1990-10-01

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the manner in which one of the Prime Minister's recent appointments to the other place, the Hon. Pat Carney, handled herself for openers.
She was asked by a journalist why she did not attend the initial ceremony. She replied that she was not going to drop everything to stand around with some people from the Italian community while they learned where the parliamentary bathroom is.
Her-


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment, I think that that goes beyond the clear rules of this place and I must say I ask the hon. member to desist.
I am going to go on and, if the hon. member wants to discuss it with me afterward, I would certainly be prepared to do so.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in its first environmental report the World Bank makes an important point: that destroying the environment means destroying a country's economy. Therefore, natural resources must be used more efficiently. The World Bank is putting together a global environmental facility, a fund to be financed by industrialized countries for projects that would improve the environment in developing countries.
Apparently Canada questions the need for such a fund. Contributing to this important fund would be a step toward resolving the desperate situation of many in the third world, particularly children. It is hard to take the Prime Minister's words on erasing child poverty seriously, while the Government of Canada withholds support for the new fund.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, figures released earlier this summer indicate Canada Post operated with a profit of $149 million during the fiscal year 1989-1990.
While on the surface this is good news, many Canadians are becoming increasingly disturbed that the corporation is gaining its success at the expense of those least able to afford it.
For example, effective August 1, the cost of renting post office boxes for Canadians residing outside municipal boundaries has risen from $26 to $50, an increase of almost 100 per cent.
Canada Post offers one free mode of delivery to every Canadian, but for many who live along rural routes-the elderly and the disabled, in particular-the work associated with maintaining rural delivery especially during the winter months simply is not an option. Consequently, for those people renting post office boxes in town is the only means by which regular mail delivery can be assured.
I call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to review this new fee schedule now.


BILL C-43
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has released results of its survey showing that 200 doctors, nearly one-third of all doctors performing abortions, will stop if Bill C-43 becomes law.

October 1, 1990
These doctors have told the Minister of Justice that they cannot function under punitive criminal legislation where their professional judgment can be attacked by criminal charges.
Many Canadian women in all regions of Canada now face extreme difficulties in obtaining abortions. Doctors have said Bill C-43 will only make matters worse. How can the Minister of Justice still proceed to recriminalize abortion? How can the Minister of Health allow access to medical care including reproductive choice to be eroded?
It is not too late. We call upon the government to abandon the abortion bill.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, strong families are the most fundamental support for children and children are the world's most precious resource.
The Prime Minister and all leaders who participated in the World Summit for Children are to be congratulated for focusing attention on the light of children. Canadians can be proud of the role our Prime Minister has played as co-chairman of this summit.
It is appropriate that during National Family Week, we should recognize the family as the most fundamental building block of this or any nation. If we, as a government and as a people, wish to ensure the future of our children, we must ensure the future of the family in our society.
Support for families is support for children.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, recent events, as well as those of the past summer, have once again shown the arrogance of this Conservative government and its complete disregard for the views and concerns of Canadians on issues of vital national concern.
The refusal of the government to recall Parliament this past summer to deal with the crisis at Kanesatake and Kahnawake, an issue of concern not only to aboriginal peoples but to all Canadians, is deplorable. It
indicates the government's contempt for Parliament and our democratic traditions.
In fact, the Wasauksing First Nation of the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka had to turn to me with its concerns when their own member of Parliament refused to listen to them. This is just one example among many of the arrogance of the Conservative Government.
Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the government will pay dearly in the next election for the lack of respect for the views of Canadians.


WORLD HABITAT DAY
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Habitat Day. As Canadians we must take time to reflect upon the ways in which we can help others, both here and abroad, in support of this United Nations effort.
In the developing world today, some 140,000 people will abandon their rural villages for an urban life, one that to them promises both employment and an improved quality of life. Unfortunately, the cities are unable to live up to their promises. A lack of homes forces the migrants into overcrowded squatters' settlements. For many nations the needs of these new arrivals go beyond the financial means of their governments.
Many countries have been successful and have had good experience in dealing with this crisis. The problem of shelter is a global one and therefore requires a united global effort. While most of these nations may not have the funds to help themselves, they do have the desire. We must couple this desire along with our knowledge and financial institutions to help the developing nations to help themselves.


JAMES BAY CREES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, James Bay Crees have disowned George Erasmus. The spokesman for the Grand Council of Quebec Crees believes that Mr. Erasmus is acting irresponsibly when affirming that the fight of native people against the James Bay II project will lead to acts of violence.
October 1, 1990

Lawyer Romeo Saganash, Cree Grand Council vice president stated: "If this project breeds violence it will not be on the part of the Crees". He went on to say: "We have always been and we will always be pacifists. We have given very strict instructions, particularly to our youth. We have met with them and explained the Grand Council's position in clear terms, reminding them that we are not violent people".
Mr. Speaker, James Bay Crees have won and lost legal battles in the past, but never did they resort to arms as a means of pressure. They are now fighting against Hydro-Quebec's power developments by attempting first to make the public aware of the environmental impact of the project.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr.Speaker, British Columbia's forests are in a crisis and this government is doing nothing to help us.
A high dollar, high interest rates, poor forestry practices, and the sellout of our forest to the U.S. government has created this crisis. Forest giant, Fletcher Challenge, has laid off 1,200 workers in the last year alone. Workers lose their jobs while a huge foreign company makes huge profits from our forests.
The federal Minister of Forestry sits silently, while the softwood lumber tariff allows the U.S. to run our forests. At the same time, he has failed to sign a forest agreement with B.C., despite his commitment to have signed one before the planting season this year.
The Conservatives and their Liberal friends have failed our farms, our forests, and our fish. It is time to change these policies. It is time for the New Democrats.
He *	*


THE SENATE
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is written in Proverbs that without a shepherd, sheep are not a flock.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary offers the following definitions of the word "sheep":
1. wild or domesticated-
-but otherwise-
-timid gregarious woolly often homed ruminant of genus Ovir; 2. bashful or docile person; -member of minister's flock, parishioner-
Last evening, Liberal Leader Jean Chretien is attributed to have said, in reference to Liberal members of the other place, and I quote: "They will do what I tell them to do." In view of his statement, can we conclude that Mr. Chretien is suggesting yet another definition, "Liberal senator" be added to the current definitions of the word sheep?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is probably appropriate that I remind hon. members of something. Some members may think I should have intervened, but I was not quite sure where it was going.
As I had to intervene with another member a few minutes ago, I remind hon. members of the following rule:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Famiiy, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.
That is the rule and I am going to ask all hon. members, especially given what is well known to Canadians as an issue of some importance to the country, that they keep that in mind in Members' Statements, Question Period, and in debate.
He He *


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a world grain surplus, worsened by the sanctions against Iraq, the United States has increased its Export Enhancement Program subsidy for sales to remaining markets such as Algeria, to more than $43 a tonne from $28 a tonne in early August.
Algeria is a major Canadian market for Durum wheat. Canada's sales last year to Algeria totalled $125 million, approximately half the value of those we ship to Iraq. However, because of the increased subsidy offered by the United States, we could lose other markets similar to our reported loss of sales to the Philippines. The Philippines used to obtain one-third of its annual 1.2 million tonne of wheat requirements from Canada, but

October 1, 1990
Oral Questions
this year it filled that order through the United States subsidized program, the Export Enhancement Program.
We now learn that in September the United States Senate has passed legislation in total violation of section 701.4 of the free trade agreement, with the intent to trump up justification for further increases in its Export Enhancement Program.
I call on the government now either to retaliate against this flagrant violation of the free trade agreement or to scrap it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before the Prime Minister and his government went ahead and packed the Senate with the eight additional senators for the purpose of getting the GST through and forcing it on Canadians, we urged the Prime Minister not to proceed until court challenges that were to be begun by various provinces had been dealt with by the courts.
The Prime Minister went ahead in any event. The court challenges are still there. There is a breech of section 51 of the Constitution because there are more senators than there are MPs in New Brunswick. Also, there is an inequitable representation even by divisions because the divisions do not include Newfoundland and the territories. Will the Deputy Prime Minister proceed to have the matter cleared up right away and refer this whole question to the Supreme Court of Canada without any delay? Does he not realize that if this is not done, anything the eight additional senators touch will be tainted irrevocably by this government's mishandling of the whole situation?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the issues which he appears to raise with respect to section 51(a) are non issues. There is no question that I am now prepared to give a firm position on the part of the government that section 51(a) does not apply to appointments made under section 26, which are divisional
appointments. Therefore, I would like to reassure him that his concerns are unfounded.
The only thing that taints what is happening in the Senate is their disregard for decades of constitutional convention about the supremacy of the House of Commons on fiscal management.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice with all her power has not yet replaced the courts of this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Right on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice has not stated any grounds for her answer. I challenge her once again to have this matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. I point out to her that if she looks at section 23(3) of the Constitution Act, it says in part that a senator shall own lands "within the province for which he is appointed of the value of $4,000."
Subsection (5) states: The senator, and I quote:
-shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed.
The section does not say that it is enough if the lands are owned in the division for which he is appointed. It does not say it is enough if a senator is resident in the division for which he is appointed. This is a further indication that this government has proceeded improperly and that the taint of its actions will be removed only if there is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. If it believes its position is right, why will it not get that approval of the court today?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will recall from his own legal training, I am sure, there is a provision in statutory interpretation where the requirements or the circumstances relating to one part of a statute are applied and expressed mutatis mutandis to other circumstances to make them consistent with the meaning of the whole statute.
I think it is certainly clear that section 26 will be interpreted to require senators appointed as divisional senators to hold property in the division in which they are appointed. I would like to say to the hon. member that I have no intention as Minister of Justice of usurping the courts. It is unfortunate that the Senate of Canada now appears to be taking unto itself the preroga-
October 1, 1990

tive of usurping the people of Canada and their mandate granted through the election of 1988.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
Minister of Justice is concerned with the views of the people of Canada. If that is the case, why will she and the government not listen to the people of Canada who say they do not want the GST.

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada announced today that the advanced composite index which points to expected economic trends is down for the sixth month in a row. According to Statistics Canada, "such a series of six decreases has always been followed by a recession".
So I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister why he is bent on imposing the GST when the statisticians of his own government are forecasting a recession. Why not admit this evidence and why does he insist on implementing the GST and thus worsen the recession created by his own policies?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, possibly the hon. Leader of the Opposition would let the House in on why he and his party are supporting the Senate in holding back, for example, the unemployment insurance bill, which will provide for increased maternity benefits, which will provide for unemployment insurance benefits to be payable to those who are still in the labour force over age 65, which will also allow for about $500 million of increased moneys for training so that people who are out of a job can get some training to allow them to get back as more effective members of the labour force.
If the hon. member is so concerned about the leading indicators and the outlook for the economy, what he should be doing is seeking support from the people in the Senate to get on with the job of bringing in legislation which will help this economy.


Some hon. members:: It's a bad bill.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Prime Minister presided over the vital
Oral Questions
world issue of children's rights. Among the world's goals for the year 2000 is universal access to basic education which, of course, endorses literacy.
Given the fact that books have never been taxed in Canada, that the Canadian government's own studies prove that taxing reading cuts access to learning and that Canadians have said do not tax reading, my question to the Minister of Finance is this. Can the minister explain this contradiction of endorsing children's right to education on the world stage on the one hand, while taxing children's reading at home?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the most vital elements to improving our record on literacy is improving education. Education is not taxed under the GST. If libraries want to buy books, those books are not taxed.
We have put in place a broad based consumption tax which does not try to make decisions for individual people. It allows those decisions to be made by the people themselves. There is a low income goods and services tax credit to be paid by cheque four times a year which fully offsets the impact of the GST on low income people. In fact, those people who are earning less than $30,000 will be better off after the GST. In other words, they will be in a better position to spend more money on books, if that is what they so wish.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad this minister does not recognize the regressiv-ity of this tax, particularly on low income people and working families.

The federal government and the government of Quebec, where the illiteracy rate is one of the highest in this country, both claim that literacy is a priority. Once the GST kicks in in Quebec a book now selling for $22 will soon cost almost $31. Again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance: Why does he refuse to withdraw the GST right now before books and reading become the exclusive privilege of the wealthy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it really puzzles me as to why this hon. member continues to say that the GST is regressive.


Sheila Finestone: It is.

October 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If she would take the smirk off her face, I would give her the answer.
The goods and services tax, together with the totally integrated GST credit, results in an impact on low income people that is not regressive, far from it, it reverses the regressive form of sales tax that we have in place today. That is one of the fundamental elements of the GST credits.
The hon. member is shaking her head as if she does not understand. I am sorry, but if she will come and spend some time with me, I will take her through this so that she will understand that the GST is not a regressive tax.
Let me just make one other point. In the context of the book publishing review, the policy review that my colleague, the Minister of Communications has under way, we are prepared to address all of these issues, but in a much more comprehensive way than my hon. friend is seeking to do right now.


THE SENATE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
She has assured the House that everything is fine in terms of the appointment of the eight senators, that everything is constitutional.
One of her predecessors as justice minister said the same thing in 1981. The then justice minister, Jean Chretien, said that the 1981 package was fine, until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
In light of that precedent and in light of the fact that we now have legal experts such as the Dean of Law at Queen's University and her former colleague, the Attorney General of British Columbia, saying that this action is illegal and that Parliament itself might not be properly constituted, will she now change her mind, do the right thing, refer this to the Supreme Court and not make the same mistake that Jean Chretien made in 1981?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take it to the Supreme Court because I think it is clear on the face of reading the Constitution that there is not a constitutional issue.
I have heard a lot of interesting debate, and there are certainly a lot of members of the legal profession who are strong supporters of the NDP who are providing it with political arguments, if not very good legal arguments.
I think that is fair game, but I would remind the hon. member of the legality of legislation passed in the Senate. I would remind the hon. member that just recently the election of a member of the House of Commons was declared to be invalid. That did not serve to invalidate everything that had been done by the House of Commons when that person sat here.
I admire the NDP for having enthusiastic supporters who are trying to give it legal arguments, but I am sorry. I know why it is looking for a smokescreen. It is trying to find some issue to hide behind the unconscionable position that it is taking in support of an unelected Senate in defiance of its own position, an unelected Senate which is up-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is dreaming of.
I have not heard of the British Columbia Attorney General being an enthusiastic supporter of the NDP.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the member and the minister.
If the member will put the question, I am sure the minister will try to answer it.


An hon. member:: Are there any good Tory lawyers for hire?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact that there is already a court challenge, in light of the fact that there are very serious constitutional people in this country saying: "What happened is it is wrong and unconstitutional", that Parliament itself might indeed be improperly constituted, I want to ask the minister very seriously: What is she afraid of? Why does she not end the confusion? Why does she not end the chaos and refer this, right now, to the Supreme Court?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the current incumbent as Attorney General of British Columbia is not a lawyer.
All the participants and the decision to use section 26 had independent legal advice. I am confident that the position of the government is correct. The only thing that frightens me is the distressing reversal of the NDP's

very principled position over the years and its joining with the Liberals to support the usurpation of the power of the people of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister is sounding more and more like Jean Chretien from 1981.
In light of that, I want to go to the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for the government in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Since the government is afraid to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, since the government is not going to rescind the nomination of those eight senators and since the government will not withdraw the GST, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister will make sure the government does the right constitutional thing and have the Prime Minister go to Government House, see Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn, ask him to dissolve Parliament and let the people of Canada decide.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the last time the hon. member stood in this place and asked for that they did not like the result. They may not like the result when the election is called in due course this time.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Automobile Association has again joined the ranks of those condemning the stupidity of the government's GST.
The Minister of National Revenue has told the CAA's members that they do not have to pay the GST when they renew their 1991 membership. On the other hand, he has told the CAA it must pay GST on a portion of these memberships after January 1. This leaves the CAA with the horrendous cost of going back to 3.5 million members to collect anywhere from 50 cents to $2.40 in GST.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that the ramrod timetable of this government is causing havoc in the
Oral Questions
marketplace? Will he scrap the September 1 starting date or, indeed, will he scrap the GST altogether?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a case here of selective amnesia by the hon. member.
If she would reflect on the fact that the price of an automobile will go down $700 or $800 for a $20,000 car as a result of the GST and not just focus on one side of the GST, she would realize that this is a veiy good tax as far as the automotive industry is concerned.
What we are seeing in the questions of the last few minutes is an attempt on the part of the Liberals to deflect the fact of what is going on in the Senate. I remind them of what is being said in editorial pages across the country: time to end the obstruction; the Liberal senators should call it quits; Liberal senators are not acting in the spirit of democracy; senators' shenanigans are intolerable; Senate gains, democracy loses; surgery needed to save-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West on a further question.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me and to all taxpayers of Canada that what the minister is trying to do is deflect attention from his tax to another place. We are not talking about a bill that 85 per cent of Canadians do not want. We are talking about directions coming directly from this government.
The minister says that from September 1 business has to advise its consumers that they will be charged taxes on services after January 1, if the GST becomes law.
Will the minister please tell us what law obliges businesses to do anything about the GST, or is the government now ruling by presidential decree?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is what is at stake in this country. We are talking about some of the fundamental principles of democracy.
What I might refer the hon. member to is a column by William Thorsell wherein he says: "We are all trustees of profoundly important democratic principles. As trustees, we simply cannot abandon those principles." What Mr. Thorsell is saying is that it is not just the issue of the day

Oral Questions
that we are talking about, but we are talking about a fundamental issue that affects all of us in this House of Commons.
If the GST goes through and Canadians do not like it, they can vote this government out.


