1990-11-23

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions on both sides of the House, and I believe you will find that there is consent for the following motion:
That, immediately following the adoption of this motion, these provisions be in force for proceedings in the House this day, notwithstanding any Standing Order:
1.	Supplementary Estimates (B) be tabled and referred to various Standing Committees as in the motion of the President of the Treasury Board, without question being put;
2.	Orders of the Day be called immediately thereafter, until Statements by Members at 11 o'clock a.m., followed by Oral Questions at 11.15 o'clock a.m.;
3.	All Routine Proceedings be called at noon in the usual manner, followed by Government Orders until 2 o'clock p.m., during which time
a)	Bill C-92, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, shall be disposed of at all stages, on division, and
b)	Government Business No. 23 respecting the appointment of a Special Committee to study the subject-matter of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, and any amendments thereto, shall be disposed of on division;
4.	Private Members' Business be called at the usual time;
5.	At the completion of the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business the House suspend to the call of the Chair, for the sole purpose of receiving a message respecting the giving of Royal Assent to Bill C-87, an act to amend the statue law in relation to war veterans, later this day, and that following such Royal Assent, upon return to this Chamber, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 1 o'clock p.m. Monday, November 26, 1990.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that there have been discussions. I just wanted to make a couple of observations on this motion.
If we accept this motion, we will be forgoing the opportunity to demand that the House divide on the question of referring the estimates to committees. We do this because we are very anxious that committees review these estimates.
Second, we are very concerned about the rejigging of the government's spending plan and want a very thorough and complete committee review of the major elements contained in the supplementary estimates.
Before giving our final consent to this motion, I seek the government's assurance that it will not play games or impede the committees from doing the important work that we will be sending them.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want you and this house to know that there have been no discussions with the group I represent and other independent members. We are anxious to hear the figures the Minister of State (Finance) has for us, but I would not want the Government Leader to construe this as a precedent. If the government Leader and the leader of the Liberal Party think that they can take us for granted, let me tell them this. We will grant consent this once, but next time, please consult. Otherwise, you will not have consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. Government Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to present his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

November 23, 1990
Estimates
English]



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1990-91

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, was presented by Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, laid upon theThble earlier today, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:

Since there is a detailed allocation of the estimates to various committees and since the list is lengthy, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Pursuant to Order made earlier this day and pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), it was ordered,
-That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, laid upon the table earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 15b and L20b.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture, Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 30b and 50b.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 30b, 55b, 60b and 72b. Secretary of State, Votes lb, 5b and 30b.
To the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship
Secretary of State, Vote 20b.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 17b and 25b. Industry, Science and Technology, Votes 90b, 95b and 102b. Privy Council, Vote lb.
Public Works, Votes 5b, 15b, 16b, 25b and 30b.
Secretary of State, Vote 25b.
Supply and Services, Votes lb, 5b and L15b.
To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 25b and 30b.
To the Standing Committee on Environment
Environment, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b and 30b.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade
External Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 20b, 30b, 35b and L46b.
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes lb and 12b.
National Revenue, Votes lb, 5b, 10b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries
Forestry, Vote lb.
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Status ot Disabled Persons
Justice, Vote 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General
Justice, Votes lb, 5b, 15b, 25b and 45b.
Solicitor General, Votes 5b, 10b, 20b and 35b.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 30b.
Labour, Votes lb, 5b and 10b.
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes lb, 5b, 15b and 20b.
Veterans Affairs, Vote 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women
Employment and Immigration, Vote 35b.
National Health and Welfare, Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 30b and 35b.
To the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 45b and 50b. Industry, Science and Technology, Votes lb, 5b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 40b, 60b, 65b, 70b, 75b and 80b.
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Privy Council, Vote 10b.
Transport, Votes lb and 10b.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, given the exceptional co-operation and our
November 23, 1990

agreement to this process, I wonder if the minister could guarantee that the estimates are available to members of Parliament now and that distribution downstairs has copies of those documents.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I understand that copies will be made available immediately to the House leaders of the various parties and to the spokesmen for the Treasury Board. At the same time 1,000 copies are available for members, and I understand that some of them will be brought to the opposition lobby as of now.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the editorial comment of my friend, the House leader of the Liberal Party.
The co-operation exhibited is as a result of yesterday's plaintive pleas by members of the opposition that the estimates be provided at ten o'clock so that they would have fodder for Question Period, rather than at twelve o'clock as we planned.
Being always reasonable and co-operative we have accommodated, at great personal effort on the part of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. When we are taking credit for co-operation, I know it slipped the hon. House leader's mind that he did not acknowledge the co-operation he received from this side of the House to the request they made yesterday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but rise to this great statement. You would not know this, but we just adopted an order of this House in which the opposition gave its undertaking that it would pass Bill C-92 at all stages today and also pass resolution No. 23 today. I think this is exceptional-and I underline exceptional-co-operation with this government that refused yesterday to give us the estimates.
It was in exchange for that, Mr. Speaker, that we got this little bit of concession at 10.15 in the morning.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will not participate in the cross-fire, but I think the record is clear as to who did what and when.
I have not had a chance to look at the list of the committees to which the estimates will be referred, but one can only assume that the Standing Committee on Transport and the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations are two such committees.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, as you know, you are seized with a question of privilege from myself of some time standing, dealing with the fact that these two committees are not able to meet. Because these committees are not currently functioning, I fail to see how, under the circumstances, they can discharge their responsibilities to scrutinize these estimates. I wonder if that may not put in jeopardy the supply process provided for in our Standing Orders.
I would like at this time to give notice that my caucus has concerns about this important issue. We will be seeking an opportunity next week to raise this issue in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day, the motion of the President of the Treasury Board is deemed adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-92, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, 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):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-92 is a proposed amendment to the Northwest Territories Act to approve an amendment by the territorial government to its Official Languages Act, to extend the delay for the translation and bilingual printing and publishing of territorial laws.
In 1984 the government of the Northwest Territories reached an agreement with the federal government to make French an official language of territorial legislative and governmental institutions and to provide for government services in French.
The agreement provided that the territorial government would adopt a law on official languages that would be entrenched by federal legislation so that any amendment by the territorial government which would affect

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
rights or services provided therein would require the approval of Parliament.
Under the agreement, the costs of implementing French as an official language have been borne by the federal government. As well, the agreement provided for federal funding of $16 million to the territories for preservation and enhancement of aboriginal languages and services in those languages.
In 1988, Parliament passed the new federal Official Languages Act. The act specifically excluded legislative and governmental institutions of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon from the definition of federal institutions. It also excluded the laws of the territories and the Yukon from the bilingual requirements applying to federal laws.
As contemplated by the 1984 agreement, the act also entrenched in the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act, the respective language ordinances of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Section 45.1 of the Northwest Territories Act, and its counterpart in the Yukon Act require the approval of Parliament for any amendment to the territorial law, except where it provides for additional rights and services in English and in French or the aboriginal languages.
Since January 19, 1990 all new territorial legislation has been introduced and passed in the Territorial Assembly in both English and French. In April 1990 the territorial government amended its official languages ordinance to make six aboriginal languages the official languages of the territories, along with French and English.
The amendment also provided for a number of additional rights and government services in the aboriginal languages.
The April amendment provides, for instance, that the government may prescribe the translation and publication of ordinances in one or more of the aboriginal languages after their enactment in English and French.
As well, by January 1, 1993 territorial government services will be provided in each of the official aboriginal languages where there is significant demand in those languages.
In August 1990 the Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories wrote to the federal Minister of Justice to seek agreement on an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act to concur in a territorial amendment to the official languages ordinance to extend the time limit for the translation into French and bilingual printing and publishing of previously enacted laws to March 31, 1992. In the letter and in subsequent meetings, Mr. Ballantyne and his officials explained that the need to extend the delay resulted from technical problems in reprinting the revised ordinances and adjusting the regulations accordingly.
I understand a further factor in meeting the deadline has been the difficulty in attracting and keeping qualified legal translators, who are in very short supply in Canada.
The revised ordinances are in final revision and are being sent to the printers, but they cannot be brought into force until the regulations are also ready. Experts from the translation bureau of the Department of the Secretary of State have verified this. They agree that the delay period requested is an appropriate one, in view of the remaining work to be done.
The Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories has assured us, and other ministers of the territorial government have confirmed, that the delay in bringing their laws into effect in both English and French will not have any impact on the requirement of the territorial law that services in both languages will be available from the territorial government as of January 1, 1991. That was an important factor in the government's decision to seek concurrence by Parliament.
If the concurring amendment to the Northwest Territories is not made, the amendment to the territorial official languages ordinance would be ineffective in extending the delay. By virtue of the official languages ordinance, the consequence would be that virtually all territorial laws would become of no force or effect as of January 1, 1991.
The operation and enforcement of law would be seriously compromised in the territories. We cannot accept responsibility for such a result.
The government of the territories is well on its way to meeting its obligations under the territorial official languages ordinance. It needs a further period to finish

November 23, 1990

the work it has undertaken in revising its laws and regulations, and printing and publishing them in both official languages.
On October 29, 1990 the territorial legislature and the commissioner in council, passed an act to amend the Official Languages Act to extend the deadline for bilingual printing and publishing of previous legislation until March 31, 1992.
Bill C-92, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, would simply demonstrate Parliament's concurrence in that amendment and prevent a potentially serious gap in the operation and the validity of the laws of the Northwest Territories. To avoid such a result, Parliament's concurring, through this amendment, will be required prior to December 31.
I hope all members will recognize the need to act quickly in a non-partisan spirit to meet our responsibilities to the people of the north.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-92, whose purpose is to grant the Northwest Territories an extension of the agreement by which all legislative documents, assembly proceedings and other documents shall be available in both official languages, that is, English and French, by April 1991.
Madam Speaker, we are all familiar with the situation concerning official languages in the Territories, a situation that was described quite satisfactorily by the parliamentary secretary. Section 9 of the Territories' Official Languages Act reads as follows:
[English)
It reads as follows, Madam Speaker: "English and French are the official languages of the Territories and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Legislative Assembly and Government of the Territories".
Article 10 of that same Official Languages Act reads as follows: "Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates or other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly".
What we are dealing with today is an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act and allow for a second exten-
Govemment Orders
sion to the commitments made by the Northwest Territories to translate and make available legislative documents to the people of the Northwest Territories.

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide some historical background. In 1984, the Government of Canada, represented by Liberal Minister Serge Joyal at the time, and the Government of the Northwest Territories signed an agreement under which the latter undertook to pass legislation making French one of the official languages of the Territories, I repeat, one of the official languages. The Government of Canada promised to pay all costs of establishing and providing French services.
That same month, inspired by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Legislative Assembly of the Territories passed Bill 9, which I just quoted, establishing the official languages of the Northwest Territories. The purpose of this legislation was to make institutional bilingualism-I repeat, institutional-official. For the benefit of those who still have trouble understanding the difference between institutional and individual bilingualism, I may recall that institutional bilingualism means giving Canadians access to institutions in the official language of their choice, either French or English. This applies not only to the legislative body but also to the courts. It is also true-this is very important and I will get back to it later on-that there is some concern about the government services that communities are entitled to receive. That is another matter, but I want to make sure the government understands that, when we agree to a second extension, we also want some firm commitments from this government regarding services in French for the Territories' French-speaking communities.
Madam Speaker, the bill that was intended to make NWT government institutions bilingual by January 1, 1988-and I am still referring to the original legislation passed in 1984-extended the deadline until December 31, 1990, following a number of technical difficulties the NWT government encountered with the translation of acts, ordinances, and so forth.
The deadline was extended to December 31, 1990, and now, a month before the extension expires, we are again asked to extend or postpone the deadline, if you prefer, until April 1, 1992. That is the purpose of Bill C-92.

Government Orders
Madam Speaker, as far as translation is concerned, the NWT government has made considerable progress. I am told all its laws have been translated. The ordinances must now be revised, in French and in English, and printed, while regulations adopted pursuant to these ordinances must be updated.
The Liberal caucus, whose spokesman I am today, acknowledges the good will of the Government of the Northwest Territories and appreciates the request made in its ordinance. Given this request, we support the adoption of this bill at all stages today.
Madam Speaker, naive though I may appear, I should like to comment briefly on the situation in the Northwest Territories as it relates to the official languages.
The legislation adoption process and the implementation of such legislation concerning services to the public at large, particularly to the communities, is essential. For too long now the francophone residents of the Northwest Territories have been completely ignored with respect to dealings which concern them, especially the strong impact on the future of their community, its laws, and government services. For too long now, Madam Speaker, their needs have been decided for them without consultation. The message I would convey to the federal government, responsible as it is for protecting, supporting and promoting national unity, is to act as defender and representative of these minorities before the governments of the Territories so that these governments understand that the francophone communities of the Northwest Territories now ask nothing more than to be consulted and involved when governments open up new services, when governments willingly agree to meet the major needs of the residents of the Northwest Territories, one of our country's main regions.
Madam Speaker, when the House passed the Official Languages Act in June 1988, the government was committed to promote the growth of francophone and anglophone minorities. Again I say francophones and anglophones because they do exist. Some minorities are constantly under the threat of assimilation, and I am referring to francophones outside Quebec. But then again Quebec has an anglophone minority that has the right to be there and to enjoy the services to which it is entitled under the Constitution and the law.
As full-fledged citizens of this country which has two official languages we make the following argument, namely that the existence and survival of these francophone groups in the various provinces and in the Territories are linked to the survival of our country itself, and that we have to protect and support these groups to ensure equality and respect between Canada's two linguistic communities.
If we lose our francophone communities outside Quebec, Madam Speaker, what is the point in having bilingual Territories if no one is there to use the law, if no one is there to benefit from government services? What will be the use of balkanizing into two entities, one speaking only French in Quebec and the other speaking only English outside Quebec? This is why it has become imperative for governments, particularly those which have not progressed as much as the Northwest Territories or New Brunswick, for example, or the federal government, to consider the importance of catching up with others. A year or so ago Alberta and Saskatchewan were the scene of rather trying times when their parliaments or legislative assemblies denied the traditional and constitutional rights of people to have laws in French. Following what I would call very regrettable incidents, we came to realize that certain governments remain quite indifferent to these provisions.
Madam Speaker, bearing this in mind, the Liberal caucus, in addition to expressing its support for the Territories and commending them for the gains made by the francophone community so far, would also remind the federal government of the importance of its commitment to promote and support these communities. To a number of people in the north, and to the NWT francophone community as a whole, services are far more important. The need for services is far more pressing. Services are their main priority.
Translations are fine. To have laws and ordinances translated into French is excellent. However, if there are no services to help these communities live in French in the north, all this won't be much use. It will be a purely symbolic gesture.
That is why we want this government to keep its promise to the NWT francophone community and give it the support it needs, so that it can obtain health and education services from the Territorial government-I won't give the whole list, because hon. members know
November 23, 1990

what I am talking about. I am referring to Section 23 of the Constitution which gives Canadians the right to send their children to the school of their choice, either in English or in French. That is not yet the case everywhere in Canada, and it is now eight years since the Constitution was ratified. There are still a number of provinces where it is impossible for a child to be educated in its mother tongue.
We must make up for lost time, Madam Speaker. In three of our provinces, Canadians still cannot speak before a criminal court in the language of their choice. Three provinces have yet to grant this fundamental right of every Canadian to be able to defend himself in the language of his choice. We still have a long way to go, and I think it is incumbent on these provinces to catch up with the rest of the country.
Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, in January 1991, the Government of the Northwest Territories will be under a legal obligation to provide government or institutional services in French and English. It will be under the obligation to provide for the use of both official languages in territorial courts, starting January 1991. But will the NWT Government be able to provide those services by that time? I am told that not everything is in place yet, despite this deadline.
Will this government have the technical capacity to meet these legal requirements? Or will we again have a situation where francophone minorities must resort to court challenges in order to defend their rights?
Madam Speaker, I hope we will not always be in a situation where the minority, which sometimes happens to be the weaker party, has to resort to legal remedies to protect its rights.
I make this point for the benefit of the federal government, because it has the resources. It has the money to assist these groups. As for the political will, as I said before, it is there, in the Northwest Territories. So in fact, the Secretary of State merely has to conclude agreements with the Northwest Territories that would ensure the availability of certain services in French, without putting an additional burden on NWT residents.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, these are matters that are of considerable concern to NWT francophones. It asked me to beg the government, in the course of this debate, to act on a firm commitment, made when the Official Languages Act was passed nearly two years ago, to help these communities defend their language rights.
Finally, Madam Speaker-and I will try to be brieflike all hon. members I realize that the NWT government had to overcome considerable technical difficulties when faced with the enormous task of having all its statutes translated. As I said earlier, I am told that all the statutes have been translated and all that remains are the ordinances and a few regulations.
We are aware that there are a few problems, despite all the good will. For instance, it is not easy to find translators who are familiar with the requirements of legal and legislative translation. We also realize that funding made available by the federal government should continue to be made available to these communities.
Madam Speaker, considering the good faith shown by the territorial government, we are prepared to give our consent to this provision. In concluding, I would like to say, to the people who think this is a waste of time and money, that we feel this provision for the translation of laws, ordinances, regulations and other texts into French is important if we want this country to remain united.
I deplore the attitude of some people in this country, of the authors and writers and groups that say it is a waste of time. If it is worth having two official languages, as we do, it is worth protecting them across this country to achieve language equity. It is also worthwhile to ensure that these groups, these French or Englishspeaking communities, wherever they happen to live in this country, have access to government services, laws and ordinances in their own language. As I said earlier, I deplore the negative approach taken by some people to this question. The game is not over yet, however. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that unlike what was said by Mr. Yves Beauchemin, a writer, when he appeared recently before the Commission-


An hon. member:: The Belanger-Campeau Commission.

Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was looking for the quote. In any case, Mr. Beauchemin said recently before the Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec that minorities, that francophones outside Quebec were like a corpse that is still warm.
I would urge Mr. Beauchemin and others of the same persuasion to look beyond their immediate horizons and visit Canada. There are still large groups in this country that want to survive and want this country to survive, and that simply want the majority to give them a measure of equity and exercise some generosity so that we can continue to defend and preserve this country, Canada, that some day, I hope, will be respectful and supportive of both official language groups.
Finally, I would like to say that today, we are prepared to adopt all stages of the bill, including committee of the whole and third reading.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to speak today on this bill. I know that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is particularly fond of this subject and that he could speak about it for an hour or two even. I heard his speech.
So, as a gesture of goodwill, we are not going to delay the passing of Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, in order to allow more time for the statutes and orders to be translated into French.

