1990-04-05

Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, in both official languages, an Order in Council announcing an appointment made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), this Order in Council is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee named in the appendix.
While I am on my feet, I take this opportunity to move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour 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:: Call in the Members.


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


Mrs. Gaffney:: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, had I been in my seat when the vote was counted, I would have voted with my party.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I had planned, following completion of Routine Proceedings earlier today, to make an application under Standing Order 52 requesting an emergency debate on the urgent crisis facing women's centres. My point of order is that since this is no longer possible as the government moved earlier to deny proceedings, I seek unanimous consent of the House to make this application now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
eration concerning funding to women's centres across Canada.
This funding was terminated on March 30, leaving these places of information, referral and support for abused women, homeless women, jobless women, and women in difficulty on the brink of closing. The centres have not yet closed but most will do so almost immediately if federal funding is not continued.
This is a very urgent matter and a grave crisis facing women of Canada from coast to coast to coast and I ask for an emergency debate on this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid that this does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders and at this time I am afraid I cannot allow the debate.
The hon. member for Crowfoot.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, during the vote just taken I noted that the hon. member for Davenport was not wearing a tie. That is a requirement under the rules of the House. It is not a point that I would not normally raise except that it was a matter to which recently some attention was brought in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have allowed the hon. member to be recognized on the vote but I would not recognize him on debate, or any points of order, or questions in this House until he changes to proper attire.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 FUNDING TO WOMEN'S CENTRES


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I thank my colleagues for giving unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that this House do now adjourn under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to discuss a matter requiring immediate and urgent consid-
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That, in relation to Bill C-62, an Act to amend the Excise Tix Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Thrift, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act and the Thx Court of Canada Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to

April 5, 1990

the consideration of the report stage, and one sitting day to the consideration of third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the final day for consideration of each such stage, both days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose respectively of the report stage and third reading of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again and continue the debate we began last night on this issue. Last night the debate was becoming more than acrimonious. We saw the Minister of Finance negotiate with a gun called ''closure" on the table. It earned the absolute ire and anger of all members. You quite rightly put everybody in place by reminding us that he is, after all, an honourable member. And as an hon. member he is being very appropriate in disseminating the truths-and there are many that come from his department and office-regarding the GST proposal.
He forgot to tell us that the start-up cost for the GST proposal is going to be in excess of $1.1 billion, according to the Minister of National Revenue. He forgot to tell us that the operating costs for the implementation of this GST are going to be in excess of $380 million annually. He forgot to tell us again that there are going to be an additional 3,900 other tax collectors required to implement this tax. He forgot as well to advise all members that the operating and administrative costs are going to be horrendous as the provinces and his own department are confused about how all of this will take place.
Mr. Speaker, you reminded us that the minister was an honourable man, so we continued to listen as he berated this side of the House for not coming up with alternatives. The minister said that his view was the only view because no one had presented an alternative. Again, he forgot to tell us that he and his party were elected to present policy proposals for our consideration. He did not give us an indication as to what proposals his department had rejected in place of the GST.
He forgot to take notice in Toronto just a few days ago that a group of economists, academics and journalists who write on economic matters presented a series of alternatives to the GST objectives by focusing on govem-
Time Allocation
ment inefficient administration that, if corrected, would save in excess of $13 billion per annum.
When the minister says that he must redress the tax situation in Canada in order to address these kinds of inefficiencies, why does he reject these rather worthwhile proposals by these individuals?
That is a good question. But you insist that he is an honourable man and we cannot impugn his honour. He forgot to tell us that the Institute for Research on Public Policy made a new alternative proposal to the GST, basing a new tax reform on income tax and an increase that would still be 10 points lower than it was in 1981. I do not know why that could not be considered an alternative tax to the GST.
Again, all members were silenced because, after all, the Minister of Finance speaks as an honourable man. He rejected with scorn and disdain another proposal presented by my hon. colleague from Broadview- Greenwood for a single tax. He says "No, no. That is but a simple book, a simple book that even my back-benchers over there cannot read". Yet, you insist, Mr. Speaker, that he is an honourable man and we must treat him with deference.
What are the objectives the Minister of Finance holds so dear that we must bow and scrape and I dare say grovel with deference, without being able to put across our views? The minister says we must have tax reform. Let us have tax reform.
Over the course of the last four or five years there has been an increase in personal taxes of some 24 per cent. There has been an increase of 62 per cent in personal taxes for low and middle income Canadians while at the same time only an 8 per cent increase for those in the upper income category.
This is the tax reform he would address with the GST. The minister forgot to tell us and his own members-except the two worthy hon. members from Alberta who have already rejected his entreaties-that there has been a decrease of some 4 per cent in the amount of taxes paid by corporations as a percentage of the GDP.
The minister forgot to tell us, even though his estimates pointed out that over the course of the middle 1980s, 1987 for example, businesses were to pay $12 billion in corporate taxes but received $9 billion in subsidies. The minister's tax proposal does not address

April 5, 1990
Time Allocation
that as a reform. According to the budget estimates presented only last month, corporations that were to pay $14.5 billion paid a mere $12.5 billion. Is that tax reform?
Another person might have suggested that the Minister of Finance lies, but he is an honourable man and that cannot be said of him.
Let us take a look at what a member of his own party, the member for Halton-Peel, said on national television Sunday night. He said: "We must have the GST. We have to raise more money to reduce the deficit, continue to pay for our educational programs and our medical programs across the country"-those which were cut in this budget-"but we are going to do it because this will give us an opportunity to reduce the deficit and the debt".
The hon. member for Halton-Peel is an honourable man too, but he suffers from excessive ambition. He would take the place of the Minister of Finance.
When we are talking about the effects of the GST, let us leave with a word of caution from members of the tourist industry who say that the implementation of such a tax measure will cause the loss of 30,000 jobs in that particular industry-5,000 in Ontario alone.
Those kinds of actions and consequences are not the marks of an honourable man, and the Minister of Finance does not deserve the title.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate today. I have been listening with great interest to the debate these past couple of days.
I understand the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence standing and mocking the Minister of Finance and trying to make him out as a mean-spirited individual. I understand the Liberals' concern about the current Minister of Finance because he is the best Minister of Finance this country has seen in 40 years. The member is so upset about it because there is not a soul in that caucus who could even tie his shoes.
Who over there would be the Minister of Finance? Would it be the hon. member from the east coast who was on national television to debate the Minister of
Finance? Is he going to be their Minister of Finance if they ever gain power? The present minister wiped the floor with him in Edmonton. There he is, he just came into the House. I welcome him. I am glad he is here.
I understand why the Liberals are so concerned about the Minister of Finance. It is because he is good and they know it. He has been an excellent Minister of Finance for this country.
The hon. member talked about the rich getting the breaks. The GST is a consumption tax. I want to educate my hon. friend because he comes from an area of the city where they have high-income and low-income people. He has a mixed constituency, much like I have. The GST is a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. The more expensive the things you buy are, the more tax you pay.
Who is going to be paying more tax under the GST? The wealthy, of course they are. He failed to point that out in his little diatribe. Of course that is what a consumption tax is all about.
Tbday we are debating time allocation. The reason that the government has brought in time allocation is for the very reason that you hear from across the floor of the House. The Liberals brought in a series of motions to negate each clause in the bill. That is all that was in these motions. They did not make amendments to improve the bill, but strictly to wipe out the bill.


Mr. Gauthier:: Scrap the tax, that's what we want.


John Horton McDermid: They had an opportunity to do that with their votes, but, no, they would not participate.
The other thing about the Liberal Party of Canada is that it has no alternatives-absolutely no alternatives whatsoever.


Mr. Mills:: How can you say that with a straight face?


John Horton McDermid: They had no alternatives to the free trade agreement. Everybody remembers the former leader standing there and saying: "I'm going to tear it up. I'm going to tear it up".
Now, the candidates for the leadership of that party are going around the country saying: "We are going to wipe out the GST". I am going to tell you, one of the things they are not saying to the Canadian people is what
April 5, 1990

they are going to put in its place. Not one of them has said that.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is not true.


John Horton McDermid: Except le p'tit gars de Shawinigan. He said very clearly: "We must be sure. We cannot wipe it out."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not think it is too parliamentary for a member of Parliament to use that kind of facial expression. I think that is mockery. I do not think it is parliamentary at all.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my friends that I have been in the House many times when Eugene Whalen used to get up and do exactly the same thing. I am not making fun of my friend, Mr. Chretien. I am impersonating Mr. Chretien when he says he would not wipe out the GST if he became the leader.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is not what he said.


John Horton McDermid: Sure, that is what he said. His mouthpiece from Toronto has moved from his back-bench seat to the front row so he can heckle me. He can heckle all he wants. I am going on with my speech.
The Liberals would negate the bill, they have no alternatives.
Let me turn to my good friends from the socialist party. The socialists in this country have made it very clear from day one-they have been right up front with it, and I have to give them full marks for that-they would do everything to obstruct this bill-absolutely everything. They are not here to debate it. They are not here to try to improve it. They are here strictly as obstructionists.
A government was elected to do the business of the country, and that is what we are doing. That is why we brought in time allocation. It is obvious that they are not interested in debating the bill in an intelligent way. We have gone through a major consultative process on this bill. We have, for many years, been consulting all sectors of the economy on the goods and services tax. It is now time to get on with it.
We have some government amendments that have been introduced which improve the bill. They come from suggestions and consultations in the finance committee
Time Allocation
under the able leadership of the hon. member for Mississauga South.
I will tell you, that is another thing members of the opposition are upset with. We have a great chairman of the finance committee, and they do not like him at all. It is too bad. He has done a marvellous job, and this country understands that he has done a marvellous job.
I might say that during the committee hearings we had some excellent representations from witnesses. They have provided us with suggestions for improvement. We will see those improvements in the amendments that are brought forward to make the GST operate better and more fairly in this country.
Governments have to make tough choices, tough decisions. We understand that they may not be popular with the people. But there comes a time when the government has to make a decision for the economic well-being of this country. That is what we have done.
I read with great interest this morning my media pundits saying that our caucus is falling apart, that our caucus is disintegrating because of the goods and services tax. There is nothing further from the truth. The Progressive Conservative caucus is solidly behind the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister on the goods and services tax.
You know what? I will tell you. The caucus members met regularly with the Minister of Finance, and also with the chairman of the finance committee, and made some very positive suggestions which improved the goods and services tax. Members of our caucus did that. They were very productive. They were very positive in their approach. They did not have this negativism that we get from the other side, which has absolutely no alternative. There have been no alternatives whatsoever from the Liberal party, or from the New Democratic Party that make any sense.
I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, and I want the media to understand this, as well as the Liberals and the New Democrats, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative caucus is solidly behind the Minister of Finance and the government in this motion today.
We watch what is going on in those two parties, and their leadership convention. We see them fighting over one another all the time. They should be taking a look at

April 5, 1990
Time Allocation
themselves before they look at the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mr. Nault:: Eighty per cent of Canadians are against the tax. That's a good job in six years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member for Kamloops is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I must not have understood the news media last night. I thought I was watching and hearing members of the Progressive Conservative caucus who indicated they were not voting in favour of the GST. When my hon. friend says that the caucus is uniformly in solidarity behind this measure, obviously he is not speaking the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that is debate. The minister has one minute left.


John Horton McDermid: Certainly we know it is debate. We know who he is talking about. Ele is talking about someone who, from day one, has opposed the goods and services tax and who has been sitting on the outside of the whole debate and has not participated in a positive way, like the other members of the caucus have. The caucus is not disintegrating, I can assure my hon. friend of that. As much as he would like to see it, it just is not happening.
Finally, what we are seeing across this country is that approval for the goods and services tax is growing. It is growing through the understanding of how the system operates and how it works.
I received a letter recently from a small businessman, a manufacturer in my community who said: "I have done as you suggested and prepared a cash flow statement for 12 months under the present federal sales tax system and also one under the proposed GST. It appears that this is a case where I am glad to say I was wrong. Quarterly remittances makes a big improvement on our cash flow"-it is about 34 per cent by the way-"and offsets the outlay of cash when raw product is purchased. The GST tax credit on office supplies, et cetera, makes very little difference to our particular company but I can see in other operations it could be significant."
That is what is happening across this country as the small business community understands that this is going to be a great improvement. I can tell you, by 1992 the
Canadian people will be pleased that we brought this system in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the minister if he could table that letter so we can all see it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. minister like to mail the letter to the hon. member?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I did not read from it, I ad libbed around the essence of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk a bit about the goods and services tax in the short time I have to speak on this. I say a short time because, quite frankly, many of my colleagues on this side of the House have been lining up to speak on this bill and have not been given the opportunity to do that because of time allocation.
I will start my remarks by talking about the government's attitude toward time allocation and its use of it. Since I was elected to this House, the government has used time allocation or closure 35 to 40 times. That is an appalling number of times to limit debate. Canadians want us to stand up and speak on their behalf on these issues. Yet time and time again this government has brought in time allocation to limit our abilities to discuss the issues.
The GST issue has only been debated in the House at report stage for 46 minutes, and we are already debating time allocation.
There are many serious concerns that the people of Haldimand-Norfolk want me to express about the GST. I have had various meetings throughout the riding with them.
I want to centre on three issues dealing with its effects on agriculture, seniors and our small business people. These are the people in riding who have come to me to express their concerns about the GST.
Farmers will now have to pay the GST on fertilizers, chemicals, fuels, lubricants, equipment repairs and all other general maintenance. To receive rebates, farmers will have to chase down every single receipt for money they paid in order to receive any funding back from the government.
April 5, 1990

Farmers have told me time and again that this is going to be an extreme burden on their abilities to farm. Instead of taking the time to deal with proper farming methods, they are going to have to be bookkeepers. They are going to have to be accountants. This tax puts an undue burden on them. The farmers of Haldimand- Norfolk wanted me to express that to you, Sir.
As Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Brigit Pyke told the finance committee: "Their cash flow position could be considerably worsened, forcing them to borrow money in order to pay the tax." This is a real problem for agricultural communities.
Then there is the massive paperwork burden. As the president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers put it: "We'll be doing our books every spring instead of riding a tractor".
Farmers already have a cash flow problem, as we have discussed in this House, and this government has decided to take away the interest free advances that farmers, especially in my riding, count on.
Now the government brings farmers the GST. With it, the money that farmers need to put out to get their crops planted and harvested will now be used to pay taxes. If they want rebates quickly, they will have to do their books on a monthly basis and they will never be compensated for this time and effort.
Farm equipment dealers told the finance committee that the GST will mean an additional $40 million in interest and paperwork costs to their industry. Allen Hills of the Canadian Federation of Farm Equipment Dealers of Canada said: "We cannot afford to absorb any more costs. Either the farmers will pay or some dealers will have to go bankrupt".
The government is not totally heartless when it comes to farmers though. If farmers decide to give up the farm completely, to sell all their land to another farmer or a relative, or if they are forced out of the business, then they do not have to pay GST. But if farmers decide to stay on the farm and try to make a go of it by selling off part of their land to a developer or to any other business to pay for the additional costs of farming that the GST will force upon them, the sale will then be subject to the GST.
The government has stated that basic food prices will not rise as a result of the GST. But if the costs, in both time and money, of growing food rises, surely either the
Time Allocation
food prices will rise or the burden will be put on the farmer.
As badly off as the farmer will be, he will not be alone. As I said, I have had many discussions with different seniors groups in Haldimand-Norfolk and, quite frankly, Sir, they are outraged with this tax. They have lost respect and confidence in this government. The government that told them that social programs were sacred was the same government that attacked our elderly with the clawback and is now attacking them with the GST.
I and my caucus have met with different seniors organizations. Jean Woodsworth, president of the One Voice Seniors Network, said: "The tax on goods and services means hardship on seniors. It seems that low and middle-income seniors will be pushed toward poverty. The proposed tax credits do not reassure them- meanwhile, wealthy Canadians will be paying proportionately much less, and that's just not fair."
The GST proposal is not fair. It is not fair to seniors, it is not fair to farmers and it is not fair at all to the small business people, especially those in my riding.
I had a meeting recently with them in Simcoe where we discussed this tax. Quite frankly, 99.9 per cent of them were against the GST. They had very valid reasons. They were concerned by the cost that the GST would put upon their small businesses, which now need cash flow. They are concerned that government programs to assist them with purchasing things like cash registers will not be in place and that the cost of maintaining this GST will be much more than any rebate that the government gives to them, and they voiced these concerns to me. Mr. Bulloch, who appeared before the committee, gave many differing reasons why small business was against the tax. I do not want to go through them, but I do want to quote from a speech of his in which he outlines the stand of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He said:
The measures proposed to assist small businesses with implementing the tax-would be a reasonable attempt to offset the regressive compliance implications of a single-tiered sales tax. They do not, however, begin to offset the actual costs that will be imposed on small firms by a two-tiered tax system.
Even the government and the Minister of Finance, early on indicated that they would not bring in a two-tiered tax system. It was his idea that if you could negotiate with the provinces and get some sort of agreement on this, then that would be the best approach to take. Quite frankly, he has failed to do that. As a

April 5, 1990
Time Allocation
result, he has put in jeopardy small business people in Canada, and those in my riding.
I see my time is coming to an end. Before I finish, I want to quote a constituent of mine who called the GST hotline to get information on the GST. He is a small businessman. He said: "While they gave me very good information on certain questions I had, one person asked me if there was any other country I would like to live in. I happen to be a third generation Canadian, going back to the early 1800s. My father served in World War I and I served in World War II and I do not appreciate being asked this question just because I had opposition to the GST".
Quite frankly, that question portrays the attitude of this government toward those who oppose it. Instead of listening to opposition concerns, taking them in and trying to develop some sort of alternative that might reflect what small businessmen, seniors and farmers are saying out there, it brings in closure instead. It brings in time allocation to stop debate on this issue.
There are other approaches. There are approaches and alternatives that have been put out by different groups. I think that these should have been discussed. The process should have started with discussion, first, and then the alternatives.
Our party does have an alternative to the GST. We want to scrap the tax. We want to open discussions, talk with Canadians, small businessmen, farmers and seniors about their concerns. I think that is the proper approach.
I see you are signalling that my time is up. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on this question.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I will not hide from you that I am more convinced than ever that it is important to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
I am even more convinced because of what I just heard the previous speaker say. His statements and allegations are totally unfounded and so erroneous that I am more determined than ever to get the debate over with, because these falsehoods are likely to frighten our
people and have nothing to do with the legislation we are preparing to pass.
I also deplore the fact that my hon. colleague who just spoke and who is also a backbencher did not take more time to read the legislation a little more thoroughly and report back to his constituents. He gave some examples like farmers and small businesses, but he could have given them clarifications to show that he really represents his riding. But alas, what I just heard from him is false.
So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to pass this bill and to get it over with once and for all.
After years of studies, analyses and reports on the problems of our present system, now more than ever is the time to act, not to talk and distort reality.
In the past few months, we have seen a whole slew of tactics and tricks from the hon. members opposite, and I just heard another example of it.
Did they make statements to improve the bill? They did not. Did they suggest alternatives to the present unfair system? They did not. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard a single constructive remark in all the speeches they have made so far. All they have done is criticize. All they have done is use scare tactics on Canadians, especially on certain groups tire senior citizens. All the delay, all the problems they raised were just a lot of petty politics. This is just one more example of the opposition's traditional tactics of scaring people and not moving an inch, so that we now have this disastrous legacy including our cumulative annual deficits-our national debt-and what they did was merely maintain the tax system we have today that is so unfair to Canadians.
Both opposition parties know perfectly well that we must change the present federal sales tax-a hidden tax-and do so drastically. They know perfectly well we must reduce the deficit-


Mr. Young (Gloucester):: You increased it by 45 per cent since 1984.