Some hon. members:: They will.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But, if the tactics of Senator MacEachen and the other Liberal senators are followed and they win the day, what can Canadians do with Mr. MacEachen? Nothing. They have no recourse. They have no way of expressing their point of view on what the position of the Senate should be because they are unelected.
That is the fundamental principle, and the questions that the Liberal Party is trying to pose there will not and cannot deflect from that fundamental principle.


BY-ELECTIONS IN THE RIDINGS OF YORK NORTH AND BEAUSEJOUR
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
When does he intend to call a by-election in the ridings of York North and Beausejour?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has left the people of York North without an elected representative since May 29 last. Previously the Prime Minister has taunted the Liberals to get their leader elected. The MP for Beausejour has resigned his seat believing that the Prime Minister was serious.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now put his money where his mouth is and have the Prime Minister call an immediate election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are
anxious to get the leader of the Liberal Party into the Chamber because-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is, if he can get here. We are getting a little sick and tired of the leadership that is being provided from the other place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the Prime Minister, during his speech at the children's summit, said: "And to the children, I invite you to listen carefully to what we say and in the coming years to hold us to our commitments. I hope none of us will be found wanting".
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us and the one in six children in Canada living in poverty just what this government's agenda or timetable is to meet and comply with the UN Convention on Children's Rights?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this question. The summit, which was held under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada this weekend, was the most successful summit of its kind in the history of the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Beatty:: We are taking action as of now. I am pleased to be able to inform the House of Commons that consistent with recommendation No. 1 of Mr. Rix Rogers' report, the Prime Minister today asked me to co-ordinate activities within the government relating to children in response to the declaration on behalf of children at the United Nations. Second, and in response to recommendation No. 2 of Mr. Rix Rogers, I am announcing today the creation of a children's bureau within Health and Welfare Canada to assist us in doing that.
We are committed to full ratification of the convention. We will have that done before the end of next year. Our goal is to ensure that all legislation in Canada complies with the convention itself, which will enter into Canadian law.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the menu was veiy nice. The food banks would like to have had that kind of surplus. I also
October 1, 1990

understand that the statements the minister just made about what is going to happen are very nice.
The Prime Minister also stated in his speech: "Funding is important but it is not, in the end, the decisive factor in the war on child suffering. Political will is".
Would the minister explain the political will that gave us no child care program, clawbacks to family allowance, and a failure to act to protect children from child abuse to this point? Statements are not good enough. We would like to see some action. Is this the political will of which the Prime Minister speaks?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting contrast between the cynicism that is exhibited by hon. members opposite and the tremendous optimism that was shown in New York at the world's largest summit of its kind ever in the history of mankind. In the days-


Ms. Mitchell:: How many years have we been asking for action?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, they ask a question, but they do not allow me to answer.
In today's The New York Times Dr. Robert E. Black, the chairman of the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, said it was: "a significant achievement, a great event, to bring all of these world leaders together to talk about a very important issue". Indeed it was, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member asked about political will. It was indeed this government which showed the political will and the leadership to ensure that some 260,000 Canadian children have been able to escape from the low income cutoff since we came to office.
The Liberals talk. We want to see leadership on their part. Today the Liberal Senators are blocking about half a billion dollars in parental leave benefits and the unemployment insurance reforms that are currently sitting before the Senate.


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


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, last March I advised the Minister of Transport that Mr. Peter Lush, chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, was in gross conflict of interest in that Mr. Peter Lush while chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission was also acting as a real estate broker in the sale of $10 million worth of property to the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
The minister promised to investigate. Mr. Lush promised to sever any business ties in the sale of the land.
Why did the Minister of Transport make the statement when, as I learned today, Mr. Lush was in fact paid $400,000 in commission?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend raised this matter last March, the investigation was in fact carried out and at that time there was no suggestion that there was any conflict of interest. It was looked at very carefully.
My hon. friend has just brought another allegation to the floor of the House of Commons. I will investigate that one too.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
I warned the minister six months ago of this conflict. The government did nothing. In my possession is an internal company memo documenting the $400,000 payment to Mr. Lush who was appointed by the Tory government as chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he immediately remove Mr. Lush as chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, that he relieve the Minister of Transport of his responsibilities, and that he call the RCMP in to investigate the sale of the land to-


Mr. Speaker:: I patiently went through that question up until the last part. That is a clear allegation of criminal wrongdoing and it just is not appropriate in Question Period. The minister does not have to answer.

Oral Questions


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of public record that the Minister of Transport undertook to investigate the allegations, the warnings of the member for Hamilton West six months ago. It is a matter of public record that Mr. Lush, chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, publicly declared that he was severing all business ties in the sale of land from J. I. Case to the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
I now quote from the comptroller's memo at J. I. Case: "Mr. Lush negotiated with Corporate Reality, Mr. Dish-man, a fee of $400,000 as a consulting fee which was approved by Mr. Ashford. My staff did not know about it for forecast purposes. It was not included in the forecast. Please adjust accordingly."
That memo is dated August 28. The $400,000 was paid to Mr. Lush on August 3. We have spoken, both the member for Hamilton West and I, to the company's lawyer this morning and the payment was confirmed of $400,000.
Given these facts, will the Deputy Prime Minister move immediately to dismiss Mr. Lush-and these are facts-as chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago to relate facts to allegations.
That is an unfair allegation against a citizen of this country, made on the floor of the House of Commons where he or she cannot represent themselves. I thought better of the hon. member, but I will look into it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lush in question was the owner of a reality company that was the exclusive listing agent for J. I. Case in the sale of $10 million of land to the Hamilton Harbour Commission. The same Mr. Lush was chairman and is chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission. Mr. Lush cannot be both the agent negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada and the agent selling on behalf of private interests.
These are facts. If the minister who promised to investigate six months still refused to move, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: remove this minister today.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I looked into my hon. friend's allegations last March and found them to be untrue. I will look into them today and I will bet the same answer stands.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has known since February of this year that His Holiness the Dalai Lama, an internationally respected religious leader, advocate of non-violence, peace, and human rights and the 1989 winner of the Nobel peace prize, would be visiting Canada at this time to open the Canadian tribute to human rights monument.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now recognize that the people of Canada feel a sense of embarrassment and anger that the Prime Minister has refused to see this respected religious leader and will the he now call upon the Prime Minister to meet with the Dalai Lama?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the Dalai Lama as an eminent religious leader who has always been an ardent defender of values we hold dear, namely human rights and world peace. We are glad he has been able to come to Canada and share with many Canadians those fundamental values we respect. The Secretary of State met the Dalai Lama yesterday afternoon, because the government has a keen interest in the issues that are uppermost in his mind. We are pleased with the outcome of this meeting.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of meeting with the Secretary of State. It is a matter of fundamental respect on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada. And now for my supplementary. Today, I intend to move, at the appropriate time, a motion that the House of Commons give the Dalai Lama a hearing. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: will government members support this motion? Will they let the Dalai Lama be heard before the House of Commons?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I think I was very clear about our
October 1, 1990

respect for this eminent religious leader and his international reputation as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
As I said earlier, my colleague met the Dalai Lama yesterday afternoon, and I also know that tomorrow afternoon he will have a meeting with the Standing Committee of the House on External Affairs. I think parliamentarians will be delighted with this opportunity to meet him and hear what he has to say about human rights and maintaining those values we hold so dear.


FLOW-THROUGH SHARES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Flowthrough-share financing for the Quebec mining industry has dropped from $532 million in 1987 to probably less than $50 million this year.
My question is this: Will the federal government raise the level of flow-through shares from 100 to 133 per cent? If not, how does it intend to help junior mining companies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest that the hon. member has shown in the issue of flowthrough shares. I might say to him that the drop in mining exploration is not entirely related to this one issue. There is a very real problem in the mineral markets in the world today and this has caused, in large extent, the slowdown in mining exploration in Canada.
In the tax reform of 1987, we did recognize the importance of the mining industry. The mining sector itself has one of the lowest rates of taxation both for new investment as well as average effective tax. We also recognized, with some special provisions, the important role that prospectors play in the mining exploration process.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As was just mentioned, today we are honoured to have
Oral Questions
with us on Parliament Hill the Dalai Lama of Tibet, the winner of the 1989 Nobel peace prize and one of the world's great spiritual leaders.
When the Dalai Lama met with the Secretary of State yesterday, I understand he asked the Canadian government to support his five-point peace plan with China, which includes respect for the fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms of the Tibetan people. Would the minister tell us what reply the government gave to the Dalai Lama and is the government willing to support his five-point peace plan?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I was very honoured and pleased to have the opportunity to meet yesterday with the Dalai Lama. It was a very moving and inspirational afternoon.
The member is correct. His Holiness did reiterate the five proposals that he has made on two separate occasions, I believe, in 1987 and 1988. I assured him that I would be relaying his interest and the dedicated manner in which he brought them forward to the members of my government.
We then proceeded to the unveiling of a tribute to human rights. It was a very moving afternoon. We had many Canadians participating in an examination of what our future vision of a world where human rights are not violated, can really be. I was thrilled to have the honour of representing the government on this occasion.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer as to whether or not the government will support the five-point peace plan proposed by the Dalai Lama and in particular, a respect for the basic fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people.

Mr. Speaker, the five-point peace plan advocated by the Dalai Lama proposes as well a stop to the transfer of Chinese people to Tibet and the designation of Tibet as a peace and no-violence zone. Is the government prepared to accept the Dalai Lama's proposals? Is the government prepared to discuss them with the Chinese government at the earliest opportunity?

October 1, 1990
Oral Questions


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The Dalai Lama did make his point, Mr. Speaker. He reiterated what the hon. member has just said. His Holiness certainly spoke with compassion, dignity and respect for mankind. He is fully aware of what we are trying to do in this country. I had an opportunity to enlighten him on our new initiatives. We also talked about next December's conference which will provide a forum to debate human rights throughout the world, including Canada.


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. A StatsCanada report released Thursday indicated that between 1988 and 1989 the number of sexual assaults had risen by 6 per cent.
The last budget cuts in funding for women's programs have left women support services spending their time scrounging for funds when they should be fighting violence and counselling victims.
When will the government reinstate crucially needed funds to fight this type of violence?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the concern about the rise in sexual assaults against women and children. Every effort must be taken by federal and provincial governments and local organizations.
I would like to say that it was this government that introduced the $40 million family violence program just a few years ago, $22 million of which has gone into Project Haven to provide the kind of support and shelters for women who seek safe places when they have become victims of violence.
I visited a number of these projects over the summer and they are providing excellent support. I know we are going to be able to continue our work in this direction.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chiefs of Police have reported that violence is
definitely on the increase as a result of forced program cuts caused by funding constraints.
I am well aware of Project Haven, but there are many preliminary programs that have to be put into place prior to Project Haven. Is this not proof enough that the funding should not only be fully reinstated but increased?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is a very important one indeed.
I can indicate to the hon. member that the government is currently considering a range of initiatives, dealing particularly with the whole field of family violence involving child sexual abuse. We have the Rix Rogers report before us at the present time.
In addition to that, we are looking at the follow-on with regard to the family violence program. We are absolutely convinced that this is an initiative which is essential in our society. We will take every appropriate measure to do what we can to reduce this sort of violence in Canada.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
The minister is aware that representatives of visible minorities, aboriginals, disabled and women's groups met as a national employment equity network this past weekend. We hope the government will provide a public response as soon as possible to its main positive recommendations for action that will improve employment equity in both the public and private sectors.
Since Secretary of State funding was promised and then refused late Friday afternoon-as a result many low-income people are having considerable hardship and must have their expenses covered-will the minister reconsider and provide funds for this important conference of employment equity target groups?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of an application by 11 of the groups in the network on Thursday morning.
October 1, 1990

I might add that those 11 groups already receive $3 million of funding from the Secretary of State, over $2 million in core funding and almost $1 million in project funding.
It became an administrative decision. We fund thousands and thousands of projects, all of them very useful in promoting equality and social justice.
We cannot possibly fund everything that we are requested to fund. Unfortunately, this was one of those occasions where we had to say no. We felt it would still proceed within the $3 million already made available.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, saying no at five o'clock Friday to groups that have been promised additional funding for special projects when their general funding was cut seems to me quite irresponsible and does not show a commitment to employment equity on the part of this government.
There were two emergency resolutions which I understand were put forward in addition to the general resolutions that will come later. Will the government ensure that the planning for PS-2000, which will include consultation with employment equity target groups so that the hiring will be mandatory in the restructuring of the Public Service and be mandatory to include employment equity?
Also, will the minister investigate complaints that aboriginal employees in the Public Service are experiencing harassment?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very actively looking at this particular file concerning civil service 2000, and particularly the area of equity.
We have received reports from 10 different task forces. We have put out a preliminary report that is being looked at by the unions, and I can guarantee her that I am very preoccupied with this particular aspect. Certainly, I will be able to report on it shortly.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations.
Oral Questions
As was mentioned before, this weekend at the summit for children the Prime Minister said that political will is a decisive factor in the war on child poverty. In contrast, the United Nations children's fund, one of the main organizers of the summit calculates that an additional $2.5 billion a year is needed to save millions of children's lives over the next decade.
I would like to know what additional financial resources this government is going to contribute to meet UNICEF goals for the next decade. Children cannot eat political will.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the government acknowledges that the future of our planet depends on the children of the world. My colleague would know that for years now CIDA programs have given priority to the health and elementary level education of mothers and children. Over the last five years we have directly and indirectly allocated $1.8 billion to children.
My colleague probably knows that in 1970 only 5 per cent of children had been vaccinated against the six basic diseases and that the current rate is up to 70 to 75 per cent. Canada did more than its share by allocating $140 million in the past few years.
Surely my colleague will admit that this is a firm government commitment. We have programs and will continue to implement them while giving priority to Third World children.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We begin National Family Week, but the sad reality is that hundreds of thousands of children and their families in the country experience deplorable poverty and the mortality rate among our native Canadians is twice the national average.
The government is able to give us irreversible dates for such things as GST legislation implementation and the Meech Lake Accord. Is the government ready to announce today a specific date for the ratification of the

Privilege
Convention on the Rights of the Child and a concrete timetable to eliminate our own shameful child statistics?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the first point that needs to be made is that since 1984 when this government came to office, some 260,000 children have escaped from the low-income cut-offs. I believe that we have done well in Canada, but I believe that we can do better not as long as any child lives in poverty, it should be be acceptable in a civilized society.
I can indicate to the hon. member that our commitment is to move for ratification of the convention by the end of 1991. Today, the Prime Minister assigned to me responsibility for co-ordinating the government's response to the UN summit. I will be placing before my Cabinet colleagues proposals which will help us to move ahead on issues related to the health of children, the social well-being of children, child sexual abuse and a whole range of other issues that are of concern to every Canadian.
Most importantly, at the present time legislation we have stalled before the Senate of Canada which would significantly improve parental leave and the hon. member's party could be exceptionally helpful in stopping the blockade of those important reforms for Canadian parents.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. I might say to the hon. member that I appreciate the fact that he has basically stated his question of privilege in his letter to me. I have some difficulty in accepting it as a question of privilege. I will hear the hon. member very briefly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. You are aware that there is now a court challenge about the way the Senators were appointed last week and that there are legal opinions that the appointment of the Senators may not be indeed legal or that Parliament itself might not be properly constituted.
My question of privilege is the following one, Mr. Speaker. In light of that uncertainty that we all know exists now in the country, I think there is confusion about what the roles of a member of Parliament may be. There
is now confusion about what the role of a parliamentarian might be in this House and as a result of that, I think some of my privileges might be threatened as a member of Parliament.
I think there is uncertainty about the laws that we are going to pass, important laws that concern the Hibernia debate that is taking place later on today and important laws that we are all concerned about such as the environmental assessment law and so on.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a precedent for this in our country. In Manitoba a few years ago in the Bilodeau case and the French language question, a private citizen challenged the legality of the Manitoba laws, and the court ruled that Manitoba laws were not legal. Those were laws that were passed in legislatures a long time ago, but they were deemed not to be legal by the courts of that particular day.
There is also a precedent in Saskatchewan where certain laws were deemed not to be legal-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be quite correct in citing some past court decisions. I am prepared to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary if necessary, but perhaps I can assist him by dealing directly with the application that the hon. member has made.
There may or may not be a great debate going on in the country with respect to certain matters that are constitutional in their nature. First, it is not for the Speaker of the House to rule on constitutional matters. It is not for the Speaker of the House to try to interpret at any given time different legal opinions that may be being expressed across the country.
The hon. member, who certainly knows the history of our country and understands the issue of which he speaks, nonetheless has asked the Speaker to consider it a question of privilege. He has been very frank with the Chair. He said that certain things here might not be legal. He talks about uncertainty. He talks about confusion of the role on the part of members of Parliament and he also says that some of his privileges may be infringed.
I have to say to the hon. member, and to all other hon. members, that no matter how much this may be a subject of debate in the country-or even in here at an appropriate time-it does not meet the fundamental test of privilege which is something happening, somebody doing something, or some people doing something which makes it impossible or very much more difficult for any single hon. member here to carry on the obligations
October 1, 1990

which they were elected to do. That is the fundamental test.
I have to say that under these circumstances, whatever the arguments may be, it does not meet that test and I have to with of course great respect reject the hon. member's application.