As I said, Madam Speaker, the bill will provide bilingual services in the north and will extend the time that the federal government has given to the Northwest Territorial government, which is its creature. It is still a territoiy really. It is really still a creature of the federal government, although some day I hope it will be independent in the sense of being a province.

I am saying this for my friend from the Bloc Quebecois who is going to speak after me. I am anxious to hear his speech.

The original commitment to bilingual services was made in 1985. Given the recent tensions in this country and the Belanger-Campeau commission that my friend
from Vanier spoke about, we do not want the federal government to drag its heels in providing minimal services for the francophone community, francophones hors Quebec, especially the francophone community where the federal government has jurisdiction and where this Parliament has a special responsibility, and that is in the Northwest Territories.
The federation of NWT francophones wrote to the Secretary of State in late October expressing some serious concern about the fact that promises made about services in the French language were not being kept. We would like to see these technical delays overcome and the promises kept. We do not want any excuses. We want the government to provide these minimum services.
Article 23 of the Constitution provides for parent-controlled schooling to the francophone community in the territories where numbers warrant. It is essential that francophones in the territories now be closely consulted in the implementation of this right in the near future. It is also essential that francophones in the territories now be consulted about government services that must be made available to them in their own language.
It is all veiy well to translate laws, but you need medical services, legal services and so on. Although I am from British Columbia, I have lived in the east for 11 years. I travel back and forth really, bi-coastal if you like. I have found that just across the river in Quebec, I can get health services, legal services and so on in the English language.
Having said that, I want to point out that French is only 3 per cent of the Northwest Territories. I am proud that I worked for the Berger commission there about 15 years ago. We did the commission then in English and in French. We had hearings all across the country in English, French, Dene, Loucheux, Slavey, Dog Rib and Inuktitut. If I might be permitted to speak a little Inuktitut, I remember when I was a much younger man, I had a beard and they used to call-
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
-which means sick, sick, the little guy with the beard. Those were great days. I remember the territories and I remember the effort to have other languages.
I see my friend from the bloc Quebecois about to speak, and I will end now. I want to tell him and other people, it is with some difficulty that anglophone mem-
November 23, 1990

bers of Parliament from western Canada and other places stand up in this House and advocate francophone rights outside of Quebec. I am sure he realizes that if we adopt his position, and Quebec becomes sovereign, there would not be any anglophone rights outside of Quebec and the new English Canada would be unilingual. I am not saying I would want to see that. I am just saying the reality of it would be that we would be looking at a Quebec which is French and the rest of Canada which is English. There would be no effort like there is here to try to translate laws. That is not a threat. That is a just a statement of reality.
I point out to him-

I point out to my friend that he may perceive things differently, but that this is how Laurier perceived them. So did Henri Bourassa and Pierre Trudeau. He was a member of Trudeau's government. They envisaged a bilingual Canada.

I will say this in English. It is not so much bilingual, but to respect French and English rights throughout Canada. That is what this is about, and that is why we in the New Democratic Party support it. That means to extend francophone rights, even in this case when it is only 3 per cent of the population, where it is a majority native people.
We see it as a society where we respect language rights. We respect the rights of the two founding people because the way in which this country was created-I like to think of it as a cake, with the bottom being the native people, the base, French and English, and then the new multicultural reality of the present. I am sure he has a different view of a different sort of country. I think what we have fought for for almost 150 years is still worth fighting for. I hope that the translators will get going and the government in the Northwest Territories can provide those services in French.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleagues' comments on Bill C-62, I must share a few thoughts with you. We are hearing
Government Orders
today speeches on what I would call equal Canada. There are speeches on the principles of bilingualism, and generosity. For years, I believed in that legal fiction. I thought that it could become a reality. However, after all those years and after travelling all over the country, we must come to the conclusion that we are deluding ourselves if we think that Canada is bilingual. In everyday life, bilingualism is a reality only for a small elite in Canada, especially in the National Capital Region.
Madam Speaker, I know that you had the opportunity to travel across the country. I heard Premier Clyde Wells give speeches on our bilingual country. Well, I visited bilingual Newfoundland. The truth is that bilingualism is totally non-existant in that part of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I travelled extensively across Canada and I would say that, all in all, one of the few places in which I found bilingual services was airports. That is to say when you do not arrive late, after the bilingual attendant has left. But, in everyday life, there is no bilingualism.
When I hear my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier tell English Canada that to allow laws to be published in bilingual format in the Northwest Territories is a token of unity, I want to warn English Candians that this is a mirage. Indeed, translating the laws of the Northwest Territories will do nothing for promoting the economic, social and cultural development of Quebec.
Of course, we have always been under the impression that it was normal for governments to provide bilingual services, that it was a vested right in a supposedly bilingual country.
But trying to make English Canada believe that bilingualism is the mainstay of national unity and that it will keep this country whole and united is tantamount to perpetuating a monumental fraud! Bilingualism is there only to respect individual rights, not to convey to Quebecers the message that everything is just fine, see how generous we are, doing you this kind of favour! Madam Speaker, that is an optical illusion in the reality of day-to-day life.
It does hurt at times. I went to Winnipeg earlier this week to adress the Federation of Manitoba Municipalities. A man walked up to the microphone and, referring to bilingualism and the official languages legislation, he asked: "My grandson is learning French, why are you giving up?" I replied: "My dear man, I hope your grandson is learning French for his own cultural better-

November 23, 1990
ment. I hope your grandson is not learning French just to please me!"
I was not posing as Canada's saviour when I learned English, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to be able to communicate with my English-speaking colleagues, to understand both this country and the United States. I find it very hard to remain still every time I see someone trying to hoodwink the public.
In English Canada we often have the impression that they consider bilingual programs to be a major concession to Quebecers. I say to them: Do not look at it that way! Quebecers who have chosen to be bilingual did so for their own personal enrichment, they wanted to learn someting about another culture, and we hope you take a similar approach. We hope that access to the French language-which is considered as being a privilege-will prove to be the long-sought opportunity to open up onto the rest of the world, for we are all citizens of the international community. But do not delude yourselves into interpreting that as a contribution to national unity.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you that when bilingualism becomes the motive for promoting the principle of nation, we cannot get away from the fact that there are two nations in this country, perhaps even three if we include native people. Therefore we have unilingual nations within a supposedly bilingual judicial structure, and bilingual individuals within a minority. But again I emphasize that we cannot equate granting these services with promoting national unity, and that is because people have been fooling themselves for years and years thinking that this kind of gesture has to be a big favour to francophones. If they believe in bilingual institutions, it is not a favour but a right.
Be that as it may, Madam Speaker, you cannot expect Quebecers to haul down their sovereignty banners simply because there is one more translator in the Northwest Territories! That would be creating an illusion, and then some!
All I can say to our francophone friends outside Quebec is that the best anchor they can have is a sovereign and francophone Quebec which will then be a vibrant society of French language and culture. We will always be open and friendly to those who want to live in French, to those who want to raise and educate their
children in French and give them the opportunity to grow up and work in French. When we talk about bilingualism, Madam Speaker, the only truly bilingual city in Canada is Montreal.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the hon. member, who may wish to continue his speech after Oral Question Period.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35 the House will now proceed to Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, in his Budget on February 20, 1990, the Minister of Finance asked Canadians to tighten their belts. I immediately decided to reduce mailings of parliamentary news letters to my constituents from four to one annually, and I will no longer send 2,000 cards with Christmas and New Year's greetings.
Since September 1984, I have sent 26 householders, which means 822,615 copies, for a total cost of $155,260.45, not including photographic reproduction and mailing costs.
Madam Speaker, I went along with the system at the time, but today, considering the recession, I do not regret my decision to stop sending my constituents their calendars which were usually my last householder of the year.


THE SENATE
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, the Speaker in the other place is at it again. Yesterday, after the Liberals were narrowly defeated by the Tories on their eighth amendment, the Speaker refused to allow an independent senator from Alberta the right, the democratic right to introduce an amendment of his own to the GST legislation.
November 23, 1990

When will the Prime Minister come to his senses and realize that allowing a complete breakdown in the rules is a very dangerous precedent and must not be allowed to continue?
When will the Prime Minister realize that total anarchy can take place when rules in this place and the other place are not followed?
When will the Prime Minister realize that our institutions cannot take this abuse on the one hand and on the other hand be respected by Canadians?
I say to the Prime Minister that this trampling of our democracy has to stop in the other place now.


HOUSING
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to respond to allegations made by the Canadian co-operative housing federation and set the record straight.
The Co-operative Housing Program is an experimental program covering a period of five years ending on December 31 this year. It was designed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in co-operation with the Canadian co-operative housing federation. Initially, the federal government, through CMHC, injected $5 million annually-in addition to an additional budget of $5 million-totalling $30 million over a period of five years. The Minister of State (Housing) has fully honoured his commitments.
The Canadian co-operative housing federation had suggested that CMHC use the indexed mortgage loan formula to finance the projects. However, the federation's forecasts did not materialize, which consequently had a negative impact on the number of housing units delivered. We have tried in every way to help the federation reduce unit construction costs, which would have made it possible to build more housing units, but to no avail. Furthermore, we had to raise the annual subsidy cost to $3,000 per unit because of increased operating and capital costs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Madam Speaker, last week, I attended a meeting in Moonbeam, in my riding. Over 150 people took the time to come to that meeting to get some information about the rumors concerning the closing of their post office which has been in existence for 30 years.
Last year, Canada Post could report $149 million in profits which was made at the expenses of small communities. The people at that meeting sent a clear message to the government: Its postal services privatization, or should I say dehumanization, policy is hurting rural Canada. Post offices are the heart of small communities and closing them is an attack against all the traditions attached to them, not to mention the elimination of many jobs. Canadians, wherever they live, have a right to centralized and humanized postal services like those provided in urban communities.
This government left the isolated communities to fend for themselves. Just think of the cuts in transportation.


Mrs. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the unanimous passage of Ed Broadbent's motion calling on Parliament to eradicate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Sadly there is no cause for celebration.
In the last year the government has rammed through laws clawing back family allowances and decimating the unemployment insurance system. In the last year it tried to cap federal funds for social services, health care, and education.
Liberals should not sit smugly by. Canadians remember it was the Liberals who imposed the dreaded six and five caps on family allowance. It was the Liberals who froze the child tax exemption for years before the Tories reduced it to a $65 tax credit.

November 23, 1990
Despite calls for government support for child care in the 1970s, it was the Liberals who did nothing. It was their twins, the Tories, who have failed to bring in a plan.
If the government would expend the same energy it is using to ram through the GST, which will hurt poor children and their families, on providing solutions to poverty, Canadian children might be living better lives.
In the midst of plant closures, lay-offs and a recession-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has now expired.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, perhaps the country has never been as highly politicized as it is at the present time. I have been receiving a lot of letters, as I am sure have other members have, that begin by saying: "This is the first time I have every written to my MP". It is as if we are getting into the bedrock of the Canadian nation.
I think there is reason for this: the protracted free trade debate and the divisiveness of that, the three-year discussions over Meech Lake, the current and continuing debate over the GST, and the changes on the international level, with all their promise and the challenges associated with them.
There is a mood in the country that portends some kind of political realignment. This is very much exacerbated by the emphasis that we continue to place on the things that divide us. We are grinding sand into the gears that make this country work.
I think the time has come for Canadians to begin to emphasize the one thing that does unite all of us in this country, that is, our country and pride in calling ourselves Canadians.
*k	*k


HUNT-WESSON
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, we heard the Minister for International Trade give the latest example of Tory government policy on agriculture: throw our farmers to the wolves.
Hunt-Wesson in Kent county is eliminating 60 jobs, but there is the added snowball effect on our farmers.
A tomato farmer from my riding called me. His contracts to sell tomatoes now do not exist. He has no one to sell them to. He has hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in land and equipment, and now he has nothing.
What is the reason for Hunt-Wesson closing? It is the free trade agreement. The company president says that. Not unions, not politicians.
The parent company will now sell its products from California and Ohio.
This plant has been located in Tilbury since 1956, making it through the tough times before, but not the Tory free trade or their made-in-Canada recession.
This government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the devastation. On job losses and plant closings, this government cannot say don't worry, that's progress.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, is it any wonder that 60 per cent of Canadians do not believe Jean Chretien when he says that a Liberal government would kill the goods and services tax? Barely a majority of Liberals, declining group that they are, feel that their leader is being honest when he says he will axe the tax.
Why should they believe him? Mr. Chretien's colleagues in the Senate did not axe the tax or kill the bill this spring when they had numerous opportunities to do so. They even endorsed the bill in principle.
After all, the GST does benefit big business, including the big businesses that backed Mr. Chretien's leadership and appointed him to their boards of directors. Jean Chretien sat on those boards, not the boards of the anti-poverty groups but of companies like Consolidated Bathurst, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and B.C. Forest Products.
Canadians have lost faith in the old style politics represented by Jean Chretien. They do not believe that a
November 23, 1990

man who benefited so much from the corporate sector will not do the corporate bidding and implement the tax.
On the other hand, I have faith that Canadians-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.


COLLEGE WEEK
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I rise to remind my colleagues that this is College Week. Post-secondary education is more important today than ever before in our history. Rapid changes in the field of knowledge nowadays impose tremendous challenges for Canadian men and women throughout their entire working life. Our colleges and vocational training institutes give them the skills that enable them to meet those challenges and provide them with numerous career opportunities.
Madam Speaker, post-secondary education is an important investment for the individual and for the entire nation. Colleges and vocational training institutes increase our capacity to meet our common concerns, for instance, in areas such as the environment. Furthermore, they help Canadian men and women acquire the skills that will enable our country to sustain wold competition.
With market globalization, our country's future prosperity depends on our capacity to remain competitive. Therefore, it must promote and make the best of knowledges and skills it provides to our citizens. And in order to achieve that goal, we need a solid post-secondary education system.
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues recognize, as I do, the contribution of our colleges and vocational training institutes to the quality-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has now expired. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.


FRENCH-SPEAKING CANADIANS OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, writer Yves Beauchemin pronouced an
indictment against French-speaking communities outside Quebec. Before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, he referred to French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec as "still warm corpses".
The rest of Canada cannot let this go unchallenged, because French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec do not deserve to be put aside, certainly not by a fellow-Ca-nadians-basher. It is sad to see someone, through ignorance or meanness, attempt to belittle people of his own country in promoting his own political beliefs.
I praise editorial writer Adrien Cantin of Le Droit for having set matters straight in his November 22 article.
A word of advice to the Belanger-Campeau Commission: It would be better to focus on briefs that assert the need to harmonize the efforts of French-speaking minorities of Canada as a whole, Quebec included, in the face of the realities of America.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, this week I received a number of phone calls from business people in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin. All of them had one thing on their mind: "Let's put an end to uncertainty."
Along with over 700,000 other Canadian businesses, they have made the decision to prepare for the GST, small but real life decisions like employee training, providing customers with sound advice, changing business forms, equipment and supplies, and making strategic inventory decisions.
These are the decisions that must be made in the real world where the uncertainty caused by political games is the deadliest of enemies.
The message is clear: "The impact of a delay in the implementation of the GST is devastating-we strongly urge you to do all in your power to see that the GST is implemented by January 1, 1991."
These people have made business decisions for the future. They need political ones to be made now, not December 31.

November 23, 1990
Oral Questions


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately the hon. member's time has expired.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw, with some enthusiasm, a comparison between the Conservative Parties of Britain and Canada.
As hon. members will know, earlier this week Margaret Thatcher's leadership was challenged. Just yesterday, the Iron Lady realized that her policies and waning popularity in the polls would preclude her party from winning the next general election. She did the honourable thing and resigned.
Perhaps the chief thorn in her side is her new poll tax. This tax has Britons up in arms and protesting in the streets, not too unlike the Canadian reaction to the Conservative's GST.
When a government introduces a tax that has the disapproval of over 80 per cent of the population at the same time as it forces the nation into an economic downturn, it is time to reconsider seriously its leadership and ability to govern.
If only the leadership selection process were the same in Canada, I am certain we would see members opposite lining up for the Prime Minister's job.
Given the incredible similarity, perhaps the Prime Minister should follow the lead of his British counterpart and resign.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, this Sunday has been called the international day to end violence against women. This is a timely reminder to our government for three reasons.
First, following the second anniversary of this government's re-election, publicizing the violence issue shows what little, if anything, six years of Tory rule have done to improve the quality of life for Canadian women.
Second, approaching the first anniversary of the Montreal students' massacre, publicizing the violence issue shows how hard this social disease can hit if we do not address it sincerely.
There was much hope when a woman was appointed as Minister of Justice. It is now clear with her mishandling of Bill C-80 that she is giving in to the gun lobby.
Third, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, publicizing the violence issue, which the commission did not even touch, shows how far we have come, yet how far we must still go.
Until this government ceases to believe that all women need is a few appointments to high places in Canada, a woman's work will never be done.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I will pose my question to the President of the Treasury Board.
The supplementary estimates tabled today by the President of the Treasury Board show the depth of the incompetence of this government when it comes to managing the economic affairs of this country and the price Canadians are paying for this incompetence. The supplementary estimates show that this government will be spending $2.5 billion to cover the additional costs of its borrowing due to its own high interest rate policies. I ask the President of the Treasury Board, is it not true that this $2.5 billion would not have to be spent if the government had not persisted with this high interest rate policy, which has been doing so much damage to the economy of this country?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the supplementary estimates I tabled this morning indicate, contrary to what he just affirmed, that this government is committed to staying the course.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: High interest rates.


Gilles Loiselle: We have within these estimates $2.5 billion for high interest rates. The Minister of Finance-
*
November 23, 1990

and this is not new-indicated in September that we were off course. He also indicated that because the economy performed better at the end of last year and early this year, we have additional income. Therefore there is a charge against the deficit of between $1 billion and $1.5 billion.
As for program spending, the hon. Leader of the Opposition forgets to say that we have encountered additional pressures during this year, particularly with the job situation. Instead of passing it on to the deficit, as the Liberals have done over a period of years, putting the finances of this country in jeopardy, we have decided to tighten our belts once more and we have balanced program spending.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board knows that if this government had allowed interest rates to be lowered by only a point and one-half this year, this $2.5 billion could have been saved and there also could have been saved thousands of Canadian jobs, homes, farms and businesses.


Mr. Dick:: Inflation would be higher.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: All the President of the Treasury Board has to say to these people who have lost their jobs, farms, homes and businesses, is that they have to stay the course. That is like the Minister of Finance saying that he wants Canadians to die before they go to heaven. People do not want to stay this course.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We're doing better than the Liberals.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I ask the President of the Treasury Board, will the government bring about a lowering of interest rates today to save this expenditure of $2.5 billion and save the thousands and thousands of Canadian jobs, homes, farms and businesses that will be lost if this government persists with its misguided economic policies?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it seems that the Liberals are not learning.


