1990-05-30

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture some time ago announced federal assistance of $450 million to Canadian grain and oilseed producers to help address the projected income shortfall caused by unfair foreign export subsidies. I congratulate the minister on his decision to turn these moneys over to the provinces so that each province can devise eligibility and delivery criteria that will best address the needs of its producers. Putting the province in charge of distribution should reduce the time delays inherent in national ad hoc programs.
Some $237 million of this federal money will go to Saskatchewan for distribution to producers along with whatever additional funds the province of Saskatchewan is prepared to put up. This assistance is further tangible evidence of this government's ongoing commitment to Canadian and Saskatchewan producers.



Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the government finally released the initial prices of Ontario wheat, affecting 18,000 producers. In spite of numerous requests from the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, the government should recognize its responsibilities in the international trade war which threatens to destroy Canadian
agriculture and ensure an initial price for all Ontario wheat of $130 a tonne. The government has refused.
The government eliminated the at and east transportation program, the Advance Payments for Crops Program, and now the government has set the initial price at $20 to $30 per tonne below the farmers' actual cost of production. These initial low prices cannot be justified by the market when world stocks are at historic lows. An initial price for Ontario white winter wheat of $115 a tonne is unacceptable. This is a drop of $15 a tonne, a drop of 11.5 per cent.
I call on the government to respond to the international trade war, which has lowered grain prices by $20 to $30 a tonne, by implementing an export program for Canada's producers and restore the two-price wheat policy to ensure an equitable return for Canada's producers.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the printing industry today, space-age satellite technology allows typesetting and film to be prepared offshore, usually in Pacific Rim countries, and then to be transmitted to Canada by satellite. Before the advent of this technology, when that work entered Canada, it was subject to duty. Today it is not. This means pre-press shops in Canada compete with firms in Hong Kong and Taiwan with wage scales two-thirds lower than ours. This is a clear case of public policy not keeping up with technology.
As a result of the free trade agreement, the hyper competitive Canadian print market has been opened to giant U.S. printing firms, squeezing the Canadian industry and limiting its ability to modernize. As well, a 25 per cent drop in Canadian print exports is a direct result of this government's high interest rate policy.
I urge the government to move to ensure this critical part of the communication industry remains healthy and viable.

May 30, 1990


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Alice Linden of London, Ontario, says she does not want to tell her great-grandchildren she stood by in 1990 and did nothing to stop Canada from breaking up.
So, at noon today in London, she organized her own rally to send a message of unity to the people of Canada. In so doing, she awakened the sleeping giant in our community. Hundreds of Londoners, including John King and the students from Mountsfield Public School, used their lunch hour to stand up and be counted. Their message was simple. With hand lettered signs, and dressed in red and white, these people reached out in support and understanding to our neighbours in Quebec.
The people of London, in the heart of English Canada, want the rest of Canada to know that they will not sit quietly and allow a noisy minority to split the country we love. Alice and people like her are the silent majority in our country. With them, a powerful momentum is building in the hamlets, villages, towns and cities across our great land. It begs to be heard before it is too late. Keep Canada together. Gordons le Canada uni.
Congratulations, Alice. I call upon the silent majority of Canadians to break their silence and join her fight.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Printing Industries Association is meeting this week in Ottawa. Our printing industry employs 60,000 Canadians through more than 3,000 establishments, almost all of them Canadian-owned small businesses. Its sales are nearly $2 billion per year.
In 1989, the first year under free trade, our printing imports were up 20 per cent, exports were down 25 per cent, and Canada's trade deficit in printed materials skyrocketed 142 per cent.
One thousand Canadian printers lost their jobs last year. This sorry performance is a result of Tory government policies, high interest rates, a high dollar and a free
trade deal that permits Americans to unfairly discriminate against our Canadian printers. When will the Government of Canada stand up for Canada's printers? When will the Government of Canada stand up for Canada's businesses? When will it stand up for Canada?


RAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of CN inter-office correspondence dated February 22,1990, sent by Mr. Bourgeois, Director of Quebec City operations, to Mr. Boucher, Regional Director in Montreal, concerning two different scenarios for putting the Chapais subdivision, between Franquet and Chapais, back in service.
The first scenario would be to accommodate traffic if necessary-which implies that the section will be strictly used as an emergency detour-and the second, to put back into circulation a certain volume of traffic as specified in another memo.
In concluding, Mr. Bourgeois added the following: "If, as expected, we plan to put the section back into service, to be used only if necessary".
Mr. Speaker, once again, the President of CN and the big bosses in Quebec City and Montreal have blithely ignored the ruling by the National Transportation Agency of Canada on January 31, 1990, as well as CN workers and the various economic partners in Abitibi.

{English]


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the low value placed on Canada's forests by provincial governments has led to wasted resources and a poor return to Canadians. A classic example is the strong demand in the United States for recycled newsprint. Because of the ready access to under-priced trees, pulp mills in Canada produce almost entirely virgin pulp and paper, much of it for U.S. markets.
May 30, 1990

At a time when existing mills should be adding de-inking facilities to recycle newsprint and paper, and when new mills should be designing in recycling capacity, we see inaction.
The Canadian forest barons clearly intend to hand over the major recycling market to U.S. firms and to continue gobbling Canadian forests.
The former Minister of the Environment pointed out that 80 million trees, the entire annual cut of the province of Ontario, could be saved by setting recycling standards in Canada to that of Japan. We should not be filling our landfills with recyclable paper. Paper fibre can be recycled seven times, not once.
Forty per cent of the marine pollution in Canada is from pulp mills. It is time they cleaned up, reduced their cut and waste, and recycled their product. Canada needs law on recycling.
*	He *


THE ARTS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I recently had occasion to go through Pearson International Airport's Terminal II which is presently undergoing renovations. I noticed that the terminal was sporting many cartoons and murals and had pamphlets with cartoon characters drawn by American Mad Magazine artist Don Martin.
Upon investigation it was discovered that the art was commissioned by Air Canada, a Crown corporation. While the characters are highly amusing, I could not understand why Air Canada would choose an American over a Canadian artist. There is a happy ending to this. Further investigation found that while the copyrighted figures belong to artist Don Martin, the layout and design was done by Canadian artists. In fact, I discovered that Air Canada has the largest private art bank in Canada and they are very involved in promoting young Canadian artists.
I would like to commend Air Canada on their role for the enhancement and the status of the Canadian artist.


SOVIET UNION
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the
visit of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and his wife Raisa to Canada. They have certainly impressed Canadians and we warmly wish this man of peace every success.
I would also like to take this time to urge our government to support President Gorbachev's efforts of reform. But, to do so, Canada must first increase its diplomatic presence in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Speaker, the opening of a new Canadian consulate in Kiev has been delayed. Canada should have a consulate in Leningrad. Our Moscow embassy is seriously understaffed. Stronger ties between the Soviet Union and Canada are impossible without a greater Canadian presence in the Soviet Union, including greater Canadian expertise in Soviet languages and Soviet affairs. Among other faults, the lack of Canadian personnel in the Soviet Union makes it unnecessarily difficult for those wishing to emigrate from the Soviet Union to Canada. We in the Liberal party believe in supporting greater Canadian-Soviet relations in areas such as economy, agriculture, Arctic protection, and the environment.
Therefore I urge the government to take the opportunity of Mr. Gorbachev's visit to secure Soviet co-operation, to proceed immediately with the opening of new Canadian consulates in the Soviet Union, and to increase the Canadian presence in our existing embassy in Moscow.



Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, we have the honour and the privilege of receiving in Canada a great statesman, the President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who ended the cold war.
Thanks to wide-ranging reforms that are taking place in Eastern Europe, a new era of liberalization, unification and openness is bom.
Canada has its place in the history of this process. Last February, it hosted the first "Open Skies" conference, attended by foreign affairs ministers of the 23 NATO And Warsaw Pact countries.

May 30, 1990
Oral Questions
During our Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union last November, 14 bilateral agreements were signed, on subjects ranging from international relations in the Arctic to the environment and trade.
President Gorbachev's visit to Canada will no doubt be an important event in the history of Soviet-Canadian relations. We must now look to the future and consider the major issues.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Canada and our Prime Minister are playing a leading role in achieving more peaceful relations between countries the world over.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment to the environment does not stand the test. Salisbury, a community in my riding, is very disappointed at the lack of support it received from the government when it tried to participate in federal government environmental programs. Schools in my area are in need of federal funds to support their recycling projects.

Their students are not trying to collect money to pay for trips or the prom. These students are concerned about the environment. All they want is a small amount of money to help them carry out their project.

We are encouraging people to get involved, but we are not delivering at the other end. We are building support and commitment, but we cannot deliver at the program level. We have top down programs rather than bottom up. Without effective programs we will ultimately lose the support of the people and then we will lose our environment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of most people responsible for economic policy, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister whoever he or she may be.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Exporters Association both agree that the government's high interest rate policy as well as the exchange rate policy are creating a lot of problems for exporters in the country. As a matter of fact it is disastrous for the manufacturing sector particularly.
Is the government now prepared to listen to the manufacturing sector, the Canadian premiers, the Canadian Labour Congress, and consumers and change the disastrous monetary policy that is wrecking our economy?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks about the level of the dollar and our manufacturing
sector.
I think he knows that the World Economic Forum judged Canada the fourth most productive economy in the world in 1988. The study to which he is making reference was done in 1988. This was before the government was able to bring in the free trade agreement, which makes our manufacturing sector more competitive. It was also before we were able to bring legislation before the House to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax, which is very important to the manufacturing sector.
More important, we have for example Chrysler's $400 million investment. We have Stelco expanding. We have the forest products industry expanding. We have CATO Industries expanding and a number of high-tech firms. There are endless stories of manufacturing investment increasing.
However, the most important point for the hon. member to remember is that recently we have some pressures on labour costs. They are starting to rise. This we must deal with, and that we are doing.
May 30, 1990


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not aware that as recently as this week the Canadian Exporters Association and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association both indicated that they are in a very precarious position as a result of the high dollar policy of this government.
There are studies that indicate we are at a 40-year low in terms of our competitiveness in the U.S. market. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister or whoever is speaking for the government on economic matters today a question.
Do they not understand the depth of the problem being articulated by the leading Canadian business spokespeople in this country? Do they not recognize that they have to change their high interest, high dollar policy, or Canadian exports are going to face a disastrous situation from which they will not recover for many years, if ever?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the way to be competitive is to control costs. Two absolutely essential ways to control costs is to make sure that labour costs are reasonable and that inflationary pressures in the country do not increase.
The two biggest threats we have to the structure of costs in the manufacturing industry are inflationary pressures that come from excess demands and excess credit. The Bank of Canada's efforts on the monetary side are helping with that. However, more important, we have a fiscal policy which has been responsible and which is also doing its bit to ensure costs are kept in line. This we must do. To lower the dollar would simply increase enormously input costs, especially for the manufacturing sector. That is not the way to go.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister fails to understand what all Canadians are trying to tell him. The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 20 projected a bank rate of 11.1 per cent. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce tells us this is out of the question. In fact, people have been saying this ever since the budget was brought down.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this: Considering that the bank rate will not be 11.1 per cent
Oral Questions
this year, and considering that our expenditures will be at least $2 billion more than was estimated in the Budget, will the government bring down a new Budget that reflects the current economic situation in this country?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Minister of Finance has said no to that proposition. He has also made it clear that income tax revenues are flowing a little better than expected. That helps to balance the pessimistic comments he made about interest rate costs.
However, more important, to artificially take the dollar or to take interest rates and lower them would simply chase investment out of Canada and increase enormously the cost of manufacturing inputs and all sorts of imports we get from other countries. This would simply lead to the kind of spiral we had in 1981-1982 when interest rates were 22 per cent and 23 per cent and inflation was running at 14 per cent and 15 per cent. This we do not want, and this is what we are fighting.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister for International Trade, if there is one in the House. A report by the Canadian Printing Industries Association, published a year after the free trade agreement with the United States came into force, indicates there has been a 25 per cent drop in exports. Could the Acting Minister for International Trade inform the House what the government intends to do to stop a process that threatens the very existence of the printing industry in this country?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there is probably no industrial sector in Canada more dependent on high cost machinery than the printing industry.
The government is trying to moderate inflation and to keep the cost of inputs and imports down. A large part of the imports in the printing industry come from offshore. We are trying to moderate inflation, to make sure those costs do not go up, and to make sure the price of imports

May 30, 1990
Oral Questions
do not go up. However, above all, by removing the manufacturers' sales tax, by removing the 13.5 per cent tax and putting in its place a tax which is virtually instantly rebated through input tax credit, is good news for that industry. I hope the hon. member will support us in that.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister says, free trade, the high dollar, the elimination of postal subsidy, and the GST are badly hurting the Canadian printing industry.
Maybe the minister should read the report from the Canadian printing industry so that he will realize the damage they are doing to the industry.
My question to the minister is very simple. Why does the government want to destroy the printing industry in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if one takes the conclusions at which the hon. member has just invited the House to arrive with him, that first we should have a lower dollar which would increase the cost of machinery for the printing industry enormously, and if he wants to reinstate all the tariffs that existed before free trade and make sure we could not lower tariffs, that would increase the cost to the printing industry enormously.
If he is also arguing that he does not want the industry to look globally and in a continental sense, then he is asking for the very opposite of what this industry is asking for. It wants to be competitive, it wants a chance at world markets, and it wants low cost imports.


