1990-11-01

Mr. Speaker:: On Wednesday, October 3,1990 the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park rose on a question of privilege concerning the meaning of the oath of allegiance taken by all duly elected members and the duties and obligations of members relating thereto.
The Chair undertook to consider the matter carefully and to return to the House. I am now prepared to rule on the matter. The ruling I am about to deliver will touch not only on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, but on other important issues raised by other hon. members during the discussion which ensued.
Let me preface my decision by saying that as your Speaker I am well aware of the importance of this matter, not only to hon. members, but to constituents across the country. Events of recent months have once again sharpened the focus of the Canadian public on members of this Chamber and the role they play in Parliament. Many constituents have contacted their members of Parliament to express their views. Though their views may differ and differ sharply, the passion with which they hold those views is striking. Indeed, it is precisely because these views are so passionately held that the real issue can sometimes be obscured. The Chair hopes today to clarify the situation for hon. members and perhaps no less importantly for the public who are watching us.

First, the Chair will deal with the precise point at issue, namely the validity of th Oath of Allegiance taken by the hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
As all hon. members are aware, Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires all Members of Parliament to take an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen or to make an affirmation in lieu thereof before being allowed to sit or vote in the House of Commons. The wording of the oath dates back to 1867 and derives from the oath then used in the British Parliament. It reads as follows:



-and the person's name is given-
-do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
I point out that that is the oath and it is limited to these very brief words.
Thus, the taking of the oath is a constitutional requirement and only those members who have taken and subscribed to the oath are allowed to take the seats in the House of Commons.
As Beauchesne pointed out in the fourth edition of his of Rules and Forms for the House of Commons of Canada, Citation 16(1):
It is not the oath that makes a person a Member of the House. He must be a Member before being sworn in-The object of the oath is to allow the Member to take his seat in the House.

On August 27, 1990 the hon. member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie, duly elected by his constituents on August 13, made a solemn affirmation and signed the Test Roll. In so doing, like all other hon. members, he became entitled to take his place in the House and on September 24, 1990, when the House resumed sitting, the hon. member was introduced and took his seat.

Routine Proceedings
The current controversy springs from events of September 23, 1990. On September 23, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie made another statement outside this Chamber expressing his loyalty to the people of Quebec. This statement, as the hon. member for Shefford has pointed out, is very similar to one of two oaths taken by members of the National Assembly of Quebec. The hon. member for Shefford sees no contradiction there. He argues, "-Fun n'empeche pas l'autre."
But this viewpoint is not universally shared. Others contend-contentions that have been fueled by media reports and commentary-that the events of September 23 cast doubt on the legitimacy of the oath taken August 27.

Your Speaker is not empowered to make a judgment on the circumstances or the sincerity with which a duly elected member takes the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath to each member is a matter of conscience and so it must remain.
The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has stated very clearly in the House that he has in no way repudiated the oath of allegiance he took on August 27. The hon. member said:

I never mocked the Canadian Parliament nor the Queen. I swore the oath of allegiance with all due regard for the democratic institution that the Canadian Parliament is.

Whatever construction the media has put on the situation, whatever the perception or misperception of the events of September 23, it is a fundamental principle and long-established convention of the House to accept as true the word of an hon. member. The Chair must therefore conclude that there has been no breach of privilege as contempt.

That being said, it is important to view this situation in its entirety. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has been unambiguous on his perspective and that of his colleagues:
We insisted that it is with the outmost respect for Canadian
Parliamentary institutions that we are sitting here, while insisting that
we would strive to achieve Quebec's sovereignty as soon as possible.

As the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has eloquently stated, the fact that an hon. member holds views which are vigorously opposed by other hon. members can in no sense be allowed to detract from his right to present them.
A historical perspective on parliament here in Canada and in Great Britain reveals ample precedent for the presence in the House of duly elected members whose ultimate goal may be at odds with, even inimical to, the constitutional status quo.
Only the House can examine the conduct of its members and only the House can take action if it decides action is required. Should the House decide that an hon. member has in some way committed a contempt, then it is for the House to take the appropriate steps.
The Chair wishes to thank all hon. members who participated in the discussion of these important matters. The freedom of all members of the House to represent their constituents and to perform their duties is a cherished right. The Chair hopes that the airing of these issues has helped to clarify the situation so that the work of the House can carry on in the best traditions of this place. I thank hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 responses to 36 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

November 1, 1990



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-91, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


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

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Ottawa and Nepean who object to the goods and services tax. In particular, they object in so far as it applies to books and the printed word.
These petitioners note that books have been free of tax in Canada since Confederation. Indeed, I think it is a fact that they are free of tax in almost every other civilized country on earth, but now this Tory government is going to impose a goods and services tax on books and the printed word.
These petitioners, like so many millions of other Canadians, are opposed to this tax. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the tax.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to place before this House petitions from many people from my riding who are urging the government to honour the commitment it made in October 1988 when it put funds forward to begin the cleanup of the hot spots in the Lake Ontario area.
Of course, the worst of those hot spots is the Don River which flows through my riding. We are hoping that the government will soon honour its commitment to begin that process.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions signed by hundreds of Canadians from Halifax, Dartmouth, Winnipeg, Fredericton, New Brunswick and Ottawa in which these people state that they are ap-
Routine Proceedings
palled at the imposition of the GST on books and magazines.
They call upon Parliament to reaffirm historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
They add most particularly that it is an egregious error to tax such books as the Bible and the Koran.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we were just discussing the fact that the Bible and the Koran are being taxed by this new nefarious and poorly conceived tax, the goods and services tax which, as you know, is so regressive. It is hurting the people across this land, and they do not want it.
I have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of petitions from Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, ad infinitum. The petitioners do not want this tax on books.
As my colleague so aptly said: "Not on the Bible; not on the Koran; not on anything whether it is plain literature, religious literature, a magazine, a book or a newspaper." Get rid of the GST.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions with several hundred names on them.
The petitions are from a number of communities throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area including Tehkummah, McKerrow, Espanola and other communities, calling on the government to withdraw the goods and services tax.
It would have to do that in the Senate now, because the bill has passed here, but these constituents of mine and other people are fully opposed to it. They want the bill and the tax withdrawn. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the public opinion polls this morning, 75 per cent of Canadians want the tax defeated.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present three petitions today, all asking the Government of Canada to withdraw the imposition of the government's goods and services tax as it relates to books and literature. The petitioners are from such communities in Atlantic Canada as Halifax, Dartmouth, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, as well as individuals in Toronto.

Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, we urge once again that the Government of Canada see its way clear to axe the tax and to prevent the GST from being presented on books and literature in this country.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House today a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, to the effect that proposing a tax on books, newspapers and magazines is a measure that is absolutely regressive. Your petitioners, in fact there are several dozen here, maintain that the free circulation of printed matter is the cornerstone of our democracy, our culture and our education. They claim that an educated and productive society would be adversely affected by a measure that would impose a tax on books.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to confirm the principles which, for many years, have formed the basis for exempting printed matter and to provide for such exemption in the GST bill to be implemented on January 1,1991. Otherwise, this government will go down in history as the government that put a tax on books, reading and knowledge.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present these petitions on behalf of western Canadians. It is inconceivable to these Canadians that with the high rate of illiteracy and all of the efforts and resources going to that, the government would put a further tax on books, especially in my area in the north where reading is one of the delights of western Canadians. A tax such as this will not be tolerated by them.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by people from all over Ontario, as it applies to the goods and services tax on books and literature. These people call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and the regulations.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I too take pleasure in presenting to the House a petition from people in St. John's, Mount Pearl, Manuels, Topsail, Portugal Cove and yes, Mr. Speaker, from Paradise itself. These people in Paradise and elsewhere are outraged by what is an outrage. They have given me a petition to present to this House, knowing that the Government of Canada has never, since Confederation, done what this government is about to do. That Confederation was the one in 1867. The real one, of course, was in 1949 when two countries came together, but they are talking about the first one.
They are saying that never in all that time have we taxed the Bible. Never have we taxed learning. Now, this crowd, in addition to running us into the ground want to make us Godless and illiterate, as well.
I support the petition completely and ask that the government mend its ways and stop taxing the Bible and books. Do not be such cowards.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today. First, I have a petition here signed by 553 residents of Edmonton and surrounding areas. All of these people are unanimous, as are countless tens of thousands before them, in calling on the government to reject the proposal for a goods and services tax and cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the burden of tax on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of real tax reform.


Ross Harvey: While I am on my
feet and apropos some business that will be before the House today, I would like to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians. They point out that cable companies made an average of 32 per cent profit on fixed assets in 1988 or more than twice the level of the regulated telephone companies. They point out as well that cable prices increased by 6 per cent annually between 1984 and 1988 and by 29 per cent over 18 months during 1988-89 at a time when telephone prices actually dropped.
For these reasons the petitioners are calling upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284 and apply a rate-of-re-tum regulation to the cable industry.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, apropos to that last petition, I have a similar petition. Phone rates are regulated; cable rates are not. The New Democratic Party and thousands of petitioners say: "Why not?" We have petitions from all over the country. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284, which is my Private Member's Bill on regulating the cable rate, and apply rate-of-retum regulations to the cable industry so that cable rates can be regulated like telephone rates.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition signed by numerous Canadians who point out that cable prices increased by 6 per cent annually between 1984 and 1988 and by 29 per cent over 18 months during 1988-89 at a time when telephone prices actually dropped. The petitioners join with others in calling upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284 and apply rate-of-retum regulations to the cable industry.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition that has been certified under Standing Order 36 as correct to form and content. The petitioners, who are from across Canada, raise their concern about the fact that the cable industry is the only territorial monopoly in Canada whose profits are unregulated. They also point that the cable companies made an average of 32 per cent profit on fixed assets in 1988, more than twice the level of the regulated telephone companies and, if I may add, almost three times as much as the natural gas utilities in the province of Ontario are allowed to make.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284 in the name of my colleague, and apply rate-of-retum regulations to the cable industry. I think these people deserve a fair deal.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under Standing Order 36. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I present this petition signed by numerous Canadians who have seen charges by the cable television industry increase without any apparent control over the last few years. What the petitioners are asking for is a fair deal. They are asking Parliament to pass Bill C-284 and apply rate-of-retum regulations to the cable industry.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one, pursuant to Standing Order 36, is like the others, calling on Parliament to regulate the cable industry the same as the telephone industry is regulated. The petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284 in the name of the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and apply rate-of-retum regulations to the cable industry.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: The second petitioner, Mr. Speaker, I add to the thousands of names that I have already submitted in petitioners of people who are against the goods and services tax.
These petitioners, like thousands and thousands of others, millions across Canada, and in the latest Gallup poll 76 per cent, show that they are against this particular goods and services tax. They are calling upon Parliament to stop the proposal and asking the government to at least delay the implementation until it can guarantee that the Canadian taxpayers will not face another tax rip-off.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present petitions by New Brunswickers and from people all across Canada who are strongly opposed to the GST and, more particularly, opposed to the tax on written materials, and so it is a pleasure to present this petition.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to present a number of petitions on behalf of Manitobans who are deeply concerned about the application of the GST to books, magazines and newspapers.
They point out that this has never happened in the history of Canada. They would also like parliamentarians to understand that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, of our culture and of our educational system, and that the application of the GST would be counterproductive.
They humbly pray and call upon all of us in the House of Commons to reaffirm this historic principle embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 31, consideration of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; Motion Nos. 8 and 10 of Mrs. Finestone (p. 14956); and Motion No. 9 of Mr. Waddell (p. 14956).
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the member for Mount Royal for the fabulous job she has been doing in shepherding this bill through the House over the last year.
It has been a very tough bill to handle especially from opposition, because we have talked about many aspects of this bill that disturb us. Most of us on this side of the House believe in a strong national government. We believe that the Broadcast Act traditionally has been an instrument that has allowed us to promote things like national unity. The Broadcast Act, therefore, has helped as a galvanizer in this country. Now we see the government trying to take out the words national unity.
Specifically I am speaking today on three separate motions. In one of the motions put forward by my colleague she wants Bill C-40 to be amended in clause 2 as follows:
"provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using
predominantly Canadian creativity".
The motion of the member of Port Moody-Coquitlam talks about the following:
"and presentation of programming, in particular in the prime
viewing hours between 19:00 and 23:00 hours on television, unless".
Finally, Motion No. 10 indicates the following:
"(vi) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to view the productions of Canada's autonomous public film producer and distributor, the National Film Board of Canada;".
Mr. Speaker, you have to understand that in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood there are close to 2,700 people employed in this industry. My riding is the riding of Degrassi Streets. My riding is the riding of Night Heat. My riding is where John Candy and Mike Ontkean got their start.
A small divergent point on Mike Ontkean, I can remember when I was younger playing hockey at St. Mike's and sitting in the dressing room with Mike Ontkean. This is back in the early 1960s. Different people would talk about where their dreams were and what their hopes were. Most of us wanted to go on and play NHL hockey. Very few of us wanted to go to college. Mike Ontkean would sit in the comer of the dressing room and say: "I want to be a movie star". We used to laugh at him and we used to tease him. The bottom line is that at that time the thought of a Canadian wanting to be a Canadian movie star was not taken very seriously.
I would like to suggest that part of the problem we have in this country is that very few of us think we can become movie stars. Very few people think they can become artists who can go beyond our own community and on to the world stage.
I am concerned that Bill C-40 does not do anything to encourage this. We now have artists in this country like Kim Mitchell and Blue Rodeo, and on and on the list goes, who have made it on the world screen and stage; but they needed that push and that self-confidence from home.
In my riding we have the largest movie studios in all of Canada, Cinevision. However, if one goes down to Cinevision and sees the various crafts that are producing and working on these films, one finds out that 90 per cent of them are not Canadian. They are in fact from every part of the world.
November 1, 1990

I believe that this bill does nothing to promote Canadian talent. It does nothing to encourage Canadian talent. It does nothing to give them the following feeling: "Look, my name is Mike Ontkean. I can play side by side on Twin Peaks. I can play side by side with Paul Newman" We have an inferior complex in this country, and this broadcast instrument, Bill C-40, does not really do anything to minimize that feeling.
I also want to touch on the National Film Board. Some of the finest work in North America is in the National Film Board. What do we do with the National Film Board? It is sitting in a building, in a warehouse, down on a comer about a mile from here. It is shrouded in mystery. Very few people would even know it exists. Even the lighting on the building is atrocious. There is absolutely no super marketing plan to put the product of these great cinematographers out to work. When the cinematographers of our country apply for help from a place like the National Film Board or Telefilm, we make them feel like beggars rather than world-class artists.
Bill C-40 is a very important instrument in making sure that the cultural talent in this country is unleashed to its full potential. It can be done only by giving it the necessary recognition, by giving in the necessary support and by all of us waking up and realizing that we have a world-class entertainment industry that can by syndicated all over the world.
It is only when we in the House collectively believe in a Mike Ontkean who sits in a dressing room at 15 years old and says: "I am going to be a movie star". It is only when we realize: "Hey, if he is persistent and if we in Canada give him that encouragement, he could be a movie star". It is only when that thought process permeates all things we do in our lives, especially the instrument called the Broadcast Act, that the great cultural resource of this country will be fully utilized.
I urge the member for Edmonton Southwest to work with my colleague to ensure that we make this new Broadcast Act something very special, something of which we can all be proud.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that a vote on Motion No. 8 will apply to Motion No. 10, and on Motion No. 9 there will be a separate vote.
The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Neil Young: Motion No. 6

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after
line 6 at page 3 the following:
"(3) For the purposes of this Act, a multiple dwelling unit grouped as a condominium complex is deemed to be one permanent residence on such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the act moved by me is exactly the same as the amendment I moved on similar legislation. In fact it was exactly the same legislation, then known as Bill C-136.
The reason for the amendment is that many condominium home owners are very concerned about a proposal in the bill under clause 2(l)(a) which deals with how the bill could be interpreted at some future date.
The concern was initially raised with me by Mr. Ernie Loder on behalf of the TV Communications Committee of York Condominium Corporation No. 76, more commonly known in my constituency as Massey Square. He not only raised it with me but raised it with a number of members of the House. At the outset I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications for taking the time, quite a considerable amount of time actually, to sit down with myself and Mr. Loder to listen to the concerns of these condominium owners.
The concerns that condominium owners have is that they are being treated or appear to being treated quite differently from the home owner who may install an antenna or a dish receiver on top of an individual dwelling house to receive a signal. Condominium owners who do exactly the same thing to share the same signal going through all the condominium homes may be treated differently under this act and may be considered a commercial distribution at some point. They feel that this is discrimination.
The minister, as did his predecessor, sent out a letter to a number of people who had raised these concerns with him. I think it may be worth while to read the letter itself into the record. It not only explains the problem; it explains the government's attitude toward the problem. However, it does not deal with a future decision that the CRTC may make under extensive lobbying by the cable industry. I will read the pertinent parts of the letter from the minister to a number of my constituents. It starts by saying:
Firstly, you should know that, at present, condominiums which install a roof-top antenna or satellite dish and distribute the signals they receive throughout the condominium building are covered by the existing Broadcasting Act (1968) as "Broadcasting Receiving Undertakings". These master antenna television (MATV) systems, as they are known, are therefore subject to licensing and regulation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). However, it is the policy of the government and the CRTC to exempt MATV systems from having to obtain a licence provided that they they meet certain conditions.
These conditions reflect objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy. Firstly, they are intended to ensure that those receiving television services in this manner will be offered a range of Canadian broadcasting services as well as any available foreign services.
Secondly, in light of the CRTC's responsibility to regulate and supervise the broadcasting system as a whole, the conditions for exemption are designed to ensure that fair competition exists between cable operators and MATV operators and that their respective subscribers are fairly treated.
Recent amendments to these conditions for exemption make it clear that condominium owners have several options in obtaining television services. They may run their own MATV system; they may contract an outside MATV operator to run their system for them, at a negotiated rate; or, they may choose to subscribe to the local cable service. If they choose either MATV option, no licence is required as long as they respect the conditions of the exemption.
Nothing in the new broadcasting legislation could change this situation. Let me stress that the Bill contains no provisions which would force condominiums to close down their MATV systems and deal with cable operators, nor are there any provisions which would cause the CRTC to make its exemption criteria for MATV systems more rigid.
On the contrary, by identifying MATV systems as the distribution services which they are, the new legislation would legitimize these systems and clearly recognize them as part of the broadcasting system as a whole. Furthermore, the Bill would expand the CRTC's ability to use its exemption power. Accordingly, under the proposed legislation, condominiums which are currently exempted from licensing should expect that they will continue to be exempted.
Finally, it has been said that the Bill treats condominiums and apartments differently from single-family homes. This, too, is inaccurate. Should a group of home-owners decide to use one antenna or satellite dish to service, for example, all of the homes on one street, that system would be subject to the same CRTC regulations as similar arrangements in condominiums. On the other hand, like owners of detached houses, condominium owners whose circumstances and condominium rules permit, as with some townhouses for example, may install an antenna or satellite dish for personal use only within their own homes without being subject to regulation. Again, the Bill applies fairly to all Canadians.
It would seem that the present exemptions have caused some operators of MATV systems to believe that they are not covered by the existing Act. They consequently fear that new legislation will change their present status and have advised condominium owners accordingly.

As I have explained, these concerns are simply unfounded. The
government is confident that, under the new legislation, condominium
owners will continue to exercise the range of choices available to them
with the approval of government laws and regulations.
It is signed by the Minister of Communications, the Hon. Marcel Masse.
There are some caveats in this letter which make condominium owners very nervous.
As we heard earlier today when petitions were being presented to the House in support of the private member's bill of my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, cable companies are very powerful organizations.
If at some future date they can summon up an argument that shows the condominium homeowners are using a system that treats cable companies or co-operative housing units unfairly, I am quite sure that the CRTC may be sympathetic to that kind of an argument. That is what is of great concern to condominium owners and co-op housing groups.
Two years ago when this amendment was before the House when the same bill under a different name was being debated, the government members ganged up to defeat the amendment. I would hope, with the passage of time, they would have had an opportunity to reflect on these concerns and will support the amendment at this time.
If the amendment is adopted by the House, all the House will be doing is clearly recognizing that condominium homeowners are exactly the same type of people who choose to live in single family dwellings. They are no different. They are not commercial enterprises in the sense, Mr. Speaker, that you would apply to the cable industry.
They are individual homeowners who pay individual property taxes unlike apartment dwellers. They should be treated as individual homeowners, and treated fairly by the government.
A question came up in committee, for example, that if Conrad Black had a mansion with 100 rooms in it, had a satellite dish on the roof and fed a signal into every one of these rooms, how would he be treated? The answer
Government Orders
came back, as a single home owner. However, if we took a cable and ran it to a garage where someone else was using it, it would be considered as a commercial enterprise. I think that is the dumbest, most illogical approach to the concerns that these people have.
All I would ask is that the House give serious consideration to these concerns.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine for placing before this House an issue that really needed to be addressed in a very serious manner.
One of the reasons I have often had complaints-I would agree with the people who have complained-is the fact that bills are unclear. The intent of the legislators is left open to question.
This is a perfect example of where lack of clarity and foresight in a bill by the minister and by the government leaves up to question the place of condominiums. As a matter of fact, it also leaves in the air the question of apartment buildings which, for those who are listening and for those who want to know, are exempted as long as they abide by the rules and the regulations which the CRTC has in place for cable companies.
Mr. Speaker, if one lives in an apartment building, one should have the same access as any other person in a private home to all the channels which are allowable by law through a cable company.
By the way, the interesting part about that is I am aware of a number of apartment buildings right in my own city where that is not the case. I do wish that the apartment dwellers in those buildings would write the CRTC, call their local people and be in touch with the local cable companies if the apartment building is charging them a fee and they are getting services like HBO and ESPN. They are outside of the law, and are not acting as good citizens. In actual fact, they are taking money out of the Canadian broadcasting system and the development of the talent and skills that my colleague from Toronto alluded to earlier.
I appreciate this particular amendment because it concerns condominiums. Condominiums are basically homes that are built either one on top of each other, or collectively, but they are privately owned.