An hon. member:: They will never learn.
Oral Questions


Gilles Loiselle: They failed to stay the course when they were in power and it led to interest rates of above 20 per cent and very high inflation rates.
He wants interest rates to come down. I would ask him to look at the results of our policy. Interest rates are coming down week after week, and we are very pleased with that. It shows that our policy is working. There is no mystery, and it is not by artificially claiming that one can press a button and interest rates will come down. It is by maintaining the course and preventing the inflationary pressures from being unleashed. This is what we are doing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had a look at the results of this government's policies and they have said that these policies are wrong. They want these policies stopped before they bring about a total disruption of the Canadian economy.

Madam Speaker, I ask the President of Treasury Board the same question: When will the government recognize that its own policies and very high interest rates are responsible for the deterioration of our economy over the past few months? When will the minister recognize that his own policies will cost Canadian men and women hundreds of thousands of jobs? Is the government willing now to change its policies?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the government is not willing to change its policies, because it feels that they are the right ones, although it knows it will have to pay the price for them. I am sure the Canadian people realize that it is not because the government wants to be popular that it is making these difficult decisions, but because it feels that in the end they will benefit Canada. On the other hand, if there ever was a government in this country which managed to create jobs, it is this one. Following seven years of continuing growth, we want a new growth. At the end of these six years of continuing growth, we were faced with very real inflationary pressures. We must rid the system of these pressures, and the current exchange rates show that we are about to win the war.

November 23, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, under the pretext of financing the war in the Persian Gulf, today this government is asking Canadians to dip into their pockets for $4.8 billion.
Ninety-three per cent of that money is not going to finance the war. It is going to pay for the fiscal incompetence and the made-in-Canada recession promoted by this government.
Will the government admit its own fiscal incompetence is making Canadians pay so much more money?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Madam Speaker, we will not admit that.
The hon. member should make a comparison of interest rates. On August 6, 1981 the Bank of Canada rate was 21.24 per cent. That is when the Liberals were in power; 21.24 per cent. Today they are 12.25 per cent, and they have dropped steadily since May. The prime rate has dropped dramatically in that period of time.
The House leader said that they should drop a point and a half. They have dropped more than a point and a half since May, almost two points since May.
As the inflationary pressures go down, the interest rates will drop. Inflation has been the enemy. The inflationary pressures have eased somewhat, allowing interest rates to fall. They will continue to fall as the inflation pressures ease.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If the minister wants a lesson in history, he does not have to go back nine or ten years. Let him go back three years when the interest rates in Canada were 7.5 per cent. They are now over 12 per cent. That is as a result of your policies.

Madam Speaker, if the government had listened to us and reduced the interest rates, we could have been spared the recession and we would have saved what it is now asking us to pay for the national debt. Is the government prepared to recognize the failure of its high interest rate policy?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not accept the statement my hon. friend has just made. I am quite surprised that the official opposition critic should make such a statement as though the government was some sort of a magician which, just by pushing a button, could cause the interest rates to fall.
Interest rates reflect certain demands and realities of the marketplace, and Liberal members are certainly not helping the investment situation by saying constantly that things are going awfully bad. I wish to warn him against constantly making negative and pessimistic statements which do not reflect the reality.
It is true and regrettable that there should be a slowing down, and we must act quickly to help the economy make a fresh start.
[English ]


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has just tabled its supplementary estimates and we are looking at $350 million worth of cuts. Who gets cut? Farmers, fishermen, immigrants, the unemployed, environment, aboriginal people, workers, the ill and veterans. Once again, it is those who can afford it the least that pay for the bungling of this government.
In addition, in these supplementary estimates what we see is an expense of $350 million for a war in the gulf, but we see $379 million to implement the GST. Where are the priorities of this government? Why does the government not withdraw the GST and bring back some estimates that help average Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the socialist party is wrong when she singles out farmers, because under the estimates tabled today the agriculture estimates are increasing by $316.6 million. There is some reprofiling of certain programs and projects that can be carried over into the next year, but that should not be seen as a reduction in agriculture expenditures.
We have acknowledged that we will have to support agriculture more, particularly in the grains and oilseeds sector. We are currently working with the provinces in designing a long-term safety net. As well, we are looking at the need for additional income support, which is
November 23, 1990

triggered by the third level of the committee that has been established through federal-provincial co-operation, so I would ask the hon. member to reconsider her allegation that farmers are being cut.
With respect to the GST, we hear constantly from the New Democratic Party the need for a fair and equitable tax system, a tax system that will encourage productivity, enterprise, and competitiveness. That is precisely what the GST is all about. It is about jobs, competitiveness, confidence restoring the economy. That is what we intend to do with the passage of this piece of legislation.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians are going to wonder why it costs more to implement this so-called fair GST than it does to have a war in the gulf.
I would like to ask-

We saw just this morning, with the supplementary estimates, that this government's priorities are absurd. It cuts social services to pay for a tax nobody wants, to pay for a military intervention nobody wants. Why is it always the middle class and the poor who must pay for the errors of this government?


Gilles Loiselle: I think that the New Democratic Party leader is wrong when she states such things, since the government has always been very careful in its operations. She must understand that if we really want to protect those who need protection, if we really want to protect our programs, we have to make sure that the country's finances are in good shape. By avoiding to add to the deficit supplementary expenses that Canada must make and by trying to cut operating expenditures instead of program expenditures, we believe we are on the right track. Indeed, that makes the difference between this government and the socialist one opposite which simply wants to keep on adding indefinitely to the deficit without accepting the ultimate
Oral Questions
responsibility, which is to maintain our programs in the long term.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Almost a year ago this government, along with the other parties in this House, voted unanimously on a motion to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. There is no sign in these estimates of what this government plans to do on child poverty. Instead the government plans to spend over $350 million to implement a goods and services tax which is going to hurt those very families, those very children. Yet this government had the nerve to stand up in this House a year ago and say that they would eradicate poverty.
What are the priorities of this government? Instead of declaring war on Canadian taxpayers, why not declare war on poverty? Why not bring in supplements now that will lead to a war to end poverty in this country, as this government promised to do a year ago.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, first, the leader of the New Democratic Party knows very well that over 800,000 people came off the poverty role in the last few years.
I know that the leader is inadvertently misleading the House when she says that it costs some $365 million to implement the GST. She is wrong. A great bulk of that is for social benefits accrued from the GST for GST credits to low and modest-income Canadians. Is the leader of the New Democratic Party saying that we should not be sending out GST credits to low and modest-income Canadians? If she believes in that, she should stand up and say so.
If she wants the credits to go to the low and modest-income Canadians, she should walk across to the other chamber and make sure it passes through the Senate so that we can proceed with the mailing of GST credits to some 8 million low and modest-income Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

November 23, 1990


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence.
When the Conservatives came to power, the first thing they said was that they were not going to follow the policy of the bad old Liberals. They were going to be champions of National defence. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare, then Minister of National Defence, rode across Canada on his tricycle buying nuclear submarines, Polar 8's, and every other form of technology you can imagine. What did the Conservatives do? They cut the defence budget by $2.7 billion, the most savage attack on defence in Canadian history. Now faced with a crisis, the Conservatives are scrambling to fund programs that they should have had in place for which they promised and raised expectations.
Is it the policy of the Minister of National Defence that the new defence policy in the country is going to be funded by savaging health and welfare and Indian affairs which lost $6 million today?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I find that strange coming from a member of the Liberal Party who was present in the government some few years ago when the Liberal government of the day froze the budget of the Department of National Defence when inflation in Canada was at 14 per cent and when military inflation was about 18 per cent. I find that strange.
The member is asking if the Government of Canada prepared to sustain the men and women who are serving in the Persian Gulf and sustain the military preparedness of Canada at an acceptable level. Yes, the government is. Yes, that is why we have had to bring in supplementary estimates.
The hon. member must know that the additional costs which have been assumed by the department, and for which we have had to come forward with supplementary estimates, could not be planned in any policy. The government did not plan for aid to the civil power this summer. The government could not plan for the Persian
Gulf crisis. The hon. member knows that and I am sure he accepts it.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, there is a complete absence of planning altogether. That is the problem. There is no defence policy in the country.
I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Assuming that $350 million covers our costs in the gulf to the end of March, what happens if Canada has to go to war? What happens if Canada is asked to send more planes and more ships to the Persian Gulf? What preparations has the Government of Canada made for that? And, in April, what other social security programs does the Government of Canada intend to cut to pay for its defence program? That is planning.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: find it strange that one member of the Official Opposition argues that we should not be making these expenditures in support of the men and women who are serving and in support of the military preparedness of Canada, while that member argues that we should be doing more.
What I can inform the hon. member, if he reviews the supplementary estimates, he will find that there is $17 million in these estimates to allow us now to start the contingency planning which may be necessary to sustain the Canadian men and women who are serving their country in the gulf beyond April 1 into the next fiscal year.
I can assure the hon. member that after that, we will have to discuss with colleagues how that will be done. I can assure him that what is necessary to sustain the men and women who are serving Canada and all Canadians will be done. If it is necessary, we will address them.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment.
The President of the Treasury Board announced today direct cuts of $14 million and $24 million on postponed programs, for a total of 38 million dollars to the environment. Furthermore, he announced, within five months,
November 23, 1990

direct cuts in departments, such as National Health and Welfare, Energy, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture, which directly affect the environment.
So here is my question: can the minister tell us what these $38 million represent? Can he assure us, which is equally important, or guarantee us that the other $100 million will not negatively impact on the quality of the environment in Canada?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the picture in some sort of historical perspective. I would remind the House of Commons and those who are watching that, first, the Department of the Environment received larger than average increases in both of the last two years when it came the time for fiscal funding. In fact, the increases for each of those years were increases of approximately 10 per cent.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Peanuts.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The hon. member across who speaks of peanuts when he is spending the taxpayers' money is simply displaying that same kind of callous disregard for the Canadian taxpayers now that his party showed in the past when the debt rose far beyond what it had ever been in the country.
In addition, as members will know, the supplementary estimates which are tabled here as well indicated additional support for the Department of the Environment, some $78.3 million. In addition to that, the Minister of the Environment will be announcing early in December to the House and to the country the green plan, which will also provide additional resources to the environment throughout Canada.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that the hon. parliamentary secretary would raise the green plan, when we all know what is happening to it. The government has shown confusion and terrible weakness in environmental concerns. Rumours abound about the cuts.
Can the minister assure that the green plan is not about to drown in the government's red ink? Can the government assure us that the green plan, as established in the first draft of September, has not suffered dramatic cuts and that they are not reflected here? Will the
Oral Questions
government assure us that the consultation process will be honoured with the environmental community?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and all interested Canadians, that when it is announced in December the green plan will reflect at that particular time the result of consultations which have taken place across Canada, a process of consultations which was never attempted by any other government in Canadian history.
I will also assure you, Madam Speaker, and the hon. member, that there will be before Canada a long-range systematic plan to address the problems of the environment such that his party and his government never even contemplated when they were in office.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PERSIAN GULF
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Canadians were told that figures tabled today in the House would clarify the costs associated with the Canadian presence in the Gulf. The supplementary estimates, however, only add to the confusion and contradict other reports.
Can the minister assure Canadians that these costs do not represent an escalation of the Canadian role in the Gulf? Will he further agree, in light of the contradictory information, to request that the Auditor General conduct an immediate and independent review of the cost of our participation in the Gulf?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, not only are the numbers accurate to the best of our ability, but also that the total cost figures that have been requested for maintaining our presence in the Gulf and for aid to the civil power to the Government of Quebec this summer, has been absorbed within the departmental budget. It is a considerable amount of money.
We have reassigned ship days. We have reassigned flying hours because at this time there is real time training taking place. We have adjusted exercises. At the same time, through the budgets of 1989 and 1990, we

November 23, 1990
Oral Questions
have reduced some $820 million of expenditures this year in the Department of National Defence.
We were very close to the line when these two unexpected crises occurred. Because we were not able to meet our defence budget, we had to approach central agencies due to the unanticipated or unbudgeted expenditures. I am sure that he agrees that this is a very logical and reasonable way to assess the problem of today.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, Canadians are spending $1.2 billion to maintain our forces in Europe to support a cold war that officially, and practically speaking, no longer exists.
Why is the government forcing Canadians to cut back in spending on necessary domestic programs? Why has the government not reallocated spending from Europe, instead of forcing Canadians here to bear the burden of the Gulf?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should be aware when he talks about Europe that we are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We have made adjustments and he asks why we do not make more.
I bring to his attention that the NATO Alliance over the last 40 years has been responsible for the most creative and the most assured way to have a peaceful world by signing the CSCE and the CFE which took place just this weekend in Paris. East and west sat down and came to an agreement to have a more peaceful and more secure world. That, I say to him, is because the NATO Alliance has held firm and strong for the last 40 years.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
The tabling of these documents in the House today proves to everyone that there is a total lack of financial management in the government.


Some hon. members:: Right on.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Prime Minister and his Cabinet met without consultation with Parliament and made the decision to go into the Persian Gulf without knowing how they were going to pay for it. Surely, one goes hand in hand with the other.
Why was the government not as dedicated about providing a financial plan for the Department of National Defence to do its job, as they were to provide for $257 million to prepare for the collection of the most hated tax in Canadian histoiy, the GST?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the hon. member's attention once again that the Persian Gulf crisis and the aid to the civil power for the Government of Quebec were not able to be planned for.


Bill Rompkey: That is your first responsibility.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member from Labrador suggests that is one of our first responsibilities. I suggest to him that no government plans for the additional costs of a crisis which could lead to war.
Responsible governments and democracies, when they make a commitment to bring about a more peaceful and secure world, call upon the people and the government to provide the resources so there will be a more peaceful and secure world.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, the government is demonstrating that it has no plan at all. Ever since the government was elected to power in Canada six years ago, the Prime Minister and a series of defence ministers have been standing up in the House and saying, with great rhetoric, that they are going to provide the money for the Department of National Defence so that our Canadian military personnel can do their job. Instead, the government has cut the budgets of the defence department and left it with an empty cupboard. Now they are robbing other departments to pay for the sins of the financial mismanagement of the government.
Why did the government not keep its commitments to Canada's military forces, to Parliament, and to the people of Canada, instead of once again proving that their promises are not worth the paper they are written on? You let the department down. You know it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
November 23, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I cannot help but smile. I am not sure if the hon. member and his party supports the effort of the Canadian government in providing, along with some 28 other nations, a force in the Persian Gulf area. I know that his leader draws upon that. He says it is not something in which we should be involved. I suggest to him that he knows in his heart that it is something in which we should be involved. He knows full well the difference between capital expenditures and operational requirements. If he does not, I would be pleased to provide him a briefing at the Department of National Defence.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning to find that their government was $4.8 billion short. At the same time that this government is cutting $10,100,000 from the communications budget, it is adding $14,305,000 to advertise and communicate its GST. They are robbing Marcel to pay Mike. Why is the government crippling the CBC and the National Archives, among others, to sell Canadians a tax that they despise?


Gilles Loiselle: I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member suffers from an acute attack of misunderstanding. I am explaining through supplementary estimates how the money that has already been voted in the budget is going to be spent. I hope she understands that. This is not an increase. This is a method by which I explain to the House, and I ask authority of the House to spend the money that was already voted upon.
If you take the GST, for example, my colleague can explain and I can explain that in front of the committee we explained that there would be transitional costs. Now we have put the numbers together and we have come to the House at the first opportunity to explain them. This is what it is about. It is not additional funds.
Oral Questions


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, you and I understand that sometimes perhaps the government feels that women have difficulty understanding this, but $257 million extra. That seems extra to me. Mind you, it would take an economist, a mathematician and a wizard to follow the estimates that the hon. minister tabled.
Radio Canada International, for example, does its job of connecting Canada to the international community, connecting Canada to its nationals abroad and in particular, connecting Canadians to their loved ones on duty in the Persian Gulf. In this cut to communications, is Radio Canada International the next to go? Will our military soon have no radio link to those at home because of the minister's mismanagement?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, all government departments and agencies have been called upon to reduce their budgetary requirements for this fiscal year. The communications and culture portfolio's contribution represents the equitable share of these costs and that is what has happened.


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, on October 29, the National Transport Agency of Canada decided to remove the requirements relating to requests affecting the frequency, the routes and the cuts in VIA Rail services, these requirements being no longer necessary.
Even if some submissions asked that these requirements be maintained in the case of services in isolated areas, the Agency believes that the minister of Transport has exclusive responsibility over that matter. Here is my question: Will the minister have the last word on the issue of VIA Rail, a Crown corporation, cutting passenger services in isolated areas?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Madam Speaker, I can assure my honourable colleague that I will have the last word. It is my responsibility and not the National Transport Agency's, to make the decision about isolated areas.

November 23, 1990
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to justify why in the estimates under the Department of Finance the government is planning to spend an extra $14.3 million on advertising the GST and why in the estimates under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs they are going to top up expenditures in the GST information office by an additional $6.5 million.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, as leader of the government in the House today how he can justify spending almost $21 million extra to advertise the GST in this country? How can he justify that?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was a member of the finance committee at the time the GST was being studied. One of the recommendations was to ensure that the people of Canada were well informed on the goods and services tax. That is exactly what we are doing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it was not our recommendation. It was Blen-karn's recommendation. The minister knows that. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. The government is asking the Canadian people to cut back on all kinds of programs, when it is cutting $25 million out of the department of employment budget to look after the unemployed in this country. How can he justify spending an extra $21 million to advertise the goods and services tax? What are we going to see? More ads on geese flying around this country? The Prime Minister wrapping himself in the Canadian flag? How can he justify that?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the answer is exactly the same. The President of the Treasury Board made it very clear that we have committed certain funds to promote the goods and services tax. We always said we were going to do that. Now we are showing an explanation of that expenditure, that is all. We are showing the
Canadian people the expenditures of advertising the goods and services tax, providing accurate information to the Canadian people, which the hon. member does not do.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, the government in its news release today announcing total cuts of $350 million worth of essential services to Canadians said: "Adjustments were made to minimize any adverse impact on such things as health and safety".
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he truly and honestly say that $9.89 million cuts to the health and welfare budget are safe for the poor, the sick, the elderly and disabled Canadians?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, I can give the assurance that all essential services will be maintained. What we are trying to do with the bill this morning, Supplementary Estimates, is to ensure program delivery is cost effective. The health and safety of Canadians continues to be our main concern. Social programs will be maintained as announced. Programs for seniors will be maintained. In short, people who need additional assistance from the government will continue to get it today and tomorrow, as they did yesterday.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, how can you maintain that when you have cut $9.89 million?
The government plans to ask for an additional $250 million to help spread informational propaganda for the goods and services tax, yet has the gall to cut the budget for food inspection systems. Which is more important, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, the health and safety of the GST, or the health and safety of Canadians?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that we are not cutting spending for programs. We are not cutting essential services. What we are cutting into-


Bill Rompkey: You're cutting Indian Affairs by $6 million.


