1990-11-29

Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose a resolution in the House that has been discussed by all sides of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas:
Whereas the game of hockey is part of the Canadian identity and mindful of the fact that the National Hockey League is considering expansion;
And whereas this House is of the opinion that any future expansion of the NHL would benefit from the inclusion of Canadian teams;
Therefore, that this House supports the efforts of Ottawa and Hamilton in their bids to obtain National Hockey League franchises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with the content of the motion. Because we were unable to get agreement with the other two parties that our leader would be allowed 20 minutes to speak on this very important issue, which will be dealt with this morning, we said that we would not put any other procedures up this morning. We agreed with the content. Now we have a government backbencher getting up on a procedural motion after an agreement that we would not do so. It does not make sense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is no consent, we will go to Routine Proceedings.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 83 petitions.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have more petitions from Canadians in the metropolitan Toronto area arguing that at the present time the Government of Canada has seen fit to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers. It now proposes to include them in the GST. Their argument is that there has been no such tax since Confederation.
The petitioners are lobbying this House and this government, first of all, to get rid of the GST, and failing that, no GST be imposed on printed material.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add these petitions containing 335 names to the 4,000 persons who have signed petitions asking the government to ban the use of MMT in gasoline. Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl is what is meant by MMT. MM-3, a form of manganese, comes from the exhaust of cars. It is an insidious neuro-toxic substance taken in through the human respiratory system.
When the Department of Transport conducts their emission tests on Canadian automobiles, they do not use gasoline that contains MMT because the cars do not pass the test using this additive which has been banned in the United States since 1978.

Routine Proceedings
These petitioners are calling upon the government to ban this insidious substance which attacks the brain cells of younger people whose immune systems are not fully developed.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House. One is from some of the residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands who signed a petition opposed to the government cutbacks in public transportation and specifically cutbacks in the VIA Rail network in Canada.
I am sure the petitioners would be upset at the number of cuts that we have had in this area already. There is apprehension, given the run-down of VIA Rail that the government is engineering, there may be more. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reinstate, not cancel in whole or in part, any rail passenger service in Canada. Some of the signatures were before the cuts and some after the cuts.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The
second petition is from residents of the city of Toronto. These Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax in so far as the tax applies on books and the printed word. They support, of course, the amendment put forward by the Liberal senators in the other place supporting the cut of this vicious tax on books and the printed word and urging the Parliament of Canada to oppose the goods and services tax, specifically that portion of the tax that applies to books.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again, day after day, month after month to bring to this government's attention the thousands of petitions that have been presented to this House with respect to the unfortunate tax this government has decided to put on intellectual property, on books, and on magazines.
I ask this government to stop being so stubborn and to reconsider the tax on reading materials. The government is now well aware that the province of Quebec does not intend to tax intellectual property and reading materials. I would suggest that the government take a good lesson
from the province of Quebec and the millions of Canadians who agree with it.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me under the provisions of Standing Order 36 in order to place a petition on the table with regard to the goods and services tax.
A number of the petitioners come from the great province of British Columbia. They wish to register then-complaint that the Government of Canada should not proceed with the goods and services tax as it will be a very prohibitive and negative factor in terms of the goods and services that they will have to purchase.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by individuals from the province of Alberta, which I am sure is dear to your heart, and they too, like previous petitioners, are opposed to the goods and services tax. They call upon the Government of Canada to move forthwith and withdraw the goods and services tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is very welcome.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 stand before this House to present a petition on behalf of people from Toronto, London, and even those people from the riding of the Minister of Finance, asking this government to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word on books, newspapers and magazines by retaining the zero rate, instead of imposing the GST on learning materials.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, duty and privilege to present to this House, under Standing Order 36, a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
This petition comes from the riding of the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. Many of the petitioners are residents of Brantford, Mill Grove, Simcoe, Waterford and Princeton. These petitioners strongly oppose the goods and services tax, an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that will hit them not only with higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, taxing books, the Bible, university learning material in the year of literacy?


This petition says no to the goods and services tax and asks that the members in the other place, do all in their power to prevent it from passing.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present this petition, on behalf of a number of my constituents in Scarborough.
They are concerned about the food packaging and the labelling of food packaging, as that relates to allergic reactions. The Allergy Information Association has done a great deal of work on this. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to enact legislation, amending the food and drug regulations, in order to require manufacturers to list on pre-packaged foods, in place of the general classifications, the specific food ingredients and additives and, as well, to require restaurateurs and food retailers to provide, on demand, to customers a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 349 will be answered today.


Mr. Ferguson: For the years 1989 and 1990, what were the (a) salaries (b) expenses (c) bonuses (d) any other remuneration, of the Commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Charles James Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: a) Effective April 1, 1989, the salary range for the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board is $109,700-$133,300. The salary range for the other four Commissioners is $102,600-$120,000.
b)	The total of expenses for all five Commissioners:
1989-	90-$285,233.45; April 1, 1990 to September 26,
1990-	$132,381.23.
Government Orders
c)	The Commissioners' bonuses are based on performance and are confidential.
d)	None.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary, has been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 11.18 o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 28, 1990, it is my duty to interrupt Routine Proceedings and call Government Business No. 24.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 28, the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
And on the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "its" and substituting the following:
"current efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions adopted as of 28 November 1990, and that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House."
And on the amendment of Mr. Brewin:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and further, that this House oppose use of force against Iraq until sanctions and other United Nations measures have had time to
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
succeed and urges the government to seek amendments to the currently proposed Security Council resolution to that effect."
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Security Council of the United Nations will vote on a resolution authorizing member states, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, and I quote from the resolution: "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660, and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and to restore peace and security in the area".
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will vote, this afternoon, in favour of this resolution of the Security Council because Canadians believe profoundly in the United Nations; Canadians support the rule of international law; and, Canadians understand the need for collective security. Now is the time to vote.
In endorsing this resolution, Canada will join the international community in sending President Hussein a clear message that the time has come to take the United Nations directive seriously. The international community will also be giving him, and this I believe is an important consideration, a very clear signal of a "pause of goodwill", during which time he is encouraged and, indeed, invited to release the hostages and to withdraw his forces from Kuwait.
As President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union stated yesterday: "The fate of Iraq is now in the hands of (President Hussein) and time is expiring". Peace is jeopardized, not by the resolution being discussed at the Security Council of the United Nations this afternoon, but by the actions taken by Iraq during the last four months. Peace would be fatally undermined if nations like Canada failed to take appropriate measures and the United Nations was weakened and diminished.
Although Kuwait is distinct from Canada, geographically, Canadian interests are directly engaged in the conflict there.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is a blatant contravention of the system of international law that Canadians among many others have painstakingly helped to create since the Second World War. In fact, no country has a greater
interest than Canada in the promotion, the defence and the respect of the rule of law.
The objective of that law, in part, is to ensure the security of smaller countries in face of larger neighbours, and to provide the means to settle disputes peacefully.
The invasion of Kuwait puts the concept of collective security, as provided for in the United Nations Charter, to a decisive test. Article 1 of the Charter reads, in part, as follows:
The Purposes of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace-
Those words were incorporated right into the Charter of the United Nations.
Today's UN resolution is not just the culmination of diplomatic activity over the past four months. It is also in some important ways the realization of diplomatic aspirations held by many since the founding of the international organization.
With the end of the Cold War, the international community has the opportunity at last to transform the potential of the United Nations into performance. The visionaries who created the United Nations were idealists, but they were not dreamers.
They were determined: "to make certain," as Mr. Pearson wrote in 1945, "that never again should an aggressor be permitted to strike down one nation after another before the peace-loving nations of the world organize and take concerted action against it".
Let me repeat what Mr. Pearson wrote: "never again should an aggressor be permitted to strike down one nation after another before the peace-loving nations of the world organize and take concerted action against it".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: the House will join with me today in saluting again the courage and the dedication of these brave young Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The United Nations was prevented by the Cold War from responding to other acts of aggression over the years. But that situation has now changed, in very dramatic and remarkable ways. Witness the extraordinary co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States in this and other important areas around the world, to witness the progressive and the dynamic attitude of President Gorbachev and contrast that in similarly explosive situations in the past with the attitudes of his predecessors.
This is a unique time in international affairs. Because of that, the situation has now changed. With the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has the opportunity again to act collectively in the defence of the security of its members. The United Nations is acting with prudence and care and it is precisely because of its moderation that the United Nations today deserves Canada's support.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is at stake, Mr. Speaker, is not just the future of Kuwait but also, in many important ways, the future of the United Nations. We know what happened to the League of Nations when it stood by as Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. It was reduced to impotence and to scorn. Men and women around the world who believed in liberty and freedom paid an enormous price as the effectiveness of the League disintegrated.
This cannot and must not be allowed to happen to the increasing and effective moral authority that the United Nations is now bringing in a dozen different ways to questions around the world. This cannot happen. What happened to the League cannot and must not ever be allowed to happen to the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the lessons of the past must be learned.
Government Orders
Any weakening of the UN, would engender an escalation of military spending for self-defence around the world and a proliferation of ever more dangerous and destructive arms-in short, the creation of a much more dangerous world.
And we know that Iraq, which is already working on weapons of mass destruction and on the means of delivering them over long distances, would become even more uncontrollable.
Canadian interests in Kuwait and the region go beyond the present and potential military dangers and the preservation of the principle of collective security.
The inalienable human rights of millions of people have been, and are still being, callously overridden by Iraq and countless atrocities have been committed against innocent people.
And the economic impacts of the Gulf crisis have been serious on the people of the energy-poor, heavily indebted countries of the third world and on the reconstruction of the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe which need additional assistance from countries like Canada and other industrialized countries, assistance that is necessarily fragmented as a result of the entirely unusual circumstances in the Gulf.
So Canadian interests are very much engaged in this issue. Nor is the challenge to those interests and to our basic human values ever likely to be more clear or the need to join in a collective response more compelling. In its contempt for international opinion, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is one of the most brazen acts of aggression of our age.
Iraq has inflicted death and destruction on its small neighbour, plundered that country, detained foreigners, including Canadians, against their will and given guest workers, many penniless, the choice of braving the desert in August or starving to death.
Since he first used force to occupy Kuwait in August, he has threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, to attack Israel with chemical and biological weapons, to sponsor terrorism against those who resist his aggression and to destroy the oil fields of the Arabian Peninsula.
And this from a man who started a war with another of his neighbours, Iran, that lasted eight years and cost close to a million lives-almost an entire generation wiped out as a result of an act of aggression. This from a

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
man who used poison gas in that war, including against his own citizens.
What is at stake in the Gulf are the foundations of peace and the norm of civilization. The international community must prevail. It is giving diplomacy every chance to work as it must.
As a member of the United Nations Security Council, Canada has worked hard to help draft and pass a series of principled step-by-step resolutions designed to persuade Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
We have helped the United Nations design and implement economic sanctions against Iraq that are the most stringent ever adopted. We have ourselves respected those sanctions scrupulously. Indeed, I think that I indicated earlier to the House that the first implication of the international application of sanctions occurred at the Port of Vancouver where Canada immediately interrupted a possible shipment that would have violated even inadvertently the first orders that emanated from the Security Council.
We have dispatched three warships and a squadron of CF-18 fighter aircraft and approximately 1,700 personnel to resist Iraqi aggression and to enforce the United Nations sanctions.
In the many discussions I have had with President Bush on this subject, I have consistently counselled both restraint in securing Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and the need to work at all times within the authority of the United Nations Charter.
Indeed, the New York Times reported in August-I believe on its front page-an important disagreement that took place in respect of an interpretation of article 51 where Canada, through our distinguished ambassador, Yves Fortier, led the fight in the Security Council to insist that the suggestion by the United States that any concept of unilateral action at that point in time must be resisted and that the solidarity that this had engendered at the United Nations must be respected.
I believe that that action taken by the Government of Canada on the instructions of the Secretary of State for
External Affairs to Ambassador Fortier resulted in the solidarity we know today. It was consistent with the finest traditions of Canadian diplomacy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That has been my consistent message as well in discussions with President Gorbachev, former Prime Minister Thatcher, President Mitterrand, Prime Minister Andreotti, Chancellor Kohl and other leaders.
It was also the message conveyed by Mr. Clark in the past few days in his most recent discussions with President Mubarak of Egypt, President Ozal of Turkey, King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister Shamir of Israel.
The entire Canadian policy in this regard, Mr. Speaker, has been designed with a peaceful solution in mind: support for the United Nations, implementation of sanctions in Canada itself, increased consultations with world leaders exploring all conceivable avenues toward a peaceful solution, deployment of military support to seek to enforce United Nations sanctions and unrelenting diplomatic efforts to secure the release of all Canadians being illegally held in Iraq.
In our discussions with world leaders, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, and I have found a remarkable consensus that the best solution to the crisis in the Gulf is indeed the one that Canada has articulated consistently at the United Nations, namely, a peaceful one.
However, we have also found that a very strong consensus exists to the effect that if peaceful means do not work, recourse would have to be added to other necessary means. While the UN sanctions are undoubtedly being felt by the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people, we have found no widespread confidence that they are sufficient to bring about the desired result: namely, to persuade President Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait.
The situation Canada faces is clear. I can tell you that Canada will stand with the overwhelming majority of the world community, including all of our partners in the Security Council, in giving Saddam Hussein an opportunity to reflect carefully on the consequences of his action and a reasonable timetable to withdraw from Kuwait, but withdraw from Kuwait he must.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: President Hussein, I very much regret to say, appears to be quite prepared to see his people endure hardship indefinitely so he can hang on to Kuwait. We see no contradiction between continuing to apply pressure through economic sanctions, the action of the United Nations, in other words, giving diplomacy a chance and giving President Hussein a period of time to withdraw from Kuwait.

While the Security Council was passing repeated resolutions ordering Iraq to abandon its conquest of Kuwait, President Hussein formally annexed that country, plundered its wealth, brutalized its people, and tried to erase its very identity.
His response to the world community's repeated urgent demands that he withdraw his forces from Kuwait was to send another 250,000 soldiers to that unfortunate country. And to try to protect himself from harm he has detained thousands of foreigners and, cynically, has used many as human shields at strategic locations. Meanwhile, the suffering of the Kuwait people continues!
And the risk persists of an accidental launch of full-scale war in the most volatile region in the world, with consequences that could engulf everyone.
President Hussein is a man of limited acquaintance with the world outside his own borders. From the beginning he appears to have underestimated what the international reaction would be to his attack on Kuwait.
It seems to take a pretty clear and fothright message Mr. Speaker, to persuade him that times have changed, that the will of the world community will not be thwarted and that he will, one way or another, have to leave Kuwait.

Short of the use of force itself, today's UN Security Council resolution is the strongest possible message the international community can send to him.
Members of this House understand at least as well as anyone that we Canadians are a peaceful people.
In Canada, our national day is a time for picnics and family, not for displays of military might. But we Canadians have also learned the lessons of history. We know that not everyone shares our respect for international
Government Orders
law and for the norms of civilized international behaviour.
As Mr. Pearson pointed out so eloquently: "We have also learned the consequences of appeasement".
We know that if Iraq profits from its aggression, the whole idea of collective security will be fatally undermined and the world will become a much more dangerous place. This cannot be allowed to happen.
The object of the exercise at the United Nations today is peace. Although opposition parties have expressed some concerns, some of which I can understand, I hope all members of the House will support the United Nations resolution today in the interests of international solidarity and in the face of a serious threat to world peace.
The Toronto Star pointed out in its lead editorial this morning, and I quote:
For Canada to vote against such a resolution would be to send the wrong signal to Saddam at a critical stage of this psychological warfare.
It would also break faith with an unprecedented consensus that has emerged on this issue between east and west, Arabs and non-Arabs.
I think The Star has made two very important points. The UN's quite unprecedented achievements need now to be sustained by a solid indication of international support. What gives rise to war, Mr. Speaker, is the collapse of international order, and the collapse of international order comes about when member states allow international law to be violated and the United Nations to be ignored. The integrity of the United Nations and its charter is now at stake, and that integrity must be preserved.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We hope for the sake of all concerned that President Hussein heeds the United Nations message and withdraws peacefully. That is Canada's policy. That is Canada's objective at the Security Council today, and that has been the objective of our policy from the very beginning.
We strongly urge President Hussein to do so in the interests of his own people, his own nation, and those of world peace. The choice is entirely his to make. We genuinely hope he reflects carefully and that he chooses wisely.

November 29, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great honour to follow the Prime Minister in this debate. I agree with many of the things that the Prime Minister said in this House. I agree, for example, with what he said about the invasion of Kuwait being a blatant contravention of international law. We on this side of the House agree very strongly with this.
The Prime Minister opened his remarks by saying we must have a collective security and now is the time to vote. Mr. Speaker, what is it we are voting for? Are we voting for the resolution which will be voted upon in the United Nations this afternoon, or are we coming back to this House to vote on the resolution on the floor of this House? I remind the Prime Minister that first and foremost we must vote on the resolution before us in this House. If the Prime Minister would like to send a very strong message to the United Nations to show that we all, in the Canadian tradition, support what the United Nations is doing, his party should have no difficulty supporting the Liberal amendment.
The Prime Minister was not here yesterday. I will just remind him what the Liberal amendment is. It is adding to the end of the government motion, after the word "its" substituting the following:
"current efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions adopted as of 28 November 1990, and that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House."
This is something which the Prime Minister promised us before. Now he is backing away from his promise. As the resolution reads, government representatives are interpreting it differently.
I was here until one o'clock this morning hearing the speeches. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on the floor of this House that subsequent resolutions means only resolutions passed to this point. I went to the Concise Oxford Dictionary and looked up the meaning of subsequent. The meaning of subsequent is "of later time or date". In other words, the resolution would read:
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions
concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country
nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure
compliance with Security Council resolution 660-
To that point we agree. It would continue:
-and subsequent resolutions.
In other words, the UN can pass resolutions next month or during the summer when this House is not sitting. We know that this Prime Minister will not recall Parliament when we ask the Prime Minister to do it, as we did in the Oka crisis and as we did in the Gulf crisis. We asked day in and day out and Canadians asked: "Please recall Parliament and let us debate it first". The Prime Minister did not recall Parliament. That is why we cannot support such a resolution, because we on this side of the House and Canadians cannot trust this Prime Minister or his government.
"Subsequent resolutions", his own Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, meant only previous resolutions. This morning the Prime Minister said that that includes the motion that will be voted on today. Yesterday there was a different interpretation. Are we to trust this government when this government wants us to vote on this?
If the government wants to send a strong message to the United Nations, let it support our amendment. Then it will send a strong message. There is time to negotiate approval and support for that amendment.
What we heard today is a sabre rattling, gun toting, grenade throwing, Rambo Prime Minister. He talks about collective security, and the only way he sees collective security is with arms. What about using diplomacy? What about giving sanctions more time to work?
The Prime Minister himself said there are signs that sanctions are working. Why do we not give those sanctions more time? How long did it take for the sanctions to take effect in South Africa and in other parts of the world? Here the government is putting a time line.
The resolution at the United Nations has a time line. I believe it is January 15. What happens when that time line is up? What happens then? Is it war? If it is war, what kind of war? Nuclear? Chemical warfare? Is this what the government wants Canadians to get into?
November 29, 1990

The Prime Minister correctly said that when Iran and Iraq went to war a million lives were lost. What a tragedy: one million lives between two countries. How many lives are going to be sacrificed when over 20 countries get involved in war, with chemical warfare and the potential of nuclear warfare? Is that what the Prime Minister wants to commit Canadians to?
The Prime Minister said that the United Nations is acting with prudence and care and deserves our support. Yes, it deserves our support to allow sanctions more time to work. It deserves our support to allow for diplomacy. This party congratulates our ambassador, Yves Fortier. He is an excellent ambassador who knows how to negotiate with other countries through diplomacy, but let us give him more time to do this. Let us not put a time line on it.
What if the diplomacy works in, let us say, February, March or at the end of 1991? Are we limited to this January 15 time line and we go to war? What we heard from the Prime Minister today is a little scary.
This is probably one of the most important debates this House will face for a very long time. In fact, the implications of this debate will stay long after we are gone. We are not debating a simple motion to support or oppose sanctioned military aggression in the Gulf, as the Prime Minister tried to convince us. What we are debating is the future of thousands and potentially millions of people around the world. We are debating the end of the cold war in the context of the new international order. We are debating whether peaceful persuasion and the dollar spent in that persuasion is preferable to offensive military action that far surpasses anything that anyone in this House can conceive.
The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to give our government the go-ahead to vote in favour of a Security Council motion that carries with it an ultimatum. In other words, there will be no more room for negotiation. The die will have been cast, and there will be no turning back. I think it is important to all of us in this House to understand what happens to the role of the Security Council once this motion is passed.
The motion, to begin with, was put forward by the United States. We know that. We do not need a lesson in the motives of the American president. Yes, Mr. Bush
Government Orders
wants Hussein out, and he wants him out now, and we agree with that.
The Middle East is and has been since 1940 of critical interest to the United States. The State Department in the 1940s described the Middle East as being a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history. Eisenhower himself referred to it as the most strategically important area in the world. But, let there be no misunderstanding: my party also condemns the action of Hussein and calls on him to withdraw Iraqi troops from Kuwait immediately.
The sanctions that are currently in place are strictly a United Nations operation under the supervision of the United Nations 661 committee. Douglas Scott, President of the Markland group, and other disarmament spokesmen confirm that a military action as put forth in this motion and as supported by the Prime Minister, would have no UN supervision.
In fact, the United States has made it very clear that it would not allow a committee such as the one that supervised the sanctions to operate. What this means is that essentially the war would be fought by the U.S. and its allies, with no direction from the UN. It means that the responsibility of dealing with Iraq would be turned over to a group of countries beyond UN control.
If one were to look at how the 661 committee works, one would appreciate the degree of control the committee exerts. Responsible for the supervision of humanitarian supplies of food stuffs and medicine, the committee also directs the way in which aircraft and ships are inspected on the way into the Gulf. It monitors very closely legislation and regulations enacted by member countries in complying with the sanctions. Countries with inadequate legislation or regulations are required to respond directly to this committee.
The UN charter, however, does allow for supervision of military action by a military staff committee. Just as recent as last week, I understand, the Soviet Union was hesitant in supporting the resolution unless there was such a committee. This shows that there is a will to pursue courses of action other than by military force.
Unfortunately, the United States has shown, on more than one occasion, that it is able to circumvent quite deliberately any action that it does not consider conducive to U.S. seif-interest. This will for peaceful alternatives is further exemplified by at least two working

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
papers that I have, which I can table, that were circulated at the United Nations. From what I understand, neither paper was found worthy of discussion because the United States took exception to them. Yet, both these papers called for dealing with the issue within a peaceful framework that would compliment the sanctions and allow for discussion and movement that could lead, with the right type of encouragement, to a peaceful resolution through diplomacy as the Prime Minister said.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the specific reasons that my colleagues on this side of the House oppose the motion put forth by the government. The Liberal Party has stated on many occasions that it supports all the resolutions that have been put forth to date at the Security Council.
However we cannot support under any circumstances a blank cheque to the government, as is the case in this motion, and I have already mentioned the controversial interpretation by government representatives themselves.
We also cannot support a deadline such as is indicated in the draft resolution to be debated at the United Nations this afternoon. Our party does not want a time line put into that resolution. If that time line were removed, then we certainly would consider it.
We believe that we have not given peace a chance to work. I would like to remind this House that we are not the only ones who feel this way. We are in the company of former U.S. advisers, Schlesinger and Brzezinski, who was here at the Soviet Union conference for three days. We are in the company of the United Nations Association of Canada. We are in the company of 65 per cent of Canadians who believe that the sanctions need more time. But, does this Prime Minister listen to Canadians? Oh, no.
We are also in the company of several Security Council members who are not quite decided on their decision on the vote. From what I understand, an affirmative vote is necessary by 10 of the 15 members and so far four countries are opposed and five others are wavering.
I urge this government to reflect on our country's influence on members of the Security Council. Over the last few days I had my office speak to various people at the UN. We have been told quite explicitly that Canada does not seem to appreciate how crucial our vote will be on the motion; that were we to abstain it would encourage other member countries to vote according to their will, versus voting under pressure from the United States.
The Security Council is not some independent body that exists somewhere in space making decisions. It is made up of individual countries. I truly believe that we would have a consensus at the United Nations, albeit a different one from that which was envisioned. It would not be a move that was unsupportive of the UN, because a majority of members would be in agreement.
These are not only my words. I have had calls from my constituents. I had a call from a daughter whose father is a hostage in Kuwait. His wife and daughter are my constituents. The hostage had to be smuggled into a hospital to have an operation because he had a tumour on his stomach. This is when it hits home. I had calls from other constituents who have asked me to pass on these words, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister: "Stop your sabre rattling".
After listening to my constituents on this issue, I would suggest to the government that we take a step back, that we put down our sabres and swords, that we shed this paranoid mentality that is not in keeping with our own, and that we begin by promoting within a peaceful framework action that we would support upon the withdrawal of Iraq forces.
We should begin by talking about timetables for the withdrawal of the multinational forces; about support in setting up a democratic government in Kuwait, because there is not one now; about the convening of an international peace conference, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been promoting, to resolve the Palestinian issue.
If all diplomatic initiatives fail and if the longer time for sanctions to work fails, then and only then would we really have credibility in supporting the military option. We have not explored all diplomatic channels. We have not given sanctions time to work. We are not being fair to the Canadians who voted us into this House to go the military option right now.