Yvon Côté: -and control our debt so we can get rid of it altogether. However, in their, I would say, cynical campaign against the GST, spokesmen for these two parties have tried to scare, as I said earlier, the most vulnerable members of our society: senior citizens and low-income families.
April 5, 1990


M. Douglas Young: Is the FTQ scaring people in Quebec? Is Louis Laberge trying to scare people in Quebec? Yes or no?


Yvon Côté: I must say, Mr. Speaker, and I heard some reactions just now. I believe that to a certain extent, they scared people. Yes, they did. Remember what they did during the debate on free trade. They scared them then, to a certain extent. They did. However, all the more reason to finish with these enless arguments which are causing considerable concern among Canadians.


M. Douglas Young: We haven't finished yet! Remember the deindexed pensions?


Yvon Côté: Many people do not realize that thanks to the tax credit they will receive, their incomes will go up, although my hon. opposition colleague from the finance committee does not agree.


M. Douglas Young: It isn't indexed.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleagues across the way, who are interrupting me, are proud of what they did? Are they really proud of the scare tactics they used on the most vulnerable people in this country? If they claim to represent Canadians, including the most vulnerable in our society, how can their conscience and sense of honesty let them do and say what they are doing and saying now?


M. Douglas Young: Eighty per cent of Quebecers are against the GST.


Yvon Côté: The answer is clear. They are not responsible people and they do not represent these vulnerable groups because otherwise, Mr. Speaker, they would have suggested alternatives. They would have added constructive amendments. But it was no, always no, until the very end, including the filibuster.


Mr. Boudria:: My colleague proposed 60 amendments.


M. Douglas Young: The Tories are down to 17 per cent in the polls! Twenty per cent of people are for the GST.


Don Boudria: You are even less popular than the GST!


John Horton McDermid: Wait until the election!


M. Douglas Young: When you start flogging your promises again?
Time Allocation


Yvon Côté: So it is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that when they are exposed to this kind of cynicism and tunnel vision on the part of opposition members, Canadians have trouble trusting politicians. Unfortunately, this reflects badly, not just on the opposition but on all parties generally. How can groups that are particularly vulnerable, and how can Canadians in general be expected to trust politicians?


An Hon. Member:: Fewer than 20 per cent are in favour of the GST.


M. Douglas Young: You are down to 17 per cent in the polls.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, just listen to the opposition's violent response to whatever we have to say, and we have a right to say it, Mr. Speaker.
In two or three years, when election time comes around again-and I would advise you, my opposition friends, to listen to what I have to say.


An Hon. Member:: Good for you, Yvon!


Yvon Côté: When election time comes around again, in two or three years, I am convinced that once again, the vast majority of Canadians will put their trust in a government that has acted responsibly, that had the courage to do what is necessary, what others before us failed to do, thus leaving us with this deficit and this national debt.
Mr. Speaker, as long as politicians base their decisions on partisan and purely political considerations, we will have governments that are not responsible, that are powerless, and we should not be surprised at the kind of legacy such governments leave to the electorate they claim to represent and whose well-being they claim to defend. I repeat, in two or three years, we-when I say we, I mean Canadians, except for the opposition-will appreciate the competence and courage of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 12.31 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) have expired.

April 5, 1990
S. o. 31
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
April 5, 1990


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to recent budget cuts to various social and educational programs. This government has cut important programs for our aging veterans, is diminishing our native people's ability to communicate with themselves and others, has cut women's programs which provide support for battered and sexually assaulted women and for jobless, illiterate and homeless women in Canada.
Furthermore, this government has cut important educational programs and, in particular, has cut funding to the summer group exchange program. This program has permitted students to learn English and French through exchanges between Quebec and Ontario.
I wonder, with others, why this government cut funding to a program which promotes bilingualism, tolerance and understanding among our young Canadians. This year, because of government cut-backs, 18 school boards were forced to drop the program eliminating the participation of over 800 students.
At a time when relations between English and French speaking Canadians are strained, we are seeing an assault by this government on a program which promotes greater understanding, tolerance and acceptance.
The Commissioner of Official Languages this week accused the government of failing to take the necessary measures to promote the intent of our Official Languages Act. I ask the government to accept the just criticism and, as a first step, reinstate the necessary funding to promote student official language exchanges.



ROUGE RIVER VALLEY

Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the need to take steps to improve our environment and to protect the natural beauty of this country for future generations.
The creation of the Rouge River Valley system is an important victory that will preserve 10,500 acres of river valley in close proximity to Canada's largest city. This victory was only achieved after decades of effort by many people and all levels of government.
When we look at this triumph, we can see the tremendous effort we all must be willing to put forth over the next years if we are to make real progress in solving our environmental problems.
In this effort, I wish to acknowledge the member for Scarborough Centre who worked tirelessly to bring about real solutions to this difficult environmental problem.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this government appears determined to force Canadians to swallow the goods and services tax, despite the obvious negative effects it would have on the health of our economy, despite protests from all sides, and despite the general feeling that it is a rotten tax.
This exercise of having the GST rammed down our throats has left a lot of us feeling pretty sick. In fact, even some Conservative members of the House are showing signs of nausea. At the same time, we have heard that any Tory member who misses the final GST vote will be asked to produce a note from his or her doctor. In other words, they are going to be dragging themselves here even if they are at death's door.
As someone who cares sincerely about my colleagues, I am urging hon. members to play it safe. If you are feeling too disgusted to vote for the GST, I am sure that we can come up with a doctor's note to get you off the hook.



AGRICULTURE

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government in one year has cut back its commitment to agriculture by 57 per cent, a drop of $1.8 billion.
The Ontario soybean growers report that current prices are 14 per cent below the five-year average, 25 per cent below that of a year ago, and that several areas were hit hard by drought and excessive moisture last year. Likewise, the Ontario com producers marketing people

April 5, 1990
note that the yields from last year are down 30 per cent to 60 per cent due to continued drought across 13 counties, and that the Niagara-Haldimand area and Essex were critically damaged due to excessive moisture last spring. The income of com producers in Ontario is currently only 28 per cent of pre-1985 levels.
Although grain and oilseed producers in Ontario are encouraged that the government has finally made an announcement of possible aid, the "if" factor of the government's proposal has left them vulnerable and does not address immediate planting problems.
To date, there has been no indication of how much assistance has been earmarked for Ontario or what mechanisms will be used to determine levels or the nature of that assistance. These critical questions need answers immediately from the government.
The time for stalling is over. Canada's producers need a firm commitment rather than one that makes them pawns for the cynical hard ball tactics of the federal government against the provinces.



WORLD HEALTH DAY

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Canada celebrates on Saturday, April 7, World Health Day, which has for its theme "Your Health and the Environment" and for its slogan "Think Globally and Act Locally".
About 1,000 to 2,500 children under the age of five years in developing countries die every hour from diarr-hoeal disease caused by lack of safe water. About one million people are poisoned each year from contact with pesticides of whom between 5,000 and 20,000 die.
Indeed, environmental problems are now the world's major causes of diseases, death and dislocation. Industry poses the danger of chemical contamination and toxic waste. Burning fossil fuels causes the greenhouse effect.
Destruction of the environment by creating deserts and raising the level of the sea will force people to move from their homes.
This year's theme challenges all concerned to embark on an awareness program to highlight the measures citizens and countries must take to stop further damage
to our planet and to spotlight the viable options for sustainable development.
As parliamentarians, let us accept the political prescription: the challenge to us to act locally in matters of health and the environment is great; the challenge to us to think globally when we act locally is greater.
"No man is an island, entire of itself", wrote the 17th century poet, John Donne. As we celebrate World Health Day, let us recall and live his message.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as members will know, the task force report of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre was released this past Monday.
The report highlights that Canada's future economic growth and prosperity will increasingly depend on a highly skilled and adaptive labour force. Yet, to meet the demands of an evolving work environment, Canada needs a new attitude and approach to training our labour force. Our current national training effort sorely lags behind that of our major competitors.
It is imperative that our government show leadership in this respect. We must work with the provinces as well as with business and labour to realize the fundamental recommendations of the CLMPC report.
Through a new institutional framework, policies and programs, we can help Canadians adapt effectively to the changes in occupational and skills requirements which they will face in the future.
I urge the members of this House, and indeed all Canadians, to read the CLMPC report. Many of the recommendations demonstrate the urgency and vitality of an effective and comprehensive skills training strategy for our future economic well-being.



FISHERIES

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, details of the government's long awaited relief package for the Atlantic fishery are trickling out. In what we have seen so far, there is no mention of any plan to upgrade the role of the Department of Fisheries and
April 5, 1990

Oceans in any of the areas where there should be, one of which relates directly to seafood marketing.
Had this government not directed the department in 1986 to relinquish its traditional leading role in marketing, Atlantic fishermen might be in a better position to harvest profitably the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish currently allocated to foreign boats as underutilized species. Instead, we now see groundfish plants closing because they are dependent on traditional stocks.
This is a question of taking responsibility. The government does not dispute the fact that this crisis is a result of its poor scientific analysis. In order to ensure that as many fishermen and plants as possible can stay in the fishery until the stocks recover, the government must also take the responsibility for helping hard pressed Atlantic Canadians diversify their seafood product lines and establish new markets.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed the Prime Minister of this country flying all the way to Alberta, without passport, to urge MPs in Alberta to support the GST. The Prime Minister's advice was not heeded by a significant number of Tories. I am urging members in this House to consider the pitfalls if they go along with that advice.
Just think if they support the government and the GST is passed. Not one of the Liberal candidates running for leadership has said that if they were Prime Minister they would cancel it. What we have is the government urging those western members of Parliament to become part of the kamikaze squad. They will die so that the Liberals can live, and Canadians can't stand it.



THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, at the June 1988 Changing Atmosphere Conference in Toronto, the best scientific minds from around the world
concluded that we should globally reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Two years later, at a ministerial conference just concluded, the federal energy minister argued that Canada should wait. For what, for whom, and why?
This is another example of indecision and division. On the one hand the environment minister issues a well intentioned but weak discussion paper on the environment saying that if we do not take action soon on global warming, it may be too late. On the other hand the energy minister declines to give leadership on the environment and declares that national restrictions on greenhouse gases are premature.
So far this government's statements on the environment are empty words. What a sham.



AIR TRANSPORT

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, Alitalia Airlines appeared no longer interested in the Rome-Montreal air connection and was even planning to vacate its Montreal head office.
Following this announcement, representatives and travel agents within the Italian community decided to take up this challenge.
An Urgence Pro-Alitalia committee was formed and I personally travelled twice to Rome, together with a delegation, to meet the top Alitalia executives.
It is clear, in the present circumstances that the new Alitalia officials do not realize the importance of Quebec as a reliable, constant and cost-effective market.
After listening to our representations, the Alitalia executives reverse their decision; they will maintain, for the time being, the Montreal-Rome air connection.
We have won a battle granted but not the war!
Alitalia Airlines will surely try again, because it wants more flexibility on the new bilateral agreement which is to be negotiated within a couple of weeks.

April 5, 1990
I have told the Ministers of Transport that we should accept a new and more flexible agreement, provided we are not penalizing Quebec, Montreal and Mirabel, and certainly not the Italian community which I represent.



FORESTRY AGREEMENTS

Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to continue in its efforts to renegotiate the lapsed forestiy agreements between the federal government and the provinces.
In recognition of the importance of this issue, I would like to advise that there was a unanimous recommendation from the forestry subcommittee that we in the strongest terms express to the minister our continued support for his efforts to renegotiate this agreement. It would be unthinkable if our provinces were in any way to allow these programs that are so valuable to our environment as well as our economy to lapse.
The minister has our support. I ask him to get those agreements.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, during the past 24 hours I have heard protestations of anguish from members opposite about the government's use of time allocation to conclude the debate on the GST bill.
At the same time, the unelected Liberal majority in the Senate is endlessly delaying Bill C-21, thereby costing unemployed Canadians thousands of dollars that they need and deserve.
Now we have the member for LaSalle-Emard, in his quest for the leadership, calling on the Senate to ignore the will of the democratically elected House by blocking the GST bill.
Meanwhile, the little guy from Shawinigan does not like the GST, but he would not scrap it.
This morning on CTV, Senator Kirby said the Senate should hear from those Canadians not heard by the finance committee. Yet, the Senate committee on Bill C-21 heard 54 of the same witnesses as had been heard by the legislative committee of this House.
The Liberals may be confusing themselves. They are not fooling Canadians. That is why this party is in power, and that is why this government will be re-elected.



PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT

Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on an efficient government.
The reason I rise today in this House is to remind Hon. Members that last week, within the context of a federal-provincial initiative, the Federal Government showed leadership by entrusting the private sector with the management of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment through the awarding of several contracts for the purchase of life annuities.
The purpose of this program is to provide a regular and steady income to working men and women between the age of 55 and 64 who permanently lose their jobs as a result of mass lay-offs.
Mr. Speaker, it took only nine months from the time the legislation was passed to the time the first cheques were issued.
By having the private sector look after the management of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, the Government did not have to set up a new bureaucracy thus saving additional costs which would have been spread over a couple of years.
I wish to congratulate the Federal Government for its leadership in this area, and especially Hon. Jean Corbeil, the Minister of Labour, in charge of this project to assist Canadian men and women who have contributed so much to our Canadian society.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister went to Alberta to soft sell the GST. It is obvious that Albertans are not going to be flattered into supporting it.
As the final vote for the GST approaches, we see how Alberta MPs are being strong armed. Albertans are against this GST and do not appreciate the chief government Whip bullying them into line, to oppose the wishes of the democratic majority. We see that two members
April 5, 1990

have already been threatened. We know that other members are being bribed to vote for the GST or risk losing precious lifetime pensions.
By not appointing Mr. Waters to the Senate, by stifling debate on the GST, by imposing it on Albertans against the wishes of 80 per cent of the people, and by the chief Whip suggesting an increase now of $7,000 on their tax-free allowances in times of fiscal restraint to buy anti-GST MPs, this government and the Alberta MPs are doing little to endear themselves to the electorate.



Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in Winnipeg this weekend Jean Chretien continued not to support the fight against the GST. He is refusing to say what he would do if he were the Prime Minister of this country.
We saw the effect of Mr. Chretien's wavering. This afternoon, only 110 Conservatives showed up to vote for the time allocation motion. They won that by 43 votes and 48 Liberals did not show up to vote against the government. If those Liberals had shown up, then Tory MPs would have had to go home at Easter, hear from their constituents and would have voted against the GST.
As a public service, I wish to give out Mr. Chretien's campaign number so people can protest the lack of voting by the Liberal caucus. In Winnipeg, the number is area code 204-944-0267, in Vancouver, area code 604-684-8492, and in Montreal, area code 514-844-1990.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
We have learned in recent days that some government members are having trouble representing the concerns of their constituents against the goods and services tax
Oral Questions
because of the strong arm tactics of the Conservative Whip.
Will the acting Prime Minister allow all government members, including those who have these concerns, to vote freely on this legislation? Will he allow a free vote on the goods and services tax?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that this government regards this major economic measure, as governments of which he was a part in the distant past regarded major economic measures, as a question of confidence.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the acting Prime Minister.
The report of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the McGrath report, states:
-government members should be able, without fear of retribution, to amend or defeat clauses in bills; make amendments to bills implementing ways and means legislation;-and reject proposed legislation outright.
Speaking in this House, the Prime Minister said:
I was proud to be able to appoint this committee and, as Prime
Minister, I endorse all its recommendations.
Given that the Prime Minister himself has endorsed the right of government members to vote without fear of retribution and even oppose government legislation, why won't the government announce today that it will allow a free vote of its members on the goods and services tax legislation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition takes considerable liberties with the McGrath report and indeed with the traditions of Parliament which he well understands in regard to questions of confidence.
He will also remember that when his former colleague, the former member of Parliament for West-mount, had serious disagreements with a matter of fundamental policy in that party, he found it within himself to act in an honourable way and to dissociate himself from the Liberal Party caucus. That is the tradition of this place.

April 5, 1990
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I quoted the McGrath report verbatim, and I also used the Prime Minister's exact words in support of this report. So I am surprised that the Acting Prime Minister continues to refuse to allow a free vote on the GST, even after he was reminded that the Prime Minister had spoken in favour of the right of government members to vote freely without fear of retribution.
So I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Will there be a free vote on the GST Bill, and if not, why? Mr. Speaker, there is no real reason, according to what the Prime Minister said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, according to what the Prime Minister said and in keeping with parliamentary tradition, budgetary or economic questions that are of prime importance, or questions on motions presented by the opposition on allotted days are always questions of confidence. It is a well-established principle, accepted by the McGrath Commission. The Leader of the Opposition should stop trying to rewrite history.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Rumours are circulating that the aid package for the Atlantic fishery is a paltry $500 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: That is true. I see the front-benchers laughing. The same front-benchers who provided $21 billion for farm aid out west, I see them laughing.
Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the aid package for Atlantic Canada is more than the paltry $500 million, and in line with the promise of the Prime Minister to be generous and in line with the offer to western farmers? Can he guarantee that?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first, I can guarantee my hon. friend that the aid package for the Atlantic fishery will be designed, be prepared and be presented to ensure that the needs of the Atlantic Canadian fishery are addressed and that the needs of the people who depend on the Atlantic Canadian fishery are addressed.
The amount of money is not what guides this government. It is the concern for and understanding of the fishery that will guide the policy of this government.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the government would put its money where its mouth is, it would be fine because all it has offered so far is $130 million to move people to Toronto.
Will the parliamentary secretary guarantee that the government will live up to the promise of the Prime Minister for a generous settlement, which is far in excess of $500 million?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, the mere $130 million is designed to address the immediate needs of the people in the communities of the Atlantic provinces who have been hurt by the problems that we all acknowledge we face in the fishery.
We have provided not only unemployment insurance, training, mobility, but community funds as well, so that the communities of Atlantic Canada can put together responses in which all of us can participate to address community based solutions for the problems in Atlantic Canada and that we know there is a future for communities in all our provinces. I think that is the wish of all members.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance keeps on saying that his tax will not hurt low- and middle-income people. We all know that it is not going to be so. Not only is the GST credit inadequate, but we just learned that the provinces could consider it as income and tax it. That would be the case in Quebec.
Can the minister confirm that this is what will happen?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm very clearly that if the province of Quebec or any province treats this as taxable income, we would look to my hon. friend as well as to all members of the House of Commons to roundly criticize that approach by the provinces and try to ensure that there is not an attempt by any province to try to take a credit provided by the Government of Canada to offset the impact of the GST on low income earners. I would hope my hon. friend would support us strongly on that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I take it the Minister of Finance is promising to this House that he will take strong action and comments, if provinces do undertake to tax the credit.
The Minister of Finance said in the 1987 budget that profitable corporations should pay their share of taxes. By the end of that year, there was $27 billion in untaxed corporate profits, most of that in the hands of businesses that made over $100 million a year.
Will the government start undertaking to tax large corporations for new tax revenue rather than poor and middle income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those half-truths that the hon. member puts forward.
She talks about the 1987 budget, but she neglects to say that within four months of that budget we brought down a White Paper on tax reform, one of the principal elements of which was to remove a number of the loopholes that corporations were using to reduce then-tax liabilities. The statistics that she and her colleague from Yorkton-Melville use are 1987 statistics, before the corporate income tax reforms took place.
Let me give her two examples of what has happened since then. This year the chartered banks which were paying no tax at that time will be paying about $700 million or $800 million worth of tax. At that time there was no large corporations tax. Now we have a large corporations tax that will raise in excess of $1 billion.
Oral Questions
These are two examples of how this government has introduced fair taxation to ensure that corporations will be paying their fair share of taxes.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, 145 corporations with profits over $100 million each still remain tax-free and are able to write off 100 per cent of their interest costs. Meanwhile, consumers, small businesses and farmers face the goods and services tax that the minister is proposing, and today again an increasingly rising interest rate.
Will the minister now lower interest rates and scrap the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those facile approaches that the NDP periodically talks about where we snap our fingers and we get interest rates down.
If she were honest with herself, she would know that that is not possible. She would know that there is a good deal of inflation in the economy today. There is a good deal of strength in the economy today which is leading to those high interest rates. She knows that if the Governor of the Bank of Canada just suddenly dropped the rates, as she would have him do, we would have a financial crisis on our hands.
That simply is not the way to look after interest rate policy. It is not the approach to monetary policy that we are going to follow as a government, because we are committed to getting inflation down and doing so on a permanent basis so that we can get interest rates down on a permanent basis, which will lead to an ongoing healthier economy.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House will want to join with me in extending our condolences to the bereaved family of Captain Pierre Trottier of Prince-ville, Quebec-the pilot killed in yesterday's crash of a Canadian Forces CF-18.
I have a question for the Minister of National Defence relating to the several crashes of CF-18 fighter aircraft. Canadians have a right to know the problems surrounding these crashes. Will the minister undertake to make

Oral Questions
all reports public on the crashes to date and will he refer these reports to a special commission or public board of inquiry charged with bringing in corrective measures?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I know all members of the House join in the sorrow felt by the wife and family of Captain Trottier in the tragic incident of yesterday.
As the hon. member may be aware, since 1982 there have been nine crashes of CF-18s serious enough where the plane has been written off. These have involved six fatalities. Investigations have been completed in three of these instances and from the information I have, in none of those instances does it appear as though the fault was that of the airplane.
The policy of the department has not been to automatically release the investigation results in such circumstances, although the information is available under access to information.
My colleague, the minister, and I, and senior officials are reviewing this policy and look forward to bringing in policy which may be more responsive while at the same time ensuring the integrity of the investigations and the privacy of those who may be involved.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the CF-18 is a highly technical piece of equipment. Why does the minister's department not allocate more training hours for pilots who are given the responsibility of operating these very sensitive and sophisticated aircraft?
Why would the government want to skimp on training and orientation and risk the lives of highly skilled professionals, to say nothing of the financial investment lost to the taxpayers of Canada?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware that our pilots who fly the CF-18s are highly skilled pilots. They practise on a continuing basis and receive what I think is outstanding training.
There is a requirement for a number of hours to be flown before they can go into a CF-18. There are many hundreds of hours flown each year by each one of our pilots. I believe that they are in fact the best trained within our NATO allies and our incident ratio would
reflect that sophistication and that professionalism of our pilots.