BALTIC STATES
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister or whoever is responsible for external affairs today.
Many Canadians have shown strong support for the democratic aspirations of the Baltic nations and for a peaceful resolution to the present crisis in that part of the world.
Will the Acting Prime Minister assure us that it has been made clear to Mr. Gorbachev that Canadians know
his economic blockade of Lithuania runs contrary to his earlier assurances of no forceful intervention?
Given the conciliatory offers of compromise recently made by the Baltic negotiators, will the Canadian government urge Mr. Gorbachev to suspend the economic boycott of Lithuania and, particularly, the blockade of medical supplies which is now reaching catastrophic dimensions?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of our policy, which has been consistent in this House, from statements made on several occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. She knows perfectly well that our position remains the same. We have confirmed our position of non-recognition, de jure, of Lithuania's annexation by the Soviet Union. We urged the Soviet authorities to show moderation, and we condemned their blockade of Lithuania. We emphasized the need for dialogue, and that is certainly the message that has been transmitted to the authorities during their visit. We still think that dialogue and moderation are the best way to deal with this kind of conflict.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is very brief.
Would the government be willing to provide advice and assistance to the Lithuanian Canadian community and others in Canada who are trying to find a way to get much needed medical supplies into Lithuania?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, we are of course very concerned about the situation in Lithuania, and we can assure Canadians that, should certain groups wish to send medical equipment or supplies to Lithuania, we would be willing to consider, assist and support this kind of operation. At the present time, however, we have not received any requests from official authorities in that country. We are prepared to consider any assistance offered by Canadian authorities or the Canadian public.
May 30, 1990


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the government knows that the Baltic crisis should be resolved within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The Baltic republics will be seeking observer participant status at the upcoming meeting on the human dimension in Copenhagen. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us her assurance that Canada will support that request?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the President of the Soviet Union is still in Canada and that the talks are not over yet. I am sure that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns to the House, he will be happy to inform the House about the discussions that took place and various representations the Government of Canada has made to the Soviet authorities.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister who today answers for fisheries. The free trade panel has decided against Canada, a decision which will cost Canadian lobster fishermen $30 million. Will the minister now specify what financial assistance will be made available to Atlantic lobster fishermen to get them through this crisis?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this is a trade question and the last time I looked lobsters were a commodity that this country trades.
On the question of the loss of trade through the decision made by the panel, I said yesterday that this gives us a 90-day-period for industry, labour and governments to get together to see what they can put together.
Oral Questions
The most important fact that this hon. member should be aware of is that we are promoting in a massive way the smaller lobsters in other countries as well as the larger lobsters in the United States, so much so that the original estimate of $30 million will certainly not turn out to be accurate. The promotional campaign is working very well. In fact, in recent months industry and the provinces have made a concerted effort to reduce inventories from $20 million in January to about $4.7 million. So we are having great luck with our promotion campaign.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The promotional package announced last week is not enough. Promotion will only sell lobsters bought from fishermen at $1.25 a pound. This is not good enough if they are forced out of business by this year's low prices.
Therefore, will the minister immediately commit his government to providing a price package to help lobster fishermen now?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will find this list of what the minister has committed long, but it is very important.
First, External Affairs and International Trade have identified lobsters to Canadian posts as priority fishing market items for this year. We have also encouraged the formation of the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association for generic image and quality promotion. We have undertaken a world-wide survey of markets through Canadian posts with results that are soon to be released. We are working with the industry, the provinces and the associations directly to make officials aware of the many opportunities, opportunities which this country has not taken proper advantage of in the past to promote this product, not simply through grocery stores and restaurants but through trade fairs and other contexts.
We believe not just in subsidizing and subsidizing but in promoting, and it is working.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The major environmental scourge in the Great Lakes is the zebra mussel, a parasite imported from Europe. It has already totally infested Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair,

May 30, 1990
Oral Questions
almost all of Lake Ontario, and it is now showing signs in Lake Huron and Lake Superior. It creates havoc for industry and for governmental agencies, especially municipalities.
The American government is committing $37.5 million to control it. Ontario Hydro is spending over $10 million and we do not know how much Ford is spending to correct it. Industries like Ford are spending millions. The only institution not doing anything effectively is this government.
Will the minister commit the necessary funds today to control the zebra mussel spread in the Great Lakes?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the question which the hon. member raises is very important. I want to reassure him by indicating that this government is working in close co-operation with the Ontario government, with American counterparts, with Great Lakes authorities and with the universities.
There are currently in place some 26 research projects which are designed to provide the science and technology we need to address the problem which already exists in the presence in the Great Lakes of the zebra mussels.
It is also very important, however, to understand that this government must continue with its actions of taking every step possible to ensure that ships coming into the Great Lakes from overseas waters are dumping their ballast at sea in order to ensure that no greater quantities of zebra mussels come into Canada than are already here.
We must continue to co-operate together in the future as we have in the past.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I asked what this government is doing that is effective. If the government was doing anything effective we would control the spread of the zebra mussel in Lake Huron and Lake Superior. We have to take immediate action today. We cannot wait two years to control the spread of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes. If this government does something immediately we can control its spread in Lake Huron and Lake Superior.
What will this government do to correct the zebra mussel problem in these two lakes?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that action for the sake of action is not always as productive as the hon. member suggests.
We are working in very close co-operation with the universities to ensure that we have the technology and science in place which will enable us to reduce the number of zebra mussels.
At the moment we are also considering using chlorine in water in those areas where intake pipes are being blocked by the zebra mussels. That is one action which is possible within a constrained area. However, it is also important to understand that you cannot put massive amounts of chlorine into water because that will create another problem.
The hon. member is suggesting that the work of scientists in Canadian universities is not important. I suggest to him that it is exceedingly important and the net result will be evident in the very near future.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whoever is the acting part-time minister of fisheries and oceans today. In 1987, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Government of British Columbia and the Alcan Aluminium Company signed an out-of-court agreement that will reduce the flows of the Nechako River, a major tributary of the Fraser River, by 50 per cent.
On Saturday, at a conference in Vanderhoof, B.C., a retired Fisheries and Oceans biologist reported that scientists in the department were put under political pressure to rationalize the diversion and justify their advice to the minister.
Is the minister, whoever that is today, aware of this evidence? Will he not investigate this serious allegation and report back to this House immediately?
Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint my friends opposite. The question that my hon. friend
May 30, 1990

raises is one to which, at this moment, I cannot respond. I think he knows that the government is very concerned about fish habitat and the situation in British Columbia.
I undertake to get back to him directly on the matter and to respond either to him directly or to the House.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should speak to his leader. In June of 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, said that this project would receive a full environmental review. The settlement that was eventually decided on excluded the company from any environmental assessment.
In light of expected environmental assessment legislation under the Green Plan, will the minister order a complete and full review of this project as promised by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could enlighten my hon. friend about this particular project. Of course there was an environmental assessment carried out at the time that the new arrangement was made.
In fact, the new conditions that are imposed on the company tend to enhance the environment of the area very significantly in the sense that it restores an old river bed.
If my hon. friend knew the area, as he should because he is the member from there, he would know that a river bed has been restored, that the temperature of the water can be regulated and that millions of dollars have been spent to improve the habitat of the fish. Every possible guarantee has been written into the agreement to make sure that actually happens.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week the minister said that the independent truckers were satisfied with solutions proposed by him for the blockades
Oral Questions
and he said that the blockades would be lifted at international border points. However, several independent truckers in my riding and elsewhere say otherwise.
Can the minister now tell us precisely what he will do to assist the trucking industry and when he will do it?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TYansport):: Mr. Speaker, the the Minister of Transport for Ontario, Bill Wiye, and I, did reach an agreement with the independent truckers vis-a-vis what would be done by the province of Ontario and what would be done by the federal government to assist their situation.
Specifically, we suggested that we would crack down on illegal cabotage. We suggested that we would take up with the Bureau of Competition their complaints about certain U.S. truckers. Third, we undertook to try together to find a more effective way of collecting both the federal and excise tax on fuel and the Ontario fuel tax. We both agreed that a better method was necessary. We also agreed to have federal officials liaise with the committee with which they have.
The independent truckers were satisfied. The blockade has been lifted and the work is underway.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Why did the minister fail to notify the independent truckers of the so-called resolution to their concerns last week? Truckers at several crossing points, including Johnstown and the Thousand Island Bridge, were not notified.
Why were these independent truckers not notified at these border points?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, both the Ontario minister and myself put what we would do in writing and made every effort to communicate with the independent truckers. I think my hon. friend would understand that it is rather difficult to communicate without any organization being in place.
We made copies of my letter and that of Bill Wrye available to the Ontario Provincial Police. It is my understanding that through their network they were able to distribute it to the truckers.

May 30, 1990
Oral Questions


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Yesterday the minister said that the government was committed to promoting interracial relations. Concurrently the Conservative government members on the legislative committee examining Bill C-37 have refused to hear evidence from Quebec witnesses and limited public representations to only four groups.
How can the government promote racial harmony when its members take such an aggressive position concerning Quebec witnesses?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member is talking about something that happened before the legislative committee.
The committee is the master of its agenda and I certainly do not have anything to say about whatever may have happened in committee.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister could tell his committee that it would be too biased not to hear from Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member probably knows, as other hon. members know, that the questions that can be asked about what is taking place in committee are somewhat limited. The minister chose to answer, and the minister has given an answer. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplemental I hope that she will keep in mind that it should be directed to the minister in an area in which he does have jurisdiction.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the same minister. The government claims it wants to promote tolerance throughout the country, yet the members refused to hear Mr. Bitton, a witness who is an advisor to the Quebec government.
Can the minister explain how he will address the distinct problems of heritage languages in Quebec without listening to the province's representatives?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker-


Shirley Maheu: That is policy.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is asking a question of policy, that is one thing, but that question is going right back into the committee, and the hon. member knows that the Speaker will have to remind members that that is not a question that is appropriate for ministers. The minister, of course, can make a reply if he wishes, but I have to say that that question is going too far.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, whoever he might be. Yesterday the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture learned of three serious cases of human rights violations at the Canadian RadioTelevision and Communications Commission. It also heard for the first time that the chairman of the commission had just heard of these violations.
The management of the CRTC is refusing to comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell us why the CRTC is forcing its employees to extreme lengths in order to seek basic justice? If not, will he undertake to fully investigate why the CRTC is refusing to comply with human rights rulings?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC, as the House well knows and as the member knows, is an arm's length agency. However, if the allegations are true, as the member suggests they are, and I have to accept his word for it at this point, I am sure the Minister of Communications will have the opportunity to relay the question to the chairman of the CRTC.
May 30, 1990


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly appreciate if that were done because when an agency of the government forces its employees to go so far as to a tribunal in so far as the Eluman Rights Commission is concerned, it is unacceptable in Canada in 1990. Not only does that apply to the CRTC, it applies to the whole government service as well.
My supplementary question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General assure this House that he will not use the Section 59 discretionary loophole in the Human Rights Act and will prosecute cases if the investigating agency considers there is a basis for prosecution?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary to the minister has already answered the question completely.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Western Economic Diversification. I have here a copy of a letter that was written by his colleague, the member for Portage-Interlake, to the Minister of Energy wherein he states his opposition to any further funding for the core area initiative in Winnipeg, a program which, as the minister knows, has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of private capital and has assisted thousands of businesses and individuals to help in the renewal of that city.
Will the minister give his assurance that this does not reflect the position of the Conservative cabinet of this government? Will the minister give his assurance that he will undertake to start serious negotiation with the city and the province for the renewal of the core area initiative? Particularly, will he reject the know-nothing opinions of his colleague from Portage-Interlake?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's
Oral Questions
representation. We are presently looking at the whole area of the limited amount of funding that we have to go around. I will certainly take his representations into view as we go through and complete the review.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we did not get the assurances we need.
Why is it that when the Western Diversification Fund still has over $500 million yet unattached, it has not given its fair proportion to Manitoba? In fact, there have been cut-backs already for the cultural industries announced just last week by the Minister of Communications. There have been major cut-backs in transfers to the universities and hospitals. There has been a major cut-back on programs for research and agriculture.
Why is this government picking on Manitoba, denying it our proper share of regional development funds?
The member for Portage-Interlake may be an expert on art, but he knows nothing about regional development. Will the minister at least stand up for the province of Manitoba?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the record of the amount of money we have allocated to Manitoba on a proportionate basis relative to population, he will be interested to see that it is getting a little more than its share. So he is wrong there.
Second, I can recall about 10 years ago when that member was a member of the previous government. They went out to Calgary and promised a $5 billion Western Diversification Fund and we got little, if any, out of it.
We have committed over $1.8 billion to be spent in the west on regional development over a five-year period. We are on target for spending that amount of money. So far we have created something in the order of 25,000 permanent, diversified, quality jobs. That is a pretty good record in two and a half years as compared to what the previous government did. It did nothing except make big promises with a lot of zeros behind them and the result was zero as well.

May 30,1990
Oral Questions UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Several task forces commissioned by the Minister of Employment over the last few years have recommended funding strategy for training that does not involve the complete destruction of the unemployment insurance system. All of those recommendations have been rejected. The latest of these is the one from the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, which again recommends a refundable tax credit to finance training.
Since that recommendation allows the government to meet its funding obligations under the Unemployment Insurance Act and still allows for funding training for the government in its proposed labour force development strategy, why will the minister not accept that recommendation?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: The
report was just tabled, Mr. Speaker. We will therefore need some time to examine the recommendations and then try to implement them.
We could take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment, as a government, to those programs. Already, several millions of dollars have regularly been invested in order to subsidize training and considerable amounts have been made available to the programs.
Of course, we can expand the Labour Force Development Strategy and take into account all the recommendations submitted to us to allow for the flexibility required to improve our programs.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the report has been released for at least one week. That advisory council also condemns Canada's monetary policy as a major contributor to manufacturing shutdowns, losses of good jobs, increases in the deficit and inflation, and the resulting high unemployment.
The unemployed are being made to bear the brunt of the government's high interest rate policy. Why will the minister not accept that recommendation? Further, why will she not ask the Minister of Finance why he insists on implementing policies that prevent her from fulfilling her mandate to the unemployed and to those whose jobs he is putting at risk?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as a government, we certainly do not need to take any advice or lesson concerning the need to reform the labour strategy as required. Our strategy works fine and we have created the jobs needed. Women representation in the workplace has increased. The only thing left to do at this point, as far as I am concerned, is to ask the other place to approve expeditiously the reform we are proposing regarding the labour strategy and its improved programs. We will, of course, take into account the consultations made as well as the recommendations submitted and we will implement them according to our financial means.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to whomever speaks for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
In 1982, the federal government and the government of Ontario bailed out what has now become Varity Corporation, in the sum of $200 million. For that amount of bail out the company promised to produce 1,500 new jobs in Canada. This morning it was announced that Kelsey-Hayes, which was purchased by Varity, is closing definitely in August, in spite of government promises that it would stop this.
Now Varity says it is going to move its headquarters to Buffalo, in spite of a promise to the government that it would maintain its corporate headquarters in Canada. What is the government going to do about it?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the reports that Varity is considering moving its head office to Buffalo, but we have not been advised of any such move. I want the
May 30, 1990

member to know that a letter has been sent by ISTC officials reminding Varity of the undertakings it has in the foundation agreement and that we expect Varity to live up to those agreements.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think even this government might understand that if Varity buys a mansion in Buffalo that ain't a place for a summer cottage.
Is it the intention of this government, along with the government of the province of Ontario, to enforce the covenant and maintain corporate headquarters in Canada and save those hundreds of jobs in Windsor or not? Is it just going to be letter writing or is the government going to enforce the law?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should know that there have been no changes granted by the Government of Canada whatsoever in the foundation agreement with Varity, and there will be none.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the government likes to pretend it can treat people, especially its own employees, like pawns on a chessboard and move them around and knock them off at will. A memo leaked from Transport Canada last week shows that the cut-back of 300 employees is going to jeopardize air safety and is going to increase contracting costs.
Now that the Minister of Transport has had time to look into this leaked memo, will he admit that these cut-backs are in fact compromising air safety and will he immediately stop any action on cut-backs?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question we are looking at ways to save money, but in no way do any of the efforts that we have made compromise safety. Safety is first and foremost.
There have been allegations from other colleagues on my hon. friend's side as to alleged reports, alleged cut-backs, alleged this and alleged that, but I have not seen any of the allegations.
Oral Questions


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had over five days to look into a report from his own department. It is no allegation. I will send it to him across the aisle.
This is the government that came to Ottawa promising pink slips and running shoes to public servants. It likes to pretend that it is only trimming fat in Ottawa when it hits Public Service employment.
Will the minister admit that, in fact, these 300 cutbacks are affecting jobs across the country, that it is 99 jobs lost in Atlantic Canada, 125 in western Canada and 60 in Quebec, and that these are not the kind of job cuts that should be hitting these regions of the country at this time?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister will recall that when the House of Commons increased disability benefits for people who were recipients of the Canada Pension Plan, provincial governments grabbed that money, and those disabled individuals did not receive an increase at all.
For those individuals who may be eligible for a refund under the GST, will the minister guarantee to the House today that provincial governments will not be permitted to grab those cheques off welfare recipients?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the federal government cannot control the actions and activities of the provincial government.
On the other hand, the hon. member will also know that the legislation proposed in respect to the GST offers GST credits for low and modest income Canadians.
May I add that we have received over 10 million applications thus far. In fact, we are expecting now as we are monitoring them that well over nine million Canadians are going to qualify and start receiving those GST credits as of December of this year for them to keep.