Otto John Jelinek: -is government expenditures and government operations which are not going to affect the people of this country.
He refers to a figure for advertising the GST. Let me tell him that a large chunk of the money tabled today goes toward social elements of the changed tax from the federal sales tax to the GST by sending out GST credits to over 8 million low and modest income Canadians. This government cares about people. That is why this government is cutting government operations in order to assist Canadian people, particularly those with low and modest incomes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. With net farm incomes in the prairies slated to drop to almost zero in the next two years and world grain prices at such an incredibly low rate, the lowest in history, and government cut-backs of some 40 per cent on farm support programs during the last two years, I wonder why the minister is cutting $10 million out of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Surely with the price of grain on the world markets and the cut-backs that have already taken place it was not necessary to cut this additional $10 million out of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I share the member's concern about the very difficult situation in which the grains and oilseeds producers find themselves. As he knows, this year we have provided emergency assistance. We have provided for a cash flow enhancement program. We are hopefully in the final stages of negotiating an appropriate agreement with the provinces that will bring about a long-term safety net and stabilization program. With the Western Grain Stabilization Act, it is a statutory piece of legislation. It is based upon that. When less money is contributed by farmers, it automatically reduces the level of exposure by the federal government. It is for that reason that it is included in the estimates. It is really a reflection of the way the legislation works. The hon.
Oral Questions
member should support that because it was legislation that was originally brought in by the Liberal government.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that if funds are removed from the stabilization fund, there is less money to be paid out during the next two desperate years when net farm income on the prairies is slated to go to zero. It is an incredible time to be cutting support programs.
Since the minister raised the issue of the safety net program, there is great concern in the agriculture community as to whether the government is willing to fund that in a proper way so that the premiums paid by the three participants, the federal government, the provincial governments and the agriculture producers, will be shared on an equal basis.
Is the minister prepared to give a commitment today that when that program is implemented that the federal government is prepared to pay its full 33 per cent and not welsh, as it did on the crop insurance program, where it cut back to only 25 per cent?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that that could be achieved. That is the position that the federal government has taken in going into these negotiations. I think that has broad-based support from the producers. Unfortunately, some provinces do not support that proposal quite as enthusiastically as I am sure the hon. member does.
To refer back to his question with respect to the WGSA, the hon. member should know and should understand that the government has to conform to the legislation. That is precisely what it is doing.
If there are shortfalls, as I have indicated publicly and in the House today, we are triggering the third level of defence mechanism which will analyse the income shortfalls while at the same time moving the income safety net and stabilization program forward. In the process of this, we will take a look at the income situation and try to respond in an appropriate fashion, as we have before.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There will be one question for the hon. member for Oshawa and one question for the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Routine Proceedings CHILD POVERTY

November 23, 1990


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Speaker, almost to the day one year ago, this House unanimously passed a motion expressing concerns about child poverty and attempting to eradicate it.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he reconciles the support that was shown for that motion less than a year ago today with the continuing cuts that were made in estimates this morning on social programs for Canadian families, the rise in the use of food banks, the lack of child care facilities for young people across Canada and, perhaps the most disturbing estimation that has been made. In The Toronto Star article of September 21, 1990, and I would like to ask the minister to very simply respond to this: "Native Canadian babies have about as much chance of living beyond their first birthdays as do those in Jamaica and Costa Rica, and are at higher risk than babies in Cuba and Singapore." How does he reconcile that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered by the Minister of National Revenue. I would ask the hon. member to refer to what he has indicated.
With the passage of the GST, some 8 million low-income families will receive tax credits. I am sure the hon. member would welcome that. That would certainly help alleviate the kind of situation to which the hon. member has referred.
Cognizance should be taken of the fact that something like 800,000 people have been taken off the poverty roll since this government came into office.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board.
In today's press release, the President of the Treasury Board said that he would cut $250 million in various programs and services to Canadians in order to get $257 million to "prepare and plan for the goods and services tax."
What does the minister think is more important, collecting more goods and services tax for the Minister of Finance or delivering services to Canadians?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, at the outset, the hon. member should know that in order to pay for services one has to have a reliable tax system, a fairer and more open tax system, and that is the reason for tax reform.
Second, the hon. member should recall as well that it was the Auditor General, in his 1989 report, who said that this government must prepare-and that was a year and a half ago-for the implementation of the GST and that we had to have new systems, new technology, and newly trained personnel.
That is what we have done, and that is what is reflected in the estimates today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to five petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the nineteenth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on the production of information video documents pertaining to the procedure of the House.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
November 23, 1990


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table again today petitions that are in accordance with the rules and convey to the government and this House that a tax applied on books is bad and regressive. The petitioners maintain that free dissemination of the printed word is the cornerstone of our democracy, our culture and our education. They point out a literate and productive society must not be unjustly submitted to such taxation.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reaffirm the principes long embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word and to retain the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
Madam Speaker, to tax books is to impose ignorance. [English]


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the city of Toronto.
These Canadians are opposed to the imposition of the goods and services tax, in particular the tax on books and the printed word. I am sure they are aware that the Liberal members of the Senate moved an amendment to the bill at third reading to eliminate the tax on these items, but that the greedy Tory majority voted the amendment down and is apparently willing to leave this bill unchanged and tax Canadians in this most unfair and regressive way. This is typical of the government's attitude toward Canadians.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, in opposition to the goods and services tax. This petition is signed by a number of residents from Saltspring Island, Galiano Island, and the Saanich peninsula.
These people are well aware that the goods and services tax is a regressive form of taxation and that real tax reform is much more comprehensive and would
Routine Proceedings
include the taxation of wealthy individuals and corporations.
They do not agree with the government's assessment that the goods and services tax is the way to address child poverty, as was stated in the House today.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present to the House a petition on behalf of constituents from my riding of Ottawa Centre and from other places in the city of Ottawa. These petitioners are against applying the GST on books and magazines. They call upon this Parliament to vote against the proposal to tax books and magazines.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table a petition signed by thousands of residents of this country from one end of Canada to the other.
They are supporters of rail passenger services. They believe that what the government did nearly a year ago was a step backward when every other country in the world was moving forward on rail passenger services.
They call upon Parliament to reinstate the services immediately. Quite frankly, they want Canada to be put back on track.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with several dozen names of Canadian citizens who complain that the government is imposing a goods and services tax on books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed matter.
They point out that the dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture and education in a literate and productive society, and that the goods and services tax will have a very negative impact on the Canadian citizens in this regard.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and. privilege to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians from Vars and Orleans, in my riding,

Government Orders
who call humbly upon this government and this House to rescind immediately the tax on goods and services. I support entirely this excellent petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 337 and 338.


Mr. Boudria: During 1989 and 1990, did the National Research Council incur any expenditures for the decorating of the office of its President, Dr. Pierre Perron and, if so (a) what did the work consist of (b) what were the total costs of (i) new furniture (ii) redecoration?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Yes.
(a)	The work consisted of repairs and renovations to office space in the north east wing of the National Research Council's administration building and the purchase of office furniture and vertical blinds.
(b)	(i) The cost of renovations and repairs was $7,743.25 and the cost of vertical blinds was $1,600.00, and
(ii) The cost of desks, chairs, tables, bookcases and other furnishings was $25,413.59.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	During 1989 and 1990, did the National Research Council purchase a new vehicle for the use of its President, Dr. Pierre Perron and, if so, what was the (a) make (b) model (c) price?
2.	What automobile dealership was the vehicle purchased from and was it purchased by public tender?


Benoît Bouchard: 1. The National Research Council vehicle used by NRC's President is an Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera SL purchased in 1990 for $17,987.00.
2. The car was purchased under Department of Supply and Services contract from the manufacturer, General Motors of Canada Limited, Oshawa, Ontario.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-92, an act respecting the Northwest Territories Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-92, an act respecting the Northwest Territories Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I wonder if I might be permitted to put a couple of questions to the parliamen-
November 23, 1990

tary secretary. We have given notice to the parliamentary secretary of the questions we want to raise with him in order to get a commitment from the government.
Just to point out initially, we believe that there can be no further delay in implementing bilingualism in the Northwest Territories Legislature. This is the second extension, and there will be no further extensions.
The federal government strongly urges the Government of the Northwest Territories to undertake to consult closely with the Northwest Territories francophone community on the question of government services in French, the more important concern at the end of the day than translated laws. There is a good deal of concern among Northwest Territories francophones that this deadline extension is the opening wedge in the retrenchment of bilingualism across the board. The minister should assure the House that all that is happening here is technical problems relating to translation.
Finally, I have another point. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to them. The federal government expects the Northwest Territories government to undertake to consult closely with the Northwest Territories francophones on the question of implementing Article 23 of the 1982 Constitution which provides for parent controlled French language schools where numbers warrant.
Could the parliamentary secretary respond to these three points? Then we could move on with this matter.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Chairman, there were three parts to the hon. member's question.
First, we have received assurances from the officials in the Government of the Northwest Territories that there would be no further delay in implementing bilingualism in the Northwest Territories Legislature. Accordingly, we will not be requested to make any further extensions.
Concerning the second question, I would inform the hon. member that the amendment to the new act will not affect the disposition of the Official Languages Act related to the services to the public in French. It should be clear to everyone that this deadline extension only concerns the translation of laws. It is already stipulated that that extension is due to technical reasons.
Government Orders
Specifically in answer to the members's concern, the federal government expects that the Northwest Territories government will continue its consultations with the francophone minority on the questions of governmental services in French.
With respect to the final question, the Secretary of State has offered, by letter to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the support of the federal government to any initiative giving effect to section 23 rights in the Northwest Territories Act. In the Canada-Northwest Territories bilateral agreement on official languages and education the federal government is committed to consult the official language minority on its needs. That is the position of the government, and we will follow through on that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I note that the questions that were just answered are the same I asked in my speech on second reading but I am satisfied with the government answers. I only want to ask the parliamentary secretary if we could get a copy of the letter he referred to between the Secretary of State and the government of the Northwest Territories to the effect that clause 23 will be supported and promoted by the federal government?


Rob Nicholson: Madam Chairman, I do not have that with me, but I will undertake to use my best efforts to forward a copy to the hon. member and to the member for the New Democratic Party as well.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be
appointed to study 1he subject matter of Bill C-80, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof;
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1990
Government Orders
That the said Special Committee shall have all the powers of a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1); and
That the said Special Committee be composed of eight members, to be recommended by the Striking Committee.
And on the amendment of Mr. MacLellan:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and that the said Special Committee make its final report to the
House no later than Friday, February 15, 1991."
Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Motion No. 23. It is my intention to try and explain my views on this issue.
Before we get into that, I would like to mention my disappointment that Bill C-80, the bill that was before the House, was so hurriedly put together in June and because of all the difficulties with it, all the holes in it, that is, it is such a bad bill, that members opposite have decided that they cannot continue with it because it is not even acceptable to government members.
I would like to read Motion No. 23 to the House. It reads as follows:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to study the subject matter of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof;
That the said Special Committee shall have all the powers of a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1); and
That the said Special Committee be composed of eight members, to be recommended by the Striking Committee.
I find this very difficult to understand. On the one hand we have a bill that supposedly had extensive consultation and had been looked at extensively by the Minister of Justice and her department, and on the other hand, because members opposite do not approve of the bill and lind it to be offensive to their constituents and I suggest particularly to rural Canada, the minister has decided to withdraw the bill. If this particular bill had been the subject of wide consultations and the information and the changes in the bill had been put to the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the National Firearms Association and the Ontario Arms Collection Association, members opposite would have realized very quickly that there were difficulties with the bill.
I would like to go through, in chronological order, areas of concern of the bill and also areas of the bill that are acceptable to members like myself who are from rural Canada.
I would like to start with portions of the bill that we find to be very difficult to comprehend. That is the negative aspect of this bill. These are areas that I suggest very strongly the newly formed committee have a mandate to look at. The first area is the belief that changing the sizes of the magazines and clips of particular weapons would enhance and improve the situation. Mass murderers, the criminal element and certain individuals in Canada use certain types of weapons whether they are within the law or not.
If Bill C-80 was to go through, the government would be outlawing over one million clips that are presently being used in Canada. It would also outlaw hundreds of thousands of weapons that are presently being used. These weapons have a built-in magazine. This built-in magazine has more than a five-clip capacity or five-bolt capacity.
I question the wisdom and the reasoning of the Minister of Justice, who presented this piece of legislation. Why does she feel that reducing the size of a clip will stop incidents such as the one that took place in Montreal last year?
Another area that we must look at very seriously is the Firearms Acquisition Certificate which is presently in place. There is a belief that there is a need for two references. I question the reason why one would want to have references, similar to passports, and whether any individual in this country will want to put their name forward to make a social and moral decision on their own. This individual asking to purchase a Firearm Acquisition Certificate and in essence, purchase a gun, is of sound moral and social character.
I do not know how an individual will be able to make that type of recommendation and put his or her name on this certificate. Most gun owners that I know would have great difficulty doing that, because one really cannot, without professional help, make that kind of decision. That is going to make it difficult for many gun owners who are certified and who have gone through the safety course to be able to get the sport rifles that they are looking for.
November 23, 1990

Another aspect of the bill that I find very difficult in this age of democracy is the ability to change regulations at will by Order in Council. I find that to be very offensive because it does not allow for debate in this House on issues that we, as members of Parliament, really have been put here to debate. Orders in Council on changes of significance to people's lives should always be debated in this House and that deserves to be looked at.
Another aspect is the increase in fees from $10 to $50. It is outrageous to think that we are putting in a category for every single weapon that a Canadian may own. When they resubmit their firearms acquisition certificate renewal they will have to pay $50 for every weapon they own.
Most Canadians who are hunters and sportsmen own a variety of weapons. I suggest that having two, three, four or five weapons of different varieties for different types of sport is going to be very expensive for those individuals if the changes in fees are allowed to go through.
The other change that is very difficult for an individual who is a sportsman to understand is the fact that an applicant must demonstrate a secure place within which to store his or her weapons.
I ask members opposite to explain to me in detail how that will be done because there are millions and millions of Canadians who own weapons. Are we proposing, as this government has with this piece of legislation, to allow some sort of inspector to inspect every home in the land to see if they have secured their weapons and put them in a place where they are stored in a proper manner? Or are we saying that as long as the weapons are locked in a closet or in a particular case, that is perfectly acceptable?
Is the legislation suggesting that we have to purchase a particularly secure case, one built in Canada? Most gun owners have a case worth roughly $2,000. Those particular cases are made of a very durable type of alloy which will not allow individuals to break in very easily. I suggest that that is a good idea for people who can afford it, but most gun owners in Canada do not have the financial ability to purchase such a secure type of case to allow them to store their weapons.
I want to talk a little bit about what is good about the bill. There are some good aspects to this bill. If we had not got into the emotional problems that occur whenever
Government Orders
there is some sort of massacre or something that is disgusting to parliamentarians and Canadians as a whole similar to what took place in Montreal last year, we probably would have come forward with some very good legislation.
Although it has not been passed and given Royal Assent, I find it ironic to think that for years and years we have had on the books the ability to force all Canadians who would like to purchase a weapon to go through a hunter and safety course, or a gun safety course of some kind and have some national standard. I think the safety aspects of the bill are a very good idea and should be implemented.
Obviously we would have to take a look at what the regulations and course would entail. These particular courses would give those Canadians who are first-time gun owners an understanding of just what they are purchasing. That is a very positive aspect of the bill and I think we should take a serious look at improving this part of the legislation.
The other aspect of the bill that is very important is the photo ID that would be put on the FACs. That would make it much easier for individuals who are selling weapons to do their job in checking out the moral and social capabilities of persons owning a weapon.
One of the problems with the bill as it relates to the FAC is that it does not stipulate whether the FAC is going to be for all the weapons. Our belief is that it is just going to be for one individual weapon at a time. Therefore, one might need four or five FACs. I think that has to be looked at very seriously.
With regard to how the bill relates to the firearms safety course, the question that has to be raised and will have to be looked at by this committee is, is this for first-time gun owners or are we going back to square one, making every person who owns a gun in the country take the safety course. There are those in Ontario who have gone through a safety program and there are those in other provinces who have not.
Also, we have to take a look at the 28-day cooling off period. Is this essential for those who already have an FAC in hand now, who are already gun owners, and who have already taken the course to which I have referred? Is it necessary to make them wait 28 days in order to get their renewal of an FAC? If they have already been