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the race is on now for foreign nations to buy Canadian fishing licences to fish inside of our 200-mile zone, just in case this government gets some starch in its backbone and decides to restrict foreign fishing inside our 200-mile zone as the Harris report has suggested. There are 32 foreign factory-freezer trawler licences issued so far for fishing activity that does not take place until the fall.
My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he realize that Canadian fishermen and Canadian fish plant workers understand that they have to cut back and suffer in order to save our fish stocks but they cannot understand for the life of them why the Government of Canada is issuing licences to foreign countries to fish cod, redfish, turbot and capelin, the very fish that we must conserve? Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs act now and put an end to this run on Canadian fishing licences by foreign countries?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I suppose if one were interested simply in making dramatic statements on the floor of the House of Commons instead of trying to deal with a fundamental and serious problem, one would establish a policy of an all out attack on foreigners in any form, foreign fishermen or others.
The hon. member knows that the practices to which he is referring have to do with obligations that Canada has as a member of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. He will know that there are difficulties now with regard to the degree to which the European Community will respect NAFO quotas. He will know that for us to take the action that he is recommending would mean, in effect, our withdrawal from the NAFO regime.
It would also mean that the efforts that are being undertaken today by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, to try to use the rules and context of NATO to get more respect for our rights under that international regime would be undercut and Canadian interests,
April 5, 1990

including the interests of Canadian fishermen, would suffer dramatically.
He knows that and he should stop trying to make dramatic headlines on the floor of the House of Commons at the expense of the Canadian fishing industry.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, while MPs were attending caucus, five licences were issued, four to Moscow and one to Havana, to catch 12,265 tonnes of fish in the northern codstock zone, including redfish and a by-catch of cod and turbot on the Labrador coast, enough to keep a Canadian fish plant going for an entire year.
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs realize that the Moscow licences permit 1,000 tonnes of northern cod as a by-catch and three million pounds of redfish in 2-J and 3-K, the very fish in the very zone in which we have to cut back? The fishermen want to know what Moscow and Havana have that Fogo, Twillingate and Moreton's Harbour do not have. This is the Canadian government, not the United Nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is also not the OK Corral.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This is a country which, under Liberal governments and Conservative governments, has sought to live by and to enlarge the ambit of international law and international understanding.
I do know about the implications of Soviet fishing here. I do know that for the first time ever the U.S.S.R. has agreed to deliver in 1990 their by-catches for processing at Canadian fish plants.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do know that the U.S.S.R. presence in Canadian water also provides us with about $13 million worth of economic benefits. I think it is more in the interests of Canada to take advantage of those real benefits than to try to score points by attacking Cuba or Moscow.
Oral Questions


ARMED FORCES ADVERTISING
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Associate Minister of National Defence who has condemned her department for its offensive, stereotyped, portrayal of women.
I have two more examples so outrageous that they must represent a deliberate rejection of the federal guidelines. One ad of the Canadian Armed Forces portrays an Afro-Canadian, dressed in civilian clothing, acting as a chauffeur for three white soldiers, including one woman. Another portrays an oriental, dressed as a chef, operating a radio among three uniformed soldiers.
Is that the level of participation that is expected of visible minorities in the Canadian Armed Forces? Is it that their positions should be subservient? Will the minister act to discipline those responsible and bring a halt to it?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member I think already knows, when these ads were brought to my attention I was very annoyed with them, as I am sure he can imagine. They have been cancelled and we have put in place new measures to ensure that in future such advertising will be reviewed at a higher level to give a broader perspective on such advertising.
I would like to say as well that the purpose of the advertising campaign was to show that anyone in Canadian society could be interested in a career as a part-time reservist in the militia, and to show that women and minority groups form part of our reserves. Obviously the method that was used to try to portray that was inappropriate. It has been stopped and I will ensure that it does not happen again.


FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S CENTRES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary question is for the Secretary of State. Once again this government has shown its contempt for women. The minister's office has confirmed that region-

April 5, 1990
Oral Questions
al offices across the country have been told to hire private security guards to protect them from peaceful women's demonstrations.
Will the minister explain to the women of Canada why there is enough money in the Secretary of State budget for rent-a-cops but not enough to keep the doors of women's centres open.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, there is a need to protect the confidentiality and to allow the staff to continue to serve the numerous client groups which recognize how well we have been serving them through the years. On the other hand, we would want it recognized very clearly that while core funding has been discontinued as a consequence of the budget, and we all understand that there were some difficult decisions made, we do have project funding with flexible criteria that are being applied.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Jan Camogursky, Deputy Prime Minister of the Czecho-Slo-vak Federative Republic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Bronius Kuzmickas, Vice-President of the Parliament of Lithuania.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S CENTRES
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It is well known that core funding for women's centres is a provincial responsibility but in some provinces, like my own, the province does not participate. Consequently the budgetary decision to cut core funding for women's centres has left centres such as the Second Storey Centre in Bridgewater in the lurch.
What measures is the minister prepared to take to ensure that women's centres which are providing valuable, important and essential services for Nova Scotians do not have to close their doors?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I indeed have recognized the importance of the women's centres and have also indicated the important role they are playing and will continue to play in our community. The program funding is available and I have encouraged groups to start completing applications which we said we would fast track and even help to complete.
I might say that the Second Story Women's Centre in Bridgewater did complete an application, and submitted it on Tuesday. It was approved yesterday and the cheque will be ready today.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the need for an environmental assessment of the construction plans for a coal-fired power station at Point Aconi, Nova Scotia.
The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans both said no to a similar request for the Oldman River Dam, and the courts told them they were wrong.
This time, will the Minister order a public environmental investigation so that the project can then proceed without damage to the environment and without the chance that it might be stoped half-way, wasting several million dollars?
Will the Minister finally decide to protect the environment?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the very significant Oldman River dam decision, Environment Canada officials are very closely investigating a number of projects which are under way or have been proposed in recent months. As a result of those preliminary investigations it does appear as if the EARP process might well apply to the Point Aconi project because of possible fishery impact. But it is too soon at this time to give a definitive answer.
April 5, 1990


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is over three weeks since the Oldman River dam decision, when the courts clearly told the government what its responsibility is. What is there to question when tonnes of carbon dioxide will be going into the atmosphere? The government likes to brag about conferences, protocols and leadership, but when it comes to action, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is waiting for someone else to go first.
The world's climate cannot wait for this "after you, Alphonse" routine. Will the Minister stop side-stepping his legal and moral responsibilities and get on with an environmental assessment immediately? What more thought is needed?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the decision with respect to the Oldman came down about three weeks ago. That decision, of course, was contrary to an earlier decision of the Federal Court.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members know, the province of Alberta has given indication of its intent to apply for leave to the Supreme Court to appeal. In the meantime, departmental officials in conjunction with other related departments, as I have already said, have been very closely investigating not only how we should respond to the Oldman, which I think is an appropriate deliberation on our part, but how we should also respond to each and every other project which has been proposed within the country that might have implications for the federal government.
We are doing that and those decisions will be announced in due course.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister was quoted last week as saying he would take steps to protect the environment but only if they were, in his words, "doable".
There are many alternative energy conservation measures which help the environment which have proven effective in Canada, Japan and Europe.
Oral Questions
Why does his government continue to cut back on alternative energy and conservation programs?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member would suggest that as a society we can only do those things that are doable within the balance that has to be made, which is the environmental considerations as well as economics.
I think we must keep in mind that development is part of that phrase, "sustainable development".
We had a task force study since 1988, following the Toronto conference, looking at CO2 emissions. The task force study clearly pointed out for example, that we could not meet that 20 per cent target if we also factored in growth. That task force report was released.
I have said as well that according to the best studies we have, energy efficiency, which has to become part of the action plan of the Department of the Environment, and we are working with that department, can reduce CO2.
Our best projections at the present time are about 2 or 3 per cent of the 20 per cent that could be met through that way.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Alternative energy and conservation programs are very popular with Canadians. They protect the environment and they must be given a higher priority than this government has been giving them.
Why does the minister not listen to Canadians when it is clear that they want more, not less money spent on alternative energy and conservation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I already pointed out that an energy efficiency program will be incorporated into the environmental action plan. I will not hesitate to say to the hon. member again that I will not spend money and I am not spending money on the kind of programs that came out of the National Energy Program where there was money spent but very little return in terms of either alternate energy or reduction of CO2. That is why we are changing that policy.
I also point out to the hon. member that if one takes a look at alternate energy, for example in her own

April 5, 1990
Oral Questions
province of Prince Edward Island, there is a program relating to biomass and the commercialization which we have done.
Second, in Alberta, the MDIP program, $28 million, for instance to convert to natural gas and motive fuels, or in British Columbia, for two-cycle engines for highway transport trucks or transit buses, which we are doing in Vancouver, or rapid fueling for example where we can now fuel a bus in four or five minutes. There is the home demonstration demonstration project where a person can-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has a lot of examples.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Minister of Agriculture. Agriculture Canada predicts that farm income across the prairies will drop by some 63 per cent this year. At the same time it states that this government's support for agriculture will be cut by 57 per cent.
Given the fact that 25 per cent of farming families are in some stage of bankruptcy, that spring seeding is about to commence, and given the fact that the new federal agricultural program is nothing more than a carrot that is being dangled in front of farmers and provincial governments, will this government make a real commitment to agriculture this year, or is it simply admitting that farming families in rural communities have been cut off, written off and forgotten by this government?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way we are writing off the farmers. I think that the farmers realize that we are there with them and will stand with them through the difficulties they have had.
As was mentioned in an earlier question about the $21 billion that had been sent to farmers in the past few years, we are there again. We offered a package of $500 million last week to be matched by the provinces. We will stand firm with that. I believe the farmers of this country will respond and do well this year.
I have to mention as well that last November or December, predictions were made about the farm income. Since that time new projections have increased farm income for 1990 by around $200 million. The seed has not been taken out of the bins yet, is not in the ground, and there are all kinds of opportunities for those things to change before this year is out.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. A U.S. barge company has announced plans to ship dangerous chemicals from Detroit to Windsor. Will the minister confirm that in fact his ministry is not prepared to make a decision to provide customs officers to this proposal and is he also prepared to make a commitment that no such decision will be taken until such time as the environmental concerns that have been raised by the city of Windsor are fully dealt with?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been discussions with BTI Barge Operations in Windsor for the possibility of the transportation of goods between Detroit and Windsor. But I want to assure the hon. member and all members of this House of Commons that absolutely no approval will be even considered unless and until all approvals are accepted and run through health, safety and environmental concerns. In other words, every element of health, every element of safety, and every element of the environment must be satisfied even before consideration will be given to the issuance of a licence.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I would like to get back to the regulations of the Official Languages Act. Once the regulations are tabled, they will of course have to be considered by this House or by a committee of the House, before they are published in the Canada Gazette, a process that will probably take several months from the date of tabling. Since this government has abdicated its leadership and is aggravating the language crisis through its failure to act, I want to ask the Minister whether its
April 5, 1990

inaction is caused by the fact that the government is afraid explain to Canadians how the new legislation will be implemented. Is the Government really afraid to explain to Canadians how the Official Languages Act will be enforced in Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member during our last two question periods, we simply want to observe the letter and the intent of Bill C-72, which requires consultation with all language groups in this country, and that is why we need this period of time before the regulations are tabled. A few consultations have yet to take place, and subsequently, the government will table the regulations and follow the procedure provided under Bill C-72.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Canada's major official language groups told us that the consultation process had been finished last Christmas. The Commissioner of Official Languages also expected that process to have terminated last Christmas. I am following the promise made by the minister last year that we would, indeed, have these regulations by Christmas.
After close to two years of negotiations, either the President of the Treasury Board is the all-time expert in delaying tactics or simply a bad negotiator, which I do not believe he is.
Will he now admit that his round of consultation is a sham set up to kill time? Indeed, why is the government taking all this time? The consultations are over. Why are we not given the regulations as agreed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member should note that consultations began early fall, last September as a matter of fact, following the period that was required to draw up a draft set of regulations. We went through the consultations with minority groups throughout the country from coast to coast. Those were completed in late fall.
Obviously, if we are going to consult, it presumes that we are going to listen. If we listen, it presumes that we make some changes. Following that, some of the groups asked for a second round. Not all of the groups, but some
Oral Questions
of the groups asked that we consult with them when the new draft regulations were completed. That is what we are prepared to do. As soon as that is completed, we will table the regulations in this House and follow the process set out by Bill C-72. We are following the wishes of this House.


HOUSING
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. A Winnipeg contractor has been on a hunger strike for eight days. The contractor, Helmut Klug, is locked in a dispute with the federal government stemming from a housing project on a northern Manitoba Indian reserve. In short, Mr. Klug built some 40 houses and he has not been fully paid. Given the gravity of the situation, I want to ask the minister whether he is now prepared to settle this issue once and for all.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the contractor, Mr. Klug, referred to by the hon. member, has contracted with an Indian band. The federal government is involved in a peripheral way through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The contracts involve not only housing, but also include contracts for projects for a sewing factory, medical centre, a band office and other things. The matter is currently under discussion with federal government officials, discussing the matter with Mr. Klug.
I might say as well that the matter is presently before the courts.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the situation has dragged on far too long. I cannot imagine what the government is concerned about. Now we have a situation where a man's health is at risk, and perhaps his life.
Is the minister prepared to ask for a review of this matter and to find a solution that is fair to all parties involved?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been under review for a considerable length of time. The matter is before the courts

April 5, 1990
Oral Questions
presently, and there are discussions going on between Mr. Klug and government officials at the present time.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare responded to questions regarding the safety of the Meme breast implant, about which serious questions have been raised, he twice said:
Statistics show that the failure rate among the Meme breast implants is considerably lower than among every other silicone breast implant.
As a recovered breast cancer victim and patient who has had a silicone implant, I want to ask the minister on behalf of the one in ten Canadian women who will face breast cancer and possibly face the very difficult choice of having a breast implant, could he please tell us definitively that silicone breast implants are safe?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when Dr. Carolyn Kerrigan did a study for the department last year, one of the things she said was this:
There is an urgent need for controlled experimental studies of breast implants to address countless issues regarding their usage. Mandatory information concerning implant composition, degradation, excretion, placement, contracture, infection and others must be determined on a clinically applicable animal model.
The FDA in the United States is doing continuing research with regard to all implants. We are also paying for work to be done in Canada as well.
We will undertake to make every possible effort to ensure that any implant, whether breast implants or other surgical devices, is safe and efficacious before being implanted in Canadians.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, am I to believe then, as a result of the kinds of answers we had yesterday and today, that Canadian women are being used in place of animals for testing implants?
The minister should be aware of the fear he has created by raising and coupling silicone implants with the Meme implant.
He should also be aware that there is a difference between failure and danger. The Meme implant, we are being told, is in fact possibly carcinogenic.
Women who have faced cancer do not need the fear of possibly facing it again as a result of part of the corrective surgery.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the House understand who is raising these fears, and who is suggesting that there is a danger to Canadian women.
It is not I who is suggesting that. It is her colleague who is sitting directly in front of her.
It was her colleague who held a press conference on Monday in which he gave out information. My department to date in looking at his material has found over 20 instances where that information is incorrect.
I offered to give the hon. gentleman a full briefing where all the questions that he had could be answered. Typically, the hon. member did not ask for it first. We had to offer it to him. He has agreed, finally, to have it. I would even indicate to the hon. member as well that she would be welcome to attend as well.
We are confident in the safety of these devices. Instead of raising concerns among Canadian women, and creating false fears, let us work together to get information. Let us have accurate information. Let us not create false fears among women.


Joy Langan: Then you should be accurate in the House.


CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michei):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Canada cannot afford to remain silent when faced with the threat of proliferation and excessive use of chemical weapons in the world. More specifically, the threats by Iraq against Israel are very disturbing and reflect a situation that Canada cannot condone.
Yesterday, in answer to a question on this topic, the minister's parliamentary secretary said:

-this is a point that I will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I think the leadership role that Canada can play in this, as the hon. member suggests, is very timely and important and the Government of Canada would like to do that.
Could the minister tell the House today what exactly Canada's role will be?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was able to talk to my parliamentary secretary as soon as I got back from Montreal yesterday, and I also gave our officials certain instructions.
First, we believe that for the time being, it would be more effective for us to pursue the general question within the context of the Geneva talks on chemical weapons, which we are doing now.
I will continue to look at this question, and as soon as we can usefully raise the matter in the UN Security Council, we will do so.
Third, today I have given instructions that Canada's ambassador in Iraq be called to my department so that we can inform him of our concern about the statement by the President of Iraq.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the time for oral question period has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, the one the House leader is usually asked on Thursday. I would direct it to the Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House, who is still our Deputy Speaker. I would like to know what is on the government's legislative agenda for the coming days until next Wednesday, when we break for Easter. Could he tell us the government's legislative program?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell my hon. friend that tomorrow will be a supply day. On Monday and Tuesday, the government intends to proceed with Bill C-62. As for Wednesday, we will continue our consultations with my hon. friend and
Privilege
the hon. member for Kamloops and we will tell the House once we have reached a decision.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Speaker is prepared to hear further points of order relating to the matter brought before the House this Tuesday by the hon. minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I should make it very clear that I will hear not further points of order, but further argument. I know the hon. member would want to understand that distinction.


Don Boudria: Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, what I want to do is bring a number of further arguments very briefly-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is raising a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege stemming from the comments made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday in response to my question regarding the Meme breast implant.
In response to my question the minister made two comments which attacked my motives and-


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Traditionally, when a point of privilege is raised we ask that the people involved be here. Unfortunately, we did not have any notice of this particular question of privilege, and I am afraid the Minister of Health is not here. Perhaps it could be set off until we can arrange for his presence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary raises a point which is customary in this place. I wonder if the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing would extend to his colleague, the minister, that courtesy. Perhaps both the minister and the hon. member could liaise through my office and we could arrange to have the matter heard at the earliest convenience to both the

April 5, 1990
Point of Order
member who has properly filed his notice and to the minister.
Is it agreed?