REMARKS DURING STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre was interrupted by me earlier today when he was making a statement pursuant to S. O. 31 and I understand that he wishes to rise on a question of privilege and of course I will hear him.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging the very large measure of responsibility that the Chair has for preserving order in the House in relation to S. O. 31s. But I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the statement that I had begun to make is an entirely proper one to be made in this place.
At the moment when you interrupted me, you may have anticipated, perhaps, that I was intending-if I can use the words of Standing Order 18-to use offensive words against a member of the other place, or that I was intending to reflect upon what was done in another place. Far from it, Mr. Speaker.
What I was doing was quoting one of the newly appointed Senators in the other place, the Hon. Pat Carney, and the words which were attributed to her by a journalist, showing the low regard that she has for members of the Italian community and I think-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege. The complaint now is that I may well have cut the hon. member off before I would have if I had heard the hon. member in entirety.
Again, it is difficult to say that that is a question of privilege. It may have been an error on the part of the Chair. I am going to listen to the argument but, please, I tell the hon. member that I did stop him from what could be taken to be an attack on a member of the Senate. I have some difficulty on this rule and the hon. member knows.
I would ask the hon. member to refrain from the attack and pursue the question of privilege.
Speaker's Ruling


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will be veiy brief, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted simply to quote her and then I wanted to urge her to show greater respect for members of other communities and for other Senators. That was the entire burden of what I wanted to say. I would certainly not have used it to attack the Senate. Indeed, the reverse. I wanted to make some high-minded statements about the role that the Senate plays and hope that the hon. member would do that. I would have then called upon her and the Prime Minister to apologize for the statements that she made and, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the place where that should be done.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, it was made veiy clear at the time that the hon. Senator did not make those statements. There were no quotes attributable to her. It was not a quoted statement by the minister, but in fact comments by a reporter in a paper. There were no quotation marks around it. There was no recording of that and she denies she ever said it.
I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member give the hon. senator the benefit of the doubt.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I must first say that I do not find that it is a question of privilege. It may well have been that the Chair moved too quickly in this case. I did not hear it all because, of course, I interrupted the hon. member.
Again, this is one of the difficulties that in an electronic age the Chair is plagued with. It is extremely difficult for me to divine ahead of time what everybody is going to say. Sometimes, if I think I know where somebody is going and I feel it may be going too far, I run the risk, of course, of moving in perhaps too pre-emptory way. However, the hon. member has raised the matter. I will do the very best I can on such matters. It is not a question of privilege. It is a point of order.
I must say to the hon. member, and to all hon. members, that I will do the very best I can in these circumstances.
On the question of the other place, I have reminded hon. members today of what the rule is. Sometimes when certain issues are being discussed in the country and debated here, it may not be an easy rule to apply. I would

Speaker's Ruling
ask hon. members to do the veiy best they can to co-operate.
I have a further question of privilege from the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM BILL
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to Question Period, I would like to ask whether the following is a point of order or a question of privilege.
With respect to Bill C-21 which is now before the Senate, in my riding, the Gaspe, the lower St. Lawrence, the Magdalen Islands and in fact throughout the Mari-times including Newfoundland, people have a problem with the 10 to 14-week requirement.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to explain that as a result of unemployment insurance reform, 90 per cent-and the figures can be checked-in other words, the vast majority wants us to change this. We don't necessarily want to be stuck with supporting 10 weeks forever, but we are having a difficult time this year, with the bill being blocked in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but this is not a question of privilege and probably not even a point of order. It certainly raises a point against the other place, but a debate on the subject is not appropriate at this time.
The hon. member raised a subject that is of course very important, especially to the hon. member, but there are other ways in which the hon. member and other members who might wish to do so can ask for clarification or make a statement on the issue.


AGREEMENTS IN THE HOUSE
Mr. Francois Germ (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Associate Minister of National Defence tabled a motion under Standing Order 78(3), stating it had been impossible to reach an agreement under Standing Orders 78(1) and (2).
In fact, it was impossible because the minister never got in touch with me, as a member of this House, to find out whether there was some way to reach an agreement.
I maintain that the minister acted against the spirit and the intent of the Standing Orders of this House and that consequently, the Chair should reject the notice out of hand, on the grounds of failure to respect the democratic freedoms of the members of this House, including the member from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a veiy interesting point. However, perhaps the Chair may point out that several months ago, we had the same problem regarding the same Standing Order. I think I would have to say it is not up to the Chair to investigate all deliberations, conversations and meetings that took place among all members before the minister made her statement under the Standing Orders. What we have here is a grievance, not a point of order.
Does the hon. member have another point to raise?


Mr. Gerin:: Your comments are well taken, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to add a few words and mention the serious problems that exist in the House at this time. As an independent, I have the same rights as any other member in this House. However, since you refuse to recognize our group as such, we are faced with a problem that will resurface every day. I suggest Mr. Speaker, that you-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may or may not have a complaint, but if the hon. member has a problem with respect to the House business and it is something over which I have jurisdiction, I would be very pleased to speak with the hon. member. But I think it is important for everyone in the country to realize-everybody who is watching and listening-if we go back over last week, the group from which the hon. member comes was recognized a number of times in Question Period with questions and also on statements. I have made it very clear that with the Speaker, there is a long and noble tradition of our system, that the Speaker must defend the interests of minorities.
Within this Chamber now, there is not just one minority, there are a number of minorities. I have to do
October 1, 1990

the veiy best I can to keep that in mind and to treat all hon. members in a fair and equal way, and I shall certainly try to do that.
If the hon. member is having difficulty in discussions with any party in the House, I invite him to seek out members of whatever party it is and to have discussions. If the hon. member has a complaint that, for whatever reason, he or others are not being allowed a fair chance to express themselves in this House, I invite the hon. member and any other member to come and see me, and I will deal with it as best I can.
The hon. member actually rose on a point of privilege. It is probably a point of order. I have explained that I had to deal with that matter many months ago. The hon. member has risen again and I have at least allowed him to say something which perhaps he ought to take up in some other way with ministers or with his colleagues.
I am going to proceed with Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian parliamentary delegation that attended the conference on The Transition to Democracy in Contemporary Europe in Warsaw, Poland from May 29 to June 4, 1990, has the honour to present its report.


PETRO-CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
John Horton McDermid: for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada.


Mr. Gauthier:: Shame. Shame.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Shame. Shame. No, absolutely not.


Mr. Cooper:: Absolutely shocking.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the first time and printed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


PENITENTIARY ACT
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act (visit to penitentiaries).
He said: Mr. Speaker, some years ago the Penitentiary Act was changed so as to deprive members of a right to visit at their pleasure in federal penitentiaries. This bill seeks to restore that right to members of Parliament, that is members of this House and members of the other place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Routine Proceedings HOUSE OF COMMONS

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion inviting His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, an international respected religious leader and human rights and peace advocate, to address the House of Commons as he has addressed the European Parliament in the past.


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


Some hon. members:: No.




Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present in the House of Commons a petition signed by residents of Montreal who strenuously object to the GST and who ask this House, as they asked the hon. member for Mount Royal, to vote against the GST as soon as the bill comes before the House of Commons.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people in Mississauga, Markham, Toronto, Don Mills, Ajax and many other places across Ontario. These people are very concerned that magazines, books and newspapers will be taxed under the GST. This has never been done by a federal government since Confederation.
The petitioners state that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society should not be affected by the GST. Therefore, these many people have re-affirmed their stand against the GST. A government is not interested in education that levies taxes against magazines, books and newspapers.

October 1, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from people in Alberta and the city of Toronto with regard the government's plan to impose a tax on magazines, books and newspapers.
These people feel that we should reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word by retaining a zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House further petitions supporting the previous petitioners who are saying that since Confederation the government has not applied taxes to magazines, books and newspapers.
They humbly ask the government to go back to the drawing board and withdraw the GST tax from such items.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal. She has put together a petition with 37 signatures from people in Fredericton, Wainwright, Alberta and Toronto, Ontario. The concern of those who have signed the petition is that since Confederation the governments of Canada, whichever party, has not seen fit to apply any taxes to magazines, books and newspapers-the printed word-until now. It has been decided that the GST will apply to the printed word.
The petitioners see this as a tax on reading and they humbly call upon Parliament to reject this and to retain the zero rate in GST legislation regulations.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition of 50 signatures has been obtained on the initiative of my colleague from Mount Royal. They pray to Parliament that the GST be withdrawn, particularly because a tax on books and the printed matter is a tax on literacy and therefore unconscionable in the history of Canada.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by a number of residents from Vancouver, British Columbia. They are opposed to the goods and services tax and they ask, please, that the government open its heart and mind and
go back to the drawing board because they are opposed to this tax, especially as it applies to reading material.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. I too have the honour of presenting petitions from residents across Canada. They are objecting to the government placing a tax on reading materials.
As a former educator for almost 30 years, I find it horrifying that at a time when we wanted to increase literacy, here is a government that wants to tax the printed word.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in the House of Commons signed by citizens of Mississauga, Scarborough, Aurora, Oakville, North York, Toronto, Brampton, and so on.
These people are sending a very clear message to the Minister of Finance who made that decision to tax books. They want to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in free tax status for the printed word by retaining a zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with some 50 signatures. These citizens of Canada call for the maintenance of the historic principle embodied in the tax free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulation. The petitioners call for the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education, and a literate and productive society. And they point out it will be negatively impacted by the GST.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present these petitions.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Camrose and Stettler, Alberta, calling upon the government to recognize the integral role of the printed word in literacy education and free speech. The petitioners call upon the government to zero rate magazines, books, and newspapers in the GST legislation.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and to present five petitions from Canadians from across this beautiful country who are against the



%

October 1, 1990

GST; three petitions against taxing the printed word and two petitions against the GST and everything this dastardly tax stands for. All petitioners wish the bill withdrawn or axed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Mount Royal, I would like to submit several petitions collected in Edmonton, asking the Government of Canada and Parliament to relieve books and the printed word from the proposed general sales tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that on more than one occasion I have heard members presenting petitions on behalf of the member for Mount Royal. If I am not mistaken, the member for Mount Royal is in the House and I am just curious about this procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would bring to my colleague's attention that it is passing strange that no one on the other side of this House has heard from anybody. We have just heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who find it totally unacceptable that you are taxing learning, you are taxing reading.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions on behalf of many Canadians from the Ottawa area and from Saskatchewan. They all deplore the negative impact of the GST on the cornerstones of democracy, culture, education, literacy, all foundations of a literate and productive society. All of these will be affected negatively by the imposition of the GST on the printed word, on textbooks and a variety of other printed matter.
The petitioners call on us to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in a tax free status for the printed word by retaining a zero rate under GST legislation and regulations, if not the withdrawal of the GST altogether.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, primarily from residents of Mississauga pointing out that since Confederation, reading materials in this country have not been taxed and reminding Parliament that the uninhibited
Routine Proceedings
dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education, and a literate and productive society, and calling upon Parliament not to impose the GST.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present this petition to the House on behalf of people of Edmonton, Alberta, and Mississauga, Ontario, who detest this tax on literature. They request there be no GST on the printed word.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, while millions of Canadians are protesting the GST which is currently going through the legislature, I humbly present this petition under the leadership of the member of Parliament for Mount Royal. She has seen fit to organize Canadians, quite easily I might add, to suggest to the government that the GST not be applied on the written word, namely, on magazines, books and newspapers, as this would slight the cultural attribute of this great country.
I submit, Your Honour, petitions from Richmond Hill, North York, Toronto, Scarborough, and Pickering.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. The first is a petition that was circulated in the riding of York North. These petitioners humbly pray that the government comes to its senses and does not proceed with the goods and services tax as planned.
The second set of petitions, Mr. Speaker, were placed in all Ottawa public libraries and were signed by those who should know that a productive and democratic culture is based on the printed word. The petitioners object strongly to the imposition of the GST on books. I will read the prayer, Mr. Speaker: "The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations."


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too have several petitions that are duly certified. They are signed by people from various communities all across Canada objecting to the 7 per cent GST on books. These people, like most Canadians, object to the regressiveness of this

October 1, 1990
Routine Proceedings
tax. I do not think it is better illustrated anywhere in its regressiveness than when it is applied to books.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition also on the subject of the goods and services tax on books. These petitioners are opposed to this tax and call on the government to uphold the historic principle embodied in the tax free status for the printed word. Canada will be one of the very few countries in the world to tax books if this tax is imposed.
I note that this petition is signed by residents of the city of Mississauga who are represented in this House by among others, the hon. member for Mississauga South, who is on record as supporting this dreadful tax.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have a petition on behalf of constituents from Lac La Jeune, Paul Lake, Red Lake, Savona, Chase, West-wold, Little Fort, Clearwater, Barriere, Logan Lake and Kamloops. The petitioners are pointing out their concern for the government's decision to proceed with the goods and services tax in spite of the overwhelming opposition to it. They are asking, even at this late hour, for the government to reconsider continuing with the imposition of the GST, as it is known.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of constituents from Vancouver, Medicine Hat, Victoria, Oakville, Port Moody, Burnaby, Jasper, Winnipeg, Brantford, and even some communities in New Zealand-I guess they probably do not count though on the petition-are pointing out that Canada ought to be expanding their VIA Rail service as opposed to cutting back on it.
The petitioners are asking the government to reconsider this rather regressive move at a time when we should be moving people around Canada in the most environmentally friendly manner possible. They are asking a reconsideration of the decision to abandon much of VIA Rail.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, and again to join with many others in the House this afternoon, I have a petition indicating that the government plans to tax reading. I think this is the
only government in the world that taxes literature and children's story books, for example. The petitioners are saying that this is a rather peculiar policy to have at a time when we are trying to develop more literacy in the country and they are asking the government to reconsider applying a GST to reading material.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting petitions signed by hundreds of Canadians, including many of my constituents from Burnaby-Kingsway expressing their concern and their anger at this government's attempt to even at this point, despite the overwhelming opposition of Canadians, push through the goods and services tax. They urge the government reject the goods and services tax. They urge a meaningful reform of the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They demand that the government stop this proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.
I am sure that they speak for literally millions of Canadians in urging the government to stop the GST. Axe the tax.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition with another 477 names in support of more gun control legislation.
The Metropolitan Toronto Police have documented a 48.4 per cent increase in violent crimes between 1984 and 1989. The use of guns has increased by 51.9 per cent. This trend is evident in other parts of Canada.
My constituents and I think that gun control legislation is essential.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of residents of Delta, Langley, the south Fraser Valley, and other communities across Canada represented by my colleagues on the other side of the House. The petitioners bring to the attention of us all in the House the very serious concern about the imposition of the goods and services tax and the unfairness of that tax.
October 1, 1990

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would be happy to table this petition on behalf of my colleagues on the other side of the House.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House.
I should say I have just come back from a fascinating, extraordinary, and most moving ceremony this morning in Toronto just to be able to present these petitions.
First, these petitions deal with the cutbacks to VIA Rail which the government has carried forward. The petitions, which are signed by approximately 500 Canadians from right across the country, ask the government to reverse its position and to see to it that VIA Rail is in fact modernized and expanded, not cut.


