canada, in Newfoundland or New Brunswick, we would discover an interesting fact. The system is that a foreign aircraft carrier which comes within a national airspace pays a fee for the air traffic control services it gets. It is about $85 per initial contact. That is the way it is worded. Then it pays another fee, about $501 believe-it used to be $40-for what we used to call radio services. That is when you speak to somebody about weather conditions and the like.
The average fee is $100 per initial contact for these trans-Pacific and trans-oceanic flights. There are about 500 a day on average, west coast, and east coast. That would cost approximately $50,000 a day. Air traffic control generates about $15 million to $20 million a year in eastern and western Canada. That money goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. They make more than they spend. They are not only making their salaries, they are making double their salaries. But that does not show up in the department. That is not what this means. What this means is that where the government so wishes, a government department may be encouraged to charge fees which will then become a part of a pot of money within that department that can be spent as they see fit.
The legislation, Mr. Speaker, is incomplete. The legislation should say that each government department which generates revenue will receive that revenue and will be responsible for that revenue.
In conclusion, let me say that this is a very bad piece of legislation. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It will increase charges on the general public, on provincial governments, and it will lead the Government of Canada down some very poor paths as far as collecting money is concerned from a lot of poor people in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
December 5, 1990


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 28, consideration of Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are three report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
There is an error for which the Chair and the Table apologize. Four motions were received prior to six o'clock p.m. last night. The motion omitted is in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. Copies of this motion are available at the Table. It becomes Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls causes the Chair some concern because it seeks to introduce into the bill the licensing of fishing vessels, a subject which goes beyond the scope of Bill C-74, as agreed to at second reading. By doing so the hon. member is reaching into the Fisheries Act to amend Section 7, in contravention of Citation 773, paragraph (8) (a) and (b) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which reads as follows:
(a)	An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the committee.
(b)	An amendment may not amend sections from the original Act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee.
For this reason, it is with regret that I must rule the amendment out of order.
Government Orders
Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cardigan is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, deals with the tabling of the annual report by the minister on administration and enforcement of the provisions relating to fish habitat. While this motion is similar to an amendment that was moved, debated and defeated in committee, as a result of representations, I have decided to give the member the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion to go forward for debate in the House. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 4 deals with a matter dealt with in committee. It is my understanding that, as a result of consultations and representations, this motion may now be more acceptable to the House. Motion No. 4 will be proposed to the House for a separate debate and vote.
I shall put Motion No. 2 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 3 and substituting the
following therefor:
"remove it within forty-eight hours after the com-";
(b)	by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 3 and substituting the
following therefor:
"along a beach or within a fishery for such a period exceeding forty-eight hours after the commencement of a close time as the fishery officer considers neces-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion that I have put forward.
What my amendment will do is restore the 48-hour time period for the removal of fishing gear, especially lobster traps, from the water. When I was reading the bill, this clause eliminating the 48-hour grace period was one that stuck in my mind.
When I went home to Prince Edward Island and spoke to the lobster fishermen in my riding, I asked them how this would affect them and received the same reply over and over. "It just won't work", they said. What happens when the weather is bad? What happens if the fisheries

December 5, 1990
Government Orders
officer will not let their gear stay in the water past the closing time of the season?
I told the fishermen that I was not sure what would happen but I would bring their concerns to the committee hearings and to the House of Commons. On two separate occasions I raised the issue in committee and both times my questions and the questions of my fishermen were not answered.
When we heard the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Hache, before the committee, I asked him if it would follow that at the end of the lobster season the traps, buoys and all would have to be out of the water; if the season ends on Saturday, everything must be removed by Saturday, which the ADM responded, that is correct. Later on, I asked Mr. Hache again, if we have a stormy day on Saturday, unless the fisheries officer desires, the traps would have to come out on Friday. I can see where this would create a problem in the lobster fishery where we come from. We have always had a couple of days, 48 hours, to remove the traps from the water. Again, the ADM responded by saying, "This is correct, Mr. Chairman. There has always been an additional day or two, depending on the weather, for the fishermen to haul their gear at the end of the season".
The government has gone on and on about how this amendment to the bill will allow more flexibility in the removal of gear. Indeed, I must have heard the word hundreds of times from the government in committee. However, fishermen in my riding see this as being anything but flexible. Fishermen say that it leaves them at the mercy of the fisheries officer who may or may not look kindly upon the fishermen. Fishermen are afraid of being put in the position that they can be harassed.
During the committee hearings we heard from witnesses who said that fisheries officers are also being harassed and I agree. There are fisheries officers who are being harassed by fishermen who deliberately break the law. However, there are instances where fishermen are also harassed by fisheries officers.
This clause which says that "a fisheries officer may permit" is just another way for our fishermen to be harassed. The problem is they may or may not permit them to leave their traps in the water for another 48 hours or if it is going to be stormy on the day the season
closes, they could be forced to remove their traps possibly a day early.
It is my belief that the government's amendment to this section of the act is unnecessary. I asked the government officials if there were any problems under the old section, and they did not give me one example. They could not give me an example of any time this 48-hour grace period that our lobster fishermen had in order to have a reasonable amount of time at the end of the season to remove their traps caused difficulties.
Why was this done by the government? There is no answer. I think it could cause a problem for our fishermen. The fisheries officer might decide to give them the time, and he might not. Indeed, most fisheries officers that I deal with, or know, certainly would.
It puts the responsibility on the fishery officer, and the word "may" in the clause is very important: "They may, or they may not."
The official from the department could not point out a case. An old quote says: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think this is the situation in this case. There is not a problem, so why do we here in this House create a problem for the lobster fishermen?
This government amendment is unnecessary and unwarranted. The fishermen in my riding say this will limit their flexibility in removing their gear. Of course, it certainly will complicate their flexibility.
My amendment will prevent harassment and provide greater flexibility by restoring the 48-hour time limit for the removal of fishing gear.
I urge the government members, some of whom truly understand how hard the fishermen work and how difficult it is on the sea to not place this extra burden on the fishermen and let's leave the 48-hour time period that we have had over the last number of years and treat our fishermen with respect.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to let you and the House know that our party will be supporting the amendment being proposed by the member for Cardigan.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