Government Orders
The former Minister of Communications wrote a letter, as I recall, to respond to a number of groups that appeared before us. One in particular was Mr. Loder, who appeared to talk about exemptions for condominiums. The minister was finally forced under Bill C-136 to clarify the absence of intent within that bill with respect to MATV systems and their regulatory status. We would think that this minister would have learned. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary, who understands the issues very thoroughly and has been extremely co-operative, would see the value of the amendment of my colleague, the member for Beaches- Woodbine.
The minister of the day on Bill C-136 said: "I would like to address an issue raised recently by people living in apartments and condominiums who use satellite dishes to receive broadcasting signals". By the way, satellite dishes in apartment buildings also use a master antennae TV system which is a very similar idea. "There is concern that the broadcasting bill will in some way impose restrictive regulations or limit their viewing choices. This fear is simply unfounded. At present, condominiums which install a roof-top antennae or a satellite dish and distribute the signals they receive throughout the condominium building are covered by the existing Broadcasting Act as broadcasting receiving undertakings".
That means it is just the hardware. "They are subject to CRTC regulations and the possibility of fines for non-compliance. However, the CRTC has chosen to exempt such systems from licensing requirements provided they meet certain criteria, such as carrying local Canadian signals. Nothing in Bill C-136", nor in this Bill C-40, "would change this situation. There are no provisions which would cause the CRTC to make its exemption criteria more rigid. Indeed, the bill expands the commission's ability to use its exemption power. Condominiums", and I presume that that follows for apartments, because that is how the minister read it before, "which are presently exempted from licensing should expect that they will continue to be exempted. I believe the present exemptions have apparently caused some condominium owners to believe that they are not covered by the existing act. They consequently fear", at that time Bill C-136 and I say it for Bill C-40, "it will change their present status. As I have indicated, this is not at all the case".
Tb make this very clear for lawyers who do not necessarily follow all bills, and for people who like to read bills and have the government will expressed, I would suggest this is an amendment that I think we could support with a great deal of comfort and I hope the government will so see that direction.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what my colleagues opposite said in connection with the amendment put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has been very deeply involved in this issue. Indeed, he did bring Mr. Loder to my office and we had a thorough discussion on the matter.
What I tried to impress upon the hon. member's constituent is that the intention is to have a minimum of regulation and a maximum of exemption provided, that those who are involved accept the basic rules of the system and that is, to guarantee access of Canadian services particularly and not to frustrate the goals of the system by giving access to condominium owners signals which other Canadians are not entitled to have.
This motion attempts to put into law something which is fundamentally a regulatory matter. Bill C-40 leaves unchanged the status of satellite master antennae systems which many condominium corporations operate. Under this bill, as under the current Broadcasting Act, SMATV systems, as they are called are subject to licensing and regulation. However, under the existing act, the CRTC has chosen to exempt them from licensing provided that they meet certain criteria. Nothing in Bill C-40 would alter this approach. To the contrary, the bill encourages the commission to exempt services from licensing wherever it deems this to be appropriate.
In each case, the current act and Bill C-40 ensure that the CRTC is able to regulate such systems and require, regardless of the particular circumstances, that Canadians served by such systems will have access to Canadian programming services. That is the primary reason for regulation of all broadcasting distribution systems. The bottom line here is access to Canadian programming. In our view, the law should apply equally to all systems which serve more than one household and condominium complexes should not be singled out for exemption.

SMATV systems can be very small, serving only a few subscribers, or they may be as large as a cable company, serving 1,500 households or more. Furthermore, they may be operated not only by condominium complexes, but also by apartment buildings, hotels and even small rural communities.
It is up to the regulator to determine how to interpret the law and adopt appropriate regulations which recognize the particular circumstances of the many and varied types of distribution services, whether they are non-profit co-operatives or profit-oriented commercial organizations.
The CRTC has until now, and I have every reason to believe will continue in the future, to adjust the regulatory burden to meet particular circumstances. This bill, I submit, encourages the commission to continue that practice.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next grouping of Motions nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 42, grouped for debate but with separate votes.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 12
Government Orders
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 5 the following:
"(m) the Corporation should provide a parliamentary service subject to such applicable statutes and regulations as the Governor in Council may deem necessary;"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 5 the following:
"(m) the Corporation should provide a northern service subject to such applicable statutes and regulations as the Governor in Council may deem necessary;"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 5 the following:
"(m) the Corporation should provide an all-news service in English and French subject to such applicable statutes and regulations as the Governor in Council may deem necessary,"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 5 the following:
"(m) the Corporation should provide an international service subject to such applicable statutes and regulations as the Governor in Council may deem necessary;"


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 42
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 46
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor.
"(2) The Corporation shall, within the conditions of any licence or licenses issued to it by the Commission and subject to any applicable regulations of the Commission, provide an international service in accordance with such directions as the Governor in Council may issue.
(3) The Corporation may, within the con-";
(b)	by striking out lines 17 and 18 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor
"Governor in Council to carry out."


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting group of subjects that we are covering in this particular debate. We are looking at the definitions of those kinds of channels within the construction of this bill within the concepts of what a Canadian broadcasting system is and what the public service Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ought to incorporate.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that the debate with the government on each one of the services we are going to talk about this morning will indicate why the government has been short-sighted in the context of this particular bill. I believe each one of these services is key to Canadian unity, to Canadians' concepts of each other, and to Canadians specifically knowing about themselves through some of the more formalistic ways of presentation on the screen.
This series of amendments is to ensure the continued presence of the parliamentary service, Radio Canada International, the all-news service in English and in French, and a northern service. All of these services are important to a country which is so geographically large and would serve to unite Canadians from one region to another. This admission, I believe, is contrary to the unanimous recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
I find that rather ironic given the news in many newspapers this morning. The headline in The Ottawa Citizen states:
PM to Unveil Unity Initiatives. Committee to Consult Canadians
on Future.
What is a better mechanism than the parliamentary channel? It sometimes makes people very angry and sometimes makes people laugh. Sometimes people say that this is a circus in here because they do not watch other than that 45-minute thrust and parry that is really a question and no answer period. That is what people see.
If we want people to know what Canadians are doing from coast to coast and if we want to feel what Canadians are feeling in the regions, what better vehicle have we than the parliamentary channel which we can use after hours when the House is closed?
We are going on a week's recess to catch up with work in our ridings and offices. Why can we not be using that time productively in the interests of Canadians and under the guidance of the Chair? Why are we considering privatizing it or going into a co-production with the private sector on this parliamentary channel?
This is an expression of a form of democracy that the world is looking at. It is one of a number of forms of democracy and, as newly emerging nations come on the scene, their representatives come here to visit. The
House of Commons through the Speaker sponsored one of our table officers to write about democracy. It hosted the Russian delegation that was here, the German delegation from East Germany, the Hungarian delegation, the Romanian, and the Polish delegations who are coming here to examine the way our democracy works. Would it not be a good idea if the way our democracy works was shown on the screen?
If we are going to have this constitutional committee that is going to go and have a constitutional crisis attack, maybe we should have the country watching what is going on. Let us see what this committee on national unity from the grassroots is saying across this land. Perhaps the unity that we are looking for in the bill and in the country at a moment of really serious concern will come to the fore.
With respect to the other channels that are equally important, I have an amendment that relates to English and French all-news services. The CBC's news service is absolutely wonderful. We have done away with that horrendous, seven-second clip and journalist overvoice for the rest that interprets what you and I are saying in the House, and we have in depth coverage.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary channel, which is seen as such a valuable tool as well as CBC's all-news service, is going into the U.S. cable satellite public affairs network on C-SPAN. It frequently carries these parliamentary proceedings. It has 55 million subscribers.
New York State has launched a parliamentary network project into 18,000 schools and universities, the English channel for the social studies faculty and the French channel for languages. The project is being monitored for possible expansion into the states.
The Americans are going to be looking at us and we are so busy watching American movies and American news and American everything else, that we forget to do something for ourselves. We are so short-sighted in the manner in which we handle this very vital, nervous, sensitive, important tool-the software, the brainware, or the vehicle that can get through to the public, that television set which is just a piece of hardware until one pushes a button and then it becomes alive. It can promote the kinds of things that we want.
November 1, 1990

Government Orders
I know my colleagues are going to give some serious information about the all-news service and the northern service. My colleague from Winnipeg and I were up in Iqaluit. He will share with you the very exciting information that we learned about the private and public sector networks with respect to the Inuit people. Inuit from Greenland, Russia, Alaska, and Canada shared through that channel which has now been slashed. I will leave that part to the hon. member.
With regard to Radio Canada International, I am going to be forever grateful to my colleague from Saint-Mau-rice who, I think, may have had an impact on the minister because he came from the parliamentary benches on the government side. This service is the mechanism by which Canadians who are living and working overseas keep in touch with Canada. It is the way that many countries and many nations see this wonderful country and hear news from a middle power's point of view.
These are important institutions that should be put into the bill and should be permanently funded and permanently recognized within a Canadian broadcasting system, and under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a problem and perhaps the Chair could help me out.
One of the amendments, namely Motion No. 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, in English reads that the clause be amended and:
"(m) the Corporation should provide an all-news service in English and French subject to such applicable statutes and regulations as the Governor in Council may deem necessary;".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am pleased that the hon. member has brought it to our attention. We will have a look at it and then come back for a ruling or a legal translation.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on what was said by the previous speaker about this motion, I agree there is no indication in the French version. I read the amendments only in French, because that is my mother tongue, and there is no reference to a French network. There was no indication that, as the hon. member for Mount Royal suggested, and rightly so, a French all-news network should be added. The French version does not say the same thing at all, if we compare the two texts. This is very disturbing because it prevented us from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will examine the bill and then come back and check the legal translation of that particular motion, that is, Motion No. 14.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my hon. colleague for bringing that to our attention.

However, the hon. member who just spoke should realize he did not have to wait for a translation to confirm that the Broadcasting Act contains certain provisions and make his comments accordingly.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I always check the French version. And today, we see that the French does not say the same thing as the English version. I am very disappointed. We will have to do something about this, because as members from Quebec, we prefer to read these texts in our mother tongue, and we would like to see this motion corrected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will check the lines and the legal translation of them. We will then come back and check the whole motion and transcript.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on another point of order.

Government Orders


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that I have a 10-minute speech, and I could deal with that while the Chair is having a further look at the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: My understanding is that there is really no problem as far as the translation if you look at the bill and the meaning of the motion. You are comparing the lines as the English is compared to the French. I think that if you read the whole text of the motion in the bill, you will find that there is no problem with the translation. But, we will check it, and come back to hon. members. I am pleased that hon. members have brought it to my attention.
Does the hon. member for Richelieu have another point of order, and if he does, will he please sit down first before I recognize him? Please sit.
Is it a point of order that the hon. member wishes to raise? I will recognize him on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: I get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that you are glossing over the comments we just made. This is very serious, because I wonder how, in any case, we could postpone debate on Motion No. 14 since we now know the substance of the motion and the hon. member's intent.
We approve, in fact I fully support the amendment moved by the hon. member, except that when I read it in French, the text says that only-listen carefully:	un
service d'information continue assujetti-". So I thought this was a reference to the existing English network. In the English version, however, it says "-in English and French-", implying that another network should be added. That makes all the difference!
Members from Quebec, in the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc quebecois or the Liberal Party, would have liked to intervene in this debate and of course support this amendment, in order to oblige the government to provide two networks, one French and one English, in the all-news field. The amendment failed to specify that, so that today, we have been caught unaware, that is if we only read the amendments, and of course we can't read all the bills every day. But if we read only the amendment, it will be difficult to intervene rapidly, since the debate on this series of amendments will end at one o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider a solution that would allow us to debate this motion at greater length at another time.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this is not a government amendment. On the point of order, I believe the principle that has been expressed is accurate. I think it is a valid point of order. I think that the French version does not convey the same meaning as the English version. It falls far short of doing that, and I would urge you, Sir, and those who so capably assist you, to deal with the matter expeditiously so that as the debate proceeds an opinion can be sought from the Chair so whatever appropriate corrective measures can be taken so that we will be dealing with the amendment having the same meaning in both languages. I think that is a fundamental principle of this place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is exactly what we plan to do. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Richelieu, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and the hon. member for Mount Royal for bringing it to the attention of the Chair. I always feel that the legal translation, both English and French, may be a little different but it still comes out to the same thing. But we will at least have a look at it and get back to the hon. member.
I have to recognize somebody else on debate. A point of order?


Sheila Finestone: -Chair or the Thble with a sense of clarity. As it was my amendment, I can tell you that the intent is as expressed in motion No. 14(m) and it was with respect to English and French subject to the applicable statutes so that we could have a continuous all-news service in both languages. If there needs to be any clarity or assurance there, may I assure you that that was my intent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is one explanation for it. Therefore, I will now recognize the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, just to point out again that what has happened here is that the member for Mount Royal, the Liberal critic, has moved a number of amendments, Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 15.

They basically encompass a series of things. I tried to express them in my amendment, No. 11, which has been ruled out because the other amendments have it. Basically it encompasses the four areas, that the corporation, the CBC, should provide services including a parliamentary network-that is one of the amendments here-an international radio network, Radio-Canada International, a northern service, and an all-news network in English and in French, en anglais et en franqais.
Let me deal first with the problem of the all-news service. The problem is this, Mr. Speaker. We have an all-news service in English. I think it has been pretty successful. People have been watching it. Indeed, one journalist from The Toronto Star once said to me: "Gee, how did we ever conduct ourselves before without this all-news network because it keeps you so tuned in to what is going on".
A good example is this summer in Oka where English-Canadian viewers had excellent coverage of the Oka crisis through Newsworld, while Canadians in Quebec had to settle for the regular nightly newscast. That was an area where we could have used a French-language news service in French.
The difficulty is that it is a smaller market. That is the problem. We think that it is incumbent upon the government and the CBC, it is important, it is no less important, and there should be-

-we must also have a French news network. The NDP is in favour of such a network.

I want to speak generally of the CBC, and this is very important because apropos we are going to hear the Prime Minister this afternoon speak on the Constitution, trying to get the country back together again.
He should look right at some of the things he has done to pull the country apart. One thing he has done is he has in fact wounded badly the CBC, another instrument of national unity.
We have cut back on railways in this country. We are privatizing Petro-Canada. We cut back on a number of symbols and instruments of national unity. One of the great symbols of national unity is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Government Orders
I have heard many Liberal members speak. I appreciate they are speaking on the national unity clause. There has been a lot of rhetoric. I am as guilty as anyone else of a lot of rhetoric. But I think we have to get into some facts.. Hon. members opposite said they can agree with that.
Here are the facts. I looked at the CBC expenditures. That is where it really matters. There is not much point in giving the CBC a wide mandate if you do not give it the resources.

I see the hon. member for Richelieu. I said that we support an all-news network in French and also in English.

I am also saying that if you give CBC and Radio-Canada a mandate, you have to give them some money to implement it.
I figured it out in 1988 dollars.
Here is 1984-85 to the CBC: $943.3 million in operations. Commercial revenue was $265 million. That is 20.3 per cent of its percentage of commercial revenues to the future revenue.
Let us go through 1985-86. It becomes $879 million. The year 1986-87, $849 million-this is the operations- The year 1987-88, $828 million; 1988-89, $814 million; 1989-90, $812 million.
The Mulroney government is reducing the amount of money given to the CBC. Look at the commercial revenue: $265 million, 1984-85; 1985-86, $268 million; 1986-87, $287 million; 1987-88, $338 million; 1988-89, $363 million; 1989-90, $374 million.
It goes from a percentage of 20 per cent of the commercial revenues to the total revenues. It becomes 22, 23, 26, 28, 28.8 per cent. In other words, the CBC is becoming more and more commercial: Less government money, more commercial money.
As it is done, the network becomes more and more like a regular station. Canadians are going to have 40 choices in the future, and the CBC will be no different than the others. They will see a little logo that says: CBC. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
It is setting it up to look like another American station, or a Canadian private station. It is setting it up to privatize it, and we are going to lose one of the big parts.


An hon. member:: They said that with PetroCan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know they laughed and said that with PetroCan, and now they are going to privatize Petro-Canada.
This represents the commercialization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC is being asked to operate more and more like a commercial network.
I put a question at the licence renewal of the CBC to the CBC vice-president and to the standing committee in May. The CBC vice-president Michael McEwen said the following in answer to a question from me: "You are right. We are getting squeezed, and each year we have to factor in how we are going to do that."
This year, 1989-90, it lost a 1 per cent real cut across the radio system. It managed to sustain its activity for one more year. As the president, Mr. Veilleux said: "If we keep going, something is going to have to give." Then, Mr. Speaker, you talk about making decisions. "Do you change the nature of how you express all your services? Do you lose some service? Do you lop off an arm, rather than deleting the whole thing? These are the issues we are going to have to deal with if we keep heading down this road."
The Minister of Communications came before committee and actually said: "Maybe we will get rid of all the advertising revenue." People went pale around the room: $330 million if we get rid of the CBC. The minister does not know what he is doing. This government does not know what it is doing with respect to the CBC.
At one moment, it is asking for more commercial revenue and the next moment, it thought: "Well, we will just give it up." It is not rational in dealing with it. It is inconsistent. I think it is time that the Minister of Communications was moved to another portfolio. This is very serious.
What is happening at the CBC is more re-runs, more American programs, abandonment of the goal of 95 per cent Canadian content and furthermore, more centralization in Toronto.
The parliamentary secretary can get up and quote capital budgets. The capital budget has gone up from $93 million to $113 million, but that capital budget is basically based in purchasing in Toronto, which is almost like a commercialization or a real estate project in Toronto if you like.
The CBC is becoming more Torontonian, because it has become more concentrated in Toronto. There are cut-backs in the regions. Again, that is taking the CBC away from its goal of national unity. You do not have to get up and put rhetoric in all this, you can put it right down to facts.
The cut-backs in operations, I set them up and I challenge the parliamentary secretary to rebut those figures. You can say how it has become more commercialized. There is more revenue from commercial revenues: from 20 to 28 per cent. I challenge him to rebut that.
Third, Mr. Speaker, you can see how it has been taken in from the regions and concentrated in the centre.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill before the House, Bill C-40, the broadcasting bill.
More than 98 per cent of Canadians living in the north have access to the CBC Northern Service, covering more than 4 million square kilometres including Yukon, Northwest Territories, and northern Quebec. The northern population of about 100,000 includes Inuit, Indian, Dene Metis and non-native groups. Service is provided in seven different languages including Inuktitut, Dog Rib, Chippewan, Slavey, Whichen, Cree, and Nuvialik-tun.
As well the CBC Northern Service produces recordings of native singers and musicians. The total in the spring of 1989 were 42 recordings. This is an opportunity for people who have a specific ability in the arts to express it through this particular mechanism provided by CBC. It is one that is much valued and I think maximized to its most positive benefit for the people in the north and for Canada as an expression of Canadianism.
Communication and transportation are the two most critical services northerners depend on. People in the north depend on radio for vital information for their safety and in many cases for their survival. Whether people are on the land or in their camps or on the trap line or driving on a remote highway, they have a radio because they need to know the weather conditions, the

thickness of the ice, the current of a river, the state of the road, and the temperature. Communications for the north is not a luxury. It is essentially a necessity for survival.
In the coming years Canadians are going to witness many changes in one of our greatest national institutions, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since 1984 the government has consistently slashed CBC funding and Michael Wilson's recent federal budget announced a further $140 million in funding cuts over the next five years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the member's attention that it is the Minister of Finance. Please do not name the person.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I would like to express the importance that people put on the whole element of communication as it relates to air safety. There was a program termed the CBC weather program. There was supposed to be an allocation of approximately $400,000 to that program. That program was cut. That funding was denied. The air industry in that particular area of the north in which I reside in Western Arctic was very upset about it. The majority of my constituents depend on air travel. They do not have the luxury of buses, trains or highways. If there are highways in some of the area that I represent, they are winter roads; they are seasonal.
The importance of communications for the purpose of air safety is paramount. I must say that communication is the issue surrounding the problem with service at the Fort Franklin airport, an issue that has become prominent of late. A plane crash in 1984 killed seven people in that community. It was CBC that carried this tragic news and told the north that had there been the proper weather and communications services this would not have occurred. It would have helped to avoid this very serious and tragic accident. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board reported the accident may have been prevented if there had been proper weather and communication services.
The minister of state yesterday stated in this House that his information indicates Fort Franklin does not need communication and weather service. So they cancelled the contract yesterday. For the sake of $35,000 this government is willing to jeopardize the lives of northerners who totally depend on air travel. Air travel is not to
Government Orders
be separated from communications. We needed that service. We needed that $400,000. We needed the money.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect to the hon. member who I know and admire, I would like to have the hon. member get to the point of these amendments.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The issue that she is dealing with is very significant, having to do with air traffic and safety in the north. If it is related to these amendments, fine, but I have not heard the connection yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the hon. member will get to the connection. The hon. member for Western Arctic.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, CBC has a weather channel and weather is very important. CBC in the south may be for entertainment purposes, maybe for enlightenment. In the north CBC services are a matter of necessity.


Sheila Finestone: That's right.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: They provide information for the purpose of survival for people in the north.


Sheila Finestone: Absolutely.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I am sure that is something the hon. member opposite will appreciate, if he is willing to listen to what I have to say or to what the people I represent have to say.
This is what they have to say. Lois Hill, pilot/base manager from Norman Wells said:
On-location weather reporting is extremely valuable to our
company's operations-Many of our chartered flights take us to the
Fort Franklin area. The large body of water/ice which makes up
Great Bear Lake causes anomalies in local weather patterns which
are difficult to predict.
Ed Phillips from Air Sahtu in Fort Franklin referred to the real irony of the letter from Transport. I know that the whole issue of communications is inextricably intertwined, that we cannot separate the two. The people were very aggrieved when the $400,000 was not reallocated for the weather service that CBC offered. I have a list of the names of the helicopter and airplane pilots who were very upset. The real irony was that the letter arrived on October 9, 1990. He continued:

Government Orders
-the anniversary date of the tragic Twin Otter crash here that claimed seven lives. We have enclosed copies of relevant sections of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board's review of this accident and their recommendations. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the accident was avoidable, had there been qualified weather reporting and communications here.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened with care to what the hon. member is saying, and she has a valid issue. This service may indeed be provided under contract by the CBC, but it is a transport issue and totally unrelated to the consideration of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the hon. member for Western Arctic please complete her statement?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, might I say to you and through you to hon. members of this House that CBC provides a service to the people in the north unlike any service it provides in southern Canada. It provides the communication of information for the survival of these people. What happens is that when that line of communication is severed there is the jeopardy of lives. That is exactly what I am saying.
I am sure it is not the intention of any government to jeopardize the lives of any of the Canadians in any other area, but what I cannot understand is why there was no reallocation for a service that is considered basic or fundamental to every other part of this country. Why was that cancelled?
What my constituents and I would like to hear is that the government is sincere and wants to service the north, not only in terms of communications but in every other way. For years in my constituency we never had television. We had CBC radio. The umbilical cord of the north is CBC. It has carried messages to the trap line, to the unilingual person, because it provides that kind of service.
However, the most important service it provided for this one particular group was weather information. There are no roads. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for these people. These people would like the government to reinstate and establish that there is a firm commitment to the north in terms of communications and other services. We are off the transportation grid essentially. Being the same does not make us equal. Sometimes it takes extraordinary measures to achieve equality, and that is something that has to be recognized.
I think we can have what I would say is a role model for communications in the north. We have trained many people who have left the north and have become outstanding national reporters. The north is a wonderful training ground. It has cultural diversity. The challenge of meeting the multi-lingual system in the north was something that definitely was used as a training ground by journalists coming to the north.
This particular item of communication, transportation and survival is not a light subject. It is something that is very serious. It is something about which the helicopters and airplane pilots delivered a message to my office saying that they were worried. We do not undervalue the commitment or the efforts of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the years. We appreciate it, but we also value certain aspects of it because they relate directly to the livelihood and the well-being of those people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, I would just like to go back to Motion No. 14. I think the gremlins were at work yesterday. Being Halloween, I am sure this is what happened. I think we should insert-

"La Societe devrait offrir [-en frangais et en anglais-].