Chris Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not informing the minister. I do not think my office did that and I will be happy to do as Your Honour suggests.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the courtesy the hon. member has extended.


An Hon. Member:: The minister is here now.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister for not notifying him of my intention to raise this point of privilege, and I appreciate his coming back into the House to address it.
The point arises from comments that the minister made yesterday in response to my question regarding the Meme breast implant. In response to my question the minister made two comments which attacked my motives in raising this issue. In addition, he made statements which were misleading in themselves.
The hon. minister accused me of making false allegations. I hope you will permit me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out why the minister wrongly characterized my statements as being false allegations.
Studies at both the University of Florida and Laval University indicate that the foam covering the implant breaks down within the body producing a carcinogenic compound.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the exchange yesterday. In fact I have it in front of me.
The hon. minister said that the allegations made by the member who was questioning him were false. Those statements did not carry with them the suggestion that they were intentionally false or dishonest, that they were wrong or incorrect. That happens very often in exchanges in this House on both sides.
I have to say to the hon. member that unless he has something more serious than that I do not think he can pursue this very far. Certainly, a question of privilege is not a place to get into debate on the relative merits of medical evidence.
I will hear the hon. member further.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. Of course it is difficult to respond to an accusation of being false without getting into some of the details, but I am happy not to do that.
The minister also accused me of being irresponsible.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. That happens in preambles day after day in this House. The hon. minister may be absolutely wrong, and I am prepared to accept at least prima facie the position of the hon. member that he is not irresponsible, but that is getting into debate. It is not a question of privilege.
I do not think I need to call on the minister.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would love to respond.


POINT OF ORDER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I indicated a few minutes ago that I wished to comment briefly on the point of order raised by the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
There are two points I would like to raise very briefly in relation to the message from the Senate and the proposed amendments to Bill C-21.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier has expressed quite eloquently his opinions as to why the royal recommendation issue is not a valid one to start with, simply because in large measure the amendments proposed by the Senate do not have an impact in the manner in which the minister suggested.
I want to bring one additional point in a somewhat different area of concern. The minister stated in the House as reported at page 10140 of Hansard for April 3, 1990:
Had these amendments come from a member of this House, I am
sure that citation 698(5) of Beauchesne's sixth edition would have
been invoked to rule them inadmissible. They are clearly contrary to
that principle of the bill.
He said as well that the royal recommendation of Bill C-21 was infringed upon by the decision of the Senate. He also backed up these comments based on Erskine May and Beauchesne and referred to the fact that this
April 5, 1990

was contrary to parliamentary precedents, not only here in Canada but at Westminster as well.
I take exception to those remarks. First, the twenty-first edition of Erskine May states at page 693 the following:
Unless the recommendation of the Crown enjoined by Standing
Order No 46 -
-that is the British Standing Order, of course.
- has been signified, the Speaker cannot propose the question on a motion which comes within the scope of this standing order. Accordingly, if any motion is offered to be moved which requires but fails to receive the Queen's recommendation, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed on the motion.
Clearly this means that this issue cannot be voted on by this House without having a royal recommendation or, as it is described in Erskine May, a recommendation from the Crown.
If such a recommendation is required, I would suggest that the recommendation would only have to be included with the bill at the time, or prior to us disposing of the question, not as to whether or not the issue can be presented before the House. In any case, the member for Ottawa-Vanier has spoken on the second issue as to whether the recommendation is necessary to start with.
I want to back this point up further by raising the following with the Chair. I have in hand a copy of a bill presented in the British House of Commons, entitled, The Rights of Way, Agricultural Land Bill. This is a private member's bill, introduced and passed at second reading in the British House of Commons. I am prepared to table this bill with the Chair.
Indeed, the bill does spend public money. It states: "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to the provisions of this act," and so on. This section of the bill is written in italics. I am informed by an officer of the British House of Commons, namely, Mr. William McKay, the Clerk of Journals, that the precedent used in the British House of Commons is that this bill could only be passed at third reading if accompanied by such a royal recommendation.
It does not prevent the introduction of the bill. It does not prevent the bill being debated at second reading, or in committee, oranywhere else,s ave and except the
Point of Order
completion of the debate at third reading and then the subsequent taking of the vote.
The minister said earlier that the precedents in both Canada and Britain would stop a private member from proposing an amendment that spends money. Of course a private member cannot initiate a tax. Of course a private member cannot present a budget, and so on. That is well known and not at issue here.
What is at issue is whether or not a bill or an amendment proposed even by a private member of this House could be dealt with by this House if it has as an incidence, rather than a cause, the expenditure of certain funds.
Clearly, the precedents that the minister has used to back up his argument are wrong. I have proven it here, I believe, with this private members' bill, which I will table with the Clerk or present to the Speaker, if he wants a copy of it.
Therefore, what the minister has invoked is inappropriate in my view.
Second, and I do not intend to repeat the comments of my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, a clear case has not been made anyhow as to whether a royal recommendation would be necessary to start with. Even if it were, I suggest that that in itself should not be grounds for the House denying consideration of these amendments offered to us by the Senate.
It could be that in its final judgment the government will decide that it does not wish to provide such an accompanying royal recommendation if, again, one is required, which has not been established. If it decides that, that is its prerogative. The government can state that, if it is its wish, but it should not state that it is contrary to the rules for the Senate to at least present its case before this Parliament.
Those are the few points that I wanted to make. I hope that the Chair will consider this argument, as well as the one which has been presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I am sure other comments will be brought to the attention of the Chair by other hon. members this afternoon.
In summary, I do not think that the government has so far presented the Chair with a case which would lead the Chair to conclude otherwise than that these amendments are perfectly in order and can be considered by the House. If the House later decides to defeat the amendments, then the House can deal with the fact that

April 5, 1990
Point of Order
perhaps it will get no legislation at all. That is for the House to decide. In any case that should not prevent us from at least considering the amendments proposed to us by our colleagues in the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may assist hon. members, I will hear the rest of the argument from the Official Opposition. I will hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, then I will move to my hon. colleague who I know is going to present some wrap-up arguments for the New Democratic Party in the absence of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I also indicate that I would like to add at some point five or six minutes' worth of comments.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps in carrying on in the usual tradition, I could call on the parliamentary secretary after arguments are completed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice yesterday that I wanted to add some brief comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Again?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No more than you will do, but just as many.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought yesterday I got the point. I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier first.


Mr. Milliken:: I think he is prepared to let me go ahead, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker is much helped by the agreement between colleagues in the Official Opposition. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the points that have been raised by the government House leader. I may say that it has been helpful to have an opportunity to review the comments he made because he referred to so
many authorities in his speech the other day. I thought that I was going to have to spend hours reviewing them to find out exactly what point he was-


Mr. Speaker:: Despite what the hon. member may have thought, I hope he has managed to adjust his thinking for this afternoon. I am sure the Speaker does not need to hear a commentary on all those authorities.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is the point of my comments, Mr. Speaker. I think that the member got carried away. I find it hard to believe that he read all the authorities, not because he could not have done so in the time he had available, but because if he had read them, he would not have cited them in support of the arguments he was putting forward, in my view.
There are basically five points I would like to make to Your Honour in connection with the arguments he made. First, there is the question of the point of order. I want to stress the general rule that a point of order in this House must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. In support of that I rely on citation 321 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which reads as follows:
321. A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in this case the Senate message rejecting this bill and suggesting amendments to it was sent back to this House.
On March 12 the government moved a motion rejecting certain of the amendments and accepting certain other of the amendments and stating for all the world to read what the government believed were the principles of the bill. I will come to that later.
That resolution was debated for two days in this House. The government invoked closure on March 13, when it was passed and the message was sent back to the Senate.
If the amendments that were proposed by the Senate were out of order at that time, I submit that it was the duty of the leader of the government in this House, to stand on his feet and object to those amendments.
Indeed, being a modest man, I am very reluctant to quote my own words. But on March 13, in the course of my contribution to the debate, I said exactly that. I know
April 5, 1990

Your Honour will have read these words, but I refer the Chair to page 9247 of Hansard where it states:
I suggest that any member of this House could have moved any of
the amendments that have come down to this House from the Senate.
We could have moved them at any stage on this bill, and they would
have been in order. The government House leader knows that full
well.
And he did. He had a choice. He could have proceeded at that time with his resolution and message to the Senate, or he could have argued before Your Honour that these amendments were out of order and asked Your Honour to kill this bill. Yet he did not do it. He chose to take his chances and move the resolution that he did on March 12 and then force it through the House with his substantial majority on March 13.
It seems to me, having taken that step, it was not open to him, given the rule in Beauchesne that a point of order must be raised promptly and at the earliest opportunity, to raise that point the day before yesterday.
The second point is that in effect the House has already made a decision that in fact these amendments are in order. If they were out of order, they had to be out of order before the House adopted a resolution relating to those amendments. Yet on March 13 I believe the minister himself was here and voting. He voted for this resolution which, admittedly, condemned the amendments, but it accepted certain ones and agreed in principle with certain others. Now he is trying to in effect have his cake and eat it too.


Albert Glen Cooper: We always do that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As the parliamentary secretary says, that is the government's continual effort.
That is what happened. There was the minister getting his majority to vote in favour of a resolution to approve certain of these amendments and to deny certain others. Having already voted on this issue the House has made its decision. In so far as this House is concerned, the amendments must be in order. If they were out of order, we should never have had that vote.
If they were out of order, and the House leader believed them to be out of order, and if he believes what he says now-and I invited him to do this on March 13 before the vote-then he had plenty of opportunity to
Point of Order
make this argument. He chose to allow the House to come to a decision on those amendments.
Now he says: "Boy, we won the vote in the House. We have lost it in the other place. Now I want the House to in effect do something it should have done before, that is, rule these amendments out of order," for whatever good that is going to do. I will come to that in a moment.
That is the second argument, and I suggest he is wrong on both those counts.
The question that arises is this. What does the government House leader really want Your Honour to do? That is not clear. He gives reasons why he thinks this is a valid point of order. But does he want Your Honour to say that these amendments are out of order and thereby kill this bill? Or does he want Your Honour to say that the Senate cannot do this and send some kind of message to the Senate?
What is the purpose of this point of order? I think with respect, what Your Honour must look at is the situation that has already obtained in this case. The question of the propriety of these amendments, having regard to the Constitution Act, was argued in the Senate. The Speaker of the other place rendered a decision on those arguments.
Hon. Senators representing the government in the other place stood up and argued before the Speaker of the other place that certain of the amendments proposed by the Senate committee that considered Bill C-21 place were out of order-the very ones that the government House Leader now says are out of order.
The members argued the point in the Senate. There was an extended debate. At the conclusion of the debate the Speaker of the Senate handed down a ruling.
What did he say? Did he say those amendments were out of order? He said that two of them were, which is my recollection of that ruling. Those two were struck out. They could not be presented to this House. But he ruled that all the others were in order.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous our Parliament would appear in the eyes of other Parliaments in the Commonwealth if we had the Speaker of one of the Houses saying that these are proper under our Constitution and the Speaker of the other House saying that they are not proper? Surely, the Constitution is the

April 5, 1990
Point of Order
Constitution. Surely, a legal argument is a legal argument. A legal argument won, I would have thought, in one court is therefore a valid legal argument in all courts.
We do have a doctrine of precedents. I realize that Your Honour, the Speaker of the House of Commons, is not bound by decisions of the Speaker in the other place, but surely they have to be given some weight. Surely, when the point has been argued by learned Senators who know what they are talking about, who have sat in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: My hon. friends opposite would do well to heed the advice of Senator MacEachen from time to time. But that is a matter for them, Mr. Speaker.
Those Senators have served in this House. They know the rules of Parliament. They know the rules of the Constitution. They know the powers under Section 53 of the Constitution. They argued persuasively that these amendments were in order, and I submit that their arguments were correct. The government House leader is trying to bring Parliament into disrepute by having the Houses at odds in so far as rulings from the Chair and interpretations of the Constitution are concerned. I submit that is not the way it ought to be.
I would like to refer Your Honour to what the procedure ought to be in this case. The government House leader should know this, but he is new and perhaps a little lesson or two would be helpful to him.


Albert Glen Cooper: From a member who has been in this House untold years!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As I say, the government House leader is new in his position. The government House leader may have a proven ability on how to make the Post Office make money, but in terms of making this House operate efficiently the jury is way out.
I want to refer the parliamentary secretary and Your Honour to page 216 of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition. There is a section headed "Intercourse Between the two Houses". I would recommend that the parliamentary secretary and the government House leader look at it, because it refers to the practice of having conferences, free conferences and otherwise.
The position now is that if the government does not like what the other place has done to this bill, it has an obligation. It can come to this House and ask us to establish a conference, appointing members to have a conference with the other place, a meeting of managers, in accordance with the rules. I submit that that is the procedure that should be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been noting very carefully what the hon. member says. There is an arrangement, hallowed by custom, between this place and the other place, but that is not the point the hon. House leader raised.
The point he raised is that one way or another the other place has dealt with this bill in a way which is not appropriate and as a result certain consequences flow. I want to hon. member to confine his remarks to that problem, and I know he would appreciate my suggestion that perhaps he could bring his remarks to a close soon.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, of course I accept your admonition. I was simply, on the way by, seeking to help out my hon. friend.
As reported on page 10143 of Hansard for Tuesday, the House leader indicated he had two reasons for objecting and asking Your Honour to rule these amendments out of order. The two reasons were:
First, it provides for an alternate scheme to that proposed with the Royal recommendation. Second, it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by establishing payment from the CRF which was explicitly withdrawn in the 1989 budget approved by this House.
I would like to deal with those arguments because in my submission they are fallacious. First, I would like to deal with the question of whether or not the Senate amendments upset the principle of this bill. The difficulty the minister faces, I submit, is that Beauchesne's defines principle of a bill, and the government is bound by what is already introduced as part of the principle of a bill. I will come back to that one in a moment.
The government House leader is attempting to rewrite the authorities when he defines principles the way he does. He also did it on March 12 when he wrote into the resolution adopted by this House what the principles of this bill were. If Your Honour looks at page 9098 of Hansard, you will see that three principles were enunciated as being the principles of this bill. I submit they are not evident from reading the bill itself. Indeed it is contrary to Beauchesne's for him to suggest that those are principles of this bill.
April 5, 1990

The references in Beauchesne's are quite clear. I refer Your Honour to citation 671(4) of Beauchesne's which states:
An amendment which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of a bill is open to objection.
I submit that these amendments do not in fact change the principle of this bill.
I could cite extensively from Beauchesne. The government House leader referred to several, but I would refer to some others. Citation 698(5) of the sixth edition refers to amendments in committee. It states:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.
In other words, Beauchesne's consistently speaks of the principle of the bill, not principles, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that there is a significant difference. The government House leader has argued that somehow this bill has more than one principle and that the Senate, in dealing with these amendments, has changed those principles.
I would refer Your Honour to what constitutes the principle or object of a bill and again Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, citation 689(3), provides an answer. It states:
The objects (also referred to as the principle or scope) of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill as it was introduced. Amendments, however, are not necessarily limited by the title of the bill.
If Your Honour looks at the title of this bill, you will see that it is an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. All the amendments proposed by the Senate to this bill affect those very same acts.
In other words, the principle of the bill was a series of amendments to these acts and I submit that the Senate amendments are amendments to the same acts and therefore are within the principle of the bill as defined in Beauchesne's, as defined in the authorities in this House.
I think the government House leader is seeking to rewrite the principles in his resolution and then transpose that argument from March 12 and his resolution of
Point of Order
that day to his argument of April 3 on the point of order. I submit that he is not permitted to do that.
The second argument along the same line is whether or not the bill impinges on the royal recommendation. I have already submitted an argument to Your Honour on the necessity for royal recommendations on government bills. I have argued it specifically in relation to a bill arising out of this year's budget and, had I reviewed Bill C-21 with sufficient care before second reading of that bill, I could have argued the same point.
I would like to touch on a simple case. What is the effect of the royal recommendations? Suppose, Mr. Speaker, the government introduced in this House this year a bill to pay Mr. Broadbent a salary of $50,000. Suppose it had to be done by legislation and a bill was introduced that provided for a salary for Mr. Broadbent of $50,000. Would that bill require-


Mr. Speaker:: Maybe we could use some other name. This might cause some embarrassment to our former colleague.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I will use Mr. Jones. I was only referring to him because I know he is now working there and no bill was required for that. However, I will go with Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones is to be paid a salary of $50,000. The government introduces a bill to do it. Is the bill one that requires a Royal recommendation, Your Honour? I think the answer is yes because it provides for a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Suppose that bill has passed, it has been adopted, it is part of the law, and the government wants to change it. It brings in another bill to reduce Mr. Jones' salary to $25,000. Does that bill require a Royal recommendation? No, it does not. The reason it does not, in my submission, is because it reduces the charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. There is no increase so it does not need a Royal recommendation and any member of this House, therefore, could introduce such a bill.
Suppose, in the course of consideration of that bill, there was an amendment proposed to increase the salary from $25,000 to $40,000. Would such an amendment require a royal recommendation? No. My submission is that the answer is clearly no, because there is no additional charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It would be the same as introducing a bill to reduce it to

April 5, 1990
Point of Order
$40,000. It is simply amending a bill that provides for a reduced charge and staying within the terms of the original royal recommendation.
If the Crown originally recommended a charge of $50,000 as being proper on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it can hardly balk if this House chooses to ignore that recommendation and fix the charge at some lesser amount because this House controls the purse strings, this House controls how much can go out, subject to the Royal recommendation.
We cannot spend without Royal recommendation, but having got an authorized limit we can reduce that amount. We can fix it at a lower amount. We do not have to agree with the Royal recommendation. We can choose to authorize less. We can choose to pay less. We can choose to tax less. That is the option this House has always had; it has had it for hundreds of years.
I submit that an amendment to increase the salary from $25,000 to $40,000 in the amending bill would be in order. Would it be in order to increase it to $60,000? No, I think it would not. My answer is clearly no, because that would infringe the Royal prerogative. It would increase the charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund to beyond that encompassed in the original Royal recommendation.
It is precisely that argument, which I hope has been clear to the parliamentary secretary, that must apply to this unemployment insurance bill, Bill C-21. The Senate considered this matter carefully in its report No. 9 of the Senate finance committee to which the government House Leader referred Your Honour and to which I invited Your Honour to have regard in my argument the other day on royal recommendations.
The thrust of that report was very clear, that where there is no increase in the charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund it is within the power of the other place, or a private member in this House, to introduce amendments to bills before this House whether or not there is a royal recommendation attached to them.
My whole purpose in arguing that there was no need for a Royal recommendation in respect to the other bill was that these bills provided for a reduction in the charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
It is a very simple argument but it seems to me fundamental, because if the private members of this House are not able to move amendments to these bills which do stay within the scope of the original royal recommendation, I submit that by putting these royal recommendations on the government is saying: "You are not allowed to make any amendments because this bill has a royal recommendation". That is exactly what the government House leader was saying in his argument the other day. As reported on page 10143 of Hansard, he said the following:
It is the duty of members to protect the the rights and responsibilities accorded to this House, not only by the Constitution Act and our Standing Orders, but by centuries of parliamentary procedure and rulings which have given financial responsibility to the House of Commons.
He suggested that we had to suspend Standing Order 80 and so on in order to deal with these amendments. I suggest that that is just inaccurate and unbelievable. I find it hard to imagine that he would put that argument.
The second last argument I have to make deals with section 53 of the Constitution Act. The act provides, as Your Honour knows, as follows: "Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons".
I stress the word "originate", because in his debate on March 12 the government House leader argued that a bill which was amended in the Senate could not be seen as having originated in this House, that somehow the amendments originated in the Senate, and that therefore it was contrary to section 53 of the Constitution Act. I hope I am not misrepresenting his argument, but that is what it seemed to me he was saying.
What I would like to argue is the interpretation of the word "originate" in section 53, because I think the drafters of the legislation chose those words extremely carefully. Many bills can originate in either House. Bills can be introduced in the other place; bills can be introduced in this House. In that sense bills originate in one place or the other.
However, certain bills can only be brought before Parliament in this House because there is an initial step. That initial step has now been abolished under our rules, so we tend to forget what went on, but the initial step for money bills was always a decision of a committee of this House. In other words, every money bill had to be
April 5, 1990

brought before a committee before it could be introduced in the House of Commons.
I ask Your Honour to cast your mind back. Eveiy tax bill had to be introduced in the committee of Ways and Means. Every bill for appropriating money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund had to be introduced in committee of supply, every government money bill which had a royal recommendation attached-and I am using the words "money bill" loosely-and every bill which imposed a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund but did not grant money out of it, such as the unemployment insurance bill when it was originally introduced, came first through a resolution in committee of the whole.
We have abolished committees of the whole; we have abolished committee of supply; and we have abolished committee of Ways and Means. Before every money bill is introduced-except now under the new procedure, but certainly in Ways and Means and supply-there is a resolution of the House adopted and there is no leave sought in the House to introduce. The bill originates in the House because it comes to the House by a different route. It comes through a committee and then to the House.
That was the standard procedure when the British North America Act was drafted. What we have here is a situation where the framers of the act said that bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing a tax shall originate in the House of Commons. It did not say they shall be introduced in. It said: "They shall originate".