May 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings


POINT OF ORDER
Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question today dealing with the heritage languages was meant for the Chairman of the Standing Committee and I thought that, in his absence, the minister responsible would reply. Under the circumstances, I hereby give notice of my intention to raise the subject matter of my question on the adjournment of the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I take note of the hon. member's request. However, I must remind her that in accordance with our Standing Order she must give the Speaker notice in writing not later than four o'clock today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official, languages the government's response to 146 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has the honour to present its fourteenth report.
I might add that, because this is a non partisan, all-party committee, this committee has filed more reports than any other House committee in the present session.
In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 92(1), your committee recommends that the following items of Private Members' Business be designated as votable items.
There are four of them, Madam Speaker: Mr. Plamon-don's bill to amend the Canada Labour Code; Mr. Boyer's bill to establish the Centennial Flame Research Award; Mr. Kempling's bill, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan with particular regard to spousal agreements; and Mr. Proud's bill to mark the birthplace of Canada on the 125th anniversary of the 1864 Charlotte Conference.



FINANCE-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill S-15, an act to amend the act of incorporation of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STANDING COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY AND FISHERIES


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the following motion standing in the name of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), consideration of Fisheries and Oceans Votes 1, 5 and 10 of the Main Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1991, by the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, be extended beyond May 31, 1990.


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition signed by a number of residents of the riding of Hamilton Mountain who are so well represented in this House by my colleague. The petitioners
May 30, 1990

humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the government's proposed goods and services tax which would be so damaging to the Canadian economy.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the veterans in my area. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I also have six petitions from the veterinarians in my area. They are calling upon the government to realize that veterinarians provide an essential service to Canada's livestock and poultry industry. They too will be hard hit by increased costs in accounting.
These veterinarians have gathered names from people in Alvinston, Petrolia, Watford, Thedford, St. Thomas, Forest, Arkona, Melbourne, Sarnia, Newbury, Brights Grove, Inwood, Camlachie, Glencoe, Wyoming, Stra-throy, Pointe Edward, Clearwater and London, which shows the wide base of support and the level of concern among the petitioners who are represented here today.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition today from members and friends of Branch 12 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
There are over 300 signatures on this petition and in part it states that the Government of Canada has introduced changes that will reduce some home-keeping services to veterans and substantially increase the costs of long-term care. Whereas the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures which deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has leaned a little to changing this but has not gone nearly far enough. This petition is requesting realistic treatment from this government.
Routine Proceedings


Guy St-Julien: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition from Chibougamau, in the Roberval riding, concerning the findings of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
The petitioners reject the findings of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and ask to designate Chibougamau as an isolated community under the current tax compensation scheme.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. This is the latest in a long series of petitions from all over Canada. It is from communities like Hamilton, Ancaster, Caledonia and several other communities.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to reject this infamous goods and services tax which would raise taxes one more time. I support the petition wholeheartedly and ask hon. members opposite to give heed to the prayer of this petition which is representative of hundreds of thousands of people across this country, and I see some of them are beginning to listen.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to once again present quite a number of petitions with hundreds and hundreds of names, and a very unique petition in Chinese and English which was sponsored by the Chinatown Merchants' Association in Vancouver East. This petition includes names of Chinese customers and many consumers who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
The petition states that the 7 per cent goods and services tax will hurt small businesses, costs will go up, incomes will go down, and it will be an accounting nightmare. The tax will also hurt consumers as prices of thousands of items and services will go up. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament and the

May 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax.


Alfonso Gagliano: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Madam Speaker, I wish to table two petitions with 2,054 signatures concerning the Program for Older Workers Adjustment who ask that the minimum criterion of 100 employees for a business wanting to avail itself of this program be completely eliminated, and that all senior workers over 55 years of age who are laid off and cannot find new jobs be entitled to early retirements.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to table in the House a petition signed by Canadian men and women who strongly oppose the proposed goods and services tax. Again, the petitioners ask the House to turn down the proposed GST.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of citizens of the communities of St. Gregor, Annaheim, Munster and Humboldt, to present a petition which calls upon the government to reject the proposed goods and services tax. The petition suggests that the minister's tax is unfair and there should be in place a tax which is fair to all Canadians.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present petitions which are not from my constituents. I presented a petition containing 15,000 signatures from my constituents, and these petitions are presented on behalf of the hon. member for Windsor West, the leader of the Liberal party. His constituents are very concerned about the effect that this new tax will have on Canadians, particularly low and middle-income Canadians who spend 92 plus per cent of their income on consumables, which will be affected by the goods and services tax, versus those of high income who spend around 50 per cent.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this goods and services tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 once again present a petition with respect to the goods and services tax.
The people of various communities in Ontario in the area of Winchester state that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
The petitioners are calling on this government to scrap this particular tax and bring in a tax that is fairer for all Canadians, particularly those who are lower and middle-income earners.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present 12 petitions today. These petitioners are very aware that it is not over until it is over. They are sending us these petitions to put forth their voices in this Chamber in opposition to the goods and services tax.
This tax is a regressive tax. It will put an unfair burden on ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumptive tax instead of real tax reform. I urge members of this House to use every means at their disposal, including colleagues to my immediate right talking to their colleagues in the other place and asking them to kill the bill.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I have presented petitions from thousands of my constituents and many more than that on behalf of Canadians objecting to the goods and services tax.
Now that this House has gone against the will of majority of Canadians, our constituents are not laying back. They are still objecting and hoping that the Senate will have the wisdom and the courage to reject on behalf of all Canadians this iniquitous tax.
I am pleased to table the names of 287 petitioners before this House.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I also rise today to place before this House a petition signed by well over 100 people from the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who are concerned about the goods and services tax. They are concerned because they see this tax as being a regressive tax, a tax that is unfair
May 30, 1990

for average Canadians, a tax that is unfair for seniors, and a tax that is unfair for young Canadians.
They call upon this government to implement a fair and just tax system.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition presented to me by a number of farmers and producers from throughout the province of Saskatchewan who are very concerned with the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They call upon the government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon the government to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat has under the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon this government to do so today.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour of tabling thousands of signatures in petitions on behalf of Canadians right across Canada.
Many of these signatories are demonstrating on Parliament Hill, together with thousands of other Canadians, giving President Gorbachev a clear message. I am proud to present them on the day that President Gorbachev is visiting our capital city. The message is to allow the three Baltic States their independence.
Canada never recognized the Soviet occupation of the three Baltic States. The petitioners are requesting that Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Union honour their independence.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 271 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 271 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Robinson: Are any statutes passed by the Parliament of Canada in effect but not included in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, apart from those known in the rules of the House of Commons as private bills and, if so, which ones?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-17 in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.


[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents and studies prepared by or for the Department of Finance in the years 1988 and 1989 relating to VIA Rail and the level of subsidy VIA Rail would receive from the government between 1989 and 1994.
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the reservation stated in the reply and the documents are tabled immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-21 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents and correspondence between the government and other levels of government pertaining to the imposition of a goods and services tax.
[Stage Direction]
May 30, 1990
Government Orders
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the documents requested were provided in confidence to the federal government by other governments and disclosure could be damaging to the conduct of federal-provincial relations. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion, or perhaps in her absence we can transfer it for debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto John Jelinek: moved that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House very briefly Bill C-55, an act to amend the Customs Act. This bill proposes amendments to the Customs Act which will provide the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, with the authority to implement fully recent amendments to the customs tariff.
If I may, by way of background, on January 1, 1988 Canada and most of its major trading partners converted their tariffs to the harmonized system of which I believe all hon. members are aware. The change over was certainly not intended to cause financial hardship to Canadian businesses. However, this could not be guaranteed because of the complexity of the conversion at that time. Therefore, the new tariff included Order in Council authority to allow the government during an
18-month period, after implementation, to respond to requests to restore the rates that existed before harmonization; in other words retroactively. Rate reductions are usually made retroactive to January 1, 1988, as outlined in the April 1989 budget.
The new customs tariff that implemented the harmonized system on January 1, 1988 included Order in Council authority to allow the government, during an 18-month period after implementation, to respond to requests to restore rates in effect under the old tariff, that is to say until June 30, 1989. A recent amendment to the customs tariff extends this authority for a further 12 months to June 30, 1990.
Currently the Customs Act does not allow for these provisions to be fully implemented, given that the authority to refund duties does not cover the entire retroactive period provided for in the tariff.
As a result, without an amendment to the Customs Act, importers will be unable to obtain refunds of duties overpaid and payments of accrued interest for the full retroactive period.
To remedy this I am proposing this legislation which does the following. First, it will allow the refund of duties where the Governor in Council has ordered that lower rates apply retroactively. Second, it will provide for the payment of interests on these refunds. Third, it will bring appeal rights into line with the new provisions.
In a nutshell, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Canadian business community continues to benefit fully from lower rates of duty established by the Governor in Council and that all importers are treated fairly and equitably.
I therefore count on the support of all hon. members of the House to pass this bill in a timely fashion.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, as the minister has explained very briefly, this bill extends as I understand it to July 1992 the date by which changes can be made to the Canadian tariff schedule to assist manufacturers or importers who were inadvertently injured by the reclassification of tariffs which came about as Canada moved to the harmonized tariff system.
As the minister explained, this will allow the government to refund duties retroactively in cases where these increased duties were brought about simply as a result of this reclassification. Similarly, as the minister explained,
May 30, 1990

this bill allows payment of interest and appeal rights to importers or manufacturers.
This bill came about as a result of representations from business that it did not have enough time to assess the impact of changes arising from the reclassification of tariffs.
The bill is very straightforward. One cannot object to the help that is being provided to importers and manufacturers as a result of such a reclassification. On the contrary, I think we should support it. Our party is in favour of more liberalized trade internationally and this harmonized system of tariffs is indeed designed to ensure that there is more liberalized international trade.
While we can support the principle of this bill, it is appropriate to say that the government never hesitates to bring forward a bill to help businesses, but that it has failed to address the training and adjustment needs of Canadian workers adequately. It does not show the same haste and the same zeal when it comes to helping with the adjustment needs of workers.
I would like to remind this House and I would like to remind the minister that in 1988 the government established the advisory council on adjustment headed by Jean de Grandpre who at the time was the chairman of the board of Bell Canada Enterprises.
In a report tabled in March 1989 Mr. de Grandpre reminded Canadians of the abysmally low level of training done in Canada. In 1981, as incredible as it may seem, three out of four establishments in Canada did not provide any formal training to Canadian workers. These are figures that come from the de Grandpre report which was tabled in March 1989. In 1987, Canadian private sector expenditures on training were estimated at $1.5 billion, while American firms spent about $80 billion annually on staff training.
The de Grandpre commission had been set up in the context of the free trade agreement. In January 1988, at the time that this country was debating the question of free trade and liberalized trade, the government or the Prime Minister set up this commission in order to lead Canadians to believe that the government was actually serious about addressing the training needs of Canadian workers.
Government Orders
The major question that the council headed by Mr. de Grandpre had to address was: "Whether specific programs should be established to help Canadian companies and workers adjust to economic changes brought on by the free trade agreement".
The council decided that the answer to that question was no, that there should not be specific programs designed to address the effects of the free trade agreement because, the council argued, it is virtually impossible to attribute clearly and conclusively any particular economic event such as a plant closure solely to the effects of the free trade agreement. The same event might be attributed to global economic changes, to technological obsolescence, or simply to bad management.
Rather than recommending measures that were designed solely to help workers adjust to the effects of the free trade agreement, the council suggested policies to promote the swift reintegration into the workplace of workers displaced by changes of any kind. What they were talking about was the need for generalized policies. I do not think it is necessary today to go into any of the recommendations of the de Grandpre report in any great detail.
I would like to emphasize one such recommendation, which is that the government establish a corporate tax liability that would be offset completely if the firm provided a certain level of training to employees. It has now been over a year since the tabling of this report. It has been a year and a half since the free trade agreement came into effect and the government has failed to respond, to set up any generalized policies of this nature to correct the abysmally low level of training provided to Canadian workers by Canadian companies.

With respect to another issue, Madam Speaker, all members are familiar with the adjustment problems often experienced by older workers in our economy. A few years ago the government set up the Program for Older Worker Adjustment to help older workers who are victims of massive lay-offs. POWA provides support income to employees aged 55 or over who have been in the labour force for at least 30 years.
However not all workers are eligible under POWA, only those who are permanently unemployed as a result of a massive lay-off. Under the program such a major and permanent lay-off must have a serious impact for a

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
significant number of older workers. Exhaustive analyses are made to determine whether workers are eligible under the program. Among other criteria, in a community of 500,000 or more people, in a major Canadian city like Montreal where I live the minimum number of laid-off employees must be 100.
Madam Speaker, you can appreciate the injustices likely to arise from this kind of criterion. A few days ago I met with spokesmen for 13 laid-off Dominion Textile workers who were left jobless when the mill closed in 1988. About ten of these people are over 55 and, of course, the criterion concerning a minimum of 100 laid-off workers makes then uneligible for this program. I have a hard time trying to explain to these people why they are not eligible, because they tell me that aged 55, 57 or 58 as they are they have just as much difficulty landing jobs as a worker who was laid off along with 100 or 150 others. The number of lay-offs in a community has precious little to do with the ease with which a person might find another job, although that may indeed be a determining factor in a small community.
But in a big city of several million people, this may not be the most important factor. This arbitrary criterion in effect excludes many people who have as much difficulty as those who might be affected, as I was saying, by a lay-off of over a hundred employees.
Madam Speaker, I just heard my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard (Mr. Gagliano), who tabled a petition here, ask quite simply that this criterion be abolished. I think this is perfectly legitimate because in my opinion, the criterion should rather be more subjective, relate to the need felt by the worker instead of the number of employees who may be affected by the lay-off.