I am sure that will settle the problem.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Government Orders
a French 24-hour all-news service. In fact, we voiced our disappointment when the CRTC rejected Radio-Canada's initial application. It seems that Radio-Canada is now preparing a new application which, I am sure, will meet the CRTC's objective criteria, so that Canada's French-speaking audience will have access to the same kind of service that Anglophones enjoy at the present time.
Francophones in this country, Mr. Speaker, did not appreciate the fact that during the Meech Lake talks and the crisis with the Mohawks in Oka, they had to rely on CBC News World in English, since we did not have the equivalent service in French. Bearing this in mind, I earnestly hope Radio-Canada will soon be able to submit its proposal to the CRTC.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition motions now before the House are in fact aimed at enshrining in the Act a formal obligation for the CBC to continue to provide four services it provides at the present time, including Radio Canada International, the Northern service referred to by the hon. member for Western Arctic, the Parliamentary Channel, the all-news service and as well as one that has yet to be created, the French news channel. Or will it be a bilingual channel? Why not?
At this time, Mr. Speaker, none of these services is part of the mandate of the CBC as defined in the Act. Although the present legislation contains a provision under which the Corporation, as an agent of Her Majesty, is to offer an international service, Radio Canada International, a service offered under this specific provision, was established by order in council. Would it not appropriate to enshrine all these services and others as well, Mr. Speaker, in the mandate given the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Of course members on this side of the House agree these are all excellent, quality services, and we would like to see them maintained, unless due to unforeseen circumstances the Corporation had to change its priorities.
What could these famous circumstances be? The first example that springs immediately to mind is the proposition considered by this House in recent months whereby a consortium of cable companies might broadcast parliamentary debates. Should the House be prevented from accepting this suggestion which would enable the CBC to save money, something which would undeniably make for judicious use of resources because the CBC was given the legislative mandate to carry the parliamentary proceedings?

What about the all-news service? The CBC started the service calculating that it would be entirely self-supporting and it was licensed on that basis. The CBC obviously had no desire to provide such a service if it would siphon resources from the basic service. The government's acquisitions in this new venture were similarly based on the CBC commitment that all-news would not siphon resources away from the basic service which, as we all know, is stretched to the limit now. Should we now insert a provision into the legislation which would permit exactly this to happen? [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, CBC International is altogether different from northern services, or from the 24-hour French news service, CBC Newsworld and the parliamentary broadcasting system. What is the difference, Mr. Speaker? Quite simply, all these networks are first and foremost serving their Canadian audience, whereas CBC International is intended almost exclusively for Canadians abroad and listeners in foreign countries. Here is one example.
CBC International reaches millions of listeners in eastern countries, particularly the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, and Czechoslovakia. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Canadians might be surprised to learn that CBC International attracts more listeners than the CBC network does right here in Canada. This is why CBC International has always rated so high.
When in Cuba recently I had an opportunity to talk to ordinary Cuban citizens and they told me their only reliable sources of information in Spanish are the CBC International network and the Voice of America.
I think this international service must be maintained. As I suggested during the legislative committee hearings on Bill C-40, it should be given official legislative recognition so that no government-this or any future government-would be able to abolish it through an order in council. The government would have to debate the issue in Parliament because this is the kind of service offered by nearly all countries of the world.
In this respect I think a difference has to be made between CBC International and the other services. There is something I want to repeat so that it be quite clear. We on this side of the House-and I think I speak for all my colleagues-want early CRTC approval for the French version of the all news channel. But, and I end on this note, Mr. Speaker, CBC management did not need legislation to set up the CBC Newsworld network, and I do not see why we would need a law to have the same service in French.

Government Orders


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, please remind me when I have two minutes left so I can give it to my hon. colleague from Halifax.
I would like to make an observation before I make comments with respect to this cluster of motions. Finally, we have heard from a Conservative backbencher.
We have before us now one of the most important bills, C-40, to come before Parliament in this session. I was beginning to wonder where the Tories had gone. Have they vanished? Have they left this planet altogether? Are we to believe that the Tories do not care about this bill? Are we to believe that they do not care about national unity and taking the national unity mandate away from the CBC? Are we to believe that they do not care about balkanizing the CRTC? Are we to believe that the Conservative Party and the backbenchers are not concerned about splitting the CBC board in two? Have these backbenchers become such lap dogs for the Prime Minister that they will not get off their hind ends and speak to this bill?


An hon. member:: Talk about the bill.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, please tell the man to just cool it a little. It really concerns me that these people are not taking part in this debate because I know that they are not all happy with this bill. I can tell you that the hon. parliamentary secretary is not a happy camper these days. He is glum, he is gloomy, because he knows that the government is trying to ram this bill, which is flawed to its core, through the House. Some of the people on that side of the House have a terrible case of political indigestion, but nevertheless, it is indigestion.
I want to make that observation because I think it is highly relevant and germane. I want the Canadian people to understand that they are over there silent and sitting on their hands doing absolutely nothing. I can assure the House that in their private offices, they are complaining and grumbling.
We have to be concerned that particular CBC services such as the northern service, the parliamentary service, the international service and the all-news channel, are not recognized services within Bill C-40. These are absolutely vital services, not only of the CBC but for national unity. These are absolute vital services for national unity.
We have already heard words of support for the all-news channel of the CBC. It has done a tremendous service and I hope that it will grow. One of my concerns is that if these services are not given what you might call statute protection in the bill, then with a government that has no faith in the public sector, public utilities or public ownership, that some day-and this might be a little bit of hyperbole- we may wake up and find that all these magnificent services have vanished or have been reduced to such a level, so crippled that they are not worth anything.
My hon. friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam mentioned how the CBC has been diminished by this government. It is absolutely true. I think it is extremely important that these services be ongoing and given legislative protection because they need funding, more funding than they have now. I think all Canadians who support the CBC-and most Canadians do-would feel much more comfortable if those important services were written into Bill C-40.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my time over to my esteemed colleague.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Please start. It is All Saints Day. Let us have a little calm in this Chamber.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-St. James for giving me the opportunity to make a few comments on these particular amendments.

Twenty-three years ago today, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Judy Lamarsh opened the debate on the broadcasting legislation.

[English)
In other words, 23 years ago today in this Chamber, the Hon. Judy Lamarsh brought in the first broadcasting bill.
I think the time has come to renew that bill, bring that bill forward and this time let us get it right.
On this particular set of motions and amendments, we have a number of concerns. My friend and colleague from Western Arctic spoke very eloquently on the whole question of the northern service. In speaking to these amendments yesterday, and I hope at future times, we keep bringing up the subject of national unity and how the CBC is a force for national unity.
Since I became a member of this House, I have been very fortunate in that I have been able to travel in the north. Without the unifying factor of the CBC, without the CBC's broadcasting abilities in northern Canada, what would be the unifying factor in northern Canada? It would be that most northern televisions have access to Detroit cable stations. Somehow, close as Detroit is to Windsor, it does not quite do the same job. We do not need American television as the only link in a broadcast sense, in a television sense to our northern citizens.
I spoke a bit yesterday about the need for the inclusion of Radio Canada International. When I was a graduate student in the United Kingdom, as I said, I and my Canadian friends would wake ourselves up at three o'clock in the morning to hear the Stanley Cup play-offs. We would get up at odd hours to hear As It Happens, to hear various and sundry other public affairs programming from Radio Canada International because that was our link to our home country.
Above and beyond that, and important as it is for Canadian nationals living abroad, the other important service that Radio Canada International provides for Canadians as a group is it presents a picture of us to the international community. When they hear top-notch public affairs programs, such as Sunday Morning, such as As It Happens and various and sundry others; Ideas is another one that springs to mind that is frequently replayed on Radio Canada International, it creates for us an image that I suspect most Canadians would be proud to own.
Government Orders
To leave this out of the broadcasting bill, to just pass over this institution, which means so much to Canadian prestige, is I think a terrible oversight.
I want to conclude by a saying a little bit about the parliamentary service. The parliamentary service is something that is very dear to all of us. Clearly it is a link for every one of us in this House to our constituents and to people across the country. If the idea of omitting the parliamentary service as well from this bill is the beginning of privatization of the coverage of the House of Commons, then this is indeed a frightening and ominous decision.
People across this country watch this channel. I think every one of us knows this, sometimes to our sorrow and sometimes to our pleasure, that many, many of our constituents watch the parliamentary network to keep abreast of what is happening in debate, to ensure that they are as well informed as they wish to be about the doings of Parliament. I am sure that most of my colleagues in this Chamber would agree that from time to time they hear from their constituents about something we have said or some comment we have made that has not gone unnoticed by the people at home.
The only way to maintain this, away from the possibilities of conflict of interest, et cetera, is to keep this service in and under the aegis of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a Crown corporation. That is the only way to ensure that the parliamentary service does not either diminish in its coverage or that various and sundry abuses, which could arise from privatization, do not take place.
The other thing that I wanted to discuss is the whole question of the news service.
The news service in both languages is crucial because of the opportunity it gives Canadians to see an in-depth look at the news. We are not restricted to the 30-second clip or the seven-second clip. One gets in-depth coverage and one has some idea of what is going on behind the news story. It should be available in both languages. It should be the right of all Canadians to hear news coverage in both languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians condemn another racist attack on Jews in Canada.
Last Friday evening, when the Jewish Sabbath had begun, a group of teenagers attacked seven Hasidic Jewish men in Outremont. The men wore traditional long coats and fur trimmed hats. They were plainly Jews going about their religion in a district where 2,500 orthodox Jews live. Hasidic Jews are known for their non-violent way of life. The teenagers, boys and girls from the south shore district, punched and kicked the men, broke the glasses of one and took his shtreimel, his traditional hat. There is no report of money being demanded or taken.
Considering that the Ku Klux Klan recently set up a chapter in the area, one must agree with Professor Julien Bauer of the Universite du Quebec a Montreal who said: "It's not a coincidence, it's pure racism."
Mr. Speaker, this is a threat to every Canadian.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I recently visited an office furniture manufacturing company operating in my riding. The name of the company is Meubles et Fonctions D.L. Inc.
This business founded in 1977 by two twenty year old young men now employs 50 or so people to produce and install their product across Canada and produces about a hundred desks daily. They also conceived a lign of ergonomic desks, that is to say workstations completely adaptable to the user's needs, which caters to future needs in office automation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that young people such as Mr. Michel Lapointe and Mr. Yvon Denis, the president and
vice-president of the company, who are now 33 and 34 years old respectively, are an important asset for our country and deserve our support to make their business grow even more.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the recent report of Dr. Charles MacMillan to the Council of Maritime Premiers calling for economic unity among the maritime provinces is timely and appropriate.
With trade barriers coming down around the world, it is time for the maritime provinces to follow suit. Trade and commerce between the provinces is currently discouraged by regulations affecting agriculture, transportation, safety, tendering, sales tax, and on and on.
If Atlantic Canada intends to be an equal partner in Canada, it must first remove the trade barriers and maximize the economic opportunities available right at our very own doorstep. I encourage the Council of Maritime Premiers to push ahead with these plans, and I will work towards this goal myself.


SUICIDE
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, on October 28 to October 31, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention conference was held in Vancouver. I attended as a board member but also as having lost two brothers to suicide.
Suicide is a major health problem and is second only to accidents as a cause of death for young people in Canada. Canada's suicide rate is consistently higher than the suicide rate in the United States, and it is costly to society. It will not go away, and there is genuine fear out there that too little attention is being paid to the issue.
The theme for the conference was "lifting the silence" and that is what we have to do.
Seven years of hard work had gone into producing Suicide in Canada, a national task force report. It remains unclear as to how many of its recommendations have been implemented. It is known that for every
November 1, 1990

successful suicide, there are numerous other attempts. Surely this tells us that a greater number of our citizens are living lives of quiet desperation, facing an intolerable level of psychological pain. The report's recommendations must be acted upon, because we are losing our best resources, the people, to suicide.


CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: This year's theme of Canada Career Week: "Managing Your Career to Manage Your Life", is of particular importance for high school students.
The drop-out rate is huge. One high school student out of three drops out of school before graduating.
Jobs in the 1990s require extensive training. More than two thirds of the jobs created by the year 2000 will require at least twelve years of post-secondary education as well as occupational training.
I urge the young Canadian in my riding and all young Canadians to take part in Canada Career Week, from October 28 to November 3, and attend the many events staged by schools and community organizations in conjunction with Canada Employment Centers so they can learn about the many opportunities open to them and make the necessary steps to embark upon an exciting career in line with their personal aspirations.


CFB CHATHAM
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, New Brunswickers, especially Miramichiers, have had enough of the juvenile foolishness of the Minister of Fisheries vis-a-vis the issue of the firing range for the low-level air defence school in Chatham.
This minister, who has political responsibility for New Brunswick and an obligation to do his best for her people, is now trying to kill a project which is vital to the people of Chatham and New Brunswick. It is also vital for low level air defence.
By his actions, this minister is putting in jeopardy the livelihood of at least 1,000 Miramichiers and an input of some $20 million a year into the local economy.
It is time now for the Prime Minister to take his minister aside and set him straight vis-a-vis his responsibilities to the people of New Brunswick. It is time for the Prime Minister, who in 1984 proclaimed Chatham as his hometown, to instruct this dilettante delinquent on his duties, or is this just another double cross?


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: As was pointed out in the House on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, last Friday on the eve of the Sabbath, nine Hassidic Jews were attacked near their homes in Outremont. Apparently their aggressors are members of a gang of youths from outside the island of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, it really does not matter whether this attack or any similar premeditated or unpremeditated act of aggression is directed against members of the Orthodox Jewish community or any other group in our society. Outremont residents and hon. members alike deplore and unreservedly condemn these acts and their perpetrators. We ask that the full weight of the law be brought to bear by the authorities.
Mr. Speaker, the cultural diversity of the residents of Outremont is a source of wealth for all Canadian citizens. The mutual respect in which we live is too important to be taken for granted and requires our immediate attention.

I would urge all members of our society to continue working to better understand one another and to appreciate more fully the values and principles of human dignity and spirit we hold and share in common.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, after successive seasons of Grinches, Christmas is coming early to the hundreds of Canadians involved in grain production, handling, and transportation. The irony is, we do not know who the early Santa Claus is.

November 1, 1990
Has the Wheat Board made a $1 billion grain sale? Is it the Soviet Union and/or Brazil that is purchasing our grain?
Well, who is wearing the white whiskers does not matter, Mr. Speaker. What does matter is that farmers on the Prairies, grains handlers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, railroaders between the prairie elevators and Thunder Bay, and seafarers throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system will gain from this early Christmas present. So, too, will the elevator operators, the railroad companies, and the ship-owners, as well as municipalities, and federal and provincial governments, as Canadian workers are back on the job.
Yes, Canada, there is a Santa Claus. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is the highly regarded Canadian institution, the Canadian Wheat Board, that has done this job on our behalf. Thank you on behalf of all those who will benefit.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the tendency for Canadians who live along the Canada-U.S. border to shop regularly in the U.S. is increasing at an alarming rate.
A recent study has shown that this trend has taken between $300 million and $600 million annually out of the Ontario economy during the past three years. Among the many devastating effects of the GST will be a further price differentiation in retail products between Canada and the United States.
For the government merely to say that Canadian retailers must become more competitive is to ignore the many advantages that the U.S. retailer has over his Canadian counterpart. The 4 per cent to 5 per cent spread in interest rates, plus the effects of the pending GST, are only going to encourage further American retailers to target the Canadian shopper. Depressed Christmas sales plus the 7 per cent GST beginning on New Year's Day, will add up to an out of business sign for many small retailers in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the hon. member has exceeded his time.


TRIBUTE TO LOUIS-FRAN^OIS GAGNON


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, Louis-Frangois Gagnon is a young man from Mont-Laurier who, as a result of remarkable efforts and strong will, is on the verge of becoming an international celebrity on the downhill ski slopes.
Cities and regions that can claim to be home to such a leading and talented athlete are few and far between in Canada. Mont-Laurier and the neighbouring regions can do so. Through unrelenting and sustained work Louis-Frangois Gagnon stands as an example for our youths and a first class representative on the international scene.
Aware that such endeavours require financial support, area residents have begun collecting funds to help finance the training of this outstanding athlete, and I commend them for that.


THE ECONOMY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Minister of Finance rose in the House to tell ordinary Canadians that "in my job on Bay Street I took a cut in salary."
The fact is that the Minister of Finance was Executive Vice-President of Dominion Securities when he took his cut in salary, a job that paid him approximately $100,000 a year, almost 20 years ago. Today, that would be approximately $350,000.
The finance minister's sob story that he had to surrender some of his champagne wishes and caviar dreams when he was a big shot on Bay Street just does not compare with the plight of working people and the hardship of thousands of Canadians who rely on food banks every month to put a meal on the table or Canadians who cannot afford a decent place to live.

The Minister of Finance showed an appalling and shocking insensitivity, and clearly demonstrated to all Canadians how totally out of touch the minister and the Mulroney government really is. The Minister of Finance should stand in his place, hang his head in shame, and apologize to Canadians-Canadians who are losing their jobs, their business, their farms-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


FESTIVAL DU CINEMA INTERNATIONAL IN THE ABITIBI-TEMISCAMINGUE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of the ninth Festival du Cinema international in Rouyn-Noranda, in the Abitibi-Temis-camingue region. For the ninth consecutive year, the festival has been exceptionally well received. More than 90 films from 24 countries-a satisfying menu indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Jacques Matte and his team, as well as the army of volunteers who once again helped to make this event an unqualified success.
We also want to thank the people in the film industry who came from across the globe. Our thanks also to the media, to our sponsors, including Telefilm Canada and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. And above all, thanks to thousands of film buffs who by their diligent attendance have made the Festival du Cinema International in Abitibi-Temiscamingue such a tremendous success.


UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today the United States has taken over the presidency of the Security Council of the United Nations as part of the monthly routine rotation of that office.
That the U.S. assumes this position at such a critical time in the gulf crisis is of great concern to many. The
U.S.-led Operation Desert Shield, which has occurred outside the realm of the United Nations and the Security Council, raises questions about the commitment of the U.S. to give UN primacy in this conflict.
Last week we heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs admit publicly that his government would go to war without UN approval if necessary, in direct contradiction to his own previous statements that the Canadian policy should derive from the Security Council resolutions.
Now that the U.S. has taken over the presidency of the Security Council, I call on the U.S. to use its position on the council to encourage a UN command system in the gulf crisis.
I also call on the Canadian government, instead of threatening war, to use its own diplomacy and UN initiatives to find creative ways to ensure a peaceful resolution to the gulf crisis and the release of Canadian hostages in Irak.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter addressed to the President of the United States, George Bush, Oval Office, White House, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Dear President Bush:
I understand that a bill sits on your desk in your oval office awaiting your signature.
This bill includes the Mack amendment which forbids Canadian subsidiaries of American parent companies from trading with Cuba.
Mr. President, you are no longer running the CIA and their covert operations in Canada and Latin America. As you sit at your desk I want you to remember that the Canadian Government is about the only crony who will follow your marching orders in good times and in bad times.
Mr. President, in spite of your obedient servant Brian Martin Joseph Mulroney from Baie Comeau, I can assure you that 26 million Canadians are resentful of this attempt to decide who we should trade with and you have no right, Mr. President, to tamper with our client list.
On behalf of my brothers and sisters in Canada, I urge you to respect our Canadian sovereignty and democracy.
Defiantly yours, John Rodriguez.

November 1, 1990

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts for 1989-1990 list member's expenses, so it is easy to identify the member with the highest bill for travel expenses. Average travel expenses for private members were $35,000.
I found that travel expenses for former Tory MP Joe Price, who represented the federal riding of Burin-St. George's in Newfoundland, varied between $32,000 and $42,000 annually from 1984 to 1988, while his sucessor, the Liberal member for Burin-St. George's managed to spend $118,865 of taxpayers money over a period of 12 months.
This is unheard of for a private member in Ottawa, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he prepared his claims in his office, not in his game room or bar!


CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this week I and my colleagues have risen to proclaim Canada Career Week, a time to applaud our communities and inspire young people to finish their education.
Across Canada, teachers and parents, governments and business are urging students to work toward a career instead of dropping out of school.
Cobalt-Haileybury High School, in my riding of Timiskaming, has its share of drop-outs, but dozens of them are realizing their potential and we are bringing them back to the high school to finish grade 12 and learn a trade. They attend school two days a week and work three days for local tradespeople who employ them as apprentices. You have to be trained today and whatever the economic conditions are, funding is a major problem. This major project is funded under the government's Jobs Strategy "Innovations" program, until 1992, which embodies, I believe, the true spirit of Canada and Career week.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance will have noticed today that his induced retrenchment or his technical recession, as he has been calling our current economic situation, has just cost another 1,000 Canadians their livelihood with the announcement of lay-offs at Sears Canada. This is on top of 2,900 lost jobs at Air Canada; 900 at World-ways; 1,500 at CN; over 700 at MIL Shipbuilding; 650 at Harding Carpets, and on and on.
Canadians need more than yams about the Minister's hard times on Bay Street. What plan does he have to help Canadians whose livelihoods have been taken away from them as a result of this economic recession? What is the government going to do?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, besides getting rid of the manufacturers' sales tax, which will of course put all our manufacturing sector in a much more competitive position-


An hon. member:: Exactly. The opposition says no, but the manufacturers say yes.


Thomas Hockin: He asks specifically about Sears Canada and Harding Carpets. Sears Canada has no intention of closing any of its stores, contrary to the rumours in the media. The company, in fact, is making offers of early retirement to a number of employees, but plans no lay-offs.
In terms of Harding Carpets, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that negotiations are continuing with the bank, and it appears to be more hopeful today than it did
yesterday.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think what is profoundly disturbing to Canadians is that the Prime Minister has admitted that this recession was a planned recession. We know that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said that this is not just a cyclical downturn. Then, this morning after meeting with the Minister of Finance, the social policy reform group said: "The minister was unwilling to make commitments to assist those people who will be most hurt by the recession".
November 1, 1990



My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Could he tell the House what steps he intents to take in view of the personal tragedies facing Canadians and the economic hardship resulting from his own policies? What is the government planning to do?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say this to the junior finance critic, but he has distorted what the Prime Minister has said and he knows that. As far as the essence of his question and what the groups that I met with this morning have said to me, they are anxious to see a significant rise from the current level of programs that help those in greatest need.
I indicated to them that on the one hand we have those organizations saying that they would like to see a greater increase in safety net spending and on the other hand we have a deeply held point of view from other people who have looked at the arithmetic of deficits and deficit financing and have said that we must continue to deal in getting the deficit down.
I would like very much to increase the safety net spending. I would like to be able to help all the people as much as they feel that we should be helping all those people who are losing their jobs. But we simply cannot do so and still maintain our commitment to get the deficit down because we know that getting the deficit down will help us get interest rates down. Getting interest rates down will help improve the performance of the economy and help people in all parts of the country with a healthier economic environment.
That is the difficulty. That is the balance that we have to find as governments. We are working hard in the consultations that we are having to find that correct balance and that is the purpose of the consultations I had this morning with the social policy groups.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of who is distorting what. It is a question of the people of Canada asking the Minister of Finance to be accountable for his policies and to state how he is going to get us out of the mess he has got us in.
Oral Questions
He likes to quote the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He will know that they have come up with a competitiveness index that showed that Canada's competitive relationship with the other G-7 countries has fallen drastically since 1984. What policies does the minister have to improve our competitiveness with respect to those countries? What is he going to do about the widening productivity gap? What is he going to do about the permanent job loss that has occurred as a result of his policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be accountable for my policies, the policies I am responsible for in this government any time, any place in Canada. I have done that and I will continue to do that on an ongoing basis.
The hon. member refers to a productivity index. There are other productivity indices as well. The World Economic Forum, which measures the competitiveness of some hundred countries, put us as a country I think it was in the eleventh place in 1983 or 1984. The latest number they have had I believe was in fifth place. Looking at the broadest possible range of measures of competitiveness, broader than that of the manufacturers' association, we have improved our competitive position during that time.
He talks about what we are doing to improve our productivity. That is the essence of the government policy we have been following. The deregulation of the energy sector, the transportation section, the financial services sector, privatization, tax reform for both income tax and sales tax, and the hon. member knows that one of the key elements of the GST reform is to improve the productivity of our manufacturing resource sectors so that they can compete more effectively in international markets. He should come straight with the goods.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This morning the minister met with the social policy reform group concerning his upcoming budget.
Lise Corbeil Vincent of the National Anti-Poverty Organization explained to the minister, and I quote: "Poor Canadians will be hit hardest by the recession, rising unemployment and inflation". They will have no choice but to rely on the different programs that form Canada's social safety net. Will the minister commit himself in the House today to stop his relentless assault on Canada's social programs?