Mr. Speaker:: I am listening carefully to the hon. member. I know he would not want to extend his argument more than a moment or two longer.
However, as I understood the hon. minister the other day, basically he is saying that this bill, which admittedly was an amendment to an existing bill-and I do not ask the hon. member to get into an argument about that-cut the funding from the Treasury of Canada to the unemployment insurance fund. In other words, it made the fund self-funding as a consequence of charges, not on the Treasury any more, but charges directly against the employer and the employee.
Point of Order
As I understand the basic thrust of the Senate's response, it was at least in part to put back a responsibility of the Treasury as a guarantor or a partial funding of that fund.
I am taking no position in the argument. It seems to me that this is the nub of it. Is the Senate in this case trying to go beyond the bill, which admittedly was an amendment, and on its own come back here with the suggestion that we should put in place a charge which this House took away?
I know the hon. member will realize that in the interests of other business in this House we cannot continue this too long, but I put that point.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if we go back to my argument before, if a bill is introduced in this House to reduce Mr. Jones' salary from $50,000 to $25,000, the charge has been reduced. I am suggesting to Your Honour that a private member, I or any member of the opposition, or any back-bench member of the government, could move an amendment to that bill to increase the amount to $40,000. As long as it was within the original amount, then it could be increased.
What I am saying in this case, Your Honour, is that in each of the amendments to which the government House leader objects, the other place has provided for amendments that will increase the amount to something less than they were before, but not more than they were before.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member. I know that he understands the issue here, and so does the Chair.
The question is: Is the Senate in a position where it is increasing a charge that this House has taken away, whether or not the bill to which the amendment applies would allow it? There may be precedents on that exact point and, if there are, I would certainly like to know where they are.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, this House cannot take away charges on the public revenue of its own. Charges on the public revenue are taken away not just by this House, but by Parliament. It requires three steps before charges can be taken away from the public revenue.


Mr. Speaker:: I am completely with the hon. member on that. This House, though, initiates a bill to take away

April 5, 1990
Point of Order
the charges. If it goes to the other place and the charges are put back partially or in some form, is that not an initiative of the other place which increases the expenditure that had been considered in this place?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It may increase the expenditure which has been considered in this place, but the original expenditure was authorized by an act of Parliament. In other words, the act of this House, the act of the other place, and the Royal Assent of the Crown. All three of those elements had to combine in order for that expenditure originally to be authorized. I submit that what we are involved in here is not one House in the legislative process but all three elements, and what is required before we can change the order of expenditure authorized by that original bill is another act of Parliament.
The Constitution Act does not give this House the exclusive right to control expenditures. It does provide that bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue must originate in this House. We have a right to deal with them first. Certainly without a Royal recommendation attached to an authorization for spending, it could not be passed by this House. That much is clear from the Constitution. Sections 53 and 54 provide for that.
If this House receives a bill with or without a Royal recommendation that reduces the charge already there, before that reduction can take effect it must receive the assent of the other place and the Royal Assent. Those are the elements that are required to make that a law. We do not have, as a House, an exclusive right to decide on a new limit that is lower than what has already been authorized by statute. Statute is statute. It is no longer the creature of this House alone. It is the creature of all three elements in Parliament.
The government House leader is saying that once Parliament has enacted a law, if we want to change it we in the House of Commons have the exclusive right to change it, and that is not accurate; that is not the way the law works. An amendment to a statute requires the same thing that the statute itself required: introduction in this House and passage, introduction and passage in the other place, and Royal Assent. It must have all three before it can become law and change the original law.


Mr. Speaker:: I am only exchanging views with the hon. member so that I clearly understand his argument. Perhaps the hon. member could wrap up his argument. I think I have the points.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I have only one other point to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Very briefly.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, Sir. In order for a point of order to be a valid one in this House, aside from the argument with respect to time limits, it must be one that is raised in relation to the business of the House. We had a spectacle on April 3 of the government House leader raising this point of order when there was nothing before this House for consideration. He has not proposed a motion for a message to the Senate. There is no proceeding before this House. The Senate message has arrived on the table of this House. The Senate insists on certain amendments. That message is sitting on the table of the House. It has never been taken off. Nothing has been done about it, and it happens in the normal course of events.
The government House leader has raised a point, under the guise of a point of order, saying that he wants Your Honour to do something now. I submit that that is a very important principle because if I had stood up on a point of order saying out of the blue that I think, in relation to something that happened down the hall or some other place, I should rise on a point of order and object to it, I think Your Honour would say no, that it has nothing to do with the proceedings in this House.
He has to move a motion, upon which he may then want to make an argument, but it has nothing to do with order, procedure and dealings in this House. The only reason I did not raise this argument at the beginning, Your Honour, is because I thought Your Honour would see it so clearly that you would say that you did not want to hear the rest of my arguments. I have saved it for the end.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no way I would ever say that to the hon. member. However I have your point.
Perhaps I could hear briefly from the hon. member for Saskatoon

Clark's Crossing, come back to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and listen to the parliamentary secretary. I am not going to listen very much longer as this has taken up quite some time and I think I have the arguments.
April 5, 1990


An Hon. Member:: It is important.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is an important issue and I have the arguments. The hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


Chris Axworthy: Mr Speaker, I was intending to be brief. The government House leader raised a number of interesting questions on Thesday. Specifically he asked for the Chair's guidance on whether or not the Senate amendments were in order, whether they would have been in order if first introduced in the House, and whether the acceptance of the Senate amendments would not constitute a defeat of the original government bill and thus raise a question of confidence.
I would like to reiterate the comments of my party's House leader. I find the logic odd on the part of the government. When the first message came from the Senate, as we have heard, no procedural questions were raised on the floor by the government and the government proceeded to frame its reply, which was then forced through the House on closure.
The question arises then: Can the Speaker find a message from the other place to be out of order? I had not thought it possible for our Chair to assume that responsibility, but if you do, Mr. Speaker, it raises interesting consequential questions.
For example, could the Speaker of the Senate similarly find a message from this place to be out of order? Could a decision of the Speaker of the Senate to find a message from this place in order be overturned by a Senate majority? In other words, by an extension of the logic, the Senate majority could perhaps use procedural manoeuvres to defeat government bills which arrive there.
Second, is it a question of confidence in the government for the House to consider Senate amendments which go against, in the government's view, the principle of a particular bill? Perhaps it is. I would like to support the contentions made by my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands with regard to the nature of the bill and its relationship to being a money bill. It is not a money bill in the usual sense. It does not raise taxes. It does not increase government expenditures. In fact it does not spend government money. Rather, it is a reduction. Perhaps that is the best way to put it.
Point of Order
If the bill were defeated, could there be a question of confidence in the House? The Senate has defeated bills which were more obviously money bills than is Bill C-21. In fact, I believe it was a Conservative dominated Senate which defeated the first old age pension bill many years ago, but was it a question of confidence in the government? No, Mr. Speaker.
Essentially, I think you will find that the arguments of my hon. friend, the government House leader, are with the other place and not at all with anything which you are empowered to do here in this House. If the government has difficulties with the constitutional powers given the Senate, I would invite it to address those concerns in the normal manner and it may even find support from this side of the House on meaningful Senate reform. My hon. colleague, the government House leader knows well, as do we all, that you as Speaker of our House are not authorized to rule on legal or constitutional matters.
I have a few very short observations. First, it should be well understood that the government has several options before it in replying to the message from the Senate concerning the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will just refer to one as you indicated that you did not want to hear a long list of the options the government has.
Of course the government has the option to accept the Senate amendments and need not ask you to rule them out of order in order to save it the embarrassment of voting them down. I would add parenthetically that the Senate amendments reflect the Liberal position on the unemployment insurance bill and are not endorsed by our party.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that under such circumstances as we are finding ourselves in presently with the operation of Parliament Canadians are looking for other avenues to raise their grievances. I think the dilemma facing my hon. colleague is largely of his own government's making. It is incumbent on the government to recognize the seriousness of these circumstances and to respond appropriately. The issue is not to raise unnecessary points of order but to listen to Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for succinctly wrapping up the arguments of his party. I know he will extend my compliments to the hon. mem-

Point of Order
ber for Kamloops on his contribution made the other day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to this very important question as to why on March 12 and March 13 the government did not rise and bring to the attention of this House that in its opinion the amendments were out of order.
At that time you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that you or your deputy who presided over much of the debates took no exception to the amendments. There was no point of order brought to the attention of this House at that time.
I want to be very brief here. I quote from Beau-chesne's fifth edition, citation 120:
Foremost among his many responsibilities, the Speaker has a duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order.
Mr. Speaker, now we are doing something which maybe the government should have done prior to March 12. On April 3, I believe, the minister got up on a point of order which I found rather unusual at the time because there was nothing before the House. He rose without notice and started to object to the message, asking the Chair for advice, making allegations about what occurred on March 12 and 13. The message that we are getting now from the Senate is identical to the message we got February last and which we debated here on March 12 and 13.
Mr. Speaker, if you listen to his arguments, the House leader was probably wrong by not raising the point of order then. I would not want him to make it appear that you were wrong, Mr. Speaker, in allowing debate on that motion if today that motion, as he argues, is wrong because we are talking about the same message. If it was wrong in February, it was wrong in March, and it is wrong in April. But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is that debate was allowed on the motion and on the amendments on March 12 and 13. I participated in that debate. The debate concluded with a vote. The message was then acceptable to this House. Procedures were, in my view, in order and we proceeded with disposition of the message.
I draw attention to Standing Order 13.1 want to read it because it is more specific and more explicit than Beauchesne:
Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
Mr. Speaker, I find it intolerable that the government through its House leader now alleges, at least by implication, that the Speaker failed on March 13 to apply Standing Order 13. The question was put. The motion carried. The House has made a decision. I can hardly see how this House can come back and reflect on a decision of the House.
What was dealt with on March 12 and 13 was in order in the first instance and is now to be found out of order. I would like to know how we can argue that point. What the government is asking is to turn back the clock. I do not have to remind this House of what happened in 1956 when the clock was turned back. I do not have to give any examples, Mr. Speaker, as to what happens then because that is in my view totally unacceptable and will not be, I hope, the result of this debate.
What the government is asking, Mr. Speaker, is for you to make a decision on so-called procedure when indeed we are dealing with a political problem. That is the perilous course of action that this government is putting you into, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that you will want to reverse proceedings and go back to March 12 and 13 and say that what we did in this House on March 13 was wrong. I think Mr. Speaker ruled it in order at that time. It was in order. The message being identical to what we have today, I can hardly see how we can argue today that what we did then was wrong and that we turn the clock back. In my view, it would be absolutely contrary to our rules and probably very dangerous for all of us.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier. I think most of us are very conscious of events in 1956.1 would hope this House would never get into that situation again. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience on this significant point of order in terms of the rights and privileges of this House and of all the members because it is more
April 5, 1990

than just a government-opposition issue. I think it is one that does affect the whole House.
I want to make three quick arguments in response to the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier on April 3, last Tuesday. On page 10147 of Hansard the hon. member explained why he thought the Senate Speaker ruled the way he did on certain amendments. He said, and I quote:
He cited Erskine May in his ruling that the amendments in question
were in order and that they imposed no additional charge on the
public treasury.
I submit that in itself is part of the flaw in the ruling that we have from the other House. The reference here is to Erskine May and Erskine May is a procedural book of the United Kingdom.
The relationship between the two Houses in the United Kingdom, particularly on the question of money, is very different than the relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons in Canada.
I remind the House and the member opposite that the Senate of Canada has asserted since 1917 that on money questions it is not the same as the House of Lords. So there is a unique difference.
I argue that the Speaker of the Senate should have used our own authority such as Beauchesne's on which to base his ruling. If he had, I think the ruling would probably have been quite different.
The Senate Speaker, when asked to rule on the admissibility of amendments which would, if adopted, initiate government spending not now budgeted, did rule correctly in saying: "No special form of procedure applies to proposals to reduce existing charges and they may be moved in the House of Commons or in committee without the Royal recommendation". However, and I think this is the key, he was not asked to rule on whether a senator can make these types of amendments to bills such as this bill which already have a Royal recommendation.
He did not address the point. I believe had he done so it would have led to a different conclusion and a different result in the House today.
The authority which I believe ought to have been used is Citation 540 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Its language could not be clearer. It talks not just about amount of charge, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and
Point of Order
qualifications. These disputed amendments would change those objects, purposes, conditions, and the qualifications set out in this bill as principles. Therefore, I argue that they are ultra vires.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 548, is even clearer. Mr. Speaker, this touches on the points that you made in your discussion with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Beauchesne's, citation 548 reads, and I quote:
Amendments to bills are out of order if they attempt to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal Recommendation.
What is really significant here is that under the present UI program there is a draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Bill C-21 changes that dramatically to a draw from employers and employees. The Senate amendments are reversing this process and as a result we definitely do have an example of amendments being out of order because they are substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal recommendation, which is, to use the exact citation of Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 548.
If the Senate Speaker had based his decision on Canadian authorities and not on the United Kingdom parallels, which I do not think apply, he would have recognized that the proposed Senate amendments varied from the specific conditions laid out in the Royal recommendation attached to Bill C-21. In the House on April 3 the member for Ottawa-Vanier argued at page 10147 of Hansard:
None of the amendments proposed to the various clauses of Bill C-21 seeks to increase or change the amount or purpose of an allocation in a way which would affect the royal recommendation of March 10, 1971.
This, of course, was the date of the original Unemployment Insurance Act.
What about the Royal recommendation tied to the present Bill C-21? I argue that is a jiggery-pokery type of argument. Why does this member not add to his use of the words "amount and purpose" the other required considerations I cited as standard, words from the Beauchesne's test such as "object, conditions and qualifications".
Such amendments as proposed in the Senate, and now here, would not be receivable from a member here. Quite the contrary to what I believe my friend says. Our

April 5, 1990
Government Orders
Speaker's ruling is sought on that dispute as well as some others.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why didn't you say that on March 12?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the second point to which I refer comes to what my hon. friend suggests. He is asks why we did not do this on March 12. I think it is fairly obvious. We wanted to demonstrate that we are reasonable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Albert Glen Cooper: Hon. members laugh, but that is the truth.
When the Senate sends a message in the first instance, as tradition and experience would tell us, the first message is usually sufficient to deal with the issue. We wanted to yield where we could, to state our purposes to the Senate in specific terms by motion and a message back. We thought our motion, which was adopted by this House, would be understood by the Senate to be just that.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


An Hon. Member:: Say that with a straight face.


Albert Glen Cooper: I say it with a perfectly straight face.
We gave the Senate, by way of message, a reaction to the amendments. We did so to be reasonable, to express to the other House what we felt would be the case on this side and what we thought and hoped would be their reaction. Obviously, the circumstances changed. They did not accept our response to the message. They have now come back with a similar message and we are back to the same thing.
This brings me to the final point that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raised in his argument where he said that a point of order, in order for it to be raised, must relate to something before the House. I am paraphrasing, but that is what I heard the hon. member say.
First, we are dealing here with an attempt on the part of the government to be reasonable in a response to a message from the Senate.
Second, when that reasonable response is not accepted by the other place, we then consider what we believe to be fundamental principle arguments to be addressed. Is the issue before this House? I argue that in fact it is.
What we are responding to is the message. The message has been sent from the Senate. It is an issue before this House and, ultimately, after your very important ruling, which does not apply only to the government in this issue, but to the rights and responsibilities of all members of Parliament because our relationship to the other House is a most fundamental relationship that goes back to the beginnings of parliamentary democracy and the whole idea of a parliamentary system.
The issue is clearly before the House. It is a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, your ruling is one that is very important to all of us. I hope the arguments you have heard on both sides have helped you to address the issue.
The arguments we have made demonstrate that just as those amendments would not be acceptable in this House, neither should they be acceptable by way of message back to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is any need to continue the argument. I am indebted to the hon. parliamentary secretary for summing up in the careful way he has.
I shall bring my observations to the House as soon as possible. I do not think you can expect them tomorrow morning. I am going to take some considerable thought on this matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the measures taken in BUI C-51-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member begins his speech, I think it would be appropriate to explain why he is dressed that way.
April 5, 1990



I had already received letters from members of the public when I recognized an hon. member on the other side some time ago who also had a damaged hand and was unable to put on a jacket properly.
I want it clearly understood that the hon. member is being recognized not because he is deliberately not staying within the bounds of decorum in this House, but because he is an injured memeber who, despite the injury has managed to bring himself to do his duty to the House and to the country.


