1990-12-19

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT 39-40 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 19,1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[Stage Direction]
1991 CANADA WINTER GAMES
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, from February 17 to March 2, 1991, the eyes of our nation will be firmly focused on my province of Prince Edward Island as 2,500 of our country's best young athletes will gather to compete in the 1991 Canada Winter Games.
The excitement and anticipation of the games are evident throughout the Island as 4,000 volunteers work together to prepare for this important event. In all, 68 communities will play host to competition as Islanders welcome Canadians to the place where our forefathers gathered to give birth to our nation in 1864. This will be a great opportunity for all of us to realize the potential of a united and cohesive Canada as we bring Canadians together in a common cause.
I encourage members from all parties, from all comers of our country, and all Canadians to come to Prince Edward Island to take part in this important national event. We can rest assured that the 1991 Canada Winter Games will be an exciting Canadian event.


ELECTION IN HAITI
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, December 16, a democratic election was held in Haiti. Father Jean Bertrand Aristide was elected with more
than 70 per cent of the popular vote, after more than 35 years under a dictatorship Duvalier. As a friend of the Haitian people, I am glad the election process was orderly and democratic.
After electing Jean Bertrand Aristide, a personal friend and respected Haitian leader, this country will be able to make great strides towards democracy and justice. That is why I want to ask my government not only to increase material aid to this country but also to promote economic and political relations with a newly-elected government that will be more supportive of justice and open government, in a new, democratic Haiti.


CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period last November 8, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he would do the right thing and quickly introduce legislation that would give war veterans status to former members of the Canadian Merchant Navy who during World War II had sailed through dangerous waters.
The minister seemed to indicate that his department was looking into it. I understand the minister was telling not only me and this House but also the veterans most concerned with this question and the people of Canada that his department would be discussing with a number of veterans groups the possibility of giving veterans status to World War II merchant navy veterans.
We were wrong. Neither the minister nor anyone from his department has attended any meetings of the study group which the veterans groups have set up to study a number of questions including the matter of merchant seamen.
The minister should take the earliest possible opportunity to give war veteran status to Canada's merchant seamen who served our country during World War n. Surely this is an issue that has been studied to death and should be acted on immediately. But, if the minister insists on studying it a little more, he or his representa-

tives should actively conduct that study with the assistance of veterans organizations including representatives of merchant navy veterans.
I hope the minister will tell this House and the people of Canada if he has completely rejected the possibility of giving war veterans status to merchant seamen. If he has not, he should at long last do the right thing and bring in legislation. We will put it through in one day and correct this historic injustice.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, last month it was the men and women of Air Canada who fell victim to the government's irresponsible economic policies; 2,800 jobs were lost across Canada, 240 in Manitoba. Two weeks ago the government's misguidance in other policies led to cuts to the CBC eliminating an estimated 40 to 50 jobs in Manitoba alone. This week it is the Royal Canadian Mint in Winnipeg; 29 more employees have been laid off with little hope, if any, of return.
When will this government learn to stop this brutal slashing of good jobs for Canadians and stop picking on western Canadians. Is there a minister in the government prepared to tell us today of the other job cuts Canadians can expect this winter as a result of policies such as high interest rates, the Canadian U.S. trade agreement, and the inflationary goods and services tax?
What a disgrace. Almost 5 million Canadians are poor, close to 2 million are on welfare, and over half a million are using overcrowded food banks. When will this assault on the working Canadian men and women cease?


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the 1991 Atlantic groundfish management plan clearly demonstrates that recent government measures including quota cuts have worked for the benefit of all Canadians, particularly those in the fishing industry. Increases in 4X and 5 cod quotas clearly indicate that we have turned the comer in the Scotia Fundy region.
I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his sensitive and sensible TAC for the vital 2J and 3K-L cod stock. The established figure finds a reasonable balance between allowing the stock an opportunity to recover while at the same time securing the social and economic needs of those fishermen and plant workers whose livelihood depends on the stock.
Suggestions from Cabot Martin of the Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Alliance should be seen as a self-serving hypocrisy that they are. During the past week he has been the darling of the media calling for major cuts in the quota but of course intends that all the cuts should be from the offshore sector.
Today's announcement from the European Community for an excessive unilateral EC quota of northern cod should be condemned from all sides of this House and by all Canadians. Through the sound management of this government and this minister, our cod stocks will come back and secure a great future for the Atlantic ground fishery. However, 1991 may require new measures for dealing with our European friends.