November 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no relentless assault on Canada's social programs.
If the hon. member would state what we stated clearly in the last number of budgets, where we have been cutting spending is to avoid to the maximum extent possible hitting those safety net programs. This year spending in the federal government will go up $3.2 billion. Three billion dollars of the $3.2 billion is payments to senior citizens, family allowances, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans pensions and allowances, payments of equalization to low-income provinces, social welfare payments that we share 50-50 with low-income provinces, payments to Indian peoples on health care, education and housing. That demonstrates that we have not changed any of those programs. We are fully committed to those and to suggest otherwise is also a distortion.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need the minister's 25 per cent solutions.
I have a supplementary question. The social policy group also correctly pointed out, and I quote: "The federal government has cut billions from social spending and raised billions more through income taxes by partially deindexing the tax system and key social programs". When will the minister resist his impulse to help his Bay Street buddies and start helping some of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that he has put out of work because of his ill-conceived economic programs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the preamble to that question is again riddled with distortion. If the hon. member looks at the policies we have been following as a government, he will see that with things such as a refundable sales tax credit, the substantial increase in the child tax credit, and the effects of income tax reform have been designed so that people in upper income tax brackets are paying a greater share of the tax burden of this country, a significantly greater share of the tax burden than was the case when we came into office.
This is a clear indication of our commitment to those social safety net programs and a desire to make those programs work, not have the effect of helping those people in upper income brackets such as the members of the Liberal Party have who have continually opposed the tax-back of the old age security for those who earn more than $50,000. That is an example of how we are targeting-


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Later today we are going to be discussing national unity and, hopefully, the willingness on the part of this government to listen to what Canadians have to say. I would point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that for fishermen, farmers and working people throughout this country, those hundreds of people who are being laid off every month, the issue of the day is how they are going to make it from day to day, how they are going to continue to raise their families, stay in business and pay their bills.
It has taken years for this government to finally come to the realization that it is important to listen to Canadians. But the 1 million unemployed Canadians do not have the time to wait. So, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what about listening to Canadians now, withdraw the GST, listen to Canadians, lower interest rates, listen to Canadians and listen to what Canadians are saying about the economic strategy of this government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is not anyone on this side of the House who is happy about the fact that there are about 1 million people unemployed today. But, I will tell you what we are happy about, the fact that there are more than 1.5 million people who are employed today who were not employed six years ago. That is a measure of the economic programs that we are following.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party says that we should not go ahead with the GST because it will hurt low income people. That is a distortion of the policy of the government, because the GST credit, which is going to be paid by cheque four times a year starting this December, before the GST goes into effect, will offset the impact of sales tax reform so that families who are earning less than $30,000 will be better off after sales tax reform than is the case today.
November 1, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This government's economic policies have not only failed; they have sold Canadians down the river. If this government had listened to what Canadians said, we would not be in the position that we are in now.

The best thing the government could do today to bring Canadian men and women together and unite them in pride and hope would be to listen to our poor families who are overburdened with taxes. My question is directed therefore to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is he finally going to listen and withdraw its GST? Is he going at last to impose a minimum tax on profit making corporations which are currently paying no tax at all?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that our policies have failed. How is it, then, if with failed policies we are number two right after Japan in economic growth from 1984 right through to the end of 1989? How is it that if our policies have failed we are number one of the major industrialized countries in job creation? The policies of this government have been working.
The Leader of the NDP says that we should scrap the GST. She is concerned about the economy. We should listen to what experts have been saying who understand the tax system in this country, what they have been saying since 1940 and again in 1956, 1963, 1966, 1976, and 1983. People time and time again have said: "Scrap the existing federal sales tax, put in a new type of consumption tax, and the result will be a healthier economy".
If the hon. member wants to go back in the last little while, let me ask the Liberal members of Parliament, what is Jean Chretien saying now? Last week-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We will be debating, as I said earlier in this House today, Canadian unity and listening to Canadians. Three days ago when I was in Newfoundland, I met with
Oral Questions
workers from Grand Bank, Newfoundland who want to be listened to also. For these people and thousands like them, their way of life is being devastated because this government's economic policy has been to turn the fisheries over to the corporations and not to operate in Canadians' interest.
Right now there is a conference going on in Ottawa on sustainable development in fisheries. Why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to invite anyone from the unions representing fishermen and plant workers? Why won't he listen to these experts? Why won't he listen to the people who know the industry, who do it every day?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, if the only purpose of that hon. member is to try to picture this minister of fisheries as a person who is not listening to fishermen in the regions of Atlantic Canada, I think she is not at all in tune with the facts.
I constantly deal with fishermen and with the unions of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and even on the west coast.
This hon. member grandstands in the House and wants to pretend that the downturn in the Atlantic fishery is because of economic mismanagement.
I would just like to remind her that at no time have we ever reduced the inshore allowance of the people with whom she met. We have reduced the quotas of the big corporations, but never the inshore allowance of inshore fishermen. How can she stand in this House and blabber these comments that do not make sense at all?


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the MIL Corporation announced that it was planning to lay off 700 workers in Tracy, Quebec, including 400 this coming December, bringing to over 12,000 the number of workers laid off in the Montreal area this past year. Meanwhile, the government has decided to make major cuts in the unemployment insurance scheme.

Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, when will the government take seriously the unemployment situation in Quebec and change its disastrous policies? When can we expect an economic expansion policy instead of a recession policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might ask the Quebec government why it has harmonized its sales tax with the goods and services tax. There are very important economic benefits to be gained by the people in the province of Quebec by a province taking that attitude.
If the hon. member is worried about economic growth, he should go right down the hall now to the Senate and ask Senator Gigantes why he is reading his book. He spent over six hours simply reading his book into the record of the Senate.
For what reason? The only reason I can gather that he would read this in English into the microphone of the Senate is so he could get a free translation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, none of that is helping the thousands of people who are losing their jobs. None of that is helping.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


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


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were 700 lay-offs at MIL in Sorel and there were 12,000 lay-offs this year in the region of Montreal: Via Rail, Domtar, Vickers, Simpsons, General Electric, Gillette, Marconi, Weston Foods, Goodyear, Pascals, Valmet Dominion, Clairol, and Miracle Mart.
When is the minister going to stop giving us that bunk and start doing something to help people in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that Senator Gigantes is doing nothing to help the unemployed workers in this country.
He mentioned these companies, the company in Sorel and Vickers, Gillette and Marconi. All of those companies would be helped by the goods and services tax.
They will be helped because they are competing against imports. They will be helped because they are exporting companies. It is accepted by every economist in this country that that type of organization is helped by the GST.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Speaker. What does this mean here? Last weekend we had a strong Jean Chretien saying: "This GST won't see the light of day after I am elected."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But then, when pressed on what he would do to find the $20 billion and what he would do to replace the GST, what did he say: "I never said I would repeal the GST the first day I got into office."


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
The Auditor General said this week that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions needs a better early warning system to sound the alarm when financial institutions are in trouble.
What specific action will the minister take to improve the warning system? Will he admit that his government has been hindering the superintendent's efforts by taking so long to bring in modem financial institutional legislation?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon. member is drawing a lot of conclusions from the Auditor General's report.
I think the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is running a very fine shop. We have modernized it and have given him additional power. He has been very involved in all reform.
I think the hon. member should see what has happened since the Auditor General went to visit that institution. The superintendent reports to me regularly. He has been taking very precise measures to remain on top of things, and he is on top of things.
November 1, 1990


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I am drawing conclusions. The complaints are there for anybody to read.
Also the Auditor General has said on page 584 of his report that one of the reasons the superintendent is having problems is that this government has taken so long to bring in modern trust and loan company legislation.
Will the minister not admit that his government's inaction has reduced the effectiveness of the superintendent's office? Will he also tell the House what he is going to do about the Auditor General's recommendations that are not covered by Bill C-83?


Gilles Loiselle: It is of course essential, Mr. Speaker, that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions runs a very important shop for our financial institutions.
They have been involved daily on all reform. They have been with us and have been the best advisers we have ever had. We have made major changes. They have all the means that they need to have because they recuperate their funding from the institutions themselves. In no way have we hindered them. On the contrary, we are prepared to work with them to be sure that this country has the best system of supervision it is possible to have.


HAVILLAND
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology or, rather, his surrogate.
Today, the CAW is taking the government to court to ensure enforcement of contract provisions agreed to between the government and Boeing Corporation which were intended to ensure that airplane production, research and development, and jobs would remain at de Havilland in Canada.
My question to the minister is quite simple. Why should Canadian workers be forced to take their own government to court to ensure that when de Havilland is acquired by two foreign governments the jobs of Canadians will not be threatened?
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House knows, and I hope the hon. member knows, that when this particular company was sold it was sold to Boeing Corporation, which is one of the best marketing companies in the world. Since then, the order book for that particular company has grown and grown through de Havilland.
However, they have decided that given the kind of market they want to be in they would like to make the sale. They are going to look at potential buyers. They have brought this company to a state of health which is much better than it ever was before it was originally sold to Boeing. When the offer to purchase comes, of course Investment Canada will look at it to see that it is a net benefit to Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the minister's surrogate evidently agrees with the minister who, in a meeting with the CAW, is quoted as having said that Boeing owns the plant and can do whatever it wants to do.
Is that how the minister sees his job, to very nearly give away de Havilland, hand over about $200 million of taxpayers money to Boeing Construction, and then for the government to sit on its collective butt while Canadian jobs are given away?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member calls creating over 1,500 jobs at de Havilland in the last three years sitting on its butt, I do not know what he is talking about.
The hon. member knows-and he talks a bit like a surrogate for the CAW when he asks his question that this particular matter is before the courts. He also knows that in his question there were three hypotheticals. We do not even have a sale yet and we have this particular matter before the court.


GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Auditor General's report was quite clear and explicit concerning the use of computers, especially dealing with the threats and risks of illegal computer penetration and infestation, as well as safeguarding the data which are so vital for the delivery of government services. Can the Minister tell us why, after five years of warning, this situation still exists?

November 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Ministry of Supply and Services regularly checks the security of the computers. He should also be assured that it is only very low level intelligence that is in any of those computers because it is kept in our own secure places rather than contracting it out.


Mark Joseph Assad: Having read the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe the Minister's reply. It's a fact, there was carelessness. When are you going to correct this situation in order to safeguard the confidentiality of computer information involving with thousands of Canadians? Is the Auditor General's report completely wrong?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, all of the extremely important information which we have is kept on our own computers. The material that is contracted out is of a lower level of security. I want to tell the hon. member that every area that is contracted out to is regularly inspected for security and this has been the case for the last five years.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Minister of Finance but since he is not here I will direct it to the junior Minister of Finance.
The reason Canadians from border communities are shopping in the United States is a matter of cost. The GST will add to that problem by removing a 13.5 per cent tax on manufactured goods and replacing it with a 7 per cent tax, a 6.5 per cent tax benefit to cross border shoppers.
Does the minister realize what that cost is in terms of Canadian business? Will the minister save hundreds of border community businesses and get rid of the GST?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, there are always border problems in a country like Canada which has such an extensive border between the two countries.
The GST will improve the situation of Canadian businesses and their competition with the United States. He himself admits it will improve their competition capacity with the Americans.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the junior minister should be aware that $2 billion-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that we should exercise proper and polite reference to each other. I know the hon. member would want to agree with me on that.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was following the Minister of Finance's lead to our critic.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member can set a great example for everybody.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be aware that $2 billion will leave Canada to the U.S. in business. In Windsor and Essex county, $1.5 million per week goes into U.S. business. This is no small leak, it is a major flood and a loss of tremendous dollars to merchants at the border. Now that the minister knows the impact and how the GST will devastate border towns, will he remove the GST?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just does not seem to be making any sense. If he had done his research he would know that the rates will be reduced on Canadian manufactured products from 13.5 per cent to 7 per cent. He should know that it is going to make the product cheaper to the consumer. The savings will then be passed on to the consumer.
He would also know that the GST will create $9 billion of new economic activity and make Canadian businesses and manufacturers more competitive. He would alsn know that there are many other - ucts in TT '
November 1, 1990

Because of the fiscal and monetary policies of this government, we will see the dollar slowly start to reduce its level as interest rates go down, which is the prediction for next year. The GST itself will make Canadian competitors more competitive in order for us to be able-


Some hon. members:: Order.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Transport Canada has recently announced its intention to increase landing fees at airports across Canada on a standardized rate for weight basis. This apparently is only one of a series of cost recovery programs to be implemented on April 1, 1991.
The impact of these increases will be disproportionately severe on the smaller airports throughout the country and bear particularly adverse prospects for Atlantic Canada where air travel is now our most important travel link.
For example, a British Aerospace 146 jet landing at Halifax will have a fee of $319.20 versus a charge in Vancouver of only $98.70 and in Toronto of $100.
Given estimates by the regional airlines in the Atlantic region that these charges plus escalating fuel costs will increase ticket prices by as much as 25 per cent, will the minister reconsider and delay and defer the introduction of the proposed new cost recovery program at least until the royal commission on passenger transportation has completed its work?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. We are, as he indicated, engaged in a consultation process in both the marine	les. The original date for
uest for consultation from her 1. Last week I an-fs to be received by me ', 1991. I will certainly
Oral Questions
take the representations of the aviation industry into account.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the giant political crocodile, known as Rafferty-Alameda, permanently scarred the reputations of two ministers of the environment and today apparently willingly claimed the third.
Would the Minister of Justice kindly explain to the House why the federal government today sought and obtained an adjournment upon its own application for an injunction to halt construction, when its own evidence just one week ago today was that the present construction all of the past week and the construction going on today will cause irrevocable damage to the environment?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the adjournment was sought because our counsel received the day before the hearing an enormous volume of documentation from the province of Saskatchewan which required review before we could make a presentation in court.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise! When a small group of dam promoters fling muck in the form of affidavits and allegations, construction of the project continues and could in fact be completed before the court rules for a third time to halt the dam. Does the minister really expect Canadians to believe that the political stench rising now results from anything other than a backroom deal and the likelihood that all of James Bay II will proceed without ever having an assessment, meaning that this government simply puts megaprojects first and environment last? Let us call a spade a spade.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, aside from the obvious offensiveness of the question, the hon. member may be comfortable making public statements without reference to the facts or without reviewing important documentations. I do not think that practitioners in front of the bar find that very advisable and no lawyer representing the Government of Canada would do that.

November 1, 1990
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for grains and oilseeds.
After a very difficult spring, fanners on the prairies took off bumper crops this year. They are now expressing a very serious concern with sales. There are conflicting reports coming out. Some reports say the board is selling grain, other reports say the board is not selling grain. Farmers are legitimately concerned and we are all getting a number of questions.
I would like to ask the minister what are the facts about grain sales? What are he and his officials doing? Is he going to be able to sell the product?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an issue of concern. I can tell him without commenting specifically on sales that the Wheat Board regularly sells to 60 countries around the world. It has been doing a good job and as a result of its ongoing sales efforts it looks like we are going to have very good grain movement right into the new year.
The hon. member should know that the board has taken up all of its options as far as Great Lakes shipping capacity to the end of the shipping season. It has asked the railways to give it all of their rolling stock right into February. With that, and with the cash advances in place, it looks like we are going to have very good grain movement well into the new year. That should put us in good position to exceed the exports we had last year.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I address my question to the Secretary of State.
On May 23 I asked the Prime Minister what the government planned to do in terms of the request by the National Congress of Italian Canadians on Italian Canadian redress. He responded by saying: "The Government of Canada is seized of the matter and we will deal with it urgently and efficiently".
Is the government now in a position to make good on this commitment and if so, will the minister share with this House the elements of the process and package as his government did with the Japanese Canadian redress issue.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the government has listened very carefully and is examining the proposals that have been submitted. We will provide further information at the appropriate time.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
This coming weekend the Prime Minister is expected to address the Congress of Italian Canadians in Toronto. Considering that this event has stirred very legitimate hopes within the community and that the Prime Minister's Office will not release the text of the speech, why did the government choose to treat this very delicate question as a state secret instead of openly discussing its projects with Canadians and hon. members so as to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved and to all Canadians?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same, in both official languages. We heard the representations of the communities involved and we considered their propositions. As I said in English, we will provide more details at the appropriate time.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and Minister of State for Transport.
Next Monday the House will vote on the non-use of scabs in labour disputes involving Crown corporations. It stands to reason that after second reading there will be unnimous consent to amend the legislation with a view to banning the use of scabs when the people involved are federal employees or workers governed by a federal charter.
With that in mind and heedful of statements made by the hon. members for Laval-Est, Sherbrooke, Abitibi and Jonquiere in support of this bill, would the minister

November 1, 1990

support the bill and urge his colleagues to vote in favour of the bill on Monday?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. This weekend in Geneva, trade ministers from 29 countries, including Canada, will be meeting in an effort to break the GATT deadlock primarily involving agriculture subsidies.
Given our own trade minister's embarrassment over the fact that his government actually provides assistance to farmers, and given the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture refusal to defend Canada's true level of support, can the minister guarantee that the trade minister will not give up and will not further reduce support to Canadian agriculture and add even more to Canada's give-up list?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Tbade):: Mr. Speaker, as the House has noticed, Canada already has a very widely admired offer on the table at Geneva with respect to agricultural matters which, if accepted by the other people engaged in negotiations, will do a great deal for Canadian agriculture.
The hon. gentleman should be trying to put some pressure-and God knows he can't exert very much-on the European Community which has thrown a roadblock at the whole process of reform of agricultural trade in the world. Why does he not direct a question to the east-


Mr. Speaker:: A very short single question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, the government's new unemployment legislation is not only untimely given the recession, but its implementation is a nightmare in certain cases.
Since the government has collected higher premiums as of January 1, 1990 and given the lack of affordable day care facilities for Canadian families, particularly during hard times such as these, will the minister give Canadian
Business of the House
families what they paid for since January, 1990 and make the parental benefits retroactive to that date?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Titus Allooloo, Minister Responsible for Culture, Communication and Renewable Resources of Canada's Northwest Territories.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Dr. France Bucar, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Slovania.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members would want me to also recognize the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished parliamentarian and old friend of all of us, the Hon. George Hees.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I warn my hon. friend that is a hard act to follow.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as usual on Thursdays we ask the government to tell us the legislative menu the government has in mind for the next few days. Would it be possible to know what the House can expect tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I should be asking the hon. House Leader what will happen tomorrow, because he knows it is our intent that it be an allotted day and we wait with interest for his motion.

Government Orders
On Monday, we will proceed with second reading on Bill C-81, dealing with UN conventions on contracts; second reading on Bill C-82, having to do with port wardens in the province of Quebec; and, hopefully, second reading on Bill C-73, Crown corporations dissolution. On Tuesday, we will continue with what might be left over from Monday, plus hopefully complete second reading of Bill C-83, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, and on Wednesday-at this time it is more probable than assured-probably second reading on Bill C-85, dealing with airport development.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is related to the same question of the week's business.
Some weeks ago the government introduced Bill C-86, which would permit more Canadian families to receive prepayment of the child tax credit. At that time the Department of Finance indicated that it wished to bring the bill in so we could send out those cheques in November.
Can the Government House Leader indicate whether or not he anticipates calling Bill C-86 for debate before the recess on November 9, or whether he anticipates it coming in before Christmas so these cheques can be sent out prior to the Christmas recess?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear of the hon. member's concern for this legislation. I welcome the opportunity to sit down with him and colleagues in the Liberal Party to discuss how we might proceed with that legislation through all three stages.
As the hon. member knows, there is never reluctance on this side of the House to proceed as rapidly as possible with all legislation on the Order Paper.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to call a motion standing in my name this afternoon, respecting an initiative on the future of Confederation. The Prime Minister will be the lead-off speaker on this motion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: That this House calls upon the government to bring forward an
initiative to address the future of Confederation.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise the House and Canadians of the creation of a Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. With the permission of the House I will be pleased to table the terms of reference of the forum and its membership at the conclusion of my remarks.
This will be an independent body of eminent Canadians who will launch a dialogue with people across the country and help create a new consensus about Canada and, hopefully, about our future. The situation is urgent and I think that all members, irrespective of political party, recognize that the problem is serious.
Canada is running the risk of fracturing along the linguistic and regional fault lines that have run deep throughout our history. A major fault line along the Ottawa River was created in a space of 25 years, two centuries ago, with the fall of New France and the arrival of waves of United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada.
Since then, that fault line has been the most active and in many ways, the most dangerous. We all remember the statement, "the two nations warring in the bosom of the single state" that Lord Durham reported he had found. There was the hanging of Louis Riel; the conscription crisis and riots; the October crisis in 1970; the election of a government in the province of Quebec in 1976 committed to the dismemberment of the nation; the referendum of 1980; the patriation of the Constitution in 1982; and the failure to ratify the Meech Accord after it had been approved unanimously by all governments and all parties in the House of Commons.
There has been activity over the decades across other fault lines as well, notably between central Canada, and east and west, as a result of the National Policy, the ownership of lands and natural resources, transportation policy, the energy program, and decade after decade of substantial and ongoing injustice that was sustained by native peoples in Canada.

[Translation\
And new tremors emanated this summer from Oka and from the foothills of the Rockies. Over time, all of these stresses have loosened the ties that bind Confederation together. There is little time left before the next potential shock-the tabling in the Spring of Quebec's Belanger-Campeau Commission report. Meanwhile we have lost much of the consensus we had on what kind of country Canada is-on what we all should be able to expect from our country and what we all should be prepared to do for our country. Attitudes shape decisions and decisions have consequences.
The patriation of the Constitution in 1982 without Quebec's endorsement has had serious consequences for the attachment of Quebecers to Canada. The collapse of the Mecch Lake Accord, after it had been unanimously agreed to by all governments in Canada, has further weakened that attachement.