Government Orders
I do have some empathy for my friend from Cardigan. As was discussed in the committee, the problem is that section 25 now deals not with fishing gear per se but with stakes, posts, buoys and other materials placed for fishing purposes. There is quite a difference.
The flexibility that he talks about, unfortunately, is not there. For that reason, I regret to say that, despite discussions and attempts, we cannot accept this amendment. The government will vote against it.
In the interests of dealing with report stage, I think you will find unanimous consent that we not see the clock at six o'clock, and agreement that we can be through this probably by 6.20 p.m. or 6.30 p.m., finish report stage and move on after that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, our party is prepared to agree with that with the one proviso: that there be a time limit on this extension for the purposes of dealing with report stage only, that it not extend beyond 6.30 p.m. If by any chance, it would not be completed by then, we can further consult.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Brian L. Gardiner: We will agree to that.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the hon. member for Cardigan who brought in this amendment is absolutely correct.
Everything that the member said is absolutely correct. There is not one reason that the government can cite for not accepting his amendment. It is an outrage to make every fisherman a criminal if a season closes while he has gear in the water.
In other words, if the season closes at midnight and the announcement is made at 6 p.m., the fisherman is a criminal if the fisheries officer does not extend him the privilege of picking up his gear.
If it is bad weather, how bad? How big is his boat? Does he feel he can make it while another guy feels he cannot make it? Suppose Sunday is the next day. A lot of people respect Sunday and they will not go on the water. A lot of people. That is why the two-day notice was there in the first place in the act. It is outrageous, it is unbelievable. It really is an absolute outrage for the Government of Canada to place fishermen in Canada in the position that it is doing under this bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Brian L. Gardiner: That Bill C-74 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at
page 5 the following new clause:
"11.(1) The said Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 42 thereof, the following section:
"42.(1) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act relating to fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year.
(2) The annual report shall include a statistical summary of convictions under section 40 for that year."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to have a chance to speak on Bill C-74 in the House today. I will be as brief as I can to make some of the points on my Motion No. 3, which you so graciously considered to present before the House, and, of course, I look forward to future debate and discussion on this bill when it returns to the House for third reading.
First, I would like to say how very interesting the witnesses we heard were when we were discussing this bill. We had witnesses from both coasts who gave us a firsthand account of their views about the fishing industry and, in particular, their concerns and comments on Bill C-74. That ranged from discussions about general offences, catch reporting, and what have you. A number of representations from the west coast in particular included concerns regarding habitat protection, which is the particular reference that I make in my amendment to the bill.
I am pleased to see that the government has seen fit to support this amendment. We did debate it in committee. There were some differences, but I am glad to see that on second thought the government can see the importance of my amendment. It will require the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to table in Parliament, annually, a report "on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act relating to fish habitat protection