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
checked out by the authorities, can they not just go in and have it renewed instantly?
The other thing I would like to touch on today is the belief that this is truly a discussion between rural and urban Canada. There are some major problems in urban Canada with the criminal element using weapons to the detriment of society. In an area such as northern Ontario where I come from, our largest town has a population of 10,000. Everybody knows everybody and everyone knows everyone who hunts and fishes and is a sportsman. It is not so easy in an environment such as that to explain to people that, "No, you cannot have a 10-bullet clip any more. You have to have a five-bullet clip because the other will do someone harm. You have to remove five bullets out of the clip." That argument is very difficult to make.
We seriously have to understand that in rural Canada we do not understand some of the difficulties that are taking place and for what urban Canada is asking. If we asked it of just the different cities in the country having difficulty with the criminal element related to the use of assault weapons that are out there, then we could understand that. But we cannot understand saying this simply because there are difficulties in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax, when in the rest of rural Canada there are legitimate gun owners who are very conscientious. They have taken the safety courses, are respectful of the law, and try to maintain the type of respect that I think a gun owner should have.
What I am basically talking about is attitude. There is a fundamental difference in attitude with regard to weapons between people in rural Canada and urban Canada. There is a much larger respect for weapons in rural Canada than there is in urban Canada. The reason for that very simply is because we have grown up with them. It is like suddenly telling an Inuit in the north, where there are no roads, that there is now a road and he is now going to be responsible to drive a car. That individual would have a lot of difficulty with that. That situation is very similar to what we are discussing here.
I am not suggesting for one minute that we cannot improve our gun legislation or that we cannot try, as legislators, to put a stop to the situations that have been taking place. However, for the life of me, I cannot understand how this particular piece of legislation will stop the criminal element and the insane element in our
society from doing what they have been doing. The fact remains that those individuals, who are quite prepared to break the laws of society, will not adhere to this legislation any more than they adhered to the legislation currently on the books. It is very important for us to try to differentiate between the two because if we do not then we are reacting purely on emotion and it will not stop the inevitable from happening.
I would like to come to a conclusion and look at some of the aspects that possibly were not entertained in the drafting of Bill C-80. That is the effect of changing laws on the tourism industry.
The semi-automatic guns that we are talking about that are legal at this time are used throughout North America. When and if this piece of legislation ever goes through, it will also restrict those who use them in the United States of America. Those individuals come to Canada to hunt and fish. Now they will be restricted by our laws and, therefore, our tourism industry will also be affected.
Are we to tell an individual coming across the border that he can no longer use a 10-bullet clip. He cannot use a 308 that has a built-in magnum that will allow for more than five shells. There are hundreds of thousands of weapons like that out there now.
Those are serious considerations that have to be looked at in rural Canada. I know they do not affect urban Canada whatsoever, but they do affect the economy of Canada as a whole. I think we have to seriously look at that.
I am veiy pleased that, in a roundabout way, the minister and the members opposite, whom I know lobbied very heavily on behalf of their own constituents, have asked to have this bill removed and sent back so they can have a true dialogue.
We cannot just get into the emotion of the mass murders that take place. It is very easy for members to stand up and use that as an argument to ban all weapons in Canada. If we are going to use that argument, we will not advance the debate at all as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for Canadians.
As a rural Canadian, and as a member who has hunted and owned guns for many years, who has taken safety courses, and who knows that there is a lot more to this than what some members are suggesting, I am very
November 23, 1990

pleased that it is going to go to committee so we can look at it in a very sane way. With some luck, we can put some legislation in place that will have an effect on what we truly would like to do as members of Parliament. That is to try and stop the criminal element in urban centres from breaking the law.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment. I enjoyed the hon. member's speech and he made some very good points. I would like to assure him that we have had the same types of representations in urban areas as he has in rural areas.
One of the things I just want to take the hon. member up on is his terminology. Guns used by individuals, whether they be hunters or gun clubs, or whatever, are firearms. They are not weapons. The hon. member kept referring to them as weapons. I mean weapons are used for defensive purposes and offensive purposes by armed forces or criminals. Then they become weapons. To my way of thinking they are not weapons when they are in the hands of responsible people and there are millions of gun owners in the country who are extremely responsible, very careful, and well trained. 1 had representation just a week ago from a group of reservists with the Lome Scots in my particular area who are concerned about the legislation as well and they brought forward some very interesting information.
I was just a little concerned that every time he talked about a firearm he referred to it as a weapon. I do not think firearms are weapons unless they are used by a person as a weapon, not as a hobby or for hunting puqioses.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I understand the minister's particular difficulty with the terminology but in my neck of the woods we call them weapons because they are used to hunt and they do kill. They kill animals. Normally, that is what people who go hunting do. They are used for many reasons, one of which is for sport. But for a lot of people in my area, they are used to supplement their income. They are very poor and they hunt moose and deer to fill their freezers. As low-income Canadians, they cannot afford to buy beef on a regular basis, as do some Canadians.
Government Orders
I do not think people opposite and some people from urban Canada understand that that is a very well-known fact in rural Canada. It is not only aboriginals but non-natives also do the same thing. They feel very strongly that this legislation will deter them and make it more difficult for them to put food on the table.
I am not going to argue with the minister as to whether he feels the terminology is incorrect or not. We do not have the same attitude in rural Canada as there is in urban Canada, as it relates to the feeling that a weapon is to kill people and a firearm is for sports. We do not differentiate. It is a very common practice, from the day one is old enough to walk, to go with mom and dad into the bush to shoot partridge, to hunt and enjoy the wilderness. We do not feel that is doing anybody any disservice. It is an enjoyable way to spend our time as northerners and rural people.
If the minister feels that that is not appropriate, I apologize to him for not using urban terminology, but it really means the same thing.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the hon member's comparison of urban and rural people and also the statement that rural people need semi-automatic weapons with very high cartridge capacity in order to hunt.
My brother, who is from Newmarket, Ontario, a small urban city, believes that a deer is not worth eating if it takes more than two shots to kill it. I am wondering whether people in the hon. member's community are shooting deer with 30 shots and eating them.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I understand the member's difficulty with that. I know the member's involvement in this particular piece of legislation and her feelings on the matter. I do not want to get into an emotional debate with her because of her sensitivity on the subject.
The fact remains that, through time and through technology, improvements to weapons take place. That is basically what has happened. It is not different than the car. Would one like to go back to the cars of 1910 or the 1920s and 1930s? I doubt that. That is basically what this legislation is asking us to do. It is asking us to say that a gun is no good because it is high-powered, it is new technology, it has the ability to shoot from 200 or 300

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
yards away, and it also has the ability to carry 10 or 15 bullets in the clip versus five.
Let me just touch on the fact that some people have difficulty with the size of the clip. There is a very legitimate reason for that. The fact remains that it is very, very expensive to go hunting and people have to understand that. This is not a Saturday afternoon venture, where it costs $10 and one wanders off into the bush. These people buy four-wheel-drive trucks. They buy guns that are worth thousands of dollars. They take time off work to go up north perhaps for a week at a time and, in many cases, they fly long distances.
The guns are built in such a way that there is only one opportunity to have a shot. In a lot of cases, one might only get two, three or four shots, and one is a long way off. If the hon. member thinks that one can get 10 feet away from a deer or a moose and perhaps choke it, then we would really not need any guns. I would just like to tell her that one would be lucky to get 100 yards away from a moose or a deer. Therefore, that is why these guns are built the way they are.
All I want the hon. member to understand is that we have to differentiate between the gun and a person's attitude. What we are really talking about here is the attitude of certain people of the criminal element who are mentally unstable. I understand what the hon. member is saying. I really do want to see us try to improve that aspect of it. However, if she is talking about a legitimate railway worker, mill worker or farmer who has all the credentials to be a legitimate gun owner and will not be able to buy a high-powered firearm, then I think the debate is digressing. If the member thinks that people put 30 rounds of ammunition in a deer, those people are not legitimate gun owners. Those people are not hunters. Those people have a problem. Those individuals are not interested in enhancing the debate and should probably have their guns taken away if they run around shooting 30, 40 or 50 rounds into a particular animal because they probably have an AK-47 in their hands.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate on the motion. I think that what we have to make clear for those who are watching on their television sets is that this is a motion to refer Bill C-80, the gun control legislation, to a special committee.
It is in fact a parliamentary device to withdraw the gun legislation, not as the previous speaker would have indicated, that if we passed this legislation it would go into legislative committee where the fine tuning to which he was referring to could take place. Oh, no. What we are seeing here is a parliamentary device, headed up by the Minister of Justice, to withdraw gun control legislation.
There was much hope when the Minister of Justice was appointed, the first woman Minister of Justice. There was a hope that finally things were going to be different; that she would bring a woman's perspective to her duties as Minister of Justice, a different perspective; and that she would be able to put that perspective on to all legislation that came before the House. Those hopes have been dashed, first will Bill C-43, the abortion legislation, and now with Bill C-80. What this parliamentary device, by putting it before a special committee, shows is that the Minister of Justice is caving in to the gun lobby.
I know the Minister of Justice received a lot of favourable comment when she visited the Ecole Polytechnique in April and met with the students and the faculty who had proposed tough gun legislation. It must be recalled that the tragedy at the Ecole Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, was the impetus, she said, for Bill C-80, which would create stiffer gun control legislation.
As I said, she received favourable comment that finally there was going to be stiff gun control legislation. I think that because she is not doing what was hoped would happen, giving a woman's perspective, I will.
I want to point out some of the statistics that relate to guns and women and the difference between the statistics for men and for women. This is why it is important that a woman's perspective should be brought to this debate. Almost exclusively the problems with guns involve men. Women only own a miniscule percentage of guns in Canada. Men constitute the armed part of our society, do most of the shooting and have the greatest chance of being victimized by a gun.
In addition, every poll taken on the issue in Canada and the United states shows that women are the strongest advocates for strict gun control laws. The following statistics should be noted. Only 77 women killed themselves with firearms against 1,047 men. Those statistics are from 1987. Accidental shooting deaths, this is once again 1987 statistics, were 4 women and 56 men. But women do represent one-third of gun victims classified
November 23, 1990

as homicides. In other words, the only category of statistics where women represent a significant percentage is that of murder victims. I think this explains in part why Canadian women overwhelmingly support tougher gun control laws. Therefore, the Minister of Justice, the first woman Minister of Justice, is sabotaging her own bill by this motion, putting it forth into a special committee and is letting Canadian women down, once again. We have seen the chronology of events from 1978 when the last gun control law was passed in this House of Commons. In that legislation there were provisions enforcing mandatory firearms training. However, here we are in 1990 and those provisions have never been implemented. Who are we to believe when the government says now that it will have a program in place by April 1991?
The women of Canada have lost confidence in this Minister of Justice, who came in with such fanfare to her new role. The tragedy that occurred on December 6, 1989 in Montreal serves notice that there have to be tougher gun control laws. I know in my riding we have the phenomena, because it is close to the American border, of American tourists bringing in handguns in their luggage on coming across the border because that is the way they do things there. It is sort of part of your wardrobe to have a handgun. Well it is not like that here, not yet, not in my riding, although I have heard that there are parts of Canada, particularly in the major urban centres, where firearms and handguns are a major threat. Women are the deficit members of society with regard to handguns.
I would urge that the Minister of Justice forget this special committee, forget the stalling tactics, forget caving into the gun lobby and bring forth this legislation so that it can be debated, it can be fine tuned, and we can talk about the debate between rural Canada and urban Canada in a real legislative committee. The stalling tactic is clear. The government is filibustering its own bill. The Minister of Justice has lost control of her bill because she is caving in to her caucus members.
In conclusion, because of my strong sentiments that strong gun control legislation is imperative, I would like to place a sub-amendment to the Liberal amendment. I move:
Government Orders
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words February
15, 1991, and substituting therefor December 6, 1990.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member. I have to take exception with her comments about the Minister of Justice either abandoning this bill or this subject, or in any way backing away from it. It seems to me this is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed on this matter.
I have talked to a number of Canadians particularly concerned in this area, and indicated to them the truth that, of all the justice related legislation that has gone through this House, certainly in my experience since 1984, none has gone through completely unchanged. When Canadians across Canada make representations to their members of Parliament, as they have on this and other subjects, why is it so unreasonable for us to have a look at what they are telling us?
I agree with the Liberal amendment to this, that the committee report back by February 15 because it seems to me it would give us an opportunity to hear from groups and individuals who are particularly interested in this and have something to say.
I was among those who welcomed the idea that this legislation be placed before Parliament prior to the summer break. I thought it would give an opportunity for people who are particularly concerned in this area to have a look at it over the summer months. It seems to me that would be the time during which they would most likely come together for sporting events, for hunting, and that sort of thing. They would have an opportunity to examine the bill and make representations to their members of Parliament. I indicated to groups that, by all means, I would like to have their input on this, and the government surely would. I think the hon. member should reconsider the amendment that really makes it impossible for this committee to hear from Canadians. There is nothing wrong with hearing what Canadians have to say.
An amendment by the New Democratic Party to have this committee report back December 6 stifles the whole opportunity. What group can get their briefs together and get to Ottawa if they have to report by December 6? This is why I say the Liberal amendment is reasonable, that we report back by February 15 and at that time

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
consider what the special committee has to say and take that into consideration in our deliberations on Bill C-80.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I do not think it should be necessary for me to point out that Bill C-43, the abortion legislation, which received many representations from many people, went through unchanged. So, his argument that this will be brought forth for changes is a little spurious. I would also like to point out that he voted against that legislation as parliamentary secretary. That is my first comment.
I would also like to say once again for those people who are watching that what the government is doing here is using a parliamentary device to pretend it is doing something when, in fact, it is doing nothing. This government will probably go down in parliamentary annals as being masters at that, but it is not lost on the people of Canada. We want strong gun control legislation for the safety of women and men in this country. We want hunters to be able to continue hunting, but the primary motivation of all gun control legislation is the safety of Canadians. It is imperative that this go through expeditiously. I will not withdraw my subamendment.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, in the greater metropolitan Toronto area we have a certain problem with guns. There are two distinct areas, and one of them is in my riding where a young individual was shot in the back of the head at a house party.
I for one believe that we need stronger control of guns and stronger legislation. There are smugglers of elicit drugs that the RCMP and our police forces have to face; they have duties. I hear from my constituents continuously that we need certain legislation brought forward. There is no question in anybody's mind. Some colleagues in this House have referred to hunting. We have to distinguish between hunting and the use of arms within the city.
The use of arms within the city is increasing at an alarming rate. Young offenders started using guns because, if they are under the age of 18 and commit a crime, the maximum penalty they face right now is about three years. The government has been promising
changes to the Young Offenders Act for the past year and a half. We are still waiting to see what will be coming forward. We need changes today, because right now guns are way out of proportion.
I would like to put a question to the member. How does she foresee the usage of arms within major cities? What changes should be brought forward, especially to deter gun usage among our young people who know that they will be facing a maximum of three years?
Is the member in agreement that we also need changes to the Young Offenders Act to make sure that the crime committed also reflects the time these young offenders will have to serve? Is she in agreement that if a young offender is found with a gun we need more stringent penalties?


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I have always had a lot of difficulty compartmentalizing things in my life. I tend to see things holistically. I think the question that the hon. member has posed addresses that.
I would also like to point out, in answering him, that perhaps there have to be stiffer penalties. What we are talking about is a symptom of some of the social ills in our cities and elsewhere. There is also the glamour element that pertains to firearms, to guns, on American television programs, that the real power lies in the barrel of a gun. Young people are quite seduced by that image.
As I said at the outset, we have to look at this holistically. Of course there have to be penalties. Some of the kids out there are really scary kids. They are scarred kids. We have got to put up programs to make sure that young offenders and others are not going to fall through the so-called social network which this government seems to be doing such wonderful job in dismantling.
This legislation, Bill C-80, has to be put forth expeditiously in order to provide for the safety of Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have a very short question for the hon. member.
She is a member of a party that by its very name claims to be democratic, the New Democratic Party. Yet, she has proposed an amendment to this motion today that
November 23, 1990

has the effect of depriving people who want to make representations on this bill from doing so.
I am at a loss to understand that attitude. I wonder how it is that if she is a member of a party that claims to be democratic, she can deny to the people of Canada the right to make representations on this bill.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I confess to some confusion, because I am trying to figure out the Liberal logic of that question. The Liberal justice critic has been quoted as saying about this so-called democratic committee that it will go nowhere after months and months of study. That is what is going to happen here. It is a disgrace.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on this motion. I am as distressed and upset as I think many of us are with regard to the emotion and, perhaps I would go so far as to say, the manipulation that has tended to surround this issue in the past 12 months.
Canada has always had better gun control legislation than its neighbour to the south. There is no question. However, as our modern society evolves and becomes increasingly more violent, it has become increasingly clear to all of us that more gun control and stiffer gun control legislation is absolutely essential if we are to maintain lawful and safe societies, particularly in our cities.
I say that I stand with some misgivings because there is no question that the events of last December 6 at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal were horrific and tragic. They involved the death of 14 young women at the hands of a man who was particularly enraged at young women who broke tradition and entered professions where women were perhaps not so used to being.
The manipulation of these events is something of which none of us should be guilty. In the House on the days immediately following the tragedy there was unity, horror, sorrow, and sympathy for the victims and their families. However, there is no question that in the wake of the events at Ecole Polytechnique came this legislation, this Bill C-80, to make gun control laws in Canada safer and more stringent.
My great difficulty, as it frequently is for those of us on this side of the House, is trying to follow the trail of bread-crumbs set down by the government as to where this bill is going to go. This bill needs to be discussed. It needs to be changed. It is a flawed bill. However, it
Government Orders
does-and I will make mention it further along in my remarks-have some things that are absolutely necessary, if we are to maintain an orderly and safe society in this country.
What is the government's agenda on this bill? Is this bill going to come back to this House? Is it ever going to get to a legislative committee? Is it ever going to be law? Somehow the majority of us on this side of the House think that is unlikely. What we think is that the government has decided this bill is unpalatable to a number of its own back-benchers and that the gun control laws it has introduced are too stringent. Consequently it wants a safe place for this bill to die.
With regard to the subamendment of my colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands, I disagree with her merely on the question of process. If this special committee holds hearings publicly and really does its work, it will consider the questions, concerns and fears about this bill, of what it does or does not do, it will keep this crucially important subject before the Canadian people and put more pressure on the government.
However, I do have the definite feeling that we are going to be back to square one and that this bill, as we know it, will probably disappear from this House, never to return in its current form.
I have to add my remarks to those of members who have spoken before with regard to the Minister of Justice.
There are certain similarities between this bill and the bill that you and I, Madam Speaker, know far too well, which is Bill C-43, the abortion bill. As difficult as it may be within the constraints of parliamentary democracy and within the constraints of our caucus and party loyalties, sometimes we have to stand and say: this is right, this is wrong, this is what I stand for, this is what I believe in.
When it comes to the kinds of recommendations in Bill C-80 that make gun control more of a reality, more of a reality that reflects the reality on the streets of our cities, more of a reality that reflects the reality of women and children who live in fear deal with every day, that is the time for those of us who sincerely believe that these innovations must become law have to stand. Whether we are talking about a Minister of Justice or a back-bencher, wherever we sit in this House of Commons, we have to say that these are changes that must be brought into law.