The failure of four First Ministers' Constitutional Conferences to resolve the issue of aboriginal self-government has provoked serious dissatisfaction very apparent across the country this last summer.
Economic policies that for decades protected central Canada at the expense of western Canada have had an important impact on the attitudes of western Canadians toward national institutions.
Atlantic Canadians have felt that their interests have too often trailed those of other parts of the country and frequently, in this particular perception as in many others, Atlantic Canadians were right.
A steady diet of often needlessly unproductive wrangling in the House of Commons and the regrettable spectacle that Canadians witnessed in the Senate last month are having dangerous effects on the credibility of our entire political process, as well as on the credibility of all people who participate in that process of any political party and from any region of the country.
Government Orders
Economic policies in recent decades, which gave Canadians much more than they paid for in taxes, are now having grave consequences. The bills are now coming in: a huge national debt, dependence on foreign borrowing, increased taxes, and cuts in government services as Canada struggles to pay the compound interest on large public borrowings when the federal government needs its economic strength.
Ottawa is striving to restore discipline to the fiscal situation of the nation. I think, irrespective of the government that might be here, that obligation would remain the same. More important, and the reason for its political implication, is that this financial status seriously inhibits the capacity of any federal government to use economic levers that might strengthen the federation, redress disparities or lessen the sense of grievance that individuals and communities and regions across Canada often and legitimately feel.
The challenge before all Canadians is simple. I exclude no one, certainly not myself, to have the clear headed-ness to learn these important lessons and the wisdom not to make the same mistakes again.

It is time we all did some real soul-searching. The future of Canada depends upon the answers to some very simple but very important questions. Do we all still want to live together? What kind of country do we want? Do Canadians still have common values and hopes and interests? Can Quebec, as the only predominantly French-speaking province in Canada, find cultural security and respect for its identity within our federal system?

Can the sense of western alienation be allayed by realistic and fundamental attitudinal changes elsewhere in the nation? In a country where all citizens are equal, how can the needs of the less populous regions and language minorities, and aboriginal peoples, be appropriately and perhaps permanently accommodated?
Does the present distribution of powers among federal and provincial and local governments still make sense in spite of the fact that many of them have been unchanged for 125 years, while the country and the world has undergone revolution after revolution? We have remained with many of the same powers that were imputed to one level of government or another.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
What reforms should we all make so that parliamentary institutions, including the Senate, work better and reflect the interests of all Canadians, rural and urban, west and east, and north?
In a country that prides itself on its human rights record, should legislatures have the power to override the Charter of Rights and overrule the fundamental rights of Canadians? Has our pride and our multicultur-alism focused too much attention on our differences and begun to be a problem for a common Canadian identity?
Can Canada's aboriginal peoples preserve their heritage and at the same time share fully in the opportunities and responsibilities of contemporary life? In Canada's modem economy, what is best done by governments, and what by individual Canadians themselves?

In a country that depends on trade for over 30 per cent of its income, one of the highest such percentages in the world, why are so many industries so lax in upgrading their productivity to meet the competition?
Why have barriers to trade between Canadian provinces stood for generation after generation while the free trade agreement with the United States of America was concluded in 27 months?
These are critical questions that affect the lives and prospects of all Canadians. We have to answer them frankly if we are going to establish a consensus of common interest and common purpose in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that a renewed consensus can be built.
Putting our current problems into historical perspective helps. As disquieting as the current period is for our country. Canada has overcome difficult challenges in the past. The Constitutional Act of 1791 led to a long period of political unrest, including the rebellions of 1837. The forced union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840 led to conflict and the arson of the Parliament building in 1849.
The British North America Act itself was preceded by a bitter and almost decade-long debate. Confederation, when it finally did come, was at the same time an act of separation of Upper and Lower Canada and an act of unification. And the system of government agreed upon, federalism, was itself a sharing of sovereignty.
We tend to forget that in the first Parliament in 1867 there were 18 separatist members, all of them from Nova Scotia. Twenty years later, according to Laurier: "The province of Manitoba is in open revolt. The province of Nova Scotia demands its separation from Confederation-from east to west and from north to south-prevailing feeling is one of unrest and uneasiness, of discontent and irritation".
Three years later in 1890, exactly a hundred years ago, Laurier had occasion to warn all Canadians: "We have come to a period in the history of this young country when premature disillusion now seems to be at hand".
The weakening of the imperial links with Britain at the turn of the century, the sending of Canadian servicemen into two world wars and into Korea, the flag debate in 1965, the Quebec referendum in 1980, the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 without Quebec's endorsement, all stimulated profound division and bitter debate in the country.
In fact no issue has been more divisive or debated, more bitter, than creating a made-in-Canada formula to amend Canada's Constitution. The process started in 1926 with the Balfour report and the relationship of the British Dominions to the Crown and to the United Kingdom. The required unanimous consent of the federal and provincial governments eluded successive patriation attempts and our Constitution remained an act of the British Parliament and could be amended only in the United Kingdom.
Important amendments to the Canadian Constitution were in fact secured through this route, including the transfer of jurisdiction over unemployment insurance to the federal government in 1940.
November 1, 1990

Danger and opportunity are often two sides of the same coin. The danger we face gives us the opportunity to rethink our system and to chart a brand new future for our country.
Government Orders
The starting point is recognition of the value of what we have achieved together as a country. Partly because we came together and stayed together as an act of will rather than in the fires and the destruction of war and partly because we co-exist in North America with the world's most powerful nation, we Canadians tend to undervalue our own achievements and our own accomplishments.
As we think about our future we would perhaps be wise, as Robbie Bums put it, to see ourselves as others see us. We need to reflect on the extraordinary benefits that Canadian citizenship brings to us all. Wherever we come from, whatever language we speak, in whatever region we live, Canada is not perfect but it is one of the most magnificent nations on the face of this earth.
We need to recognize that during a century when the extremes of nationalism and racism have taken 100 million lives and caused incalculable suffering to humanity, we here in Canada, with our faults and our imperfections, managed to build one of the most civil, cosmopolitan and one of the most admired nations on earth.
We need to remind ourselves that our system of justice which guarantees equality before the law for every Canadian is widely respected around the world. We need to stop and think that with a population of only 26 million, that ranks somewhere in the neighbourhood of 31st or 32nd in the world, we have overcome both a forbidding climate and rugged geography to build the eighth largest economy in the entire world. While many countries struggle just to put bread on their tables for their citizens, we continue to enjoy, despite our economic problems, a broad range of social services and one of the best standards of living anywhere in the world.
While industrialization came at a substantial cost to Canada's natural environment, Canadians are adopting a new ethic of sustainable development and enjoying cleaner air and clearer water and better health and a better quality of life than most people on earth dare dream of.
We need to appreciate that while Canada achieved recognition as a middle power following the Second World War, Canada now enjoys substantial international influence and respect and more capacity than ever before to advance and protect the interests of all Canadians, French speaking and English speaking Canadians.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders

Canada is the only country that is a member of G-7 leading industrial countries, of the Commonwealth and of la Francophonie; Canada is completing a term as a member of the U.N. Security Council.

Membership in the Group of Seven leading industrial countries gives Canada a role at the table where the major international, political and economic issues are dealt with.
Millions of people all over the world are literally lining up to come to Canada because successive generations of Canadians have succeeded in building a tolerant, democratic, peaceful and very, very prosperous country. That is what we have now, and that is what we risk losing.
I know that many Canadians are preoccupied, and properly so, with the state of the economy, but I also know that national unity and economic prosperity go hand in hand. Uncertainty about Canada's future would deter investment and make our economic problems even harder to solve. We need a renewed consensus to take us into the 21st century.
I am pleased therefore to announce today that the government is launching a major initiative to promote a discussion among Canadians on the future of Confederation.
This process will be led by Mr. Keith Spicer, who resigned today as Chairman of the CRTC, for the period required to undertake this crucial new assignment. I know that all members wish him well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He will be assisted by an executive advisory group consisting of: Richard Cashin, President of the Fishermen's Food and Allied Workers' Union in Newfoundland; Carol Corcoran, a barrister and solicitor and acting band manager of the Fort Nelson Indian Band and a former chief of the band; Fil Fraser, Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Foundation; Thomas Kierans, President of the C. D. Howe Institute;

Robert Normand, a former Deputy Minister of Finance in the Quebec government, chairman and editor of Le Soleil.

Helena Zukowski, screenwriter and author; [Translation]
Therese Paquet-Sevigny, Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; Roger Tasse, a former Deputy Minister of Justice, and Executive Vice-President of Bell Canada;

Susan Van de Velde, farmer and community activist; Elsie Wayne, mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick; and Jack Webster, broadcaster, journalist and author.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If any member of this House of Commons from any party appears before that commission and can get a word in edgewise, let me know.
I think, however, it is fair to say they are a remarkable group of men and women from across Canada. I know they are going to undertake this crucial enterprise and bring it home with success. I know that all members of the House of Commons wish them well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Quebec, Alberta and New Brunswick have established commissions to consider their own futures and some other provinces are planning to do so, as well. Our initiative will complement not compete with these undertakings-but the Government of Canada represents all Canadians and the Forum will be seeking to develop a national consensus.
This is not a traditional Royal Commission. The goal is for Canadians to talk not just to an appointed panel but to each other about the country's future.
Consensus is created by people; we have all learned that it cannot be imposed by governments. This is an initiative for the people and of the people. Our objective is to get Canadians talking to each other about the values and characteristics and fundamental interests of this country.
November 1, 1990



Canadian unity and Canada's economic prosperity in a highly competitive world are linked. The forum will invite Canadians to talk about that too. Canadians will be invited to discuss the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country, and the accommodations required in today's Canada for the needs of both linguistic majorities and minorities to be respected. Canadians will be encouraged to re-examine the impact of regionalism and of multiculturalism on Canadian unity and on economic development.
The forum will facilitate contacts between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians to discuss how the aspirations of Canada's first peoples can be met within the Canadian Constitution.
Canadians will be invited to consider what in contemporary society is best done by governments and what by individual Canadians themselves. Canadians will be invited to discuss as well the questions that underlie all of these issues: how to ensure that the country's institutions, particularly Parliament, designed in the 19th century, will work effectively and well in the 21st century and, at the same time, whether the division of responsibilities among the federal and provincial governments needs to be changed. If so, how and when?
We hope that this process will help bring Canadians together and help us come to a common understanding on what we can expect from our country and what we owe to our country.
This is not going to be a formal process designed for high priced consultants and high pressure interest groups. It will be informal and easily accessible to as many Canadians as possible from all walks of life. Every Canadian who wants to will be able to have a say.

The Forum will reach out to the people, not wait for people to come to it. It will travel to every province in the country and the territories. It will bring groups of Canadians together to meet and talk with each other-to unterstand each other's concerns and hopes and priorities.
Government Orders
It will, also convene regional meetings, hold public debates and solicit views of Canadians in writing. It will use modem Canadian communications technology, today's electronic railroads, to bring people together. With the extraordinary communication technology now available in Canada, it is possible to listen to and involve almost all Canadians in this great national debate. This is what this government and this Parliament want.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Spicer will report to the government on the Forum's findings by next June 30.

The government will not control the forum or seek in any way to dictate its findings, but I intend to state my own views from time to time, as I know other party leaders and indeed all members of the House of Commons will either do before the commission or seek to do across the country.
I stand for a strong, united Canada that is fair, tolerant and free. I stand for Canada that is great enough and confident enough to assure Quebec its place as a full, respected and valued partner, confirmed eventually by Quebec's willing endorsement of all of Canada's constitutional instruments so that all Quebecers feel a full and irretrievable commitment to this nation called Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I stand for a Canada that is flexible enough to reorganize itself to adapt to the times and whose national institutions, including both Houses of Parliament but especially the Senate, can be reformed to serve the interests of all Canadians more fairly and more effectively.
I stand for a Canada that speaks abroad with one voice, that can protect the nation's sovereignty and security and that can play a constructive role in the world. I stand for a fiscally sound and economically competitive Canada whose development respects our natural environment.
I stand for a compassionate Canada that gives all of its people the opportunities they need to develop and prosper and gives the needy the support they require to live and grow old with dignity. I stand for a new deal for Canada's first peoples, one that will at last translate promises into reality.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I stand for a new approach to education that respects traditional rights but that sets standards that allow our children to keep up with their counterparts abroad who continue to move swiftly ahead of many of our Canadian children in schools.

The most powerful economy in the world, the United States, is a federation and the richest market in the world, the European Community, is on a rapid and determined course toward economic and political integration.
There would appear, Mr. Speaker, to be little discernible advantage for Canadians who already enjoy the benefits of federalism to turn their backs on that system at the very moment that it has become most attractive to growing numbers of nations. Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher, and Frangois Mitterrand, and the leaders of 340 million Europeans and others who seek to join are moving more and more towards an integrated economy, more and more towards the equivalent of a political federation. We have that fundamental here and yet some are asking us to chuck it out and replace it with something that has yet to be defined. I say we have something good. Let us build on it. Let us improve it, and let us make it better for all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canada's system of government has been beneficial to every province and to all Canadians. But our system is far from perfect. It has given rise to demands for fairer representation and calls for more responsive administration. One hears the call for help from western Canada, and from the east. One hears it in Ontario, in the north, and elsewhere.
Canada has also heard statements of hope and expressions of despair from many Quebecers. All are genuine. This problem must be dealt with. It is not going to go away. It is time to consider making reforms to our system of government, bold and far-reaching and unprecedented, if need be.
But to build a new and better Canada does not mean, however, asking our fellow citizens, French speaking or English speaking, to abandon the gains of a century to fight the tides of history and to put their hopes in an uncertain and narrowing future. I believe that we have within our grasp the possibility of rebuilding one of the
November 1, 1990

most magnificent nations on the face of this earth, which provides for the beauties of its citizenship equally to French and English speaking Canadians, to new Canadians and old. That was the promise of Confederation, and we can deliver now on the promise of that Confederation to all citizens in Canada today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As Prime Minister, I am totally devoted to the unity of Canada, and as a Canadian I believe deeply in the fundamental decency and extraordinary potential of this country.
The initiatives that we took at Meech Lake, which were not easy-

I heard some of the Liberal members laugh when we were talking about Canadian unity. But all the members of this House have supported it, including the hon. member for Hamilton East who showed leadership by having the courage to rise in support of a proposal which, although flawed, was designed to promote unity among the Canadian people. We failed with the Meech Lake Accord but it does not mean that we compromised the country's future. And I think that, with the level of co-operation in this House and with the Canadian people's deep commitment to fundamental values, we can revive the soul of this great nation and rebuild Canada for tomorrow.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the partnership of Macdonald and Cartier, of English speaking and French speaking Canadians was real. I believe that respect for that partnership and respect for the French and English languages that have become official languages of this country constitute an indispensable cornerstone of our political and cultural sovereignty.
The French language and culture-and I am saying it in English to make sure it is clearly understood-has enriched the identity of Canada, as surely as the English language has and every member of this House should stand for that fundamental principle.
So, Mr. Speaker, I put my faith in the resilience and common sense and optimism of the Canadian people. These are the strengths that will anchor the coming
Government Orders
discussions and make flexibility and accommodation possible.
Canada is simply, Mr. Speaker, an act of will. It lives in the minds and hearts of all Canadians, and Canada will endure only if Canadians want it to. I sense, even in the moments of difficulty, a will for unity across the country and I am sure that we are capable of finding a way.
I believe that it takes major changes. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if it takes major changes to hold this country together, Canadians want those changes made. I believe that if it takes a new process to achieve those changes, Canadians want a new process designed. With the initiative the government is announcing today, I am signalling our determination to listen to Canadians, to listen carefully to Canadians, wherever they live across Canada and to work with them in building the Canada of the 21st century.
The wounds of past grievances are deep, but if we co-operate we can heal them. The gulfs created by our current disagreements are wide, but together we can bridge them, and the tests imposed by emerging global challenges will be difficult, but together we can pass them. Our parents and grandparents confronted and resolved the issues of their day and turned over to us one of the best countries in the world.

The Canada that emerges from the current process of change and renewal will be far different than the one we inherited.


Mr. Lapierre:: It is too late.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The hon. member for Shefford says that it is too late. It is not. I will simply tell him that if we work together, we will give our children a country that is extraordinary and viable and that they will be proud to call their fatherland, Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to members on both sides of the House and to Canadians from St. John's to Trois-Rivieres to Orillia to Victoria. It is time to repay Canada for all that has been given to us, handed to us, handed over to us without the slightest effort on our part, with the possible exception of being bom in this country or having the good sense to come to it. It is time to do justice to the dreams of our founders and to the

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
courage of the men and women from countries around the world who came to Canada to build this country.
Mr. Speaker, my plea is simple. Let us work together, English and French speaking Canadians, new Canadians and native born, to give our children one united Canada where justice prevails and freedom always rings out.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wish to table, in both official languages, the terms of reference of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, and its membership.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in this autumn of discontent, it is not only the constitutional future of Canada that is in question, it is the very future of our country itself. The policies of this Conservative Prime Minister and his government have shaken the foundations of this country. These policies have called into question Canada's ability to face the enormous challenges that are now on our doorstep.

All Canadian regions are telling us clearly they are dissatisfied. Many Canadians are questioning not only government policies but the political institutions themselves.

The loss of confidence of many Canadians in our political institutions runs deep. It goes well beyond the division of powers between the two levels of government. People are losing confidence in the ability of these institutions to deal with the historic changes taking place in Canada, and around the world.
At a time when the world is coming together, the risks are growing that Canada will drift apart. At one time, Canadians had a sense of common purpose and common enterprise. Those shared beliefs helped us to build a country that has been a global economic and political leader.
We should remember how we forged this country out of an unforgiving climate and against very strong north-south currents. The time has come to reflect on where we have been and where we are going as a nation.

Since the beginning our society has been characterized by the coexistence of two language groups unlike anything else. The association of English-and Frenchspeaking Canadians is a foundation of our country's evolution. This association has led us to find specifically Canadian solutions to our problems, to create our own institutions and to continue building our country in our own way.

On this foundation, including that provided by our aboriginal peoples, we have built a multicultural and a pluralist society. People from all comers of the world have come, as did my own parents, to help build a better society, a better country, better lives for themselves and their children. Tolerance and accommodation of differing views and beliefs have been important to all Canadians. These very principles are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians have always had a special respect for diversity. It is an asset and a source of strength and enrichment.
I believe that the Canadian challenge has been to reach for an ideal, while recognizing that we might never attain it. We have never measured the success of the Canadian experience by asking if it has ever been completed. Until recently, our progress as a nation has been in many ways the envy of the world. We persevered. We reached for new heights. We built a strong and a thriving nation.
Consider our social infrastructure. Although it is under stress, and in my view under attack from this Conservative government, it is a system to which all Canadians must have access. It is a system to which many millions of Americans wish they had access. Our social safety net has been the product of an approach championed over the years by Liberals. It has been a system based on Canada's prosperity and Canada's generosity.

Quebec has also made remarkable progress in every area since Confederation and especially since the '60s. Its economic and cultural accomplishments in the last 30 years have been outstanding. From its performers to the economic progress made possible by its own people and the success enjoyed by its university graduates, Quebec has changed for the better.
November 1, 1990

I remind you that Quebec has grown within the Canadian context. Is it logical, Mr. Speaker, for Quebecers to suddenly renounce this country because the current Prime Minister has failed in his Constitutional reform project?

Ours is a large and diverse country. It is understandable that, from time to time, some Canadians may question the values that unite us. That is why throughout our history it has been the duty of prime ministers to remind us of our shared values, to inspire us, and to motivate us to work together.
There is nothing wrong with Canadians and their values. What has been missing has been the right kind of national leadership right now, the right kind of national leadership based on building and finding consensus. Regrettably, this Prime Minister has too often failed to appreciate, to communicate, and to build on our shared national values. As a result, there is now division and disarray in all parts of our great country.
This Prime Minister has abandoned his duty to provide leadership built on consensus. When the all-party special committee, the Charest committee, tried to find a way out of last spring's constitutional impasse, the Prime Minister hesitated and then simply rejected its findings out of hand. He did not have a solution that reflected the concerns of Canadians. This Prime Minister was not interested in what Canadians thought. This Prime Minister rolled the dice with Canada's future. He even bragged about it. His way was secret deals, brinkmanship, and more brinkmanship, but certainly not leadership.
In short, this Prime Minister has failed to show any leadership in one of our country's most desperate hours of need and in the past months we have all been paying the price of his failure.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He and his government have been dismantling the institutions that have made Canada among the greatest nations on earth. Our social safety net, our national transportation system, our shared values of compassion, sharing, tolerance and equality of opportunity-all are slipping away under this government.
Government Orders
This is a dramatic departure from the great prime ministers of our past. Those prime ministers all understood that Canada is more than the sum of its parts. It is more than a community of communities. A strong national government has always been necessary to meet the great challenges of the day and to work for the benefit of all the regions of the country. A strong national government is essential to meet the challenges now before us as a nation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Today, the Prime Minister has finally admitted that his past approach to constitutional reform was fundamentally flawed. By this motion, the Prime Minister has finally admitted that rolling the dice just does not work when the future of our country is at stake.
The Liberal Party of Canada is encouraged to see that the government is committing itself to listening to Canadians for once. The commission he announced that will travel the country to seek out Canadians' views on the state of the nation must, however, be more than simply a public relations exercise. Canadians who appear before the commission must be given ample opportunity to give full expression to their views. There should be no more insiders or outsiders. When the very fabric of the nation is on the line, the views of every Canadian do matter. Every Canadian has a right to be heard and, this time, all Canadians have to be insiders.
Meaningful constitutional reform is not accomplished behind closed doors with only a few select participants. If it is to be successful, reform must be built upon the shared values of all Canadians.
We do have some concerns about what we know, so far, about the government's proposal. One is a concern that the commission may hear only from well organized special interest associations or elite groups with special access. Who will speak for the ones who have no collective voice? Who will speak for the single parents, the poor, the sick, the workers whose jobs have moved to the United States or Mexico, and those Canadians in remote parts of this land?
Liberals are also concerned that once it has listened to Canadians, the commission should be able to work to present a comprehensive final report to Parliament. The commission should have enough time to do its deliberations properly and to prepare its report. That report

Government Orders
must truly reflect the views of all those Canadians who have appeared before the commission.
This must not simply be an opportunity for people to blow off some steam while the real work is done by the Prime Minister once again behind closed doors. We need a serious dialogue if we are to get out of the malaise now gripping the country, the malaise the government has been unable to contain, and in fact for which it has been a major contributor.
A constitution is both a political statement and a legal document. It is more than just a piece of paper. A constitution embodies and reflects the shared values of our society. It sets out the legal framework for the structure of our society. Unlike labour and business agreements which have limited terms and can easily be changed, constitutions are difficult to change once made, as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, those who deal with fundamental values and political institutions, and tiy to preserve our society's most sensitive balance, must act with careful consideration. These changes are meant to last a long time. We must write them properly before adopting them and not the other way around. If there are errors in the draft resolution, it would be irresponsible not to correct them before the changes become effective.

Canadians want more than a travelling constitutional road show. They want a chance to be heard even after that commission is finished. No more secret meetings, no more secret deals, and no more manipulation and intimidation. Canadians want this Prime Minister to listen to them. They want meaningful reform.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this time, the Canadian people will be called upon to play an active and constructive role.