POVERTY
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, as Christmas approaches, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the shameful fact that poverty and malnutrition are affecting increasingly larger numbers of Canadians. One family out of five spends more than 50 per cent of its income on shelter. Sixty per cent of single-parent families, mostly headed by women, live below the poverty line.
In Montreal's disadvantaged neighbourhoods, 12 per cent of the children are bom underweight, which is more than in many Third World countries. Fortunately, community organizations and volunteers are helping to deal with this problem.
I would like to pay tribute to these people today and ask hon. members to increase pressure on the government and do their share to provide a minimum of dignity for our poorest fellow Canadians.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the CBC is no different from that taken by Radio-Quebec in 1986, when it closed nine regional production centres, and earlier this year, when it closed its office in Gaspe.
Where the cuts are to be made is the exclusive responsibility of the president and CBC officials. Let them open their books so that members of Parliament and the Quebec public can see for themselves what their assets and liabilities are.
Mr. Speaker, instead of shouting at Conservative members from Eastern Quebec, PQ MPP Jean Garon should tell Quebecers what he ought to have done to prevent the closing of regional stations by Radio-Quebec. This message also concerns the federal NDP and its Quebec wing.


BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. AI Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week the MLA for Okanagan West, Mr. Cliff Serwa, a constituent of mine, was named the Minister of the Environment for British Columbia.
Having known Mr. Serwa for many years, I believe he will do an outstanding job. I know he looks forward to working with our Minister of the Environment as the green plan proceeds.
I am sure all members of this House join me in wishing Mr. Serwa well as he takes on his new responsibilities.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in Moncton today, nearly 2,000 Acadians will demonstrate to protest the cuts at the CBC. As a result of these
cuts, there will hardly be any news about the performance of young Acadians at the Jeux d'Acadie.
In Timmins-Chapleau, in my riding, we have lost our voice, making our isolation even more obvious. The government spends several million dollars on a commission on national unity, and meanwhile, the Minister of Communications does nothing to prevent cuts in the CBC network, one of the very tools we need to promote dialogue and understanding among Canadians.
In the case of francophones outside Quebec, these cuts have made them even more isolated and vulnerable. If the Prime Minister is sincere about his efforts to promote national unity, he should ensure that his government supports his position instead of undermining it.


RURAL WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, rural weekly newspapers play a vital role in our communities, in our provinces, and in our nation. By communicating information within the community and informing people of the government policies and programs, they play a vital role in news gathering and dissemination. They play an important part in the whole democratic process in Canada.
Last week the Mulroney government declared war on these rural weekly papers by dramatically increasing the postage rates and taxes that these newspapers pay. This has caused an increase in costs of over 350 per cent for one weekly newspaper in my constituency.
The Manitoulin Expositor, a weekly paper on Manitou-lin Island, will have its postage charges when combined with the GST tax increased from $17,000 this year to $57,000 next year. This is an unconscionable increase for this rural weekly newspaper. I am sure that many weekly newspapers will go out of business next year because of these new taxes and postage increases.
I call on the government to stop this destruction of our rural weekly newspapers and roll back these tax and postage increases.

[Translation\


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr, Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of attending two meetings of senior citizens clubs in my riding. I am referring to L 'Age d'or de Saint-Jovite and Le Cercle d'amitie de Lafontaine.
The number of senior citizens is increasing steadily, and seniors are becoming more and more active in a variety of areas. That is the case in my riding as well, and I am delighted. I am proud to see that senior citizens are trying to take the place that is rightfully theirs in the community.
I would like to pay tribute to all senior citizens who regularly participate in community activities. They have demonstrated that seniors are dynamic and are making a very significant and very enriching contribution to society.