I will close with these words. The Prime Minister said that the late Lester B. Pearson would be rolling over in his grave if he heard what I said. I ask the Prime Minister if Lester B. Pearson was standing in his place, what option would he choose? Would he recommend the diplomatic channel and the sanction channel, or would he support the sabre-rattling approach of our Prime Minister?
The answer is very clear. The late Lester B. Pearson is with us, smiling. At least some Canadians have not forgotten what he stood for and what the United Nations is standing for; that is, to resolve issues peacefully, without war.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion before us, which is asking this House to support the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
I remind the House that we are not here to debate whether the aggression of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. We are not here to debate whether the actions that have been taken either in the past or in the present by Saddam Hussein are insupportable nationally and internationally. They are insupportable.
We are not here to debate whether economic sanctions is a route that we should go. This House has already passed that resolution. This party has already supported that resolution.
We are here and are asked to support a resolution which is basically a blank cheque for war. We are asked to support any resolution, not specific resolutions. It has been decades since Canada has been at war. Instead, we have paid the role of peacekeeper, of mediator, of a bridge between east and west, north and south.
While our record has not always been perfect, our commitment to the principles of dialogue, negotiation and peaceful solutions has served us well in the international community.
The government's motion represents a sharp and historic move away from the traditional role of peacekeeper. It represents a move to military solutions and to participation in war.
Government Orders
My party takes a back seat to no one in our condemnation of Saddam Hussein. My party is not willing to discard the principles which have served this country so well. Canada must look at peaceful options and solutions to a crisis in the Gulf.
Canadians, as the Prime Minister himself has said, are a peaceful people. We cannot and must not move hastily into a war. Therefore my party cannot support the government's motion. I want to cite two major reasons for this. First, by supporting the draft UN resolution, I draw your attention to the words "use all necessary means".
We would be signalling, by supporting this motion, support for the use of military force as a means to resolve the conflict by an artificial deadline, a deadline which I remind the Prime Minister his own Secretary of State for External Affairs said he had some great difficulty with.
This is not the time for Canadians to go against their conscience. It is the time for Canadians to stand up for peace.
My party believes that such an option as proposed by this motion is premature. We are saying, give sanctions a chance. Give diplomacy a chance. Patience and common sense are crucial at this time.
Second, any Canadian participation in the use of military force would not, given the wording of the government's motion, require the involvement and consent of this Parliament. Once again, it would allow closed door, back room, old style decision making. We were asked to give consent to anything that was passed behind these doors, without the Canadians being included in this debate and fully aware of all of the ramifications of the actions which would be taken.

This would be a logical extension of the government's actions last summer, when the Prime Minister, with total disregard for public opinion and the democratic process, decided to send troops to the Persian Gulf without consulting Parliament.


Mrs. Gibeau:: Read the papers!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Only last week, our troops participated in military exercises that went well beyond their mandate as defined by Parliament and well beyond the parameters of the UN resolutions endorsed by this Parliament.

Government Orders

My party believes that Canadians must be consulted. They must be given all of the information and much greater discussion must take place in this House. It must agree on any change in our status in the Persian Gulf.
The government is asking for a blank cheque and we are saying no. We reject this motion. We reject it because it is misguided and because it is wrong.
Let us look at the options with which we are confronted.

The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein on August 2 and the occupation of that country constitute a flagrant violation of international law. Such action is unacceptable and shocking to all people who believe in freedom.
This contempt for human rights is not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein does not have a good record on human rights. In fact, he has one of the worst. He even used chemical weapons against his own people. I am sure everyone in this House will agree that Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait.

We have no difference, therefore, on the final goal. The question and the point on which our approaches differ is what is the best response to Hussein's actions? What is the best, most rational and least costly route to achieve our goals? Is it economic sanctions and international isolation, or is it war?
The government suggests that economic sanctions are not working but it gives us no evidence to support that argument. We, on the contrary, have reason to believe that sanctions are working. Several witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on International Affairs have argued that sanctions are effective. German hostages just released from Iraq tell us that the effects of sanctions are beginning to show. An American admiral has argued that the embargo is working. A former director of the CIA says he believes that the embargo will work.
I remind the House that Iraq relies on imports for over 80 per cent of its basic materials. It is dependent on the sale of oil for 95 per cent of its export earnings. Sanctions are supported world-wide. Iraq is totally isolated. They
are feeling the effects now. Given four, six or eight months, those effects may well be impossible to bear for Saddam Hussein.
How can the government say that sanctions will not work. They can work. What is needed is patience, strength and resolve. We must give sanctions a chance.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the use of sanctions is highly inconsistent. When he talked about South Africa, the Secretary of State was very much in favour of sanctions. He said they were effective. He argued that we had to be patient. He was sure that if we were prepared to wait, the sanctions would produce results.
So I have a question for the Prime Minister: Why South Africa and not Iraq?

Sanctions and international pressure forced South Africa out of Namibia. The United Nations played a peaceful and meaningful role in restoring independence to that country. Let that example guide us in our new post-cold war era of international relations.
Mr. Speaker, the government argued that we must resort to force because it is the only language Saddam Hussein understands. However, we cannot be absolutely sure that Saddam Hussein is impervious to other arguments if we do not keep conciliation and peace on the agenda. We must be absolutely sure.

Mr. Speaker, we must look at the implications of war. We must consider them directly and head on. Let there be no mistake. The cost of war would be high. Hundreds of thousands of lives may be lost, many of them civilian, and it is clear that Canadian men and women, including those hostages still in Iraq, would be among the casualties. We are talking about another generation of young people, of lives full of promise and potential, ended.
There is a good reason why the rapidly growing anti-war movement in the United States is being led by Vietnam veterans. They know the reality. They have
November 29, 1990

been there. They are saying: "Don't do it again". It is time to listen to them.
No one believes that a war would be short, that a war would be contained just between Iraq and Kuwait. There is a real chance of a war in the Middle East escalating into a conflict which encompasses the entire Middle East. The horrors of chemical weapons, of nuclear weapons, and the use of those in that region is not outside the realm of possibility.
A war in the Gulf will destroy lives, will devastate nations. We must do everything we can to avoid it.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House that if the New Democratic Party wanted to wait months for sanctions to work that that is our decision. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is our decision.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: It is one that we counsel this government to follow because by waiting months we may prevent a war that lasts for years and we may prevent pain that lasts a lifetime.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that voting against this motion does not in any way mean we reject the resolutions adopted by the UN so far. What we reject is the resolution drafted by the United States. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that an increasing number of Americans is against this motion.

What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian government, to the Prime Minister, is that he must go to the United Nations, to the Security Council and ask them to hold the course on sanctions, to let sanctions work and to commit again that Canada will do its fair share to ensure that those economic sanctions are implemented.
Mr. Speaker, the government will surely say that Canada must be tough and we must be strong. I agree. But to be tough sometimes means trying to bring others around to your view than just giving in to theirs.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, to be strong means to be patient and to show resolve. To be strong means searching until exhaustion for peaceful solutions. To be strong means seeking dialogue when others seek destruction.
Government Orders
Our amendment to the government's motion underlines the view that the Canadian government must speak for Canadians by demonstrating a strong commitment to peace. In every decision it makes in this crisis it must consult the people of Canada or it will not be supported by the people of Canada.
It has been said that the road to war is a wide one and the path to peace is often narrow and difficult to find. Let us offer the world some hope. Let Canada be a voice of calm. Let Canada be a voice of reason. Let Canada be a voice for peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. With regard to the issue of war, when it comes down to the reconciliation of some rather major decisions that have to be made, it is never easy, there is never a right answer and no one in his or her right mind goes against the idea of peace. Having said that, on October 23 a motion was put to this House:
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the Security Council-
Having embodied here the condemnation of Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait, I would like to know why the New Democratic Party did not support the condemnation of Iraq by voting for this particular motion on October 23, 1990.
I would like the Leader of the New Democratic Party to give us her reconciliation on this whole motion. Indeed, it was a difficult one even for our party. We put forward a motion and by changing some of the wording, we accepted it because the discussion of any kind of peace initiative or any kind of discussion about war is a very serious and difficult one for any party. I ask the hon. member to please respond.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Western Arctic for her comments. As a member from the north, I share the north with the hon. member for Western Arctic, and I think we have some understanding about the threats of living very close to a superpower, as we do in the north. I believe the member for Western Arctic pointed that out in her own comments.

Government Orders
I appreciate her comments, in terms of the motion that she refers to. We have always been unequivocal in condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Once again, the government brought forth motions to this House that were opened-ended and that allowed for going beyond the specifics. That is what this government wants again with this motion before us today. One would not even buy a house without knowing what is in it, but this government wants to agree to any kind of resolution, no matter what it is, no matter what is proposed, if it is in the United Nations.
I would have thought a party which prides itself on business would want to make sure that it was being full and open with this House and with the Canadian public about what it is asking the public to agree to and what it is asking this House of Commons to agree to. We do not need open-ended resolutions; we need this government to stand up in front of the public of Canada, to be accountable for its actions, and to tell us what evidence it has that economic sanctions are not working because it has never once in this House been able to tell anyone what evidence it has that economic sanctions are not working.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and with care to the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. This is indeed a difficult debate for all parliamentarians. It is a difficult debate for Canadians and people all over the world who love peace, strive for peace, and want to see a world where we do not have madmen like Saddam Hussein who take over countries, trample on people's sovereign rights, their human rights, maim, kill, and have no respect for international law. It is a very complex issue and I know that the resolution that is before us today, the one from the government, obviously is too open-ended. It is flawed, but that is typical of the type of resolutions that this government always puts forward on serious matters .The government did the same thing on the resolution about sending troops over to the Persian Gulf. It cannot seem to get it right.
I want to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party, what is the position of her party. I have looked at the proposed amendment that has been put forward. It talks about allowing sanctions to work. Under what circumstances and what conditions would her party be able to
support other efforts, other than sanctions? I am talking about the possible use of force. Does she foresee any circumstances where the possible use of force would be something that should be considered and would be supported by her party?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, clearly we do not know what is going to happen in the future. The first step we have to take is to make sure that we have done everything. I think that the Liberal Party is in agreement, that we cannot accept an open-ended resolution until we have shown that everything else has been done before we take an offensive action. I think we should be clear here that what is being discussed in the Middle East is not a defensive action by the United States, Canada and other countries, but an offensive action which can lead to disastrous consequences.
Therefore, we are saying very clearly that we need to allow time for economic sanctions to work. It is not just the New Democratic Party that has said this. Gwynne Dyer, when he gave his testimony before the international affairs committee, other experts, other military analysts have said that it takes six months to a year before we can really see whether the economic sanctions are working. We must do that. We must give those sanctions a chance.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right in the sense that the sanctions are the way to go, in the sense that time must be given to see that sanctions work. What we are facing in real terms is whether or not it is appropriate to send a message ultimately to somebody who has committed an act of aggression, a country that has committed an act of aggression against another country, that we are not prepared to wait forever.
The passage of a UN resolution that provides power to an international force does not mean that the power gets executed in the next two minutes, or the next five minutes, or the next five days, or even the next five months. However, there is a message in it.
Surely, the New Democratic Party agrees with the message that in no way, at no time, can the country of Iraq be rewarded for having committed the act of aggression. Surely, we as a world community with all of our experience that tracks back to the League of Nations and the United Nations have to say that we prefer a world community for the future, for our children and our grandchildren, where the world operates together under

United Nations sanction and we as a world community prefer to say to any country we will not tolerate aggression and if pushed to the wall, we are willing to back up our resolutions with whatever force has to be there. We cannot simply deal in world terms with rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know whether there was a question but if the hon. member for Yukon would like to rebut.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if economic sanctions were not a strong message, why did this government propose them? Economic sanctions are a strong message. This government and our own party have been proposing for years that economic sanctions in South Africa are a strong message.
Economic sanctions are a strong message.
We do not support aggression, but we believe we have to take all steps before we do anything else. I remind the hon. member that this resolution would give agreement to any resolution that might be made, without specifying what would be in that resolution. That is unacceptable.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this debate.
All of us recently experienced the Remembrance Day ceremonies. I know, as I have been a member in this House now for a little over 10 years, the Remembrance Day ceremonies are always a special time of tribute to our veterans, to those Canadians who did serve to protect our country and our interests, and to those who gave up their lives in that last war.
The first unique thing about this ceremony this year as I was attending those Remembrance Day services is that it was conducted by a young woman who was the minister but who was also a member of Canada's reserves.
In that audience were several other young people who were members of the reserves of the Canadian Armed Forces. What was unique about this particular service was that these young people, even though we were there remembering past wars and victims, I was there with young people who may well be called upon by their
Government Orders
country to serve in an action that all of us were looking at each night on our television screens.
What intrigued me was to hear the attitude of these young people, the concerns for their families and country, and about the implications of what may well happen in that part of the world. It did add, I thought, a very unique dimension and a very touching dimension to those services this last Remembrance Day.
The other comment that I want to mention is that I have always enjoyed reading novels of a historical nature. One of the things that seems to come to mind when we look at history is, of course, that perspective of hindsight that somehow takes war and glamourizes it. It somehow separates it from us in a certain way. We look at the spectacular and successful actions-all of the events that go on in a war-but we are left with a sense of distance.
Yet, today we find ourselves in a very unique position in that with the television communications, particularly, and with our print media, what can happen so many miles away from us can have an instantaneous impact on our nation.
Somebody living in the community of Peace River will feel a very significant effect.


Miss Grey:: Mr. Speaker, just on a brief point of order, I feel that for those of us in the House here-in fact, Canadians across the country watching this-it looks like a replay of the Grey Cup and watching the CFL time killers in action.
As this House knows, there were a number of members who wished to speak on this motion last night. Mr. Speaker, you well know. You were in the chair. However, when unanimous consent was sought just before one o'clock to ignore the clock and allow the last speakers to finish, the hon. Minister of National Defence denied unanimous consent.
I suspect that Canadians do not appreciate that either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 12.30 p.m., pursuant to Order made Wednesday, November 28, 1990, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
The question is on the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment 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):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Brewin. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
November 29, 1990


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to inquire as to whether the House would be favourably disposed to applying the same vote, in other words the vote of the previous motion, to this motion in an effort to assist everyone. It is a suggestion which I offer to members of Parliament.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I heard a no from the other side. I was not sure whether or not the member simply wanted to change their vote or whether he wanted all of us to go through the process of voting again. That could make a difference. I think there was at least one member on our side who came in late and would want to be recorded through subsequent votes. There may be two or three tag-ends to pick up, if that is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to facilitate, knowing that we do take a lot of time to vote when in effect the numbers perhaps do not change too much. Since we are getting to a very changed House, we will have to be a little more careful.
If it is only two or three members who are affected, I certainly think it might facilitate the vote to have the agreement that was called upon. Then some members could go on and register their vote another way.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard what seems to be a reasonable suggestion by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: No.
Mr. Speaker All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West, on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, rather than suggest that we apply the vote from the previous vote, I was going to suggest that we apply it in reverse. There might be a
predisposition to apply the vote from the previous motion in reverse.
Mr. Speaker The hon. member for Calgary West has made a suggestion to the House. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to Order made Wednesday, November 28, 1990, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1.21 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, our mail presently goes to the Persian Gulf via a depot in Halifax. In order to send mail to that depot, Canadian people have to pay the cost of the mail.
I have spoken to the Minister of National Defence and written to the minister in charge of the Post Office to see if during the Christmas season parcels, care packages, presents, letters and cards could not be sent free of charge to the depot in Halifax.
This is one way for Canada to say "Thank you" to the men and women who serve in the Gulf and who are there through our government's policies, perhaps not by choice, and in very dangerous times.
I call on the minister in charge of Canada Post to ask Canada Post to stop putting profits before service in this particular area and allow the mail in Canada to go free of charge to Halifax and on to the Gulf during the next month. In fact, it should go free all the time to our men and women who are serving in the Gulf.


NORTHERN TELECOM CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to inform my colleagues of the outstanding achievement of a company which employs many people in my constituency.
On October 31, 1990 one of the largest employers in my riding, Northern Telecom Canada Limited of Bramalea, Ontario was honoured with a Gold 1990 Canada Award for Business Excellence in the category of outstanding quality.
I can say without reservation that Northern Telecom is an impressive operation, conscious of producing an outstanding product, while maintaining an excellent working environment for its employees. With this winning combination, I am confident that Northern Telecom Canada Limited will continue to be successful and will remain a respected member of the community of Bramalea. Again, congratulations Northern Telecom.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday in this House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked about the future of the core area initiative in Winnipeg. He replied that he would do what was best for Winnipeg.
We found out subsequently that best means eliminating the core area initiative, cutting back on projects in the inner city and leaving the 100,000 people who live there in need of federal moneys but without any support.

It is hard to believe that now, at the last moment, he has finally discovered that he does not like North Portage, that he does not like the Forks, he does not like the core, but somehow up until this time he could not find a way of speaking about it.
The minister said that he needs a public evaluation before he continues. If he needs a public evaluation, he should have thought about it months ago because people in Winnipeg have been asking for the renewal for many weeks now. Instead, the minister should commit himself in Winnipeg to the renewal of the core and to a commitment to improve the conditions of Winnipeg's inner city.
k *


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the government an editorial which appeared yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press. The editorial correctly points out the need for the federal government to maintain national health care standards. The editorial also points out that for the last 10 years Liberal and Tory governments have gradually reduced the federal share of funding for Canada's health care system.
The reduction started when the Liberal's new leader was Minister of Finance. He started the erosion of our health care system and the Conservatives were only too eager to follow his lead.
Mr. Speaker, it is because of the vision of Tommy Douglas that Canada has one of the best health care systems anywhere. I find it disgraceful that the federal Conservatives and Liberals still yearn for an American style system. It is obvious that Canada's health care system is not safe under either the Conservatives or the Liberals.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's veterans are supporting our armed forces in the Gulf in a very heart-warming way. In particular, I am
talking about members of the Alberta command of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada.
Recently Command President Mr. Cecil Burke handed over a cheque for $120,000 to the Base Commander, Canadian Forces Base, Edmonton. The money will be used to buy televisions, video-cassette recorders and satellite dish antennae for the enjoyment of our forces personnel in the Gulf.
Mr. Burke said: "Most of us have an idea of what they are going through over there". I congratulate members of Canada's oldest veterans organization for rallying round those whose turn it is now to wear the uniform of Canada in a far-away land.


TRIBUTE TO JEAN-FRAN^OIS BOUCHARD


Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to an eight-year-old boy called Jean-Frangois Bouchard. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jean-Paul Bouchard of my riding. The reason for this tribute is the following. On October 28, Jean-Frangois took part in a Halloween skating event. Everyone had a great time until Jean-Frangois fell and had most of one finger cut off. The strength, courage and, let us say the word, bravery displayed by this young boy were impressive. This is why I wanted to draw special attention to it.
Mr. Speaker, small children have a way of teaching us adults singular lessons of logic and positive thinking. This young boy has quite a future ahead of him. I am sure of that.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the tax reform implemented in 1988 is having positive results. The 1988 tax statistics indicate that low-income Canadians do benefit from the reform. That same year, the average after tax income rose by 8.6 per cent. The number of Canadians over age 65 who do not pay any tax has increased by more than 40 per cent and now stands at 290,000.
The income tax reform has made the system more progressive and more equitable. The sales tax reform is an additional stage in that process. High-income Canadians will be paying a larger share of their income
November 29, 1990

through the sales tax, whereas families with an income of $30,000 or less will be better off than they are now.
All things considered, the tax reform combined with other important measures taken by the government to boost the Canadian economy will make the tax system more equitable, improve competitiveness and create more jobs.