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
We know that Canadians are increasingly concerned with violence in our communities. 1 have risen in this House numerous times since we returned in September to talk about the upsurge in violent death, in murder in this country. We saw the horror of 11 murders within one week in the city of Montreal. We have heard from campuses across this country that the increase of sexual assaults is beyond belief for university administrators and university students. We know that there is a new violent spirit abroad in our country. We also know that the most common victims of this violent spirit are women.
I look at my colleague across the way, the hon. member for Don Valley North. I know that she and I and the member for Louis-Hebert and the member from New Westminster-Burnaby share duties on a parliament subcommittee that is specifically dealing with the question of violence against women. I know that those members in the other parties have the same feeling of commitment, the same feeling that time is running out for us. If we do not act, if we do not come in with the kinds of recommendations that will lead to legislation that will make a difference, we are going to see anarchy reign.
One way to prevent anarchy from reigning is by ensuring that gun control laws are strong enough to make a difference. One of the problems with Bill C-80-and we do say that the bill does not go far enough-not coming in is that it does nothing about the fact that there are 1,400 gun related deaths every year in Canada. Of these 1,400 gun related deaths, 1,100 are firearm suicides. We also know that tragically the question of suicide is one that relates very intrinsically to the question of disturbed young people. We know that that is where the suicide statistics are among the highest.
We do not have the same problem with guns that the Americans do. We are lucky in that, but we have to act now if we are to ensure that our country does not slide down the same slippery slope. We are subject to many of the same pressures, many of the same urban alienating aspects of life as the Americans. It is said that there are more guns in the city of Detroit than there are people. I do not think we would want that to be said about the city of Windsor. I do not think we would want it to be said about Montreal. We certainly would not want it to be said about Halifax. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, not to make light of this, probably in Halifax my constituents could not afford guns, given the economic situation.
Homicides constitute about 15 per cent of all firearm deaths each year. The overwhelmingly significant proportion of these firearm homicides are domestic disputes and crimes of passion. If the guns were not there, it is extremely unlikely that the deaths would take place.
I have heard over and over again, ad nauseam, the phrase that truly does irritate me a great deal and that is that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Let us be sensible about this, even this government is not in the business of outlawing people per se. We are always going to have people, one hopes; we do not always have to have guns.
I admit that I have an overwhelming prejudice against guns. It is part of my background. I come from an urban background. I did not grow up in a house where guns were even in evidence. I do understand that in the rural communities of this country, there is a different outlook. I understand and I sympathize with that but the kind of gun control we are talking about is, in my belief, the kind that can co-exist between the urban fear of increased violence and increased gun usage and the rural tradition of a sane, sensible, orderly and lawful use of firearms for hunting, animal control and whatever.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am disappointed in this government. I am disappointed in the parliamentary secretary and I am disappointed in the Minister of Justice because I think their agenda is the removal of this bill. I think this bill will not come back to the House of Commons. I fear that if we are to see gun control in the life of this Parliament, we will have to start all over again. I think that would be a shame because there are things in Bill C-80 that are good. There are things in Bill C-80 that the Canadian people want, my constituents want them and the people right across this country want them. If my premonitions are true, and I suspect they are, then shame on the government for not having the courage of its convictions, shame on the minister, shame on the parliamentary secretary.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, who raised many points and I commend her on bringing out the fact that the real reason we are here today is for this government to get rid of this piece of legislation that is urgently needed and sweep it under the rug.
November 23, 1990

I have a particular concern and I want to share it with my colleague. In the riding of Scarborough-Agincourt, some very violent crimes have been committed. In 1985 a young offender used a hunting gun to kill an entire family. Very recently a handgun was used in my riding to shoot a 15-year-old young man in the back of the head. Just to the south of my riding, there was another incident last August, where a young man was killed.
There are areas in Toronto where the police will not patrol because they fear for their lives, they are terrified because of the use handguns and automatic rifles. Criminals, such as those bringing illegal drugs into the country, use semi-automatic guns, and Uzis. These people are better equipped than our police forces.
Something has to be done to curtail this usage of automatic rifles. The police forces across this country are stating this. Does my colleague wonder, as I do, if this government is really listening. If the government is not listening, what would my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, who comes from one of the great parts of our eastern coast, see the answer to be? Do we need to move pretty fast? Do we need to consult? If we do consult, how do we go about not letting the government sweep this piece of legislation under the rug? It is caught in a bind because the backbenchers who come from the west and certainly people from the rural areas do not want this legislation. This is a way for them to sweep this thing under the carpet. What would she like to see done and what has to be done in order to keep-my colleague from across the aisle is laughing, it is not a laughing matter when a 15-year old wipes out an entire family. It is not a laughing matter when that young man is sentenced to only three years. It might be a laughing matter in your riding, but it is certainly not a laughing matter in my riding.
My constituents have told me this clearly. As far as the minister is concerned, being from the western part of Toronto, I am wondering what he would say to his constituents.
What does my colleague see as needed on an urgent
basis?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt for his question.
Government Orders
I have had a fair amount of experience in dealing with young offenders. Tragically, the only young offender in Canadian judicial history to be sentenced to preventive detention was a young offender from the city of Halifax. It is a very difficult area about which to make hard and fast statements. That is why there are difficulties and that is why we are waiting with great anticipation for the young offenders bill and the amendments thereto.
I still say the problem is the availability of weapons. The problem is the availability in our urban centres of handguns and high-speed rifles. If this committee is going to do something, maybe it will have the opportunity to look at the differences in gun usage, urban and rural, and the very legitimate uses for guns in the rural areas and the fact that they are used lawfully and so on.
I agree with my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands who spoke previously. The glamour of guns for young people is very serious. The increase in drug-related crimes in my own city is very serious. We have had numerous drug-related deaths in the city of Halifax. There have been deaths in which firearms have been used. If the guns were not there the problem would not disappear, but I suggest it would be minimized.
My great fear is that this committee, as my colleague suggested, has a way of sweeping a somewhat unpalatable bill under the rug. I hope it does not. I certainly would support the government if that were not the case, but I fear that it is the case. The parliamentary secretary and the minister know that. The minister who is present in the House is nodding at me and I know he agrees with me on the whole question of drug-related deaths and the urban problems. He too is a member who has seen this.
We have to deal with it now. Every day that we do not deal with this matter, every day that we do not tighten up the gun control laws is another day that we are going to see more deaths.
The question of young people and the use of guns is something that is better answered with gun control, in my belief, than it is in young offenders legislation by making that bill perhaps more stringent than it ought to be. We will wait until the bill appears. The answer is in going to the cause, rather than the effect, of the availability of firearms. We need to tighten up gun control.

November 23, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention of ray colleague from Halifax. She has put into perspective the whole issue of gun control and the implications and impact for those of us who represent urban ridings and have to live on a day-to-day basis with the impact of gun possession. There are a couple of points that I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention and hope that she will give us comments which will perhaps spread greater light on the issue. We fail to establish what is gun control, as applied generically to all types of guns, and I am in favour of that, quite frankly. I might begin by saying that.
Second, how does gun control apply, either by implication or by direct regulation, to those who see a legitimate use for guns. There is a component of our community that uses guns in rural areas of Canada for hunting and other purposes, none of which represent a danger to civilized society.
We have not had the opportunity to be able to discuss that in this bill because the bill has come to us, as the minister and other members have indicated, as the result of a tragedy that took place about one year ago, one that we all bemoan.
In fairness, what many members on this side of the House and all those who deplore the violence associated with guns have difficulty accepting is that the minister would come forward with an item of legislation without having had the opportunity to reach out, as her department should have done. The Minister of Justice and the department are supposed to be in touch with all Canadians throughout the year on a continuous basis with or without the occasion of tragic events. However, she has come forward with a piece of legislation that does not consider the interests of collectors, hunters, other gun lobbyists and the interests of society at large, and especially those who are victimized by the spread of guns and other weapons possession.
Putting aside this legislation for a moment, why should we solicit opinions when they have been coming to each and every member's office since the day the massacre happened in Montreal and since the day the legislation was presented before the House. I do not know how much more we are able to hear that the Department of Justice ought to have heard, probably has heard, and
should have incorporated in legislation. Then we could recognize the merits of the government's intention in legislative form, in regulatory form as it applied to the gun lobby and as it applied to citizens at large.
In closing, I wonder if the hon. member would give us an indication whether the government, in this instance, is pulling a political ploy in order to camouflage the fact that it is failing to live up to its responsibilities, both to gun lobbyists and to victims of violence at the hands of those who wield weapons, by introducing this kind of technique so as to avoid coming to grips with the reality of the problem for at least another session?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence for his comments, and indeed, I agree. I think they are insightful comments and lay the problems very much at the door where they belong. Again, I support a committee that will consult widely and listen to Canadians. It should have been the role of government to look at this problem. The government understood this. It has rural and urban members. It knows what the problems are in an urban community, and I am reminded-and I may be dating myself by this-of watching Gunsmoke as a child and seeing the people of Dodge City being told to take off their guns before they came into town. Maybe we need something in that modifying manner in our cities. Now, how we control it, I do not know. I will leave that to the great ability of the parliamentary secretary to come with a response.


Rob Nicholson: That can be one of your amendments.


Mary Catherine Clancy: A few more amendments. All right. The parliamentary secretary, having Nova Scotia roots, probably has the kind of ingenious mind to think of it. However, the response is that we do have to look at guns differently in an urban and in a rural context. We also have to look at the traffic in illegal guns. If we say there is one rule for the cities and another for the country, if we can manage to do that in some way that would satisfy those people who legitimately want to use firearms in a peaceful way, that is fine. That is the kind of knotty problem we are dealing with and that is the kind of knotty problem with which the government has not come to grips. It is the kind of problem that has to be dealt with without fail to ensure that this legislation can be passed. It is not going to solve any of the problems we have
November 23, 1990

enumerated here by sweeping the whole thing under the rug, throwing it to a committee, and letting it die.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate today and to offer some views with respect to this important subject matter.
A couple of the hon. members who just spoke, particularly the hon. member for Halifax, have implied that there was a lobby among some members of the government party that got this piece of legislation sent to a committee and, as a result of that, it would be swept under the rug, and therefore not lead to the conclusion that Canada would have effective gun legislation.
I can inform her, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be one of those members who has lobbied to have another look at this legislation, but I certainly would never be a member who would lobby to say that we should have no legislation or that we should have weak or ineffective legislation.
I believe that there are two constituencies with two different perspectives on this important issue. The bill just tabled tends to satisfy one of those constituencies. I say that it is possible to have good, effective, workable legislation that will satisfy both of the two polarized views with respect to guns.
When the hon. member for Halifax addressed the House, she made a comment that could not help but have me reckon back to the truth of what she said. She said that we have to look at guns differently in urban areas than in rural. I do not subscribe to the "have to" part of that, but I do subscribe to the cultural difference that exists between those two situations.
I was a member of the House some many years ago when the Liberal government was introducing its gun legislation. The heat was coming into this Chamber from all parts of the country. It was during the highest period of tension on gun control and rural Canada in that all of its regions was mad. I was struck by the fact that as I drove into the community of Hanna, Alberta, coming out
Government Orders
of the Big Country Sporting Goods Store was a person carrying a new rifle. He walked just in front of where I had parked my car. Several people stopped on the sidewalk to examine his new rifle. They pointed it in the air. They moved the workings of it and praised this fine new rifle that he had. Then, the person went on, put it in his truck, and went back out to the ranch.
That was a very comfortable situation about which any urban person would have been struck by the casualness of that sort of conversation. Had that happened on Yonge Street in Toronto, four blocks of citizens would have absolutely evaporated. Somebody pointed a rifle in the air, handed it over to his friend, showing it back and forth, and these ranchers were thinking absolutely nothing other than one of them had purchased a new tool to his industry.
I come from that kind of countiy. I know there are colleagues in all three parties from those remote regions of Canada. In the Peace River area of British Columbia, one is probably a moose hunter. In Canada's two northern territories, one's livelihood and security is largely dependent on it. Wrestling polar bears by hand is largely fictional. It may make covers of men's magazines, but do not ask anyone in the high North to do it.
For personal security, for food supply, and in the ranching and farming industries, it is a tool of the industry. I am a fruit farmer, Sir, and rabbits can cause a lot of difficulty to my orchards. The presently proposed legislation would like to have it limited to a five-bullet clip in the gun. Those who know me at all know it takes more than five bullets for the rabbit to start getting scared when I go after them. I obviously need more than a five-bullet clip.
I submit that we really need to redress the thought processes on this legislation. From the earliest of examination by the Government of Canada, the community of Canada that drafted the legislation was largely urban, but not totally. It then submitted it to the justice ministers of both past and present governments. They came to the notion of gun control from the perspective that the gun is evil, that it is the instrument that is wrong,

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
and that it is the instrument that we somehow have to do something about.
The automobile also kills many people. We have had as a society a more mature attitude about how we regulate the automobile. We do not start from the perception that the automobile is wrong. We start from the perception that we will train the operator through written and oral examinations, and then in skill testing. I believe that ought to happen also with the gun.
One ought not to be able to use a gun unless able to demonstrate competence. One should be required to demonstrate competence not only on physical skill, but on mental security. I believe that those persons to whom I have spoken-members in gun organizations or those who use guns as a means to their livelihood-would subscribe to that.
As a member of Parliament from a rural region of Canada, I can tell you, Sir, that I do not desire, any more than any urban person anywhere, to have a gun in the hands of a lunatic. But there is that funny notion that when these awful, tragic, deplorable, emotional situations take place in our country, such as that at Ecole Polytechnique about a year ago, that somehow if we attack the instrument, we will achieve justice. The person who committed that crime was mad. Everything about him demonstrated that he was a person filled with anger. It would be naive in the unfortunate extreme for us to presume that, had we at some earlier period of time abolished every gun in the country, the crime would not have taken place in some other way. I know that statistics do not in any situation necessarily establish proof.
With regard to training and skills, I would give the example of Switzerland. Because Switzerland does not have an armed forces as such, but requires that every male aged 18 and over must have a high powered rifle in their possession and be trained to use it. They undergo training. One of the things that is observable about Switzerland is it has one of the western world's lowest incidences of crimes with a gun and yet it is a nation in which virtually every home has a gun. I submit that what has been wrong through a history of almost 20 years now is that we have approached this issue from the perspective that we have to control the gun, rather than to somehow control licensed safe operation of the person.
The other area that I wish to mention is that, for those regions of the country where guns are used in the line of work or as a tool to a livelihood, ambiguity in the regulatory process causes a great concern. People know who the regulators are and they know it is largely urban Canada. It is the bureaucrats of Ottawa. They are very fine people and many of them are very, very hard working, but there are not many people in the rural and northern regions of Canada who believe that their views will be expressed in a change in the regulation. They want a consultative process that designs the right legislation and fixes it specifically.
If we leave lots of changes for the regulatory process, where many things can be changed at whim, it will never be changed with the consultation of rural Canada. That fear must be set aside. I say to you, Sir, it is not difficult to set it aside.
I am absolutely convinced of it and I am pleased that we have been effective in asking the minister to go one consultative process further in an attempt to draft legislation that, on the one hand will make urban Canada say that this is safe and this is good, and on the other hand those who use a gun in of their day-to-day lives will also come to the conclusion that this is acceptable, that this is reasonable, and that we can endorse it. I am fully convinced that that kind of balance can be achieved.
The first objective should be to set aside the notion that it is the instrument that is wrong and come to a far higher and more intense training in the skills and the use, and the testing of the persons competence, both mentally and physically, to use that weapon. When we do, hopefully, we will have a safer society and a more trusted one for all sectors of our country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I enjoyed the way he makes a presentation. I agree with him on the over-all position that there are two constituencies out there, rural and urban, if you like, and that we must find a way of bringing them both together with workable gun control. That is, gun control which works for rural people as well. We are in agreement there, but our agreement stops there.
November 23, 1990

He said: "Guns don't kill, people do." That was in the latter part of his speech. Is it not a fact that guns make it a heck of a lot easier for people to kill? It is pretty hard to kill with bare hands or even with knives, although one can kill with knives.
The fact is that gun control has affected the murder rate in Canada compared to the United States. That is the best example I think.
In Switzerland they do not keep AK-47s in their houses or semi-automatic weapons, as I understand it.


Rex Crawford: Yes, they do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They do? Well, in any case I want to ask if that is not kind of the old argument against having any kind of gun control. Guns don't kill, people do. It seems to me that if the guns are controlled, then there is going to be a lot less killing. I think the statistics which he spoke about bear that out. I also want to ask him if hunters really need semi-automatics or automatics, some of the new kinds of guns. I went to the RCMP here in Ottawa and looked at some of the guns they have seized. It is unbelievable the kind of weapons that are coming into Canada, even weapons that are now controlled in California and other places, but not controlled yet in Canada.
What do you need in the woods? Do you need more than five shots? What animals are in Canada? Do we have tigers in Canada? What kind of animals do we have in Canada that you cannot kill with a regular gun and without having a semi-automatic or automatic, and without having more than five rounds at one time? I do not know of any animals.


An hon. member:: Dinosaurs?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Dinosaurs? No, they are all over. I do not know animals in the woods that a good hunter cannot deal with and I do not know why we have to use that argument.
The hon. member mentioned training. I think that is an excellent point. It is the one part that the gun lobby is right on. There has to be training. But it still has not been proclaimed. That gun law came in in 1978 and it is now 1990 and they still have not got around to getting a training system. I think we can both agree that it should be done.
Government Orders
Let me just end by saying this to the member and perhaps he could deal with it. He says: "We,"-meaning the Conservative backbench-"have been effective to have convinced the minister to go another step, that is to have this committee". He has already heard me say in the House that I interpret this as a major defeat for the new Minister of Justice in the cabinet, a major defeat for her after her promise to the students at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal last April that she would bring in effective gun control. I see this as a major defeat for the minister. The member has said that the backbench has been effective in putting it off.
Why could we not have passed the bill in principle, dealt with it in committee and made the amendments that we need to make to protect rural Canada in committee? Now we are going to have a committee which is really a phoney. Any committee could look at a subject matter. The justice committee could look at gun control. We are passing a motion to send this material to the committee and the committee can send it back to the House and we never get to Bill C-80.
Why would the member not agree to protect at least the integrity of his own justice minister and her promises that she gave last April that the matter could pass in principle here in the House, then go to committee? If it goes to committee it will bounce around committee for a period. It will come back and God knows when we will ever get to it. Is it not, in fact, what he has done is succeed in burying gun control?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. I am always very proud of myself when I can pronounce his constituency. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's integrity is absolutely intact. Her commitment to those who are relatives and friends of those persons who were so tragically slain at Ecole Polytechnique is absolutely intact. I totally, 100 per cent support absolutely the need for legislation.
Surely I would ask of the hon. member for Moody- Port Coquitlam that he also recognize that if it is possible to get better legislation by trying to rethink the fundamental principle that we are better off. Why do we not just amend it? I think we shot and missed-pun intended. We have started on a process for 20 years that pretends somehow that if you take this instrument and chop away at it in a legislative process, you can be effective. There is room for that. The hon. member asks

November 23, 1990
Government Orders
the question: "What do you need in the woods." With tongue in cheek, I tell him mosquito spray. But, not tongue in cheek, I tell him he is right. You do not need fully automatic weapons. They should be outlawed. They should not be allowed into our country. You do not go moose hunting with an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons do only one thing well. They kill people. They do nothing else well. It is similar to the pistol. The pistol does two things well. It kills people or, in sporting activities for target shooting, it is part of a gaming event where the pistol is used that way. It is one of those things that is easily concealed.
The semi-automatic is a different thing. When you pull the trigger, the explosion of the first bullet allows for the second bullet to enter the chamber. I have a semi-automatic rifle. You should see the parking lot, the area where berry pickers come to my farm, and where the gophers are in the spring of the year. Colonies of them come up. You need a rapid capacity to be able to have varmint control. Anybody who is a northern resident will also submit to the same perspective. If you want to limit clips, I said fine. Five cartridge clips destroys the very reason why you have a semi-automatic in the first place. They are very different instruments. Fully automatic is military equipment, whereas semi-automatic is not.
The hon. member asks about the slogan, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. I have never tried to make persuasions or arguments on the basis of slogans. If I wanted to live my political life with slogans, I would join the Reform Party. There may be an element of truth to that message on bumper stickers. The gun can kill in a faster way.
I think the hon. member will recognize that in violent societies, death rates can be very high. He may or may not be surprised by the fact that the instrument that killed the most Albertans last year was the knife. It was not the gun. The most murders in Alberta took place with a knife. Most domestic murders in Canada do not take place with a gun, they take place with a knife.
To what does that logically lead us? Knife control? If so, what knife? The butter knife? Who defines and how do you define? This is a problem we have to wrestle with
in an effective way that leads to its natural results that we all want, both urban and rural. People should not be of the view that there is some rural group out there who likes the notion of violence. I have no knowledge of any, though I am not naive enough to believe that there are not violent people in our society. I do not personally know of any.
Those are the questions I believe asked of me. That is what I offer him as my response and hope that that is of some satisfaction to the hon. member.