Pierre H. Vincent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I was saying that the measures provided in Bill C-51 are modest, but important as part of our effort to improve the operation and efficiency of the Canadian tax system. They deal with two specific problems involved in collecting unpaid deductions at source. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this problem is growing in Canada.
Deductions at source are amounts that by law must be withheld from a payee for income tax, unemployment insurance premiums and contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, as well as any interest or penalty thereon. By far the largest category of deductions at source is the money withheld by employers from payments to their employees.
When money is deducted at source as prescribed by law, the payee is credited with the amount withheld, whether or not the payer turns over the deduction as required by law. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the employer does not always turn over the amount deducted at source, but uses it for his own purposes. Some companies, especially when they are in financial difficulty, use deductions at source as a way to finance their business and to cover their operating expenses.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that a company official who takes payroll deductions which would normally be sent to the government and channels them into operating expenses is guilty of an offence because the funds withheld by the official and diverted to other uses belong to the federal government, to the government of Canada. It is as if the funds were in a trust. Sure enough, penalties are applied and interest charged when money due to the treasury is not paid within the time limit. But the fact remains that since October 1, 1989 there have been changes to the regulations as a partial solution to the problem we all know. This is why the rate of interest
Government Orders
on delinquent payments was then raised by two percentage points.
The legislation is intended to speed up payment of payroll deductions and set up a more effective recovery process. Keep in mind that the employee has done his share when he gets his weekly or bimonthly cheque from which deductions have already been made, but it is a different proposition in the case of the employer who makes the deductions and uses the money for whatever purposes instead of sending it to the government, as he should.
Allow me to say more about two problems which I mentioned at the outset of my remarks.
The first stems from a recent court ruling which thwarts the effectiveness of the improved garnishment provisions which came into force in 1987 and apply only to the recovery of payroll deductions. This is the way Revenue Canada has since been recovering most unpaid payroll deductions.
The enhanced garnishment enables Revenue Canada to intercept the monies owing to a tax debtor but paid to one of his creditors pursuant to a security agreement such as an assignment of accounts receivables. Once the letter has been served to the person who has not remitted the source deductions, the monies seized are payable to Revenue Canada instead of to the secured creditor.
A ruling of the Alberta Appeal Court in a case involving the Lloyds Bank of Canada calls into question the efficiency of the enhanced garnishment provisions. The Court ruled that the present provisions did not give Revenue Canada priority over secured creditors. Revenue Canada appealed that ruling to the Supreme court of Canada.
It is not my place, as you will understand, to comment on the ruling or on the merits of the appeal. However, considering the importance of the revenues involved, it is essential that the government ensures the efficiency of those provisions immediately instead of awaiting the decision following the final settlement of the case before the courts.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the amounts involved are very significant. Between $100 and $200 million are collected each year through the enhanced garnishment procedure. Therefore, we suggest that the procedure prescribed in the Income Tax Act be amended to ensure that the service of an enhanced garnishment letter will effect the transfer to the government of Canada of the seized monies and that Revenue Canada

April 5, 1990
Government Orders
will have precedence over any other secured debtor for the payment of such monies.
These amendments do not affect the rights of anyone involved in legal proceedings on November 6,1989 when the ways and means motion was introduced in this House nor the rights arising from rulings made on or before that day.
The changes will automatically apply to the collection of source deductions for amounts payable under the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, since both incorporate the garnishment provisions of the Income Ihx Act.
The second problem results from an omission in the amendments made to the Income Ihx Act through Bill C-139 in the last session. These changes included the reorganization of the subsections in section 227 of that legislation. A related amendment was omitted by mistake.
Therefore, the provisions prohibiting Revenue Canada from collecting any unpaid taxes in the 90 days following the day the assessment notice was mailed or before a decision is made on any proceedings related to these taxes, also apply to unremitted source deductions.
That was not the legislator's intention and the rules clearly specify that they do not apply to such amounts. This amendment rectifies the situation.
I hope that, with this overview of the general content of Bill C-51 and with the spirit of co-operation I recognize in my colleague across the way, we can pass this Bill at second reading as soon as possible.
As you know, these amendments are important to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians as well as to reduce the deficit. All Canadians must pay their fair share of income tax, but Canadians must also abide by our tax system without taking undue advantages of it as, for example, businesses who finance their operations by using source deduction funds.
Source deductions are monies paid by employees and employers should not be allowed to use those funds for their own purposes. The system serves the interests of the federal government well. It is useful for our current
expenses and has helped us in our efforts over the last five years to reduce the deficit.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention and I invite my colleague to do the same.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill C-51,1 feel that in general there are very strong concerns regarding the ability of employers to take payments through unemployment insurance and other sources of income and not pay those directly to the government. We know that the principle of Bill C-51 establishes the ability of the government to legally garnishee payments that have been made on an employee's behalf to employers which have not actually been paid to the government.
The government is very limited in its ability to collect, particularly since the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in June 1988 that the government does not have the first ability to get in. In principle we believe that any funds that have been paid by an employee to an employer should directly go to the government and the employer should not be able to use those funds to supplement business or to cany on other business ventures at the cost of the individuals dealing with a-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the hon. member would wind up because there really are no questions or comments on the initial first three speeches. If he could wind up his remarks I would appreciate it.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I have a few points that I would like to put forward, it certainly being very clear that the Liberals, on principle, cannot support allowing businesses to finance or subsidize operations by not paying government taxes when they have deducted those incomes at source.
We also believe that giving Revenue Canada the authority to collect unpaid taxes and make deductions may push small businesses-if they use a very heavy hand with small businesses which are in difficulty or in receivership-away from their ability to survive. If those small businesses that are in receivership end up in a position of not being able to survive then in the long term the government will collect far less taxes.

We also need a thorough investigation of the income tax legislation relating to bankruptcy. It is my understanding that the government is coming forth with that legislation at the present time and it will put those critical points on the floor.
It is important to realize that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has not had a chance to really study the legislation and bring in recommendations for us to study. Very clearly, at this point in time, taking that legislation to committee and having the committee deal with it is probably the best route that we can go, and that is the route we would recommend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not recognize any more questions or comments. I am going to recognize the next speaker and that will be the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. He is entitled to 40 minutes with no questions or comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to get my comments on record.

First of all, I want to wish the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, our colleague and Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, a speedy recovery. I hope his arm will get better, that the GST hasn't done him too much harm, that he will soon be as good as new and that in future he will be suitably dressed.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us implements the Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Thx Act, notice of which was tabled in the House of Commons on November 6, 1989. It is a piece of positive legislation which provides for so-called technical amendments to the Act and which, I am sure, will have the support of the Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this bill re-establishes the legal "garnishment" authority for the government to collect unpaid source deductions. Employers have to collect unemployment insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan and income tax deductions from employees' pay cheques and pass them on to the federal government. Employers who have collected these sums of moneys on behalf of their
Government Orders
employees should, but sometimes do not, pay the source deductions to the federal government as they should.
The government has had this enhanced garnishment authority since 1987 when subsection 224(1.2) of the Income Tax Act was enacted, but a recent court decision has thrown subsection 224(1.2) into question. The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in June, 1989, in the case of Lloyds Bank versus International Warranty Company Limited that Revenue Canada did not have priority over secured creditors in the collection of unpaid debts from a business in the case of a bankruptcy and that the Income Tax Act did not transfer property of the funds to Revenue Canada.
That is basically the background to this bill. That is why we have Bill C-51 before us, and that is why the Liberals will give it their support and hope that it will go to committee for thorough study and possibly amendment to the act with a view to strengthening the legislation.
Bill C-51 ensures that the receipt of a garnishment letter from Revenue Canada transfers property to Revenue Canada and that the claim of Revenue Canada has priority over secured creditors in the case of a bankruptcy.
Bill C-51 states that legal actions to collect unpaid source deductions, including garnishment, cannot begin until 90 days after Revenue Canada rules on a taxpayer's appeal of their assessment, if any appeal is made. If a taxpayer launches a court appeal of their assessment, no action can be taken by the government until the court has made its final decision.
By giving Revenue Canada the enhanced collection powers proposed in Bill C-51, the government is attempting to ensure that businesses with a severe cash flow problem and facing possible bankruptcy do not use unpaid source deductions as a source of emergency financing which may not be able to be collected if the firm goes into bankruptcy.
After consultation, and as I understand it, the government views Bill C-51 as simply re-establishing the powers of Revenue Canada to those which existed before the ruling to which I alluded to a few minutes ago. Bill C-51 does not give Revenue Canada any new powers which it did not have prior to the court decision. Without Bill C-51, the government estimates that it will lose about $200 million.

April 5, 1990
Government Orders
The bill itself is a move in the right direction. My colleague and friend who spoke just prior to me made some points about bankruptcy. I would hope the government would use common sense, and not force small businesses into bankruptcy because once they are into bankruptcy, they do not pay any more taxes.
Small business is an important part of Canada. Small businesses are often the ones that are hardest hit by the downturns of the economy. Small business will be touched very seriously by the GST. Given the fact that the government is imposing this goods and services tax on Canadians on January 1, 1991,1 would hope that, by giving support to this bill, the government does not take it that the problems of small business can be passed over, and that difficulties that may arise with small business can be overlooked.
I would hope that my friends to the left, the members of the NDP who traditionally are in favour of closing tax loopholes for corporations, but may oppose this bill, would try to understand that what we are doing is closing a tax loophole of some $200 million. If some people get away with literally taking moneys which are not theirs and not paying the federal government moneys which are due, then I think that is a wrong thing to do and I give this party's undertaking that we will pass this bill as fast as possible.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the injury sustained by my friend, the first speaker for the government, was not as a result of the arm twisting that is going on in the Conservative caucus to keep members in line on the GST.
We in the New Democratic Party support the intent of Bill C-51.1 think that we should review in general what this bill is intending to do. It makes it possible for the government to have an enhanced garnishee so that it can attach moneys that are owed by firms which have not paid the moneys they have deducted at source, particularly the moneys they have deducted from employees for UIC premiums, Canada Pension Plan premiums, and income tax, as well as moneys that they owe for their contribution to UIC and CPP.
There are a number of businesses in this country that are experiencing increasing difficulty with cash flow, and there is a great temptation for all sizes of business, both small business and fairly substantial corporations, to
simply utilize money that has been deducted at source as a method of interim financing. This may be done with all the best intentions in the world, but if the cash flow problem continues over any period of time, then they have increasing difficulty meeting their obligations to pay the money to the government within the first 15 days of the next month, which is their legal obligation.
In speaking to the bill, the member of the government mentioned the problem of increased bankruptcies in Canada. That is a growing problem. The year end figures in 1989 showed that bankruptcies had increased 8 per cent above the level of 1984, which had been the highest. Bankruptcies in January of this year increased an alarming 33 per cent, and from December to January were up 20 per cent. Bankruptcy is also related to industrial profits. In 1989, Statistics Canada reported that operating profits for industrial corporations fell $5.5 billion, down almost 15 per cent. In 1989, profits for industrial firms ranging from manufacturing to mining were down to $32 billion from $37.5 billion. In Quebec, the liabilities related to bankruptcies have risen from just over $50 million in 1987, to almost $180 million.
Businesses in Canada are having increasing difficulties in making ends meet. Many of them are facing bankruptcy and cash flow problems because of the free trade deal. This week in my riding of Surrey North there was an announcement that the Ste. Michelle Winery was going to be closed, directly due to the free trade deal, with a loss of 47 jobs. Fortunately Ste. Michelle is part of a larger winery system, so at this point in time the parent company is not in a state of insolvency or, as far as we know, having problems with its cash flow.
We are going to see this problem increasingly in the next period of time, particularly if the government is determined to go ahead with the ill-conceived goods and services tax. Small businesses will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the viability of their businesses and their cash flow. It is going to be very tempting for them to utilize the source deduction moneys as a ready source of cash, rather than forwarding them to the government.
The government has made some attempts to improve the efficiency of the tax system. I think members will find that any time the government attempts to improve the efficiency of the tax system where it is fair and equitable
April 5, 1990

or plugs loopholes that the New Democratic Party will support this.
The Bill C-51 allows the government, by letter known as an enhanced garnishee, to attach moneys that are owing to a firm that has not paid its source deduction moneys. There are some good parts of that which deserve study in committee, particularly parts that deal with the fact that the person can appeal an assessment. If there is an appeal of an assessment, the garnishee order would not take effect for 90 days, or if there is a court appeal, that would not take effect until that court appeal is heard.
The government has every obligation to the Canadian taxpayer to ensure that it collects money that it is owed. We often think that, in relation to some of the larger corporations and deferred taxes, the government should be more vigorous in its pursuit of these moneys. These are moneys that employees have given to the company in trust for the Canadian government. They are moneys that the employees have had deducted from their pay cheques and given in trust for forwarding to the government. Therefore, they are moneys in which the employees have a big investment, not only in terms of the handling of them by companies in trust but also what happens to them in terms of their use by the government.
Source deduction moneys are earmarked, in part, for the UIC fund. The changes that the government has introduced which are now in the process of being debated, mean that the government no longer has, or wishes to have, any direct financial responsibility for the unemployment insurance funds, so these funds are basically employer-employee funds. They are being held in trust by companies until such time as they are transmitted to the federal government.
Employees have a large stake in the use of these funds, and employees across Canada have been expressing their disapproval of the government's plans for the use of these funds. They have been expressing their disapproval by opposing the UIC bill, particularly to its changing the responsibility for training to come out of an insurance fund that was meant basically to protect
Government Orders
workers' incomes and not as a fund to subsidize industry and government in the training of workers.
Training and retraining of workers is vitally important and must be undertaken on a massive scale, if we are going to be competitive in a modem industrial society. It is inappropriate to take money that was designed for income maintenance to pay for the basic necessities of food, shelter, rent, and basic health care for families.
The opposition that we have seen across Canada to the government's use of UIC moneys indicates how seriously Canadian workers take what happens to moneys that are deducted at source. They feel very strongly that these moneys should be used as an income maintenance program. They are unhappy that the government has decided to increase the number of contribution weeks that are required in order to qualify for UIC and to decrease the length of time that a person is able to draw UIC. They feel that source deduction funds are now being used to not only supplement the training component, but to offset other government revenues in order to assist the government in debt reduction. Employees feel that debt reduction should be the responsibility of all Canadians, not just employees who are contributing to UIC and CPP, and particularly UIC.


Mr. Dorin:: Has this got anything to do with the bill?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Certainly. Everything has to do with the bill, because these are source deduction moneys and Canadians are very concerned about what happens to their source deduction funds. They are concerned that not only are these moneys held in trust properly by employers and forwarded properly to the federal government, and if they do not they are quite pleased to have legislation like Bill C-51 in place to ensure that the federal government has the ability to attach these moneys, but they are equally concerned as to what the federal government does with this money once it gets it. It is all very nice to say that the responsibility is to transfer the money to the federal government, but if it is not being adequately or properly utilized by the federal government then I think that employees would not support this type of legislation. They are concerned about supporting the legislation on the basis that they understand and want to be reassured that these moneys are being utilized effectively by the government.

April 5, 1990
Government Orders
In addition to the UIC bill, much of the money that is used goes to the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan was set up initially in order to ensure that Canadians had adequate retirement funds in their old age. Unfortunately, the Canada Pension Plan and other pension schemes that the government has undertaken have fallen short. Increasingly, many of the elderly in this country are inadequately protected. At least 20 to 25 per cent of elderly single people live in poverty. In addition, there are a large number of elderly single women who find it very difficult to make ends meet on limited pensions.
One of the problems is that the Canada Pension Plan is restricted solely to those people who have been in wage earning or self-employed positions. The Canada Pension Plan has not been broadened to deal with such areas as women who choose to stay at home and make their contributions to society by caring for their homes. For years, the New Democratic Party has advocated the development of some type of homemakers' pension scheme as part of the UIC or as part of the Canada Pension Plan.
Forty-two per cent of unattached individuals over the age of 65, and 20 per cent of all senior citizens, live below the poverty line. That is nearly 500,000 Canadians. Older women, particularly, are more likely to be poor than men; 71.7 per cent of the elderly poor are women.
The Canada Pension Plan, which was initially thought of as a pension plan that would provide adequate pensions, is now only providing 25 per cent of retirement income. We know that is not adequate to guarantee people a proper income. It might be adequate if one had a lot of cash resources. I know some of the Tories have lots of assets-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would just like to ask the hon. member if he plans to take his whole 40 minutes.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I plan to speak for a few minutes more. I do not know whether I will take my full 40 minutes.


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 Ottawa-Vanier, Official Languages; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Forestry.
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as you had interrupted, I thought it might be a good time for me to put my point of order.
I have listened to members of the three parties speak in the opening round of this bill. All three parties appear to be supporting the bill. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent of the House to send this bill, at five o'clock, to the legislative committee, on division.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: wages that people need to feed their children. These are the wages that people need to pay their mortgage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest on a point of order.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether this was a throne speech debate or a debate on Bill C-51, because we are covering a pretty wide range of subjects here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member is really coming to the bill.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ABORIGINAL PEOPLES NEEDS OF YOUTH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Anawak:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be able to join in such an important debate. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for presenting this motion for our general consideration. I can think of no issue which haunts all Canadians more than the need to deal with the issues facing aboriginal youth across this country.
Since this debate began several weeks ago, I have noticed that the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, has added his voice to the debate. His argument is that the treatment of native peoples in Canada is one of our greatest and most pressing problems. He, in fact, would like to see a royal commission set up to address this issue.
Whether or not a royal commission would add to the momentum remains to be seen, but certainly it is one more indication of the anxiousness among those people
Private Members' Business
who wish to see this issue addressed. Mr. Yalden's approach should be taken seriously by the government and by all of us sitting in this House.
We are asked in this motion to consider ways in which the Canadian government can begin to address specific questions facing aboriginal youth. Perhaps we should reflect for a moment on why there are so many problems among youth in terms of education, health and employment. I think we can begin by realizing that for every positive influence given to non-native, non-aboriginal children, those influences are probably lacking with respect to aboriginal children.
One fact not appreciated by many parliamentarians is that while people my age, the baby boom, have bene-fitted from in Canadian society, it is different in the native community. In fact their baby boom is going on as we speak. While their greatest growth in population is with the youth between 15 and 25, this is the group that is totally lacking in education, employment, proper health care, and housing. At that very moment when they need us we are not doing anything for them.
How can we begin to address the problems? Over the last decade in the province of Manitoba there have been groups which have reached out. Perhaps we should accentuate the positive in this debate and talk about what people are trying to do.
I can think of my own involvement over the last decade, for example, in the community of Shamattawa in northern Manitoba, a very remote community of a few hundred people. In that community we had tremendous difficulty with gasoline sniffing. Through an intervention project and the setting up of a community centre, the children of that community realized there was some place to go and something to do other than going off to the bush to sniff gasoline. That led to further employment projects and the community is very proud of the fact that today they have built their own school. That is not a project run by southerners, but a project run by people from the community.
A little farther south is Norway House, another remote community. In Norway House the situation among the 3,000 people living there was so bad that the youth took it upon themselves to form the Norway House Youth Council with its own young chief. This youth council has an employment committee, an education committee, and a health committee. It set up a youth conference and invited people from outside the

Private Members' Business
community, including myself, to have an opportunity to discuss with them what it is they are trying to do.
In the course of preparation for this conference two more of their friends committed suicide. It is not just a problem in the abstraction when people are trying to work things through in their life while their friends are committing suicide. I think there are very few of us in this House who have had to deal so directly with such a pressing problem and had to translate those personal concerns into building or rebuilding a community.
That youth council has made great progress in the last four years and deserves the support of Canada. It deserves the support through programming, through moral support, and through business to the community. The young leadership has to be given a chance by telling them that we will not let them fail and will give them whatever support they need to have a more productive life.
In the middle of my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre a number of different groups are trying to deal more persuasively with the problems of aboriginal youth. Winnipeg probably has the largest concentration of urban aboriginal people in the country. It is difficult to be accurate, but it ranges between 25,000 and 50,000 people. Half of those are under the age of 25 and probably 80 per cent of them are within single parent families.
Most of these families are without employment. The education levels, despite the hard work being done in schools such as R. B. Russell, are very limited. Instead of there being generation after generation of success, with an older brother or an older sister doing well, we find that they are constantly confronted with a lack of opportunity in our society.
We in Winnipeg are trying to deal with this issue. When we set up the aboriginal justice commission one of the observations made by Justice Sinclair after looking at the situation was: "We have to turn attention to aboriginal children. We have to give these children an opportunity to have some hope, to have an opportunity to participate in our schools, to participate in the job market".
One of the projects I most admire in the Winnipeg area is Rossbrook House, which takes a very superficially laid back approach where people can come to visit them. From that, the people who are active in Rossbrook House have developed programming which goes 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have opened their doors and on that basis they have become increasingly involved in programming, job creation, education support, and family support.
When we are talking about dealing with aboriginal youth, we are not talking about the icing on the cake. We are talking about one of the most fundamental needs in our society. I think what is often lost, as we go through government deficits is that we do not know what to protect. We do not know what is really important to us.
I am pleased to see that the minister responsible for the native communications program is here. There is nothing more important than for native youth to have an opportunity over the next decade to develop the written and verbal capacity to talk to each other in their own language. The fact that we have in times of cut-back not seen that as the greatest priority of our society leads me to wonder whether or not they will maintain hope that we will be able to do it.
The broader question is: Where should there be opportunities for aboriginal children as they become more educated and find their way in the professional world? Which routes should they have available to them?
One positive initiative that has been taken by Canadian governments in the last decade is the attempt to reinforce the opportunity for self-government, to reinforce the opportunity for freedom, and to reinforce the opportunity for self-management. Once the people get the education and training at their community colleges, learn how to manage economic development projects, learn how to manage band offices, and learn how to manage downtown projects in our major cities whether it is dealing with the homeless or dealing with family services or dealing with education, we should let them take control of and leant how to run these institutions. We should freely give it to them and not use the excuse of a lack of learning as a reason for not giving it to them.
April 5, 1990