This time the concerns of all Canadians-our aboriginal peoples, women, people of every origin-and the concerns of all our regions must be reflected in any decisions taken by governments.
We must never forget that constitutional reform must, above all, have the goal of preserving our country and thereby improving the well-being of all Canadians. It must reaffirm the values shared by Canadians wherever they live in this great land. It must help us all to achieve the goal of social justice that makes up the very core of the Canadian identity.

Mr. Speaker, we are strongly committed to our principles as Liberal and as Canadians. We are proud to be Canadians and we will promote our concept of Canada across the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not static. The Liberal Party of Canada has understood this for a long time, despite what our opponents say. The Liberal Party has never been and will never be in favor of the status quo.
Mr. Speaker, our institutions must change, adapt and improve.

In the words of Jean Chretien, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the solutions we seek should respect at least three fundamental principles.
First, they must be compatible with the very nature of Canada which finds its raison d'etre in sharing, diversity, and respect for the rights of individuals.
Second, they must result in the reform of our political institutions, including the Senate, to ensure that the distinct concerns of our four great regions, the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, and the west, are respected.
Third, they must favour the renewal and modernization of our economy to create economic policies that will allow us to be competitive in the world of tomorrow.
In summary, and by way of conclusion, the process announced by the Prime Minister today is fraught with both opportunity and danger. The process of last spring ultimately failed because the people of Canada felt like mere observers, rather than full participants in that constitutional process. Surely the message of the events of last spring is that constitutions cannot be made behind closed doors in this country.

Consultation means more than the right of simply being heard either before or after the fact. Consultation must mean the right of the people of Canada to scrutinize and have input into specific constitutional proposals whenever they are presented by the government.
True consultation, true public participation, must be based on the notion that constitutional proposals by governments are not carved in stone. They can be altered. They can be changed as a direct consequence of public input.
We do welcome the process announced today by the Prime Minister. We see an important opportunity for public dialogue. We see an opportunity to foster understanding and consensus in the country. We also see some danger. This process is and can be only a first step. It must be followed by an open constitutional process. Once new and specific constitutional proposals are formulated by the federal government, that government must go back to the people of Canada again. It will not be acceptable for it to say to Canadians: "You have had your chance to be heard in the winter and spring of 1990 and now we, the federal government, are going back behind closed doors again."
Mr. Speaker, the days of "my way, or no way," are over.


Some hon. members:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable in this country to settle for a consensus of 11 men meeting in secret after the citizens' forum announced by the Prime Minister has reported.
True consensus, national consensus, will only be found in and through the hearts, minds and souls of Canadians. Let us recognize in this the autumn of our discontent that we must not fail again.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address some remarks today in response to the Prime Minister and to say that I think that finally an initiative has begun which will begin the dialogue in Canada.
Government Orders

Let me say first of all that I support all initiatives related to Canada's future. It is time to initiate a dialogue. With Meech Lake, Canadians lived through the most traumatic experiences ever seen in this country's recent history.

The Prime Minister said today that he wants to open up the constitutional process and implies that he is prepared to change the old style politics of behind closed doors decision-making.

I welcome these statements but, once again, I fear that the Prime Minister's rhetoric may not reflect his actions. He had four months to decide who to appoint to the Commission and to consult with various groups. He had four months to allow these groups to elect representatives who might have become members of the Commission.

There was an opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I think, if I may make reference to the commission itself, it has a good representation. My quarrel is not with the individuals who are on that commission, but the Prime Minister had an opportunity to fundamentally change the system in terms of opening up the process.
Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. Surely a commission like this should have been above partisan concerns, and I am not suggesting that the people who are appointed were necessarily partisan appointments. But the process could have changed if the Prime Minister had perhaps consulted-at least he did not consult me as leader of the New Democratic Party- about the kind of commission, about the terms of reference, that we as a party would like to see. That would have been a fundamental change in the old style of politics.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: There is another way that the Prime Minister could have changed the old system fundamentally by saying to different groups in our society: "Could you elect, or could you nominate persons to represent your particular interest-business, labour, aboriginal people".

Government Orders
Also, I regret, Mr. Speaker, that once again there is no representative from the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, one-third of Canada's land mass. I would like to say that there is a particular point of view from the north that I feel should be represented in such a constitutional committee.

Mr. Speaker, long before I became leader of my party, I was talking about opening up the constitutional decision-making process. As a Northerner, I was always frustrated at the governments that refused to consult us, that acted as if Northerners did not exist.

Therefore, it is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that there was no one from the Yukon or the Northwest Territories on this commission. I would ask the Prime Minister if he would reconsider that and consider someone from the north to be included in this commission. The Constitution building of this country clearly must become an inclusive process. A constitution cannot simply meet a legal test but must indeed meet the test of the people for whom that constitution and with whom that constitution is formed.
Last June I raised the idea in this House of a constituent assembly on the Constitution.

I was commenting that Canada needs such a renewal. Aboriginal people, women, labour, business and religious groups, as well as intellectuals must have their say on the Constitution we are creating.

I am pleased that at least this is a beginning on that idea which I presented last spring. There is more to the unity of Canada than a constitution. I want to remind Canadians that it is this Prime Minister who appointed eight GST senators to the Senate and who now says that he wants to see it change in those institutions, as does the New Democratic Party. That is why we have initiated a committee of the New Democratic Party on reform of parliamentary institutions.

Mr. Speaker, it is this Prime Minister who totally ignores the opinion of most people and refuses to withdraw the GST. He does not have a good reputation when it comes to listening and consulting.

I hope this will be a change, but I say again that the unity of the country is just not found only in a constitution. When people from outside the country look at our country, they often judge it on three characteristics: the rich culture and language of Quebec; aboriginal people, the First Nations of our country and; the north and the territories.
It is exactly on those three areas that we in Canada have failed to come together. That must be the challenge for this committee and for all Canadians. It is not sufficient just simply to have a committee of eminent persons-whom I am sure will work very hard and do a good job-but it is not just enough to have a committee that goes out to speak to Canadians. If we are truly to work for Canadian unity, we have to continue to find ways for Canadians to dialogue with each other.
One of the fundamental problems that we have in Canada is that in this diverse country due to the distances between communities, the people in Newfoundland often do not know the people of the Northwest Territories, the people in British Columbia, the people in Quebec and so on. We have to find ways in order to also bring about that kind of unity. There are many ways that one can do that. One can do that through communications systems.
It is ironic that at the same time that the Prime Minister is standing before us in this House and saying that he wants to work for the unity of Canada-and I believe him-at the same time there is a communications bill before this House that says that the CBC will no longer have a mandate to promote national unity. Let us have some consistency here, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: If the Prime Minister is serious about making his government open and honest, he should create a parliamentary committee on the Constitution and submit the commission's report to the committee for review.



In the spring I had proposed that we should establish a standing committee on the Constitution. Clearly, this would have been a way, since the repatriation of the Constitution, to have continued the dialogue and initiated dialogue throughout Canada. That was not done then. That was not done when I suggested it again to this government in the spring. Again, I would urge the Prime Minister and his government to consider the establishment of a standing committee on the Constitution so that members of Parliament also can be continuing to work on the Constitution of our country.
As I said, it is not simply enough for a group of Canadians to travel the country, but to find ways to bring people together in our country. I talked about the cuts to the CBC. I could have mentioned also the cuts to VIA Rail, which is another way from east to west that maintained some unity in our country.
This government has cut exchange programs from high school students. These are the things that bring people together. We should be developing initiatives for our young people to meet each other and have a dialogue, not simply to cut them back.
It is also a government that has cut aboriginal communications and women's groups communications. The government must be consistent here. If the government is truly dedicated to promoting Canadian unity, yes, it is the Constitution that is important, but it is just as important to make sure that groups can communicate with one another and that we can come to know each other.
There are other problems that are creating a lack of unity in this country today; that is, the economic situation of this country. The trade deal with the United States and the proposed trade deal with Mexico has already caused the loss of some 165,000 jobs in Canada. Every day, we read of yet another series of lay-offs: hundreds, and sometimes in the thousands.
The Prime Minister said that we are a rich country. I agree. As a rich country, we must hang our head in shame, and this government must hang its head in shame when one in six of our children still lives in poverty, when rural communities on the west and east coasts, and in central Canada, are being devastated by the economic policies of this government.
Government Orders
We know that in this country small business is one of the greatest creators of job opportunities. Yet small business itself is being devastated by the economic policies of this government. This is not the action of a government dedicated to unity. We must redress the imbalance in our economic system.
I say to the Prime Minister: Regional discontent in Canada, the disparity between the rich and poor does not simply lie with the constitutional structure. It is a product of economic and social policies. During the trade debate, we were very clear in this party about our concern for our natural resources, for our renewable resources and non-renewable resources.
We were very concerned about protecting the social programs. What has happened? Unemployment insurance has been privatized. Fish stocks have been devastated. Environmental review has really just become a shell and not a real environmental review. Things that will bring this country together are the shared and common values, as the other speakers have said, but those shared and common values must be represented as well by a shared and common responsibility, and a government that will stand up for the public interest, the public good and listen to all Canadians, and not just to the corporate voice.
How can we have fairness? How can we have unity in this country when women still are not paid equally with men, we still do not have adequate child care for our children nor, in fact, for many children even the basic necessities of life, shelter and food? How can unity be promoted in this country when every day there are more unemployed, more of our Canadian heritage is being sold to foreign interests and our sovereignty is compromised by another country?
This government has no full employment policy. In fact, in subsequent budgets the government has shown what the level of unemployment will be. Of course it has always underestimated it.
However, if this government were committed to Canadians and the Canadian interest, we would see policies of full employment. We would see policies of putting the environment before the interest of profit. We would see a government that says: "We are going to stand up for the public interest. We are not going to sell off Petro-Canada. We are not going to try to sell it back to Canadians and then sell a percentage to foreign owners. We are going to say that Canadian resources belong to

November 1, 1990

Government Orders
Canadians, and they will be operated in the interests of Canadians".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Those are the actions of a government that cares about Canadians, that cares about unity. The commission that has been appointed is a good step to begin the kind of dialogue, but it cannot just be the exclusivity of that commission.
I would like to see the government take action, as well as dialogue, and listen to Canadians to create ways for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to talk with each other and to learn about each other in French, in English, in aboriginal languages, in all of the languages people are most comfortable with.
Canada, as it is today, is still a very rich and prosperous country. We are rich not only in resources but in ideas. We are rich in cultures. We are richer for having Quebec as part of Canada. We are rich because of the north, because of the first nations of this country, because of the number of people who have chosen Canada as their home.
Yes, we have a financial deficit, but we have an even greater deficit if we do not all work to preserve this country, to pass this country on to our children, and to say that the worst deficit is the person who is homeless, the person without enough to eat, the young person who has no hope for a job in the future.
In order to bring us together, we must indeed resolve a Constitution that provides for equity and fairness from coast to coast in this country, equity between races, between language, between provinces and territories, between men and women. I believe very strongly that we can do this, because what Canadians do not have a deficit of is the spirit and the will. We have much to learn from each other. People in the Yukon have a lot to learn from people in Quebec, and vice-versa. That is true for across this country.

In spite of all these flaws and injustices, our country is still a great accomplishment: a meeting of various cultures and people separated by great distances, of communities united in their efforts to achieve the same goal.
We will await the terms of reference of this committee. I hope the Prime Minister will ensure that we do have a standing committee on the Constitution, that we do expand the process, and that we are able as parliamentarians to share in an ongoing way in the discussion of the committee's work. I would ask that the Prime Minister ensures that this committee will report not just to himself but to all parliamentarians and to all Canadians in a public and an open manner.
There are many things that we have to resolve. There is one thing I am sure that all parties can agree on, and that is that we must not lose what those before us have built and we must not give away what those of us hold in trust.
I wish the commission well. We in the New Democratic Party will participate in any way that we can across this country. I believe that we can create a more caring and compassionate country. I urge the Prime Minister not only to open the dialogue on constitutional matters but on economic, social and environmental issues that are of concern to all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-the environment; the hon. member for Hamilton East-the environment; the hon. member for Chambly-the environment.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments following the speech by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I must say that unlike the hon. member, I do not think this committee will accomplish anything of any substance, and that basically, it amounts to an admission of weakness by the government.
It is as though the government had shed its responsibilities and leadership and handed them over to the local quilting club and the kitchen-meeting circuit.

Mr. Speaker, should Canada's future be put in the hands of the non-elected? I wonder why the Prime Minister didn't ask the senators to be in charge of this committee. That would be just as democratic as what he announced this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I think the speeches by the various party leaders were the kind of speech they would have made in 1980. Ten years later, it is too late to decide to listen and respond to the question "what does Quebec want?". It is even worse this time, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec Round has been deep-sixed, and Quebec's legitimate demands, which are a prerequisite for any negotiations, will now be swallowed up by the demands of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister's failure to achieve national reconciliation has now been transmogrified into a kind of mini-committee which, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, will show Quebecers the utter lack of understanding that exists vis-a-vis Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct impression that if all the hearings are televised, they will prove to be Quebec sovereignty's best ally. I am convinced that night after night in the months to come, television will show Quebecers intolerance, lack of understanding and a refusal to accommodate our distinct identity.
And this is unfortunate.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is very sensitive to Quebec issues and who will rise later on, must realize that what we will get before this committee is a demonstration of ill-will. Actually, we should be relieved at the federal government's lack of imagination.
What I want to say, to the Prime Minister and to this House, is that we are not impressed at all by this diversion, and that the real purpose of this committee is not nation building but to provide a media event for the Prime Minister's weekend convention. We are only too aware that this is all part of a plan to shut up the Quebec Conservative Party and give them something to chew on during the weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I think this House is very disappointed in the government's lack of initiative. On the other hand, we see this committee as an opportunity for English Canada to do some soul-searching. That is good news. But in any case, it's too late, so use this committee to decide how you intend to negotiate with a sovereign Quebec.
Government Orders
If the committee really wants to fulfil its mandate and listen to the concerns of Canadians, it must be prepared for the choice Quebecers will make, irrespective of its findings.
Mr. Speaker, these comments were made subsequent to what was said by the Leader of the NDP, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not make a speech for 1980. I think we must look to the future.
Neither I nor my party are separatists. We intend to work together with all Canadians for the future of this country, a united country that is a reflection of our cultural diversity. I am proud of the fact that, for 25 years, my party has supported the concept of Quebec as a distinct society, and we will continue to support that concept, as well as the rights of natives, women, and the other provinces and territories, so that they will all have a place in Canada.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that what the Prime Minister said in this House at a very important moment in our history was well received, both by the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I deeply regret that among all these efforts to restore Canadian unity, efforts that may be a bit late in some cases but that are nevertheless being made by the Prime Minister at this time, the only strident note was struck by a member who seeks what he calls Quebec's sovereignty. I believe it is still possible to say that Canada, the Canadian federal system, provides the best guarantee for the survival of Francophones living in the province of Quebec, and that the federal structure is still the best system of government for the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers.
If some members in the Parliament of this country appear to have lost confidence in Canada, I find that regrettable. I think they are doing a disservice to the people of Quebec by taking a defeatist and pessimistic stance with respect to Canadian institutions that have admirably safeguarded the survival of French and French culture over the years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

November 1, 1990
Government Orders


André Ouellet: Although today, the Prime Minister has decided to let a group of citizens take over part of his responsibilities, I hope that following the work done by this group of eminent Canadians, the Prime Minister will be able to take a more enlightened approach to the kind of solutions he will put before Canadians and the provincial Premiers, in the interests of our country. Nevertheless, I applaud the action taken today. I have the greatest regard for Mr. Keith Spicer whom I have known for a long time, and I think he will do an excellent job as chairman of the forum. I wish him the best of luck. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I want to congratulate those who have agreed to serve with Mr. Spicer on this forum, and I think that although what they do will not provide the final answer to Canadian problems, the forum will most certainly provide a vehicle for as many Canadians as possible to express their views in the interests of unity, which I think is essential for the many Quebecers who, I am convinced have not lost confidence in Canadian unity.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reiterate once again that my party and I are absolutely committed to doing what we can to leave to our children the country that we inherited.
That does not mean it is the same country and the same status quo. It means that we can find new ways to relate to one another, that we can find ways and probably better ways to recognize and respect one another.
I am proud to participate in that process. The initiative of the Prime Minister may not have been the one that I would have taken necessarily, and as I pointed out in my speech, it could have been done in some other ways. We have begun the dialogue. It is important now for all parliamentarians of goodwill who want to work for this country to support that process.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate. May I say on behalf of my colleagues in the government how pleased I am at the support that has been expressed by the leaders of the other parties in the House for this initiative.
As we all know-no one knows it more dramatically than those of us who are in politics-we live in a cynical time. There have been some expressions of doubt about
how this commission will proceed, how this forum will affect debate. I think it should be judged by its work.
It has been established by this government in recognition of some profound changes in the attitudes of Canadians towards Canada, and based upon a determination to do what we can at this critical time in the country, to ensure not only that Canadians participate, because that is simply a question of process-an important question but a question of process-but also to ensure that as we move forward from what I believe is genuinely a turning point in the history of this country, we all of us have the benefit of the best and considered advice of people across the country whose concern about their country we should never underestimate.
When I go home to my constituency or when I speak to Canadians across the country, I am always encouraged by the evidence that I find of the degree to which men and women, who have other things to do, think about this country, value it, have dreams and aspirations as to what it can become.
The question was raised as to the public nature of this process. It will be very public, very open. That is its design. The Prime Minister spoke quite accurately when he said that our purpose here is to put in place a system. I think this is the first time something like this has ever been done by any country anywhere, a system that will encourage people everywhere in the country, communities across the land, to speak and work together about what we want to make of this nation.
I think it appropriate to make the case that in times of great trouble in the country, and obviously we are facing times of great trouble in this country, the easy thing is to retreat to nostalgia or to simply put one's head down and say, "There is nothing we can do about that". The other easy thing, of course, is to attack other Canadians. I remember the words of a distinguished former leader of my party, former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, who observed once that nothing is easier in Canada than to unite most of Canada against some of Canada. That of course is easy. It has always been easy and it has never been worthy. That temptation may be there for some in the country. It is a temptation that I think the great majority of members of this Parliament, and certainly I believe the great majority of the citizens of my part of Canada, in western Canada, will want to turn aside.
November 1, 1990

I congratulate the Prime Minister, not only on bringing this in, but having the imagination at this time of great crisis in the country to be prepared to look at new models, to recognize that there are faults in all of us and that we are only going to be able to make the most of this extraordinary country if we recognize some of those faults and are prepared to adopt new ways of defining together the nature of the country.
Along with a number of other members- [Translation]
I must add something because my friend, the hon. member for Shefford, used the word "intolerance". He was the only one to use it in this debate. He thinks the public hearings will indicate a feeling of intolerance across Canada. I doubt it but we will see.
I think this process will reveal neither intolerance nor hatred but a much more positive attitude toward Canada by citizens from Quebec and Alberta among others. He does not agree with me at the moment, but I intend to wait for the process to indicate what Canadians really think.
I am convinced that Canadians want a country known for its tolerance.

Mr. Speaker, with a number of other members, I celebrated-one is never sure whether it was an honour the other night-the eighteenth anniversary of my election to the House of Commons. I have to say that in that period of time, and in the time in which I was honoured to work in public life before that, I do not think there has ever been a period in which one could be less certain about what would happen to this country, or, indeed, the challenges that were facing the nation were greater than they are now.
I have had the privilege over that time to take part in the great national debates that have shaped the country. I had the privilege, along with others who were in the House, who are in the House now with the Prime Minister, to take part directly and personally in the debate in Quebec during the referendum.
Government Orders
I have had the opportunity, sometimes uncomfortably, to have to defend the politics of national unity, to have to defend the Official Languages Act and other instruments across the country. I have done that with pride.
I think we are now at a time in which there has been quite a profound change in the attitudes of Canadians towards the country. Let me speak for my part of the country. I believe that the reaction in my part of the country to the Meech process was that there were opponents there, large numbers of opponents.
I believe at the end of the day they were, in fact, not opposed to the idea of a distinct society. There will always be some in western Canada who worry about that view and there will always be people there who seek to exploit them. But I think that that was not the principal concern at the end. At the end it was a concern of process. I think people did genuinely feel that the process that had worked for years excluded them, that there was something wrong with the institution of federal-provincial relations.
Certainly in my part of the country there is a profound sense that there is something wrong with our parliamentary institutions, more the other place than ours, but both our places, a sense that these institutions do not reflect the real requirements of a country that has become, among other things, much more educated, much more sophisticated, in which people have a much greater capacity to take decisions themselves as to the future of the country.
By the failure of the Meech Lake process, there was brought into sharp focus, in western Canada at least, a profound dissatisfaction with the way the country works; not a dissatisfaction with Canada, but a dissatisfaction with the way the country works. To any of us who have had the privilege of being acquainted with Quebec, that part of Canada, there was a profound disappointment at the rejection of Meech Lake, and some sense that Canada had turned away from Quebec.
I thought that one of the most important questions that was posed in the immediate aftermath of Meech Lake was a question posed, mt by a member of this House, but by the Liberal Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. He made the observation-I believe it was on the floor of the National Assembly of Quebec, that for a long time the question had been, "What does Quebec want?". Now the question is, "What does Canada want?".