Steven W. Langdon: Second, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which comes from Comer Brook, Newfoundland which deals with children's rights. The petition mentions particularly the sixth of Canadian children living in poverty.
The petitioners pray that the government supports the Private Members' Motion No. 254 calling on the government to negotiate with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children.


Steven W. Langdon: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a set of petitions which come from all parts of the country with respect to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners reject very strongly as unfair the goods and services tax, and request the House of Commons to reject the goods and services tax and the government to withdraw it. They suggest that instead there should be a system of fair taxation put into effect in the country.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table this petition on behalf of my colleague from Mount Royal, who collected hundreds of signatures in the Dundas area. Mr. Speaker, these people are very concerned about the tax on books and other publications,
Routine Proceedings
and they call on you to prevent the passage of this unfair tax, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to present a petition signed by many people in Ontario.
These people declare themselves to be opposed to the goods and services tax to the point where they call upon Parliament to reject the current proposals for a goods and services tax.
I should make it plain that this petition as written is addressed to Parliament.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to infer that these people, like millions of other Canadians, do not give two hoots if it is the Senate or the House that kills the GST.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which also calls upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.
This petition is signed primarily by people in Victoria and in the Victoria area, but also by people who have visited Victoria over the summer from all parts of Canada. I would call on the government to adhere to the petition.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from residents of Ottawa, Nepean and Iroquois Falls in Ontario.
The petitioners note that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins, and home-heating fuels and they point out that what we need is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, not the massive tax grab that is being proposed here. They say that what we should have is a tax proposal that will bring real tax reform, not this kind of reform.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons petitions from residents of Quebec who are opposed to the goods and services tax, particularly as it applies to books, newspapers, and magazines which have never before been taxed in Canada.
These people humbly pray that the government will eventually come to its senses and do away with the goods and services tax.

October 1, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the principle of the goods and services tax, I am in favour of exempting books and other publications. That is why I wish to table a petition from the riding of Mount Royal, asking that books and publications be exempted from this tax.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of tabling petitions on behalf of the hon. member for Mount Royal, signed by residents of the National Capital region who strenuously object to the GST on books and publications.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that I have the honour of tabling this petition because the hon. member for Mount Royal heeded the advice of her leader and went on a cross-Canada tour this summer.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite sure that I just heard the hon. member say that he was presenting a petition on behalf of the member for Mount Royal. I think the member for Mount Royal is a member of the Liberal Party which, I am sure, the people in Newfoundland would be really intrigued by right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to respond by saying that when the cause is noble, there is no place for political partisanship.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, just as my colleague from Essex-Windsor, had to rush back here from an experience of pure joy in Toronto. However, I did not take an airplane. I was wafted back to Ottawa by the pure turbulence created by loud hosannas all across Ontario.
I have two petitions, which have been duly certified, from the people of the eastern portion of Windsor who ask for a remedy from Parliament with respect to the expansion of the Detroit city airport. It has created an outrageous frequency of low overflights over that portion of Windsor at heights as low as 1,000 feet without an appropriate response from government.
The petitioners ask the government to do something on behalf of those citizens to protect their environment and their quality of life.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, this petition has been certified correct as to form and content, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
I support the GST, Mr. Speaker, but since citizens do not always have an opportunity to have their say in this House I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Besides, I for one have always been in favour of taxing everything and compensating according to various sectors of economic activity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition in the name of constituents of Mount Royal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 313 and 321.


Mr. Simmons: 1.	For (a) 1987 (b) 1988 (c) 1989, were legal services valued at more than $500 supplied to the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so, in each case, what were the nature and type of (i) security work (ii) litigation involved?
2.	Were guidelines used for selecting legal services for the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so, did these require (a) the calling of tenders (b) the inviting of proposals (c) the selection of lawyers or firms at random?

jg
October 1, 1990

3.	Can the government provide an analysis of the cost of hiring
outside legal services compared to maintaining an in-house legal
division within the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so,
what is it?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I am
informed by the Federal Business Development Bank (FBDB) and the Department of Justice as follows:
1.	In fiscal 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 the number of loans and investments authorized totalled 5,704, 5,581 and 5,144 respectively. There were in excess of 400 litigation matters in progress in each of those fiscal years.
In general, security is taken on the assets of the business financed and may include realty mortgages and/or debentures and/or chattel mortgages/Personal Property Security Agreements and guarantees in common law jurisdictions and hypotheques and/or commercial pledges and guarantees in Quebec. Litigation matters generally involve realization proceedings relating to the security given in support of a loan including foreclosures, actions on convenants and guarantees and priority disputes.
For additional information, please refer to the answer to question #197 tabled on February 23, 1990.
2.	FBDB instructs external legal counsel in accordance with the following policy:
Bank policy requires that "lawyers used by the Bank must have a good general reputation and known professional competence in the field in which their services are required, having particular regard to the quality of then-work, promptness and the reasonableness of their fees".
Bank policy provides that the borrower may designate his/her own lawyer/notaiy on loans under $200,000 and, as well, the borrower's lawyer/notary is designated where he/she referred the loan and/or was actively involved in the negotiations for the loan. Lawyers/notaries who prepared the security on an initial loan are instructed on superseding or supplementary loans to effect cost savings to the borrower. Given the Bank's mandate to assist small and medium size business enterprises, in excess of 80 percent of these mandates are directed to lawyers/notaries designated by the borrower.
Routine Proceedings
Litigation/realization, venture capital mandates and specialized corporate mandates are given to firms selected on the basis of perceived expertise/competence in the particular area of law involved.
3.	FBDB seeks to employ the most cost effective method possible in the provision of legal services relating to its activities. While maintaining a nucleus of internal expertise, external resources are utilized to the maximum extent possible. Loans and investments are authorized to customers across Canada out of 78 Branches, the majority in rural areas. It is the policy of FBDB to instruct external legal counsel in the area where the borrower and/or security is located. The use of external legal counsel is most cost effective for the Bank and the borrower, who is responsible for the cost of security preparation. FBDB has been able to effect in-house staff reductions by placing reliance on external counsel. Legal fees relating to realization/litigation proceedings are, generally speaking, added to the loan/investment account and are recoverable from the borrower.
The Bank may engage external legal counsel for specific mandates because of the specific expertise/competence required in the particular area of law involved.
At this time, The Attorney General of Canada has no analysis comparing the costs of providing legal services to the FBDB in relation to litigious matters through agents as opposed to inside counsel.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Out of the total number of Justice Canada employees, are any located in Quebec (exclusive of the National Capital Region) and, if so, what number?
2.	Out of the total number of Justice Canada employees (a) are any of them members of visible minorities and, if so, what number (b) are any of the Quebec employees (exclusive of the National Capital Region) members of visible minorities, and if so, what number?
3.	Does Justice Canada have a departmental Advisory Committee for Visible Minorities and, if so (a) what is its composition (b) are any of the members of this Committee members of visible minorities and, if so, what number (c) is there community representation on this Committee and, if so, what representation?
4.	In fiscal years (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, were any federally-appointed Crown prosecutors members of visible minorities and, if so (i) throughout Canada (ii) in Quebec, what number?

Routine Proceedings
5.	In fiscal years (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, were any federallyappointed judges (Superior Court or higher) members of visible
minorities and, if so (i) throughout Canada (ii) in Quebec, what
number?


A. Kim Campbell: 1. As of June 25, 1990, the Department of Justice had 1,942 indeterminate and term employees. Of these, 138 were located in the Montreal Regional Office, which is the only Department of Justice location in Quebec exclusive of the National Capital Region.
2.	(a) As of June 25, 1990, 44 employees of the Department of Justice had self-identified as members of visible minorities. This figure is based on voluntary self-identification and may not therefore accurately disclose the number of employees of the Department who are members of visible minorities.
(b) As of June 25, 1990, no employees of the Montreal Regional Office had self-identified as a member of a visible minority. This figure is based on voluntary selfidentification and may not therefore accurately disclose the number of employees of the Montreal Regional Office who are members of visible minorities.
3.	The Department of Justice has an Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities.
(a)	The Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities consists of a president, who is also a member of the Department's Employment Equity Steering Committee, a secretary and ten members. All of the members, including the president and secretary, are employees of the Department.
(b)	8 members of the Committee have self-identified as members of visible minorities.
(c)	See (a) and (b)
4.	In fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90, none of the persons appointed to a criminal litigation position in the Department of Justice identified himself of herself as a member of a visible minority.
The Attorney General of Canada does not inquire whether lawyers in private practice are members of visible minorities before determining whether to appoint them as her legal agents. No information is available as to whether any of the persons appointed as legal agents
of the Attorney General of Canada in fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were members of visible minorities.
5.	The Minister of Justice does not inquire whether lawyers and judges are members of visible minorities before determining whether to recommend their appointment as judges. No information is available as to whether any of the persons appointment as judges by the Governor General in fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were members of visible minorities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 285 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 285 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Catterall: 1.	In (a) the Department of Revenue (b) the Department of Finance (c) any other affected department, for any purpose relating to preparations for or implementation of the proposed Goods and Services Tax, have resources been engaged and, if so (i) what number and, in each case (ii) in what position (iii) on what level (iv) on what date?
2.	Were they engaged (a) by hiring on a (i) full-time indeterminate (ii) part-time indeterminate (iii) short-term (iv) temporary (v) contract basis (b) as external consultants (c) by secondment and, if so, in each case, from which other department or agency?
3.	For each function, what is (a) the (i) nature (ii) purpose of the work (b) the cost of the work, including all related costs (c) the location and costs of accommodation (d) the spending authority (e) the date of such authority?
[Editor's Note: See Sessional Paper No. 342-Q-285] [English]


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
October 1, 1990


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



POINT OF ORDER


François Gérin: After last Wednesday's Oral Questions Period, Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege and the Speaker asked me to defer the debate and to advise hon. members and other parliamentary leaders as to when debate would resume.
I believe it would be convenient to resume debate tomorrow after Oral Questions Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know why the hon. member is getting up at this time. We still have an application under S. O. 52 from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. His point has nothing to do with Orders of the Day.
I have to listen to the application under S. O. 52 from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. After that, if the hon. member would like to get up on a point of order, that is fine, but the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville has the floor.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 SENATE APPOINTMENTS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave you notice that I intended to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to ask that you consider adjourning the House for the purpose of discussing a matter that I believe is of urgent and pressing necessity at this time, namely, the events surrounding the nomination of the eight additional senators last week. I think they have left the people of the country quite confused and uncertain about the
Routine Proceedings
propriety of that act as it pertains to the Parliament of Canada.
I believe that this undermines the House of Commons and that we are now working under a cloud of uncertainty and a cloud of confusion. I believe that this is a crisis at this time-


Mr. Speaker:: I have been considering for some hours the application of the hon. member. I assure the hon. member that I have given it a great deal of consideration.
The point I am making at this moment is that applications for emergency debate should be brief, concise, and to the point. There is a reason for that. If the discussion strides into debate, under the Standing Orders, no other member in the Chamber can rise. That creates a situation in which one person has the floor, gets into debate, and there may be veiy grave differences of opinion as to what is being debated, but no other member can rise on the matter.
That is why we have the order and I know that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville understands that. I would ask him to complete his remarks very briefly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I had just completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker, as you were rising. I believe it is an urgent situation. There is a crisis in the land and the people want to see this issue before Parliament.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will remember that when the reform committee was dealing with the rules of this place, one of the recommendations was that a Speaker not give reasons when an application for an emergency debate was turned down. I have tried to follow that admonition most of the time. However, sometimes it is important that the public which is watching and listening understand something about what goes on in the Speaker's mind when trying to assess whether or not it is appropriate to adjourn all other business of the House and go into an emergency debate. One of the things that guides the Speaker is if there are any other avenues open to raise the issues which would be debated if there was an emergency debate.
The hon. member knows that the matter he raises has been the subject of comment in this House and in question period, and there will be further opportunities in the next number of days to raise the matter.
If an emergency debate is turned down, it does not mean that the matter is not an important matter. Many

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
matters here are important but they do not all, under the circumstances at any particular time, warrant adjourning the other business of the House to debate that matter.
I would ask the hon. member to understand that it would not be appropriate at this time to go ahead with the application. The hon. member does know that there are other avenues open to him to bring that matter to the House and, of course, to the government.
I thank the hon. member for giving me advance warning and especially the detail with which his letter dealt with the matter. It gave me a great deal of assistance and helped me to make the decision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-44, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and, one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expity of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise on this occasion to debate the motion. This is the first time I have been up to speak on the subject, and I am sure the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would support my 10 minutes, now approximately down to nine and a half minutes.
This is a motion that hurts me to agree with, but because we are involved, not just in Newfoundland, but in Canada, the first point I really have to make is that this is a Canadian project first and foremost. It is seen
and has been seen in the last few days of debate in the House as a project that primarily affects Newfoundland. In the sense that the gravity based structure is being built in my riding in Newfoundland, one of the modules will be built in my riding, and the oil is 200 miles southeast off Newfoundland, I suppose it could be looked at as a Newfoundland project.
Sixty-five per cent of this project will be achieved in Canada, which is more than double any project of this nature that has been done so far. I am making reference now to essentially the North Sea oil. We have made a lot of progress in that time.
Just for the record, here is what is going to happen. The design and construction of the Hibernia project, which is the largest energy development in Canadian history, will provide important new business opportunities, challenges and items for the skills of Canadians and take them to the leading edge of technology, not just in Newfoundland, but the whole of Canada.
The oil field is being developed by a consortium of oil companies led by Mobil Oil. I think this is well known. It has extensive backing from both the federal and provincial governments. We have been working on this since the Hon. Joey Smallwood was premier of Newfoundland. How many more premiers do we have to go through? How many more times do we have to sign this? How many more times do we have to negotiate?
I have a chronology here that would go on for a long, long time. The Year 1965 was when the first exploration permit was issued to Mobil Oil. In 1966, the first hole was drilled. In the period 1966 to 1978, the exploration started. It is now 1990. In 1988 Newfoundlanders were promised that the sun would shine and have not would be no more. Later on, Canada was promised that we get this project under way.
I said that the gravity base structure, which essentially is the concrete platform that will sit in about 250 feet of water, 200 miles off Newfoundland, will be constructed in Newfoundland, with one module.
For the benefit of those who are not instructed in the actual construction of this, essentially we have one blob of platform and five modules. There will be a process module, a mud module, a utility module, a service

quarters module and the module that will be built in Newfoundland will be the wellhead module.
The consortium estimated that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the person-hours for the total project management and engineering design for the gravity base structure, top side and offshore, will take place in Canada. That is 90 per cent of that will take place in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard me speak on the benefits to Newfoundland and you have also heard me speak on the benefits to Canada. Let me tell you some of the things that is going to happen on a Canadian basis. The project itself is going to require more than 100,000 tonnes of cement, which can be supplied by plants in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, almost 55,000 tonnes of reinforcing bar and prestress cable. Rod will also be needed. That can be supplied by companies in Central Canada. I and members in the House can look to our ridings to participate in this megaproject.
The equipment for the project is estimated to cost another $300 million. It includes expenditures for items such as the pressure vessels, the compressors, pumps, valves, motors, electrical units, blow out preventors, instrumentation and wellheads. I could go on, but I think I have made my point.
Most people in Newfoundland, and I was one of them for a while, believed that on September 14 that everything was over but the shouting, but it seems that there is still more shouting to be done. I am not one of the shouters. I am trying to argue from a logical viewpoint that we should get this bill under way and approved because for one thing, the hon. minister has essentially negotiated to borrow $95 million from the offshore development fund.
It is my understanding as of today that MacNamara Construction Company will start to build the four and one-half mile road in from the TransCanada Highway into Bull Arm. Pretty soon they will be starting on the camps and getting the project under way. In order to get a production at a certain time, we have to fall into what is called the weather window of opportunity because there are only about two months in the year that this structure can be towed out and launched on the ocean floor. The downstream production has to be backed up to the
Government Orders
signing. I have spoken to the hon. minister and I have spoken in the House about how hard the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has worked on this to get it under way by October 1. There is $95 million that we borrowed from a fund and that is not going to last for a long time at the rate of expenditure.
We on this side of the House are not very often in favour of motions of closure or time allocation or anything that would limit parliamentary debate, but how many times has this been debated and how many more times can we debate it? What is there to debate? If you want a debate to make the bill perfect, we will be debating from now until this House does not exist any more, because there is no such thing a perfection in a bill that requires this kind of negotiation. We have been at it since 1965. We are not about to make it much more perfect than it is now.
Sixty-five per cent of Canadian input, I think that is fantastic for a megaproject like this; $5.2 billion in the construction stage and $3.3 billion capital expenditure, $10 billion. That is a mega-megaproject. It is inconceivable just exactly how big that is. Those in certain parts of this House who would want to go back and renegotiate for 100 per cent Canadian content or who would like to go back and double dot the is and double cross the fs, I have no time for that. If we wait for that, the oil will be in Hibernia from now to kingdom come and the only oil that we will get are the sample oils that we got from drilling the 160 or so wells. This cannot go on. We have to get moving on this bill.