MARGARET THATCHER
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, a remarkable era in British politics ended last month as Margaret Thatcher stepped down after serving as Prime Minister of that country for eleven and one-half years.
I rise today to pay tribute to this great world leader and remarkable statesperson. Mrs. Thatcher's pragmatic approach to complex issues, as well as her undaunting commitment to freedom and the free enterprise system, were trademarks of her political career that were best demonstrated by her valuable contribution to the ending of the cold war and the opening of eastern Europe.
Here in Canada, Thatcher's opposition to the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community has been appreciated by our prairie farmers, given the economic consequence they have suffered as a result of that trade distorting welfare program.
Mrs. Thatcher never shied away from her iron lady image, which she earned from the Soviet media for her opposition to communism and unwavering support of the
NATO alliance. I salute the iron lady. She is an inspiration to us all.


RACIAL TOLERANCE
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to the growing intolerance faced by Canada's Muslim and Arabic population.
As Canada and the west prepare to go to war with Saddam Hussein, too many commentaries and images have portrayed Iraqis and other Arab peoples as the new enemies of the west. This is racism pure and simple and must never be allowed to go unchallenged.

Statements inciting hatred against any identifiable group should be vigourously condemned by all members of the House. I want to ask the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) to take up the defence of Moslem and Arab groups in Canada. It is the very least we can do, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has really taken its lack of caring for the unemployed of this countiy to the limit. The infamous 85 per cent call-back rule before workers are entitled to UI has been turned down by a local board of referees, by an umpire and by the Federal Court of this countiy.
Not to worry, the government has not given up in its fight against the unemployed. It has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court to ensure that even when a labour dispute ends, workers will not qualify for UI.
I have received indications from labour lawyers and government officials that the Supreme Court decision may be lost by the government. However, faced with this possibility, once again it has demonstrated a total lack of compassion. The government is now suggesting that with the new improved Bill C-21, which supersedes the old bill which is even more stringent, it can disregard the ruling by the Supreme Court.
December 19, 1990

Through this manoeuvre the government is saying it is above the law of the land. The quality of mercy is certainly strained. Merry Christmas to the Tories from the unemployed of this country.


THE SENATE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, as the year draws to an end, it is difficult to forget the spectacle caused by the MacEachen group in the Senate. Amidst desk thumping rhythmics accompanied by a symphony of kazoos and efforts to gain entry into the Guinness World Book of Records for long-windedness, the reputation and the respect of Canada's chamber of sober second thought slithered to a point that defied definition. Let us hope that the credibility given to this Chamber by the Conservative senators becomes contagious and that the 20-plus government bills currently before them are dealt with in a manner that had previously been the expectation of that place.
And to the departing interim Leader of the Opposition, who with his credibility has provided wise, respectable leadership in the House of Commons, it is unfortunate for every point he gained for his party in the polls that his Liberal counterparts in the Senate cost him a point and one-half.


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to say to all hon. members that they will note, because of the largess of the Speaker, all members who wished to make a statement today were allowed to do so. It is part of the Christmas spirit. Do not count on it during the new year.


Mr. Gauthier:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This is stretching Christmas spirit far too far.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit, would you allow for all questions to be put and answered?