SOCIALIST AWARDS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, fellow Canadians, it is time once again for the weekly socialist awards of excellence. This week's nominees all hail from that hotbed of socialism, Ontario, where 30 per cent of the people voted NDP and got a lousy government.
The nominees are NDP MPP Tony Silipo who after being elected to the legislature was found guilty by the Law Society for misconduct in his handling of forged documents; MPP Tony Rizzo who admitted that he was involved in receiving free work from a contractor whose applications Mr. Rizzo always voted in favour of, as well as his union-busting tactics; Bob White, erstwhile head of the CAW, whose support of the NDP with union funds-many of whom I might add vote Liberal-is on par with the big Tory corporate donors, will stop at nothing to fulfil his own personal political goals.
The envelope please. The winner is Bob White who, in a great display of looking out for the little guy, has accepted his pay-off as a director of that bastion of the working class, the Toronto Skydome.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the environment is everyone's concern but it is of special concern to our next generation.
Grade six students at Westmount School in Moose Jaw have written to advise me that they have studied the effects of acid rain. One student writes: "We have discovered that acid rain causes fish, plants and animals to die, lakes to be ruined and animal reproduction difficulties".
Another writes: "It is very important to stop acid rain because Canadian lakes are very sensitive to acid rain and we share 25 per cent of the world's fresh water supply".
The government should heed the pleas of these students. They are speaking on behalf of students right across the country. The government should ensure that a national acid rain program which places a cap on emissions and sets national standards will be included in the upcoming Green Plan.
Certainly the fact that the three western provinces and the two territories are not now included in any plan leaves over one-half of Canada's environment unprotected.
I say well done to the students at Westmount School. Let us all hope that the government is listening.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
M. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Next week, Mr. Speaker, Canada will play an important role in the GATT negotiations in Brussels. It was Prime Minister Mulroney who, at the outset of this critical round four years ago, insisted that agriculture be put on the negotiation agenda. Last year the industrialized nations paid out something like $250 billion in farm subsidies, yet a good many agricultural producers throughout the world are still hard-pressed, except perhaps in Europe where the EEC is thwarting progress. The international agricultural trade system does not work, and that spells disaster for some Canadian farmers. We and our agricultural producers simply cannot accept a failure next week, and certainly not the status quo.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice visited Winnipeg last weekend and commented on the David Milgaard case.

November 29, 1990
Milgaard has spent more than 20 years in prison for murder, but there is serious doubt that he committed the crime. For many months we have pressed the justice minister to make a decision in the case. On Winnipeg television she said: "In the third week in September I was advised the file was ready for me but that they," being department officials, "had received communication from Milgaard's counsel that he wished to make more argument".
Where does the justice minister get this stuff? She is dead wrong. Milgaard's counsel, David Asper, said in the same broadcast: "We completed our submission during the summer". By the way, that was confirmed in a September 10 letter from Asper to the Department of Justice.
The minister had better get a grip on her department. Someone is feeding her a line. It puts justice under a cloud and makes her look like a fool.


SEXIST PUBLICITY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: In his movie entitled "Jesus of Montreal", Mr. Speaker, Denys Ar-cand offers a satire of the advertising industry and the way this industry exploits the physical attributes of women to sell their wares. Unfortunately, as any other good satire, Denys Arcand's is a fairly accurate reflection of the truth.
Mr. Speaker, who among us has not noticed the degrading representation of women by our major advertising agencies and their customers? Is it necessary to use a woman's body to sell beer or chewing gum? All advertising agencies are well aware that by trying to sell their wares that way, they are selling sex. I suggest this is an unhealthy if not dangerous attitude to cultivate in a society where violence against women is definitely on the rise.


PENSION PLANS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, six years ago the government amended the Canada and Quebec pension plans to bring them into line with the
equality provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government imposed equality at the same time on all private sector pension plans it regulates, yet it has failed to eliminate inequities and injustices in the pension plans for its own employees.
Survivors of Public Service pensions still get only a 50 per cent pension, compared to the 60 per cent the government imposes on other funds. Part-time employees are left out of the pension plan, contributing further to the poverty of women.
The government is withholding from Public Service employees changes that are their right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is holding these changes in reserve to sugar coat the bitter bill it plans to deliver when it deindexes the pensions Public Service employees have paid for over many years.
When will the government treat its own employees with the same pension equality it imposes on all other employers?


CENTRAL MORTAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my most heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its responsible minister, Hon. Allan Redway, for the financial support my constituents of La Prairie, on the south shore of Montreal, have received from the corporation which, through its grants, has made it possible since my election in 1984 to build approximately 200 low-rental housing units for senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of an agreement on social housing, reached in 1986 by the Quebec government and the Government of Canada I will have the honour to officially open on December 1 the Memoir de Brossard, a complex of 61 low-rental housing units for senior citizens.
This opening is the concrete result of the joint efforts of the CMHC, the Quebec Housing Corporation, the Brossard Municipal Housing Bureau and myself to provide our senior citizens with decent housing.
November 29, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I thank the CMHC and my minister for their tremendous contributions.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, just last week this government fed Canadians the line that it needed money to pay for its action in the Gulf. Yet every Canadian knows that its greatest overspending costs were due to its bad judgment in estimating the costs of its high interest rate policies and bringing in the GST, all policies for which Canadian taxpayers have to pay.
Now after cutting funding for programs for people, Finance Minister Michael Wilson is so insensitive that he spent $250,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money to peddle government propaganda to the business community. The minister's video titled, "Where Do Your Taxpayer Dollars Go?", should really have been called "Thx Lies and Videotape".


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in the current environmental debate, there is one major stakeholder whose efforts to apply the principles of sustainable development often go unnoticed.
Industry is concerned about sustainable development and the environmental challenge before us. In particular today, I wish to commend the Canadian mining industry.
It is a little known fact that Canadians are leading the way in sustainable mining. Under the leadership of the Mining Association of Canada, our mining sector has produced for itself a Guide for Environmental Practice.
Canadian mining companies are committed to sound environmental practices at home and abroad. The mining sector is committed to responsible product stewardship. The mining community is very aware of environmental problems and is eager to participate in vital debate begun with the work of the Brundtland report.
Oral Questions
As a major stakeholder, a provider of wealth for our country, the Canadian mining sector has a valuable contribution to make for environmentally sustainable economic development.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is about Canada's involvement in the crisis in the Persian Gulf. On Monday, the Minister for International Trade, speaking on behalf of the government about the sanctions against Iraq said in this House:
-the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quite prepared to make available to the House, or to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, the full information on how effective the sanctions policy appears to be.
Yesterday, when speaking in this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave no such information and no such evidence. All he did was say, in effect, that the sanctions were not working and today in the House the Prime Minister said the same thing.
Will the Prime Minister give us the evidence promised by the Minister for International Tirade that the sanctions are not working? This evidence is important because it affects how Canadians look at the risk some Canadians are under in the Persian Gulf. Why will the Prime Minister not give us the evidence promised on behalf of this government? Why will he not give us that evidence today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first let me just correct a misstatement by my hon. friend in regard to my statement this morning in the House. What I said was: "While the UN sanctions are undoubtedly being felt by the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people, we have found no wide-spread confidence that they are sufficient to bring about the desired result to namely persuade President Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait". I think that is an important distinction that my hon. friend would want to bear in mind.
As to any information that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have available regarding the results of the sanction policy, I am sure that, immediately

November 29, 1990
Oral Questions
upon his return from New York, he would be happy to provide this to my hon. friend.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the time to provide that evidence was during the debate which has just concluded. Canadians will want to know why the government did not have enough confidence in its own policy to provide that evidence before now. Canadians need that evidence before the vote is taken in the United Nations on the resolution in question.
Yesterday, the immediate past chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe, said in testimony before a United States Senate committee, when speaking about the sanctions against Iraq and how they are working: "I counsel patience, war is not neat, it is not tidy, it is a mess". That is what Admiral Crowe said.
Is it possible that the reason the government has not given us the evidence it claims it has about how the sanctions are working is because it knows all the evidence is of the kind provided by Admiral Crowe, that the sanctions are working and they need more time to work and the time has not yet arrived, nor is it near, for offensive action? Is that not the fact?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it really is quite a shameful suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, to say nothing of the fact that I find passing strange the manner in which some days the Liberal Party loves the Americans and most days, they do not. When they find an American who says something with which they agree, they are actively quoting him.
The issue before the House is the issue we addressed this morning, support for the United Nations.


John Harvard: We support the United Nations.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend says "We support the United Nations". The United Nations has passed 10 resolutions requesting that they withdraw from Kuwait. This will be the eleventh resolution for which the United Nations is seeking support.
Mr. Pearson said in 1945: "Never again should an aggressor be permitted to strike down one nation after another before the peace loving nations of the world organize and take concerted action against it." The
United Nations is seeking the support of peace-loving nations to take concerted action against it, and Canada is going to provide that support.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister says that he is a great supporter of the United Nations, and so is his government. These words are strange in light of the fact that a few days ago the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that they were ready to get involved in offensive action against Iraq unilaterally whether the UN approved it or not. Those are not the words of somebody who puts his primary faith in the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Conservative Senator Gerald Beaudoin, the constitutional expert, said that the government would not have to call back Parliament if it were to decide in favour of armed intervention against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this statement contradicts a government motion adopted by this House on October 23.
I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: Will he repudiate today the statements made by Senator Beaudoin and will he announce his intention to respect his commitment to call back Parliament before Canadian troops are involved in a military offensive in the Persian Gulf?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the senator's statement, but my hon. friend can hardly expect me to start commenting on all the statements being made in the Senate, because we would be here for quite some time. As for the second part of his question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have, on various occasions, dealt with this point satisfactorily. However, the Leader of the Opposition-inadvertently, I expect-misquoted what I said. In fact, he said, suggesting that he was quoting me verbatim:

-"the Prime Minister said that we are ready to get involved to get in an offensive action against Iraq unilaterally whether the United Nations approved or not". I never made any such statement.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the government's non-tabling of requested sanctions documentation.

The Prime Minister's answers to the hon. House leader's questions a few moments ago are ringing in my ears. They echo almost exactly the answer we got to the same question in this House on Monday of this week when the Minister for International Trade responded: "I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quite prepared to make available to the House the full information on the effect of sanctions policies". Canadians accept an embargo against Iraq, but not an embargo against providing Canadians vital information concerning sanctions. We requested information. We did not get it.
Why has the government refused to provide this vital information concerning sanctions against Iraq?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government is not refusing to provide information. I have already indicated to my hon. friend that when the question was asked, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is responsible for this, was in Jordan meeting with King Hussein and in Israel meeting with Prime Minister Shamir. He then flew back, spoke at a meeting here in Ottawa, spoke in the House, and is now speaking before the Security Council at the United Nations.
I indicated to my hon. friend that when the information is made available to me, presumably immediately upon my right hon. friend's return, we will be happy to provide my hon. friend with all of the information that we have.
The issue before the House yesterday, today and tomorrow in respect of Iraq is going to be whether this party, this government and this House supports the United Nations in what it is seeking to do. We will provide full support, as we will provide my hon. friend with all of the information available to us.
We seek peace in the region, but peace in the region will come through firm and unwavering support for the resolutions of the UN Security Council.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Prime Minister. Canada has supported and this party has supported the imposition of UN sanctions against Iraq as an effective method of forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. Other
Oral Questions
nations, such as Colombia, have proposed other peacemaking solutions to the Middle East crisis to the UN Security Council. What evidence can the government give us today that Canada has pursued other peaceful resolutions to the Middle East crisis prior to supporting the UN resolution before the Security Council today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that in co-operation with a number of other nations, Canada has been working privately, and I hope with some effect, to assist in what we hope will be a peaceful resolution of this very important matter. This has been done at the United Nations directly with the Secretary General. It has been done through a number of our important alliances and in other initiatives around the world. We hope that will contribute in a beneficial way.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, today a resolution was passed in this House, not supported by this party, which basically gave blanket support to any resolution that the United Nations might pass, because it is not clear what will be contained in subsequent UN resolutions. It simply says the Security Council resolution and all subsequent relevant resolutions, but no specifics.
Given the fact that there are no specifics attached to what resolutions this government has just supported, if the United States were to decide to invade Iraq after January 15, which is the deadline given in the UN resolution, does this government resolution mean today that the Prime Minister has given George Bush his approval and that he can have Canadian support for an attack of Iraq after January 15?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seriously would not want me to answer that kind of canard. I wonder why she devised the hypothetical question with Mr. Bush in mind. Perhaps she missed the statement by Soviet President Gorbachev this week who delivered an ultimatum to Iraq warning it to withdraw from Kuwait or face the worst consequences. Gorbachev is reported to have told the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr. Aziz: "If Iraq really wanted a settlement in the entire region and is interested in avoiding the worst, it must now openly pull out of Kuwait and release hostages".

Oral Questions
President Gorbachev concluded: "The President of Iraq must weigh everything once more. The fate of Iraq is in the hands of its leaders, and time is expiring."
President Gorbachev is expressing a pretty universally held sentiment, with the possible exception of a few people in the NDP.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister then: What did we vote on this morning?
What does he mean by the kind of sanctions that will be effective January 15? I ask the Prime Minister again: In this UN resolution, what is his understanding of exactly what will occur after January 15 if Saddam Hussein has not withdrawn from Kuwait by that time?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty. That is a very hypothetical question. Within the rules, it is out of order.
I would ask the hon. member to perhaps rephrase her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we were asked to vote this morning on a resolution that said in effect that we would support any resolution, not specified, that the United Nations would pass.
What does the Prime Minister anticipate those other resolutions would be?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the motion refers to the resolution that is being debated at the United Nations today. That is the position.
That is why President Gorbachev indicated publicly in Paris that it was imperative that the United Nations receive unanimous support, if at all possible, for the resolution that was going to be voted today, because he did not want the United Nations to go the route of the League of Nations, which disintegrated and was unable to provide the strong international leadership that the world needs.
The United Nations asked for Canada's support in the defence of universal rights. That was granted today by the Government of Canada, and I hope eventually by members of my hon. friend's party.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is well aware of what the UN resolution says and, I assume, what his own resolution says.
It asks this House to give a blank cheque to vote for any resolution that the UN might give.
I have a question on another very serious subject related to the issue in the Middle East.

Everyone is this country is delighted that seven Canadian hostages were able to leave Iraq, but we are concerned about the fate of the remaining hostages. I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell the House what his government intends to do to ensure that the remaining Canadian hostages will also be able to go home.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in my comments this morning I pointed out that one of the cornerstones of the government's foreign policy in this area was freeing the hostages. The government has embarked on a series of initiatives and is working very hard to help the hostages and their families.
It is also important to point out that President Gorbachev asked Foreign Minister Aziz in Moscow about 48 hours ago to proceed immediately. He asked Iraq to proceed immediately with the release of all hostages held in Iraq.


GREAT WHALE PROJECT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Government of Quebec approved a federal-provincial agreement on impact studies for the Great Whale project. The Quebec environment minister said very clearly that the agreement did not include infrastructures. On October 18, in reply to a question here in the House, the federal environment minister said, and I quote: "With my Quebec counterpart we are having a discussion of the terms of reference which will cover the infrastructures". This is my question: Who is telling the truth?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make it very clear to this House that there is in fact no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the
November 29, 1990

Government of Canada on this issue. There is a response by the Government of Quebec to a proposal made by the Government of Canada on November 20.
I think it is perfectly reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member would not ask us to respond to that counter-proposal until the Minister of the Environment, who is meeting in Victoria with his provincial counterparts, meeting by the way to discuss very important issues, including consulting with them on the green plan, has an opportunity to examine the document and to respond at the appropriate time.
Because he asked a question before, I want to assure him, as the Minister of the Environment has done on numerous occasions, that there will be an environmental assessment of both the infrastructure and the project itself and that this environmental assessment will be a public process.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: What a tangled web we weave. I have a document dated July 6 which sets out the principles of an agreement reached between the two Ministers of the Environment. That agreement specifically excludes the infrastructures. The agreement is in French:

"Quebec and Canada have agreed to submit the Great Whale complex to an environmental assessment. For the purposes of this joint assessment, the complex excludes access infrastructures."

Does the government deny that the agreement sent from Quebec last night contains the exclusion that I have just cited? Does the government deny that the agreement was arrived at by the federal Minister of the Environment at the end of June? Does the government deny that that clause is in complete contradiction of the principles that the minister has stated? Does the government deny that the minister's public statements are simply not borne out by his private action?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who I believe is a member of the legal profession, must surely understand that there is a very major distinction between the word "agreement" which he chooses to use-and I
Oral Questions
may say he probably does so for his own political advantage-and the question of a proposal. There have been a series of proposals and counter-proposals back and forth between the two governments. What we have today is a response by the Government of Quebec to the latest proposal which we put on the table on November 20. We will be responding at the appropriate time.


CITIZEN'S FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Spicer commission. It seems the Prime Minister does not intend to fill the seat left vacant by Mrs. Therese Paquet-Sevigny, thus diminishing the contribution of women and francophones to the future of this country.
Mr. Speaker, we are sorry to hear the Prime Minister did not appoint someone else, and that I want to ask him whether he is prepared to acknowledge that the Commission is merely a smoke-screen and that he has failed miserably in his task to keep this country together and united.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. friend, who usually shows a special interest in important questions concerning national unity, should make such a suggestion.
First of all, regarding the claim that I had decided not to proceed with a new appointment, I simply want to say to my hon. friend that I am having consultations on the membership of the commission. We have suffered a slight setback. Why? Because an exceptional woman, who was posted at the United Nations, agreed to sit on the Commission and subsequently was told that her acceptance might have an impact on administrative decisions at the UN. In the circumstances, she had to withdraw. There is nothing dishonourable about that. There is no negative reflection, either on her or the government. The seats on the commission will be filled, and I am sure the Spicer commission will continue its work and will end up gathering tremendous support for Canada.

November 29, 1990
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Spicer commission, from what reports we get from the press, has no work mandate. It has no work plan. Its members are part time. The Prime Minister tells us he is hesitating to name an additional or additional members to that commission.
Given the importance of this commission to the future of this country, is the Prime Minister prepared today to tell this House that he will name a replacement for the person that left the commission, Madam Paquet-Sevig-ny? Will he show us today by his efforts that he will do everything to make a success of this commission and appoint people to the commission who will be full time and will work in the interests of Canadians and the future of the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend has such little faith in the capacity of these people to do very good job for Canada. I fail to understand as well why he is so negative in regard to the manner in which the commission has begun its work.
It took some four months before the composition of Quebec's Belanger-Campeau commission was completed. Indeed, the assembly had to be reconvened to provide for the admission of additional members.
Why would my hon. friend be alarmed at the fact that one member of the Spicer Commission had to resign for reasons that I have explained and conclude therefrom that it will not be effective?
I tell my hon. friend that the Spicer commission will make an effective and I believe durable contribution to the well-being of Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday Canada's environment took a serious backroom beating from Premier Bourassa and the Quebec Liberals. Their unilateral decision to proceed with the $600 million infrastructure of the Great Whale project is both a threat and an insult.
Since this is part of the largest industrial project ever conceived in the history of North America, will the Prime Minister demonstrate that he believes what he said about the environment when he spoke before the United Nations and assure this House that there will be no federal permits or authorization given on the infrastructure until the entire project has been given a full public environmental assessment and review? Yes or no?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I explained just a moment ago to my hon. friend opposite, the Government of Quebec has made a proposal to the Government of Canada which will certainly be considered by the Minister of the Environment, as the hon. member would wish, on his return from these very important meetings in Victoria.
With respect specifically to the question of infrastructure and the question of environmental assessments, I think there are two or three questions which have been asked by the Canadian public and I think they should be answered.
One of these questions is: Will there be a full environmental assessment in which the federal government will participate on both the question of the infrastructure and the question of the project? And the answer to that is yes.
The second question which I think has been asked is whether or not the federal government will issue any permits to those areas which fall into its jurisdiction with respect to the infrastructure until the EARP process has been applied. And the answer to that question is no.


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is again for the Prime Minister.
The Great Whale project has been on the drawing boards since the 1970s. There have been years of opportunity to evaluate Quebec Hydro's secret environmental impact studies publicly.
Would the Prime Minister confirm the simple fact that there has been a political deal, a roll of the dice deal, made between his office, himself and Premier Bourassa to cover up the truly horrific impacts of this project which stands to be an ecological Auschwitz?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not so certain that question is worthy of an answer, but the answer is a simple no.
November 29, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
Since the Government of Quebec has now taken the lead and cancelled its value added tax on books, and since the Minister of National Revenue indicated as recently as yesterday that he would cancel this goods and services tax on books in all probability after it becomes law, if it does come into law, will he today take Quebec's excellent lead and will he, in International Literacy Year, cancel the goods and services tax on all books and learning materials now?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts straight before putting a question of that nature.
Yesterday I made several comments to the Canadian Thx Foundation. When asked about the Quebec situation on books, I said: "We can't start fiddling around with the legislation. It would send out a confusing message. In other words, there will be no changes in the legislation before it is passed".
I went on to say what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had said in the past, that once the legislation is implemented we will monitor its effects on the economy, on society, and on specific sectors, and could possibly in future make adjustments. But there will be no adjustments prior to January 1, and the tax will be implemented.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, we will let Canadians decide who has his facts straight.

My supplementay is directed to the Prime Minister. Tkxing books and other learning materials amounts to encouraging illiteracy. The 5 to 7 million illiterate Canadians who cost in excess of $10 billion a year to the treasury are often among our poorest fellow citizens. What does the Prime Minister intend to do to help these people learn to read and get them out of this vicious circle of poverty?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this government is aware of the importance of cultural industries and cultural sectors as a whole,
Oral Questions
whether related to publishing, cinema, sound recording or theatre. In most sectors the government has established programs to enable the cultural community to progress to the benefit of all Canadians, and we are pursuing our efforts, Mr. Speaker, including in the publishing field.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister has said that he had to cut health care research to reduce the deficit. Canadians do not accept that. The minister will never convince Canadians that he had no option.
Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain to Canadians why he chose-and this is the point-to single out health care research for such harsh treatment?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the harsh treatment that is referred to by the hon. member. Since this government came to office, displacing the old Liberal government and its record on research in Canada, NHRDP has increased by some 55 per cent, some $10 million.
In his own province of Quebec, since the Liberals were thrown out, NHRDP grants went from $4,769 million to $7,696 million in the first 11 months of this year.
That is a record on research which speaks for itself. The hon. member can talk about research. This government has funded it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Berger: That is not the question, Mr. Speaker. We never said he cut 100 per cent of the program. Indeed the minister himself confirmed that he did cut this program. So I am asking him today why he chose to cut the health care research program, and will he agree to re-instate the full budget for that research program?