Those are just two areas that I wanted to point out in my remarks on the bill.
As I said earlier, the objective of the bill is laudable, and we support it. But we would like to see the government show as much concern in addressing the needs of workers who are affected by liberalized trade and other economic conditions as it does when addressing the needs of companies that are affected by liberalized trade.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, contrary to the custom of this House to which I am trying to get accustomed, and unlike the previous speaker, I will attempt to speak to the bill. Having said that, I do not want to confine myself entirely to the rigidity of the tariffs.
The minister presents this bill as an innocent victim of a cabinet colleague. I hate to bring this out in public, but it is necessary to alert him to the fact that through this amendment he is sending a message to people that they will be able to filter through our borders with goods and escape paying their fair share of tariff.
Nothing is closer to the heart of the government than collecting every cent which it is due. Obviously, the purpose of this bill is to make amends for when the government has been over zealous and collected money it should not have collected. It will pay the money back, and it will pay some interest on it. That is laudable. I will not oppose that part of the bill, and I can tell the government it will not be defeated on the bill even if I do oppose it.
However, having said that, I want to bring to the attention of the House why this minister is being taken advantage of, unfortunately and without malice, by his cabinet colleagues.
On this quiet afternoon while the rest of Canada is fascinated with perestroika and glasnost, this little bill is called into the House not by design but by accident so that the Canadian people will not discover what is really happening with harmonization. The minister says he is very proud of the bill. When I am through, he will be shamed into altering some of it.
Now, I want to bring the minister's attention to something that is not allowing Canadian taxpayers to get their fair share of existing tariffs. That is not to say that we should work toward freer trade, but this government signed a free trade agreement, which was alluded to by the member who spoke previously. He also alluded to the de Grandpre report. May I say I agree completely with the previous speaker's assessment of the de Grandpre report. However, I will not make an analysis of that because I want to stick strictly to the tariffs.
As a consequence of the free trade agreement there are some businessmen who try to take advantage of loopholes. It is true, there are some business people out there who actually hire lawyers and accountants to seek out loopholes in legislation rather than pay their fair
May 30, 1990

share. At this point I do not intend to name names but as a matter of philosophy, there are some members of the capitalist community who think nothing of their social responsibility in ensuring that every penny due the government is paid, so they hire loophole lawyers.


Mr. McKnight:: Do you do your own tax forms, Dave?


David Barrett: I do my own tax forms, Mr. Minister. I do not go to those tax companies. I have so little income that it does not really matter.
Having said that, I will give advice to my colleague, should he seek it, on a separate matter. I am not soliciting business through you, Madam Speaker, but should that be the case my fees are quite fair, and under this tariff legislation I would be able to give him loopholes like he has never seen before-big enough to drive a truck through, a big truck. A train!
What kind of opening does this loophole provide? This is an opening for the Maquiladora program. Is the Maquiladora a household word that would be accepted in this august Chamber? It is indeed. It is not a swear word, but it is becoming a curse to Canadian workers.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that the Maquiladora program is a device initiated by some business people who are interested only in maximizing profits and taking advantage of a gullible government and an exceptionally kind minister who thinks no evil of anyone even though they are skinning him alive and, as a consequence, skinning the taxpayers.
This harmonization will legitimize the ugly little practice that is taking place now under the free trade agreement and the Maquiladora program, and sanctify a loophole that will mean the Canadian taxpayers get hosed again.
How does this happen?


An Hon. Member:: I don't know. Tell us.


David Barrett: Well, I will tell you. I am glad you asked that question. I was not going to go into detail, but my colleague has asked me to do so. I know that some members of the House are breathless in anticipation of this big expose-today that will bring about front page headlines and perhaps cause the fall of this government.
Government Orders
If it wasn't for Gorbachev's visit the government would be finished after my speech today.
Tariffs became a subject of great interest to corporations as they saw the advantages from the elimination of other tariff structures between Canada and the United States after the free trade agreement was signed.
They also closed down businesses here in Canada, wrote off the closures as losses, and then went down to the Maquiladora zone and started a plant to do the same jobs they were doing here in Canada. What would be the advantage of that?
The same job that was paying $12 or $14 to a Canadian working person is now being performed in the Maquiladora zone between the United States and Mexico at $1.60 U.S. an hour. Now, consider the Canadian framework to protect jobs through an inherited system of previous Liberal and Conservative administrations, God rest their memories, good or bad. The tariff system was structured in a way that gave some limited protection to Canadian jobs and Canadian secondary and tertiary manufacturing. But, this government, in its haste to embrace the American flag, and the desire of a lot of those members of Parliament to run for the U.S. Senate, abandoned their option of determining some limited protection for Canadian workers.
My good friend from Montreal gave an excellent presentation concerning the de Grandpre report. I listened with interest. He made an interesting proposition that is available to us all. Since we are losing all the jobs, the government should at least keep its word to the de Grandpre commission to look after these people with social safety nets. What my good friend was talking about was an aberration of the agreement that is forcing workers out of jobs and on to welfare and unemployment insurance.


Lynn Hunter: Tory planning.


David Barrett: A correct analysis by my colleague, Tory planning.
While the workers in Canada have been shifted out of jobs, and we have entered into a free trade agreement with the United States, we still have tariffs under GATT to protect some of the Canadian markets in other

May 30,1990
Government Orders
countries with whom we have not yet signed a free trade agreement.
Mexico, Maquiladora. The United States government came to a deal to set up this free trade zone. Mexican workers come across the border, work for $1.60 an hour and make components for secondary and tertiary manufacturing in the United States. And this is the shocker, and I want you to hang on, put on your seatbelt, Mr. Speaker. The clincher on this is that the Maquiladora program, which is taking jobs away from Canadian working men and women, manufacturing components for American products to be assembled in the United States of America are not, in every case, being stamped "Made in Mexico".


Mr. Kristiansen:: Why not?


David Barrett: My colleague says, why not? It is to take advantage of a loophole. By not stamping "Made in Mexico", because the products are made in the Maquiladora program, they can then be inserted into completed U.S. products and brought into Canada to avoid the proper tariff.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is not fair.


David Barrett: That is not fair.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is not honest.


David Barrett: It is not honest. As a matter of fact, it is true and it is not legal. Yes, it is true. Because it is true, the department was alerted to this concern. The bell rang. So, what did the government do? Did it hire a whole slew of new tariff collectors or customs inspectors at the border since the free trade agreement and the Maquiladora development?
Any prudent, thoughtful, cautious government that wanted to protect the taxpayers, would want to ensure that every penny coming to the government would come back. The Tories, who bleat nationally about their prudence, their fiscal responsibility-and they even have a cabinet minister who will not buy a new pair of shoes to bring down his budget as a symbol that they are concerned about every penny-how many new customs officers have they hired in the last year to watch the slip-over out of the Maquiladora unmarked components going into U.S. manufactured goods and coming into this country with lower and lower tariffs, after Carla Hills and our own minister signed a new agreement to accelerate the elimination of tariffs?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: How many?


David Barrett: Well, I will tell you how many. Was it one?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: No.


David Barrett: Was it 100?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: One hundred?


David Barrett: No. Was it 50?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Maybe 50.


David Barrett: No.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: What was it?


David Barrett: Was it 25? No. They have hired less than one dozen new customs officers since the signing of the free trade deal and-


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend but I know that he is inadvertently misleading the House. When he talks about this specific issue, he will know that we have put in place a number of verification teams who go out on a regular basis, south of the border, to verify specifically-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I do not think this is a point of order. It is more like a matter of debate. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: Thank you for your wisdom in pointing out that it was a matter of debate the minister wishes to enter into, not a point of order.
Since I am in order and I have assessed myself correctly-I have been in order ever since I came in here-I will continue with my comments. Yes, the minister in his interjection said they have assembled teams; I was coming to that and I am glad that he mentioned it. But that is not what I am talking about. What he has done is taken staff out of the existing staff complement-


Otto John Jelinek: I thought you were going to talk about the bill.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening and talking and watching. I have been like a ferret, watching this government allow its-
May 30, 1990


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: A rattling rodent.


David Barrett: -watching its sense of responsibility slip away because they have been awed by Uncle Sam. These long, lost, semi-nephews, who think it is their manifest destiny to bow in front of Uncle Sam, have not taken on their responsibility through these tariff openings to collect every penny that is due us. I do not mind having the uncle, but he should not be painted as a tightwad like this government is doing, in refusing to collect the money from our uncle.
I am talking about this bill very clearly. As I described to you, Mr. Speaker, and with your rapt attention, I know you understand fully the description I am giving. The fact is that the Maquiladora program is producing secondary and tertiary products as components for finished American goods. They are not stamped "Made in Mexico" and, even though he sends out his flying squads to check, how can you check if the plastic component has no marking of origin and it is in the finished American product.
He can have 20 of his minions standing around looking inside the bowels of a toaster. I warn them not to put the plug in while they are sticking their fingers in the toaster. Some of them, like the minister, are not fully trained in their job and I want to warn them to pull the plug out first because there are other ways to get burned, like the free trade deal. Nonetheless, having said that, there is no way to identify the components. His squad stands around, shakes the toaster, looks at it and says, oh, there are no Mexican components here, it was all assembled in the United States. Of course they can say that because they have no method of checking back on what the Maquiladora program is creating in certain instances.


Otto John Jelinek: If you shake your head, I can hear it rattle.


David Barrett: My colleague, the minister, has a great sense of humour. He is the most trained minister that this government has.


Otto John Jelinek: You are skating around this.


David Barrett: I made no illusion to his figure skating background, he did it himself; but in this instance, you are on thin ice because you are allowing this open door into this tariff escapement. As a consequence, the Canadian taxpayers are being taken for a ride.
Government Orders
I recommend that the minister hire more customs officers and have them on the Maquiladora border. As a matter of fact, I would feel more comfortable if the minister would instruct his customs staff to go down to the Maquiladora corridor and catalogue what is being made there as components for finished American goods so that they at least know ahead of time what to look for. They have not made one single assessment over there of what is going on in the Maquiladora program and the impact it has on Canadian tariffs. Not one. They have not done that.


Lynn Hunter: Negligence.


David Barrett: No, I do not think it is negligence. Negligence means a wilful decision not to do something. No, they do not even know what to do, which is even worse than negligence. No one over there has ever thought to send someone down to the Maquiladora program and get an assessment or a study to find out what is happening in the Maquiladora program and see first hand, on the Mexican side of the Maquiladora program, what components are being made and installed in American finished products and trans-shipped into Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is a good job you told them.


David Barrett: I am telling them now, and if they follow my advice-


Otto John Jelinek: Send you.


David Barrett: Send me? You come with me, we should go together. Mr. Speaker, I am not embarrassed, on occasion, to being seen in public with a Tory.


Otto John Jelinek: Especially a Tory like me.


David Barrett: If the minister wants to go along with me to Mexico, to look into the Maquiladora program, I will go with him and we will show the rest of his colleagues how they are being loopholed into losing millions of dollars by not collecting tariffs on this. We will go together. Let it not be said that the barriers between politicians are so great that they refuse to go to Mexico together in January for three or four weeks.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to state that whether or not the minister and I go to Mexico together, he should at least send some of his staff down and come back with a catalogue of what is going on. They never thought of this. Do you know why they did not think of this? They have been so busy playing politics and trying to survive, which is something that is foreign to most of the imperative that drives the members of this House,

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
because 99 per cent of the members in this House never think of politics, except on occasion. But when it consumes the government and it neglects to follow through on what is an open and obvious invitation for a loophole, the Canadian taxpayers lose again.
I do not blame this minister and I do not want anybody in the public to say that I am getting soft on this minister, but I think the real culprit is the Minister for International Trade, who is not available today. The free trade agreement is opening the huge loophole of the Maquiladora. We have records and analyses of the kind of subcontracting that is taking place in the Maquiladora program with cheap labour, and it is generally child labour, the unmarked components going into American goods and then trans-shipped into Canada without any tariff. Then we have this bill in front of us, with no assurance that the loophole is going to be closed.
I am not even debating the merits of free trade because that would be out of order. But, if I could debate the merits of free trade, I would point out, like other members of this House, what a very foolish agreement it was. I will not do that.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I am glad you did not do that.


David Barrett: I will not do that because I wish to maintain the dignity, the decorum, and the rules of this House.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Right on.


Lynn Hunter: Laudable.


David Barrett: Thank you. Having said that, I did want to bring to your attention that it was the passage of that disastrous legislation that allowed this to take place. When we talk of harmonization, we are not talking about walking hand-in-hand. With this government, it may be walking but it is someone else's hand in their pocket and the consequences of someone else's hand in their pocket is that the Canadian taxpayer loses.
I would like the minister, when he responds, to stand up and say that he confesses he was not aware that this possibility existed through the Maquiladora program. I would like the minister to stand up and say that he will invite himself and myself to Mexico, and short of that, he will send a team down there to find out what is going on, and that he will table a report in this House to ensure all
Canadians that the loopholes that I have exposed will be closed.
I want to conclude by saying-


An Hon. Member:: Conclude?


David Barrett: -because I have other speeches to make. I mean, what is the obvious reason why I should conclude now? I have a few more speeches, if you-


An Hon. Member:: But the government should have learned by now.


David Barrett: What I am pointing out to you is, were this a Liberal administration, it would be just as bad.


An Hon. Member:: No, no.


An Hon. Member:: You're kidding!


David Barrett: Yes, yes, I do not want anybody to get the idea that I am just beating up on Tories for being dumb-bells. The other side of the coin is the Liberals who allowed this mess to happen in the first place because for years their whole tariff structure had been ignored and they did not beef up the customs department.
I am not saying that they would not do it if they were re-elected. I do know that they probably will keep the free trade agreement. I want to warn Canadians about that.
However, that would be a political statement. All I will do is repeat it. I want to warn Canadians that the Liberals will probably keep the same loopholes and keep the free trade agreement.
My party will not blithely be going along on this quiet afternoon with this little piece of legislation that does not appear to mean too much.
Madam Speaker, to your great satisfaction and joy, you will know that our party will oppose but cannot prevent this bill from passing. You will know that I have informed the Canadian taxpayers of this major loophole. You will know that myself and my colleagues will continue this struggle against the loss of money. You will also be happy to know that I intend to take my seat, satisfied that I have done my duty by making the government aware of this loophole, earnestly hoping that within a matter of hours it will withdraw this bill and correct the error of its ways.
May 30, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few brief remarks on this bill because it would amend the Customs Act. There is presently a difficulty involving the Customs Act that has adverse effects on the constituency of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. I want to assure the government Elouse leader that my remarks will be very brief.
This is an important issue that involves the potential loss of 165 jobs in the constituency that I represent.
I wish to tell the minister that I received a letter from a company in my riding known as McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Inc. It reads as follows:
I would like to draw your attention a loophole in our laws that an American company is making use of that if it continues may force us to close our Hawkesbury plant. Our plant in peak periods last year employed 165 people.
As you may be aware, the Canadian government a few years ago changed the dollar value amount on parcels that enter Canada from the United States through the postal system to be duty free if the value is $35.00 or less.
I understand that this does not apply in the case of parcels that are shipped across the border by parcel express, Purolator or other such companies. Only Canada Post has that particular exemption.
The letter continues:
The U.S. company in question, Direct Marketing Enterprises out of Westbury, New York, is using Canadian media to promote its mail order products with a return address in Windsor, Ontario. The orders are dispatched to a fulfilment operation in Detroit where the orders are processed and shipped to the border ready to be mailed at the closest Canada Post parcel centre. The average value of each parcel is under $35.00 therefore allowing the goods to be duty free.
I will not read the rest of the letter because I have made a commitment to the minister to raise this issue briefly.
However, I want to bring to his attention an ad that I have here in my hand from the French version of the TV Guide. It states, for instance, that a transistor radio is available for $14.95 and it describes it in the ad as follows:

"similar to those sold by other companies on television in the United States".
Government Orders
The implication is obvious, Madam Speaker. These companies advertise their products on U.S. television channels that are carried on cable, and then ship them to Canada duty free, making use of a loophole in the Customs Act that allows Canada Post to carry this merchandise from the other side of the border.
I know the minister is aware of this question, so I can be brief. However, I would like to ask the minister for a commitment to close this loophole, so that perhaps these jobs can be saved.