Government Orders
and pollution prevention". It will also provide for a statistical summary of conviction under section 40 of the act.
It is very important that be included, because all of the witnesses who appeared before our committee agree- and it certainly has been a subject of public debate in British Columbia-about the need to ensure that the Fisheries Act and its rules and regulations are followed and complied with in the Pacific region and, of course, in the inland waters and on the east coast because there is concern that that in fact has not happened.
I asked questions of the witnesses based on the information and background material provided by the minister. In 1988, of some 959 fines in the Pacific region, 11 related to habitat protection and there was not a witness who thought that that adequately reflected the concerns that we have about protecting our salmon habitat on the west coast. By calling upon the minister to ensure that we have an annual report on this section, it is going to make it very clear for all members of the House and the general public to see exactly how we are dealing with that situation.
I am pleased with the government support. Tuesday, in the Environment Committee, the Minister of the Environment from British Columbia supported a full public hearing of the Alcan project which we have talked about in the House before. That is another example of the considerable debate around fish habitat and the need to ensure that we have the enforcement and compliance in the law by the fisheries officers carrying out the rules and regulations that we pass in this House.
This provision for an annual report is an important one, and I am glad to see that the House will be supporting it.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I have a small problem that I discussed with my colleague on which I would like your direction.
First, yes, the government does support this. I think it is an important step. It is not inconsistent with a number of other pieces of legislation, but I want it recognized that this information has to be gathered from a number
of different departments, agencies, and provincial governments.
What I have discussed with my colleagues is probably an amendment to the amendment. I do not know quite how to proceed. It is a question of numbering. The new clause motion refers to 11(1). It should be 11.1. The proposed section reads 42(1). In fact, it should read 42.1(1). I think there is unanimous consent to make that change. It is purely a number change and I do not think there is any problem. I can certainly provide it to the Table if it is of any assistance.
Apart from that, we certainly support the motion of the hon member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is just a matter of changing 11(1) to 11.1 and a matter of changing 42(1) to 42.1(1). It is quite clear and understood in the bill itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would just put on the record that if you overfish and you catch fish that you are not licensed to catch, you will be convicted unless you do it on a foreign boat in Canadian waters.
Not only that, but what is happening off our coast is that, if a foreign nation catches more than it is legally allowed to catch, the observer comes in two weeks hence, reports it, and the ship is then moved either north, south, east or west. They do not have to throw away the incidental catch or the catch which is in excess of the buy catch. Shame! Shame on the Government of Canada.
The Canadian will come in and he will be arrested. But, if you have a good lawyer, Mr. Speaker, here is a great clause in the bill. "No person shall be convicted of an offence under the act if the person establishes that the person (a) exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of an offence or (b) reasonably and honestly believed"-and the Minister of Justice should be overjoyed with this one-"in the existence of facts that if true would render the person's conduct innocent."
December 5, 1990

That is pretty clear, is it not? You get a big lawyer. You have to have the money to pay for your lawyer, like the Government of Canada thinks most people have. It will cost you a lot of dough. No problem getting over this act. But the poor fisherman who is brought in, who is supposed to be represented by members of Parliament, will get it right between the teeth with this legislation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Brian L. Gardiner: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 24
(a)	by striking out, in the English version, line 24 at page 18 and
substituting the following therefor:
"control of fisheries or fish habitat or the";
(b)	by striking out lines 33 to 48 at page 18 and substituting the
following:
"(h) directing the person to submit to the Minister, on application by the Minister within three years after the date of the conviction, any information respecting the activities of the person that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and
(i) requiring the person to comply with any other conditions that the court considers appropriate for securing the person's good conduct and for preventing the person from repeating the offence or committing other offences under this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 4, this particular amendment to Bill C-74, and to comment about how soon we will be debating at third reading this legislation. The amendment is going to require a person convicted, if the court so orders, to pay for promoting the proper management and control of fisheries or fish habitat.
When the bill first came to committee it just talked about fish. We have included fish habitat in this amendment, and the government is supporting it. That is particularly important, given all the concerns we have in terms of protecting our creeks and rivers from logging
Government Orders
operations, pulp mill pollution and others and of ensuring that more than just a balance among our resource industries happen and that we are successful in extracting our resources in a sustainable way which not only protects the environment but ensures that the resources will continue in perpetuity for all of us to benefit from.
An interesting aspect of this amendment is the fact that we are not only talking about paying for the damage, which I find very difficult to accept as a principle. It is like having people take over your house for the weekend and they wreck the place, and then when you come back on Sunday night they say: "That is okay. We will pay for it". That is not the way to go about inviting any of your friends or guests over, if they are still friends. Nor is it any way to allow the destruction of our fish habitat.
This amendment goes beyond asking people to fess up and to provide some dollars. Witnesses said to us in committee that it would be just a cost of doing business, that it was going to be another couple of hundred dollars and on we go; there was no change. This amendment will ensure that damages are paid from what the courts order. It will also ensure that there is emphasis on the fisheries officers being out there and that they have confidence that their department realizes the importance of the rules and regulations they are policing. As well it will ensure that anyone convicted of a crime will understand how important that is and that they will participate in helping to promote the protection and enhancement of our fish habitat.
It is a positive amendment. It is moving in the right direction, and I hope the House will support it.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was accepted in committee. I think it is important to put on record that there were some minor legal changes, some wording changes which my friend opposite has reintroduced. The government supports this amendment and thinks it is a good step as well.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment. It is fine and dandy to talk about fish habitat. It is fine and dandy to talk about fines. It is fine and dandy to have such glorious words about protecting the fishing environment and the fishing habitat.

Government Orders
However, 135 gigantic, monstrous vessels from nine foreign nations are raking the grounds around the coast of Canada, while we sit in this Chamber and figure out what fines to put on Canadian fishermen who might be violating the fish habitat of Canada.
A lot of things have to change in this country, and that is one of them. Canadians vessels are not allowed to go into the waters or any one of those countries; not one of those countries. It is not allowed. There would be a war. We would be chased out. They are in our waters with all of this gigantic gear, all computerized, raking all of the grounds on the continental shelf, ignored by the Government of Canada. In fact, the numbers are going up every year. No wonder the fishing resource is destroyed together with the fishing habitat.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Kim Campbell (for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House.
It being 6.17 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)
At 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 6, 1990