November 29, 1990
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let me be a bit more specific even about the hon. member's riding. He will be aware of the fact that on October 17,1 wrote to the hon. member to inform him that so far this year $2.9 million had been put into his own constituency by NHRDP.
We can contrast this government's record in his constituency with his vote on Bill C-22, where the position of the Liberal Party was to block research in dealing with the whole area of medicine. Its record has been one of disgrace.
I believe that at any fair comparison between the record of the Liberals on medical research and the record of this government, it will show that while they talk about it they talk a good fight, but they oppose it when it comes to voting.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I just want to take him back to the answer he gave to a question by my leader. As I heard him and as I think the House heard him, he said that the government's view of the motion which was passed this morning was that, in terms of subsequent resolutions to today, the only UN resolution that was covered was the resolution which will be coming before the Security Council today. That is what he said. That was ably assisted, I may say, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Will the Prime Minister therefore agree that the government has no House approval for the commitment of Canadian forces to any offensive action against Iraq?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave to the Leader of the NDP is the policy of the government in regard to the question that was raised by her.
With regard to the broader question, which was the subject of debate this morning, I refer my hon. friend to
a statement that he made in the House on October 25, when he said: "The NDP position is that until all has failed, the United Nations must get the complete unqualified support of this government, this Parliament, and this country".
That is what the United Nations got this morning, and the NDP was not there.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, that is exactly why the Prime Minister's approval rating is where it is in the country today.
I asked him a very straightforward question. He could have clarified the understanding that his government got. Let me try once more in a slightly different way.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment today to this House and to the country that before his government commits Canadian forces to offensive action against Iraq, he will come back to this House and seek its approval?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in response, I think, to a question from the Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday or the day before yesterday.
I indicated that we had come to the House on September 24 or September 25, for a full debate, that we came to the House yesterday and today for a full debate, and that at any time circumstances warranted we would, of course, come before the House of Commons for a full debate.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations is not in this House, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Since we now know from press that the Leader of the Liberal Party is going to appear before the Belanger-Campeau commission-and perhaps I appreciate the fact that because the Prime Minister is Prime Minister he would not want to appear before the Belanger-Cam-peau commission-does the Prime Minister or the government intend to have the so-called Quebec lieutenant or someone else representing the federal government
November 29, 1990

appear before this commission to give the federal message to that commission?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that indeed there are press reports to the effect the Leader of the Liberal Party is planning an appearance before the provincial commission.
The Progressive Conservative national caucus is represented full time at all commission hearings by the hon. member for Outremont. He participates very actively on a daily basis, not only in questioning witnesses but in putting out the federalist position that is defended actively by members of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I do not know of the intentions of any other members of this House to appear before the Belanger-Campeau commission. However, I am sure it would be an enlivening and enriching experience if the hon. member from Annapolis Valley-Hants decided to attend.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Who knows what might happen in this interesting world we live in?
Since the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel is also a member of the Belanger-Campeau commission and still represents, I think, the Liberal Party, that does not presuppose or pre-empt the leader.
If there has not been a decision made, I wonder seriously if a representative of the federal government, not a member of that large commission, will make its pitch to that commission with all the implications and consequential fall-outs therefrom.


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I invite you to listen to these words from Hansard of October 15, 1981:
- many home owners, many farmers and small businessmen were literally kicked in the teeth-Why is it Canada must have interest rates that are 3 to 4 percentage points higher than comparable rates in the United States?
Oral Questions
These are the words of the member who today is the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If an interest rate spread of 3 to 4 points was wrong then, why isn't an interest rate spread of 4 to 5 points worse now?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that when I said that interest rates were in the order of 21.5 per cent, a good deal different. If you reverse the first two numbers, you might get the interest rate today. It is 12.1 per cent. I think things are fundamentally different than when I made that statement.
Let's be honest with each other. Interest rates are high today. We would like to get them down. We are trying to get them down. We brought them down from a bank rate of 14.05 per cent to today when the bank rate is a little over 12.25 per cent. We have had a significant drop in interest rates.
I have observed in this House on a number of occasions the inflationary pressures which are there that are causing us to exercise some caution.
Our intent is to reflect the weakness in the economy in a continuing reduction in interest costs. That will be to the benefit of the small businessmen and the farmers whom my hon. friend quoted just now.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in response, I can do no better than to quote from the same Hansard the minister's own words. He said then:
-the arrogance of that answer to people who have been-suffering for a long time under the policies of this government, is just incredible.
Since the leopard has changed his spots and is now the champion of high interest rates, since the minister admits that the GST will increase inflation significantly, and since his own interest rate calculations have been so far off, my question is: Will interest rates go up between now and March 31?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can see from the hon. member that the whole Peterson family has taken up acting.


Some hon. members:: Encore, encore.

November 29, 1990
Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the hon. member for Etobicoke North, followed by a single question from the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said that Mexico and the United States had agreed that energy would not be on the table in the trade negotiations.
In the absence of the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs claimed that my information was incorrect. By now the minister has informed himself that both the Mexican Minister of Commerce and the United States Secretary of the Treasury have stated that Mexican oil is not on the table.
Can the minister explain why Canada should have ceded more sovereignty over energy than Mexico, or does the government now intend to negotiate a trilateral agreement which will restore full Canadian sovereignty in our energy industry?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, we have full sovereignty over our energy industry. Those claims are silly. If the hon. member would look back to an agreement that the Liberal Party signed in 1973 with 23 other countries in this world called the International Energy Agency, it promised to share energy resources during short periods of time. There is nothing different in the trade agreement with the United States than with the International Energy Agency agreement that was signed by the Liberals quite some time ago, absolutely nothing.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A refugee claimant received a letter, which is not on letterhead, which says, "With regard to an immigration matter, kindly contact my office at your earliest convenience," at such and such an address. Presumably, this is the hon. minister's department but no one would know that. When he got to
the office, he was advised that he would be deported from the country.
He subsequently received from the same office a piece of paper, handwritten, which says the following: "Report for removal to immigration at Holiday Inn". Is this the treatment that your department is giving to refugee claimants in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question through the Chair. The hon. minister may wish to respond.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has difficulty with a refugee case, as many members of this House do from time to time, I am quite prepared to take a look at it. I think there are many hon. members on all sides of this House who know that I do deal with all those cases on an urgent basis.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Dr. Michael Woods, Minister of Health and Social Welfare of Ireland.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Mrs. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order before the Prime Minister takes the floor, since it concerns his reply in the House. When the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier asked a question about the Prime Minister's presentation before the Belanger-Campeau commission, the Prime Minister made it clear to the House, following a suggestion I made, that he was having private meetings with Mr. Belanger and Mr. Campeau about Quebec's constitutional future, either within or outside Canada. I would like to ask him the following question, Mr. Speaker: Why was he not prepared to reveal the whole truth in response to the excellent question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier? Why is he having private meetings, without having-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Friesen:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is using a point of order to cany on Question Period. If she wishes, on another occasion, to continue debate then, of course, that is open to her but it is not a proper use of a point of order. If there is a need for the hon. member to withdraw, I will look at the "blues" and consider it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: This being Thursday, before I ask the usual question as to the work that the government will propose to the House, I wonder if members would agree with me that we should adopt a motion of thanks and congratulations, and offer our sincere thanks to the three members of this House, Messrs. Axworthy, Corbett and Robinson, who, in my view, did a very good humanitarian job.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, having said that, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the business of the House is for tomorrow and next week.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will be calling Bill C-40, the report stage of the Broadcasting Act.
Tomorrow morning I would like to call for second reading of Bill C-88, the European Bank for Reconstruction. Perhaps if we can engage in some discussions for progress, since it is a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation, we could, upon conclusion of that, call for report stage and hopefully, third reading of Bill C-79, amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act.
On Monday, I will be calling the Broadcasting Act back for completion of report stage. If our previous discussions turn out to be accurate in terms of the progress we might make, hopefully we will complete the Broadcasting Act on Tuesday, December 4.
Points of Order
I will be engaging with my homologues on the other side in terms of further work for the remainder of next week.


POINTS OF ORDER
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the Prime Minister's response to my question today and the response I got on Monday to the same question, that the Secretary of State seemingly without difficulty could table the requested documentation regarding sanctions in Iraq, I feel that there is no need for delay. I would ask that the documentation be tabled forthwith.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out, the hon. member asked this question yesterday and again today. She got an answer. She did not approve of the answer and then is bootlegging it as a point of order to make her political point again.
She has an opportunity during Question Period. Why is that not sufficient to make her point. Why must she bootleg with specious points of orders-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a point of order and, of course, one has to listen to the point before one rules on it. I am not at all sure that it is a point of order. Certainly, the hon. government House leader has indicated his disapproval of the use of a point of order to carry on a debate. However, I do want hon. members to know that before I can decide whether it is appropriate or not, I usually have to hear at least a little bit of it. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I may
agree with you that it is not what I would call a very strict point of order, but it is a point of fact that the government has offered these documents, has not come forth with the proof that these sanctions are working. The member is only asking that the government put up or shut up. That is all.


Mr. Speaker:: But we have just finished Question Period and those questions were put and they may well be put again.

November 29, 1990
Government Orders


EXPANSION OF NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among many of our colleagues on all sides of this House. I would like to ask for consent to move the following motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas. I move that:
Whereas the National Hockey League is considering expansion and whereas this House is of the opinion that any future expansion of the NHL would benefit from the inclusion of Canadian teams, therefore, that this House supports the efforts of Ottawa and Hamilton in their bids to obtain National Hockey League franchises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, November 27, 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; and Motion No. 17 of Mr. Waddell (p. 15801); and Motion No. 30 of Mrs. Finestone (p. 15801).
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to speak today to 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.
Although this bill encompasses several positive steps, it needs further revision. The motion before us today addresses one of the fundamental flaws of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, we are resuming debate on motions which include the excellent motion of the hon. member for Mount Royal which is before us for
discussion. The motion reflects the deep dissatisfaction within the substance of Bill C-40. This bill drops the CBC's 1968 mandated role to foster Canadian national unity. Specifically it reads:
- to contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
For the first time in Canadian broadcasting history, the national role of the CBC was reaffirmed and legally bound to resist threats to unity. I have read the rationale for removing this fundamental clause but I simply cannot agree with it.
I was all the more concerned when the independent member for Shefford, Quebec, spoke to this motion on Tbesday. I guess the Bloc Quebecois separatist position matches quite well with its desire to see the CBC robbed of its longstanding mandate.
The CBC as a national institution must be there for all Canadians and must continue to represent the views of all.
As for the clause itself, there has been no indication whatsoever that the concerns of the government and the bill are founded in fact. Specifically, there is no threat that the CBC will be an instrument of the state. The intention and the effect are for the CBC to be an instrument of the people, of society, of the Canadian nation, not-and I cannot stress this enough-the government or the state.
The government's reasoning is clearly suspect in this regard. One only has to read the remarks of the CBC's long-time president, Pierre Juneau, to realize there is no threat to the objectivity of the CBC or to any part of its continued effective broadcasting in this country. Monsieur Juneau has gone on record as saying that the national unity phrase had not caused any problems during his tenure at the CBC.
The CRTC has concurred with this position. The simple fact is that the clause in question has never precluded the effectiveness of the CBC in fulfilling its over-all mandate.
The CBC has historically been a unifying force in this country and should continue to be given this responsibility as a central aspect of its mandate. Removing this aspect from the CBC's purview would be a significant detriment to the corporation and the country. It amounts to the disembowelment of the CBC as a national institution.

Sixty years ago Prime Minister R. B. Bennett said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as he helped to found it, would be an instrument of national consciousness and unity. He said that it was needed to bring the country together in those difficult times. He recognized that Canada's autonomy and independence hinged on the control of our communications system. Has really that much changed over the intervening years? I do not think so. The need is still as great as ever for a national institution to act as a unifying force.
I would argue that they are needed now more than ever before in our Canadian history. We need the CBC to act as a bulwark against the various decentralizing forces that bombard Canada from all its comers, from inside and outside this country, even from within this very House of Commons, from within this Parliament of Canada.
Canadians have diverse backgrounds and lives and so it is particularly important for federal institutions like the CBC to act as a unifying force, pulling Canadians together through the promotion of our common interests and perspectives.
National radio programs such as Momingside, As It Happens. Sunday Morning, Cross Country Check-Up-, as well as television shows like The National, The Journal, documentaries like Patrick Watson's The Struggle for Democracy, Ken Dryden's Home Game, and even Hockey Night in Canada provide a unifying influence on Canadians.
I am sure that this would continue at least in the short term without the national unity mandate specifically spelled out. But the focus might change. Over time the CBC could lose its effectiveness as a pro-Canadian force.
Some more cynical analysts have said that this bill in its present form could be the government's first step toward privatization of our beloved Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Any move in this direction would be tragic. The vast majority of Canadians believe that they have an incredible service at their disposal and would shun any move toward changing the 60-year mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
It is incumbent upon us here today to make a stand with these initial signs of erosion. The Mulroney govem-
Govemment Orders
ment has already cut the CBC's budget with abandon and disregard. We have seen this time and time again. We cannot also allow them to take away the fundamental mandate of the CBC through this flawed legislation.
It is clear that this bill must have changes made. The amendments we consider today, therefore, must be accepted in order to make broadcasting law in this country reflect the needs of this nation.
Broadcasting provides a unique opportunity to bind us together. It must not be ignored or tossed aside, especially at this time in the country's history when Canada is being pulled apart from many sides.
It is particularly ironic to me that the Prime Minister of Canada has named Keith Spicer to head a Citizens' forum intended to promote national unity, but he supports a broadcast bill that so fundamentally contradicts his expressed concern about national unify.
If the government is as eager to promote unity as it would like Canadians to believe, it can start by amending Bill C-40 and not so easily dispense with the essential mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In conclusion, this act is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot, and must not, go through without amendment. As written, Bill C-40 precludes the CBC the opportunity to explore the vision of being an agency of national consciousness and of contributing the vital component, the national sounding board, for our common thoughts, interests and ideals.
This is a tragedy that must be corrected by those of us assembled here in this House of Commons. Therefore, I urge the government to support this critical amendment and to re-establish more substantial support for the CBC.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this very important debate. It is a debate, I feel, which proposes to alter the very foundation of the Canadian broadcasting system.
I am deeply concerned by most aspects of this destructive bill, but what disturbs me most is the clause which would remove from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the mandate to contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
The promotion of national unity has been a principle of the CBC since its foundation. If there ever was a time to eliminate this principle, this is the worst possible time.
Almost 60 years ago, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett said that the CBC would be an instrument of national consciousness and unity. I believe that the CBC has fulfilled that mandate and that to deny it the means and the will to continue doing so is a tragic mistake.
The CBC has acted as a unifying force throughout its existence. For many, if not all of us here today, the CBC and Radio-Canada played a major role in our lives as we grew up and continues to do so today. Before television and in many cases beyond, the radio was the best source of popular entertainment and information to be had by Canadians. There was an immediacy about radio, a sense of participation and presence that was lacking even in newspapers, and was highly valued.
Television is the dominant medium in the world today and the CBC has demonstrated its ability to stay at the forefront with innovative programming and bold initiatives such as the all news channel Newsworld. But while doing so, it has not neglected radio. Any fan of Morning-side, or As It Happens, or any number of other fine programs can attest to this.
CBC programming, both radio and television, serves to bring Canadians together, to teach us about each other. We are a small population scattered over a huge expanse of territory, and the challenge of communication is a major one. The CBC has played a vital role in ensuring that Canadians communicate with one another, that they feel connected to one another. This is especially true of Canadians living in the outlying and isolated areas of Canada. For them in particular the CBC is and always has been a strong and badly needed link to their fellow Canadians and to the world. For the bulk of the Canadian population densely clustered along the 49th parallel and the Great Lakes, the CBC serves to acquaint them with the other Canadian experience.
If not for the powerful voice of CBC many Canadians would be more familiar with the United States than they would be with their own country. To allow this to happen would be to weaken the bonds and the potential of this nation. To do what we can to familiarize Canadians with their own culture with their fellow citizens, is not to
promote "intolerable propaganda" as the Minister of Communications would have us believe, it is to provide Canadians with the opportunity to learn about each other, an opportunity they would not otherwise have.
The Prime Minister has stated that everything we have accomplished as a country can be traced back to our sense of national purpose, to our national unity. That is the very essence of the reason why national unity must remain a part of the CBC's mandate. It is not there to force the CBC and Radio-Canada to act as a propaganda machine for the state. If that were the result of the mandate surely this government, with its low standing in the polls, would want to keep it. It is not there to force the CBC to relay the news with a state or even a Canadian bias. Rather, the mandate to promote national unity is vital in an intangible way.
A sense of national purpose is badly lacking in Canada today and national unity seems very fragile. If the mandate to promote unity has been some kind of iron fist wielded by CBC, I have yet to see the results. That does not mean that eliminating the mandate is a trivial or meaningless action, one that should hardly cause a ripple. Indeed, we need that mandate more than ever. It can do no harm and it could be of great help. Canada is becoming more and more decentralized, economically, socially, culturally, linguistically, regionally, and even spiritually. We are pulling apart at the seams. The CBC has the potential to serve as a bulwark against these decentralizing forces but only if we allow it the means and the will to do so, and only if we have the willingness to listen and to learn.
A mandate to promote national unity: Those are not empty words but a statement of purpose and the articulation of a dream. We are a nation built on dreams. Many Canadians are descendants of those who came from across the sea seeking a better life.
The national railway which allowed westward expansion was bom in the imagination of a few men. For a nation such as this, a statement of purpose such as the promotion of national unity by CBC is not only necessary, it is natural.
We desperately need a sense of unity. We need a sense of national purpose. We need a sense that there is something worth fighting for. What kind of message does the elimination of the national unity mandate send to Canadians? It is a terribly negative message, and this is
November 29, 1990

the worst of all possible times for the federal government to be issuing negative messages.
Most of us in this House believe that Canada is worth fighting for, and I believe that most Canadians feel that way too. In the fight, we need a purpose. We need rallying cries. To gut our national broadcasting institution of its mandate to promote Canadians unity is to tell Canadians that the dream is dead.
In saying these things, I speak from the heart. There are other aspects of the government's proposal to eliminate the national unity mandate, and indeed aspects of the entire bill which disturb me in a more concrete way. I fear that there is an underlying message in Bill C-40, and that is the end of the CBC as a government funded institution.
Since 1984, this government has cut the CBC's parliamentary grants by over $240 million, including severe reductions to its high-tech equipment. The government does not seem dedicated or even interested in developing the CBC's great potential. That is what the government did to passenger rail in Canada. It killed it bit by bit.
I am afraid that is what is happening to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The presence of the federal government in rural Canada and in the regions is decreasing. Post offices are closing. Military bases have been scaled down or closed, such as CFB Summerside in my province of Prince Edward Island.
The government's obsession with the free market is causing it to sell off Crown corporations such as Air Canada and Petro-Canada. The government's presence in the areas of transportation and natural resources allowed Canadians some measure of control over the forces which affect their lives.
The same is true of communications. Given this track record, and given the contents and the tone of Bill C-40, I cannot help but suspect that the government intends to gradually abandon the CBC. Canadians in smaller and more remote population areas such as Prince Edward Island fear that their local stations, CBC Charlottetown, for example, will be among the first to go.
Rumours to that effect have been circulating for some time now, and with Bill C-40, they grow stronger. The people of Charlottetown and of P.E.I. for one would like
Government Orders
this government to promise that they will not lose their publicly funded CBC, which has served them well for so long.
To vote for the passage of Bill C-40 is to condone and to assist the government's plans for the CBC, none of which are good. If we have any remaining doubt about the government's attitude toward this most Canadian of institutions, we need only to think of its intention to eliminate the promotion of national unity from the CBC mandate. That says it all.
This aspect alone of Bill C-40 is a tacit admission by the federal government that it believes Canadian unity to be a dead dream. So far as it is concerned, the fabric of this country has been tom beyond repair.
Either that, or this government does not believe that Canada is in need of unifying symbols, statements or ideals. I strongly disagree with both of these. I believe that by sending such a negative message to Canadians, the federal government is abandoning its responsibility to do everything within its power to keep this country together and to make it strong.
"To contribute to the development of national unity and to provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity." Those words do not pose any threat to the freedom of the media. They have not had that effect in the past, and they will not have it in the future. What they have done is represent what we value most about the CBC, which is that it provides us with a mirror reflecting back both the good and the bad, allowing Canadians to continue to examine and re-evaluate ourselves and our nation, and to ponder what Canada is and what it can be.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak, however briefly, to Bill C-40, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication. I am glad to see the Minister of Communications is here today to listen to the most fundamental aspect of this legislation which concerns Canada's national unity. I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Mount Royal on her excellent work on this bill and on what she did to clarify for Canadians the national unity aspect that