I am really looking forward to a positive response from the minister. Hopefully, we can save these jobs because there appears to be a loophole that enables these companies in the United States to utilize Canada Post- and I am not blaming the post office here although I do that on occasion in my capacity as postal critic for my party-in a clever way to ship parcels with a value under $35 across the border. They use this loophole in the law which is basically designed for families, I suppose, to send small gifts to relatives who live on the other side of the border.
These companies are benefiting this way and are causing a loss of jobs at Canadian mail order houses.
This company is located in Rexdale, Montreal and Hawkesbury. Its operations in my riding will be shutting down if this situation is not fixed rapidly. If it is not fixed it will create the loss of 165 meaningful jobs in my area where there is very high unemployment.
I thank the minister for staying a little longer than he intended. I am looking forward to his assistance.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to answer briefly the concerns of my hon. friend.
As he pointed out in his comments, it is true that I am very much aware of this growing problem. I say "growing" because this law has been in place for many years. It is apparent that there are some organizations south of the border that are starting to abuse what was initially a good law to benefit families and other non-commercial uses, as the member pointed out.
I have already met on at least two occasions, and perhaps more, with individual business people who have outlined exactly the same concern, the latest of which was just a couple of weeks ago. At that time I told them, and I give my hon. friend the same commitment, that I would begin discussions immediately not only with my

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
officials but with officials from the Department of Finance to see how we could rectify the situation. I have brought it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, with whom the final decision rests.
I do agree with my hon. friend, the people he represents and others in that same position that there is a semblance of unfairness here and we are going to take appropriate steps to correct it.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment and thank the minister for his reply and indicate to him that I hope that among his colleagues and himself they can find a speedy solution. This is the type of thing which tends to move very quickly. The potential loss of jobs could occur very fast. I invite the minister either to review the legislation or the regulation, which may be necessary in this case, to change the rule in question and perhaps to ban the commercial usage of that provision.
I am not advocating that we create a situation which would make it difficult for families and so on to communicate with each other and to send a small parcel in the mail to each other.
If, for instance, the rule were changed in order to ban the importation of products using that clause for the purpose of resale, maybe that would accommodate what we are looking for and save these valuable jobs.
With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I thank the minister again for staying a little bit longer and providing this answer which I will take back immediately with me to my constituents with whom I am meeting tomorrow morning.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, like other members I do not intend to delay this particular legislation because it is a useful response to change.
I want to take this opportunity to point out how discriminatory the government is being between one set of Canadians who are affected by changes in trade law and others who are also affected but who will be receiving no adjustment, no compensation or no response.
The changes brought about in the trade classification system are as a direct result of public policy. That was a decision made by government. It had nothing to do with external factors or anything else. It was part of our decision as a public sector to make changes that had some benefit to them.
The government in this case is accurately and properly recognizing that as a result of those classification changes certain businesses were faced with shortfalls. They were faced with changes in the tariff classification which created discrepancies in their income. I have no quarrel with that principle. It is fair.
If that is true for a business that is affected by a tariff change, then should it not also be true for workers who are affected by tariff changes? Is it not just as important for individuals who lose their jobs, who are dislocated or lose pension plans? Should they not have the right to some direct response?
We have raised the issue in this House, saying that commitments were made by the Prime Minister for a massive adjustment program. We have said that there were recommendations made by the MacDonald royal commission, which goes right back to the original source of the trade agreement, that major adjustment programs have to be made. Every time that issue has been raised we have been told: "We do not need it. It is impossible to tell. We do not know what adjustments are required because we do not know what is a trade related impact or trade related effect".
Yet the government finds it possible in this case to make that judgment and evaluation when a business or a company is being affected. However, when workers are being affected, that is not the case. In fact, what we have done is quite the opposite. We have substantially altered the unemployment insurance program.
I do not want to bring Bill C-21 up. It has been long and arduously debated in this House and in the other chamber. Nevertheless, the unemployment insurance system was the cornerstore of our ability to provide adjustments. Yet we have had a reduction of several hundred million dollars in that program. The principles in Sections 38 and 39 have been changed. Most important, Madam Speaker, as you well know since you have
May 30, 1990

heard the debates, there has been a withdrawal of direct participation of the government in the management of the UI program as a member of the commission. The government has turned it over to labour and business. Thus there is an abdication of public responsibility.
We are faced with an inherent contradiction wherein the government says: "We will use unemployment insurance to help compensate individuals affected by a public decision, and at the same time we pull out the membership of the public sector on the very commission that is supposed to provide the adjustments". The government is chasing its tail.
I simply want to refer the House to what I felt was an important report by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. This is a group that is chaired jointly by Shirley Carr and Thomas D'Aquino. Never have two stranger partners been part of the same issue. However, both business and labour are part of the centre for labour productivity because they recognize that the investment in human resources is key to what we do in the country.
In this report is a whole series of recommendations about what the government should be doing to improve the IAS, the Industrial Adjustment Services, to provide new programs for adjustment through unemployment insurance and to provide assistance, none of which has been provided.
I simply want to point out to members opposite that there is an unfairness here. I am struck by the celerity with which the government responded to the problem of the business community affected by tariff classification but has been so reluctant, so slow, so laggard in responding to the changes that affect workers. Surely, there has to be equity. Surely, there has to be fairness in the way the two are affected.
I would suggest to the Minister of National Revenue, who can provide tax write-offs and tax changes, to help workers adjust and change. There are communities being shut down. There are families being disrupted.
I just came from my office where I met with a group of people from the printing industry who have indicated that they have lost 25 per cent of their business to the United States since the inception of the FTA-one-quarter of their business. That is part of the major
Government Orders
rationalization. By rationalization they mean 500 workers have just lost their jobs at the Southam printing press in Toronto. That is being repeated across the country.
I do not know how many members have experienced in their own families the question of a lay-off or the loss of job, especially if it involves someone who is in their forties or fifties, an age when you have made your commitment to your profession for many, many years. All of a sudden that job can be pulled out from under you, not because you are a bad worker or because your company is inefficient. It is simply because of a change in Ottawa, a decision made by the government which it has a right to make, that all of sudden your livelihood is taken away.
For many workers-and I will go back to the old basic economic theory-the only investment workers have is their labour or what they have put into it over the years. All of a sudden it can be snatched away from them and the government in Ottawa will say: "We have no responsibility for that. We have no accountability. We have no special adjustment programs. We cannot determine whether it is trade related or not. I am sorry, you are simply going to have make do yourself". They are left on the scrap heap.
There are too many people on the scrap heap. We are facing a substantial build-up of those underutilized human beings in our society. I would think it should be a cause of some chagrin and embarrassment for our government to bring in a bill like this one which clearly recognizes its responsibility for one sector of the community and ignores the other sector of the community.
I simply wanted to use this occasion to make a plea on behalf of a large number of Canadians who are also affected by trade related changes, by reductions in tariffs, and by the new classification system. They are the people who work in those industries and who need some compensation or support because they have lost what is most precious to them. They are not the managers of big capital. The only real investment they have is the time, effort, and energy they have put into that job over the years. They deserve equal consideration, equal care and attention, and equal response and compensation by this government, something which it is providing for the businesses affected.

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
This is simply an argument based on the rightness of things. I ask the government to take into consideration that basic justice which needs to be met.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, without wishing to hold up the debate on this bill, I would like to make a few comments on the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg-South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) and ask him whether he has any statistics on the number of companies that might benefit as a result of this agreement with the United States, as compared with the number of jobs that will be lost on Montreal Island, for instance, a question I have been asking this government practically every other week.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, there are no statistics on this particular question.
As you know, we suggested that the government set up a special commission to examine the problem of adjustment of Canadian industries to the impact of free trade. However, the government-the Minister for International Trade and others-said this was not necessary and that it saw no need for a study. Now we have a problem in this country. We do not know the extent of the impact of these changes on workers and industry. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue has statistics or figures for specific industries. In fact, the problem was predicted by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre.
Unfortunately, we as members do not have the figures or sectoral studies for Canada. I think this is gross neglect on the part of the government because all the changes, all the layoffs we have been seeing for the past ten or twelve months since free trade are the result of legislation, and should therefore be dealt with by this government and Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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

Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would like formally to designate tomorrow an allotted day.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Harvie Andre: that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: As you
know, Madam Speaker, the review of the Young Offenders Act has been a major priority of this government.
The government's objective in introducing this bill is to ensure that the Young Offenders Act, which was unanimously adopted by the members of this House in 1981, appropriately reflects the needs and values of all Canadians, including Canadian youth who come into conflict with the law.
The Young Offenders Act has come under criticism for its provisions for youth charged with violent offences, particularly murder. This criticism has come from the general public, judges, the provincial attorneys general, members of Parliament, and the media.
A few murder cases involving youths have attracted national attention and contributed to the public sentiment that the transfer mechanism and the sentencing in the Young Offenders Act should be revised.
More than this, these cases have called into question the integrity of the act as a whole and diminished public confidence in Canada's system of justice.
To respond properly to these concerns, a number of major steps has been taken in the past year. A comprehensive federal-provincial territorial study of youth charged with murdered was completed. It included a
May 30, 1990

case by case study in four provinces of all the youth charged with murder from 1984 to 1989.
A meeting of ministers responsible for juvenile justice was held on June 9 and June 10, 1989 at which the provincial attorneys general and the Minister of Justice for the Northwest Territories unanimously endorsed a resolution that the Young Offenders Act be amended in a number of ways.
An extensive consultation process was undertaken. A consultation document was released to over 100 organizations involved with young offender issues and to the provinces and territories. Bilateral meetings with key organizations were held.
All jurisdictions responded in the course of the consultations. About 80 non-governmental submissions were received and a national seminar took place in Ottawa. As well, we listened to the concerns of members of Parliament.
Bill C-58 addresses the three aspects of the act which lie at the heart of the concerns identified in our consultations. The first is the test to be applied by the court in determining whether to transfer a case to adult court. The second is the sentence available in youth court for youth convicted of murder. The third is the sentence and parole eligibility period for youth who have been transferred to adult court and convicted of murder.
I would like now to speak to each of these points. Numerous cases have gone before the courts as to how the existing transfer provisions would be interpreted. The proposed changes to the test seek greater clarity and equality in the interpretation of the law. The proposal would require the court to consider the objectives of affording protection to the public and serving the needs of the young person and to determine whether those objectives can be reconciled by the youth remaining in the youth system.
Where the court determines that these objectives cannot be so reconciled, Bill C-58 states that the protection of the public is paramount and the youth's case shall be transferred.
This test, while remaining consistent with the principles of the act, provides clear direction for the court and states that ultimately the protection of the public is paramount.
Government Orders
The transfer test would be applicable to transfer applications for all offences. We believe that the changes to the transfer mechanism will result in a more uniform interpretation of the law.
Bill C-58 also proposes that the maximum sentence for youth convicted of murder in youth court be increased to five years less a day. The sentence would be comprised of a custodial period which could not exceed three years unless an extension is subsequently ordered by the court.
The grounds for ordering such an extension would parallel those in the Parole Act, that is, where the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the young person is likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person.
Where no extension is ordered, a review hearing will be heard prior to the completion of the custodial portion of the sentence so the judge can set conditions which the youth will have to abide by in the community.
Where there is a violation of any condition the youth could be automatically returned to custody.
Finally, the bill proposes that the sentence of life imprisonment be retained for youth convicted of murder in adult court, but that such a youth be eligible for parole at an earlier period.
It is recommended that the parole ineligibility period be set by the sentencing judge somewhere in the range of five to ten years.
As you know, Madam Speaker, this only speaks to eligibility. The decision to grant parole is still made by the Parole Board.
This recommendation to reduce the period of custody that a transferred young offender must serve before being eligible for parole is strongly supported.
While the life sentence remains, it is believed that the reduction of the period of parole ineligibility will lessen the disparity in consequences which currently makes the transfer decision so stark for judges. In this way the justice system may be strengthened by allowing the courts greater flexibility.
Bill C-58 does not address the concerns of appropriate facilities and programs for violent offenders in either the youth system or the adult penitentiary system. This issue is very relevant at the transfer hearing stage as the judge

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
hearing the matter must determine which system is most appropriate in all the circumstances.
The resources in place in a given jurisdiction are a significant factor as individualized and well structured programs are viewed as a key to successful rehabilitation.
Beyond ensuring an appropriate response to youth charged with murder, many individuals and associations actively involved with youth have advocated a much broader based approach to violent youth. I whole-heartedly agree.
The first steps have been taken in the development of such an approach by inviting provinces and territories to join with the federal government in a collaborative study, the objective of which is to develop a systematic and financially viable approach to address violence by youth.
Hon. members may recall the Speech from the Throne in which there is a commitment to address not only the issue of violence but also the issue of treatment.
In fact, the issue of treatment along with issues pertaining to inadmissibility of evidence and custody have also been treated as priorities by the Department of Justice, the provinces and the territories. These issues were also the subject of consultations with the provinces, territories and non-governmental organizations involved with youth offender issues. There was not the same degree of consensus on what should be done. Therefore, more consultation with the provinces and territories is required.
In order to meet the federal commitment to respond to these issues, the Minister of Justice has proposed to her provincial and territorial counterparts that concrete proposals be put before ministers responsible for young offenders in June of this year in Niagara-on-the-Lake. I look forward to the tabling of the required legislative proposals in the fall of this year.
Bill C-58 will strengthen the justice system by allowing the courts to make the best decision in each case as to whether a youth should be dealt with in the youth or adult system. Also, Bill C-58 tries to balance the rights
of Canadians to security with society's long term interest in rehabilitating young people.
Protection of the public and rehabilitation of our youth are the key objectives of this bill. I ask the members of the House to support Bill C-58.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, our party supports Bill C-58 and supports sending it to committee for study on possible amendments and new approaches that should be explored.
The basic theories of the bill are good. There is no question that public safety has to be paramount, as we have seen in other issues of criminal law administration. It has to be a major concern, but has not been so with this government. In the case of inmates in Corrections Canada's care, the paramountcy of public safety ranks about fourteenth. We are pleased to see, in this legislation, that there is a movement to have public safety paramount.
Also, it is laudable that the legislation is going to deal with the rehabilitation of young people. Quite frankly, our concern is that we are always dealing with half measures. As the former justice minister said: "This is a first step." We are continually taking first steps rather than taking all the steps that are necessary to deal with the problem. Dealing with young offenders is a major problem.
As originally introduced, the legislation was a progressive step in the proper direction. There is no question that it requires fine tuning. Why start with half solutions? Why not deal with all the problems? There is no question that the general changes dealing with criteria for applications to transfer to adult court from youth court are good.
There is no question that the change as far as the maximum period for incarceration for first and second degree murder is good; up from three years to five years. There is no question that early release and conditional supervision should be monitored more closely because of what we have seen in the past, particularly with the horrific situation in Scarborough.
There is no question that this legislation responds to the public outcry that has been generated by some cases. I know what effects public outcry can have. In my own area, I saw the effect of the escape of Allan Legere on the community.
May 30, 1990