November 1, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, a question for Yellowhead in Alberta, a good question for Quebec, a good question for Toronto, a good question for the north, for Halifax, for everywhere in the country, because we are facing a time when we have to answer that question.
What is it that this country wants? We know our history. As the Prime Minister outlined with such eloquence today in the House of Commons, it has been a history that, of course, has been marked by differences, divisions, and very often, by danger.
We know that history. And we know that we have formed out of that history a quite extraordinary society, a society that is marked as almost no other in the world is, by a tradition of diversity, a capacity to reflect a wide range of cultures and traditions here within the context of one nation. But how does that apply to the world we are facing now? I think those are questions which should not be looked at as constitutional questions because they are not narrowly constitutional. Those are questions about who we are as a country. Of course it is important that parliamentarians address those questions, as all of us do, but it is also important that the people of Canada, whose country this is, have the opportunity in a formal, organized way to address those kinds of questions. This process is not simply to travel the country.
The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that this is not a royal commission like others. Other royal commissions hear briefs by formal groups, bear presentations to government. What this is designed to do is to make it more possible, to encourage individual Canadians to speak with other individual Canadians; people who may not have met one another before, people who come from different cultures and people who have different ways of looking at the country. This commission is not to celebrate or to deepen our differences, but to find ways by bringing together the quite remarkable diversity of this country, we can define what kind of nation we want to have by the year 2000, what kind of nation we want to have as we face the extraordinary new challenges the world poses to all civilized societies.
If I may revert to my role as the foreign minister of the country, that is important to us, and we should never forget it in this House. It is also fundamentally important to other peoples in the world.
The Prime Minister evoked that great Irish poet, Robbie Bums-


An hon. member:: With a Scottish accent.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, I thought I could get away with a bit of humour, but I see that I have as much luck in the House as I do in the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that other countries of the world take great confidence from the success Canada has made.of bringing together diversity. Indeed, there is no question that if we continue the role of leadership that is open to us, both practical leadership, the kind of which I speak, and moral leadership, of the kind which others in the House speak of more often, our capacity for that kind of leadership will extend quite dramatically if we are capable of continuing and extending into the new world of the future the quite remarkable ability to bring together differences that we have here. Nor is this process designed simply to be about constitutions, which are formal things. What this is designed to do is encourage Canadians to think about the kind of country we want our constitutions to reflect and to express.
There will be times for constitutional discussion. There will be times for lawyers. This is a time for ordinary Canadians who have views about their country to think what those views should be and about what the country should be and try to find some ways in which we can come together. We face fundamental historic challenges, as we always have, in relation to French and English speaking Canadians. Those have always been serious and they are now. They are a great challenge.
The debate is larger now. The debate is also a debate, not simply about the role of Canadians of French or English speaking origin in this country, but also the role of Canadians of other origins. To an increasing degree it is a debate, at least from my part of the country, about how different regions can find their expression and find their future and find a sense of continuing identification in their country, Canada.
November 1, 1990

It is a matter of irony to some, and of more acute concern to others, that in this government which has been able to act on the agenda of western Canada, getting rid of the national energy program, getting rid of the foreign investment review agency, getting rid of a number of the instances which had been such a source of antagonism towards the centre in western Canada. Even though all of those individual programs are gone now, there is still unquestionably a sense of alienation in that region. There is still unquestionably a sense in western Canada that the goals of that region are not reflected in the nation as much as they should be. So the challenge now is to look beyond the question of dealing with specific policy changes, and to take a look at the institutions of the country to see how well they serve us and how they can be changed.
It would be presumptuous of us to assume that we are the only ones-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I must interrupt the hon. gentleman. He will have six minutes remaining, plus 10 minutes questions and comments the next time the debate is before the House.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


John Paul Manley: that Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this bill which received first reading on November 7, 1989, it is worthwhile to think back to the events that occurred one month later. At the University of Montreal in the faculty of engineering on December 6, Marc Lepine entered, bearing a semi-automatic hunting rifle. By the time he had finished his carnage, he had killed 14 women, wounded 13 other people, and taken his own life.
The purpose of this bill is not to address directly the issue of Marc Lepine, but it does address the issue of gun control. It asserts, by the very virtue of its having been presented here, my belief that gun control not only is in
Private Members' Business
the interests of Canada, and the public in Canada, but it prevents incidents such as that that occurred at the University of Montreal from occurring as frequently or as regularly as might otherwise be the case.
I am not unaware that this kind of legislation tends to be controversial. It certainly attracts correspondence, as I can attest to myself, from those throughout Canada who think that in fact there should be freer access to firearms. With respect, I disagree with those people and I believe the somewhat modest changes in the firearms acquisition certificate system that I am proposing in the present bill, not only make sense, but would improve the bill and the law in Canada. This bill is an improvement in several ways over the legislation which the government brought forward in Bill C-80.
Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the perspective that I have on this, think of some of these things that have happened.
Last year, during the first week of hunting season in the counties of Grey and Bruce, eight hunters were charged with firearm-related offences.
In Manitoba, August 1989, Winnipeg police conducted a three-month under-cover operation that showed that 12 gun store employees sold guns to under-cover police officers, even though they did not have the proper certification. In total, officers brought 12 guns, including two shotguns and various 22-calibre rifles from a dozen dealers.
Superintendent Wayne King of the Winnipeg police reported that in 1988, there were 96 cases of stolen certificates.
In St. Catharines, Ontario, a 14-year-old boy pleaded guilty to manslaughter when he shot his friend after taking a pistol from his father's gun case. Before the shooting, the youth wandered around his neighbourhood randomly firing the handgun, narrowly missing a mother and daughter sitting in their living room. The court was told that he shot a boy once in the chest and once in the back of the head as he lay on the ground. "He had a couple of beers and was acting goofy, so I shot him." On it goes.
In Canada, criminological research published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology shows that there has been a remarkable decline in armed robberies and homicides with handguns since gun controls were introduced in 1978. In addition, the findings indicate that there is no support for the hypothesis that restrictions on guns lead to an increase in homicides and assaults with non-shooting weapons such as knives. There is research that bears that out, particularly in the United States. I

Private Members' Business
am referring to some research performed by Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins who wrote The Citizen's Guide to Gun Control. This is what they found in the United States. In Detroit, which has experienced a substantial build-up of guns from 1965 to 1968, the number of gun permits issued increased tenfold. During the same period, robberies committed with guns increased at twice the rate of non-gun robberies.
When they examined the issue between regions, they reported that gun homicides and gun assaults parallel gun ownership. Crimes are higher in regions that have higher gun ownership. Between cities, the same analysis proved to be correct. They compared Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Boston, and New York.
They also examined the question that, if guns were scarce and would-be killers had to find other weapons, that there would be as many deaths. In fact this proved not to be the case. They discovered that gun wounds were over five times more likely to cause death than stab wounds. Guns have greater range, are less easily warded off, and require less physical and psychological strength than other weapons.
Similar research findings exist in Australia. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research bears this out.
Needless to say, England is an example where it is very difficult to obtain firearms and in fact even police in the United Kingdom do not bear fire arms in the ordinary course. The crime statistics bear out the fact that this kind of control results in fewer crimes.
This is all in the context of what is easily discoverable by looking at our newspapers. I have pulled some clippings, all of which are from since first reading of this bill. "Woman shot in hand while deer hunting". "Car gets hit by stray bullet". "Deer decoy sets bait for illegal hunters". "Hunter killed in Dunedin". "Hunter fined in shooting death in Walkerton". A reward is offered in Cambridge, Ontario, by a farmer who is trying to track down those responsible for blasting two of his horses with a shotgun.
And it goes on: "Vancouver mayor and police target guns". "Boys with handgun try to hold up store". "Bus boy captures suspect after shoot-out"-this is in Ottawa. "Man charged in shooting in North York". "Rifle is stolen in break-in in Huron Township". "Richmond Hill man shot while hunting". "Gun fires accidentally in gas bar robbery in Scarborough". "Thief on probation", in Chatham, Ontario, where a 19-year old man robbed a firearm store at gunpoint less than three weeks after being placed on probation. And on it goes, Mr. Speaker, on and on. These examples of criminal activity occurring in Canada with firearms.
What I would like to bring forward to your attention, Mr. Speaker, are the simple elements that I have suggested in Bill C-273. I do not suggest for a moment that this is all that needs to be done to amend the gun control provisions of our country. There are many elements of Bill C-80, the government's bill, that I think are good. I do not think it goes far enough in other ways. We are not debating Bill C-80 here today. But I have suggested just a few changes to the firearms acquisition certificate system in Bill C-273 that I think will make an improvement to the system we have got.
First, I suggested that the age for obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate be increased to the age of majority in Canada, 18 years of age.
Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker, in this city, in Ottawa? A mother was contacted by city police after her 16-year old had applied, without her knowledge, for a firearms acquisition certificate. The police contacted her as a matter of courtesy to let her know that her son had applied for this certificate. It was not necessary for the police to do so, and under the existing law it is possible for a 16-year-old, without parental knowledge or consent, for the payment of a $10 fee, to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate that would enable him or her to go into a Canadian Tire store or other gun seller and purchase a firearm in Canada. Essentially, it is the same way Mark Lepine did, although he at least was over the age of 18.
Second, I propose when an applicant wishes to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate, in addition to the other requirements of the law, that he be able to prove in a satisfactory way to the police that he is able to provide secure storage facilities for the firearm. The reality is that many, many firearms offences occur in Canada with stolen firearms. I realize there will be some enforcement
November 1, 1990

problems with this provision, but I am asking that the government put forward regulations that would define as a minimum the secure storage requirements in a person's residence for a firearm for which a certificate has been issued. It should be secure, it should be locked, and they should be able to provide evidence that that is the case.
It would be a minimum, if a firearm were reported stolen from a principal residence, that evidence of break in of a secure storage device be proven, and for those who have concerns about children using firearms that are owned by their parents, it would enable them to have the comfort of knowing at least the parents were under some legal obligation to establish that they had a secure means of storing the firearm.
The next thing I propose with this bill is that the fee for a firearms acquisition certificate be increased from $10 to $100. We could argue about the amount. In Bill C-80, the government proposes $50. It just strikes me that the fee of $10 is so ridiculously low that it does not come close to generating revenue to pay for the system of firearm acquisition certificates. It is a simple matter to me that if we agree that such a system should exist in Canada, then those who wish to possess firearms should pay for the system and support it with their fees. So, $100 is what I suggest. The government suggests $50. It seems to me that an increase is clearly warranted.
The next suggestion I make is that the firearms acquisition certificate identify the type of firearm in relation to which it is issued and be valid in respect of one such firearm. The importance of this is that currently when an individual obtains a certificate, they are able to go out and acquire as many firearms as they wish with that certificate. Consequently, when the police are contacted with respect to a quarrel in a residence, they may from their computers be able to determine that a firearm acquisition certificate has been issued to a person residing at that address. When they arrive at that address, they do not know if there is one solitary weapon or firearm, or perhaps a whole arsenal, behind its doors and windows. It strikes me that in our society we require people to have one ownership certificate for each motor vehicle they possess. I fail to understand why we would not require a similar law for each firearm that they possess.
Private Members' Business
I have taken the trouble with the provisions of this bill to seek out the reaction of police forces across Canada. What I have discovered is that by and large police forces have been eager to support the provisions of Bill C-273.
I will not endeavour to review all of the correspondence that I have received. I have received it from every part of Canada. I will give some examples:

For example, William D. Patterson, from Mascouche, Quebec, says: "We want to inform you of our support for the reforms proposed in Bill C-273 and we wish you good luck in your efforts."

Similarly, D. J. Crowell, chief of police in Kentville, Nova Scotia, regarding the proposed changes in Bill C-273: "Please be advised that I support these changes fully." Similarly, from David J. Sherwood, chief of police in Saint John, New Brunswick: "considering that guns play a large part in the occurence of crime in our country, I most certainly will lend support to your proposed changes in Bill C-273."

Normand Bergeron, a police officer in Quebec City, writes: "We fully support Bill C-273 on gun control."
Christian Harvey, from Chicoutimi, Quebec, says: "I can assure you of my support for the proposed reforms-"

There is correspondence from Trois-Rivieres, Leamington, Barrie, Bradford, Ontario, New Westminster, B.C., Victoria, B.C. There are many others who support these reforms.
When one considers the fact that crime with firearms continues to increase at an alarming rate in Canada, one thinks of the unnecessary deaths of many people. I suggest that these somewhat modest reforms ought to be accepted in our society.
I would like to respond briefly to the argument that is undoubtedly going to be made by those who oppose stricter firearms control, that criminals do not apply for firearms acquisition certificates. Some people will say: "If you are going to commit a crime, one does not go out and apply for a certificate to get a gun." I think Marc

November 1, 1990
Private Members' Business
Lepine is very good evidence that that is not necessarily the case.
Furthermore, this view ignores the reality which is made clear by criminological research. The majority of homicides in Canada occur among friends and in domestic situations. The Canadian Centre of Justice Statistics shows by its data that the weapon used most frequently to kill women and children in the home is a gun, usually one purchased for hunting purposes.
It is a simple proposition. Gun control works. There are some problems with the framework of law that is currently in Canada. Some modifications are called for and the government acknowledges that with Bill C-80.1 propose a few which are similar and some which are different from what it is proposing. In the final analysis, these amendments make sense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as justice critic of the New Democratic Party to speak briefly on this private members' bill.
I would like to comment generally on gun control and then I will comment, clause by clause, on the bill put forward by hon. member for Ottawa South.
I refer to a story by Peter O'Neill of the The Vancouver Sun, Ottawa bureau. It appeared in the Victoria Times Columnist recently. It states: "Gun control legislation faces death, Ottawa. The federal government's controversial gun control legislation may die along with the current parliamentary session, Justice Minister Kim Campbell said Monday". It goes on: "Campbell said she would discuss with her Conservative colleagues next week whether there is still time to hold public hearings to get the bill through the Commons." It has almost been a year now since the 14 women were killed at the Ecole polytechnique in Montreal by the crazed man Marc Lepine. There was a great outcry to deal with an update of gun control. The government promised that.
I just want to say that the government has been very gutless here. It is a broad gutlessness if you like, Mr. Speaker, because not only has it failed to deal with a bill, but it has have failed to even deal with a bill from both sides, from not only the people who oppose it, but the people who are for gun control.
I believe that there is a way here in which we can have stronger gun control that will stop crazy people, criminals and people in a fit of passion from getting guns and will keep Canada different than the United States, where they have 45 million handguns, but will also protect our traditional ways of life in the north among hunters, fishermen and trappers and so on.
I want to address some of these concerns. I think the Minister of Justice is gutless in not dealing properly with gun control. I am putting her on notice, come the one year anniversary of the Montreal killings, I will be putting a question to her as to what has happened with her bill and what she has done.
I want to say this to the hon. member for Ottawa South. In the little experience I have had, as justice critic and looking into this gun control legislation, I visited the RCMP and saw all the different guns. I went into the firing range and fired an Uzi and I looked at all the pistols they had seized and everything. I went through the act and I tried to come to terms with all the technical matters of the act. There are some problems with this bill. Let me just outline them.
The first one is you need a firearms acquisition certificate to get a gun now, unless your gun is grandfathered before the law came in during the late seventies. You raise the age to 18. You have got a problem. What about in rural Canada? I say this to the member, and I hope he is listening. I have noticed and you must notice, there is a difference between the people who live in Ottawa South, or the centre of Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal and those who live in the rural areas. Whereas, like my friend right next to me here has, let us say, a 16 year old son who wants to go hunting with him. What we have to consider in that area is whether that is going to be an impossible prohibition to those younger people who may in the rural areas be like 18 year olds, in fact, have grown up in many ways and are responsible. I would want to look at that very carefully.
The second part of his bill I like very much, the fact that the applicant should provide secure storage facilities. I think any reasonable person, that is who we are trying to deal with in these firearm certificates, would do this. I think that is a good part of his bill. I think the government should consider that and indeed, I will consider it closely when we are debating the government's bill, if we ever get to debate it, Bill C-80.

The third part of his bill suggests the fee go from $10 to $100 to get one of these certificates. The government's bill would have it go to $50. You have to look at what the intention is here. What is the intention? Is the intention really to generate revenue? On the intention of the firearms acquisition certificate and whatever fee should be attached to it, I think what we are looking at is to make sure responsible people get a certificate and therefore, get the guns and not people who are emotional, temporarily crazy, have a bad history or have a criminal background.
I think we would be best not clouding the matter with fees that sometimes that could be too high. For example, my friend here tells me that he has got a couple of guns: one gun to hunt moose and another gun to hunt partridge. If he took his son along with him, he would need a firearms acquisition certificate. That would be $400. It might get too expensive, so I make a plea.
I make a plea. Those people who are anti-gun control are flooding the Deputy Prime Minister's office with "stop this bill", Bill C-80, the government's bill. They do not want to see gun control. I say to those people, please accept that I think the majority of the people in this country want to see gun control and a good strong gun control.
Those people who are for gun control, like the hon. member who has just spoken, while being strong in the position-and I put myself in this position as well-let us be realistic. Let us get a system that recognizes urban rural differences. Let us be flexible enough that we can accommodate hunters, trappers, collectors and so on, so that we can bring them on board with gun control. That would be the real genius.
If the Minister of Justice and the government were listening, they would take the best from this hon. member's bill, the best from some of the bills that were presented the other day. They would bring their bill down quickly. They would hold hearings right away to bring in all the gun clubs and the other people, because this is really important. They would bring in as many different points as possible and they would fashion a real workable gun control legislation in this country. I think that is what the hon. member for Ottawa South wants to see and that is what we in the New Democratic Party want to see as well.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate tonight and respond to the hon. member for Ottawa South in relation to his bill, Bill C-273.
The question does come down to what is effective gun control? There is not a member in this House who does not recognize the need for effective gun control, whether it be NDP, Liberal or members from my party. We do not argue that.
In a free society, obviously it brings another dimension into the argument as to how free a society can we have. Do we want a system as they have in the United States of America where I believe you can own just about any kind of a gun with virtually no restrictions at all. If you look at the statistics in that country, I think that most of us would agree that it is probably too free a system, that you do pay a price in society for having guns available to the extent that they do have in the United States.
I do not think we want to take that route for one minute, Mr. Speaker, because the system south of the border is broken down to the lowest common denominator. It is too easy.
If you examine our gun control law in this country, you will find that it is very effective. It has achieved the type of things that we wanted to achieve. It has allowed the law-abiding Canadian to have and use guns for recreational purposes and for purposes that we see day-in and day-out in ridings such as mine, a rural riding.
In my riding, for example, there would be very few households where they would not have a gun. The problems attached to the ownership of those guns are virtually non-existent, although problems do occur from time to time.
The question is, how do we keep those problems from occurring? What what type of restrictions do we put on the average Canadian? What type of a society do we create to stifle or eliminate those types of problems from occurring?
If you examine the present law that we have in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that it is pretty effective. Let us take a look at what we do have.
We do have a firearms acquisition certificate, known as the FAC. That certificate ensures that new gun owners are screened. It ensures that those who acquire guns on a regular basis are rescreened every five years. What does that mean? We have some safeguards built into the system so that not just anyone can walk in and purchase a gun. I am the first to admit that the screening process

November 1, 1990
Private Members' Business
can be improved upon, and it will be improved upon by Bill C-80.
Also, the law restricts access to persons under the age of 16, except in cases where the child is under the supervision of an adult or in a few cases where the gun is a necessary part of the hunting or trapping life of that family. We do have restrictions and we do have a system in this country that is probably the best in the western world.
Firearms that are more likely to be used in crime are subject to even more restrictions. Handguns have to be registered with the RCMP and require special possession permits. Machine guns, sawed-off rifles, and shotguns are strictly prohibited, period.
Special offences and sentencing powers are in place to provide additional punishment for those who violate gun control laws or use firearms to commit other crimes.
Those are just some of the provisions within our existing legislation which make our legislation different from that of the country to the south that the hon. member mentioned in his remarks. There is a big difference. I do not think we can sensationalize this issue and I do not think we should, but there is a marked difference between the system we have and the system it has.
We must remind ourselves that from time to time our system has to be reviewed. I do not argue that. That is exactly what we are doing in Bill C-80.
Some of the amendments the member for Ottawa South is putting forward are worth examination. Let us take a look at those. One of his amendments would require applicants for a firearms acquisition certificate to establish that they have a safe place to store a gun. No one would argue with that.
To drive home the importance of a safe storage area for a gun, the other evening on the radio a young father was interviewed, 25 years old or so, whose little 3-year old boy was accidentally shot by the father through the mishandling of a gun in their own home. The first thing he mentioned was the safe storage of guns. No one would argue with that. It is reasonable.
The member also mentioned the increase in the licensing fee, the FAC, to $100 per certificate. I think that $100 is an unreasonable amount if we look at a cross-section of the country and areas in rural parts of New Brunswick and of Ontario that are using guns for hunting and in trapping situations. There are still a few trappers left in this country.
Under the new system the member would propose, it would mean to a gun collector a $100 fee for each transaction. It is putting restrictions on bona fide gun collectors. I think that is most unreasonable. His system would also require a new FAC on every purchase made. Under Bill C-80-and if the amendments the member brought forward became part of this bill-we would have a 28-day waiting period for each and every acquisition along with the $100 fee; most unreasonable.
Our present system is not to deter gun owners, but to screen out and deter only those who should not have access to guns for reasons of their own safety or the safety of others. That is what we have to attempt to do, and that is what we will do within Bill C-80.
The value of this debate and the value of some of the amendments that the hon. member for Ottawa South makes will come out in the legislative hearings on Bill C-80. It would be right if the member would bring those forward so that we could openly discuss, debate and modify some of his suggestions. None of us will argue with a safer gun law in this country.
Some of the hon. member's proposals can fit into our existing system but some clearly cannot. For that reason I cannot support his bill, and I urge my colleagues in the House to reject his amendments as well.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise this afternoon to support the motion put forward by my colleague from Ottawa South requesting that Bill C-273 be adopted.
There are serious questions we have to ask ourselves in this country. Why is it easier to buy a gun than a case of beer in Canada? For instance, a 17-year old Canadian can apply for a firearm acquisition certificate without even asking his parent or another authority for their consent, as my hon. colleague from Ottawa South

Private Members' Business
indicated a moment ago. But, coming back to my example, you do not need one to get a case of beer.
In our society, it is not forbidden to hunt while drunk. [English]
That is important. It is not an offence in Canada to hunt while drunk. There is no such offence in this country. It is only illegal to point your gun at something once you are drunk. You could walk around in the bush with a loaded gun on your back and be drunk, provided you can stand up, and that is not an offence. There has to be something wrong with our laws when that kind of nonsense is allowed to happen. You can probably buy a case of dynamite easier than you can buy a case of beer. What is wrong with us?
We have a proposal today by a colleague to tighten up slightly-and it is only slightly; let us not kid ourselves- our gun legislation in this country. We are proposing under this bill to have one firearms acquisition certificate per purchase of gun. Does that not sound reasonable? Every time you buy a new gun, you go to ask the police and the authorities whether you are fit to own one.

The existing legislation states that the certificate shall remain in force for five years. How are we to know, Mr. Speaker, if you or I will still be fit to own a gun four years and 364 days from now?
I sometimes wonder if I will still have all my wits from one week to the next! I surely am in no position to tell what will be the case four years and a half or five years minus one day from now.

Yet, five years from now or five years less a day I could use a firearms acquisition certificate that I bought today and buy my 499th gun with it. That is not against the law. Why do we need firearms legislation?
Mr. Speaker, one third of the homicides reported in Canada in 1989 were committed with a firearm. Of the 218 homicides by gun, 44 per cent were committed with a rifle, 25 per cent with a handgun, 17 per cent with a shotgun and 2 per cent with a sawed-off rifle or shotgun. These are very sad statistics.

A few years ago I read in a United States magazine about fire arms incidents there. Of course they are far worse there than they are here, but I think the message was obvious. It said, and I paraphrase because I do not remember the numbers exactly, that last year in Britain there were 250 homicides by guns; in France there were 300; in another European country there were so many; and in the United States there were 10,552 or something to that effect. It ended by saying: "God bless America."
The same article made an important point. Of all the United States presidents who were murdered, assassinated, or on which there was an attempt against then-life, every single one of them was with a firearm. No U.S. president was stabbed. No U.S. president was ever attacked with any other kind of a weapon than a firearm.
In this country we have only lost one national political figure, and his statue is right at the back of this building. It was Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and Thomas D'Arcy McGee regrettably was shot.
Is it not time we started to learn from what we know so well?

I have here a letter signed by Mr. Michel Denis, the Chief of Police of Hawksbury, in my riding. This letter was adressed to my colleague from Ottawa South, who sponsored this bill.
It reads:

Dear Sir:
I read with considerable interest your proposed Bill C-273
regarding gun control.
We the Hawkesbury Police Force fully support your position. This
position enables us to ensure a better protection to our
communities.