Government Orders
forms the nucleus of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's mandate in Canada.
Today, I will make my comments in French, and I do so for a very specific reason. Although my last name is LeBlanc, French is not my mother tongue, but I went to Quebec in the early 80s, when the national unity question was a subject of lively debate, especially in the province of Quebec. I was there as a student, to learn French, in an environment where this fundamental question that goes to the heart of our nation was very topical indeed.
I must say that my experience during those four years was a very valuable one, especially from a cultural point of view, because of the friendships I made and also because I was able to learn and understand a little more about the culture, values and principles of a society in this country that is very proud of what it has accomplished during the past three or four centuries, and which at that time was intent on discovering its identity.
I had an opportunity, since this was another critical period in our history, to see things from the perspective of a student at Laval University in Quebec City. I often watched CBC television to know what was going on across the country, and I saw that in Quebec as well, there was this yearning for an identity. Even out there, I realized there was, nevertheless, a national presence, a national government that recognized the aspirations of people in that part of Canada but at the same time did not intend to give way to these divided factions. It met them head-on and used the means at its disposal to tell Quebecers: Your future is in Canada.
This message has failed to come across since 1984. This government's statements and the messages and signals it sends are increasingly lacking in substance. One of the most discouraging indications of this lack of leadership, this failure to express our national identity, is the clauses we find in Bill C-40 before the House today. The purpose of the motion before the House today is to try and reverse this trend.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that if we believe in this country, we, as Canadians make an effort to reverse these trends and start speaking out to say that our country is Canada. We must defend our values and take pride in them.
If we start diluting the legislation that defines the mandate of our national broadcasting institution by saying that French and English are represented by two different communities or that national unity is no longer an important part of the mandate of our national television network, we are sending a message that the national government and our national institutions have lost the will and the courage to defend our country.
It is even more regrettable today, in 1990, when we look at other parts of the world and realize what we have here in Canada, compared with the situation in other countries around us.
Since I was elected, Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to visit Canada from coast to coast, not just Quebec and Western Canada but also the North. Every visit, every trip fills me with wonder at the splendour and riches of this country, and I ask myself what we can contribute to the world. We cannot help, however, if we are beset by internal divisions, if we are afraid to speak with a national voice and if we let ourselves be tom in so many directions. We cannot contribute effectively, for instance, toward resolving conflicts in the Middle East or help draft resolutions or rebuild a new world in the Soviet Union or elsewhere, as in the Third World, for instance.
I repeat, I am convinced that one area where Canada has a very important contribution to make is the environment. However, if we are distracted by internal divisions and are afraid to speak out, and if our government fails to give us any leadership in this field, we will be unable to make that contribution. The twenty-first century, which was to be Canada's century, will pass us by, and that would be regrettable for us here in Canada and even more so for people in other countries throughout the world.
These considerations go straight to the heart of the motions before the House today which are a particular concern of my colleague, who worked so hard to improve this bill in committee.
Mr. Speaker, one of our great Canadian philosophers was Marshall McLuhan, who had so much to say and contributed to our thinking about the media and communications in what he called the global village. McLuhan said: The medium is the message. He said the world had become a global village, mostly because of television. Television has caused the world to shrink and thus made it possible for us to express common values. However,
November 29, 1990

television can also be a source of division, separation and discord inside a country.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to say that Canada should stop acting like a young man who is perfectly healthy but all of a sudden decides to throw in the towel because life is no longer worthwhile and the challenges are too great. That is the general impression given by our national malaise. In fact, it is not a bad simile: this dynamic young man, who all of sudden feels that the challenges and opportunities of the future are just too much of a responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, they are not too much for us. What we need is time and a government that is prepared to pursue every avenue, to show leadership and to take a strong position in all areas, and that will start by improving the mandate we give our national telecommunications institution, which is why we are here today.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this subject on which I am very far from being a specialist, but I have become very concerned about it quite recently, partly from an experience I had last week, which I will mention.
The point of this amendment is that we should restore the principle that part of the CBC's mandate is to contribute to national unity as well a shared national consciousness or identity. It is very unfortunate that the government has undertaken to take out from the original mandate prior to the bill the duty to promote national unity.
If the objection is that it would be government propaganda, there are ways to deal with that so long as the duty is clearly defined because the government is only one of the governments in Canada. Unity does not mean uniformity, that everybody thinks the same, that everybody speaks the same language, that everybody wears the same clothes or supports the same hockey team. Unity means-especially in a country like Canada-unity of diverse groups that find how we can fit together and enrich each other. In other words, a very important part of a national broadcasting corporation should be to help the different regions and the different groups in Canada to know each other by letting them participate. That
Government Orders
should be part of the duty and it should be clearly stated under the obligation to promote national unity.
The reason I want to speak on this is that last weekend I happened to have two interesting but somewhat distressing conversations. One was with an old friend in rural Ontario. He is an anglo. Frankly, he is not very sympathetic with francophones in Ontario, or in Quebec, and he gave me some of his reasons why.
I was a little alarmed at the distance between him and me on that subject because I felt he did not know a great deal about what actually goes on in Quebec, about how the people live in Quebec in the most simple ordinary sense.
This person is a retired trade unionist from the factory in which I used to work where I was the secretary at one time and he the union president. He is a man of social responsibility. But what he does not know about the French people of Canada, especially in Quebec, limits his sympathy, and he is worried about national unity. He gets quite upset in saying that he would fight to stop anyone from splitting Canada in two. He means it. He does not intend to be hostile. He thinks that there are some hostile people over there. That was Saturday evening.
On Sunday evening I was speaking with another old friend in Montreal, again a manual worker and a person with a good deal of education and self-education. Unfortunately for me he is bilingual. He is francophone but fortunately much more bilingual than I. He was shocked at how little I know about what is going on recently in Quebec regarding certain briefs to the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission and so on.
We see each other several times a year. I live in Toronto and in Ottawa. My background is in Winnipeg and central Ontario, except for a very few years in Quebec. He feels that my understanding of him is very limited. He describes himself, and rightly so, as a federalist. He is aware of a separatist tide in Quebec, and he is very worried about it. He does not want our country split. He is distressed that I know so little, in his opinion, of the things in Quebec that matter to him.
Personally my situation is rather comical. I am in the middle between my anglophone friend in rural Ontario and my francophone friend in Montreal. I do not mean to blame any institution or any action, but the point is that we need the kind of institution that can explain the south to the north, the north to the south, Quebec to

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
Ontario, Ontario to Quebec, francophones to anglophones, Chinese, Ukrainians, Italians, Japanese Canadians, the black people in Canada, or whomever. We have many groups in Canada that have their own characteristics and can be unaware of others and can be misunderstood by others. The CBC has been one of the main channels, in my experience, for enabling us to learn more about each other. We need more of that rather than less of that.
I am very sorry that over the past five years the CBC's operating budget has been cut every year. In 1984-85 it was $943.3 million. I will not go through all the years, but it goes down year by year to $812.5 million in 1989-90. In other words, there has been $130 million cut out of its budget. Part of the programming that has been deleted because of those cuts is the regional programming, telling the north about the south, the south about the north, and the east about the west.
I am luckier than many Ontarians. I have been able to visit the maritimes sometimes and the west coast sometimes. For the most part, I do not know the maritimes. I have a son in Newfoundland, but I only see a little bit of Newfoundland when I visit there.
The programs on the CBC are very valuable. It is unfortunate that many of those very Canadian programs-and by that I do not mean uniformly Canadian; I mean Newfoundland, Vancouver, Yukon, northern Ontario, the Eastern Townships of Quebec, or many other groups-have been cut back. It is very unfortunate that CBC has been, by the budget cuts, pressured to abandon its goal of 95 per cent Canadian content in prime time.
Prime time is pretty important, especially for our children as they are growing up; in my case our grandchildren. They have to have the chance to watch these Canadian content programs when they should not be in bed or at school.
There is nothing we can do today, in this bill, about the budget cuts, but we can at least, if the government will see the point, restore the principle that the CBC has a duty to promote national unity. We have heard a great
deal during the past year or two about the need for national unity.
It is very unfortunate and strange, and for some people it is very offensive, that at the time the Prime Minister speaks about national unity his government is demolishing, piece by piece, slice by slice, budget cut by budget cut, and now with legislative changes, one of the main instruments of national unity created by the Canadian people.
Whether the government is planning to sell off the CBC in whole or in part, I do not know of course. It has done that with many other groups created by the Canadian taxpayers and labour, often sold at a ridiculously small price. What its plans are for the CBC, it has not told us yet. It should not take out of the law this duty to promote national unity, or else the Prime Minister will have to be seen by Canadian people as not meaning what he says when he talks about national unity.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise in the House today to address Bill C-40 respecting broadcasting and amendments to certain acts.
I would like to direct my comments to the whole issue of national unity. I come from an area that represents a mosaic of Canadians. First Canadians are in the majority in the area that I represent, and basically these people have their own languages and their own cultures. This a reflection of Canada and what Canada is all about.
Bill C-40 drops the CBC's 1968 mandated role to contribute to the development of national unity and to provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity. My feeling is that the removal of the national unity reference was recommended by both the Caplan-Sauva-geau report in 1986 and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in 1987.
The standing committee had been concerned that this clause might interfere with CBC's ability to ensure that its programming reflect and interpret as fully, as fairly and as accurately as possible Canada's cultural, social, political, economic, linguistic and regional reality and diversity.
Former CBC President Pierre Juneau told the standing committee that the phrase national unity had not

caused any problems during his years at the CBC. The CRTC noted that its interpretation of the term never precluded a free political discussion from all points of view.
Coming from the Northwest Territories and from an area that is highly represented by a multiplicity of factors which lead to a very diverse population of languages and cultures, my feeling is that the systematic dismantling of the CBC will have serious effects on the quality of our lives as Canadians.
Local news broadcasts may have to be cancelled. Some regional radio stations will have to close. Commercials will have to be reintroduced on CBC radio. The current level of regional programming cannot be maintained. This is particularly serious in the north because we depend on information which is critical to our safety, such as on the weather and flying conditions.
Liberal members of Parliament believe that because our country is so vast we need a sufficiently funded CBC in order for the whole country to have access to this service.
The CBC unites our country. It is precisely because the CBC is a public network that it can offer wholly Canadian programming. By destroying the CBC, the government is destroying an important part of Canadian culture. Canadians have moulded the CBC over the past 50 years into the quality Canadian programming of today. What justification does the government have for reversing all this in one fall swoop?
If we are to preserve our identity as a nation, we need to invest in our cultural institutions. I believe the government, by cutting funding to the CBC, is ensuring that our children will grow up with less than a true sense of what it is to be Canadian and what Canada is all about.
We know that many Canadians share our concern about the impacts the cuts will have on the CBC and on Canadians. It is essential that we tell the government loudly and clearly that it is not acceptable to destroy and erode the public broadcasting program of Canada.
I feel so strongly about the CBC and the role it plays in educating Canadians about Canadians that I wrote to Patrick Watson and Gerard Veilleux in February to ask why they do not provide the Newsworld service and if
Government Orders
they would provide the news world service to the Northwest Territories.
We were hosting a major leadership forum which focused on national issues, issues of national importance and ones which particularly referred to issues of aboriginal populations across Canada. There was much reference to Arctic sovereignty. There was reference to the whole issue of self-government.
These are things that Canadians want to know about. It would be important for the whole nation to have seen this, and this is what I wrote to Mr. Watson and Mr. Veilleux. In part I wrote:
Sovereignty is important to all Canadians but it is the residents of the Arctic who have maintained the north's sovereignty through traditional use and occupancy of the land and water. What political development means with or without the Meech Lake Accord is unique to the two territories. Environment issues in the Arctic are different than those in other areas. Energy is equally important. The north has the resources to make Canada energy self-sufficient. I could go on but my point is that the forum this weekend will be dealing with many profound problems that would be extremely educational and interesting for all Canadians.
I want to provide this House with at least part of the response I received from these two very honourable gentlemen, because it indicates the belief of CBC management with respect to the role that CBC plays in national unity. It is important for me to share this with the House. Mr. Veilleux wrote: "The CBC fully recognizes the importance of bringing concerns of northern Canadians to the attention of the whole country. Indeed, with respect to Newsworld in particular, every weekend we broadcast Focus North from Yellowknife and Mayda from Whitehorse. Regularly throughout the week we have inserts from Yellowtaiife into our prime time Calgary program This Country".
He continued: "In closing, I wish to stress that the advent of Newsworld has heralded a dramatic increase in the coverage of the political agenda of Canada. It has also brought an unprecedented level of regional coverage to all parts of the country. What is more, the region that has benefited most from our formats and our editorial imperative to show Canadians other parts of Canada is the north. Never before have northern concerns been so presented so frequently and so directly, and without being filtered through a central and southern Canadian perspective".

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
As well, former CBC President Pierre Juneau, to whom I referred to in a previous statement, told the standing committee that the phrase national unity had not caused any problems during his years at CBC.
I must say there has been a devastating impact, though, because when we talk about national unity we talk about the strength of that national unity in terms of what languages and what cultures there are in a country.
In the area that I come from I guess the expression of national unity comes from the majority of people who live there. This particular bill respecting broadcasting refers to this. Page 6 of the bill indicates that programming which reflects aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose. This is the statement of commitment within the body of this bill. I have here a couple of press releases from the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation. In one of these press releases, a lady by the name of Blandina Makik, Executive Producer of Children's Programming in Iqaluit, in the Northwest Territories, calls the $600,000 cut to the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation spiritual genocide. She states that the cuts are expected to be felt in cultural, educational, news and current affairs programs, broadcast in Inuktitut to homes where many of the older Inuit do not speak English. Essentially, the reference is to a unilingual group.
The other thing which is quite devastating for this particular area is that in the $600,000 cut was included a very, very important program called The Super Shmoo series, which had a funding of $215,000. The native communications programs were cut back and this does not do anything for national unity. It does not give the complete expression of language and culture of all regions of Canada.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that Canada is a cultural mosaic, and we are more influenced than any other nation by our vast geography and vast wilderness and by our environment. Part of what has helped to build our country, from east to west and to the north is our infrastructure, such as the public broadcasting system. We have enforced a sense of Canadianism in ourselves through the CBC, which helps define a sense of our own
identity as a nation. So now, more at this time in history than any other time, we need this institution of national unity to speak to one another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-The Environment; the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. Le-Blanc)-Scotia Synfuels Project; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud)-Goods and Services Tax.
The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be able to speak to this legislation today. Frankly, if we want to be serious about national unity, and I believe that every single Canadian in his or her own way wants to be, we have to think very seriously about our national institutions. One of these is communications, and certainly we have to think equally seriously about the importance of restoring the national unity clause.
Many of us are particularly preoccupied with what is happening in the country today. We recognize the great conflicts and the great pressures in the country. When we think about national unity, surely we need to acknowledge that every single man and woman needs to feel as if they can get what is their fair share from this country. Canadians, whether of aboriginal ancestry, French, English, or other ancestry, needs to feel as if they belong and they count. The five to seven million functionally illiterate Canadians need to believe that they can improve their lot and participate more fully in Canadian society. Every poor Canadian of the more than five million poor in this country needs to believe as well that he or she will break out of this vicious circle of poverty.
Until all of our regions, whether in the great north or in the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces feels that it will be treated fairly, that there are mechanisms in place that will help it to communicate, help it to work out its differences, we will not have the kind of strong united country that we want.



I would like to ask the government to stop dismantling what we have built, what unites us, to stop destroying the institutions that give us a chance to talk and get to know one another.

Let us look at some of the decisions that have been taken.

I believe that some of the decisions that have been made did not contribute anything at all to make Canada a strong and united country. Consider for instance the cut-backs at VIA Rail where more than 2,700 employees have been laid off, or the Air Canada privatization deal not long after that which was the end of the line for over 2,900 men and women. I am sure you remember the sale of Route Canada by the CN and that you are aware of the fact that nearly 2,000 men and women have been are still suffering because the government does not seem to be able to do anything to help them.
With respect to the privatization of Petro-Canada, we can see now that we had just the right organization which, had the government been willing to act, could have met the energy needs of all Canadians. Why did the government fail to come up with a policy. After all, we have had six years to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
Just looking at the number of bankruptcies, which are now at an all-time high, is enough to realize that the country is being tom apart and falling down. The government-created recession, a fact admitted by the ministers involved, is certainly not going to help strengthen national unity. Some of the CBC cut-backs- my colleague has just referred to them-have been driving Canadians even further apart, and this is true from one end of the country to the other.

What we really need to do is start listening to the people again. If we were to ask Canadians whether or not they want this government and this Parliament to make a sincere and profound commitment to national unity, we would get an unequivocal yes. People would be telling us to do everything in our power to make sure that the country is able to bounce back, that it is able to
Government Orders
become much more united and much stronger than it has ever been.
We need to start listening to Canadians, to its five million poor, most of whom are women, many of whom are seniors, about one million of whom are children. We need to start talking to and listening to the functionally illiterate Canadians, who number between five million and seven million, and who feel sometimes as if they will never be able to break out of this difficulty that they are experiencing. Disabled Canadians often feel marginalized. We are talking about 3.3 million Canadians. We have to start listening to all of them in all regions of Canada from each and every single province and each of our two territories.
The removal of this particular clause is another blow, another kick, another shot, if you like, at Canada. It will damage the concept of national unity, which is so precious and so essential to a nation such as ours, particularly one as large and complex and so vast that many, many Canadians do not understand it nearly as well as they should or could.
I ask the government to consider the restoration of the national unity clause. We need to admit that we need information about ourselves. We know too little about each other, and because we know so little, we often misunderstand each other.
Let me complete my address by simply using an analogy. If a family is going to be strong and united, it needs good information within that family. We need open communications. We need to know each other so that we can reach out to each other.

The members of a strong and united family talk to each other. We need to have open and honest exchanges that will make it easier to understand one another, to work and play together and contribute to our unity. I believe the same is true of a country like ours. Without sound information about other Canadians from the various regions and without open communication lines we will not go very far.

With those particular comments, I will ask the government to ensure that it looks at this particular clause, that it makes sure that the tools that we, as Canadians, need to build a stronger more united country are, in fact, given to us. I believe most of us would agree that until every single man, woman and child in this great nation,

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
whether he or she is aboriginal, French, English or of other ancestry, no matter where he or she lives, feels he or she belongs, is able to understand each other, we are going to continue to have serious difficulties.
I sincerely believe that we must have open lines of communication and sound information that will enable us to know each other better. Without these communication networks we stand to lose a lot. We even stand to lose everything.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, broadcasting, whether it is television or radio, brings Canada and the world into our living rooms. It brings in a world of news, sports, entertainment and public affairs. Broadcasting is a key medium which unites us by reflecting Canada to our fellow Canadians at a time when unifying the country is more critical than ever before, given the deep divisions and racial intolerance that are dividing so many communities.
Given these realities, Liberals believe that Bill C-40 moves away from the strong national broadcasting system that Canada has always held as part of this elusive Canadian identity, letting us share a common purpose. For this reason, we believe the government is wrong to weaken the CBC in its proposed broadcasting legislation.
With the passage of Bill C-40, the CBC will no longer be required to contribute to the development of national unity. It will be dropped from its mandate, just when the government should be doing everything in its power to give each and every Canadian a true sense of belonging and participation. For us on this side of the House, our goal for Canada is developing a national personality, building a sense of national unity and a national consciousness. We believe we need a strong national institution like the CBC to weave all of the regions and all of the diverse participants of Canada into a united nation that is working in the interests of all Canadians.
Just last spring we in the rural communities across this countiy lost a valuable resource in the agricultural community. We lost George Price, one of CBC radio's last farm reporters. His position had been cut. I strongly
disagree with this decision. We already miss George Price.
He has been an excellent agri-food industry reporter. However, even though George Price is no longer with us, what is more important is the CBC has eliminated his position. The farmers of Canada who have relied on this information service for input on agricultural issues will have a grave loss. Farmers do not have the time to catch regularly scheduled newscasts but they always listened to George Price and his program while driving their tractors or their combines in the fields.
Yet, in the response from the CBC when I wrote about this they pointed out that farmers get up-to-the-minute information from computers, fax machines, wire services, all news television and a variety of other sources, as well as CBC radio. The did not see CBC radio as a loss.
I have to point out that I am not only a member of this House, but I am also a farmer. Certainly we have some of the services I have just listed in our homes, but we do not have them on our tractors and our combines, other than the radio. George Price's program was something we never missed, whether we were on the tractor, the combine or in our homes. He was one of the few reporters who was factual, he was on the job and he kept the other elements of the news media honest. George Price was a very conscientious person who always gave an unbiased account of what was happening.
I have to compare this with some of the headlines over the last few weeks. Some of that was instituted in the House of Commons, when the minister of trade chastised the Minister of Agriculture for giving the farmers $8.8 billion in subsidies, which was a concocted figure. We had a headline saying, "Lavish farm subsidies milking consumers", and of course the poor reporter did not know if that was a factual figure.
George Price would never have let them get away with that.
Another one from the Montreal Gazette: "Farmers being dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s." This is an account of a report put together by the Canadian Consumers' Association. They say that Canadians paid double the average world price for milk

because of restrictions that protect the domestic dairy industry from cheaper imports.
That reporter, and obviously the newspaper, did not realize that input costs are higher here in Canada. They seem to think the farmers are getting the extra indirect subsidies.
Even The Globe and Mail, November 19: "The policy panel" by a former Deputy Minister of Finance of this government and also a former president of a bank, compared the $2.7 billion subsidies to marketing boards as an indirect subsidy from the consumers to the producer.
He did not stop to realize that input costs here in Canada are 25 to 30 per cent higher than they are in the United States. I countered to him that perhaps we could look at the interest rates. This is a former bank president. Interest rates are higher in Canada than in the United States.
I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it necessarily follows that Canadian milk prices are higher than they are in the United States and so are Canadian interest rates, are the banks not being subsidized by the consumers and small businesses and big business.
Let's follow that theory through and be fair and honest. If George Price was there again, they would never have gotten away with it.
To top it all, here we have some massive cuts in CBC's budget. Yet, this government funded the Canadian Consumers' Association with $790,000 to come out with a report as inaccurate as this, obviously displaying a double standard.
Other businesses in society must have a profit to survive. Agriculture is no different. If it does not have that profit, then the whole industry is going down the tubes. I can never remember a time, even back into the 1930s when I first remember going to town with my dad for supplies, when things were as tough as they are out there at the present time, and this government is completely insensitive.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that this country is going to hold this government accountable not only for the cuts it made to the CBC but for what is going to happen five years down the road. We know what is happening in Russia at the present time. There are food shortages there.
Government Orders
Their system of corporate farming did not survive, and it is not going to survive here in Canada. If George Price was still in the CBC, he would be reminding the government and the people of Canada that the farmers, too, deserve an income that is commensurate with the rest of that of society or they are not going to survive.
When I look at what has been happening here with this government, it does not really seem to care about any of our national institutions. It simply wants to promote the world trade at the cost of those institutions in Canada that served us well over the years. It has ignored the reasons behind the need for the Canadian Wheat Board when it was brought in by a Conservative government back in the 1930s.
It has ignored why the Canadian Dairy Commission was brought into being. It has ignored the reasons why the Egg Marketing Agency, the Broiler Marketing Agency and the Titrkey Marketing Agency were brought into being. It forgot the chicken and egg wars. It forgot the other things that happened in history that brought about the creation of these institutions.
Institutions were always accurately reported by George Price, not like the garbage that we have been hearing in last six weeks from the concerted media attack on these institutions that have served this country so well. I have to wonder who is orchestrating these attacks, because the Minister of Agriculture has been very quiet on the whole issue.
As a matter of fact, in a meeting last week in Winnipeg, one of the senior officials of Canada Agriculture in charge of policy stated that perhaps the consumers should be setting the price of milk. What is going to happen if they are going to insist on setting the price of milk? Will they set the price or our input costs too? Are they going to set the price of what you have to purchase as a consumer?
I think not. I want an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture as to why he is letting one of his officials state these types of policies that are surely going to establish a double standard. Or, is he going to move to the corporate farms? I think this House deserves an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture and from that official.
This Conservative government since 1984 has cut CBC's parliamentary grants by over $240 million, which includes severe reductions to our high-tech equipment. Certainly, the CBC should be made a vehicle for promoting Canadian unity, more so than the other institutions that we have in society. It must remain that