This is a response to that. However, I think we have to go a step further and look at some other aspects. My colleague across talked about the unanimous resolution of the Ministers of Justice from the provinces. This bill has dealt with three or four of those recommendations, but it has left out a couple of important aspects. The Ministers of Justice or Attorneys General have asked that the act be amended to permit the admission of evidence of a voluntary statement. They have also asked for a greater flexibility to facilitate temporary release provisions to help rehabilitate young offenders. These are laudable objectives that have not been dealt with by the government.
Probably the more frightening aspect is this government's intention to get out of programs and to move away from financial commitments. The Attorneys General unanimously resolved that the recent unilateral decision to cap federal contributions toward provincial and territorial expenditures for young offenders represents a serious erosion of the federal government's commitment to the juvenile justice system in Canada.
It is interesting to note that there has been nothing done in this particular area to facilitate the operation of the system for young offenders. In fact, what we are seeing is a government intent on reducing its expenditures at the expense of young offenders.
It is time the government gets over this deficit-itis problem and moves toward dealing with juvenile crime, young offenders, and provides the necessary resources for the task.
There are other areas of concern with the legislation. As stated earlier, the Young Offenders Act amendments in Bill C-58 have not addressed the problems experienced by police in taking statements from young suspects and the evidentiary difficulties of introducing those in court.
Second, it has not dealt with the situation of the young offender being hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. The requirement of the legislation is that the young offender must consent. That obviously presents difficulties in the sense of trying to convince a person with those problems to consent to treatment. I do not think that is of any benefit at all.
We have to recognize in all this that habitual criminals, be they young offenders or otherwise, have to be dealt with firmly. Very serious crimes like first and second
Government Orders
degree murder have to be dealt with, and dealt with firmly. But, we must, however, be careful not to overbalance our response in that area to the detriment of the youth of this country and the young offenders who are caught within the system.
We must have a renewed commitment to help the youth of the country so that they do not become young offenders. Perhaps the best way to spend our dollars in this particular area is to make sure that the systems of housing and the ability to respond to youth are in place and properly financed so that we do not force young people to a life of crime.
We are supportive of this legislation going to committee. We are supportive of the basic thrust but we believe that first steps are not enough. We have to view the whole problem and take more than one step. We must take all the steps necessary to deal with this situation, to deal with the hardened youth criminal and the youths needing rehabilitation.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to stand this afternoon to address the very important issues which are covered by Bill C-58, the Young Offenders Act.
I must say that I am disappointed to hear that the Official Opposition has decided to support the principle of this legislation.
The effect of this legislation will be to ensure that more young people are transferred into the adult prison system and ultimately ensure that the level of crime in communities across this land will increase as a result of the demonstrated failure of society to deal with the prevention of crime among young people, instead of just dumping them into the adult criminal justice system.
I think it is important that we look back on the history of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act. I remember well the debate on the Young Offenders Act. I was here for that debate. I sat on the legislative committee that studied the legislation. We did a lot of work and we came up with a bill which, I think, moved the country forward. It was with a considerable sense of pride that we supported that legislation, as did all members of this House. That act was proclaimed in force on April 2, 1984. One of the most essential elements of that legislation, the Young Offenders Act, was a recognition that prison should be the last resort and that kids should only be sent to jail if there were no

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
other alternatives. The idea was that sending kids to jail ultimately is an admission of failure.
Indeed, one of the most important aspects of alternatives to imprisonment is ensuring that there are resources in place, so that when a judge must sentence a young person there is that range of alternatives which are set out in the bill. I said on May 17, 1982, some eight years ago, during debate on the previous legislation on the Young Offenders Act:
If this government is serious about improving and humanizing the system of criminal justice for young persons, it has to be prepared to put additional financial resources into the hands of provinces and territories to ensure that the legal framework which is established in the proposed young offenders act delivers a system which will indeed encourage young people to stay out of involvement with the criminal law. If indeed the federal government does not come up with additional resources, the provisions in the bill which provide, for example, for dispositions alternative to incarceration, will be redundant.
The provinces will argue that they cannot afford these provisions, and what we will see is an increased number of young persons dumped into jails for children. That is effectively what detention centres are. There should be disposition before an actual court appearance; in other words, diversion away from the criminal justice system. This will not take place unless the federal government is prepared to ensure additional resources are made available both to itself and to the provinces.
That was eight years ago. The bill took effect in 1984. What has been the history of our treatment of young people in conflict with the law since then? It has been a sorry history. It has been a history which has resulted in an increase in the level of crime among young people. It has been a history which has resulted in deep concern in communities across this land, whether it be in rural areas or in urban areas.
One of the most serious results of this is a dramatic increase in the level of imprisonment of young people. A study which was conducted by Raymond Corrado and Allan Markwart from British Columbia, both very learned professors who looked at the effect of the Young Offenders Act, said this: "It is clear that under the Young Offenders Act, B.C. youth courts have rather dramatically increased their reliance on incarceration as a dispositional sanction and correspondingly decreased their use of community sanctions, probation. This change cannot be attributed to a more general "get tough"
climate in the community that has affected the sentencing practices of the courts. There is evidence that not only are young offenders under the age of 17 years being dealt with more punitively than under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but also that 17-year olds transferred to the jurisdiction of the youth court are now being incarcerated at a greater rate under the Young Offenders Act than they were in the adult criminal court."
That is the experience in the province of British Columbia. I am veiy pleased that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is in the House today because one of the aspects of the New Democratic government from 1972 to 1975, under the leadership of that member, was a very enlightened approach to the question of young people in conflict with the law.
We recognized that we had to cut down dramatically on the use of jail as a sanction and indeed, former Judge Berger was appointed to head up a royal commission on the family and on children. He made some very progressive recommendations and I look forward to hearing from the member from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca because I believe that probably his very first involvement with the political process was in the area of juvenile delinquents back in the early sixties. We have a great deal to learn from the experience of that New Democratic government of 1972 to 1975.
Instead, the experience under this legislation has been deeply disturbing. I mentioned the study by professors Corrado and Markwart but we do not just have to look at academic studies. Let us listen to what our judges are telling us as well, about the impact of this legislation. In a decision last year Judge Ann Rounthwaite of Surrey, B.C., refused to sentence a 13-year old girl who had an insignificant court history to a lengthy jail term in order to keep her off the streets until a bed became available in B.C.'s over-crowded Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre.
In other words, there was such a desperate shortage of beds in the Maples that the Crown was trying to put this 13-year old girl in jail until a bed became available at the Maples. Put her in jail.
Judge Rounthwaite refused to do that. The judge said that the Crown counsel and youth court workers have repeatedly asked her to store problem children in an
May 30, 1990

open custody jail until they could be treated at the chronically busy Maples Centre.
These children are in desperate need of treatment and are often dangerous to themselves and others. They are not facing charges that would warrant the lengthy sentences necessary to keep them in custody until they could get into the Maples. Judge Rounthwaite went on to sentence the 13-year old girl to seven days in open custody and one year probation.
She talked of the despair that she felt, the fact that-and I am quoting from the judge now-a criminal court cannot use a sentencing process to make Holly Cottage, which is an open custody jail, an alternate to a residential treatment centre for adolescents with psychological or behavioural problems. Those branches of government responsible for providing such resources cannot shift their burden, difficult as it may be, to custody facilities or jail.
That is what we have been seeing happen across this country as provinces and the federal government refuse to accept their responsibilities to put in resources to assist young people before they get involved in criminal activity.
What has been the response of this federal government? Back in 1984 the Prime Minister answered a questionnaire from the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. He was asked about the priorities of a Conservative government in the area of young offenders and said: "The Progressive Conservative Party supported passage of the Young Offenders Act and continues to endorse its philosophy and principles. We are committed to assuring financial assistance to the provinces to allow for equal application of the law and availability of programs and services across Canada."
What has happened to that promise made by the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada? That promise has been broken. In May of last year the Conservative government unilaterally, without any discussion, imposed a cap on contributions to all of the provinces and territories under the juvenile justice services cost-sharing programs. Shameful.
Effectively, what this means is that for a five-year period the federal government is going to freeze its contributions at the 1989 level. That is a real cut every
Government Orders
year for the next five years. And who is it cutting? It is cutting young people in conflict with the law.
Ultimately the results of these cuts will be a greater level of crime in each and every community across this country. This from a government that talks about its commitment to law and order. By cutting back on funding for juvenile justice programs, this government is abdicating its responsibility for assuring that young people do not come in conflict with the law and ultimately abdicating its responsibility for safer communities, both rural and urban.
Obviously this decision is a breach of the promise that was made in the past.
Premier Tony Penikett, writing on behalf of all the ministers responsible for social services, wrote to the justice minister in March of this year. He wrote in his capacity as chairperson of the 1989 Interprovincial Territorial Conference of Social Service Ministers. He expressed his serious concerns about the effect of this federal cut-back in funding for young offenders. He said while it is accurate that the federal Department of Justice contributes approximately $160 million to programs under the Young Offenders Act, this does not even represent 50 per cent of the provincial-territorial expenditures under the act.
Premier Penikett notes that it is absolutely crucial the federal contribution grow by at least the cost of living each year in order to prevent the erosion of current service levels and to ensure equitable access across the country for young offenders, who require the cost-shared programs under the auspices of the Young Offenders Act.
What Premier Penikett is saying is that the Conservative government has betrayed the promises made in terms of adequate levels of funding for young offenders in this country. That is certainly unacceptable to us in the New Democratic Party. I am surprised and disappointed that members of the Official Opposition, the Liberal party, have not indicated that they, too, are opposed to the cuts in spending for young offenders. Their silence can only imply that they agree with the cuts that have been made. I hope that perhaps one lonely Liberal member of Parliament will stand in his or her place and speak out for our young people, speak out against the

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
federal cuts in programs to young offenders. I hope that one of them might stand and do that.
I see a member from Quebec. Let us look at the situation of young offenders in the province of Quebec. It is devastating. There are waiting lists of 22 months for boys who were sexually abused by up to 16 adults before they can get treatment.
Social workers in the Outaouais have pointed out that children who have been abused by their parents must wait while other cases take precedence because they do not have enough workers. In fact, the head of the agency has blamed the very serious delays on a logjam of cases and chronic underfunding.
The head of the agency has said that they have a choice between a 14-year-old and a baby. If we abandon the 14-year-olds, obviously, they will get involved in the kinds of criminal activities many of us are concerned about.
Earlier this spring, a report which was produced by Quebec's Youth Protection Committee condemned the Outaouais service for the lengthy delays and waiting lists that young people face before cases are dealt with. In fact, the president of the Youth Protection Committee in Montreal stated that Quebec society should feel a collective shame that the situation has been allowed to drag on as long as it has. Some 3,000 children in the province of Quebec are on similar waiting lists.
As Mr. Dowie stated, children need protection. You do not keep them on a waiting list for 22 months. You do not keep them on a list for five months. You deal with them now. That is why we have to talk about prevention instead of the kind of narrow approach of simply throwing more kids in jail for longer terms. We also have to recognize the other elements of prevention.
We have to recognize that far too many youths in trouble with the law have learning disabilities. It has been estimated that something like 70 or 80 per cent of young people involved in crimes and criminal activities have learning disabilities. What are we doing as a government to deal with that concern? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
What are we doing to deal with the problem of violence on prime time television and weekend children's television. Look at the cartoons. It has been
estimated that the average child, during his or her childhood, sees something like 10,000 murders on television. What kind of impact does that violence on television have on the psyche of our young people?
The kind of aggressiveness, the Rambo mentality, which is all too common on television clearly must be reflected in the behaviour of our children. As a society we are failing our children by allowing that violence to continue.
The response of the government in this legislation is to make it easier to transfer young people to the adult courts and ultimately into the adult prison system. That is not the answer. We all recognize the concerns that people feel about violent acts committed by young people, particularly murder.
We all recognized the sense of outrage that the community felt at the Scarborough case when a young murderer was sentenced to a term of three years. After that, he was out on the streets. Obviously, communities do not accept that.
There is provision for transfer in the existing Young Offenders Act, and these provisions have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed, the provisions for transfer can and should be used in appropriate circumstances. Because of some incidents that have given rise to understandable concern on the part of the community, it does not suggest that we have to change the test for transferring all young offenders. Surely, it is a step backward.
What it will do is dump more young people into adult prisons, not just after they have been convicted, but while they are waiting for trial. One serious concern raised by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth is the failure of this legislation to deal with the problem of young people who have been transferred to adult court who are awaiting trial and, while awaiting trial, are locked up in adult prisons. They can be locked up for months.
What does the government have to say about that? Nothing at all. What does the government have to say about young people who are 15, 16 or 17 years old, after being convicted, following transfer and serving their time in adult jails? Absolutely nothing. Apparently, it is acceptable to the government. It is not acceptable to New Democrats, and we intend to speak out on this in committee and when the bill comes back to the House. A
May 30, 1990

number of my colleagues will be taking the opportunity to speak from a variety of perspectives.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, a rural community, will be speaking on the legislation from the perspective of a rural member. He pointed out when speaking very eloquently to other members of caucus that, in fact, in rural communities young people do grow up earlier. In many cases, they are out driving, working and playing a responsible role in the community at the age of 14 or 15. He urged all of us to recognize that we cannot necessarily apply the same standard to urban and rural communities. He is right.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca pointed this out as well. We must respond to young people as individuals and deal with their tragedies individually. We should not follow the mindless trend of throwing them in jail for longer periods of time, or throwing them into adult jails.
Even the Chief of Police in Edmonton said in an interview just last year: "Increasing murder sentences for young offenders would be useless in dealing with youth crime." Chief Bob Claney of the Edmonton police force said: "The proposed changes are only a distraction and will not make a significant impact on the problem of teen crime." Chief Claney is on the front lines and is telling us: "Look, this is not the answer."
Instead, what does he say? He says that he would rather see the provincial and federal governments provide more counselling for the vast majority of young offenders rather than stiffer penalties for the tiny proportion who murder. I quote from Chief Claney. He says: "If we are successful with a youngster, he will not end up in adult court." He is right.
We cannot overestimate the impact of murder on our communities, whether it be a young person or anyone else. We also have to put it in context and recognize that murder is something like one-fortieth of 1 per cent of all the offences that are dealt with in youth court. In our understandable desire to respond in a serious and appropriate way to murder, we must not condemn hundreds of other young people to being dumped into the adult prison system and ultimately condemn them to a further life of crime. That is an abdication of our responsibility as a society.
Government Orders
What about a group of young people who are at risk more than any other? I speak now of aboriginal youth, native youth. We received a very powerful submission from the National Association of Friendship Centres. They asked us to recognize that this bill is not the answer to juvenile crime either among aboriginal youth or other youth. They give us some appalling figures around the area of aboriginal youth and crime. They point out that aboriginal youth are more likely to be charged by police for offences than are non-aboriginal youth, that aboriginal youth are more likely to plead guilty than non-aboriginal youth, that aboriginal youth are more likely to receive longer and harsher penalties, that aboriginal youth are more likely to be transferred to the criminal court system-and this bill will make that even easier- and that aboriginal youth are more likely to receive "secure custody orders", that being another term for jail.
Let us look at the figures for young aboriginal people in jail. The Manitoba Metis Federation reported that in Manitoba 92.8 per cent of the young women held on remand were native and 47 per cent of the young men held on remand were native. That situation is a national scandal. It has been described as a national shame by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and this government is cutting back on funding for juvenile justice programs.
Let us look at some figures on secure custody and open custody. The open custody unit of the Manitoba Youth Centre held 87.5 per cent native girls and 55.5 per cent native boys. In the secure custody unit of that jail, 100 per cent of the young women were native. So this government comes forward with legislation that makes it easier to dump young native women and men into adult jails. That is not the answer. That is surely not the answer to the devastating problems that face our youth in this countiy, whether they be aboriginal youth or other youth.
There are answers. The Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science some years ago produced an excellent report entitled "Child at Risk". It pointed out that society can identify at a very early age those kinds of conditions which will lead to a life of crime. Yet we are cutting back on funding to respond to those concerns.