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak about the merits and the shortcomings of Bill C-80.
Specifically today, we are speaking on a motion to refer the bill to a legislative committee for further study.
It seems that the Tory caucus has reached the Minister of Justice. As a former president of the Dover Rod and Gun Club, I bring certain strong views to the subject of gun control. I am a hunter and sportsman, as are many of my constituents. It is economically important to my riding that hunting is allowed. I am of the firm belief that any gun control legislation must not hinder the honest citizen, that the current laws on the books should be used to the fullest against the dishonest citizen.
It is estimated that there are six million guns in Canada today. Canadians can buy firearms and ammunition at more than 10,000 outlets across Canada. Those figures may startle those who favour tougher gun control, but the figures show Canada does not have a high homicide rate or a high gun use.
The laws that are on the books now should be enforced by the police and the judicial system. We have a strong gun law in Canada today. It is not being enforced.
A strict system of controls was first introduced by the Liberal government in 1977 in order to prevent the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms and to encourage responsible gun ownership and use.
I have received many letters from constituents who are hunters like myself. One, in particular, the Kent Clover Leaf Conservation Club has some serious concerns with the bill that I share. For example, the proposed limitation of magazine capacities to five rounds on semi-automatics is unacceptable to the club, and it was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker. Guns are designed for
November 23, 1990

certain clips and a five-clip in an automatic is of very little use.
They also stand in opposition to any further restrictions to or the banning of semi-automatic rifles, pistols or shotguns. Again, it does nothing to deter crime, but only hinders the enjoyment of a legitimate sport. Those who know nothing of guns or sport shooting are quick to offer that sport shooters do not need the new technology of self-loading firearms. It must be pointed out that they have been on the scene since the turn of the century and are an important part of sport shooting, in fact, also of the Olympics.
In the town of Wallaceburg, which is in my riding, we have the Lee-Enfield rifle in the museum. This gun under the new legislation would be banned. This gun has been known all over the world and has been used in two world wars.
The club makes some good points and I want to quote from their letter to the Minister of Justice on June 26, 1990:
The criminal aspects of gun use must be tightened and enforced.
Murder, armed robbery, assault with or without a weapon and the
possession of a firearm or ammunition at a public gathering are all
illegal.
So, we do have the law, but it is not being upheld by the judicial system.
Now is definitely the time for action in dealing with Canada's crime problem, but let us aim the action in the proper direction. We must place the responsibility solely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the criminal element.
The provisions in Bill C-80 regarding conditions for a firearms acquisition certificate, the FAC, are very reasonable. Gun clubs have always been supportive of safety courses and strong background checks of prospective gun buyers.
The requirement that an applicant must complete-


Rob Nicholson: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I have just been informed by members that the question will automatically be put at two o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: So it will. The hon. member still has a few seconds.


Rex Crawford: Under provincial law hunters have to complete safety courses before obtaining a hunting
Business of the House
licence, so it is fair that firearm owners be properly trained, too. That is why the sportsmen's clubs are around. That is one of their most important functions, to teach the safety of firearms.
The FAC should bear a photograph of the applicant, and the 28-day waiting period is also fair and reasonable. I am certainly not against that. I support it 100 per cent.
Currently, many police authorities do inadequate checks for an FAC. I must say the ones in my riding certainly do their job well.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do regret, but it being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The first question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


The Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion as amended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand there have been discussions and I would like to place the following consent motion:
Notwithstanding the Order of the House adopted earlier this day,
respecting proceedings this day, at the completion of the times
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business, the
House shall stand adjourned until 1 o'clock p.m., Monday,
November 26, 1990.

November 23, 1990
Private Members' Business


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion as moved by the minister. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   NORTHERN QUEBEC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENCY
Hon. Warren AHmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to provide an additional constituency in Northern Quebec which would be identical to the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975 and thereby provide better representation for the people of Northern Quebec and, in particular, for the Inuit, Cree and Naskapi citizens who are the majority in this area.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to provide a new constituency in the extreme north of Quebec where the great majority of the population is Cree, Inuit or Naskapi. The area for the constituency that I have in mind is the area which would be more or less similar to the area covered in the James Bay Agreement of 1975.
In 1975 a land claim settlement was arrived at with respect to the Cree and the Inuit living in the north of Quebec. It was followed a few years later by a companion agreement with respect to the Naskapi who live on the more eastern side of the same territory.
At the present time, these aboriginal people living in the north of Quebec are not properly represented. I am not saying that the individual members of Parliament who represent those constituencies are bad members of Parliament, but they do not truly reflect the people who live in the far north of Quebec.
Right now in this area there are two constituencies. One of the constituencies, Manicouagan, is on the eastern side of that territory and runs from the St. Lawrence River right up to Hudson Strait and includes the more southern communities-one can call them southern in respect of that area but they are quite north-of Sept-Iles, Port-Cartier, Baie Comeau, and so on.
The majority of the population in the Manicouagan riding is in the southern part of that constituency, near the St. Lawrence River. Consequently the control of the constituency is with those people who are traditional Quebecois people and not aboriginal people.
The other constituency, which is on the western side of the area, is the constituency of Abitibi. It includes the southern communities of Rouyn, Noranda, Val d'Or, and so on. These communities, as well, control what happens in that constituency of Abitibi, and the people in the far north have very little to say.
Rather than have two constituencies which run right up to Hudson Strait and which are divided by a line that runs north and south, I am suggesting that we cut off the northern part of Quebec with a line that would run east and west and form a new constituency which would more or less include the same territory as the territory of the James Bay Agreement. The Quebecois cities of Sept-Iles, Baie Comeau, Port Cartier, Rouyn, Noranda, Val d'Or, and so on, would be south of that constituency and would belong to properly composed traditional Quebec constituencies.
I am not proposing that we take away one of the constituencies now allocated to Quebec for this purpose. Right now Quebec has 75 seats. I am suggesting that we have a 76th seat to deal with this very special need and very special proposal. Of course such a constituency would have fewer than the average population of most constituencies in Canada. The population would be more or less 20,000 people north of that line. By the way, that line would run near the 52nd parallel.
I must point out that in a sense it would be equivalent to the new constituency of Labrador, which is now a single constituency. Since 1988 the constituency of Labrador does not contain any territory on the island of Newfoundland, and that is new since 1988. It was done for the same purposes as I am suggesting now for the north of Quebec, but the southern boundary of this new
November 23, 1990

constituency would be more or less the same as the southern boundary of Labrador. This sort of exception for constituencies has been done before. We did it in 1988 for Labrador. Before 1988 Labrador was lumped in with a large number of communities on the island of Newfoundland, but it was decided for cultural, historical and community purposes to give Labrador its own constituency.
It was also done, I cannot remember the exact year, for the present constituency of Nunatsiaq. Nunatsiaq is that part of the Northwest Territories on the eastern side which is above the tree line and which contains principally a population of Inuit people. A few years ago we decided, despite the fact that this area had a very small population compared to other Canadian constituencies, that it was appropriate to give the people in that area a representative in Parliament. It was agreed that we would set up this new constituency of Nunatsiaq. I will put on the record the population of that area.
It was also done when we first established the constituencies of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, because we would never have constituencies in Yukon or the Northwest Territories-and here I am talking of the western Arctic, the area around the Mackenzie River-if they were based on numbers of constituents. If we were to be very strict with respect to the number of constituents required for a constituency, then the Yukon, Western Arctic or Nunatsiaq do not meet that criteria. They are way below that criteria, but we did it because we felt that those people needed representation in Parliament and should not be lumped in with the more southerly areas of Canada which have larger populations. By the way, these southerly areas are economically, socially and culturally quite different in many respects and would not really represent the more northern areas.
We also make exceptions for Prince Edward Island. In the Constitution of 1867 we decided that Prince Edward Island should also have the same number of members of Parliament as senators. Consequently Prince Edward Island has four constituencies even though, according to the average Canadian standard for constituencies, there should be only one and a half constituencies in that province.
Private Members' Business
I would like to put on record some of the populations of these areas. For example, right now the constituency of Labrador has about 28,000 people and about 17,000 electors. I would have you compare that with the average Canadian constituency.
For example, let us take the two constituencies that presently exist in the north of Quebec. The constituency of Abitibi has a population of nearly 87,000 people with an electorate of 61,000. I am rounding off the figures. The constituency of Manicouagan has a population of a little over 57,000 people with nearly 39,000 electors. Labrador has a population of 28,000 with 17,000 electors, the Yukon has a population of nearly 24,000 with 16,000 electors, Nunatsiaq has a population of 19,000 with a little over 11,000 electors and the Western Arctic has a population of 32,000, with 18,000 electors.
If we look at the four constituencies in Prince Edward Island, Cardigan, Egmont, Hillsborough and Malpeque have populations of 29,000, 34,000, 31,000 and 30,000 respectively. As I say, we can easily see that these are all much less than the average for Canadian constituencies, which is around 60,000 to 70,000 people in each constituency.
We have done it in the past. We did it for Labrador and Nunatsiaq because we thought it would be a good thing for a group living with the same type of economy to have the right to representation in Parliament.
I should also point out, because it is very instructive, that at the time of Confederation in 1867, when this country was first established, there were 182 constituencies. The average population at that time of each constituency was 17,400. We were able to carry on quite well as a country and our members of Parliament were able to represent those areas quite well.
I gave you the populations for the constituencies of Abitibi and Manicouagan, Madam Speaker, but the national average population for constituencies in Canada is 85,794, and the average for Quebec is 87,099. What I am proposing is, of course, an exception to the rule, but it is not an exception to the rule that has not been done before.
I do not think anyone will deny that we need more aboriginal representatives in this House. We already have two in this party, one from the Northwest Territories and one from Nunatsiaq. I doubt if we would have them if we had stuck to the general rule for populations for constituencies. If we did not have those special

November 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
constituencies with smaller populations than the average, if we did not have them in Nunatsiaq and the Eastern Arctic, we would not have the two members that we now have in this party. There is a member of the Conservative Party from Alberta, a treaty Indian, who comes from an ordinarily constructed constituency, and it is good that he does represent that area, but again, I think we need to do more to involve these peoples in our parliamentary process.
One way of doing it is to carve out constituencies in the northernmost parts of our provinces, such as I am suggesting, where there is a heavier than usual concentration of aboriginal people. It is very difficult for aboriginal people, who are a minority, to be elected in more southerly constituencies. It was done by the hon. member in the Conservative Party to whom I have just referred and it was done on this side of the House a few years ago when Senator Len Marchand was elected in the constituency of Kamloops.
If we look at the situation last summer, where we had a severe crisis at Oka, Quebec with respect to the Kanesa-take community, there was nobody to really represent those people here in Parliament. Many of us tried to represent them. I did, and others did as well, but there was nobody from that community itself. With respect to Kahnawake, it is sad to say but the member of Parliament for La Prairie took very opposite views to the people of Kahnawake. As a matter of fact, the member for La Prairie suggested that the whole population of the Kahnawake community be moved to Labrador or some such place. I do not think that was a good idea.
No matter what we might think of Elijah Harper's politics, while many of us might have supported the Meech Accord and were upset that it did not succeed, we have to admit that the fact that Elijah Harper was in the Manitoba legislature representing a northern constituency in Manitoba helped him represent the views of his people. Whether or not we liked the outcome, the fact that Elijah Harper was in the Manitoba legislature in a minority Parliament meant that he was able to represent the views of his people. I think that is very important.
If you are not in Parliament where you can legitimately put forward the views of your people, in this case
aboriginal people, then you will very often have extraparliamentary action and that action is not always legal or appropriate. You have demonstrations, you have blockades, you have all sorts of things that might happen if you cannot legitimately pursue your views through the ordinary democratic process of elections and Parliament. People get frustrated because they feel they are not being represented in Parliament and therefore they take our their frustrations in other ways to get their political views known. I do not think that is a good thing.
I see here today the hon. member for Abitibi who is one of the most active members on the government side and one of the most active backbenchers in Parliament. I am not suggesting that he be replaced. I am suggesting that it would be more appropriate that he represent the communities that he comes from in the more southern part of the Abitibi riding and, as I said, that we add an additional riding to Quebec to take care of the area that is north of the communities, the Quebecois communities as opposed to the Cree and the Inuit communities which are in the north.
I am familiar with those communities because I was a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I visited that region several times. I know that there is a real difference between the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi communities and the communities of Sept lies, Port Cartier, Baie Comeau, Rouyn, Val d'Or, Amos and all the other communities which are non-aboriginal communities and for the most part reflect different cultural, economic and social values, not totally but enough to require special representation in Parliament.
I was responsible as minister for putting through the James Bay legislation in this House. We finally passed it in 1977. Since that time, there has been great development in these aboriginal communities in the north of Quebec. They have their economic development programs, their own school boards and their own health programs. In the Inuit areas there is the Makivik Corporation, the Kativik regional government and so on. It is only appropriate that we give these people some means of being directly represented in Parliament and this is my proposal.
November 23, 1990

Ideally, there should be two constituencies in that area because there are two or even three aboriginal groups. There is the Cree community, which has its own way of life. Then there is the Inuit further north in then-own communities. If we can get agreement to move forward, it would be a great accomplishment. For example, in the western Arctic, which is represented by my colleague from Yellowknife, who is a Dene Indian, her constituency also has some Inuit. There are white people as well, people from different backgrounds. The great majority of people in that constituency are either Indian or Metis or Inuit. The overwhelming percentage of the population is of aboriginal background.
I have been campaigning for this proposal for several years. I have written to the Chief Electoral Officer who, in principle, does not oppose it. This is an idea that came to me from leaders in the north of Quebec. People from the Makivik Corporation and people from the Cree communities felt that this was the only way that they would ever get represented in Parliament. Some of them have run for office before in the constituencies of either Manicouagan or Abitibi as independents, but did not have any chance at all. Their population cannot compete with the populations in the southern part of the constituency.
This is a motion and not a bill. I am asking the House to approve, in principle, the formation of a new constituency in the north of Quebec. This constituency would be more or less contiguous with the territory of the James Bay agreement so that the people in that area could be represented, need not be, but would most likely be represented by an aboriginal person from that area.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, Nar-kurmik Marialuk. I rise today to speak on motion M-415 presented by my honorable colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, proposing that the federal government introduce legislation to provide an additional constituency in Northern Quebec. This new constituency would be identical to the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975, and would provide better representation for the people living in this large northern area.
Private Members' Business
Madam Speaker, the constituency of Abitibi covers an area of 553,837 square kilometers, or 213,837 square miles, and has a population of 86,990. It is the largest constituency in all ten provinces after the Northwest Territories, and it covers a substantial part of that agreement's territory together with the constituency of Manicouagan, represented here by Charles Langlois. Rest assured, Madam Speaker, we do not intend to replace the member who is here today, because since his arrival in 1988, he has defended the interests of all of his constituency, north and south.
Numbering 3,584, the Inuit are scattered in the following villages: Salluit, Ivujivik, Akulivik, Povungnituk, Inukjuak, Umiujaq, Kuujjuarapik, and Mailasikkut.
Some 9,593 strong, the Crees are scattered in the villages of Whapmagoostui, Chisasibi, Wemindji, East-main, Nemaska, Waswanipi, Waskaganish, and Mistassini.
On February 8, 1983, Mr. Jean-Jacques Martel, of Amos, who has been a member of Parliament here in Ottawa, appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and said: "As another practical suggestion, the great northern Quebec area, also known as New Quebec or the Ungava Territory, should make a separate electoral riding because of its enormous size, its scattered population, its needs and problems which are different from ours and those of the major metropolitan centres".
During hearings held on December 1, 1986, Mrs. Jeannette Dupuis Lessard, speaking on behalf of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue Regional Development Council (CRDAT), stated similarly: "The climatic and soil conditions which exist in the southern part of the Abitibi riding allows such economic activities as agriculture, forestry and mining, which is clearly not the case of the Middle and Far North of the riding. Do you realize, Madam Speaker, that there is a distance of 1,600 kilometres between the south and the north of my region, which is about the same distance as between Val d'Or and Tampa, Florida. You can understand the time it takes to cover such an area and what enormous task it would be for one member.
The northern part of this territory is inhabited by Natives, Crees and Inuits, with a culture and both social and economic needs different from those of the south. Transport and communication are very difficult. There is no longer any road to the north of James Bay and the airplane is the only means of transportation to visit this