November 29, 1990
Government Orders
way as a safeguard against various decentralizing forces at work in this nation. I want to reiterate that such a drastic cut to the position such as George Price held is not acceptable to this side of the House. I urge strongly to have that taken into consideration and have it reinstated as quickly as possible.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the record shows that I follow several speakers from this side of the House who have expressed profound concern for the future of the Canadian broadcasting system.
Let the record also show that the Conservatives, on the other side of the House, have not taken part in this debate. That includes the hon. Minister of Communications who sits at his desk and refuses to come to the defense of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I say shame on the Minister of Communications. I say shame on the whole lot of you.
We are here today involved in what I would describe as a very strange debate. It is strange because it deals with a clause in Bill C-40, this broadcast bill, that will take away the national unity mandate from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It seems that only in Canada can we have this kind of occurrence. We have a cherished and treasured public broadcasting system which has done a tremendous job for more than half a century. It has been as important to this country as the railway that was built from coast to coast well over a century ago.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has played an absolutely crucial and indispensable role in the development of Canada. It was a noble idea from the beginning and it is still a noble idea. A public broadcast corporation like the CBC reflects the country and ties us together. After all, this is a huge sparsely-populated country. The CBC reflects Canada. It tells us about our woes, our dreams, our controversies and our hurts. The CBC reflects most everything that is Canada.
We now come to this clause in Bill C-40. If it goes through-and Tories are pretty good at ramming things through-it will remove the national unity mandate from the CBC, as if it were some kind of disease. The argument that this government has put forward with respect to taking away the national unity mandate is that it is concerned about turning the corporation into some kind of propaganda machine. It would not want to have
the CBC behaving as if it were some kind of a propaganda outlet.
I worked at the CBC for 18 years. I think that I know something about the corporation. I can assure you that if you leave the national unity mandate with the CBC, it is not going to be in any way in the future a propaganda machine.
Let us get an understanding of the CBC because I think this is where the Tories go wrong. They do not understand the function of the CBC. They do not understand the kind of work the CBC does. The CBC is much more than just a news disseminating agency. If the CBC was just gathering, writing, editing and delivering the news, perhaps I could question the national unity mandate because reporters are an independent-minded people, they really do not care about politics. They are concerned about delivering the news, good or bad.
The CBC is so much more than that. It is a national broadcasting institution that ties the entire country together and reflects the Canadian story. That takes resources. It is an enormous job and I think it is the responsibility of the government to say to the corporation that part of its job is national unity, not by twisting the news or concocting some kind of silly political story, but by doing the job. It takes a lot of resources and an enormous amount of commitment to carry out the national unity task. That is why the government should be standing behind the CBC and telling the CBC that it is a force for national unity.
Let me use an analogy, Mr. Speaker. If we did not have a CBC television or radio outlet in the province of Manitoba, could one not make the argument that that is not good for national unity? I would suggest to you that if the national public broadcast system ignored one of the provinces, I do not think it would be very good for national unity. I think it would be right and proper for the government to tell the CBC that it wants an outlet in the province of Manitoba for it to do the job that the CBC is charged to do.
When it comes to the matter of national unity, if the CBC is charged with that mandate it can then turn to the government to say that it needs resources to do its job. It might mean more news editors, producers, and directors in the province of British Columbia. It might even mean needing more entertainment programs. Whatever it is, it

is all part and parcel of this job in the name of national unity.
Let us forget about the nonsense of propaganda. We are not talking about propaganda, we are talking about the corporation doing its job. When the CBC does a good job, be it news, entertainment, current affairs, Hymn Sing, it is all under the aegis of doing it for Canada, and therefore doing it for national unity.
By taking the national unity mandate away from the CBC, it sends a very bad signal. It sends a signal to certain people in the country who would like to Balka-nize, break up and separate the country into two countries. I do not think that is the responsibility of parliamentarians and certainly is not the responsibility of the federal government charged with operating a healthy CBC.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One minute.


John Harvard: Perhaps I should not be very surprised by this proposal on the part of the government because this Conservative government does not have faith in public institutions anyway. Ironically, if the CBC were privately owned I would not be surprised if it had a mandate with respect to national unity, and we would not have this clause at all.
We would not have this clause in the bill because then the Tbries on that side of the House would say: "Ah well, they know what they are doing. If they need a national unity clause, so be it". But they do not have any faith in this public broadcast system. It is a dam, dam shame. It is a terrible shame.
Let me just finish by saying this: The Conservatives and this government like to spread the rumour that Canadians have lost faith in their institutions, and that includes the CBC. Not true. There was a recent survey in western Canada which shows once and for all that Canadians do have great faith in their institutions. It is just this government that spreads a lot of bad news which is not factual.
Government Orders


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I detected that my colleague is only half way through his speech. Is there unanimous consent for him to carry on?


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: There are three or four of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At report stage we all have 10 minutes. There are several speakers. The next speaker for the party is the hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I could have listened for days to my hon. colleague on his speech about the CBC. He is a distinguished broadcaster who certainly knows not just a lot about broadcasting, but about national unity.
I have the great occasion recently on a trip to western Canada to sit with him many afternoons, along with some distinguished western Canadians, to discuss issues such as national unity. It truly is too bad that we did not have unanimous consent of the House so that the House could benefit from his wisdom and experience.
I want to get right to the meat of the matter in dealing with the motion that is before us in Bill C-40, the broadcasting act. I grew up way down east. Anybody who listens to me in the House knows that I am veiy proud of where I come from. I am proud that I am a Canadian from Atlantic Canada. But when I was growing up there was a saying that my father used to quote often. It was: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I have looked at the amendments being proposed here in Bill C-40. I cannot believe that a minister of the Crown and a government that claims to govern for all of Canada-not for just a part of it-would have the gall to remove a clause from a Crown corporation like CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Radio-Canada, which is a piece of national infrastructure. It is a piece of Canadiana.
Sure, there are a lot of things that should be improved in the broadcast bill. We have heard much debate on it. We probably will hear more before the day is over. But for the minister to propose to take out what I consider to be motherhood just blows me over. The minister indicated that he wants to take out the clause, and I will read it:
Perhaps the CBC 1968 mandated role "to contribute to the
development of national unity and provide for continuing expression
of Canadian identity".

Government Orders
The minister found that so objectionable that he had to put a clause in the bill to remove it. He was quoted by the Toronto Globe and Mail on September 12, 1990, as saying that he found that 22-year old national unity mandate as intolerable interference because the CBC was maintaining this political valve artificially.
I think that is a bunch of hogwash. We are in a situation in this country because of the activity of this government since 1984, when it assumed power and told the Canadian public that it was fit to govern, that it would create great economic prosperity and wealth across this country, but most of all, that it could keep this country together.
Since 1984 we have seen this government on the front benches opposite not only wreak economic devastation from coast to coast to coast in this country, but to dismantle the-the minister is over there and I would hope that he would listen. He is a member of this government, as is the Minister of Communications.
What this government has done has systematically dismantled the national infrastructure of this country. Every instrument of national unity has been subject to attack, a battering, assault and battery by this government.
I cannot believe the Minister of Communications can sit there and read through his press clippings. No wonder he cannot look most of us in the face. I do not know what he thinks the mandate of the CBC should be. Should the mandate of the CBC be just a commercial endeavour? Should the mandate of the CBC be just to report the news as it is seen in Montreal and in Toronto? Well, I am a Canadian and I happen to come from the east coast of this country and I believe in this country.


Mr. Lewis:: That's their problem.


Ronald MacDonald: The Minister of Transport says that is my problem.


An hon. member:: That's their problem.


Ronald MacDonald: If it is anybody's problem, it is your problem because you guys do not like what you hear most days from this side of the House because you cannot stand to hear the truth the way it is spoken on this side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ronald MacDonald: I want to get into this thing about the national unity clause. I do not know if the minister really has a firm commitment to national unity in this country. He has under his ministry responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
He is from the province of Quebec, a province that currently is expressing some great reservations about the merit of staying in this country. It has established a commission of the provincial government to look at options as to whether or not they should stay in this country.
We hear all kinds of talk from the official opposition in Quebec City about sovereignty, or sovereignty association, and one of the main implements and instruments of national unity as mandated by statute is the CBC to promote Canadian unity. At this time in our history when the country is just about to fly apart, the Minister of Communications comes forward and is absolutely determined to remove the mandate of the CBC, one of the few remaining pieces of national infrastructure, threads of national unity. He wants to strip the mandate to promote Canada and understanding between Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I started off by saying that when I grew up my father told me that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So I cannot quite get it through my head why this minister, when he is coming in with this bill which tampers with a whole lot of things with the Broadcast Act, felt so determined that he had to remove the mandate for national unity. I have read a lot of his statements and statements from people in the broadcast industry.
More important, I have listened to Canadians. I have listened to Canadians in the west, in Ontario, in Quebec, and in Atlantic Canada. Canadians are starting to wonder if this government really wants this country to stay together. Canadians are starting to wonder if ministers like the Minister of Communications really believes that this country is worth saving, really believes that this country can survive, or if what they are doing is trying to adjust the statutes of this country to a reality that they see, a reality of a country that is no longer together. Maybe it is a reality of a country unfortunately split along linguistic lines or geographic lines, but probably linguistic.
November 29, 1990

Government Orders
I am going to stay here to hear the minister, would like to hear a rousing defence of national unity, a strong federalist speech from this minister, dealing with communications and the role of the CBC and cultural institutions that come under his mandate, and promoting and preserving national unity in this country.
As well I hope everybody who is watching television stays tuned to the debate. I would like to know if this minister has given up on the concept of a strong federal country called Canada or if he has already thrown in the towel and is simply trying to adjust the current legislation on the federal books to reflect his view that there is more than one Canada, that there are two Canadas here.
The motion that has been put forward is one that everybody in this House should support. There comes a time when partisanship in this House has to give way to national good. In this particular case the amendment put forward reinstates into the Broadcasting Act that it be imperative that the CBC promote national unity. That is something that each and every individual in this House, male and female, east, west, central Canadian, French or English, should see as imperative these days when our country is being faced with such tugs and strains to the fabric of unity. I would hope that the ministers would review the program of systematic destruction of the fabric of national unity in this country and see that what this minister has proposed in Bill C-40, particularly this motion which we are debating now, is not only regressive but it is destructive, and see the danger that this particular clause causes and talk to the minister, before he gets up, and tell the minister that we need a speech of unity from him. What we do not need from this minister is more gobbledegook and-


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: I cannot see why you would be so surprised, Mr. Speaker, because this is after all a debate that concerns all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise on this debate and, in particular, speak to the issue about which I think every Canadian should be thinking around this time of the year, Christmastime.
We are probably at a very critical time in the history of our country and we need leadership on a national level to help keep this country together. I happen to believe that as Canadians and, in particular, as parliamentarians too little is being said in this national Canadian Parliament about the values that we share together. One of those values is the capacity to communicate in our two official languages and the capacity to communicate by the instrument that links this country from coast to coast.
One of the reasons that I fear for the future of this country is because Canadians spend too little time communicating and speaking together. How many French Canadians know the names of Barbara Frum and Peter Mansbridge? How many English Canadians know the names of Denise Bombardier and Simon Durivage? If we are going to keep this country together, it is clear that we need instruments like the CBC to promote national unity. Marcel Masse, is that such a dirty word, to promote national unity?
I ask that because the minister has not had the courage to speak in the House to this issue, nor has his Prime Minister. At a time when the very future of this country is at stake, surely we can expect leadership on the national level to address these questions.
Quebecers have a right to ask themselves the question: is there anybody in this country who cares about whether they belong to Canada or not? That is the question that is being asked right now in the Belanger-Campeau commission. Whatever the outcome of that commission, they are examining their future in a serious, constructive, and complete way. I am sorry to say that the same cannot be said of our Prime Minister and the pathetic effort called the Spicer commission with commissioners working possibly two days a month, maybe two days a week, commissioners who do not have a mandate, and posts that are being left empty, a Prime Minister who is not even prepared to speak publicly to the Belanger-Campeau commission about the future that Quebec might still have within a country called Canada.

Government Orders

And the Minister of Communications stands there, looking unconcerned. That does not concern him that he is depriving us of one of the instruments of Canadian unity. If he wants to do away with Canada, he should say so. If we still want Canada after Meech, Mr. Speaker, we must be able to communicate with one another and, at least, instruments such as the CBC will ensure we can do jsut that. I am not referring to Clyde Wells's language, which I suggest is not so much a form of communicaton as a form of excommunication. I prefer to have language-

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to the role of national unity that can be played by instruments like the CBC and Radio-Canada. I am not suggesting that there be journalistic gerrymandering. I worked as a journalist and heaven forbid that the government should tell journalists how to write. When Le Point and the CBC, in the weeks leading up to the Meech debate, developed a joint program where they explored the lives and reactions of Canadians, the very different views of the process leading up to the constitutional reform known as Meech Lake, it was clear that programs of that nature finally gave Canadians a chance to see how the other half felt.
How many English Canadians really understand why Quebec feels rejected, why Quebec is prepared, and possibly in the very near future, to give up on the country of Canada? We do not understand it, because even in our pan-Canadian news network called Newsworld we cannot hear the news in French. We can get the nightly news from Japan, but we do not have a French Canadian network through the Newsworld channel in the way that we should have.

One third of all Canadians are denied the right to listen to news in their own language. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. During the Liberal leadership race, the leaders debate, in Montreal, had to be translated back into English to be broadcasted in the province of Quebec. You call that national broadcasting? That is ridiculous! Instead of using this bill to strenghten our means of communications, the minister is using it to deprive us of one of the last instruments at our disposal
to precisely touch the hearts of the Canadian people and more particularly in these times that of the people of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the issue of the Canadian unity clause, but also the fact that the minister is not prepared to protect Radio Canada International, nor to specifically mention the parliamentary channel.

It is not only the issue related to the national unity objectives of the CBC, but also the fact that the Minister of Communications is not prepared to outline in law a mandate for the parliamentary channel. Surely, if there is one way that we are going to keep this country talking together, it is by virtue of channels like this parliamentary channel that permits Canadians from coast to coast to hear the laws of the land in both official languages.
Not only is the Minister of Communications giving up on Canadian unity, throwing in the towel on the capacity of Radio-Canada to act as an instrument of national unity, but he is further cutting back on Canada's view internationally by refusing to reinforce the role of Radio Canada International.
We know that there are cuts and that the other shoe is about to drop. We will see fewer and fewer Canadian messages being sent out to the world. Neither is he prepared to protect the parliamentary channel. Northern Services also was a portion of the CBC that should be protected by legislation, and he is unprepared to act.
If there is one thing that we are going to be able to do, it is going to be by communicating through the mass media. I hate to say it but Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. The medium that is the message of a very power nature today is the medium of television. It is clear that both radio and television in the CBC have a very important role to play in educating and teaching Canadians about one another.

And the role the CBC plays, Mr. Speaker, as a link between the people in Western Canada and in Eastern Canada, is a capital one that should be mentionned in the bill. I do not understand why the minister refuses to answer. Maybe he is too busy with his own cable tax which will cost millions of dollars to the people of Quebec, whose language he did not protect. He did not protect the French language when he imposed the same base tax rate to the people who never watch English
November 29, 1990

television. The minister, who talks so much of protection, missed the point in his own bill.

I am pleading with the minister to reconsider his position, to re-assert the capacity of the CBC to act as an instrument of national unity, and to make sure that the mandate of the CBC includes the notion of embracing not only our two cultural and linguistic groups that founded this country but also the one-third of Canadians who claim neither English nor French as their mother tongue. That must continue to be the respected and deserved mandate of the CBC.
I hope that, if he wants to have a say about the future of Canada, the minister is at least prepared to safeguard our means of communicating with one another in both official languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. We can give her extra time if we have unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We do not have unanimous consent.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is not that I do not enjoy hearing the hon. member for Hamilton East, but our time this afternoon is running very short and I want to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-40 and the amendment before us today put forward by the hon. member for Mount Royal concerning reinstating the mandate of CBC to have a national unity role. In fact, Motion No. 17 indicates that the CBC should contribute to national unity, shared national consciousness, and identity.
The fact that we are debating this issue in this year, 1990, is really remarkable. It is simply unbelievable that any government, especially this government, would be bringing forward this Bill C-40 which would take away the responsibility of the CBC to play a national unity role.
In my opinion the CBC has a unique position in this country. We have the ability of CBC radio and television,
Government Orders
but especially radio, to nip into every community right across this country, whether it is the outports of Newfoundland or the forestry communities of British Columbia or on the prairies or in Ontario or whatever. CBC radio has a special role and ability, whether it is This Country in the Mornings or the Gzowski Show, whether it is Cross Country Check-Up on Sunday afternoon, whether it is the As It Happens program at 6.30 in the evening, or a number of newscasts. There is practically no other instrument that knits this country together the way that CBC radio and CBC television do.
To take away this mandate of national unity from the CBC is really remarkable at a time when we have separatists sitting in the House of Commons, after going through the Meech Lake fiasco and after seeing a government that carries with it something like 14 per cent or 15 per cent support in the national public opinion polls.
It is incredible, when we have the Belanger-Campeau Commission looking at what role Quebec will play in the future of Canada, when similar commissions are being set up by other provinces and now that the Prime Minister has established the Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada, that this government would be removing national unity as one of the mandates of the CBC. This is unbelievable. I would certainly hope that the Minister of Communications would agree. Regardless of what his previous thoughts were about Canada or even what they are now, surely the Prime Minister should put his foot down.
I was appalled and surprised today, when the former Conservative member from Nova Scotia put a question to the Prime Minister on whether he or the senior minister in his cabinet responsible for federal-provincial relations was going to make a presentation before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, that the Prime Minister looked dumbfounded. When a commission in Quebec is looking at the role of Quebec in the future of this country, surely the Prime Minister should go before that commission and put before it the federalist national view of this government with regard to unity, to a federal role for the Government of Canada, and to a national unity scheme to ensure that Quebec plays a vital role and that we are a united country.

November 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
I could not believe that he had no response. He fobbed it off by saying that there was a member from the caucus on the commission. It simply makes one wonder where this government really stands when it comes to national unity. I hope that the members of the Tory caucus will vote with their heads, their minds, their conscience, and their heart for Canada.
Surely this country and what it has done for each and every one of us is far more important than the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP, or any other party in this country. I would hope that the Tory members would vote with their conscience and with their hearts for Canada when this resolution comes before them sometime next week.
I want to speak as well about the unique role that I see for the CBC in this country, not only in national unity but in informing us of what is going on. Not very often do I have the opportunity to listen to programs like This Country in the Morning, but sometimes in the summertime and at times when the House is not sitting I do. It seems to me that it gives us a unique capsule of the problems of various parts of the country, what the people are thinking, and what the issues are. Private radio and television cannot do that. It is not something that can be done easily, but CBC radio has a unique capacity.
People who are posted abroad in Latin America, or I suppose in the Persian Gulf, and certainly our Armed Forces in Lahr and Baden-Baden in Germany tell me that being able to receive CBC Radio Canada International keeps them in touch with a feeling for not only their section of the country they come from but for the entire country.
I believe that CBC radio has a very special mandate to bind the country together in that way, to keep us informed and to keep us feeling concerned about our fellow citizens. Likewise, in regions of the country such as northern Ontario, which represents 88 per cent of the land mass, we have two broadcasting studios: one in Sudbury and one in Thunder Bay.
Surprisingly CBC radio, which has covered most of northern Ontario only for the past few years, does a tremendous job of keeping us informed even in the regions. The area is so vast that its role is really very well carried out. It keeps us advised. If you live in Sudbury you do not hear much about Sault Ste. Marie except
through CBC radio; likewise across the entire north. I think CBC radio does a tremendous service.
Another area I want to touch on relates to the cuts in CBC. This government, in its wisdom or lack of wisdom, has cut CBC's budget by some $240 million since 1984. This is really shameful when we look at its national unity role, the role to inform Canadians. CBC radio has a special role for one area of our country which is perhaps more important than any other, and that is its role in rural Canada.
Rural Canada is suffering in every sector of the country, but in no area of public life does CBC play a more important role than in agriculture because it is so diverse. We do not have one country when it comes to agriculture; we have about five. One important role that CBC Radio has carried through the years was the agriculture and resources representative on Parliament Hill.
It was done for many years by George Price. It was a terribly ungracious way that CBC advised him that he was not only being retired, but that his position was being dumped.
The agriculture committee of the House of Commons fought that decision. We got some commitments that the service would be continued. It has not. The government has failed-


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

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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FOR WHISTLE BLOWERS
James Ross Fulton: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider providing legislated protection to all environmental "whistle-blowers".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on M-149, which is a motion
November 29, 1990

in my name, asking that the House and the government consider providing legislative protection for whistle blowing.
For many who are listening and watching, they probably do not know what such a motion is about. I would hope after I have covered the waterfront for 20 minutes, they will have a better idea of why it is so important that this Parliament and this country have whistle blowing legislation.
It is just as important as access to information or as having an environmental auditor. Without whistle blowing legislation, we will continue to see an awful lot of environmental offences continue without being reported to the appropriate authorities or being made public.
The intention of whistle blowing legislation is to protect the whistle blower, those who either phone the RCMP, Environment Canada or a local newspaper, or who make an environmental problem public.
It is to protect the environment and taxpayers from crime, losses from crime, criminal activity, and illegal and improper activities related to the environment. It is desperately needed not only to protect those workers, both public and private sector, but it is needed to protect the environment.
Many people fear job loss should they blow the whistle on their employer. They fear pay cuts, law suits, harassment and intimidation for reporting either on their industry or employer, even if they are just a member of the general public reporting on an environmental problem that they see occurring in, around or near their community.
The purpose of the legislation would be to encourage those who witness or are aware of illegal activity that significantly impairs the environment to report it and make it public. I am glad to see the minister of health listening to this most interesting debate, because he would know that within the medical and health field, whistle blowing is practically built within the system.
If there are problems with drugs or a certain kind of health care, the whistle is blown on them internally within the medical or health care system so that those problems can be dealt with quickly prior to the health or welfare of individuals who might be in the hospital or in the health care system being negatively impacted.
Private Members' Business
However, in the years that I have served in this House, I have witnessed many public and private sector whistle blowers who had been singled out and punished. I suppose more members of the opposition receive brown envelopes than do government members. Quite often, I find members of the opposition, including myself, know of things before some ministers do. That seems to be the nature of some kinds of negative policy decisions, that the opposition is made aware of them quickly, before they can be implemented.
Those who are punished, particularly those where there is a negative political impact or where the corporate masters are embarrassed or forced to clean up, quite often the political or corporate master will take some kind of singling out or punishment against those who have reported.
I have attended many meetings with trade unionists in recent months and years. For example just two weeks ago I attended the Canadian Labour Congress environment conference in Edmonton where there was extensive consideration for the need for whistle blowing legislation. Workers who witnessed, for example, spills at pulp mills, either intentional or accidental, at nuclear facilities, whether it was intention or accidental, or at other industrial sites, have found that many of their co-workers from the shop floor who have reported illegal activities that they have seen, or accidents that could endanger the environment, are singled out or red circled, or other kinds of punitive action are taken against them by their employers. There is a widespread fear for an individual's job when he or she reports on offences. Despite that, many trade unions are setting up special committees that go ahead and whistle blow anyway.
Offences that are criminal, for example, where the teller in a bank reports on a robbery, generally the manager or someone else within the banking system lauds that kind of whistle blowing. Quite often they are given a raise in pay and are seen as heroes in the community. The recent wave of white collar crime that we have seen both here and in the United States indicates how much stronger the whistle blowing legislation hotline tip system needs to be if we are to root out the degree of white collar crime that has been unleashed upon us within financial institutions and in other areas of our society.