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
Child abuse has been recognized as a very significant factor in the development of violent criminal behaviour in later years, but in the past our society has paid more attention to cruelty to animals than we have to cruelty to children.
We have to deal with the question of child abuse. I have talked about violence on television. I have talked about the question of poverty. One of the most direct links that can be established between crime and young people is the linkage of poverty. In fact, the National Council on Welfare published a report in 1975 called "Poor Kids". On what it means to be poor in Canada the report says that to be born poor is to face a greater likelihood of ill health in infancy, in childhood and throughout your adult life. To be born poor is to face a lesser likelihood that you will finish high school, lesser still that you will attend university.
On that I might add that a young native person in Canada today has a better chance of going to jail than of going to university.


David Barrett: Or committing suicide.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Or of committing suicide, as my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says.
To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood that you will be judged delinquent in adolescence and, if so, a greater likelihood that you will be sent to a correctional institution. To be born poor is to have the deck stacked against you at birth and to find life an uphill struggle ever after. To be born poor is unfair to kids.
Well, Madam Speaker, they were right in 1975 and they are right today. Fifteen years later we still have over
500,000	kids in this country dependent on food banks in order to survive. We still have kids, not just in inner cities but in rural communities as well, going to school hungry. What is this government doing to respond to these concerns around child poverty? It is doing nothing, nothing whatsoever. What is it doing to deal with the problems of foetal alcohol syndrome? We know the impact that that can have as well on a later life of crime. The government is doing absolutely nothing.
We are presented with a bill by a government which says that this is its answer to the concerns around the question of young people and crime.
This is not the answer of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. The Canadian Council on Children
and Youth is a broadly based body which held extensive consultations around this legislation. It has come to the conclusion that the legislation is a step backward and not a step forward.
There are some elements of the legislation that we do support, there is no question about that. Under the legislation a young person who is transferred to adult court and faces a sentence of life imprisonment for murder will be eligible for parole anywhere between five and ten years after they start to serve their sentence. Under the existing provisions of the Young Offenders Act, a judge is faced with a very difficult choice; either treating such young offenders as young offenders in youth court with a maximum term of three years or transferring them to adult court, in which case there is a maximum of life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years.
That was the trade-off in 1976 for the abolition of capital punishment. As a society we have to ask ourselves, not just in the case of young people but in the case of all prisoners, whether the price we paid was not too high and whether we should not be re-examining the issue of the date for parole eligibility because our prisons are filling up rapidly with people who have been convicted of first degree murder and are not eligible for parole for 25 years. Surely that is a concept that we should, in fact, re-examine.
I have touched on some of the issues that we as a party want to address, I have touched on this government's failure to adequately fund services to young people and on the question of prevention.
Another concern is that of prevention in terms of programs for young people who are involved in drug and alcohol abuse. You would think that governments, both provincially and federally, would be doing everything in their power to ensure that these programs were adequately funded. Yet we hear over and over again that there simply is not enough space for young people who are abusing substances, whether it be alcohol or drugs.
We are abdicating our responsibility to young people who have been sexually abused and physically abused. We are abdicating our responsibility to poor kids. We are abdicating our responsibility to kids who are involved in alcohol and drug abuse. Instead we are making it easier to transfer them into the adult prison system. Great answer.
May 30, 1990

We in this party believe that the emphasis must be, surely, as the Canadian Council on Children and Youth has focused, on rehabilitation of those young people who have come in conflict with the law but, most importantly, on doing everything we can as a society to prevent young people from coming into conflict with the law in the first place. To the extent that they do, they should be dealt with with compassion and with understanding, but also with firmness, because that is what our society asks for as well.
I could go on at some length about the absence of psychiatric services. I have spoken about the question of learning disabilities and the chronic shortage of psychological services.


Lynn Hunter: Adequate child care.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Adequate child care, as my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands has pointed out, is another area which is of great importance. We are still waiting for the government to keep its promise for a national child care program. That as well would go a long way to assisting in reducing the level of crime among young people in this country.
I want to conclude by expressing some disappointment, first in the response of this government to what is clearly a crisis involving young people and crime in this country. It could have come up with a thoughtful approach that would emphasize prevention and rehabilitation which would not involve cutting funds to provinces and territories as it has done. Instead, it has put together this piecemeal approach, an approach which, unfortunately, is guaranteed to fail.
I am also disappointed that the Official Opposition, the Liberal party, is supporting this approach. Liberal members have stood in their place and said that they agree with and support these principles.
Where are the members of the Liberal party when it comes to cuts in funds for juvenile justice? Why are they not speaking out for more funding for juvenile justice programs, instead of supporting the Conservative government in its cuts?
These are some of the issues that I wanted to address in the few minutes that I have had an opportunity to speak on this legislation.
Government Orders
I want to close by reminding the House of the words of a very distinguished judge, Judge David Bazelon, who just recently retired from the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit. He said this: "Children who come through the courts are living evidence of the failures of our society to provide the basic necessities of a healthy, mental and physical life for all too many of those we call society's most precious resource. If we refuse to invest in our children, we can only expect more of the same".
Let us listen to that message. Let us invest in our children. Let us not take a step backward with regressive legislation that will result in more children in adult jails and more crime in communities across this land.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, first, I want to compliment my colleague for making a very reasonable and emotional appeal combined in a very forthright manner.
I regret that this is not of paramount importance to every single member, but I know that every member considers it an issue that affects themselves and their communities.
One of the reasons in my opinion that this remains a problem in terms of having adequate services for children in our country is the simple fact that children do not vote. Another compounding factor is that rich children do not go to jail. Middle class children rarely do, but poor children go to jail frequently.
When I first entered politics 30 years ago, I had come to politics out of jail. I am the only politician who left jail and came into politics, instead of the other way around. But I want to confess that I worked there. I was not sent there.
I spent my life, up until I came into politics, committed to working in the corrections system. At a very early age, I was so employed and discovered that what I had been taught in university and what I had assumed was taking place in institutions was indeed what was really taking place. I discovered other things that shocked and motivated me to come into politics.
Since I only have a brief few moments, I want to share with this House what goes on with a child after an offence has been committed and understanding that there is no structure whatsoever mandating care, protection or counselling for the victim. Let us get that on the

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
record. The focus is on punishment with absolutely no care for another child victim of a crime.
For those who suggest that an alternate plan to what the government is suggesting is bleeding heart, let me tell them that victims of crimes in this country, especially children, are the most abandoned group in our society. If this government were concerned about children, the first thing it would do is include in the act a guarantee that any child who is sexually abused, any child who is victimized physically or psychologically by anyone, young or old, is given by law a guarantee of the best possible services available to that child. Only then would I believe the motivation was totally in protection of the community-
It is on the record and we understand that the victims are only part of an ongoing system and have no care of real value in this whole process.
Let us take a look at the 16-year old boy who comes into court and who has been convicted of a violent crime after being transferred to an adult court. If that young boy has been in a remand centre for three or four months awaiting trial, then that child has already been the victim of gang rape.
This is not a very pleasant subject, but we should deal honesty with what takes place in our institutions. Any young boy who comes into an adult institution, either on the remand side of the institution or in the main population of the jail, or is exposed to the access of the main population of jail, is the victim of gang rape within a matter of weeks. Lots are drawn. This is the nature of the institution. These are not happy subjects, but this is the reality that members of this House should know so that they understand what they are doing when we pass this kind of legislation.
That young boy is guaranteed to be physically assaulted in that institution. That assault leaves indelible scars in the mind of that youngster forever. No matter what the system then attempts to do, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that the indelible experience that that child had in the institution scars that person for life.
Recently we read about a 27-year-old who is a threat to society because that young man is a paedophile and there is no protection in our structures to ensure that the community is protected from such an offender. Once being a victim of that kind of crime, the victim turns into the offender more often than not. The state guarantees, because of the institutionalized structure and the experience, a supply of offenders. Having been victims leads to the offence.
I want to leave that aside because I only have about eight or nine more minutes. I want to talk about young women in our society and something that happens to young women who come into court that is not really understood by a large body of legislators.
Young offenders still can be charged with incorrigibility. Incorrigibility can cover range of behaviours that are unmanageable by society-a range of behaviours that does not lead to cheating on the stock market, a range of behaviours that does not lead to cheating on income tax, a range of behaviours that are snickered at by adults, but a range of behaviours by youngsters that are totally out of control that could not be applied as a measure of judgment to adults. Young girls, young women, are charged with incorrigibility by way of promiscuity. I have yet to hear of a young male who is charged with incorrigibility by way of promiscuity. It is a double standard in our society.
I want you to understand that quickly and clearly a male dominated society says to a young 13-year old or 14-year old girl that she may not be promiscuous, but that is not an attitude which is held in the case of a young boy.
That young girl, who is charged with incorrigibility by way of promiscuity, is institutionalized. She was institutionalized in my own province of British Columbia at one point in an institution called the Willingdon School for Girls-a young woman who is expressing severe emotional trauma in her own home situation or foster home situation, who knows of no way of dealing with it other than being a victim of crime, who has probably been sexually abused as a young child at the early age of four, five, or six in patterned behaviour that is indelibly imprinted on that child's mind and who assumes that is a normal pattern of behaviour that she must live through for the rest of her life.
Once placed in the institution she is not given access to the separate, individual, loving care that is necessary for any such child. Once placed in an institution she is grouped with other young women who have similar or more severe problems, and what appears to be an
May 30, 1990

abstract problem for this young woman becomes the norm in the group that she is in.
No consistent treatment pattern takes place. As a matter of fact the kind of learning pattern that takes place in such institutions, duplicated not only in Canada but right across North America, guarantees a supply of chronic offenders who have been scarred in youth in these institutions.
I said in an earlier speech that at one time 60 per cent of the female population of the Kingston Federal Penitentiary were graduates of the Willingdon School for Girls in British Columbia. When the institution was closed there was a dramatic drop in repeated patterns of behaviour because the pattern of behaviour was not reinforced in an institutionalized setting for which the community was paying.
What were the options? We sought and purchased, case by case, the kind of treatment plan that was essential for each one of these young women. That is no longer available. As a matter of fact in the 30 years I have been involved in public life, with a concern, essentially my own private driven concern about why I am in politics, we have actually gone back. We have actually made the situation worse, not better.
Little did I think that I would be in a situation in 1990 dealing with a bill that again is a cosmetic to dampen political fears. It is a knee-jerk reaction to public outcries against violent crimes.
It is not a first step, as my colleague who is a Liberal member said. It is a continuous misstep of legislation that is often implemented on a knee-jerk basis without any sense of history, any sense of proportion, or any sense of what is happening to these young people. They are not rich. They are not middle class. They are poor children, essentially neglected and dropped into the institutions of our society, whether it be foster homes or the other kinds of institutions we have.
What we experience here in this country is minuscule compared to our neighbour to the south. But we have not learned, nor have they.
I know my time is almost up, but I want to say that we are culpable as politicians. We are the ones who are in effect the wrong ones. We are the ones who are making the mistake. We have an opportunity and a responsibility
Government Orders
to protect our total society. The only way to protect our total society is to ensure that our children are protected-the criminal element and the victim. We turn the criminal element into a guaranteed supplier of violence. We turn the victim into a repeat pattern of that behaviour. None of this legislation deals with that.
Simply said, it does not take a genius to figure out when a child is in trouble. Any neighbourhood has parents who sit down at a table and say: "If somebody does not do something for Suzy or Johnny soon, they will be in trouble". Those parents are right. They are in trouble. This bill does nothing to stop that. This bill does nothing for treatment, nothing to protect the community, nothing for services to the victim. It guarantees a constant supply of adult criminals coming through this kind of system.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I think the House has been treated this afternoon to two very good speeches, one by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and the other by my esteemed colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Both of them have a fundamental understanding of the problem.
I know that our society, especially now, seems to be reaching out increasingly for simple solutions to very complex problems. I guess that is a human way to deal with a problem. You want the quick answer. There is no quick answer.
This bill is an attempt at a quick answer. What young offenders need is love and understanding. As a mother of two teenagers, it offends me that this is the government's response to the woes of young people in Canada.
I want to ask the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, with his vast experience in corrections and his esteemed reputation in the political field, if he would expand on the links between poverty and crime among young offenders.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I want to suggest to this House that nobody has a monopoly on what the answers are. I can repeat that the consistent answers have been wrong most of the time.
There is a distinct link between young people who end up in courts and the fact that they have very little financial backing. A wealthy person is not able to prevent a child from having aberrant behaviour but is able to mobilize the best possible services to protect their child

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
when that child is confronted with the legal consequences of his or her actions.
In other words, if an upper middle class or an upper class child has committed an offence that warrants prosecution under legislation such as this, that child goes into court with the best possible back-up services of lawyers, psychologists and those people in the medical profession, the psychiatrists who claim to have some answers about child behaviour.
That array of service is not available to a poor child. That array of service is not even available, I regret to say, to a child who is a ward of the state, albeit in some provinces there is an effort to maintain a modicum of protection for that child who has been through perhaps 16, 17, or 18 different foster homes by the age of 12, 13, or 14.
That is the past of the individual child who is the ward of the state and appears in court. It is not unusual to have some children having been in 12, 13, or 14 different foster homes, not knowing one consistent set of parents. Let us extrapolate the situation to what my colleague said about the indigenous people. Let us look exactly at what we have attempted to do to those children who come into trouble with the law and our method of dealing with it.
We ignore the indigenous people's own inherited culture. We immediately take those children out of the only social experience they have. It may be one that we as Europeans make an abstract judgment about. Because it is a different culture and because it does not match our culture, we snatch the child. That was the exact word I heard as a young social worker. We "snatched" children from indigenous people. They are poor. Is my time up, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This being the period for questions and comments, I saw that other members seemed to be looking forward to asking questions.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, it will be my fault that I lose my whole 10 minutes, but I will go on with my train of thought.
An indigenous child is immediately extracted from the only culture that it knows, dumped into ours, brought into the courtroom, and dealt with either as a foster child or a ward of the state. If you expect that child to have a
chance as my colleague asks on the basis of fairness, forget it.
It is not a story that I have made up. The statistics given by my colleague are absolute proof of what is going on for young women and indigenous children. They do not have a chance if they are poor and they appear in juvenile court in this country.
Granted, there are judges in juvenile courts who cry out for better services, who sit in judgment of these children and go on record day after day proclaiming their horror and shock at the absence of services for children. Those proclamations fall on deaf ears of legislators who have heard the tale of woe and respond only by this foolish legislation that is being presented now.
It is not the fault of the courts. Most people who work in the system understand exactly what is wrong and have said so in testimony to agencies and to committee, all to be ignored, and ignored again in this legislation.
What can I say? A rational, thoughtful, prudent government would gently pull the bill back and say that there is no excuse now to say that there will be parallel accords to this bill. There is no excuse now to say that at some future date we will deal with these problems. There is no excuse to suggest that this is a placebo. The reality is that we should have the whole package now. If we save one child it is worth the whole package, but we are not doing it and that is why we are opposed to this bill.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for the usual passion which he brings to this House and his personal experiences which make the debate much more meaningful to everyone who sits in the House. I notice that a lot of people stop and listen for that reason, myself included. I have a great deal of experience as well with native children in the educational system and even though I participated on a daily basis with that kind of circumstance, I am still appalled and somewhat amazed that those kinds of statistics are staggering even to one who was involved in the situation.
My friend used the term "knee-jerk" reaction. My concern is that when the whole system is broken, I do not think you can tinker with it. I suggest that perhaps two years from now there will be a further tinkering to this system when, in fact, the entire system has to be
May 30, 1990

reworked. It is like repairing an old vehicle, eventually there is a time when you must scrap the vehicle and start with a new one.
My question to my friend is, should all of the legislation be reviewed and rather than tinkering with the system, just change the whole process?