November 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
whole territory. The inhabitants of the middle North and the far North are our neighbours and our social and economic ties with them are increasing. Yet, the CRDAT representative added: "Because of its peculiarities, this northern territory should have its own electoral representative in the House of Commons."
The current incumbent of the Abitibi seat and his predecessors have done everything possible to represent this huge territory. Yet, it must be recognized that such a task is beyond human capacity.
That is why the CRDAT is in favour of the creation of a third electoral riding which would represent the inhabitants of both the middle North and far North of the current Abitibi riding. In view of the small number of its inhabitants, it is true that the creation of such a new electoral riding would not meet the current electoral standards.
But you must realize, members of the Commission, that this electoral ratio does not reflect the reality of the huge and sparsely populated northern territories.
In short, we wish that that portion of the territory be made into an extraordinary electoral district, as defined in the Canada Elections Act and as is the case for the Northwest Territories of Canada.
Madam Speaker, the message from every Quebec electoral district boundaries commission is the same: "Some findings based on geographical or ethnic considerations suggested that the commission should establish electoral districts with less than the minimum population requirement. That was the case of requests received from Inuit and Cree people. Of course, the commission does not have any authority to act on these requests."
Madam Speaker, let us not forget the residents and workers of the La Grande complex, a hydro development with various sites in Radisson, LG1, LG2, LG3, LG4 and elsewhere, as well as the residents in northern communities.
The Cree-Naskapi Commission, chaired by the honourable Justice Rejean F. Paul, from the Superior Court, recommended in Chapter 3 of its 1988 report the recognition of the Cree in Ouje-Bougoumou as the ninth Cree band, in accordance with the Cree-Naskapi
of Quebec Act. Nowadays, Canada should officially recognize this new Cree band, which was omitted in the hon. member's motion, and put in place a process to establish this new village.
Madam Speaker, the James bay and Northern Quebec Agreement divides the lands in three caterogies: the first category includes lands to be controlled solely by the native people; the second category comprises provincial public lands on which the natives have the exclusive right to hunt, fish and trap; and finally the third category is made up of public lands belonging to the province.
Since the James Bay and northern Quebec Agreement was signed 12 years ago the Governments of Canada and Quebec paid more than $1 billion in cash and services to the 17,000 native people of Northern Quebec living in the ridings of Abitibi and Manicouagan. On-going payments by Canada under the agreements amount to more than $100 million a year.
The Inuit, Cree and Naskapi people have been using these funds to raise the standards of living of their communities. They have shown outstanding ingeniosity and a remarkable spirit of entreprise.
The most enduring benefit of the agreements is that the native people have been able to gain better control over their own future. This very positive climate was highlighted by the July 13, 1984 enactment of the legislation governing Quebec Crees and Naskapis. Crees and Naskapees do now have the power to look after all matters related to their land and affairs. Inuit have also taken charge of their own affairs as a result of the James Bay and northern Quebec convention.
Madam Speaker, we must always remember that in the vast territory of Northern Quebec, in my constituency and that of my colleague of Manicouagan, there are several cities and places that belong to, or rather should I say that are presently inhabited by white people, such as Chapais, Chibougamau, Matagami, Joutel et Lebel-sur-Quevillon. And there is also the buffer zone established by the James Bay convention which exceeds a little bit the James Bay municipality located at the 49th parallel. It represents a vast territory and that is why it is important to consult our people before introducing a bill.
November 23, 1990

Madam Speaker, before tabling a legislation to provide for an additional federal constituency in Northern Quebec, we will have to ask the Inuit, the Cree, the Naskapi and the permanent residents of the North, as well as the Cree-Naskapi Commission under the chairmanship of the hon. Rejean F. Paul, justice of the Superior Court, to present us with a draft legislation to provide for an additional federal constituency. The success of this collective effort will be a model of co-operation between our native friends and the members of the House of Commons.
This is not an easy challenge, but I am confident that our joint efforts will enable us to set up a northern federal constituency in Quebec. Norkurmik Marialuk.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on his motion. I do so, not necessarily because I spent five years or so in the constituency of my friend from Abitibi, but mainly because I have spent most of my life in northern communities and I feel that I can speak with some authority on the kind of approach that the hon. member suggests. I must congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his approach to this.
To a certain extent, in our democratic structure in Canada and in a large part of the world, we have been seduced by the idea that representation by population, the old "rep by pop" approach, is the proper and most fair way of representation across the country. That motto, "rep by pop", has been the motto of electoral democracy over the years. We should not really knock it because it is still the essence of what we believe in as the democratic base of the country-one vote for one member and representation in the governing body by equal numbers.
Democracy can sometimes be undermined by the majority. We face it every day in the House. The ruling party, which represents a minority of the people in Canada but has a majority of the seats, marches over the will of the people without much concern for what the people of Canada think. It is sort of jack-boot democracy, if you would call it that. But that, Madam Speaker, is another story.
Private Members' Business
Every minority, every group, has the right to have representation in the House. That often does not happen. Theoretically, I suppose, we could expect the House would be a mirror image of the representation of the various groups of people across the country, but that is not likely to happen. It has not happened in the past and it is unlikely to happen in the future.
We can do something to allow certain geographic areas to have the kind of representation which, because of our immense geography in the country, makes it possible and necessary to vary the rule of representation by population. Many live in vast areas of this land and have not been directly represented in the House at any time.
We have solved the problem, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has pointed out, in many places. We solved it in the Northwest Territories. We solved it in the Yukon. We established representation in those areas, regardless of how many people happen to live in those particular areas. We have also made some room for a specific kind of regional representation by varying the numbers of electors that are needed to elect a member in the provinces. For instance, a considerably fewer number of electors are required to elect a member in Prince Edward Island and in Saskatchewan, than are required to elect a member in Ontario or in Quebec. Consequently, to some extent, we have moved away from the idea of representation by population and the number of people required to elect a member to represent them in the House being the same across the country.
But there are large groups and regions that fall through the cracks of our representation. The hon. member has pointed out one or two of these groups by looking at the situation in northern Quebec. I am supporting this particular resolution because the same kind of situation exists in the northern parts of almost every one of our provinces that reaches up to the 54th parallel, or at least to the 60th parallel and above. Quite often, there are very few people in a large area, but those people have a particular point of view.
As I indicated before, I spent a considerable part of my career in those northern areas and have a feeling for the lack of representation they have sometimes felt. A large portion of my time was spent in the Yukon and Northwest Territories where representation is recognized on a regional basis. I have also had some responsibility in

Private Members' Business
northern Saskatchewan where at one time I was the director of education for the northern half of the province.
I suppose it is a good indication of the kind of lack of representation there, in that in the southern half of the province there are something like 85 superintendents of schools. In the northern half, there is only one, but we expect the representation of the large group in the south to be effective in the north.
Northern Saskatchewan, like northern Quebec, has large rural areas, but very little in common with their urban neighbours to the south, or even with their rural neighbours to the south, because a large part of rural Saskatchewan is our farming communities. Consequently, they are being represented by people who do not necessarily feel the same kind of empathy for that group as they would for their more numerous neighbours of the south. I gather that this is the reason for this particular motion and that is to try to give representation to the people who now feel they are not represented as they might be.
The area that we consider to be northern Saskatchewan starts approximately halfway between the U.S. border and the border of the Northwest Territories, just 100 miles or so north of the city of Prince Albert. Therefore, it is approximately half of the territory of the province of Saskatchewan. That territory is presently represented by the hon. member for Prince Albert- Churchill River, who has a great deal of empathy for the people in the north, but recognizes, as he works in that area, that he is not considered by the people to be a northerner.
During the last readjustment of boundaries in northern Saskatchewan, the people of northern Saskatchewan placed before the commission, whose responsibility it was to draw the borders of the constituencies, a number of very broad and responsible briefs which indicated that they felt they would like and needed representation for their particular area separate from that of the more southern areas of the province. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act allows a 25 per cent deviation between constituencies within a province. In Saskatchewan the average is about 70,000. The northern part of the province would probably be composed of 35,000 or 40,000, so the deviation would be more than 25 per cent.
That is the reason the commission said it would not continue with the idea of establishing one northern constituency.
I support this particular motion because, if we look at it thoroughly, we will recognize that the idea is proper and that it can be adapted, not only for northern Quebec, but for many other parts of the country where representation is needed and not available at the moment.


M. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Narkurmik, Marialuk, Madam Speaker. It is with great interest that I am participating today in the debate on motion M-415, tabled by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The motion, tabled on April 11, 1989 by my hon. colleague, deals with a situation about which I have been concerned since November of 1988, that is since I was elected as the hon. member for the riding of Manicouagan.
In the next few minutes, I will use both official languages, in order to respect the linguistic duality of the country. I would have liked to be able to address the House in Innutituk, the language of our fellow Inuit who live in the communities of northern Quebec. Unfortunately, I cannot do it. Therefore, I will use the English language, since the Inuit are more familiar with it than with the French.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the riding of Manicouagan, that I have been representing in this house since November of 1988, is one of the largest in the country. It covers an area of over 465,680 square kilometers. It stretches along the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from the community of Franquelin to Blanc Sablon, in the eastern reaches of the province of Quebec.

It also stretches from the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the northern reaches of both coasts of Ungava Bay. It is a vast and diversified land. The riding territory includes industrialized sections where the major centres of Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles, and Havre-St-Pierre are located. It covers vast areas where logging operations are taking place. It also covers vast areas where there are tourist attractions. The eastern part of the riding, called the Lower North Shore, is made up of 15 fishing villages, most of them linked by sea and air.
November 23, 1990

It also covers vast lands rich in natural resources where the towns of Fermont and Schefferville have been built. Moving further north, the riding of Man-icouagan reaches the southern part of the Bay of Ungava where we find the community of Kuujjuak. The communities on both coasts of the Ungava Bay are also located in the riding of Manicouagan. When we get there, we have an Inuit land.

I recognized from the start of my mandate that it would be difficult for me to give good and frequent services to Inuit communities of Ungava Bay. I planned several times to go and stay there for a while but unfortunately, it was impossible to carry out my wishes.

One must understand that Manicouagan is a large riding with different needs and problems.
Since the fall of 1988, I have tried to be as useful as possible to the people of the northern communities. I have worked actively with my colleague from Abitibi to implement economic programs. I have followed very closely the project of installing an FOL base in Kuujjuak by the Department of National Defence. I felt from the beginning that this project will bring economic activities and employment in Kuujjuak.
While supporting the project, I share the concerns of the community of Kuujjuak and its leaders about the impact that the project could have on the way of life of its people. The Minister of National Defence would be well advised to take the necessary steps to clean up the garbage, debris and drums accumulated in Kuujjuak by the U.S. Air Force during the Second World War and left there. The shore of the Koksoak River and its beaches are littered with drums full of tar. Clean-up procedures satisfactory to the community should be undertaken right away.
After the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing was established, I had several meetings and discussions with its chairman, Mr. Pierre Lortie, on the problems of representations for the northern communities. These discussions led to the visit to Kuujjuak by the royal commission. It gave the Inuit leaders the opportunity to express their view on northern representation and participation in the Canadian democratic process and in the Canadian government.
Private Members' Business
In a letter sent to the commission chairman and to Mr. Jimmy Johannes, Chairman of the Kativik Regional government, I strongly supported the position of the Inuit leaders. In my letter I stated: "I fully support the position of the Inuit people as outlined in your brief." I also said: "The time is long overdue for a better and more active representation of the native people in the House of Commons."
In my letter to Mr. Pierre Lortie, chairman of the royal commission, I wrote: "I would like to take this opportunity to express the view that all efforts should be made to allow the native communities of the northern part of Quebec to be part of a northern federal riding." I further stated: "The creation of a federal riding that would include all communities located on both shores of the Ungava Bay would allow more normal representation in the House of Commons. The process of self-government for the Inuit and other native populations should include representation by a native person in the House of Commons."
Madam Speaker, you will agree that my position is very clear on this matter and I will keep on working to assure better representation for the people living in the north.

Madam Speaker, it is now time to ask the following question: Does the motion introduced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace give a good answer to the expectations of northern populations? I don't think so.
The motion specifies that a new federal constituency should match exactly with the territories covered by the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement signed in 1975.
In this geographical context, what will happen to the native population living in the villages located outside the territory covered by the agreement?
Since the terms of the motion refer to the Naskapi people, I think we must evaluate its impacts on the Naskapi and Montagnais groups living in seperate reserves in Schefferville.

The motion implies two main points: First, that the people of northern Quebec, especially the Inuit, Cree and Naskapi citizens of this region are in need of additional representation in this House, and I agree.

November 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
Second, that the Government of Canada may not be exercising its responsibilities to safeguard the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights of all peoples living in this important region of our country.
I would like for a moment to focus on the second point since I have covered the first aspect quite extensively.
The hon. member calls for additional representation, presumably to address a deterioration in conditions faced by native people in northern Quebec. The facts suggest otherwise.
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed in November of 1975. This was followed by the signing of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement in 1978. Since the conclusion of these two landmark agreements,
18,000	Cree, Inuit and Naskapi living in these regions have received cash and services totalling more than $1 billion from the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec.
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement involved an initial compensation of $225 million. The Northeastern Quebec Agreement provides $9 million in compensation and a subsequent agreement involved various types of compensation, relocation and related funding totalling more than $250 million. These figures are significant in their own way.
By themselves, they do not provide the true appreciation of the profound improvement in the quality of life and health standards which the Cree, Naskapi and Inuit have experienced over the past 12 years.
Each village now has its own dispensaries providing first aid care, home visits and community health services. Communities have been divided into independent municipalities. The Cree school board and the Kativik school board are run entirely by elected representatives of the communities.
The James Bay development has actually resulted in considerably reducing the cost of supplies to northern Quebec communities. The existing highway system has made transportation more accessible. Moreover, Cree-owned Air Creebec and Inuit-owned Air Inuit now supply coastal villages from Val d'Or to the Bay of Ungava.
Housing is yet another area where substantial improvements have been achieved. Cree, Naskapi and Inuit families now live in modern homes. Community construction projects are carried out by the Cree, Naskapi and Inuit themselves.
These are impressive accomplishments by any standard of measurement. They offer solid evidence that the aboriginal peoples of northern Quebec have been able to reap significant and lasting benefits from the James Bay development.
Never before have the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi citizens of this region had more control over their own lives, or enjoyed a higher quality of life and health standards, as demonstrated by the considerable population growth in this region in recent years.
The Cree, Naskapi and Inuit citizens of northern Quebec have made some very significant advances over the past decade, both from an economic perspective and in terms of their over-all quality of life.
The Government of Canada is committed to seeing that this progress is not only sustained, but advanced. We will honour our agreements with the aboriginal peoples of this region, as with aboriginal peoples in all regions of Canada.
I would like to suggest in response to the motion by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that Parliament wait for the report of the Lortie royal commission that is taking place at the present time to see its recommendation on this important aspect.
I would also suggest that members' budgets representing those areas, are funded in such a way that will make it possible for us to open up riding offices in those areas, hiring aboriginal peoples so we can provide a daily and a more appropriate service for the people of these communities.
I will conclude by saying that in my capacity as member of Parliament for the riding of Manicouagan, I will continue to represent the Inuit people to the best of my capacity.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise today on motion M-415, brought forward by my honourable colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. He referred to the James Bay agreement, signed in 1975, which sought to provide better representation for the people of that region. According to this
November 23, 1990

agreement and the northeastern Quebec one, which was signed in 1978, these agreements have allowed native people of that region to improve their standard of living and to better control their own development.
Moreover, with the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, the Cree and Naskapi have been the first native people in Canada to achieve some kind of self-government. Bands administer their lands and the natural resources they are controlling. They maintain the native culture, values and traditions and look after community development.
So, the question is this: Why should the federal government create a new electoral district to better represent the native people of that region when there are systems in place that work properly?
Madam Speaker, I admire the interest the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace shows in the aboriginal people. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to create an additional constituency in Quebec.
Much still remains to be done and many of their grievances are legitimate. That is why the prime minister made public, on September 25, an action plan in order to settle some of the issues concerning aboriginal people of Canada.
That action plan is not made up of vain promises. It is a realistic and concrete plan made which has four objectives: to settle territorial claims; to improve economic and social conditions in reserves; to enhance relations between aboriginal people and governments; to bring the concerns of aboriginal people into contemporary Canadian society.
During the last two months, you noticed for sure that this government takes land claims very seriously. We said that nothing was more important than that and we kept our word.
As early as the beginning of October, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his Minister of State sought the co-operation of a number of native leaders having experience with the process of specific claims.
That group asked for our support in the setting up of a task force to have discussions with aboriginal communities throughout the country. We agreed, and the task force was struck and is chaired by Manny Jules of British Columbia. It should submit a report at the beginning of
Private Members' Business
December stating its position on a great many subjects concerning specific claims.
We also made progress in other areas. Policy changes were made to allow the negotiation of land claims in British Columbia. We took the necessary steps to ensure that legal obligations contracted over a century ago concerning the transfer of land entitlements to Treaty Indians are respected.
As a matter of fact, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs announced a few weeks ago that the government was willing to negotiate Treaty land entitlement claims in Saskatchewan. Negotiations will be based on the Treaty Commissioner's report. We have already announced similar measures in Alberta and Manitoba.
The second objective of the government's action plan is to improve living conditions on Indian reserves. As we all know, while major progress was made in recent years, living conditions on native reserves are in many cases still lower than those of the majority of Canadians.
We are ready to co-operate with Indian leaders and provincial governments in order to introduce a number of improvements to basic community programs and services, like running water, sewers, sanitary facilities and so on. The government will soon announce concrete plans designed to make life easier in all native communities.
The third objective is to improve the relations between native people and governments, that is to make it possible for our native fellow citizens to have the same opportunities as other Canadians to contribute to the growth and prosperity of our country. This, Madam Speaker, is definitely not an easy task.
I am convinced that real progress in that field can only flow from redefining the legal relation between government and native people.
The Indian Act, very seldom amended since it was enacted in 1876, maintains native people in a situation of dependence on the state. It belittles both natives and non-natives.
Native leaders on the task force to which I referred a moment ago are expected to make their recommendations on that issue in the near future, so we are looking forward to unveiling the first of a series of amendments to the Indian Act early next year.

November 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
The ultimate objective is to prepare native people to assume their autonomy within the Canadian Constitution. Native people would thus be able to take control over the development of their communities, upgrade their social and educational systems, and acquire the economic infrastructures they need to live the kind of life which reflects their own culture.
Finally, when the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's future on the first of this month, he set in motion an in-depth review of the fundamental place and the role of native people in Canadian society, which happens to be the fourth phase of the federal government's plan of action.
This initiative gives native people an unprecedented opportunity to share their concerns and their hopes with the Canadian public and to insure that their ideas will be considered when we redefine the constitutional status of our country.
Much has passed since our honourable colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, introduced his motion. The government of Canada has clearly demonstrated, over the last few months, its will to find a resolution to the problems affecting the aboriginal people.
I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that the policy plan implemented by the federal government to deal with the problems of the aboriginal communities will be successful. My colleagues in the House will no doubt agree that a comprehensive program like the one proposed by the government is more appropriate than any initiative pertaining only to a single region or a single part of the country, as regards its representation in this humble assembly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 26,1990