Private Members' Business
Whistle blowing legislation is necessary to turn around the prevailing fear of punishment in order to make whistle blowing a right and respected duty. In some cases, it should provide for fine splitting, something we find in some areas of federal legislation already. There needs to be that kind of encouragement in areas where there are particularly nasty forms of environmental degradation going on. Where the courts ultimately bring a fine against those who have been perpetrating the offence, the fine should be split with those who have been involved with blowing the whistle.
Whistle blowing legislation is necessary to halt environmental degradation. I recall the former Liberal Minister of the Environment in this province of Ontario who, after there had been 13 spills in a one-week period on the St. Clair River, described that as industrial incontinence but did not proceed to lay charges or to levy the kinds of fines that would be necessary to stop that kind of industrial incontinence.
I recall the former federal Minister of the Environment telling me that some 80 per cent of the toxic and hazardous waste produced on a daily basis in this country is improperly or illegally disposed of. It is dumped in rivers, dumped in sewers, dumped on farmers fields and it requires whistle blowing legislation to start getting these kinds of activities reported so that kind of future problem can be disposed of before it occurs. I see the minister of forests is here. He is a big supporter of whistle blowing legislation. I hope he takes it to cabinet this week and we see it back here fairly soon.
In the forestry sector, we need some whistle blowing, mostly whistle blowing about what the minister is not doing. I recall that Dr. Rankin from the University of Victoria Law School did an assessment and an evaluation of class one and class two waste management permits in British Columbia last year. He found that fully, three-quarters of the waste management permits in some areas of the province in some categories had been in significant non-compliance for more than a year.
At the federal level, we found from the Auditor General that there has been a 240 per cent increase in non-compliance among mining companies, as an example, since the Conservatives came to office. I do not think the government understands how strongly Canadians feel about protecting the environment and stopping that kind of improper use of our environment.
The Auditor General found that most of the mines audited in this country were non-compliance with the federal legislation that they were operating under. The majority of the mines or workers at all or most of these sites know that there is improper activity going on. The drivers of the trucks that are hauling and dumping toxic waste out into some farmer's field in British Columbia or in Prince Edward Island tonight know what they are doing. The environment is being destroyed in many areas of Canada by what is described as insignificant increment; a spill here, a dump there, a fire here, some radiation there, an oil spill here and some acid mine drainage there. Whistle blowers legislation to encourage and protect workers and citizens for reporting environmental accidents and hazards is a fundamental piece of legislation that must be passed by this House.
It is federal policy within the NDP. It is the only party that has the kind of process to set policy prior to getting into government. I certainly hope and expect that we will have a chance to perhaps bring in this kind of legislation. If the Green Plan had any real guts-I suppose we may not see the Green Plan now in 1990 according to the latest rumours around here-but if it had any real guts, whistle blowing legislation would be a centrepiece, just as an environmental auditor general would be a centrepiece, and major amendments to access to information and environmental liaison centres would be similar centrepieces in the legislation.
The chances are low. The reason I say that is we can measure it under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the direct responsibility of the present Minister of the Environment. The Auditor General found that since the legislation became law more than two years ago, there have only been three prosecutions in the whole of Canada, three prosecutions and three convictions under the most important and broadest based environmental legislation in the whole country. The prevailing philosophy of this government in a big business is that the environment is free, and one externalizes waste to increase one's profit.

There is no Green Plan either coming or existing under the Tories in my view. What we are seeing is an environmental and ecological brown-out. We are seeing immunity from prosecution, Order in Council exemptions for special friends, such as the Alcan Kemano II project in British Columbia, special laws on liability, such as the ones put in place for the Atomic Energy Control Board. Let me give a direct example on the government's mythical war on pollution and protection of the environment.
There was a discretionary immunity memo leaked some time ago that I made public. We know now that fisheries contamination from industrial pollution and toxins from B.C. pulp mills is far worse than ever expected. On the front page of today's Vancouver Sun the headline is, "Six mill areas cited. Dioxins spark expanded bans". We see that areas as much as five times the size of the area already closed have been restricted. Affected are the waters around the Fletcher Challenge's Crofton mill near Duncan, the Fletcher Challenge mill near Campbell River, the MacMillan Bloedel mill at Power River on the Sunshine Coast, the MacMillan Bloedel mill near Nanaimo, the Canadian Forest Products mill near Gold River and the Eurocan mill near Kitimat.
Already 1 per cent of the fisheries in British Columbia are closed because of environmental pollution from pulp mills. That is shellfish, it is crab, prawn, shrimps and now it is starting to move into the fish populations. It is truly incredible. The question of compensation for fishermen has not been addressed. The prosecution of companies and agencies involved has not been addressed. The matter of ruined native fisheries has not been addressed and matter of public health has not been addressed.
The only reason the government finally acted on November 23, 1989 was because a former federal public servant by the name of Otto Langer wrote a memo of November 15, 1989 which outlined the inconsistent application of the Fisheries Act, which was leaked to the press, embarrassed the government into taking some action, band-aid actions, after the fact actions, too little too late action, but with whistle blowing legislation the public would not have to wait for a situation to reach crisis proportions economically, ecologically and environmentally and then hope that someone leaks the information to trigger a response.
Private Members' Business
On the inconsistent application of the Fisheries Act as a case in point, I am not talking about a rare isolated example. What Mr. Langer revealed is that the issue is one of continuous non-compliance, for example, involving 19 years of the Department of the Environment environmental protection never charging anyone despite the knowledge that the pulp mills were totally out of compliance with the pulp and paper effluent regulations. It is an issue of chronic non-compliance. "Senior management and conservative legal opinion has recently created new classes of immunity for certain polluters or those that destroy habitat". This led to examples of abandoning court cases when clear "others beyond our influence did not want the trials to continue". In other words, forget prosecuting the big polluters.
The leaked memo continues on the top of page 4 and I quote again:
The impact of creating the above classes of immunity have far reaching consequences for the morale of our staff and ultimately the future of the fishery resource and associated environment-A continuation of this philosophy will result in a wholesale loss of fish habitat and a continued degradation of water quality.
If repeated violators are not being dealt with, what kind of an environment are we going to be left with? Just yesterday in The Toronto Star there was a very good article called "The Mythical War on Pollution" which said the following:
-since 1970, Ottawa's enforcement of federal environmental laws has ranged from timid to non-existent.
The evidence of that 20-year regulatory failure is overwhelming. Internal Environment Canada reports and memos confirm that many of Canada's worst polluters in 1970 are still the worst today.
Among the most notorious are Canada's pulp and paper mills. Almost half are still breaking the Fisheries Act regulations each day they operate.
I am blowing the whistle today but is the minister of fisheries going to go out and charge any of these hundreds of polluters who are violating federal law? Well, we will find out tomorrow morning but you and I both know the answer, Mr. Speaker. This government is granting immunity to prosecution to hundreds of corporations in this country who are breaking the law at this very moment.
The article goes on:

November 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
From 1985 through 1988, the average Fisheries Act fine was $4,100. Only 56 convictions were registered during those 48 months and a minority of the prosecutions were initiated by Environment Canada. What happened to the public policy?
The paper goes on to conclude that there is an interim immunity from prosecution.
Each secret deal Ottawa made with these companies triggered demands from competitors that they get the same break.
This pattern is reflected in a Statistics Canada analysis of capital expenditures by Canadian manufacturers between 1985 and 1989. Of a total capital investment of $25 billion, 96 per cent was spent on expansion and modernization. A mere 2 per cent was spent directly on pollution abatement and most of that money was federal and provincial anti-pollution grants.
That is a pretty telling story about what is going on and what is not going on.
Let us look now for a moment at what the Auditor General has found. I think I can demonstrate why workers want it, why the public wants it, why the environment deserves it, why federal public servants need it, and why we need to stop companies from breaking the law.
In 1984 and 1985 he looked at 13 departments and in 1985 he reported it to the President of the Treasury Board. In February, 1987, the President of the Treasury Board sent out a policy circular called "Losses of Money Suffered by Her Majesty and Offences and other Illegal Acts against the Crown".
In 1988 the Auditor General took another look and this is what he said that most of the six departments examined had not established the procedures required by Treasury Board for reporting all suspected cases of fraud and other offences to the RCMP, the deputy attorney general and the Treasury Board and for reporting all proven cases to Parliament.
I quote from section 19.10:
We are concerned about the tendency by some departments to not always report cases to the RCMP.
Well, what is going on, Mr. Speaker? Illegal activity is found in 13 departments by the Auditor General. He goes to the President of the Treasury Board, who then circulates it. Five years later the Auditor General goes back and looks at half those departments again and finds the illegal activity is still going on and it is not being reported to the RCMP.
Obviously we need whistle-blowing legislation. My colleagues in British Columbia have introduced a bill to protect no-pollution informants. It is Bill M 208.
Let us take a look at the evidence of the Auditor General again when he appeared on December 12 of last year before the public accounts committee in his discussions about the need for a hot line. On the hotline idea, he said: "The first principle it needs to clear is that the government bears the primary responsibility for preventing and detecting waste, mismanagement, and fraud in government, not my office".
That is the auditor general. He said they audited the government's fraud reporting practices in 1984. "We reported serious deficiencies. Departments continue to express concerns that individuals would be reluctant to report for fear of reprisal".
Mr. Speaker, my legislation is a proposed way to protect those individuals who fear reprisals for reporting to the RCMP. I go on and quote:
The absence of reports of significant frauds in the Canadian government raises another question. Is it the case that fewer frauds are detected and reported in Canada, or is there actually a lower level of malfeasance in the Canadian government.
One of the objectives of the hotline is to provide a more effective line of defence against fraud and to provide information to answer the question of extent of fraud against the government.
This is an important question and needs to be discussed. Most frauds are, in general, not discovered by audits but rather by tips or by accident. We receive many brown envelopes. Most are anonymous. It takes tremendous courage to report serious wrongdoing. I believe that such people should be protected and assisted. We cannot expect people to come forward when they are subject not only to possible reprisal from powerful institutions but to derision as a tattle-tale. The hotline procedure we propose would fully protect such people, by not taking their names and by conducting audits in such a manner that they would not be identified.
Even if a hotline is not established, the question of adequate protection of whistle-blowers remains. There are clearly doubts as to whether the existing protections are adequate. Perhaps specific legislation protecting the identity of callers is needed.
This is precisely it, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General has identified it throughout the Government of Canada and I have identified it in every environmental department in the country. Corporations are wildly in violation of the law, from coast to coast. The environment is the big loser and health is the big loser. The fishing grounds in British Columbia have just been closed again today,
November 29, 1990

with encirclements five times the size they were at the last closure.
Let me conclude with a couple of other remarks of the Auditor General, and I quote from his evidence before the committee:
The United States has an extensive system of hotlines-


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


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to follow my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, who has once again given evidence as to why he has a widely recognized expertise in chronic effluent. I am pleased to speak on this motion, proposed by the member for Skeena. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
providing legislated protection to all environmental "whistleblowers".
I would like to start by reminding my hon. colleagues that the government has, in fact, seen fit to provide such protection under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The matter was discussed before this House. Members of the committee that was struck to carry out the clause-by-clause review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, then known as Bill C-74, heard submissions and arguments both for and against this point. It is obviously an issue about which there are different points of view, and there was debate before the committee. There was also debate on other clauses of the bill designed to encourage public participation in enforcement of federal environmental statutes.
For example, the clause which gave the right to individuals to oblige the minister to investigate alleged violations of the act did, in fact, give rise to considerable debate for and against the question. Some briefs showed a fear of increased public participation. They were against giving individuals the right to require the Minister of the Environment to investigate alleged offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as well as the right to receive a report of the investigation.
Private Members' Business
Some briefs did not support whistle blower protection and others wanted such protection, across the board, for every offence under the proposed act. Some of those who opposed further public participation in the implementation and enforcement of federal environmental law believed that the government was running the risk of creating a highly politicized climate of confrontation which, in fact, could jeopardize the pursuit of environmental objectives. Others saw the public participation and public rights sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as devices for ensuring the public's help in enforcement and for reinforcing the public's belief that the government was committed to protecting the environment.
The House of Commons, doing clause-by-clause review of Bill C-74, decided to promote further public participation. This review reduced the number of individuals who may require the Minister of the Environment to investigate alleged offences against the proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act from 12 down to two. Section 108, Section 109, and Section 110 of the act outline the requirements.
108.	(1) Any two persons resident in Canada who are not less than 18 years of age and who are of the opinion that an offence has been committed under this act may apply to the minister for an investigation of the alleged offence.
(2)	An application for an investigation shall be accompanied by a solemn or statutory declaration.
A)	Stating the names and addresses of the applicants;
B)	Stating the nature of the alleged offence and the name of each person alleged to be involved in its commission; and
C)	Containing a concise statement of the evidence supporting the allegations of the applicants.
Section 109 goes on to continue to spell out these requirements:
109.	(1) On receipt of an application under Section 108, the minister shall acknowledge receipt of the application and investigate all matters that the minister considers necessary for a determination of the facts relating to the alleged offence.
Clearly this is designed to ensure that the minister has in his or her hands all of the facts relating to the case. It continues:
(2) Within ninety days after receiving an application under Section 108, the minister shall report to the applicants on the progress of the investigation and the action, if any, that the minister proposes to take.

Private Members' Business
(3)	The minister may discontinue an investigation where the minister is of the opinion that the alleged offence does not require further investigation.
(4)	Where an investigation is discontinued, the minister shall
A)	Prepare a report in writing describing the information obtained during the investigation and stating the reasons for its discontinuation; and
B)	Send a copy of the report to the applicants and to any person whose conduct was investigated.
110.	At any stage of an investigation under Section 109, the minister may, in addition to or in lieu of continuing the investigation, send any records, returns or evidence to the Attorney General of Canada for consideration of whether an offence has been or is about to be committed against this act and for such action as the Attorney General of Canada may wish to take.
In addition, it also decided in favour of experimental so-called whistle blower protection. The committee limited the right of individuals to request anonymity solely when they report the unauthorized release of a regulated substance under Part II of the act governing toxic substances, or a release of regulated emissions, effluents and wastes under Part IV of the act governing federal departments, agencies, commissions, boards, works, undertakings, as well as federal lands and federal Crown corporations.
Accordingly, in Part II of the act governing toxic substances, section 37 requires that an individual who has knowledge of an authorized release or of the likelihood of an unauthorized release must report this information to a designated inspector or to any other person designated by regulation as empowered to receive the report.
That section also provides for voluntary reports from individuals who are not required under law to transmit their information but who in the interests of environmental protection may choose to do so. A person not required to report may request that his or her identity remain confidential. Once an individual makes this request, no person may release or cause to be released the identity of the informant or any information or detail likely to reveal that identity. I quote:
37. (1) Where a person has knowledge of the occurrence or reasonable likelihood of a release into the environment of a substance specified in the list of toxic substances in Schedule I, but the person is not required to report the matter under this act, the person may report any information relating to the release or likely release to an inspector or to any person to whom a report may be made under Section 36.
I believe that my time is close to expiring. I will simply wrap up by saying that I am sure over time the government will consider many types of measures. One of those might be the extension of whistle blower provisions. If this is studied, I am sure the government will find the most appropriate way of using such protection, keeping in mind, of course, the rights of the accused and other important factors.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak out in favour of this motion. Canadians are becoming increasingly serious about their responsibility for the environment, both as individuals and as employees.

If we truly want to create a system where every individual can be a guardian of the environment, the kind of legislation proposed in the motion is absolutely essential. Individuals want to take responsibility in the workplace as well as in their personal lives. Fortunately, more and more businesses are also recognizing the importance of being guardians of the environment and are recognizing that doing things in an environmentally friendly way also makes good sense economically and for their increased productivity and efficiency as businesses.
Others are putting their heads in the sand, pretending that this concern about the environment is a new thing and it is going to go away, if only they ignore it. Sooner or later, the world will get back to more important things and leave them alone to pollute our air, water and soil.
However, that is not what is going to happen because people are fundamentally realizing that the environmental problems they face now are a question of their own personal health and safety, that if we do not act urgently on such problems as ozone depletion and global warming, we will not have air to breathe and we will not have clean water to drink, and that the time horizon for that is sooner, rather than later. So people do want to take their individual responsibility very seriously.
They know that in their place of work perhaps effluents are being put into rivers, lakes and oceans, damaging the ability of life on earth to survive in the future. They know that chemicals are being used and not disposed of safely. They know that their own personal health and safety as employees is at risk in their

workplace. They want to protect that, but just as important, they want to protect the environment that they are going to leave to their children.
The hon. member opposite who was speaking quoted the provisions in the current legislation. One of the things I noticed is that it obliges reporting on behalf of individuals who are aware of existing pollution or potential pollution, but it provides no protection.
It is much more than a question of simply keeping confidential the identity of an individual who has made a complaint or made a report. It requires a very positive legislative provision which protects that individual from retaliation, and gives them a complete mechanism if they have been retaliated against. That ensures that they, in their interest to do a public duty in protecting the environment by lodging a complaint, will not suffer the loss of their job, lose employment opportunities or suffer the retribution and wrath of their employer.
We have to take this motion seriously because the ability of government to enforce environmental legislation is limited by the resources available, by the number of people who can be hired by a government at any particular time to go into virtually every small factory, shop and plant in this country, and determine how environmentally sound their practices are. I do not think any of us want to see a situation where only through an army of inspectors and enforcers can we achieve a cleaner and safer world.
The cost of that would be horrendous. But the cost of not dealing with this problem is also horrendous. I go back to one particular experience when I was on municipal council. It had to do with a very small amount of copper sulphate spread on the parking lot of a high technology company in the west end of this region. That is a standard way of disposing of some chemicals for some companies. It leaked into the water and literally put out of commission for many days the sewage treatment plant so that for close to a week raw sewage was going into the Ottawa River, simply because of one careless act by one careless business, and at a public cost for those few days of $3 million dollars to put that sewage treatment plant back into condition.
Private Members' Business
If we want to avoid these things without a massive bureaucracy that will go into every workplace across Canada, the best way to do it is to give the people working in those plants with those employers the ability to draw attention to problems that occur so that they can be dealt with and solved before they create this kind of horrendous damage and public expense.
Many employers are starting to realize this and are putting into place a mechanism whereby their employees are free to bring these problems or suggestions to the attention of management or suggestions as to how they could use less resources to dispose of waste more safely and generally create a more environmentally friendly workplace and a more environmentally friendly corporate citizen. However, many other companies are not doing that. Employees who dared to make a report or to talk to a senior manager about damaging practices would lose their job and benefits very quickly. People are not prepared to fulfil their social responsibility if that is the cost. If it is a social responsibility, it is a social obligation to protect them when they fulfil that duty.
I have seen what happens to people when they come forward and complain of wrongdoing in their place of employment, whether it is theft by other employees or whether it is fairly rampant fraud within an employment situation. Despite the best will at the political level to protect them and to protect their jobs once they return to their work unit, other forces take over and it becomes impossible to protect them, except through legislation.
We see this happen when there are complaints, even in the Public Service, possibly and particularly in the Public Service when there are complaints of violations of human rights or complaints of harassment. We still have not put in place a system whereby somebody can make that kind of complaint against systemic discrimination and have it dealt with without suffering the consequences of having made a complaint.
I have known and I continue to hear from people who are without a job because they dared to complain against their employer. I met with one as recently as this morning. I have met with people who have taken up to 10 years to get justice against a complaint of harassment, sexual, racial or religious.

Private Members' Business
We cannot allow that to happen in the environmental area. We cannot allow people who are trying to carry out a responsibility to society and to the future of the world to be punished for it.
Within the Public Service generally there has been a call for a long time for whistle blowing and, as my hon. colleague who introduced the motion said, the support of the Auditor General is very strong for a system that would allow employees to bring to the attention of management, or of politicians, complaints about theft from government, fraud in government, complaints about anything that is not being done according to government policy and is being done to the detriment of the public. I think that is good legislation.
We want to create responsible, independent thinkers in our public service and in the private sector, but in our public service particularly because we are the largest employer in the country. We want to make it not only a right but a responsibility of every employee to take their environmental responsibility seriously without fear of retaliation.


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


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by my colleague, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider providing legislated protection to all environmental 'whistle-blowers'," is a most interesting proposition.
I am very pleased to make some comments on this matter. Whistle blower protection provisions to protect the identity of informants of suspected or apparent violations are fairly new in federal legislation. At least three federal statutes provide limited protection to individuals who bring complaints or participate in proceedings or other enforcement activities. These are the Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In the Canada Labour Code, employees are protected from employers engaging in unfair practices such as harassment, firing or suspension when employees exercise their rights under the code. For example, to lay a complaint, disclose information about employer violations of the code, or testifying or otherwise participating in proceedings under the code. If the Canada Labour Code board judges that unfair practices have indeed taken place, the board can make corrective orders or direct that compensation be paid. The protection is limited, however, to employers' unfair practices and does not extend to concealing the employer's identity at his or her request.
One section of the labour code that does allow an employer's identity to remain undisclosed is clause 146 (4) of the code. It provides that a person who provides information to a safety officer in relation to inspections will have his or her identity concealed. Disclosure is not compellable before any court or other tribunal. Violations of section 146 are punishable on summary conviction.
I quote clause 146.(4):
No person to whom information obtained pursuant to section 144 is communicated in confidence
a)	shall divulge the name of the informant to any person, except for the purposes of this part; or
b)	in competent or compellable to divulge the name of the informant before any court or other tribunal.
There is additional protection as well. The Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, provides in section 59 that no person shall threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, gave evidence or assisted in any way in a proceeding under the act. The penalty for contravention of this section by an employer is a fine of up to $50,000, and for any other party, a fine of up to $5,000.
Again, I quote from section 59 of the act:
No person shall threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that individual has made a complaint or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of the initiation or prosecution of a complaint or other proceeding under this part, or because that individual proposes to do so.
Also, there is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is unique among federal environmental statutes in that it provides the right to request anonymity for those who provide information to enforcement authorities in certain situation. These circumstances are limited to reports of an unauthorized release or of a likely release of a toxic substance to the environment, where the individual is not legally bound by the statute to make a report and does so voluntarily.