David Barrett: I do not have all the answers. I do know that the current vehicle is the wrong vehicle and it is very expensive. If one wanted to make the case purely on money, throw out the current system. The money we spend to house a child in an institution ranges between $40,000 to $60,000 a year. We should spend that kind of money on preventive services for the children who are destined for trouble. A quick change would be to integrate preventive services into a day care program, into kindergartens and into grade schools.
Just as the health community is talking about AIDS education for children who are pre-teens, we can surely move into behaviour problems in pre-teens within the education system. The scourge of AIDS is forcing us to rethink our whole approach to education. I am not suggesting we see a similar scourge, but surely the consequences of neglecting our children and leading to the kind of patchwork of services that guarantee an adult population in our prisons should have the same dramatic scrutiny as the problem of AIDS.
I have some answers and suggestions. Mine may not be correct, but surely to goodness the one common thread that runs through all of our experience in this field is that the earlier you get to the child and his or her parent or parents and deal with the problems quickly, the less chance there is of that child growing up to be the menace to the community that he or she may be.
One last comment in that regard. When my colleague suggests, as the bill has, a provision to release people after five years or 10 years, it sounds humanitarian, but in many instances we wait until the end of the parole period before we release someone because their behaviour in the institution does not warrant it. I just want to address the logic of that for a moment.
Government Orders
The well behaved offender who is released early is not the person we are concerned about; it is the ill behaved offender who is not released because his or her behaviour in the institution is not conforming who we should worry about. If we are concerned about society, it is that offender who needs a supervised period in the community. To wait for sentence to be finished because the parole board says we cannot take the risk means that we are dumping high-risk people into the community and with no services whatsoever.
There is a whole range of recommendations, I would like to suggest to my colleague. All of this has been heard by parliamentary committees since 1936. It is all on the record of this Chamber and of parliamentary committees since 1936.1 think the first one was the Archam-bault commission. It is all on record, all there, all documented, and all universally ignored.


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


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill as the assistant justice critic for the New Democratic Party and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. I will oppose the bill on second reading, as will the New Democrats in Parliament.
It is interesting and discouraging to me that it is clear that the Liberals will be supporting this bill. It is a bill which completely fails to deal with both the public concern and the reality of problems with young offenders, created in part by the Young Offenders Act. It completely fails to deal with the difficulties in this area.
It is of some interest and concern to me as well, if I can say in a preliminary way without breaching the rules of this House, to see the lack of interest in this bill on the government side and on the Liberal side in this House. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is in the House, but the tradition in this House has been for cabinet ministers themselves to attend, particularly the important second reading stage, a tradition which-I have not yet suggested there is an absence in the House-


Rob Nicholson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

May 30, 1990
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that a point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary will be necessary.
The hon. member for Victoria started by stating that he knew what should normally be done in this House and then proceeded to do exactly the opposite. I think it would be better for the hon. member to continue with debate. The hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: I appreciate the implied admonition Madam Speaker, and perhaps I can simply say that the tradition of having ministers here is a valuable tradition and is one which I know this House fully respects.
The public is concerned about young offenders and that concern in part has been generated by a few examples of horrible crimes committed by young offenders and for which the public sees insufficient sentences handed down. Those few cases have led to a strong feeling amongst the public that the law is "too lenient". This attitude has been reinforced by such organizations as the Canadian Police Association, which has expressed itself in forceful terms.
I have the communication from the Canadian Police Association dated October 3, 1989, which reports on the resolutions adopted at the Canadian Police Association convention in 1989. One of the resolutions specifically dealt with young offenders. Again, the Canadian Police Association was speaking to an entirely legitimate concern; it is the conclusion that has been misunderstood by the government. The resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Canadian Police Association, representing 32,000 police officers across Canada, believes that the Canadian people are not well served by some of the current provisions of the Young Offenders Act, particularly in the areas of transfer and sentencing of young offenders charged with murder, and other serious offences,
AND WHEREAS a consultation paper dealing with possible amendments to the Young Offenders Act has been circulated by the Department of Justice,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Police Association make representation to the Government of Canada to have the Young Offenders Act amended to better protect the people of Canada from violent young offenders.
The Canadian Police Association goes on to complain in another resolution about what it sees as the watering down of the mandatory 25-year sentence for murder. It,
in fact, reaffirms its support for what it is pleased to call "the supreme penalty", i.e. the death penalty.
The fundamental error that the Canadian Police Association makes is to make the assumption that the law itself is the cause of the problems and, second, that amendments to the law can "better protect people from violent young offenders". It is disappointing to me that the police officers of Canada, as represented at least by their association, have not offered to the government the kind of lessons and experience that I know that police officers of the grass roots understand, which is that the causes of crime and particularly the cause of young offenders crime is far more complicated than is represented by the mere suggestion that amendments to the Young Offenders Act is going to help one way or the other.
The causes of crime by young people is at one level complex and difficult and is individual to each case; and at another level is a symptom of the illness in our society and our failure as a Parliament to require the government to show comprehensive leadership in the whole area of justice and social equity in our country.
Individuals who commit crimes, whatever age, have some responsibility for those acts. It is important as the parliamentary committee now known as the Daubney committee from the last Parliament noted, that offenders begin to understand the responsibility they have for their acts and take responsibility not only for their acts but for their lives.
Even more important is that the government and society generally must understand the responsibility that we have for the conditions which create crime. This is at both a macro and micro level. First, at the macro level, it is absolutely clear from study after study, from the experience of Canadians in all walks of life from police to clergy to teachers, as my friend from Sault Ste. Marie expressed, that poverty, child abuse, social injustice creates a climate that will invariably lead to crime.
Beyond that, we provide no services at the community level to isolate the particular cases at an early age that will lead to a "life of crime". We provide no services when first the signs and symptoms of social dislocation and difficulty appear. The services in regard to parental alcoholism are abysmal in this country. Family counselling, adequate housing, proper community development programs at the grass roots level, good community
May 30, 1990

policing, are all hit and miss programs. This country and the government has consistently and persistently failed to address these issues.
As a result, invariably young people even by age six, seven and eight are beginning to show the signs of the pain and agony in their lives which eventually is expressed in violence against others in society.
Then we get to the time when the crimes of the young people become so serious that they come to the attention of the police and the police are left with no services and no system for responding and for heading off the increased problem.
We come to the situation where the criminal justice system, a system which the last Parliament invented, makes the problem even worse. We have the evidence of those who have been working with the Young Offenders Act over the last number of years that we have ended up with even more young people in custody.
The objective of the act was to reduce the number of people in custody in order that we could, hopefully, divert young people from more serious crimes and create a safer and more secure society. Now we have shifted to the point where there has been, after the first five years of life of the Young Offenders Act, even more young people in our jails, even more young people into those schools of crime, which is something no one in this country wants to see. The government, when pressed with the evidence of the complete failure of its work, tries to patch together a minimal solution.
There is one virtue in the bill before the House, but it does not proceed nearly far enough. The virtue is that it makes it slightly easier for a judge to conclude that he or she should keep the young offender in the young offender system rather than transfer the young offender to adult court when it comes to a very serious crime.
Under the Young Offenders Act as it is presently set up, a judge would be faced with a decision; a minimum sentence which he sees as too short, but if he agrees to the transfer to adult court, he is then faced with a sentence which he sees as too long, that is, a minimum 25-year sentence.
Government Orders
The flexibility that our system generally provides judges to come up with a punishment that not only fits the crime, but fits the circumstances of society and of the individual young offender is not in the law as it now stands. The one virtue of this bill is that it increases the minimum sentence from three to five years and reduces for young offenders transferred to adult court the minimum down to ten years.
As I suggest, the bill simply does not go far enough, nor does it deal in any comprehensive way with the real problems. It does not offer any leadership in this area. It has led me to wonder sometimes whether the problem is as much with the government directly or with the advice it is getting from the Department of Justice. Within the narrow scope of the government's particular response, the bill does deal with some of the issues. But the larger mandate given to the Department of Justice for coming up with a response to the rising incidence of young crime in this country is a complete, abject and utter failure, and nothing is more clear about the failure than the government's bill that is now before the House.
As has already been noted, the bill is opposed by organizations from across the country. None are more thorough and precise in this area than the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. This organization has prepared a paper which is 26 pages in length. I will not bore the House by reading the full 26 pages, but let me at least read the conclusion which states:
-dispositional patterns in the youth courts must be carefully monitored. Of particular concern has been the increase in the use of custody and the apparent disparities in dispositional practices. It may in the future be necessary to consider further substantive legislative changes, or amendments to the Act's Declaration of Principle or the creation of sentencing guidelines, in order to ensure that custody is not used inappropriately or excessively.
More fundamentally, it must be appreciated that the law is a blunt social tool, and can only have a limited effect on a complex problem like youthful criminality. The public is understandably concerned about the issue of violence, in particular among young persons. However, legislation, or changes to legislation, can only have a limited impact on offence patterns of adolescents.
Significant changes in offence patterns are likely to require significant social changes. There have to be improvements in our youth corrections system as well. This is largely a provincial responsibility but the federal government can play a role.
More fundamentally, our mental health, education and welfare systems must be made more responsive to the needs of youth; we need improvements in how we deal with such problems as drug and alcohol

May 30, 1990
Government Orders
abuse, adolescents with learning disabilities, and visible minority
youth, and with the integration of young persons into the labour force.
Most basically, we must have a society that values its youth and
recognizes their need for a nurturing environment.
Anyone who has spent any time in association with the criminal justice system and reviewing the working of the criminal justice system in the countiy will know that, once a young person has found himself or herself within the criminal justice system before the courts under the Young Offenders Act, the system has already failed.
We also know that once a young person is before the young offenders system, nothing in the legislation we already have will help, and nothing in the bill before the House will remedy the deficiencies in the act.
It is important that this bill go back for further consideration; that the House take a comprehensive look at the problems of youthful crime; and that, instead of offering further despair, we begin to offer the leadership of hope so that finally the pain of crime in this area can be eradicated.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my seat-mate. It is indeed an honour to sit beside him when he can come up with that kind of factual, practical, sensible, and yet emotional oratory.
He talked about societal problems. Again, I refer to my own setting in school. As a principal of an elementary school for the last 10 years or so, I spent most of my time, unashamedly so, in counselling. I do not use the term "guidance counsellor" because that always connotes preparing people for their vocation in life. The counselling was to assist young people in adjusting to the life-style they were dealt which in many, many cases was very difficult.
My hon. friend used the word "preventative" on at least one occasion. I want to use it several times. We use the word "prevention" in medicine and say that it will save us money. If we expend funds in fire prevention, that will decrease the cost of actually fighting fires. We talk about dental hygiene and the prevention of tooth
decay. Even the dentists who can profit from bad teeth support this.
Yet, one has to wonder why we do not spend more money in crime prevention. It seems to be a very sensible and practical way of dealing with a very serious problem. Could the member elaborate on that concept of expending more funds before rather than after which, in fact, would be cost-saving?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is interesting for me particularly, because in the City of Victoria we have a program which has been noted right across the country in this precise area. That is a community policing program.
The City of Victoria Police Department, a few years ago, with the assistance of the Solicitor General's department, established a program of neighbourhood police stations which in a way is old hat. It is perhaps what the police used to do very well and it is taking that old idea and readapting into a modem urban setting.
Even in establishing the local police station there was a good deal of community consultation and preparation for that. Community committees were established and the community was asked to participate in the work of the neighbourhood police station. Much of the work was focused on the idea of the prevention of crime. I should add that there is also the need to deal with the prevention of the perception of crime. We now have five neighbourhood police stations in Victoria. So far all of them have appeared to be very successful in not only reducing the incidence of crime in the area, and particularly among young people, but also the perception of crime.
Surveys have shown that older people have the greatest fear that they may be subject to crime, and at the same time the surveys show that it is in fact young people who are the greatest victims of crime. Part of that is because crime in our urban society invariably happens at night, frequently associated with abuse of alcohol and drugs. It is quite a different pattern than one watches on television, and I think many of us get our images of crime as much from television and from the media as we do from the reality.
When one asks the police what is their busiest time of day, they will state that it is between 11 at night and four or five in the morning. Therefore, the work of the prevention of crime begins with the bringing into focus a real understanding of what crime is all about.
May 30, 1990

The government could do so much more than it has done in this area. It has given some support to some work in this area, but persistently when they get around to announcing what they are going to do, they have great press conferences, they produce wonderful books, they announce that the RCMP is going to get some extra people to go around and arrest some more people, and then they come up with flimsy bills like this that do not come close to addressing the heart of the problem, and they have shown no national leadership.
Even in the United States, the federal government has shown greater leadership in trying to develop effective and sensible programs for the prevention of crime. In Britain, if it is possible to imagine it, Margaret Thatcher has shown, finally, some understanding about the causes of crime and has given some assistance to some very good crime prevention programs at the local level.
My colleagues say that they cannot believe it. It is true. At least I am told it is true and my sources are impeccable in this area.
I see there is a minute or two left. I do not know whether my friends from any part of the House have further questions, but I will conclude in time for them to ask them if they do.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for an excellent speech, a very comprehensive speech. I know that many of my colleagues from other parts of the country also want to participate in the debate on this important legislation, and over the coming weeks and months we look forward to having those views expressed on this important legislation.
Government Orders
I wanted to draw to the attention of my colleague the fact that the acting police chief in Edmonton, Alberta, has stated that the changes which are proposed by the government in the area of the Young Offenders Act are only a distraction and will not make a significant impact on the problem of teen crime. My colleague referred to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and I wanted to draw to his attention the fact that at least one chief of police has said that this bill is not the way to go, that instead we should be looking at more counselling and more preventive programs.
I am pleased to draw that to the attention of my colleague and also to note the fine work that has been done in the city of Victoria in the area of crime prevention, as well as in the municipality of Burnaby which has an excellent young offenders advisory group. Under the progressive leadership of Mayor Copeland and the council there, and the progressive leadership of the mayor of Victoria, certainly we can do a great deal in the area of crime prevention, particularly involving young people.
I see it is six o'clock and I will draw my remarks to a close.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member wants me to call it six o'clock? The House is not ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 31, 1990