Private Members' Business
We commend you for bringing this position so strongly to the
attention of our parliamentary system.
It is signed, as I said previously, by the Chief of Police, Michel Denis.
This government might well talk this bill out today or it might defeat it, as I suppose is its right and as is our right as parliamentarians to approve or reject legislation in this House.
Let us think what is at stake. Let us remember that this is not stopping the ownership of guns. This is tightening up on rules which are way too loose in Canada. In the process, we could all contribute a bit toward saving the lives of people who are being killed by the discharge of firearms in this country.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration today gives us a welcome opportunity to debate an issue of utmost importance to Canadians-rising crime or violence in our society.
For openers, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I totally disagree with the propositions advocated by the hon. member for Ottawa South in his motion today. And I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that I explain why I am so strongly opposed to some of the points raised in the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa South.
I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that it all depends on the way we look at our country as a society. I suggest he will be the first to admit that a city like Ottawa may not be the most violent or a place where crime is rampant.
We hear about the odd fight now and then in this city. There are cities where criminality is a lot more apparent.
I should like to invite the hon. member for Ottawa South to visit my riding of Abitibi-'Temiscamingue, for I am sure he will agree that my region has often been described as a hunter's paradise. If the hon. member were to come with me to Abitibi-Temiscamingue in places like Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or or Senneterre and tell the people there that it will be more difficult to obtain firearms, their reaction would be to want to walk down the street with the head of the hon. member instead of the horns of a deer. Back home it is unthinkable that we would tell 150,000 people that we want to make it harder for them to buy firearms. I can tell the
hon. member for Ottawa South that people in my neck of the woods are bom in houses full of firearms and that my region is indeed one of the most pacifist in Canada simply because people are used to firearms.
They know that a firearm can be the source of great enjoyment, yet that it can also be an extremely dangerous tool which has to be put in a secure place in the home. That is the point I want to get across to the member for Ottawa South. We have to be careful if we are thinking of imposing coercive measures on all Canadians, because all Canadians are not prone to indulge in crime or violence. I understand the intention of the hon. member when he makes this proposition, but I want to tell him that these would be quite restrictive measures in the case of a good many Canadians who are not violent by nature.
With respect to crime, the member for Ottawa South will agree with me that despicable murders are committed on a regular basis. Practically every day we hear about this sort of thing through newspapers and TV reports. But perhaps we should denounce more openly some of the papers that have a large circulation precisely because they specialize in crimes of this nature. I am not saying that we should hide those, but I say that some media give a lot of coverage to those cases. Every day, they show people covered with blood, people killed, and I tell myself that what we should be eliminating from this country are the causes that breed that kind of violence. We touched on those causes earlier. Poverty breeds violence. The member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was referring to drugs and alcohol. Many things drive people to violence and, Mr. Speaker, it is not because they will not find a firearm that they will not be violent. Violence can be done with a knife, a hammer or a rope, and people bent on violence will commit it, whatever tool or means are available to them.
So, Mr. Speaker, the object of my intervention is to say to the member from Ottawa South that we have to be very careful, because there are people in this country who can- He mentioned police forces which agreed with his petition, I can understand that. But surely, thousands and thousands of other police forces did not state their opinion on the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa South. I am quite sure that in an area like mine, a motion like this would not be readily accepted. I say to the hon. member for Ottawa South that this is rather like a social debate. Statistics may show that crime is on the rise, but I think we should work more on the causes than
November 1, 1990

on the weapons themselves, because when one is determined to commit violence, one will find the means.
I have got here very interesting statistics. I would like to give you, Mr. Speaker, statistics which I had on the number of applications received by the RCMP in 1989.1 think they received about 200,000 applications, I can't find the exact figure but it was something like 200,000 applications. If the RCMP had to examine carefully every one of these applications, Mr. Speaker, if they had to go and check where these firearms were going to be stored, they would be faced with an incredible task and while they would be doing this, they would not be working on preventing other crimes. Drugs would be rampant, dealers would push drugs freely as members of the force would be tied-up with other tasks.
The hon. member has alluded to the way firearms are categorized in Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that most firearms in Canada belong to the unrestricted category and can be acquired without restrictions. There are also more dangerous firearms that are mentioned in Bill C-80. I think that the hon. member for Ottawa South knows that Bill C-80 is nevertheless providing for important measures to limit the access to dangerous firearms; those firearms are all the same used for legitimate purposes and are part of restricted firearms and there are firearms that do not serve any legitimate purposes such as machine guns and truncated shot guns that are among prohibited firearms.
One of the reasons of such a classification of firearms is to allow people who control firearms and enforce the law to concentrate their limited resources to controlling those firearms that are most dangerous to society.
The law provides that the majority of resources assigned to selection and enforcement be concentrated on high-risk firearms and owners. We select all new owners of firearms and require that people who want to acquire a firearm go through an additional selection test and register their firearms.
Another reason in support of the current classification is to minimize the impact of legal restrictions on the activities of most firearms users who use hunting rifles
Private Members' Business
and unrestricted guns for recreational or hunting purposes.
The proposed amendments which the Minister of Justice will introduce respect this classification.
Bill C-80 includes compulsory provisions concerning the secure storage of weapons, but they refer to collectors of restricted weapons, not to those who apply for firearms acquisition certificates.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to another member eager to deal with this issue, I should like to tell the hon. member for Ottawa South that Canadians who own firearms are law abiding citizens and make sure that Canada is a safe place for all. Mr. Speaker, they will certainly support all reasonable and efficient methods to help make a selection among all applicants for firearms acquisition certificates, but they should not be expected to support unreasonable or unworkable measures.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the provisions of this bill are not justified, at least to my mind-I think I indicated earlier the reasons why I am against it, as the elected representative of an area which would be greatly affected if firearm acquisition was made more difficult. The situation would be unacceptable and, for this reason, I feel that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa South is unreasonable because it helps very little in the development of efficient safety standards which would apply throughout the land and that the provisions would be difficult to enforce because it would increase the workload of the various police forces with very few real benefits.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I find the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa South absolutely unacceptable and I consider it in a sense as a slap on the face of a great many Canadians who are responsible people and who do not deserve such coercive legislation as this.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to join in this debate on firearms. It is a subject which I have spoken quite a bit about lately, not just in connection with this private member's bill, but Bill C-80 which is currently before the House.

November 1, 1990
Private Members' Business
As one of the members indicated earlier, one of the truisms on the subject of guns in Canada is that their ownership is a privilege. I think most people are aware that in the United States the ownership of firearms is a right, it is constitutionally enshrined. Not so in Canada. We have had a different history, a different development in this area. It is a privilege and as such, it is a privilege that governments for many, many years have taken an interest in and one that quite legitimately is the subject of debate in this House. I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell say that it was easier to buy a gun in Canada than it is to buy a case of beer. That is absolute nonsense.
I see the member for Timiskaming beside me nodding his head. It is quite obvious that the representative of the Liberal Party is not a gun owner because one of the things I discovered from talking with various groups during the lead-up to Bill C-80 is that there are all kinds of procedural and administrative wrangles and difficulties that an individual must go through.
One of the things that struck me that Bill C-80 could do would be to clear up up some of the administrative difficulties faced by legitimate hunters and sportsmen in Canada by having a discussion of this matter in Parliament.
I was shocked as well to hear the comments made by the members of the New Democratic Party. They said it has taken too long, the minister is gutless, how come it took a year to come up with this bill? Well you cannot have it both ways. If a bill is introduced into Parliament and there have been no consultations, the NDP jumps up and down, screams and yells, and says: "You should have consulted with people. How come you did not get together with the various interest groups and individuals across Canada before you presented this bill?"
So that is exactly what we did with Bill C-80.1 know, because I was a part of the discussions. The former Minister of Justice, the present transport minister, during the course of the previous summer invited major national groups who have a particular interest in this subject to sit down to discuss their concerns. I was very pleased and privileged to sit in on those discussions so I can tell you what they had to say. Unlike the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who thinks it is a simple
job, a simple business, to own a gun, they had many legitimate complaints of an administrative type that I was pleased to see incorporated into Bill C-80.
When the present Minister of Justice assumed her responsibility she continued the process. She did not start over again because she and the members on this side wanted to present a bill to Parliament, but she continued the process. She heard from groups that had not been heard from by with the previous Minister of Justice.
Now there is a problem with that with the NDP. You heard them, Mr. Speaker. They said that it is a terrible thing to do, a terrible thing to be consulting with people before you bring legislation into this House. I could not disagree more with the members of the NDP on that.
I was pleased as well that we tabled this bill right before the House ended, because in my opinion it provided an opportunity for sportsmen, hunters, pistol clubs, and other interested individuals over the course of the summer when they would be getting together to have a look at this bill. I see the member for Parry Sound- Muskoka, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he is as vocal on this subject as he is on acid rain and on every issue in our caucus. He has spoken to me about this. And I see the member for Macleod who was good enough to invite me out to his riding several weeks ago to talk on this subject. What I said to them is that this bill is not written in stone.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have sat on every legislative committee in the justice area since 1984. There has not been one bill that has gone through that has not been changed at the committee stage, or at the report stage, and Bill C-80 is not going to be the first one.
So I say to the members of the NDP and the members of the Liberal Party that if they want to see action on Bill C-80, if they want to see action on all the bills that are before this House, go down and talk to their good friends in the Senate. That is where the log jam is. The members of the New Democratic Party know that very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
November 1, 1990



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to raise again the question about the spill of radioactive waste at Wollaston Lake which occurred last November 7, 1989, almost a year ago.
One of the reasons I have to keep raising this question is that the story first broke on November 9, which was a very significant day in world history. It was the day the Berlin Wall came down, and of course the media cared about little else. Therefore this story never became as prominent as it otherwise would have.
What in fact happened was that two million litres of contaminated radioactive mine waste was spilled into Wollaston Lake. The spill that went unreported for 15 hours. It would likely never have become known to the public if the chief of the Hatchet Lake Band on Wollaston Lake had not flown over the area. Being a former miner himself, he recognized what was happening and phoned us. Certainly the environmental authorities had been notified by that time, but the community had not been notified. This whole series of events left the people of Wollaston Lake very much wondering what was happening to their environment.
I had an opportunity to visit the site shortly thereafter with the MLA for the area, Keith Goulet, and with officials from the town and from the band. What we saw there was really appalling. One would not run a farm dugout system or a farm sewer system-and that is what I know better as a farmer-in the same way as this very sensitive disposal system was being run. What really caught my attention was an automated warning system which was to back up visual inspection every hour, and 11 inspections were missed. That system had been disconnected since 1985, for about four years. The Atomic Energy Control Board had been inspecting this system
Adjournment Debate
that whole time and had never discovered the disconnection.
The chief issued a call for a public inquiry. He wanted to know what was the role of the regulators in the area. In other words, who regulates the regulators? Is the Atomic Energy Control Board doing a proper job of looking after things? Shortly after we saw headlines such as "Staff levels too low to prevent spills, AECB" on November 24. That is the kind of question that arose.
The chief also wanted to know what the role was of aboriginal people in resource development. These things are happening all around them on their traditional lands, affecting their environment in a permanent way. They have very little economic opportunity and no jobs. Right now there is no one from Wollaston working in Rabbit Lake 18 miles across the lake.
What is the role of the local community in the protection of its environment? After all, they have lived there for so long and will live there long after. They know an awful lot more about the natural environment than some well meaning researcher who comes there from time to time to take a sample.
There was a lot of support for this inquiry, all the way from the United Steelworkers of Canada to church groups, Greenpeace, health professional organizations and many others. Petitions are still coming in.
I asked my initial question on February 19 about how the inquiry was coming and received no real reply. Finally on September 6, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources replied to Chief Ed Benoanie of the Hatchet Lake Band. He essentially said not to worry, that there were a few fiddles and diddles that they would make to improve things, and then a good system would be perfect.
Perhaps I could just quote from the minister's letter. He said:
Cameco acknowledged responsibility for the spill, pleading guilty
to charges laid under the Atomic Energy Control Act and paying the
maximum fine of $10,000.
A maximum fine of $10,000 is a pitiful joke. Everybody knows what a $10,000 fine for virtually unlimited degradation of the environment means to a huge industry like this one in this day and age. In fact it was for two charges at $5,000 each, twice that for smoking on Parliament Hill.

November 1, 1990
Adjournment Debate
We are operating here under an act that was written in 1946. That act has not been looked at, and no one here is talking about revising that antiquated act.
The minister states further that a full investigation has been carried out, that all reports regarding the spill indicate no problem, and that extensive water samples have shown that the level of contaminants in the lake and the stream leading to the lake did not exceed limits specified in drinking water standards. The local community has some real questions about how those tests were done. They live there. They know what the ice and flow patterns are. This was done in tricky ice conditions. The people do not think it was done properly and would like to see it done again, and what would be involved in that kind of sampling.
Then it said:
I know that Board members met with you in Ottawa to discuss the situation. The Board recognizes that there were weaknesses-
They are going to correct them. And then they said that:
-the Board will be holding a meeting in your community to follow up on developments and to deal with other concerns.
Essentially all the board did was listen politely and announce that the mine was going to reopen with no discussion with the community at all. The community had no input into that decision that it felt had any kind of meaning whatsoever.
Then he said:
In 1978 the Bayda Commission released the results of an in-depth report of the environmental, health, safety, social and economic effects of the Cluff Lake mine and cleared the way for expansion of the uranium industry in Saskatchewan.
If I could quote from Chief Benoanie's reply to the minister, he said:
The Bayda Commission and the Key Lake Board of Inquiry did not even look at aboriginal rights, and they did not involve my people, nor deal with the already operating Rabbit Lake mine. The 300-plus page Bayda Commission report has only half a page dealing with aboriginal and treaty rights: in fact, it recommends that another inquiry deal with these issues.
Then the minister goes on to talk about an AECB inquiry. That, in fact, did not do an original research, but just pulled together a few existing facts and figures.
The minister then tries to make people feel better, and he says that if there is any future developments, and there are some being talked about, then we can have some EARP hearings.
I think the credibility of EARP hearings is well known to the people. I ask the parliamentary secretary to please reply to how these questions are going to be dealt with.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, since this issue was first raised in the House last February, a number of developments have occurred. I would like to review just a few of them, but I would like to table an update from more or less the first part of November 1989 through today's recent communique.
For the record, I would like to make a few points. In his letter of September 6,1990, the minister outlined the facts surrounding the spill. He also stated that he saw no need for a public inquiry into uranium mining in northern Canada since there had already been several public inquiries on this matter, and there would be future opportunities for assessment of the new mining projects. For example, in 1978, the Bayda commission released the results of an in-depth report of the environmental, health, safety, social and economic effects of the Cluff Lake Mine.
The minister stated that the conclusions from past in-depth inquiries into uranium mining, combined with the upcoming opportunities for public input during the EARP process related to potential new uranium mining ventures, and the commitment of the AECB to open lines of communication suggest that, at this time, a further inquiry into uranium mining in northern Canada is not necessary.
On October 4,1990, the Atomic Energy Control Board held its meeting in Wollaston Post. Three major concerns of the native population were raised: more hiring of natives by the company, implementation of a financial scheme for profit sharing with the native population, and an inquiry into uranium mining. The AECB replied that these topics were out of the scope of their mandate.

After hearing all interested parties, the board decided to renew the company's licence.
At this point, it would be imprudent to comment further on this issue since it is scheduled to be dealt with in the court in Saskatchewan on January 17, 1991.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table these documents for the hon. member so that they are on the record.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to repeat the question I put to the minister of Environment and which was answered by another minister, the Secretary of State. I am not satisfied with the answer I received. That question had been asked during the fire in Saint-Amable. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that many thousands of used tires burned at a depot located in Saint-Amable, which is about 15 kilometers away from my constituency of Chambly.
I do not like the answer the minister gave me. In fact, he said it was a provincial matter and that the problem was under consideration. He tried to reassure me by saying that during the fire everything was being done to co-operate with the provincial authorities.
I am glad the government was finally able to put out that fire. It seems to me, based on this incident that the government takes action after the fact. But often these situations are the result of a lack of leadership on the part of the federal government and also of jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments. So, while Canada expects some leadership from this Conservative government, all we see, day after day, is a government which can only act it seems after the fact. PIC/mv 1810-2
This is not what a government should be. A government should have the will to prevent this kind of problem. Saint-Amable, is only a symptome of the government who likes to play fireman instead of tackling the problem at the base. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I felt like hell listening to the answer from the Minister. I was upset because I was expecting better than that. I can tell you how upset people in my riding were by mention-
Adjoumment Debate
ing some polls, whether people talk about governments not only the Federal government but also the Provincial government because each one arise to blame the other. The problem Mr. Speaker is easy to understand. People are upset by the lack of action, the same old excuses that we have been hearing for so long: this is not our jurisdiction, we are waiting for the conclusion of studies. We have had plenty of studies, consultations and talks on the environment. But this government has not taken any action to regain public confidence.
I can give an example to show you how serious this is. The Desourdy Company in my riding is a responsible, respectable company that wants to dig what it calls a garbage enhancement site but which I call a landfill site. This does not require any environmental impact study. It is neither a provincial nor a municipal responsibility and it seems, according to a ruling I disagree with, it is not a federal one either. But, once the ground water is contaminated, the federal, provincial and municipal governments will have no choice but to try to contain the damages because they were unable to prevent the problem.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I could talk to you about pesticides. Maybe you have pesticides on your lawn because you want to have a beautiful lawn, but pesticides that get into and contaminate our water are a serious problem. The federal government has had this issue under study. We don't have much control over the enforcement of federal regulations on the use of pesticides by consumers.
So, in summary, I would like to say that I refuse to accept the rationalization by this government that the Saint-Amable fire was because of a jurisdiction problem or because they did not make enough studies. The time for studies is over. The time has now come for action.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the tire fires earlier this year in Hagersville, Ontario, and Saint-Amable, Quebec, showed that federal-provincial co-operation is necessary to clean up the problem of scrap tires in Canada. Those fires heightened public awareness about the need for co-operative action to ensure the safe outdoor storage of used tires and to address the overall issue of used tire management.

November 1, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Program and policy development has been ongoing. Twenty-six million used tires are discarded each year in Canada. About 20 per cent of those 26 million tires are recuperated through second hand sales and recycling the rubber into floor mats. That leaves 20 million to 21 million used tires to be disposed of in other ways. Even before the Hagersville fire in February, Environment Canada was funding research projects into alternative uses for scrap tires.
Following the Flagersville fire, all environment ministers agreed at a meeting in Vancouver to set up a federal-provincial working group to review scrap tire storage management, disposal and processing. That working group, chaired by the Ontario minister, met over the summer and its final report will be considered by ministers at the November 28 and 29 meeting of the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers. The working group was also to look at interim guidelines for outdoor storage of tires. It should be noted that Quebec and Ontario have already taken action following the tire fires in their jurisdiction.
Reuse and recycling of these scrap tires is the longterm answer being sought by the federal and provincial governments. In the short term, Environment Canada is looking closely at cement kilns as a method for disposing of used tires.
The use of cement kilns was the subject of a special half day workshop at the recent Canadian Waste Management Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland. If all cement kilns were to utilize used tires for 20 per cent of their energy needs, their capacity would be sufficient to use all the incoming flow of tires. Information provided by the industry suggests that no increase in emissions is expected from the utilisation of used tires as an alternative fuel. This claim will be verified by conducting certified combustion testing.
As well, the associate committee on the National Fire Code, sponsored by the National Research Council, is developing guidelines for outdoor storage of used tires. The committee is reviewing existing international regulations applicable to outside storage of scrap tires to see what can be applied to Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly relevant that the questions being raised tonight all deal with the issue of the environment.
I remember in 1988, just prior to the last election, the Prime Minister came into the Hamilton area and visited the Canada Centre for Inland Waters. He stated that his number one priority over the next number of years was going to be the environment. Since then we have had the debacle of the tire fires.
When the member says that 20 per cent of the tires are being recycled, in fact, there is technology available that could use all of those tires. They are currently being shipped to the United States, ground up to be used in combination with building materials for roads, and shipped back to Canada. Why, as Canadians, are we not taking advantage of the recycling of our tires and of new technology in building our road surfaces? Why are we leaving that to the Americans?
I asked to have leave under this particular section of the act because I was extremely dissatisfied with another environmental question that the government dealt with last spring. That question dealt with the issue of acid rain.
For a number of years the Prime Minister has been promising trans-border action on acid rain. We know that the U.S. Clean Air Act has passed and we are still waiting for action from this Prime Minister and this government on the issue of trans-border acid rain. Acid rain does not carry a passport. Even though we welcome the initiatives of the U.S. Clean Air Act, we are extremely concerned that unless there is a bilateral agreement negotiated between Canada and the United States to supplement that of the U.S. Clean Air Act and Canadian initiatives, we will continue to see Canada rained down upon by American acid rain.
If we examine the government's environmental record, even as we speak today, Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians from coast to coast were shocked to hear that the Minister of the Environment and the government have actually applied for a stay to their own injunction on the construction of the Rafferty-Alameda. The Minister of the Environment staked his reputation on the fact that he was going to talk tough to the Saskatchewan government on this particular issue and, as in so many other tests, he has caved in.

November 1, 1990



I think the decision by the department of the Environ-nemnt not to proceed with the injunction against the Rafferty-AIameda project is proof enough that the government has no environnmental policy. It all started with the former minister of the Environment, Lucien Bouchard, who was not prepared to take decisions about major environmental issues. Now that he has joined another political party, he does a complete about-turn. But it all started with a bad minister of the Environment, M. Bouchard, and it continues with another bad minister of the Environment, M. de Cotret.
It is incredible, after everything he said in this House last week, that is the real test of his leadership would be the Rafferty-AIameda project, that he should eventually decide to do nothing. And provided that he procrastinates long enough, he knows that the project will be completed.
Mr. Speaker, we know that, on environmental matters, Canadians are much ahead of the government. In the case of acid rain, for example, why did we not get the opportunity to sign a bilateral agreement with the Americans?
We know that in the Eastern townships, some sugar-bushes are losing their trees to acid rain not from Canada, but from the United States. We also know that acid rain has no passport and that the only way to deal with this problem is to set here in Canada federal standards similar to the ones provided in the U.S. Clean Air Act. At the same time, we must absolutely get a bilateral agreement to set international standards on this important environmental issue. Otherwise, it would only be false rhetoric by Mr. Bouchard and his successor, the new minister, Mr. de Cotret.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Hamilton East concerning acid rain control legislation in the United States.
Adjournment Debate
The Government of Canada was very happy to see both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives pass a comprehensive package of amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act this past weekend.
The legislation that has been passed by the Congress and the House of Representatives required a 10 million ton reduction of emissions and caps emissions at the reduced level. The legislation also contains comprehensive provisions and monitoring compliance with these requirements.
I would like to remind the members that Canada's legislative interests in the U.S. acid rain controls has always focused on the need to reduce the amount of acid rain pollution from U.S. sources that crosses our border each year. In this regard, Environment Canada has used its computer models to show that an American control program similar to the one adopted by the American Congress and the House of Representatives, which would meet Canada's environmental need to the transboundary flows reduced to no more than 2 million tonnes annually.
The trading provisions contained in the legislation should actually benefit Canada, since the lowest cost emission reductions can be obtained in the Ohio River Valley, which is the region that most heavily impacts on Canada. In addition, many of the power plants in the valley export their electricity to other regions. This means that the emission trading provisions could result in increased emission reductions in the valley because of the straight economics of trading into the valley and by virtue of governors attempting to pass pollution control costs to out of state customers.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more that I could say. The passage of this legislation should allow Canada and the U.S. to negotiate to conclude the bilateral agreement on trans-boundaiy air pollution by the end of this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 2,1990