November 29, 1990

There are similar provisions for persons reporting unauthorized releases of effluents, emissions or wastes by federal departments, boards, commissions, agencies, federal Crown corporations and federal works or undertakings on federal lands. If the informant is an employee of the federal entity, there is an added benefit. The employee making the report cannot be disciplined, dismissed or harassed for having done so.
More specifically, subsections 37 (2) and (3) and 58 (2) and (3), provide that there a person making such a report requests to remain anonymous, his or her identity shall not be released unless he or she authorizes the release in writing. Subsections 37 (4) and 58 (4) provide that no employee shall be disciplined, dismissed or harassed for making a report to a CEPA inspector.
It is fair to say that most managers would certainly prefer to learn about a release of a toxic substance at their facility from an employee rather than from a visiting CEPA inspector. For this reason, managers are advised to encourage their staff to report to them any release or suspected release or conditions that are likely to result in release.
The government is satisfied with the operation of these existing provisions. While extending the current protection to all environmental whistle blowers may seem attractive in some cases, there are important considerations to ponder.
For example, when my colleague refers to protection for all environmental whistle blowers in his motion, I wonder if he means all informants who report alleged environmental offences. Under the Constitution Act, 1982, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over local works and undertakings, except for navigation, railways, canals, telecommunication companies, broadcasters, banks, aircraft, airports, commercial air services, interprovincial ferries, trucking and other transport. All other works come under provincial jurisdiction. This is repeated in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Since provinces have jurisdiction, it is provincial law which governs the right of employees in the work place. We have a practical problem here, because to legislate this protection for matters that are dealt with in provincial law would require intensive study by the Department of Justice to determine even if such a thing was constitutionally possible.
Private Members' Business
In addition, decisions of Canada's high courts are tending to erode some of the previous traditional claims to protection of personal identity made by informants of criminal offences. The courts must weigh the right of the accused to face his or her accuser against the benefits of receiving tips or other evidence of criminal offences that enforcement agencies may not otherwise have been able to receive.
While more than one community has pointed to the success afforded by Crime Stoppers or other programs where informants are paid for information leading to successful convictions and guaranteed that their identity will be protected, it is true that a person who reports a Criminal Code offence under the Crime Stoppers program still has no legislated protection under that program against harassment or loss of employment, if he or she has made a complaint against an employer or against a fellow worker.
There appears to be a growing trend, however, in other jurisdictions such as British Columbia and the United States to look more extensively at whistle blower protection, but there are problems with this. In their paper for the recent book, Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia, two lawyers published a short discussion of the problem of whistle blower protection in British Columbia for reports of suspected or apparent environmental violations. They defined whistle blowers as employees who disclose employer violations of environmental laws to their management, union, government, or the media.
The authors of this paper note that given current resources for law enforcement employees can be an adjunct of enforcement, but it is important to note that this can happen only if they report offences without jeopardizing their livelihood. The authors do not deal, however, with the protection of identity but with legislative provisions that would protect any employee's entitlement to his or her job. There is also the argument that there is a possibility of whistle blowing legislation being used as a means to harass employers by disgruntled employees.
Whistle blower provisions in statutes of various provinces seem to lean more toward job protection than protection of an informant's identity. The statutes of other countries such as the United States and court decisions related to the interpretation of these statutes

Private Members' Business
are interesting. We must study all these things very carefully and very soberly.
We would certainly agree that my colleague has brought to the government some food for future thought.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are very attentive on this matter of whistle blowing, because I know that when you played for the Edmonton Eskimos, immediately the whistle blew, you relaxed and stopped tackling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say, since the hon. member raised the topic, that we did win a few games then. In fact we won a few Grey Cups then too.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. The Eskimos have need of you. I will not speak for Mr. Don Getty. He can speak for himself.


An hon. member:: He may have been hit a few too many times.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: "He may have been hit a few too many times", my colleague says, but not you, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, I want to address whistle blowing. I heard the parliamentary secretary speak. I thought she was nitpicking a bit. This is not a radical motion. The member for Skeena, as I understand it, has phrased the motion so that the government can consider providing-that is not acting on it tomorrow-whistle blowing legislation. He is trying to push the government along in this matter. The parliamentary secretary admitted, did she not, that there are some precedents for this sort of legislation.
As the member for Skeena pointed out, the environment is the No. 1 issue in Canada. It is crucial that we protect and save the great Canadian environment. We have an environment crisis in Canada and in the world. We have to do something about it. Ask high school students in this country, and they will tell you that right out front. They will even say to the member for Skeena: "You are not radical enough. Get moving on this matter".
I point out too that the parliamentary secretary brings forth that old chestnut in Canada: "It is our Constitution. Maybe it is a provincial matter". I can just hear them in the provincial House if they brought forth
similar legislation: "Well, that is a federal matter". It falls through the cracks.
We have to look at the environment differently. We cannot regionalize it or provincialize it. It really is a national matter, indeed an international matter. The member for Chambly, our member from Quebec, who likes to talk about Quebec having a lot of control over constitutional matters has always said consistently that he thought environment should be a national matter. Let us approach it as if it were a national matter and deal it with it that way.
The member for Skeena, in his motion, wants the government to consider legislation for protecting people who blow the whistle on environmental offences. The problem is clear. Oftentimes in the woods, chemical factories, pulp mills, tar sands in northern Alberta, and so on an environmental illegality happens. It is convenient to get rid of the slush; it is convenient to do this, even though the people or the company really should not be doing this.
If an employee such as a wood worker, pulp worker, chemical worker, or oil worker sees this and his conscience bothers him because he knows that it is against the law, immoral and unethical to pollute the environment, he wants to tell. The only way we can ever find out what is going on is when this employee tells, but, if he tells, he is liable to lose his job and his wife, family and so on suffer, and he suffers. We have to try to find ways of protecting him so that he is not singled out and punished.
I tell the member for Skeena quite directly as justice critic of our party that I have some concerns about the motion, because we do have a principle in Canada that you have a right to face your accuser. We have to be veiy careful that we do not have neighbourhood committees spying on people, employees spying on other employees who can report things, and then not having to face the persons they accuse. We have to think about that principle. It is a problem, but I think we can get around it. We can deal with it in a just way, especially when it comes to the environment. We might have to restrict it when we get to a bill.
However, the member for Skeena is simply asking for a motion. He is simply pushing the government, which I and other members of the House support.
November 29, 1990


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me a few minutes-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Only three minutes!


Mr. Della Noce:: Five!


Gabriel Fontaine: -to deal with this motion whose purpose is to provide protection to all "whistle-blowers".
When dealing with Bill C-74 currently known as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the House of Commons and the Legislative Committee considered providing this protection. During their clause by clause review of Bill C-74, the members heard many representations concerning this. Of course, some of them could not be accepted, in view of our legislative system and the distribution of responsibilities and powers between the various levels of government.
Providing legislative protection to all environmental "whistle-blowers" was one of the proposals which all committee members involved in the review of Bill C-74 supported. Their discussion resulted in the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which guarantees the anonimity which my hon. friend suggested in his motion.
Allow me to explain to you what already exists under federal legislation. This protection is provided twice in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the first time under Part II which deals with toxic substances, and the second time, under Part IV which deals with federal departments, agencies, Crown corporations, works, undertakings and lands.
First of all, under Section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, any person who has knowledge of the unauthorized release into the environment of a toxic substance may report any information relating to the release to an inspector or any person designated by regulation to whom a report may be made. Moreover, a person making such a report may request that his or her identity not be released. He or she may also request that any information that could reasonably reveal his or her identity be kept confidential. Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the relevant section:
Private Members' Business
37. (1) Where a person has knowledge of the occurence or reasonable likelihood of a release into the environment of a substance specified in the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I, but the person is not required to report the matter under this Act, the person may report any information relating to the release or likely release to an inspector or to any person to whom a report may be made under section 36.
(2)	A person making a report under subsection (1) may request that the person's identity and any information that could reasonably reveal the identity not be released.
(3)	Where a person makes a request under subsection (2), no person shall release or cause to be released the identity of the person making the request or any information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity, unless the person making the request authorizes the release in writing.
(4)	Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no employee of a department, board, commission or agency of the Government of Canada, or of a corporation named in Schedule C to the Financial Administration Act or of a federal regulatory body shall be disciplined, dismissed or harassed for making a report under subsection (1).
To conclude quickly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion moved by the hon. member could normally be justified within a legislative framework which would not protect individual "whistle-blowers" against possible prosecution.
Under Bill C-74, our present legislation however, any Canadian citizen could report to the proper authorities any act detrimental to the environment without fear of prosecution. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that our current legislation is adequate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this follow-up to an earlier question should follow this debate on environmental issues. That, of course, is at the heart of the question which I wish to follow up.
In April of this past year, a cross river barge project was established in the city of Windsor against the objections the various downriver communities in the area, which make up part of my constituency.
In a series of questions with the government, I raised the possibility of what I consider to be the necessity of an environmental assessment review proceeding taking place with respect to this new barge, because this barge service was not just a service to provide transportation across the river. It was specifically a service designed to take dangerous goods from one side of the Detroit River to the other. It was to be devoted exclusively to such dangerous goods.
Since the question was originally raised in a series of questions in January, April and May of 1990, we have been able to get access under Access to Information to the file which is kept in the Department of Transport with respect to this project.
On the basis of the material in that file, which has been released to us, I have to make a number of charges with respect to the government's treatment of this whole question.
First, I charge that this government deliberately covered up the fact that this barge project was proceeding forward and was being given considerable attention by various departments of government, was of considerable importance and was recognized to be of such by the people of the city of Windsor and the downriver communities. Yet at no stage did the government of this country see fit to tell the people of Windsor and Essex county that this barge proposal was being revived.
Despite the fact that in the information which has been provided to us under Access to Information there were September 1989 meetings which took place specifically on the issue. It was reported that this barge proposal had been revived and was being considered in detailed meetings at the very highest levels within ministries here in Ottawa.
Yet, as I say, at no time was any information on this subject provided to the people of the city of Windsor and the county of Essex.
I raised a question in the House on January 26, 1990 with the Minister of Transport about this subject. The Minister of Transport, at that stage, said to me that this was simply a possibility. He said to me that the question was premature. This despite the fact the files now show that this government and the minister's own department had been for a period of at least four months considering in detail the question of whether this barge should go forward.
I also have to say that the file shows quite clearly that the government suppressed information with respect to barge operations on the Detroit River. In particular, they refused to tell people in our community that there had been seven accidents in the previous period of less than seven years with respect to other barge operations taking place, barge operations that did not exclusively handle dangerous goods.
I also have to charge on the basis of the files which I have seen that the government did not at any stage undertake a serious environmental review of this barge proposal. This is despite the fact that the Minister of National Revenue stood up in the House and said that such a serious review would take place.
I raised this question on May 7, 1990 with the Minister of the Environment asking him why the government, despite concerns expressed by the community, had rejected public environmental assessment hearings on this Windsor barge. The minister did not respond to the question and did not provide us with any justification for the cover-up and the suppression of information, which had clearly taken place with respect to this question.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the government is familiar with the proposal made by Barge Transport Incorporated of Detroit, which plans to load tanker trucks carrying hazardous sub-

Adjournment Debate
stances on barges, to cross the Detroit River in the Windsor area. An initial plan was examined in 1987. If the company had followed through, the plan would have been subject to the environmental assessment review process, since it concerned federal land.
However, the company withdrew its initial plan and, after considering other possibilities, has now proposed another plan that does not involve federal land. Nevertheless, because of concerns raised by members of the local community, a thorough review was made of the new plan to determine, without going through the environmental assessment review process, whether any federal requirements or regulations applied. After wide-ranging consultations by senior officials from various federal departments, it was concluded that the plan was well within all regulatory and other requirements concerning health, safety and transportation of hazardous materials as defined by the Canadian Coast Guard, which is responsible for ships' safety. The federal government will carry out inspections and a take samples as required, to ensure compliance with the emergency order on imports and exports of contaminated fuel, issued under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the CEPA regulations on imports and exports of hazardous wastes are expected to come into force by early 1991. They will authorize the federal government to control future imports and exports of hazardous wastes.
From the risk point of view, the planned barge transport compares with the way in which any other product, like oil, for instance, is shipped on the Great Lakes. At the present time, a number of companies are transporting hazardous materials by barge in international waters, and they have excellent safety standards.
This plan offers an effective alternative to transportation over land. It helps reduce truck traffic on the Bluewater Bridge in Sarnia and in surrounding communities like Wallaceburg and Chatham.
The crossing by ferryboat would replace road transportation on roughly 400 km, reducing the risk of road accidents, hence spillage of dangerous goods.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise once again on a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue on November 8.
The question concerned veterans and other Canadians who have been told that a beeper which summons emergency health services does not fall under medical devices in the goods and services tax schedule. This would make it tax exempt if it did so.
The Department of Veterans Affairs must consider this instrument to be an essential service as it pays for the device under the Blue Cross. I asked the minister for his justification of taxing such a device which can mean the difference between life and death. The answer was rather confusing. He said that the Royal Canadian Legion is considered to be a charitable organization for the purposes of GST and therefore would not be obligated to pay or to collect the GST. This did not, in any way, answer the question. I was concerned with a device that is used by veterans and many other Canadians, and which is not distributed through the Royal Canadian Legion. Perhaps the minister was not listening and thought I was requiring about something else. I cannot be sure.
I rise today hoping to get a response and at this time I hope the response is pertinent to the issue. Following my question, I wrote a letter to the minister regarding the Health Line beeper. At this time I would like to briefly outline the contents of the letter to provide the House with some background on this very worth-while life-saving device.
The Health Line beeper is a portable device which allows the user to summon emergency health services by tapping the device. The message is relayed to a 24-hour monitoring centre and services are dispatched. This service is used primarily by elderly and/or chronically ill persons.
A constituent of mine, Cathy Collard, is the manager of Health Line Services in Charlottetown. She inquired whether the device would be tax exempt under the proposed goods and services tax. On her behalf I contacted officials within the minister's department who stated that since the device is not listed under "medical devices" in the goods and services tax schedule, it would not be tax exempt.

Adjournment Debate
For chronically ill and elderly people, the possession of a Health Line beeper could mean the difference between life and death. I would like to stress that it is not a luxury item and I fail to understand why it is not considered a medical device for the purposes of taxation.
The personal emergency beeper is needed most by those who may live alone or who are left alone during the day. This service, without any argument, can be a life-saving service. It allows one to cope alone and with dignity despite age or illness. With one simple push of a button in a moment of need, the urgently needed assistance is on its way.
I am appalled that this government could even consider not making such a device tax exempt. Is this government so cold that it will not listen to Canadians for any reason, proving how insensitive it is to the concerns of Canadians. All I am asking is that a device that quite often means the difference between life and death be tax exempt.
At this time we are going through a full-blown, made-in-Canada recession. Everywhere you turn people are feeling the crunch. This is a time when we must help those people who need us most. I am referring to those people who need and deserve their independence and without an emergency beeper would not be able to do so.
I must stress that this government must start listening to the concerns of all Canadians and help those in need. It is time that this government began to realize that a price cannot be placed on human life. At this time, I would like to stress that I am quite aware that under certain circumstances devices such as this will in fact be considered as medical devices and, therefore, will be zero rated for the purpose of GST. However, as I checked into the matter with officials from the departments of Finance and National Revenue, as well as the GST hotline, I was told repeatedly that the health line beeper does not fall under that category.
I am also aware that communication devices, other than a device for use with telegraph or telephone apparatus, will be zero rated when specifically designed to assist an individual in coping with or treating an illness or chronic abnormal physical state. I must point out once
again that I have been told by GST officials that this health beeper does not fall under this category.
I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight and hopefully he will do everything in his power to ensure that this device will be given all consideration and that it should be tax exempt.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague went through his question dated November 8, 1990, on page 15327 of Hansard where the minister answered his question. He said today that he was pleased that he was advised, but he did not mention that this government took its responsibility and the minister answered his letter which he had today.
I refer him to the second paragraph where the minister said: "I am pleased to advise you that in certain circumstances these devices will in fact be considered as medical devices and therefore will be zero rated for the purpose of the GST", which my hon. friend mentioned, but he did not say it was from the letter of the minister.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will go on. I wish to answer in greater detail to the question raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough on the exemption from the proposed Goods and Services Thx, of beepers used to communicate with emergency services.
Even without any additional information on the use of the devices the hon. member is referring to, I am quite sure these communication devices will be exempted. In some cases, the devices will be exempted for GST purposes, as the minister indicated in his letter.
The regulations established by the Department of Finance stipulates the conditions under which such communication devices, used for medical purposes, can be exempted from the GST. For example, communication devices, other than those used with phones and telegraph apparatus, will be exempted if they are specially designed to help sick or chronically-ill people. Consequently, beepers designed for this purpose will be GST-free. Moreover, breathing apparatus which can be used at home will also be exempted if especially designed to help the sick or the chronically-ill. It should be noted that beepers designed for use with telephones or telegraphs will be taxable.
November 29, 1990

Our government is committed to make health care readily accessible to all Canadians. To that end we have granted generous tax rebates on medical services, prescription drugs and medical devices. Under the proposed legislation most medical services will be tax exempt. This category also includes products or services whose cost is paid or reimbursed by a provincial government pursuant to a plan established through provincial legislation for the supply of health care services to all provincial residents covered under that insurance.
The tax on prescription drugs and medical devices will be removed. The prescription drugs listed in the various annexes of the Food and Drugs Act, the Food and Drugs Regulations and the Narcotic Control Act, other than drugs available without prescription, will no longer be taxable. The legislation provides that some medical devices will not be taxable if they are prescribed by a physician.


SCOTIA SYNFUELS PROJECT
Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I return once again to a subject I have raised numerous times in this House and which I raised on November 20 as a question to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It has to do with the Scotia Synfuels Project, the project to create a refinery or converting a new technology for making petroleum distillates out of coal and heavy oil in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
It is a project which has widespread support in the region. It is a major economic development project for Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia. It is ideally suited for the economy of the area, particularly in the fact that it finds a clean use for Cape Breton coal which is known to be of a high sulphur content and therefore difficult to use, particularly because of the hydrocarbons it emits.
The Scotia Synfuels Project is a technology which has been in development for many years and is at a point now where it is nearly commercially viable and would be commercially viable with the assistance that is normally available through this federal government's programs had the Department of Industry Science and Technology, and particularly the minister, seen fit to exercise a little
Adjournment Debate
bit of creativity and take a risk on a project that is ideal for our region.
I must say the people of eastern Nova Scotia still cannot believe that the minister, after all the noises that have been made by the government, turned down their request for tax credits.
The reasons stated by the minister on November 20 for turning down the application for tax credits under the Cape Breton tax credit program were as he said in the House. What the promoters of the project requested was first that they wanted to have a $200 million Cape Breton tax credit. They wanted to have more. They also wanted to have a loan guarantee and an interest buy-down. That was not possible because of the fact there was no private sector money guarantee.
This is precisely the point. What the promoters had been asking the federal government for years, and particularly during the period of time when they had put in for the Cape Breton tax credit, was an indication from the federal government that if the tax credit would be forthcoming, they would be going on the private money markets to obtain the private sector funding that would be forthcoming, they believed, under current product prices for the petroleum products they were going to produce.
Therefore, what was being asked for by the company was simply an assurance by the federal government that those moneys would be available so that they could go out and get the private sector money. Unfortunately, this government was unwilling to even give them that undertaking and aborted the project in midstream.
What the minister is saying is not correct. There would have been major sources of private sector money involved and indeed the nature of the tax credit program is such that the government would be paying tax credits only after the project was in place and making money.
On top of that, the project had a potential to generate sizeable revenues for the government.
I want to put on the record some of the questions that were raised about this particular project. First of all, the project investment was $470 million. All of this would have to be raised from private investors and private financial institutions. They were requesting standard Cape Breton investment tax credits for 45 per cent of the capital cost of this project. They would reduce the $800 million of corporate taxes, which would be payable from earnings over the project's life, by approximately $200

November 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
million; that is to say, the government would realize a net gain in tax revenues of $600 million over the life of the project. This means that each $1 of the investment tax credit would generate $4 of new tax revenue. Of course they were requesting interest rate buy-downs. These are standard interest rate subsidies which have been offered by this government. This is a subsidy which the government has applied in other places, as well as the loan guarantees.
I compare the project to the Hibernia project, which we on this side of the House have supported strongly and have encouraged the government in achieving. That project was going to provide direct financial assistance in excess of some $1 billion or 25 per cent of construction costs, 40 per cent of construction costs to a maximum of $1.6 billion and other assistance, for a total federal contribution of $3,175 billion on this project.
With the private sector investment that would have been forthcoming under the Scotia Synfuels project and could still be forthcoming, if the minister would sit down with the principals and arrange some form of financial assistance and some terms which the principals would need to meet in order to receive this assistance, I believe this project would still be feasible. I call upon the minister and this government to continue to meet with the principals and assist this project.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, the govemement must tell the truth to the people of Cape Breton. In economic matters, it would be indecent to give anyone false hopes.
During the ten years that the study of the Scotia Synfuels Project lasted, the federal government spent some $2 million on top of the $4 million from the private sector. Although all those reviews and studies have demonstrated that the project technology can be developed, other detailed engineering studies are necessary to ensure the prescribed volume and quality of synthetic fuel. As indicated, over the last ten years representatives of the federal and provincial governments met several times with the promoter in a effort to bring the project into being.
Since 1984, the government has spent $1.5 billion to develop the Cape Breton economy. I could mention for exemple the modernization of Sysco, the financing of DEVCO and the development of the new Louisana Pacific plant in Port Hawkesbuiy. Two weeks ago, the department agreed to provide a $24.5 million financial help to projects of Kelly Rock Limited and Point Tipper Properties under the Cape Breton investment tax credit program, while awaiting for environmental impact studies for the two projects. Together, these two projects will create directly 138 new jobs.
Some say that Synfuels is a better project than Hibernia. These projects are completely different as to size, technology and performance. From the very beginning, Hibernia has received of the private sector's financial support and offered tremendous opportunities, in terms of downstream and other benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso will perhaps want to reflect on the comments of the project's promoter, Mr. Gillespie, who said, as quoted in The Chronicle Herald of April 1, 1986: "Accoring to a study completed last July the Synfuels project is feasable from a technical point of view, but not a financial one". Without a strong support from the private sector, Canadian taxpayers were asked to carry most of the project's risks. I don't think this is right, considering that the business community is not ready to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The 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 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
FYiday, November 30,1990