An hon. member:: How about the Senate, get moving on the Senate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring the House to order, please, because I would like to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for York West and a few others are having a little conversation. If you don't mind, please to keep it down or go behind the curtain.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention and I am sure this will be under control in very short order because my colleagues do support this bill and they

Government Orders
support the project both as a Newfoundland project and as a Canadian project.
I have to remind the House that the expenditures and the oil revenues will boost the economies in all parts of Canada. Newfoundland will benefit, there is no question about it, but the summary of what I have just said is that Hibernia will provide business opportunity to shipyards, equipment suppliers, cement producers and hundreds of other businesses throughout the country, not just those involved in the initial consortium but the downstream work that is going to follow is horrendous.
Canadian goods and services will account for 55 to 60 per cent of the project expenditure during construction and 65 per cent during operation. Most of the people employed during construction will be Canadian residents and it is expected that most workers during operation will be Canadian.
How anybody could delay, how anybody could speak against, how anybody would want to go back and reopen the books and renegotiate, how anybody would try to get another per cent-yes, it is motherhood, it is great. I would like 110 per cent Canadian but I am practical.
We have achieved what can be achieved in this document. There has been enough talk about it. I am just wrapping up, Mr. Speaker, with about 30 seconds to go. I would implore the House and I would implore my colleagues, indeed all members of the House of Commons to get this thing under way. Let us get the bill going, let us get the oil producing, let us pay off the $95 million that we borrowed from the offshore fund and let us get on with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for St. John's East, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries; the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-Tourism; the hon. member for Surrey North-Taxation.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in this debate on Wednesday last, it was the first opportunity I had had in a while to speak in this House about Hibernia.
Unfortunately I made the error of some politicians and allowed myself to get a little excited and allowed myself to get a little emotional perhaps.
I was surprised to hear members of the NDP suggesting that we should not be providing, as they put it, subsidies to the oil companies because of the fiscal situation of the government. Of course I accused them of being Tories of the worst order.
There were three points raised on that evening that I would like briefly to refer to. One is the question of subsidies, as it was put, to the oil companies. It is quite simple. If we want this project to proceed for the benefits to this country that my friend, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, talked about, it is essential that we put some money into this project to give it a kick-start. It is essential that we contribute $1 billion to this project and ensure that other resources are available if they are necessary, not only so that we can see the development of Hibernia but, as a number of us have said before, to ensure the ongoing development and expansion of the oil and gas business off the east coast of this country for the benefit of Canadians.
Quite simply, if we are not prepared to put those resources forward we will not have a project, so none of us benefits, none of us can take advantage of this economic development project that hopefully will lead to the creation of employment and wealth in this country to make us stronger and more competitive.
Another comment that was made was that this project and the contribution that the Government of Canada was making to this project would be subsidized to subsidize the creation of Newfoundland companies that either today do not exist or that today Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have the skills to provide to a project like this. Therefore what we would see is government subsidized competition of currently existing companies.
Frankly, if any comment got me excited, that got excited the most. To suggest that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have the technical or entrepreneurial capability to take advantage of a project like this is not only insulting but it is outright wrong.
We have a capacity in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that unfortunately, because of our geography and because of our economy, we have not been able to take advantage of in the past. We have an engineering

capacity. We have a scientific capability. We have the ability to work with concrete and to work with steel. As I said in this House the other day, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians participated in the largest construction projects in North America and continue to be called upon first for their skills, their dedication, and then-productivity.
Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have the capacity, that have not developed the capacity themselves over the last number of years, have had enough sense to go out and enter into joint ventures. With whom have they entered into joint ventures? Let me give you a little example, Mr. Speaker.
Last week after the announcement of the project agreement, there were two contracts awarded. One contract was worth $1.3 billion and that is for the project that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, talks about. That is a Newfoundland-led project, but in recognition that certain skills exist in Newfoundland and that we have certain capabilities but there are others that we need, a consortium was put together. Some 59 per cent of that consortium is Quebec based companies. There was another contract awarded worth somewhat over $300 million, and 85 per cent of the participation in that project is Quebec owned companies.
As we develop the Hibernia oil field and as we develop the fields around it, we will see more and more involvement of Newfoundland companies with companies from all across this country. This will enable us to bring together the skills, the knowledge, and the capability that we have not only to develop the oil and gas business but to move off into other ventures, to take the technological knowledge, the transfer of capacity, and export that around the world in the oil and gas business and to utilize it in many other industries for which there is similar need and like necessity.
My time is short. The third thing that got me a little upset and concerns me greatly is the lack of recognition in this place that if something is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is good for this country. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are as much a part of this country as anybody else and have been for over 40 years and, I would suggest, will be as long as this country continues to exist. The thought that just because it might be good for
Government Orders
Newfoundland does not mean that it is good for somebody else is absolutely despicable and should be unacceptable in any forum in this country. Our friends from British Columbia should not be so touchy. To quote a friend of mine, if the shoe fits

I am delighted to hear my friend from Bonavista- Trinity-Conception talk about the need to move this legislation forward and the need to get on with this motion that limits time and gets this in place. We need to tie up the loose ends and the pressure that exists on the Canada-Newfoundland offshore agreement.
I was intrigued by the number of the hon. member's colleagues who were presenting petitions this afternoon. I was intrigued that there was absolutely no co-operation on the motions. I was very intrigued that we made it past five o'clock, so we lose another day. I would suggest that my Newfoundland colleagues across the way ensure that they talk to the remainder of their colleagues to ensure that this does move through and that the obstruction that we saw today does not continue, because this project is vital to this country. One part of this country that will benefit most from it is Newfoundland and Labrador but not at the exclusion of the other Atlantic provinces, not at the exclusion of any province in this country.
We have an opportunity here for all of us. Newfoundland has an economy that can only provide so much and take so much. The concept of a $5.2 billion project in an economy like Newfoundland and Labrador, all we have to do is think about the capacity of that economy to bear such a project. It has to be of benefit of all Canadians by sheer logic, but all Canadians can maximize their benefit wherever they live, as individuals, as corporate groups or anything else like that, by seizing the opportunities that are provided by the contribution of the government and the people of Canada in terms of this grant or loan guarantee. The sooner we vote on this and get it passed, the better off all this country will be.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it seems like a nightmare is occurring on the floor of the House of Commons.
I cannot believe that what I am hearing are people actually expressing their views. I hear a representative of the Conservative government saying that we must go out now and we must bribe and entice these poor multinational oil companies to come into our waters and start

Government Orders
developing. How much bribery money do we need to entice these people into this project. Is $10 million enough? No, no. What about $100 million? No, No. What about $1,000 million to these poor multinationals called Gulf, Chevron, and Mobil Oil? Is $1,000 million enough? No, that is not enough. What about $2,000 million? Is that enough? No, that is still not enough. What about $2,700 million? "Aha", he said, "that is enough".
We have the government saying: "We are going to commit the government to spend $2,700 million of taxpayers' money on this project". And the people are saying: "Is this the best way to spend that money?"
Way back when is interesting; I thought I would look up the record because the minister responsible for this project came to us in December 1989 saying "we have to get this legislation moving", so it was introduced at second reading. Then it evaporated for months and months and months. There was not a word from the minister of energy, not a single word. Then in June he came in and said: "Listen, we have to get going on this second reading", so we set aside one day. That was it; that was all then.
Here we come in and rush, rush, rush; we have to get this thing through now in the next couple of days. How much time has been spent in this House to discuss how we should spend $2.7 billion of taxpayers' money? Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how long we have taken?
On November 7, we spent two minutes. On December 18, 1989, we spent 61 minutes. On February 9, 1990, we spent 130 minutes. On June 7, 1989, we spent 148 minutes.
Then it went to committee, this huge thick bill went to committee for study. Do you know how long, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party allowed it to be studied in committee? One day, one single day, and this is $2.7 billion of taxpayers' money and it cannot be frittered away without proper discussion and debate in committee. One day, and then they rush it through.
Then we come back to the report of the committee to the House. How long do we spend on that, four or five days? We spent one minute-60 seconds and that is all. The committee report was presented to the House in
one minute and then at report stage we spent 103 minutes. Now the government says that is enough, that it cannot stand any more debate on this topic. We have actually spent 800 minutes, including voting, on a $2.7 billion taxpayers' expenditure.
No wonder the people of Canada do not trust this government. That is $2.7 billion, $2,000 million plus $700 million, and it says: "Let's rush this through".
We have some questions we want to ask. We have not heard satisfactory responses. As a matter of fact, we have not heard any of the responses at all.
When the minister of energy first proposed this legislation he said it would make a major contribution toward the regional source of supply of oil for Atlantic Canada. When I read that, coming from the hon. minister, it sounds to me that the oil from Hibernia will be going to refineries in Atlantic Canada. He says: "A major contribution toward a regional source of supply of oil for Atlantic Canada".
Not a drop of this oil is going for refining in Atlantic Canada. It is going down to the United States. Every single drop of this oil for refining will not touch a single refinery in Canada. That is what some people are saying. Will we have a chance to examine that? Oh, no, we do not have time.
What business are we in? Is it our job to facilitate the development of our energy resources for Mobil Oil refineries in California, in Texas, or on the east coast of the United States. These are important questions that must be asked, but the government said: "Oh, no, we have the majority. We are the four-year elected dictators. We can do whatever we want. We want to ignore the House of Commons".
Quite frankly we are saying that this is the reason the people of Canada have lost complete faith in this government. This is the reason 85 per cent of the people of Canada say: "We do not want anything to do with this government in the future". The minister of energy says to the people of Canada that the government is going to invest $2.7 billion of their money so that it can provide a major contribution to the regional source of supply of oil for Atlantic Canada and then changes his mind so that we are now part of a continental energy security program. We are using our taxpayers' money to develop our reserves for the North American market.
October 1, 1990

Is this what Canadians want their hard-pressed tax dollars to do? The government says we do not have any money for child care. But when Mobil Oil wants $100 million or $500 million, or when Chevron wants a half a billion dollars, then we have lots of money, and we do not want to debate it in the House of Commons. We say that is wrong, undemocratic and flies in the face of the parliamentary system in Canada. No, this has come as a surprise to us. Of course, it does.
Here is a government that is prepared to stack the Senate, to knowingly violate the Constitution of Canada simply to be able to jamb their goods and services tax down the throats of every single Canadian. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians say they do not want this tax, they do not need this tax, they cannot afford this tax. It is the wrong tax at the wrong time hitting the wrong people. But, does this government listen? No, it knows best. It is the "Father Knows Best" parliamentary system. Our Prime Minister knows what is best for Canadians. It knows that Canadians need to entice the multinational oil companies to our east coast to the tune of $2.7 billion. For that there is all kinds of money. For child care there is no money.
I listened to my hon. friend from Newfoundland. If he is so interested in Newfoundland then his motive is probably legitimate, that he is concerned about the people there, as we all are. Why then did he cut back transfer payments to Newfoundland? Why did he change the Unemployment Insurance Act against the people of Newfoundland? Why is he taking step after step after step that makes the life of Newfoundlanders more difficult today than it was two years ago and four years ago if he is so concerned? What has the government done to the fishery?
Let me quote the Premier of Newfoundland. Premier Clyde Wells is quoted in the The Financial Post as saying that the number of permanent jobs generated by Hibernia would be the size of the workforce of two fish plants. That is $2.7 billion for two fish plants' employment. That is what we are talking about. This is outrageous! The Premier of Newfoundland says that this is a very expensive job-creation program, and it will cost millions and millions of dollars to create a single job. Who will benefit in the long term? Will Canadian firms? No. Will Cana-
Govemment Orders
dian refineries? No. Will Canadian employees in the oil business benefit? With a handful of exceptions, no.
Mr. Speaker, when we say this time allocation is inappropriate, what we are saying is that we want to find ways and means to provide jobs for those people in Newfoundland and throughout Atlantic Canada that will be permanent and long-lasting, not the kind of employment opportunities that will have the one time only construction aspect of this project and not be there in perpetuity. I think that the people of Newfoundland want jobs, not only for the short term but, indeed, for the long term.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I think we are witnessing here today something very important that we could describe as an absolutely incredible machination where the Bloc Quebecois is effectively becoming the official opposition in this House with regard to the Hibernia project.
Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no Liberal Party member from Quebec in the House, only one Conservative member from Quebec as compared with six representatives of the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Speaker, we are not against the Hibernia project as such, but we resent the fact that once more Quebec is being shortchanged. And particularly when we see the official opposition agreeing with a closure motion. This is the first time in all my political life that I see the official opposition, namely the Liberals, agreeing with a closure motion.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Richelieu, clearly put forward an amendment in this House last week at the report stage.
An amendment whereby Bil C-44 would include and confirm the Canadian content! The Separatists which they say we are are standing up for Canadians and trying to look after their interests by urging the federal government to set the amount of Canadian content in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is the world upside down!
Recently, the Newfoundland Premier, Mr. Clyde Wells was reported as saying that this was a routine matter, that the federal government was ready to go ahead with Hibernia, and that the official opposition was in agreement. Today, I realize that Mr. Wells was right when he said that. I understand also that last June, the hon. member for Bona Vista-Trinity-Conception told

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
the House that he expected this bill to be read the third time by the summer recess. We all know that for reasons I need not explain, the government deemed advisable not to introduce this bill in the House at that time.
As a last resort, I directed a question to the minister. I cannot elaborate on this, Mr. Speaker, but the House will remember that the fact the Meech Lake Accord was killed last June is one of the reasons why the government did not proceed with Bill C-44, because the Tory members of the Quebec caucus were determined to scuttle the bill. Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard a peep out of the Quebec Tory members. They are completely out of it, out of the House. A while ago, I could see the Technology Minister trying to keep his Quebec troups in line by telling them to vote in favour of this bill, a very good bill.
If this bill was really that good, Mr. Speaker, the morning papers would not be filled with paid advertising stating that the bill concerning Hibernia had to be amended to give Quebec its fair share. Outside the House, I heard some Tory members from Quebec insisting that the SNC had obtained a contract worth $360 million- This is a contract awarded on the international market, Mr. Speaker. It is not a contract for Quebec firms, it was awarded on the international market.
We accept the fact that a module was guaranteed to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, but we ask that the other four modules be offered on the domestic market first. If our domestic market is unwilling or unable to meet the challenge, this contract should then be offered on the foreign market. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we know from opinion polls that the credibility of this government is being seriously questioned, but we find it hard to believe that the official opposition should be going along. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who signed this agreement said the other day in the House that he was not prepared to renegotiate it once more. Yesterday, during the Question Period, he even went so far as saying that it would be stupid, childish and that he would not reopen the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being railroaded, pure and simple. Although the Canadian government is going to invest not less than $2.7 billion in this project,
Canadians are not even sure to benefit from the spinoffs. That is incredible, but true, Mr. Speaker, especially in view of the fact that there was no Persian Gulf crisis at the time it was negotiated. And who says that the price of oil will not increase to $50 or $60 a barrel. We know that the price is currently between $38 and $48 a barrel. On the other hand, under the terms of the agreement, if the price should fall below $25 a barrel, the government would have to make up the difference. If the price exceeds $25 to the barrel, the U.S. oil companies like Mobil Oil will reap handsome benefits on the market.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland claims to have been ripped off in the Churchill Falls project. The whole affair has even been referred to the Supreme Court where it was decided that the agreement signed by Quebec and Newfoundland was quite legitimate. Now, not only Newfoundland is being had with this agreement but the whole country. And that is why we became in this House the Official Opposition because the Official Opposition is hands in hands with the Govemement and I bet the NDP will in the end vote for the bill. After winning Ontario, it now has an eye on the Maritimes. We want to make sure that the superior interests of Quebec are protected in this House, but at the same time, we wish to protect the interests of Canada since we are still part of the Constitution as it now stands.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated a few days ago that the Hibernia oil will benefit mostly American interests. Considering the accrued debt and the deficits we are talking about, can we, again, make such an effort and for whom? For our American neighbours? I would not want to enter into the free trade debate which has been going on for the last two years. But as far as Hibernia is concerned, I hope that the governement will come to realize, the next few minutes, that it is making a blatant mistake and it is all the more true since the Senate is shut down, Mr. Speaker. And because of whom? The Liberals. So, why steamroll a bill while the Senate is shut down? Would it not be because the Conservative Government wants to pass this bill now in order to force the liberals to re-open the Senate? It is incredible, inconceivable, I would say diabolical to go to such an extent to pass that kind of legislation!