It is a very daunting proposition because many people look at the failures in our society. They look at the failures of Indian bands to develop economic development projects and the failure to account for money. They have seen a lot of negatives in the past 20 years and tell the government that it has given away too much. They say that native people do not know how to spend money or handle responsibility. However there is only one direction to go if we are to save this next generation of aboriginal children. The only direction to go is in favour of self-government.
We must take a risk. We must show support for people who are desperately trying to find a way to rebuild confidence in their communities, confidence in each other, the capacity to manage, the capacity to learn and the capacity to create employment among themselves.
If we look at the successes, if we look at the opportunities provided by the Dakota-Ojibwa Tribal Council in its own school at Yellow Quill, and if we look at the opportunities provided at Norway House through economic development initiatives operated by the youth, the benchmark of success in one area of the country after another is in self-government.
The more that we in Parliament through passing motions like this show support to members who are dealing with these problems in their own constituencies, the more we can turn to the people of Canada and say: "We have looked at motions such as this and we are not afraid to lend our support. We are morally committed. We are legally committed. We want to see these proposals go through."
The aboriginal youth of this country can look at a motion like this one and see that it simply says the government should consider developing special initiatives. It does not say the government should spend a lot of money. It asks the government to consider helping the aboriginal youth of this country. We should tell the aboriginal youth of this country that we agree we should be taking some initiative and working with them. We should be saying: "We want to work with you. We agree with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is a role for us. There is a role for you. Let us work together".
I call upon this House to adopt this motion and to show support for our aboriginal children.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very pleased to address this motion, a motion to consider special initiatives for aboriginal youth.
I am pleased because aboriginal youth and the development of positive programs have been a personal interest and involvement of mine for many years. This is a matter of tremendous importance, as other members have previously stated.
The needs regarding employment, education and health are all interrelated and should be considered together, although separately each deserves its own consideration.
Without education it is very difficult to obtain employment and without health it is very difficult to obtain an education or employment. With education and employment it is much easier to stay healthy. So the needs, if and when properly addressed, will result in aboriginal youth who are, among other positives, proud of who they are. Aboriginal youth will feel a part of this country once again, to the extent that they then can become positive contributors as nation builders in every aspect.
The problems we have come to know too well are immense but not insurmountable. I think aboriginal youth want to contribute. Given the same chance as everyone else they can become winners like everyone else. First they have to feel good. They have to feel good about who they are and where they are going, but collectively we must first deal with myths and stereotypes that have been proliferated over the years. The days of the no good, lazy, drunken Indian must come to an end. How does it happen? One of the ways is with education. Another is with employment.
When dealing with aboriginal youth I am often asked: "How is it that you have the highest suicide rates, the highest unemployment rates, the highest drop-out rates from high school, the highest inmate population rates in jails"? In yesterday's edition of The Globe and Mail these kinds of statistics continued to appear. Let me quote from the article:
The statistics compiled by the Canadian Institute of Child Health on suicide among people from the ages of 15 to 19 go beyond the basic question of why anyone to whom the full flavour of life should just be dawning would wish to end it. Why would young people in Canada's north be apparently so much readier than others to quit this life? Is it linked in some way to the relative hostility of their environment? The despair that feeds on unemployment and low incomes? Is this the lot of a culture tom between the old ways and new ways, seduced nightly by the dish-antenna visions of southern lifestyles and escape through the

April 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
bottle? Is it the inevitable fate of a huge territory of scattered communities?
Whatever the explanation-and it might be a hellish alchemy compounded from all of the above-it is clear that the native northerner can count substantially fewer of the blessings of life than other Canadians. Fewer in almost any category you care to mention.
The unemployment rate among native northerners, reports the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, is among the highest in Canada, reaching 50 per cent in some communities-
I might add that in some areas it is as high as 85 per cent. It continues:
The Northwest Territories has the highest per capita incidence of alcohol offences in Canada, and probably a very high rate of substance abuse.
Although the article refers to the north, I do not think it is very much different in other parts of Canada. In fact at home the suicide rate is even higher. Where the article mentions rates four to five times the national average, ours have been as high as ten to twelve times.
I think over time, with self-fulfilling prophecies, much of this has happened because we as native people have become to believe that we are no good or lazy or that you have to drink to be an Indian or that we should die before a certain age.
Much can happen to change the world for aboriginal youth. Much has been done in the past. Allow me to thank all of those concerned for their efforts to date, but much more needs to be done. This motion, when passed, would begin that process. When the motion was first introduced I wanted to refer to a couple of noteworthy events related to the issue. I think they are still relevant.
First, after 10 years of negotiations, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the first convention on the rights of the child. I applaud the members involved whole-heartedly. Then during the same week the Leader of the NDP in his final speech to this House spoke very eloquently on the plight of the poor and in particular of children in our affluent society of Canada. Yet, for the children who are referred to throughout those speeches and documents, many of those are aboriginal children.
In 1990, in Canada, we still have aboriginal youth who go to school every morning hungry or too hungry to concentrate or to study or to do their homework. Until the employment, education and health needs are addressed and met, we will have this cycle of desperation.
What can be done? I do not want to appear totally negative because there are many success stories. Aboriginal youth want to contribute. In fact I believe aboriginal peoples want to contribute. We want to contribute to the development of our own youth. We know they will then become strong segments of Canadian society and, in that way, we will then have a stronger Canada.
A basic minimum to accomplish this is for full, meaningful consultation to occur with aboriginal peoples. If I may mention a personal bias, I believe that personal, physical, mental and spiritual development must first happen as a foundation. Sir, when you were the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, you contributed to that positive development. I thank you for that, but I think you will also agree that it was because you consulted aboriginal people yourself that made those sport programs successful. I was grateful, therefore, for the announcement by our colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that he too, would consult with natives on post-secondary education.
As I go out speaking in Indian country, I speak about an Indian winners' club. I started out a few years ago by calling it a 5 per cent club, those we never hear about because they succeed. Good stories don't always make the news, but we always hear about the 95 per cent who dropped out of school. This past year alone I spoke to over 200 post-secondary graduates in Alberta. I have changed the name of that club to the 10 per cent club. We are improving, but it will be a great day when someone, hopefully I, can get up and say I want to congratulate those graduates because we now have a 95 per cent or 100 per cent success rate.
When that happens I know those aboriginal youth will then be employed and will also be in a position to contribute ever better to our nation. It is only then, also, that economic self-reliance as an aboriginal dream can become a reality. We need more success stories, but we must also change our focus to highlight positive stories whenever they occur.
April 5, 1990

I recall the debate a while ago when member after member rose in this House to speak from their heart about the atrocities that occurred in China after the university incident. I ask those same members to recall that night and, in the same spirit of human compassion and kindness, to forget about the political affiliation and support this motion.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is an honour to rise in support of the motion presented by the member from Nunatsiaq which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
developing special initiatives, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples,
to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of
Aboriginal youth.
I am sure you would agreed, Mr. Speaker, with other members who have spoken today that if there is a motion before this House that should be passed or dealt with more than ever, it is a motion like this one. I think the concerns are being expressed by members who represent many of the people to whom this motion is directly related. We have a long way to go.
Others have made reference to the most recent annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission where the commissioner cites last year's annual report and states: "We described the situation of Canada's aboriginal peoples as a national tragedy". It is still a national tragedy.
The Carrier Sekanie people live in my riding. I have had meetings on the reserves and most recently with the chiefs who had gathered in Prince George. Some days it seems to them that the challenge is almost insurmountable.
I know of the problems that we have faced in working with the people at the band level to help get even the simple things that we take for granted in this Chamber and on this Hill. We have to fight and work to get adequate sewer and water in many of the reserves in northern British Columbia and other parts of the country.
I do not know how much more emotional a member can be when we meet with representatives of our bands in our areas and they tell us the litany of the problems they have faced not only over many years but even in
Private Members' Business
recent years, with the work that has to be done to help with the education, health and housing of many of these people.
It was stated earlier that a major accomplishment would be to recognize self-government. Certainly in my province the biggest road block we have is the government in Victoria currently not recognizing the existence of land claims, self-government.
The federal government negotiates. We have some concerns with that process but at least in most cases they are talking. In my home province, the government in Victoria, British Columbia does not even recognize that. One of its ministers said they deal with Indian Affairs issues on a day to day basis. That is their commitment.
We in this Chamber have to show that our commitment goes deeper than that. The Prime Minister has made some major statements about the direction in which he wants to see his government go. He has talked about education. We are debating major tax policy and trade policy. I would ask the Prime Minister to take it upon himself to deal with many of the questions we are dealing with in our ridings when it comes to Indian people and to work and push his ministers and the new minister to see that these problems are dealt with.
The Secretary of State is in the Chamber today listening. I am pleased about that, because he knows we have had discussions and correspondence about the issues that we are facing in our area and the requests that we have had from the Carrier Sekanie people to develop and preserve their language. One of the first official duties I had as a new member was to go out to Vanderhoof to attend a scholarship ceremony for the Ingenika Dene language institute, where they are teaching aboriginal people to go out and teach the importance of language. We call on this government to provide some assistance.
We are working on building a new university in the north. I understand that the premier will be in my home town, Prince George, tomorrow, to make an announcement about an interim board of governors. I trust that he has consulted, and I trust that he will be appointing someone who can reflect on, comment on and help develop an aboriginal languages institute as part of that university. It is critical and essential to our area.

April 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
The Carrier Sekanie people have developed many other initiatives to deal with and describe the concerns they have about their young people. They are talking and working with school boards in the area to develop an aboriginal education program from K to 12, as they are called. I know my colleagues and those at the provincial level have been pushing for and supporting the preservation of native languages which have given us a great history in this country.
I do not have to comment about health. We all know the problems. Northern Ontario was spoken about earlier, but in my riding nothing has been done for years at the federal level. It is a day to day job to see that we get the attention of the departmental officials and the minister to see that the work is done. Chiefs and elders representing both the young and the old in their areas are very concerned. I think you know, Mr. Speaker, how important they feel this issue is.
Employment is mentioned in the motion. In our area it is hard to find jobs for aboriginal people with regular employers. I have been on the phone in the last day or two working with one of those employers, where the Indian people themselves are developing the economy and the businesses themselves which will employ their people and developing the training mechanisms that they need to give their young people their rightful place in this economy.
I ask government members and the Prime Minister to take up the challenge that aboriginal people have offered us. We must meet that challenge and respond to the needs as laid out in this motion in terms of health, education and employment. I urge and ask government members to support this motion.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a great opportunity for myself as the member of Parliament for Portage-Interlake to make some comments with respect to the motion of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.
I join with my colleagues in the House who obviously have a large representation of Indian people in their respective constituencies in recognizing the importance of such a motion to the welfare and the goals our first Canadians clearly wish to be considered.
I would like to pay tribute to the member for Nunatsiaq who in fact recognizes the importance to the people he represents of trying to find ways that the Government
of Canada can assist in addressing the concerns regarding health and better education. It is pretty much a known fact that the living conditions of our natives are certainly in most cases inferior to what most Canadians take for granted.
That situation is, I might add, changing to some extent. It is probably fair to say that those changes in living conditions on our reserves and for our native Canadians perhaps do not occur as fast as we would like.
We recognize that there is a lot of social problems. It is not for us to lay fault for the social problems some of our native Canadians are fraught with, but clearly they need to be addressed.
Once again, my colleague from Nunatsiaq has taken up the challenge. He talked about education. I do not think there is a member of this House of Commons who would deny that the key to any society and any way of breaking out into the world of job possibilities and the particular requirements of the total workforce is education. I might add that it really is what I would like to talk about today with regard to this motion.
A lot has changed in the last 25 years and a lot has changed in the last 10 years. I recall the hon. member for Provencher, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and myself some three years ago ventured into northern Manitoba where we participated in the opening of some $60 million in new educational facilities on about seven reserves. These particular institutions, high schools and community centres, were built at a tremendous cost, probably almost double the cost that it would be to build those same facilities in southern Manitoba, southern Ontario, or near major centres. This was mainly because of the remoteness of where these new schools had to be built. In some cases it took a year of waiting until the roads froze in winter and were no longer flooded before supplies could be trucked in. It took almost an entire year to build up the supplies in order to build the school facilities at, for example, Shamattawa or Gods Lake Narrows. The cost is almost double. Therein lies a new constraint that the Government of Canada has.
Nevertheless, you will now find facilities in some of our most remote locations in most cases of a standard that is equal or, in some cases, better than you would
April 5, 1990

find in other parts of Canada. This is due in part to the desire of the Government of Canada in the past and in the present to continue to put a lot of emphasis on a community centre, not just an educational centre, but a place in which the community can have tremendous pride. This gives the people the feeling that they are not any longer, in terms of the educational field or community centre, second-class citizens of Canada.
These are the kinds of things that are ongoing. I am very grateful that they are.
I have about 13 reserves in my riding. One specific reserve has been very aggressive in terms of taking total control of its school. Many others have as well. It has put its priority on education. The people on that reserve have realized that that is their key out of the economic demise that they found themselves in at the cost of decisions made in the past by someone in the head office in Winnipeg, and prior to that in Ottawa. They are coming to me to discuss their future concerns with regard to the education that they want and desire under their kind of conditions, using their culture and possibly their language.
Twenty-five years ago this was an unheard of situation. I think we have made gigantic steps toward fulfilling what many Canadians take absolutely for granted when it comes to the education of our first Canadians.
This of course is not to say that more cannot be done. There is no doubt that more can and will be done. However, there has to be a consideration that it has to be done and the moneys have to be expended in a very sincere and careful manner. Obviously, the desire to expand all these facilities is far greater than the tax burden and the economy of Canada can really handle.
I had a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development just yesterday with regard to providing those communities with the proper ability to fight fires. Up until now a good number of reserves that are remote had no capability to fight fires.
We know that some of the houses are crowded. Some homes that have been there for some 20 or 30 years are not at all up to standard. Fire codes were never heard of when they were built. Today, we are trying to build homes that meet the same fire codes and standards that everybody else has. Why should they not have the right
Private Members' Business
to have that situation which will obviously assist them in securing safety for their families?
In the last short while three reserves in my constituency had the misfortune of losing five children in fires. None of the reserves had the capability of fighting fires with a volunteer fire department.
These are the changes that are occurring. They are very significantly different. Yes, they are at a great expense to the taxpayers, but I think willingly spent to assist people who are far less fortunate than we are.
In fact, moneys are now in the hands of native business people who have taken another new initiative. They have approached the Government of Canada to assist them in developing and funding their own businesses. I have some tremendous examples of that existing on some of the reserves in the Interlake in the Province of Manitoba.
I am sure that if some of my Alberta colleagues and members from British Columbia who spoke earlier were polled, we would find evidence today of tremendous amounts of funding that the Government of Canada has used to assist in developing native businesses with the help and assistance of tax dollars which gives these businesses a chance to establish the pride of ownership and to compete in what could be considered a very difficult market.
I heard one of the members here speak today about the fact that all too often the bad news is reported when a business attempt is made and funds have been expended. All too often the finger is pointed immediately indicating that we have wasted money. People say that we did not approach the problem the right way, or that the bureaucrats made a bad decision or should have known better. I recognize this does occur. I am no different from some of my colleagues when we see not so much the fact than an Indian has taken an initiative and lost, but that he may have been guided by a non-Indian. In fact, there may have been some individuals who have wanted to take advantage of the system to create personal gain. This does occur.
I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier. We should not always highlight the failed projects. Certainly, there are some very good and very effective projects that have worked for constituents and for Indians who desired to have their own business.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence of change that has occurred with regard to bringing about self-gov-

April 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
emment, self-fulfilment and improved opportunities through education and our health care system. I think this government has no apologies to make to anyone in terms of its effort to continue that process.
I would like to thank again the member for Nunatsiaq for his efforts in trying to look after the broad constituency that he represents.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my unqualified support to the motion put before us. I would like to thank my colleagues, the member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Kenora- Rainy River, for their initiative in bringing this matter before the House.
I grew up in Hagersville which is on the edge of both the Six Nations Reserve and the Mississauga of the New Credit Reserve. Half of the school population in the school I attended as I was growing up was made up of students from those two reserves. So I do know a bit about what I speak.
I am quite ashamed to say that a lot of the problems aboriginal youth were having back then are still the same problems that they are having today. I quite frankly do not think that we as a society or we as Canadian legislators have taken our role in helping to solve these problems.
I want to start off with a quote from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "An Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent to prison than completing university."
I quote that statement to inform all members of the House of the gravity of the situation we are talking about here.
We have heard a lot of talk lately about intolerance from Canadian society. Pins, T-shirts and public opinion polls are causing the media to conclude that maybe we in Canada are not the equal, tolerant and just society that we think we are. I am quite sure that that realization came as no surprise to the aboriginal peoples of our country.
For the past two years the Canadian Human Rights Commission has described the situation of Canada's aboriginal peoples as a national tragedy. The statistics are startling.
The aboriginal peoples of Canada face infant mortality rates and medical neglect on a scale which other Canadians have never had to face. Aboriginal peoples face depression, substance addiction and suicide on a scale that Canadians in other parts of Canada surely do not realize and surely will never have to face.
The suicide rate among the Inuit in the Northwest Territories, for instance, is four times the national average. Over half of the suicides are among Inuits between the ages of 15 to 24.
The incidence of tuberculosis is seven to ten times higher than the national Canadian average.
The infant mortality rate among Indian babies is more than twice the national average. The Inuit infant mortality rate is more than three times the national average. If we think of all the human suffering that is behind those statistics, we will think that this House should be doing more. Parents see their babies die. Teenagers find a brother or a sister who has committed suicide. Each of us in this House knows that the suffering is unacceptable. The most tragic thing of all is that we know that it does not have to be this way. This human suffering is avoidable.
The motion before us aims to call the government's attention to the need for more government action. The needs of our aboriginal peoples require the immediate development of special initiatives in the area of health, employment and education. These initiatives must be developed first and foremost only after consultations with aboriginal peoples-real consultations as they have been described lately.
There is no doubt that the programs and the initiatives that work are those which are developed by aboriginal peoples themselves. They must be consulted before, not after, the development of these programs.
There are encouraging signs that aboriginal peoples were succeeding in consolidating their belief systems in the education of their children. There is more hope for the future than there was in the past, but it is a long way away.
There are other pressing needs in the areas of employment, education and health. Census figures in 1986 found that the average Indian income was half that of the general population.
April 5, 1990

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recently released its second report. In that report it is stated that while there was a wealth of ideas and energy on the part of aboriginal people in the area of economic development, for instance, there has been little improvement in recent years in bridging the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal income.
The unemployment rate of aboriginal people is shocking. It ranges somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 35 per cent and 50 per cent.
As my colleague from Nunatsiaq pointed out earlier in the debate on this motion, an aboriginal youth employment crisis is looming on the horizon. This government needs to take action now.
Two-thirds of the Indian population is under the age of 25. Between 1987 and 1997, 140,000 aboriginal people will become eligible to join the labour force. If aboriginal employment rates are not maintained-and we are not talking about improving but just maintaining them-8,000 new jobs will be required by aboriginal people each year.
The federal government has got to take the lead in developing employment initiatives and providing jobs for these people, to take advantage of the ideas and the creativity which is being demonstrated by these aboriginal groups.
The federal government's own record is not what it should be. Little improvement has been made in the employment rates of aboriginal people in the federal public service and other employees covered by the Employment Equity Act.
Between 1987 and 1988 it was reported that the representation increased by only .07 per cent. There has not been enough done in this area.
According to the 1989 Canadian Human Rights Commission report, at the present growth rate it will take another 20 years before aboriginal employment reaches even 2.1 per cent, which is the current level of their availability in the workforce.
More must be done to improve employment and economic development opportunities for our aboriginal peoples. Educational opportunities are vital for the future of aboriginal youth and the success of aboriginal economic endeavours.
Private Members' Business
Approximately 60 per cent of Indians have a Grade 9 education. That figure is lower among aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories.
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs reports serious concerns that exist over the low quality of elementary and secondary education that aboriginal children are now receiving. The government has decided to restrain the growth of the funding which helps Indian students to attend post-secondary education institutions. We had that debate earlier and nothing has been done since to improve that situation.
The Human Rights Commission had these words to say in response to the government's restraint on growth: "We have understood on several occasions that given the importance of education, and particularly technical and post-secondary education, it would be worse than shortsighted not to guarantee every possible opportunity to enable native persons to pursue their schooling."
In closing, I call upon all members of this House to support the motion before us. I urge and encourage the government to develop the special initiatives necessary to deal with the health, employment and educational needs of Canada's aboriginal people.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the subject of the employment opportunities for aboriginal youth in Canada's north.
For six years as the member for the riding of Timis-kaming I had the opportunity to have the lower end of James Bay, the communities of Moosonee and Moose Factory as part of my riding. I was able to work with the groups in that area and along the James Bay coast. Unfortunately, through redistribution, I lost the opportunity of representing them, but I still have the people of that area very close to my heart.
The youth of any society are its strength and hope for the future. This statement is particularly true in Canada's north. Its aboriginal people are in a period of transition, adapting their traditional ways of life to today's needs. Unfortunately, the transition has not been an easy one.
This government realizes there are certain stark realities that must be addressed. The Human Rights Commissioner, in his recent report, pointed out that unemployment, the exception for most Canadians, is the norm for aboriginal Canadians. Off reserve, in terms of

April 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
their percentage of the population, aboriginal Canadians are under-represented in the workplace in virtually ever sector of the Canadian economy.
While the problems are very clear, their resolution is not. This government is aware that a long term commitment is necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of self-reliance and self-sufficiency for Canada's aboriginal people.
Nowhere is the problem more complex than in the north, where there are limited wage-earning opportunities over all, and relatively few employment opportunities for unskilled workers. More important, the Indian and Inuit population has a significantly lower level of education and skills. This is related to a number of factors, including cultural differences and difficulty of access to schooling.
Another factor of particular interest is the age structure of the Inuit population, which is markedly different from the rest of Canada. In 1981, the median age of the Inuit was 18, versus 30 for the Canadian population. In 1991, there will still be a 12 year gap between the median ages of both groups. The gap will widen in the longer term to a 15 year age difference in the year 2001-the median age for the Inuit will be 23 compared to 38 for all of Canada.
This relative youthfulness of the Inuit population has important implications for government initiatives. While the Canadian population is aging into retirement and will be demanding increased social services such as geriatric health care and housing for the aged, the Inuit population is entering into the working-age groups and will need labour market oriented services such as training, employment opportunities and assistance for economic development.
I am aware that education is the best way to combat the social malaise and physical hardship that now afflict too many native Canadians. I also know that assistance for Indian post-secondary education is one of the most successful programs the federal government has ever undertaken. The issue of education is an important one that I would like to address in depth at another time.
At the moment, I would like to deal with the initiatives this government has undertaken to stimulate the training and employment opportunities so vital to the youth of the north.
The Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, announced last June, will provide long-term employment and business opportunities to Canada's aboriginal citizens, by giving them the means to manage effectively their own business enterprises, economic institutions, job training and skill development.
This strategy is a long term commitment by its very nature. While previous programs were limited by a sunset clause, this strategy will be on a continuing basis. It represents a government commitment of close to $874 million for its first five years.
Throughout, we will be seeking assurances from aboriginal business and community leaders, provincial and territorial governments and the Canadian business community at large, that they will work together to bring Indian and Inuit people to a new level of economic self-reliance.
A skills development component of the program, to be delivered by Canada Employment and Immigration, will be of particular importance to Indian and Inuit youth in the north. It will provide and increase managerial, professional and vocational skills through training at community colleges, universities and other institutions.
This strategy is not a first by any means, but merely the latest in a series of programs this government has implemented to stimulate employment in the north and throughout Canada.
Over the past five years of Canada-Northwest Territories economic development agreements, $29.6 million will have been spent promoting income and employment growth in the tourism, small business, mining, renewable resources and arts and crafts sectors of the economy.
Over the past five years, this government contributed the largest share of the $21.7 million spent under Canada-Yukon economic development programming which, among other things, promoted the development of businesses maximizing employment and investment opportunities for Yukoners.
April 5, 1990

No review of employment measures would be complete without considering the measures taken by the government to ensure that the training and employment benefits of claims settlements are enjoyed by claims beneficiaries. Subagreements in each agreement in principle pave the way for concrete steps to ensure training and employment opportunities are marketed aggressively to the beneficiaries, ensuring that the opportunities created by the settlements flow to the claimants.
This kind of collaborative economic development programming is important because of its multi-faceted approach and the fact that it recognizes that the role of the federal government is to support, to the extent possible, the decisions and goals that northerners make and set to themselves.
These are important initiatives. They clearly and amply illustrate the role this government is playing in assisting the employment of aboriginal youth in the north. The future belongs to the youth and we are ensuring they are equipped to meet the challenges of new opportunities and to carry future generations forward along the same self-sufficient path.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House.
This motion focuses on the employment, economic and health needs of Canada's aboriginal youth. While these matters are of profound importance, they are also clearly more than just another excuse for partisan debate.
The fundamental problems and concerns involved are hardly new. What is new, however, is the determination and clear direction which this government has demonstrated in addressing these problems and concerns which have had their origins in the earliest days of settlement in this land.
I will not attempt to address all of the issues contained in this motion. In the next few moments, however, I would like to deal with the matters of economic prospects and opportunities for aboriginal youth in Canada. Many approaches have been tried and much serious effort has been made by previous federal governments to address the legitimate and pressing concerns of Canada's
Private Members' Business
aboriginal peoples in general and aboriginal youth in particular.
Why then are we here today debating the same issues and the same concerns which have been the subject of such vigorous efforts in the past? At least part of the answer lies in the complexity of the issues themselves.
Yet another important part of the answer lies in the realization that only a long-term commitment to the achievement of self-reliance and self-sufficiency by Canada's aboriginal people will help to build the basis for genuine and lasting economic and social progress.
How exactly is that progress defined? It is defined in terms of achieving real increases in average income levels and employment rates. It is defined in terms of an expanded and flourishing business base, a better trained and more mobile aboriginal labour force, and a stronger aboriginal management and entrepreneurial capacity. It is defined in this government's Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, announced in June of last year.
I would hope that the majority of hon. members are already well acquainted with the details of this strategy. Unlike previous aboriginal economic development programs, which were limited by deliberate sunset provisions, this strategy will be on a continuing basis.
Supporting this process is a minimum federal government commitment of close to $873 million for the first five years of the strategy. This strategy brings together aboriginal business and community leaders, provincial and territorial governments, and the Canadian business community in a new national partnership. It is a partnership designed to bring aboriginal people to a new level of economic self-reliance with the means to effectively manage their own business enterprises, economic institutions and their own job training and skills development.
Just as the orientation for this strategy is long term, its development did not come overnight. Two years of intensive consultation were undertaken, involving a number of federal departments and representatives of aboriginal people from across Canada. The result is an integrated approach.
This strategy takes into account developmental training, management and ongoing project-support requirements. It offers substantial new opportunities for aboriginal individuals and communities to develop and

April 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
expand commercial enterprises and to obtain long-term employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have more than seven minutes, but I realize we are subject to certain constraints.
On June 25,1987, the government tabled in the House of Commons a new Official Languages Act, to replace the 1969 legislation that had become obsolete. The new Act was passed by this House on July 7, 1988 and by the Senate on July 27 the same year. It received royal assent on July 28, 1988, 13 months after it was tabled.
To be effective, Mr. Speaker, legislation must be accompanied by clear and precise regulations with respect to the language of service, language of work and equitable participation. Those are the three major points this legislation was supposed to clarify, and it was to provide clear and precise guidelines on language of service, language of work and equitable participation.
As the responsible department, Treasury Board was to conduct preliminary consultations with minority groups, which was done in the spring of 1989, when I met Treasury Board's Deputy Secretary, Official Languages Branch, who told me that preliminary consultations had taken place with the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Alliance Quebec and six or seven provincial associations across Canada.
At the time, preliminary consultations were scheduled with the SANB, the Societe des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, in Moncton that week and with the Yukon shortly afterwards. I am talking about March 1989, exactly one year ago. So, consultations with minority groups as required under section 84 of the legislation; approval of draft regulations by cabinet, I suppose, and probably, tabling in the House according to the usual procedure so that members can become acquainted with the regulations, as required under section 85 of the Act.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation comes into force after a long and complex process. However, as the government keeps putting off tabling its regulations, it will become increasingly difficult for Canadians to find out how the legislation will affect them.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board on April 11, 1989 when we would have the regulations under Bill C-72, the Official Languages Act. He assured me they would be tabled by December 1989. Well, Mr. Speaker, April 1990 is here and we still do not have anything.
The lack of action of the government in promoting a new law and informing Canadians on its application is such that Canada is now facing a situation which is getting worse every day. Instead of implementing regulations and launching an information campaign on the actual application of the new law, the government is behaving like a silent witness and doing nothing to counter the misinformation spread throughout the country by certain extremist groups.
Official language minority groups are trying to defend as best they can the language policies the Conservative government is afraid to uphold.
Mr. Speaker, in his annual report tabled in the House two days ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages rightly criticizes the government's lack of action in putting forward regulations that have been too long in coming. He said, and I quote: "We must have the courage to carry through without fear of negative reaction. After all, we are not launching a revolution!"
The Commissioner even compared the lack of leadership shown by the Conservative government and the Prime Minister to a bad conductor. I refer those interested to the annual report which is quite interesting and, I think, fair.
April 5, 1990

Mr. Speaker, this why on April 3, after waiting 21 months for regulations which have yet to be released, I asked the Prime Minister to show some firm leadership and instruct his ministers to stand in their places. The President of the Treasury Board told me me he had not yet consulted with minority groups.
Mr. Speaker, I phoned every single minority association in Canada and was told that consultations are over. It is true that after my question Treasury Board officials called the FFHQ and asked for a meeting. But no proceedings nor any meeting with the associations had been arranged before I raised the question.
Obviously the Conservative government is either afraid of extremist group reactions or inefficient in its negotiations-and today I said as much to the President of the Treasury Board. I am sorry but things are moving so slowly that one has to wonder whether he has become an expert at all-time delaying tactics stalling or whether he is simply a bad negotiator. I know he is a good negotiator, so something is wrong somewhere. Something seems to be difficult to settle in this case. The commissioner's threatened resignation yesterday came as a shock, and I strongly suggest the government should not exacerbate the situation and let it deteriorate to the point where the commissioner, the official languages ombudsman, points a critical finger at the government in his annual report and goes as far as saying he might resign, an officer of the Parliament of Canada!
Mr. Speaker, The Commissioner of Official Languages said: Very little has been done in terms of the official languages over the past ten years. I quote: During the firtst ten years of the Trudeau administration there were people who did look after the official languages issue and much progress was accomplished. Again I quote: Since the Conservatives are in office, he said, the ratio of federal employees who meet the linguistic requirements of their duties has decreased.
Mr. Speaker, we do have linguistic problems in this country. I ask the government to do something, to give us right away the regulations of Bill C-72 so that we know just what the government plans to do in this matter.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to respond to the concerns of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board.

The member has expressed in the House on many occasions his deep concern for the official language policy of the Government of Canada. His concern is no deeper than that of the President of the Treasury Board and members on this side of the House of Commons. That was expressed very effectively in the Official Languages Act which was enacted by the House of Commons in 1987. No greater faith in the policy of duality of languages in Canada could be expressed than was by the enactment of a statute in the House of Commons.
What remains to be done is the full implementation of that statute and I want to assure the hon. member of the good faith of the President of the Treasury Board and the Government of Canada in that implementation process.
May I draw a personal analogy, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is a life-long resident and native of the national capital region, as is the President of the Treasury Board. Those people understand very well the two solitudes in Canada coming together and being one. They are leaders, as indeed they should be, in this evolutionary process. But they must realize that it is a evolutionary process and that moderation is required. Moderation and will win the day, not pre-emptory action that will not accomplish the desired end.
There is evolution and development every day. We have heard in the House and other places that the Greater Vancouver Regional District just recently passed a resolution supporting the linguistic duality of our nation. It urged all Canadians from coast to coast to display the tolerance and understanding necessary to the building of Canada as a unified nation and constructive member of both the English-speaking and Frenchspeaking parts of the world community. I think that is what we all want to accomplish.
The question is how do we accomplish it? Do we accomplish it by simply pushing forward regulations and forcing them on Canadians, or do we go through a consultation process to ensure that everyone is in agreement on how the official language policy should be implemented. As the hon. member well knows, that is

Adjournment Debate
what the President of the Treasury Board is seeking to do and is doing. He has consulted, in accordance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act, with the linguistic minority groups. He has spoken, as required by the act, to a number of people.
Evidence of that is in the action by the Vancouver group. If we see evidence of that across Canada, we know that people are gathering around this policy, this principle of language duality as represented by the Official Languages Act.
The member complains that time is passing and action is not sufficient to meet his desires. He has to realize that it is a difficult process but the goal is to convince all Canadians of the benefits of the official languages policy.
The President of the Treasury Board has time and time again committed himself to this task. The Government of Canada is committed to this task. I do not know why the member raises this complaint. To answer my own question, I do know why. The Commissioner of Official Languages raised this point and he wants to take advantage of it. I do not fault the member for that. The more he raises it and brings public attention to this issue the more people will understand the need for progress.
The Official Languages Commissioner has his job to do and he has done it well. He has brought it to the attention of the House of Commons and all Canadians. I assure the member and the Official Languages Commissioner that the government is proceeding at the appropriate rate of speed. It is consulting, it is ensuring that the end product will be satisfactory to all Canadians and will accomplish the desired end of unanimous consent and concurrence to official language policy.


FORESTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on what I think is a very timely debate. As you know, I rose in the House last Friday to question the Minister of Forestry about the British Columbia-Canada forest agreement which was expiring the day after. That was actually an anniversary date. It was more bad timing by the government because that was the anniversary date for the expiry of forest agreements in Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Ontario, and not just for a week or two, but for a full year.
I rose to ask that question of the minister. I am pleased that his parliamentary secretary is here today to respond. Perhaps he could make an announcement in the Chamber tonight about the forestry agreement. I want to raise my concerns about how important that agreement has been to the provinces I mentioned but, more particularly, how important it is to the province of British Columbia.
The Forest Resource Development Agreement has meant thousands and thousands of people employed in silvicultural work in British Columbia. It has been used primarily to replant what we call our backlog NSR, the Not Satisfactorily Restocked land. It has provided funds for research and it has helped focus activity at both the federal and provincial levels of government to tackle our problems with forests.
It is because of the debate concerning our forests today in this country, in my province especially, that this agreement is so important. It is important because it gives a role to the federal government to work with the provinces at a very basic level in terms of employment opportunity. The B.C. forest agreement contributes close to 600,000 additional cubic metres per year to the annual cut in British Columbia. That means people get jobs because of the forest agreement.
We have been calling on the government and the provincial government to renew that agreement for some time now. We had commitments from the federal Minister of Forestry in April, 1989; June, 1989; October, 1989; December, 1989; and now we are told, after the agreement has expired, that we have to wait some more, we have to wait until planting season. Well, I do not think that is good enough and the people of British Columbia do not think that is good enough.
It is important that we do not let the government of British Columbia off the hook either. This is a process of setting priorities, priorities by the federal government and priorities by the provincial government.
We have had the most unfortunate situation where the Premier of British Columbia hollered loudly last fall for this government to cut transfer payments to the provinces. This government did that and then the Premier cried "foul". The Premier of British Columbia has pulled the rug out from under his Minister of Forests. I
April 5, 1990

think this is the eighth one. As far as I know he is still the Minister of Forests in British Columbia.
We now have the spectacle of the federal Minister of Forestry saying that the initial British Columbia request to replant our forests is unreasonable. We now have the current provincial Minister of Forests saying that the initial request that his previous colleague developed is utopian. This is a shellgame between the Conservatives in Ottawa and the Socreds in Victoria, and it is our forests that are going to suffer.
We have been arguing with my provincial colleague, the MLA from Prince Rupert, and our entire New Democratic caucus. In particular, the B.C. members of this house have been arguing for this agreement.
The premier is in Prince George tomorrow. The provincial minister is there. The federal minister is sneaking in Friday night. They should use the occasion in Prince George tomorrow to sign an agreement that reflects the range of $800 million to $1 billion as identified by the silvicultural and forestry communities as necessary to replant our forests in B.C. That is how important this agreement is.
These agreements across the country have, in varied ways, done different things. In Alberta there has been considerable research into developing some added value qualities. Ontario has gone a year without an agreement. While the federal minister has suggested that the Liberals in Queen's Park have not made a lot of noise about renewing the agreement, I can at least echo the words of the provincial minister, who is suggesting that at a time when the sustainable development of our forest is so important, there is a reduction in the federal commitment.
That is not good enough. The people of British Columbia and other provinces want that agreement signed, and they want it signed today.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from British Columbia. I would first of all like to thank him for especially pointing out that the latest series of federal-provincial forestry
Adjournment Debate
agreements has been very beneficial, for his province and all the other provinces of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind him that since 1984, the federal government has been strongly committed to forestry. Just think of all the agreements that were signed, the first series providing over $1 billion, of which more than $600 came from the federal government, to see what a priority' forestry is for our government.
I would also like to remind my colleague that since the late 1950s, 1957-60, this is the first time we have a full Forestry Department independent of other departments like Agriculture or Environment.
I would also remind my colleague that all three parties in this House unanimously agreed to restore a Department of Forestry because we know how very important this industry is for our country's economic and social health, in all provinces of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and that of course includes British Columbia.
I would also remind my colleague-and if you have some honesty in politics, you must admit it-that the oppostion often accuses us, the federal government, of not having done anything last year. I would like to remind my colleague that the minister of Forestry firmly intends to renew the agreements in each of the provinces. It is obvious; we just have to mention the New Brunswick agreement, which was improved, the Nova Scotia agreement, the Prince Edward Island agreement. We just have to mention the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which was renewed. We just have to mention the willingness of the minister, who travelled from Newfoundland to Vancouver, met with concerned groups and discussed with people.
Mr. Speaker, it's nice to say: We absolutely want a forestry agreement, it's vital to our province. However, conscienscious people, people who believe in consultation and can accept ideas from other people nevertheless have to start by sitting down with the people concerned and determine what the needs are, analyse them and, if funds are available, make agreements and allocate amounts that could be most beneficial to the forest sector.
That is precisely what the Minister of Forestry has been doing for the past year. I would like to point out to my colleague that the minister has met numerous people, in British Columbia as well as in Quebec and Ontario. And our minister speaks the truth, Mr. Speaker, when he says: "There should be more consultation with the provinces." The provinces must also give us the feedback we need regarding forestry. I think that is important, because this government does not intend to act unilaterally as far as the forest sector is concerned.

April 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
What we are expecting from the Department of Forestry is- It is important that the agreement takes into account the needs of the environment, sustainable development, quality supplies for our businesses, and decent salaries for our forestry workers. That is what the Minister of Forestry has been working for and I hope my hon. colleague will support such a worthy approach, not only for a political party, but also for a
very important sector of our economy, namely our Canadian society.


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 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 6, 1990