October 1, 1990

I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that they will see the light!


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, we have the bloc. Their heads are going to be on the block before this is over.
The Bloc Quebecois state there is not enough construction work going to Quebec. As well, we have the NDP saying that it wants to know where the oil is going to go to be refined. People who have examined these questions must be really confused as to what they are talking about.
The companies that are constructing the infrastructure are Concrete Products Limited, 3.5 per cent Newfoundland; Doris Engineering of Paris, France, 7.5 per cent; Janin Construction of Montreal, 29.66 per cent; Atlas Construction of Montreal, 29.66 per cent. Then, there is McNamara Construction of Newfoundland at 29.66 per cent. That is a bit deceptive unless you examine who these people are.
For example, Atlas Construction is a subsidiary of one of the largest construction firms in Quebec called Atlas-Gest Incorporated. It is a subsidiary of the Paris based Dumez, one of France's largest construction firms.
When you go to the topside design, you have B&L Consultants of Newfoundland with 70 employees; SNC Group of Montreal, 4,000 employees; Monenco of Montreal at 1,000-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford is rising on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague from Newfoundland that it may be French but it is not necessarily from Quebec.


Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: France is a foreign country!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.
Government Orders


George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not even a point of debate. I do not know what it is a point of.
Monenco of Montreal has 1,000 employees and then there are two other smaller firms, a Houston based firm called Brown & Root and a company called Aker Engineering of Norway. Monenco was formerly Montreal Engineering.
Here is the point, Mr. Speaker. In looking at all of the offshore construction in the world, one finds these same names that are here. You find Doris Engineering of Paris, France. They are the experts in the platforms make up only 7.5 per cent of the deal. The same Montreal firms are connected with every large construction undertaking in the world. The company that is associated with Atlas Construction of Montreal, Dumez, is one of the companies building the French half of the English Channel tunnel.
It is the same companies doing these large construction projects. No matter how you cut it, Mr. Speaker, you could have almost predicted the names of these companies before the contracts were let.
The other point raised by the NDP members is an interesting one. They say that none of this oil is going to be refined in Canada. Away back in 1987, we passed legislation in the House that deal with exactly that. It was decided by this chamber and the Newfoundland legislature and it is perhaps the most backward step that could ever be taken by legislatures, the Parliament of Canada being a legislature. It defined where the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland could force an oil company to bring oil to refine if the companies had not entered into a contract to sell the oil. In other words, if the company had a contract to sell it to Venezuela, it would go to Venezuela. The only way the Government of Newfoundland can interfere is if the Government of Newfoundland-under the existing legislation that the NDP now claims they do not know anything about-says: "All right, we have what is called legally a shortfall of petroleum deliveries in the province."
But one mistake was made in the legislation and that is it did not guarantee to any industry in the Province of Newfoundland oil from the offshore, not one single industry. That is why that legislation should be brought back into the House of Commons and amended to

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
include refineries or possible petrochemical industries in the Province of Newfoundland.
The NDP now has a motion before the House trying to delay passage of this legislation, wanting to know where the oil is going to go after we had dealt with it for three years in this chamber under a Bill called the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you will check the Orders of the Day, you will find that the NDP has no motion on any Order Paper pertaining to anything having to do with this bill at the moment, thank you very much.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am referring to is on the Order Paper. It is Motion No. 3. It was put there on Wednesday, September 26. It is moved by a Mr. Riis and it talks about the quantities and percentage of oil production which are exported or unrefined or in semi-refined states.
The legislation that was passed by this Chamber back in 1987 was bad legislation. It was terrible legislation. It is legislation that should be brought back in and changed, but it is legislation that some of these objectors voted for. That is the incredible part.
The legislation was proclaimed on April 4, 1987 and our refining capacity in Newfoundland went through the pipes four months later, so there was the error. Beyond that, there is an even greater error that says for all time, all petroleum resources offshore in Canada will go to wherever the companies want it to go unless there is a shortage of supply that can be proven by the Newfoundland Government and agreed to by the federal government. Then it would go to arbitration if the companies still object. But if the bids were what they call "commercially acceptable", then the companies would have to deliver oil to "the existing feedstock requirements to industrial capacities that were operating on the time that this act came into force". That restricts it to refineries in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. That is the law of Canada today.
The hon. minister is adding two words, "and Quebec." There is no reference to the province of Quebec in that legislation that was passed three years ago and neither should there be. Should there have been any reference to Quebec? No. Should there have been reference to any
other province if Newfoundland was not guaranteed some oil? No. Shame on any member from the Bloc Quebecois who would suggest that. That is an outrageous suggestion and an insult to every single Newfoundlander.
I would also suggest in closing, as you are motioning to me that I should be finished, that for the last two weeks, we have had tents in the hon. member's riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. We have had many dozens of tents out in the wilderness where this road is going to be built after the announcement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. People are living in tents waiting for the start of the construction which the Bloc Quebecois wants to stop so that they claim more people in the province of Quebec can get hired.
Both these motions of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois should be thrown out because they are not worth the paper they are written on.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate for a few minutes.
Coming from the province of Alberta, we of course, have a strong identification with things relating to oil, the industry, and the importance of it. We recognize just how important the development of a project such as Hibernia can be to a people.
I come from an area where we have a fair amount of oil and gas activity and, in fact, in my riding we have one of the projects that we are all hopeful, with the changes in oil prices right now, may well see some change in activity. Of course, I am referring to the Shell project in the town of Peace River. That particular project deals with putting steam into the ground and removing the oil through a process that is costly and complicated.
As a result of that, we know just how difficult it is to proceed with the development of some of these larger oil projects that are very costly. They produce oil that is very expensive, particularly over the last few years when most of us have seen oil prices dropping dramatically and, as a result, it was just not economically viable to proceed with the more expensive oil.
October 1, 1990

Therefore, for me to identify with the people of Newfoundland is not difficult. I understand the sense of urgency and the sense of importance which they attach to this project. For a long time they have wanted an opportunity to develop their economy and to demonstrate the kinds of skills and abilities that they have within their population.
So, it is a bill that has important to us and a bill that all of us want very much to see proceed. I am quite disappointed that, through the processes of presenting petitions and forcing votes on first reading of a bill, the Opposition has managed to delay the proceedings of the House on Bill C-44. Of course, that does have a direct impact on the people of Newfoundland, because we know that delays can be costly and, at a time when things like oil and oil prices are so volatile because of the situation in the Middle East, all of us are very much concerned about what is going on. With that in mind, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That this House continue to sit to complete the business now before
it.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the motion being debated at the moment is one that would cut off debate on Bill C-44. Bill C-44 is that bill that neither creates nor particularly furthers the Hibernia project; Bill C-44 is that bill which provides for federal investment in the Hibernia project.
Before dealing briefly with the merits of the investment structure outlined in Bill C-44,1 would like to note that we are again debating whether or not to continue debate at all. We are debating a government motion to turn off the lights on the debate on Hibernia.
The government says this has to be done. "It is a dirty job but someone has to do it, the government claims",
Government Orders
because all kinds of time has been wasted on it and if time continues to be wasted on it, then the project itself may be in peril.
I used to work in Edmonton with a small group of people. We worked for Grant Notley. One of them had a colourful metaphor that she applied to certain qualities and classes of argument. She referred to this class of argument with the metaphor "el toro pooh-pooh".
The arguments we have been hearing with regard to the wastage of time from the government, the arguments we have been hearing about the frailty of the project- the project itself being destroyed if we take more than a day to debate Bill C-44-bring to mind that colourful metaphor, el toro pooh-pooh.


An hon. member:: Unparliamentary.


Ross Harvey: I have checked in Beauchesne. It is not ruled out.
In total, two minutes were spent on introduction and first reading of Bill C-44. That was on November 7,1989, eleven months ago. Second reading got under way on December 18 when 61 minutes, an hour and a bit, were spent. Then it was dropped. Not because of the opposition, the opposition was not standing around saying "by gosh, you bring back Hibernia and we will make your life hell". No, the government just sort of dropped it as if it exited into the ether with not so much as a thought following it until February 9 when we spent two hours on it on second reading. We were then up to the horrendous total of three hours in second reading debate on a bill which, when passed, will see the authorization of an expenditure of federal public funds up to in excess of $3 billion.
This was not to be all because that perfidious opposition demanded yet further discussion of Bill C-44. So, on June 7-from February 9 to March, to April, to May, to June 7, four months later, again at the sole discretion of the government-the bill was brought back once more and debated for about two and a half hours, at which time it was passed after a total of five and a half hours of debate; hardly tortuous. The entire second reading was spread by the government over more than half a year, then it passed. Then it went to committee. Would you like to know what horrible, gruesome delay the opposition imposed on this bill in committee? I can tell you. I was there. We whistled it through in a day.

Government Orders


Ian Angus Ross Reid: That's how much you worried about the debate.


Ross Harvey: One day. The reason for that was because I can tell a done deal when I see one. I was simply unwilling to waste my time hearing a hallelujah chorus come before the committee, praising the deal to the skies and offering no critical assessment whatsoever. One day in committee, and that, by the way, was very quickly after second reading concluded. That was merely five days later. A day after that it was reported to this House by the chair of the committee. There after June 13, it languished, orphaned-


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


Mr. Soetens:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken, he was absolutely right that while he was in committee there were no objections raised, including by the member who has just spoken.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, that was not entirely accurate. In fact, I attempted to propose several amendments to alter the bill, all of which of course were defeated.
Again, questions of accuracy do not bear close inspection in this House very often. In any event, we get to September 26 of this year and the bill is brought forward for report stage. A total of one hour and 43 minutes was spent on it at report stage. Two minutes at first reading and introduction, five and a half hours at second reading, six hours in committee, one minute to report it to the House and one hour and 40 minutes so far in report stage.
Is this unacceptable to this government? Does this cause it to bring in time allocation?
This is a government that demands that the legislative process move with the speed of Mercury. Our legislative process is not designed to do that. It is designed that we may consider the contents of a bill carefully at numerous steps. It is a prudent system, especially when it is proposed to allot in excess of $3 billion in federal public taxpayers' money.
It is money that will have to be made up, perhaps by the GST. It is proposed that $3 billion be invested. Given
the debate to date, we have been okaying that money at a rate in excess of $4 million a minute. More than $66,000 a second.
This can hardly be deemed dragging our heels. If I was able to drag my heels like this at home, I would be a wealthy man. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, I am not that.
The government tells you that it must pass this legislation and the only way it can achieve that is over the prostrate corpse of the opposition, that the opposition has been obstructionist. El toro pooh-pooh.
Further, it tells you, Mr. Speaker, that this has got to be done because if it is not done, the project will collapse. In the committee, the minister admitted that the progress of the project at this point into the next year is utterly independent of whatever may happen in this House. There is much more than enough discretionary funding available to the government, the minister and the pools there now to cause the slightest ripple of worry until sometime next year.
The reason it is bringing in time allocation is because it fears the truth about this project: the squandering of public funds irresponsibly and to insufficient end.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Quebecers back home who are watching the proceedings on TV that I am an independent member of the Bloc quebecois. I belong to the Bloc Quebecois to serve the interests of Quebec here in the House of Commons and, if at all possible, Mr. Speaker, to convince my fellow citizens to accept or at least better appreciate the fact that we are moving rather quickly towards Quebec sovereignty. It is important that one and all understand that. In this bill-


Mr. Langlois:: I am not so sure about that.


François Gérin: No, no, no! I see a Quebec Conservative member in the House. Maybe the others have gone to bed. Yet this is an important bill-


Monique Landry: I am here.


François Gérin: There is also a minister in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how these Quebec Conservative members can applaud their government's imposing closure or lowering the boom after only a few hours of


October 1, 1990

debate on a bill which entails expenditures in excess of $6 billion.
We will try to explain to the people of Quebec-they are quick on the uptake-that we have had a debate on an issue which will cost $1 billion an hour. The member for Manicouagan was on that committee. I think he spoke for about 90 seconds, yet today he is in favour of cutting off debate. I can hardly wait to see how Quebec Conservatives vote on this motion because for once the people of Quebec would like to be told how much of these billions of their tax dollars spent by the federal government they can expect to get back. That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I see some members nodding in agreement. Interesting indeed!
I refer you to what was said by the Minister of Energy, Mr. Jake Epp, when he appeared before the committee on June 12, 1990, not long ago, and testified as follows: "But may I say, Mr. Chairman, that obviously we would like to have more industrial benefits, for instance, in the shipyards of eastern Canada, and the industrial benefits that will flow from that. May I say I have been speaking about this issue with our colleague, Benoit Bouchard, as to what we could be doing. We have been presenting this to the consortium and that is why we have not, quite frankly, finalized all the industrial benefits. There is also, apart from the super-modules, the matter of possible ancillary shipbuilding needed for servicing".
So, on June 12, 1990, Benoit Bouchard, the political leader for Quebec-Quebec meaning what is still left of the Conservatives that come from Quebec-said: "We don't know what will be in it for Canada. We don't know what will be in it for Quebec. That has not yet been negotiated. No agreement has been reached. We are still in the dark". Today, we tabled a very modest amendment. We wanted Canadian companies to be first in line to tender for these contracts worth several billion dollars. The government's answer is- Benoit Bouchard may come to the House to speak. He hasn't spoken in the House for a long time. He may come here himself to tell us that no, we don't want to say that; we don't want to put this in the bill. Even worse, they are going to muzzle the members of the Bloc Quebecois. They won't let members speak. They won't let the Conservative members from Quebec speak to this issue, because if the
Government Orders
government gave us just two days in the House, the Bloc Quebecois would probably be able to convince all Quebecers that here in Canada we are being shafted with this kind of project. Unfortunately, we will be gagged after only a few hours of debate in the House. I've got them right here.
Canadians who are listening know how many meaningless speeches they can hear on a single day about equally meaningless legislation, sometimes involving amounts of as little as $2,000 or $3,000. Here, we are talking about $6 billion. This is all the time that was allocated to that, and few members were heard. On December 18, 1989, the minister did not even introduce the Bill himself in the House. God knows where he was. It is Parliamentary Secretary who introduced the Bill, but he was himseif very brief. A mere fifteen minutes. That day, an hour was spent for the introduction of the Bill.
On February 9,1990, there were four speakers-by the way, the minister was absent again-and two hours were spent examining the Bill. On June 7, the Bill was referred to the legislative committee and the committee-on which sat Mr. Langlois from the Quebec Conservative Party, but who did not say more than two words-met for less than two hours. Imagine, to take less than two hours to examine a $6 billion project. That is incredible!
At that time, the Minister had said, in his testimony: "I know nothing. It is ongoing. We do not know. We have no idea". He was unable to answer most questions, except to say that the people of Newfoundland would be happy to receive a lot of money from Canada. I am sure they would!
On June 13, 1990, the report was presented to the House. On September 26, 1990, we came back and discussed the bill for two hours. During those two hours, two members of the Bloc Quebecois took the floor, two members from Quebec rose to state that only Canadian firms should bid.
Mr. Speaker, after that, the government decided to gag us. If they think they can stop us from taking the floor in this House! If they think they can stop Quebecers worthy of that name from speaking in the House of Commons, they better think again!

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
I see I have two minutes left. That is fine, for I will have a chance to speak again tomorrow on this issue, and the day after. I will speak as long as I have things to say in this House.
Mr. Speaker, we have had fourteen speakers altogether on this bill, including the Minister for International Trade from Newfoundland who also put in his two-cents worth, when he said that we absolutely had to help Newfoundland, and that in any case it was the right time to do it, on June 7, 1990. You may remember that Clyde Wells was in Ottawa, talking about other things at the time.
Mr. Speaker, in his speech last year, the parliamentary secretary said that the project might have as much as 45 per cent Canadian content. Today, faced with the objections of the Bloc Quebecois, they are suddenly talking about as much as 60 per cent. We don't believe that. We don't believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he says that. We don't believe the Minister from Newfoundland. They fooled Canadians so often, we can't believe them any more. Let them put it in the bill! When it's in the bill, when it really says Canadians will have the right to tender on all projects in this six or seven billion dollar megaproject, when Canadians have that right in the bill, then I can say I did my duty as a Quebecer and as a Canadian. During the remainder of our term. Then I will be able to say yes to this bill. Meanwhile, as the member for Megan tic-Compton- Stanstead and with the other members of the Bloc quebecois, we intend to vote against this bill unless it can be amended as proposed.
I ask the Conservative members from Quebec, and my time is almost up: Thlk to Benoit Bouchard about the statement he made recently! Remind him of what happened in late June, 1990!


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


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say that in his speach, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead continuously called hon. members by their names while the practice in this House is to call members by the name of their riding. I would like to see the hon. member who has been here for a while show more respect for our Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the hon. member will address the minister by his title or the hon. member by his constituency. The hon. member has 30 seconds left in his debate.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague who was a member of the committee to know that I am sorry and that I understand very well why he would not want to see his name associated with such a situation. If I were him, I would feel the same way. I would be ashamed, back in Quebec, to make such a statement. He is perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you to strike his name from my speech, like, he will be stricken from the political map after the next election, unless he comes to his senses pretty soon.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, it would like to say a few words in French, having been impressed by the address of the member who just spoke. He told us he was here to represent the interests of Quebec and of Quebecers. It must however be understood that the members who are sitting to my left, the group of independents who want to be called the Bloc quebecois, are not the only ones to champion the cause of Quebecers, in Canada-


Some hon. members:: Who else?


Some hon. members:: Where are the other ones?


M. Volpe:: -because members are elected to represent all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Right on!


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: So, if my colleague insists on draping himself in the flag of only one province while arguing at the same time that his group wants to represent the interests of all Canadians in this project-
This makes us wonder when in fact he is telling the truth: is it when he speaks for Quebecers only, or when he stands for all Canadians. When he says that for now he is still a Canadian, and as such, wants to protect everyone's interest, he is trying to confuse us. He wants to send one message to Quebecers, to those listening in


Some hon. members:: Ah, ah!
	
October 1, 1990

Quebec who are of the same party, who share the same ideas, but at the same time he wants to leave the impression he still represents Canadians. He says he was elected as a representative of all Canadiens, not only Quebecers but Canadians who live in Quebec and in all the other provinces. So, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that member insists on introducing procedural points into the debate. Because, if my memory serves me well, that same member along with some of his colleagues, used to be part of the gouvemement's caucus, a few months ago. And at that time in this Parliament the guillotine was used 13 times to bring an end to the discussion of some on bills.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Incredible!


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The Minister says it is incredible and so it is! And more incredible still, Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing a bill which should be a matter of interest to all Canadians, we hear from a member who, again, was a member of the government's caucus a few months ago, when the object of this bill was developed.
So, the honourable member and his independent colleagues from Quebec, who previously agreed with this bill, now say: "No, things have changed." So, what are they saying now: "No. The bill we agreed on before now must be changed."

I do not think we can continue to debate procedures and the discussion of closure when what we should be talking about is the substance of this bill. It has been clear through some of the debates we have heard over the course of the afternoon, brief though they have been, that the NDP to my left and the bloc of independents from Quebec are not in favour of this bill. They cannot hide that kind of attitude.
We cannot talk about procedures or amendments in the hope of trying to confuse the viewing public. Canadians at large, that they are against this bill. I ask myself why? It can only be because they do not want to look at the way that we are thinking about diversifying the economy of our regions. This is particularly relevant to Newfoundland.
If it is the intention of hon. members to my left to say out in the open that they do not want to diversify the
Government Orders
economy of Newfoundland, let them stand up and so say. That is not what we should be doing. I would have thought that if they were interested in a meaningful debate on substance they would have asked some significant questions. For example, is this Hibernia project economically viable and capable of making appropriate returns for Newfoundland? I would have been interested in hearing that; so, I dare say, would all Newfoundlanders.
Could federal money, for example, be used more effectively for creation of other types of industries in Newfoundland? Let me hear them say that. We have not heard any of that at all. What are we talking about when we are talking about where we are putting our moneys-


An hon. member:: Why are you talking as if you don't know anything?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: We have not heard anything about how to best allocate federal moneys. We have not heard any of that from my colleagues to the left. In fact when my colleague from Quebec says he is here to defend the interests of Quebec, I did not hear him mention that there are many estimates that talk about $1.5 billion. That is spelled with a b. In French it is milliards. Encore une fois, $1.5 billion in contracts to the province of Quebec.
Who knows who stands for Quebec's interests! One must understand that 1.5 billion $ will be spent in Quebec.

I do not know why they would be against that. I am not sure that anybody else here would have been against it. Quite frankly, there is $1.5 billion being spent in Quebec and only $770 million expected to be spent in Newfoundland. I would have expected my colleagues from Newfoundland to be upset about that but they are not. They must be good Canadians, great Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I see my colleagues to my left are really interested in hearing some of the other facts that they have ignored all the way along. Quite frankly one needs to note that Hibernia is expected to account for 12 per

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
cent of Canadian light and medium oil production by the year 2000. I think that is a valuable undertaking.
Also what should be kept in mind is that all estimates indicate that we are to have 10,000 person-year jobs in Newfoundland or 50 per cent of the total of the project is employment. Only 70 per cent of all the Canadian jobs is expected to be created under this project, so the benefits are going to be distributed not only throughout the maritimes but I dare say through all the adjacent provinces as well. This includes, I might add for those whose geography is falling by the wayside, the province of Quebec.
If we are to talk about substance and about whether or note we want this bill, what we should be doing is directing our attention at criticizing the bill itself, clause by clause, on each point of substance in the debates. We should be talking about whether or not this is the best deal.
Quite frankly what I have heard all along is that because it is not the best deal for Newfoundland, it is not a good deal for any part of Canada at all. The fact of the matter is that it is a good deal for Newfoundland, for maritime Canada. It is a program to diversify the economy of depressed regions in Canada.
I might remind the House that Newfoundland currently has the highest unemployment rate in the country. A good portion of that unemployment rate is structural. It is nothing else. Until we change the structure of the economy in provinces like Newfoundland, we have a very poor hope of trying to buttress the employment rate.
If we are to be talking about those items in this bill which say that we cannot have this because it is not the best deal and therefore we do not want anything but the best deal, then let them say that. However, if there are movements in the direction of creating long-term employment and creating an environment whereby the structure of that province and the provinces adjacent can look toward a different type of industrial economy, I think we owe it to the people of Newfoundland to say that we support that bill.
If they do not want to support it, let them be honest. Let them stand in their places and say: We from the bloc Quebecois, we from the bloc NDP do not want this bill for the province of Newfoundland and for maritime Canada. Let them have the courage to say that.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. President, I had no intention to get involved in this discussion, but after hearing the comments expressed earlier by my honourable colleague for Megantic-Campton-Stans-tead, I have decided to say a few words in order to clarify certain matters.
I must say, Mr. President, that when I worked with the Legislative Committee responsible for the review of bill C-44, my colleague blamed me for speaking too little or too briefly. I must remind him that I was the only member on that Committee who requested that witnesses be heard by the Committee, and indeed, the object of having witnesses appear before the Committee was to bring out-


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead rises on a point of order.


François Gérin: I think that there is a provision under our Standing Orders whereby, whenever the House deals with a Bill, the Minister who introduced the Bill is under the obligation to be present, or at least two ministers must be present in the House, because I suggest there is no point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On time allocation, there are two ministers in the House. In fact, there are three present. Debate, the hon. member for Manicouagan.


Charles A. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, calling witnesses would have made it possible for committee members to assess the opportunities for economic spinoffs from the Hibernia project not only for Quebec, but for Eastern Canada as a whole.
I should also like to comment on the remarks the Hon. Member for Edmonton East made when he blamed the committee for too quick a study. May I remind my hon. friend that he was one of those committee members who recommended that the committee should proceed quick-
October 1, 1990

ly, that it should carry out and complete its clause-byclause study as quickly as possible.
Apparently, they claim that Hibernia will not yield the economic spinoffs people expected and will not contribute to the energy security of our country. They seem to overlook the fact that beyond energy security, there is the need to use some of our natural resources, so that, by selling this commodity, we may improve our balance of payment.
Together with the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a tour of Northern Alberta where I had the opportunity to see for myself our huge tar sand deposits which represent a major source of energy for Canada. Hibernia will make it possible, not only for Newfoundland, but for Eastern Canada as a whole to develop an expertise which does not exist there, to master new technics and help Newfoundland, Maritime and Quebec people develop new techniques and participate in the realization of a major project which is important for Eastern Canada.
Thus I must tell you that as a Member of Parliament for Quebec and unlike my friends from the Bloc Quebecois, I support the Hibernia Project and I hope that this House will be able to pass it as soon as possible since it holds extraordinary benefits for Quebec. Remember that when the project was announced, one single province was going to benefit from it and was promised fall-outs, and that province was Quebec. Right away, engineering and construction companies were identified as possible beneficiaries; Hibernia guaranteed them work and activities. Why then try to stall the business of the House? Why all those amendments that would delay the passage of that bill? By delaying this bill, Mr. Speaker, all we are doing is damaging the economy of Eastern Canada.
Therefore, I would like to simply ask my collegues of the Bloc Quebecois and of the NDP to support this bill, to proceed as fast as possible, to let all members speak freely on this matter, so that the Hibernia Project can be carried out for the well-being of Newfoundlanders, but also for the people of the Maritimes and Quebec.
That being said, I will give other members the opportunity to speak, now that my position is clear.
Government Orders
I would like to remind my collegue, the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead not to worry of what might happen to me during the next election. I can take care of that very well. My constituents of the riding of Manicouagan know full well where lie their best interests. I would worry more in his place than mine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate, though the points I would like to make are a little different from the points that I hear from my Liberal and Conservative colleagues and now from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.
As I sit here listening to this debate I am reminded somewhat of the movie, the Ship of Fools. We are debating the so-called spin-off benefits of a technology that we should be encouraging rather than debating how much we should subsidize. There is a bit of schizophrenia here. All members are concerned about the greenhouse effect. We have heard much talk about the greenhouse effect. It was a big issue in the Liberal leadership debate. But on the other hand, what are we doing? We are quite willing to continue subsidizing the oil industry.
Clearly, we are a ship of fools-


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Are you against Hibernia?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, I am against Hibernia, and I am against every other oil megaproject. I think it is about time that we stopped subsidizing the oil industry. In fact, might I suggest that instead of subsidizing the oil industry we start placing a special tax on oil and gasoline in terms of how much they pollute. And the more a substance pollutes, the more it should-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat?
I would like to hear the hon. member. There is still another nine minutes left before seven o'clock. Could I have just a little bit of order? Thank you. The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

October 1, 1990
Government Orders
This weekend I noted in the popular press that the state of California has come out with some pretty new and stringent regulations regarding emissions from automobiles. If I may quote from a newspaper article:
The new rules require carmakers to start selling cleaner vehicles
starting in 1994 in the smoggy Los Angeles basin and 1997 statewide.
By 2003, all cars sold in the state must emit at least 70-per-cent
fewer hydrocarbons and other smog-forming chemicals than in the
1993 models.
That is not much time. California represents around 11 per cent of the consuming public in the United States.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the economics of this project do not make sense. I suggest that the concern about the greenhouse effect will speed up the development of alternate forms of energy. If California takes the lead in the next decade to two, we are not going to see the amount of gasoline used in cars. I suggest that the pay-back period of Hibernia will be such that we will never get back what we are sinking into it now.
In conclusion, I wish to repeat that it seems to me what is happening in this House is that we are indeed a ship of fools, debating about economic spin-offs and benefits for which later generations are going to curse us.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, a man with your experience in Parliament should understand our astonishment as we, from the Bloc Quebecois, witness what is happening here today. It was only last week that our group made its debut in Parliament.
During the first few days, we made a list of the matters about to be raised on the floor that would be of critical importance both for Canada and for Quebec. Among those, was Hibernia. Wednesday morning, we saw the notice in the Order Paper and knew that we would have an opportunity to discuss the project and the bill. We all knew that several questions remained unanswered in June, after the parliamentary committee sat. I was a government member and others were members of the government too. The project was announced a little while ago, but the figures quoted were unverified. The week before, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a statement, announcing that the project
would benefit the Americans, not the Canadians. There are still many important questions to be answered.
At the time, Mr. Speaker, we figured: "That is no big deal! We are members of Parliament. We will go back to the House and ask the real questions that this bill raises. So, we started by introducing an amendment dealing specifically with the spinoffs for Canada. Everybody told us that the project itself had to produce interesting spinoffs for Canada. We have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. But then, when we saw the legislation and the confusion in the remarks made by the ministers who spoke on the bill, we introduced an amendment to force the promoters of this project to limit the bidding to Canadian firms at first, for the first round.
There are, amongst others, the five big modules of this project. We are told that one of the modules would be assigned specifically to Newfoundland. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable that Newfoundland be responsible for one of the platforms, or modules. As for the rest of the project, since it is a Canadien project, we have moved an amendment to bring about a vote in the House to amend the bill. We do not wish to block the project, to delay it, or to kill it outright, but to have it brought about in a way that is favourable to the economy and in the interests of both Canada and Quebec. What do we see? We discuss the matter for about two hours. It is the beginning of the session, the beginning of the year. Everything was going smoothly; there was no filibuster; we respected the Standing Orders and waited to be recognized before exercising our right to speak. After just two hours, we are being cut off. We are being told that enough has been said and that we cannot discuss the subject any further.
That is what we do not understand, Mr. Speaker, because this bill pertains to capital matters. We only want the right to discuss them in the House. The debate is essentially about closure. Our arguments should have been limited to this procedure, but everybody, government as well as opposition have raised arguments relating to the content of the bill. It ensues that many basic issues have not been mentioned, debated and or resolved.
What about fundamental issues like the technological future of Canada, to name only one? Will Canada always submit to policies dictated by foreign companies? Will Canada show, once and for all the will to invest in its own future? Will Canada, Quebec and all the other provinces ensure that from now on the high-tech mega projects
October 1, 1990

will be realized by Canadians, for Canadians, in the interests of all Canadians, not only here in Canada, but also in foreign countries? Will we be a people forever dependent on other people's interests? Canadian money will-


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I have just listened to the lovely rhetoric of the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that when he was Minister of Environment in the Conservative government he supported the Hibernia project.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the environment, everybody knows but nobody mentioned it except the hon. member a moment ago, that no other project has ever undergone as many environmental studies before being brought forward. When I was Minister of Environment and a very strict minister as that because many criticisms were levelled at me in economic circles, I have attested, and I can reaffirm it now that in that project everything has been done to protect the environnment.
We do not criticize the legislation from the environmental point of view. What we criticize and find unacceptable are the conditions under which the project is to be economically and technologically realized. Certainly, Mr. Speaker- I would like to conclude my remarks, with your permission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On the same point of order, perhaps, Mr. Speaker. I find it a bit confusing because at the time he was a minister, he was unconditionally for the project. Is he mixed up or what?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, although we are close to adjournment time, I would like to make another point.
Essentially, in the battle to be recognized we in the Bloc Quebecois are fighting a very important battle for parliamentary democracy, for the interests we represent in Quebec and for the future of Quebec. We know quite well that the right we claim must be won little by little. We will patiently fight day after day. We will patiently bring the House toward full recognition of the Bloc Quebecois. That being said, we will not accept any attempt at muzzling members one at a time, we will condemn it, contest it and immediately repudiate it. And
Adjournment Debate
that is what was done today. An attempt to muzzle one by one-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Bloc Quebecois just now on what needed to go to Quebec. It seems to me the deal that was signed helps Quebec immensely. It helps less so the maritime provinces, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. who would be looking for the work.
However, last May 81 rose in the House and, just after he had tabled his amendments to the Fisheries Act, I asked the minister about the penalties that he was planning to bring in at that time. The question was about the fines up to $1 million for harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat.
I asked on that day in particular because I knew there were 42 foreign boats fishing in what was called the silver hake box, while our own fishermen were not able to fish in that area at that time because of the spawning ground rules. The odd part is that they were fishing right beside the spawning grounds. They are allowed a by-catch of the traditional fish in the spawning grounds.
It just seems that the government-and I am looking forward to hearing more about these amendments as they come into play-was hitting at the people who are least able to pay the penalties, our own Canadians, when we have foreigners out there fishing and overfishing, yet we cannot impare the same type of penalties on them.
I know the Minister for International Trade signed an agreement with the Americans whereby they would look to have a uniform system as a guide to prosecuting Americans in our waters. I know the American system and I have seen how it works. That agreement is only worth the ink on that paper, because I cannot see the eastern seaboard American states agreeing very rapidly

October 1, 1990
Adjournment Debate
to an agreement that will prosecute their fishermen who are fishing in our waters.
The government says it looks all the time for a level playing-field in the fishery. On the same day, I asked the Minister for International Trade about the $130 million subsidy that was going to help the offshore in the Northern cod. I asked that day that the penalties be the same right across the board for the foreigners in the offshore and the inshore-anyone who is caught in violation within our waters. The $130 million did not represent level playing-field, as far as I am concerned.
I have been waiting since last June, when I questioned the minister and his officials on two separate occasions, for the guidelines on the $10 million available for new markets so I could send them to my constituents. I have not seen them.
It is just like a month ago when they introduced a subsidy program that any fisherman in our area would love to have given to them. It means free fish, fish by foreigners to be landed at plants, and these plants to be guaranteed loans by both governments. They then turn around and say: "We are playing on a level playing-field."
What about those who have the most influence, whether it is foreigners with the Minister for International Trade for other reasons, or whether it is the offshore with the Minister of Fisheries? Even on the day that he announced the amendments to the Fisheries Act I do not think that he was saying clearly which way it was going to hit fishermen. Who was going to have to pay more? Was it going to be the companies who can afford to pay for their offshore trawlers who may be in violation or the individuals? Or was it just another way for this minister to say we have to cut back our catching capacity in the inshore. Certainly that is the way it was reviewed by the inshore fishermen in the area that I come from. It was just one more way.
Yet, there are many things on a daily basis that I see this Minister of Fisheries closing his eyes to. He should be looking to see whether or not there are things going on within the fishery, both offshore and inshore, that should be questioned or looked at. This government in particular does not look at what is good for the majority of Canadians. It looks at what is good for the few and to
satisfy on any occasion the big companies in Canada, even the international ones.
I am looking forward to seeing what these particular guidelines are, but I am particularly looking forward to seeing this minister in this new session come up with what I consider a level playing-field. That means, that for once, he has to start looking at the inshore.
I will sum up by saying that it is time that the government and this minister start looking at the millions of Canadians who are so dependent on every day employment and labour in the fisheries in Canada and not just the big companies.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, as is the procedure in the late show, I will respond to the question that was referred for further debate. That is the question of the silver hake box, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, is really a small mesh gear area where all small mesh gear fishing takes place with the exception of redfish and shrimp. Fishing activities restricted to this area include silver hake, squid, and argentine.
The silver hake box was identified in the 1970s as an area where the use of small mesh gear would have minimal effect on traditional groundfish and pelagic fisheries. This zone lies approximately 100 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia and includes an area stretching from east of Sable Island to the Fundian Channel and from the edge of the Continental Shelf to the 200-mile boundary.
The silver hake has been harvested in 1990 by foreign vessels from the Soviet Union, Cuba, Japan, and Bulgaria.
By-catches of cod, haddock, and pollock are minimal in the silver hake fishery. In 1989, these amounted to 3,300 tonnes of which 2,400 tonnes was pollock. As part of the 1990 bilaterals with Cuba and the Soviet Union, negotiations have been ongoing. To date, several hundred tonnes of by-catch have been landed by U.S.S.R. vessels for Canadian processing.
Canadian fishing activities were approved for 1990. These were confined to inshore operations less than 65 feet. As well, a successful experimental fishery on Emerald Basin using MG vessels less than 65 feet has been completed.
With the exception of the inshore Emerald Basin experimental fishery, all fishing activities are within the small mesh gear zone, commonly referred to as the silver
October 1, 1990

hake box. This area does not overlap the haddock nursery closure area on Emerald and Western Bank and therefore there are no foreign activities in areas closed to Canadians.
The silver hake fishery is prosecuted in deep water on the edge of the Continental Shelf and therefore damaging to productive fishing habitat is minimal. Canadian observers are on board all foreign vessels and monitor all fishing activities.
The haddock nursery area was introduced in 1987 in an attempt to protect the excessive harvest of juvenile haddock by otter trawl vessels. The closure is landward of the silver hake box and covers an area of 5,000 square miles on Emerald and Western Banks which lie to the west of Sable Island. The outer boundary of this nursery area is proximate to the inner boundary of the silver hake box.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Gatineau- La Lievre.


TOURISM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is extended because of a question I had asked in this House, last April. I had then asked the Minister how he intended to address the issue of rebates for tourists from other countries.
Indeed, I will not repeat the minister's answer, but he had indicated that along with Ministers of Finance and the Standing Commitee of the House on Finance, he had initiated action to solve that issue. The travel wholesalers had some problems because it was a very complex matter and they would be at a disadvantage compared with the so called package deals for tourists from abroad.
In the second part of my question, Mr. Speaker, I had asked the minister how come according to the wholesalers whatever rebate system he would promote, it would in no way help to solve their problem.
So, as the months went by the wholesalers insisted that the rebate system for tourists from abroad, especially those from United States, Mr. Speaker, would give an
Adjournment Debate
undue advantage to the wholesalers of United States coming to Canada.
They informed the minister many times that there was a problem. The minister imagines, of course, that he has solved the problem. But obviously, the problem is still there. When I asked the question, I was not a mind reader, but I realized the minister insisted that the refunds would really solve the wholesalers' problem.
Indeed, it was in April and I knew the tourist season in Canada would peak in May, June, July and August. Now, we are at the beginning of October and the evidence is overwhelming. M. Speaker, tourism has indeed substantially declined in Canada. There has been more complaints from the wholesalers that one of the reasons tourism has dropped was because there are so many rumours about the new GST- Imagine, it has not yet come into effect and it is already creating problems!
Consequently, I wanted to further inform the minister. There is always time to make changes. What kind of changes could he make? I do not know. But I would be very happy if his parliamentary secretary, here in the House, could advise his minister that, indeed, maybe the time has come to look at ways to improve the rebate system so that it would be acceptable to the wholesalers.
But as I am speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, the new leader of our Party, as you know, the Hon. Jean Chretien, has given me new responsibilities that do not come under tourism anymore. The new member-let's say since 1988-the member from Broadview-Greenwood, is indeed for the Official Opposition critic for tourism.
Unfortunately, given the Standing Orders, he would have liked to make his maiden speech, not as a new member of this House, but as our critic for tourism. He will develop his ideas and will convey them in the next few years. I do not want to elaborate too much on this issue, I simply want to ask the hon. member responsible for tourism tonight, who will answer for the minister, if he would ask the minister for information, since this question is very important for the tourism industry in Canada, which will become in the future our greatest industry. We have to take whatever time it takes to ensure the tour operators, who bring a lot of tourists into Canada, fully understand the issue and to work with them to find a solution that will promote tourism in our country, since it is probably our major export industry.

October 1, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Now, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you allotted me. I am sure the hon. Member standing in tonight for the minister will inform him of my concerns on this issue.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I might, I would like to congratulate my hon. friend opposite on his new appointment. On behalf of the minister and my colleagues, I wish him well. Certainly, we welcome his colleague from Broadview-Greenwood on his new responsibilities for tourism. To get to the point at hand, before undertaking any major policy initiative, the federal government must examine the impact on the tourism industry. This was certainly the case when the government undertook its recent overhaul of the taxation system. The proposed goods and services tax will strengthen Canada's ability to compete with our developed country trading partners.
Canadian business will no longer be obliged to pay the hidden manufacturers' sales tax. Registered businesses will be eligible for a refundable tax credit for GST paid on all business purchases. This means that the effective rate of federal sales taxation on products or services purchased as part of a business enterprise will be nil. This is not presently the case. Many businesses, including those in the tourism industry, currently pay the hidden 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax when they purchase certain goods.
Under the goods and services tax, it is estimated that for some tourism businesses, the input tax credit will result in operating savings of 2 to 4 per cent. In 1989, the $25 billion we earned in tourism revenues was credited with generating direct employment for more than 630,000 Canadians. Today, there are some 60,000 Canadian businesses which derive all or a substantial portion of the revenue from tourism. Under the GST, this vital industry, which in 1989 ranked third among Canadian exporters after automobiles and auto parts, is expected to continue to grow.
All evidence suggests that foreign visitors will continue to view Canada as a desired vacation destination. We are going to have a GST rebate for international visitors that extends to both accommodation and purchases. We are the only country to offer a rebate to international
travellers for accommodation. Except for transporter air services to the continental United States, inbound and outbound international passenger transportation will be zero rated. The rebate program will be accessible and visible. Visitors will be permitted four claims per year. The government is also implementing a program for foreign visitors to collect their rebates at the point of departure through duty free shops.
Other measures include simplifying the administrative aspects of tour packages, as my hon. colleague referred, and conventions where accommodation is offered as part of an over-all, all-inclusive package of services offered at a set price. In these cases, a visitor will be entitled to claim the actual tax paid on accommodation if this could be broken out or the visitor will be offered a flat rebate amount of $5 per night. I am pleased to report that, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, wholesalers and tour operators, as well as corporate and convention planners in some instances, will now be able to claim a rebate for the GST paid on the accommodation portion of their Canadian packages.
The threshold for the rebate has also been reduced from $25 to $20. The lower threshold brings the total eligible expenditure for individual tourists back in line with that originally proposed in the light of the reduction of the GST rate from 9 per cent to 7 per cent. My time is up.


TAXATION
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, last spring I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance why seniors were being required to pay the clawback on their old age pensions when the legislation had not passed all parts of the legislative stages. I trust there is going to be at least a government member in the House to answer.


Mr. Vincent:: Not to worry.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Not to worry. I am sure that their answer will be better than the one of the Minister of Finance. At that time the Minister of Finance said that it was perfectly all right, that if they did not wish to pay, they did not have to. However, that is not what has happened to old age pensioners. Old age pensioners who chose not to fill in the information about the clawback, simply filed their income tax returns and were entitled to refunds

had the ministry of finance complete their income tax return and deduct the clawback from their refund.
Pensioners are concerned about the clawback for a number of reasons. It is being forced on them without the passage of legislation.
Also, they are concerned because it is the beginning of the erosion of universal programs. Government is saying that people with an income over $50,000 are no longer entitled to old age security, even if they have worked all their lives for this type of social security program. They paid taxes so that they could have it.
Now they are beginning to wonder if the government is saying this about old age pensions: "Why not next year health care?" We simply say: "People over a certain income level no longer get free health care or education." Then where do we go? We end up with a two-tiered system. One system for education, for health care, for pensions for people on low incomes and those for the wealthy.
We see what is happening in the United States when you get into two tiered systems instead of social security programs.
Pensioners are also saying to me that they are concerned about the clawback because, again, it is part of an unfair tax system, that this government is choosing to tax seniors at a 100 per cent rate on certain income pensions while, at the same time, it has reduced the corporate income tax in this country from 36 per cent to 28 per cent. And, 60,000 comfortable corporations paid no tax.
In fact, many of the large corporations not only paid no tax, but they got tax credits. We have people like Brascade and Brascan, $263 million and no tax. Also, they happen to have donated $50,000 to the Tories. People like Standard Trusco, $13 million, no tax. They happened to donate $15,000 to the Tories.
The good friend of both Tories and Liberals, Tridel, the friend of both of the old line parties, $72 million. They happened to donate $29 million to the Tories and I think $80 million to the Liberals. Seniors are saying: "What is happening to the fairness of our tax system?"
Now they are asking me: "Why is the government insisting on proceeding with the most unfair tax of all, the GST?" They said to me over the weekend: "What is happening in Ottawa?" "Why do we have a spectacle of
Adjournment Debate
a Tory government packing the Senate in order to get the GST through? An unfair tax."
At the same time, they are saying: "We do not believe the Liberals. They are two-faced about it. Their critic quit because he supported the GST. They refused to give any alternatives to the GST. Their new leader filly-fal-lied around for months to make up his mind. He had the opportunity to kill the GST in June, July, August, September but no, he deliberately waited until he knew that the Prime Minister was going to pack the Senate."
They are saying: "Plague on both the Houses of the old line parties. They are in cahoots for unfair taxes." The clawback is just part of this unfair tax system. But, seniors have been saying to me repeatedly: "We do not mind paying our fair share. We do not mind shouldering the burden evenly. The time has come that the big corporations paid their fair share." The time has come that the old line parties-be honest with us-the Tories and the Liberals level with the public as to what their intentions are.
If they have alternatives, put them on the table so that people can look at them. If their intent is to stop unfair taxation, do it when they have the opportunity and not simply mark time until that opportunity is lost.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that the remarks of the hon. member for Surrey North have left me utterly disappointed and surprised. The member for Surrey North is arguing against a piece of legislation under which people with an income of $75,000 or more would have to pay their fair share of taxes. We are not talking about low-income Canadians, Mr. Speaker, but about people aged 65 or more whose net income is $75,000. The government has decided that such people must cany their fair share of the tax burden.
Mr. Speaker, I let the member express his views, he should do the same thing. I can hear him trying to confuse Canadians by saying that companies do not pay taxes. Not true, Mr. Speaker, all Canadian companies pay their fair share of taxes. The hon. member forgets to mention that every year a number of companies report losses which keep piling up and must be deducted from taxable income. Other companies are entitled to claim depreciation. These are the only deductions. The member may say they do not pay taxes but that is not true at all, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed that the member for Surrey North, for whom I had a lot of respect, should make such claims and try to confuse Canadians.

October 1, 1990
Adjournment Debate
With respect to Bill C-28, I am saddened by the hon. member: his party supports a bunch of unelected senators who are doing their best to belittle Canadian democracy and disregard the rights of duly elected members of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators are sitting on Bill C-28, just as they are sitting on the GST legislation and all the other bills. These non-elected parliamentarians, led by a non-elected leader, have the nerve to contradict the will of the Canadian people expressed in 1988, Mr. Speaker, which was to elect a majority progressive conservative government. If the senators want to get into the political arena, let them run in the riding of Trois-Rivieres or Surrey North. Then I will respect what they say. Then I will respect the position they take on legislation.
As long as there is only one elected House, that House will decide. No senator has the right to play games with the democracy of this country. I will not mention all the editorials that agree with my position, Mr. Speaker. I am talking here about a fundamental principle that was clearly expressed by the people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres on the weekend. They said: The senators should pass legislation that was passed in the House!
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has expired. Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Hies day, October 2, 1990