Mr. Speaker:: Only on one condition, that not only the minister asked but all other ministers may join in the answer.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I should like to take a moment to express to my colleagues-', "A very sincere wish to all of you and to all of your families for a happy Christmas and a good new year and I include in that a wish for our country.\nThere will of course be this afternoon from four o'clock on a reception in the Speaker's chambers, and I would like to invite all hon. members to join with me.\nI thank you for your help and co-operation during the year.", 'Routine Proceedings']
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. members:: Herb, Herb, Herb.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their applause and above all for their encouragement and support over the past several months. I certainly look forward to working with the new leader in the same co-operative and constructive spirit.
In that sense, I also want to thank the government for giving me such good material, which I say with some regret I forecast will continue to be the case in months to come.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I ask this question because today the Canadian Manufacturers' Association published its year-end review. It confirmed that we are in a made in Canada recession, one it said was "precipitated by rising interest and exchange rates". In other words, it is due to the misguided economic policies of this government. The report says that this recession will result in "the loss of
180,000	manufacturing jobs, of which perhaps half will be permanently lost", and "the bankruptcy and closure of hundreds of manufacturing firms".
Why is the Minister of Finance the last person in this country to recognize the carnage being caused by his own policies to the economy and the people of this country and why will he not start doing something right now to stop this carnage and devastation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I recognized that we are coming into a difficult economic period in the budget of February, so it was something that we had anticipated. We felt it was coming, as I have indicated in the past. It is something that does happen when a country has gone through 7.5 years of very strong growth. It is happening in the United States, it is happening in the United Kingdom, it is

Oral Questions
happening in Australia, it is happening in some other countries. We are not alone in the difficulties we are experiencing.
We recognized this in the spring of this year when we started bringing interest rates down. Interest rates have come down more than 200 basis points. There will be a further reduction in the bank rate tomorrow, as indicated by the markets now. I think this is the best thing we can do in order to provide lower borrowing costs, freeing up opportunities for economic activity right across the country.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have to say that that answer simply will not do for the thousands of Canadians standing in the unemployment lines. It simply will not do for the thousands of Canadians standing in the welfare lines. It simply will not do for the thousands of Canadians standing in the food bank lines tragically, even in this holiday season right across this country, due to the misguided policies of this government.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association said that this did not have to happen. When will the minister wake up and start doing something new and meaningful for the thousands of workers who are losing their jobs permanently because of the recession caused by the policies of this minister? Why will he not do something right now for the innocent victims of his and his government's made in Canada recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that lowering interest rates simply will not do. He has been critical of high interest rates for some period now. I think we have been moving reasonably aggressively to get interest rates down. Now he says it simply will not do.
If it will not do, then what is the position of the Liberal Party? We have heard this time and again whether it is free trade, whether it is on the goods and services tax, now on economic policies. The Liberal Party of Canada is full of a lot of hot air but it is not full of any constructive alternatives as to how it would do things better or differently.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saying to the minister and his government that they want an election and a new and better government, not unfortunately the government that we are looking at on the other side of the House.
When the minister talks about high interest rates being brought down, Canadians know that what he has been doing has been too little too late.

Today, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association published its year-end report. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: When will he go to unemployment insurance offices across Canada and see all those people waiting in line? How does he think the unemployed are going to get through Christmas without any hope of better times in the New Year? Why are there not new policies for all these unemployed workers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we acknowledged there are currently many weak spots in our economy, and we have reduced interest rates since last spring. The result will create opportunities for future growth. It is normal for the economy to slow down after seven and a half years of very strong growth. Furthermore, we have kept the inflationary pressures we had two years ago under control. There may be future reductions in interest rates, and that is the best answer for our economy today.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, in its February Budget, the government acknowledged that all the elements were in place for a recession. The Minister of Finance got his wish: the unemployment rate is rising while thousands of jobs are being lost every month. The bankruptcy rate in Canada has reached record levels, and we know we are in a recession that has engulfed the entire country.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the results of his economic policy? Does the Minister of Finance believe it will be a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year for Canadians, thanks to his policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no one is happy about a recession. No one is happy about seeing people lose their jobs. No one is happy about seeing people go bankrupt. But these are things that happen in an economy that is growing faster than the capacity of the economy to meet that growth.
There are certain signs in the economy. If the hon. member would look at The Globe and Mail this morning, it says, "Robust trade month a surprise". There is a

continuation of export growth in the economy. I think this is something we can take some comfort in, that it is not all the black picture which my hon. friend and the Leader of the Opposition seek to portray here. It is important to recognize that we talk about these things with a good deal of balance, recognizing that there are difficulties, but also recognizing that there are some positive elements in the economy today.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the sharp drop in U.S. interest rates yesterday just widened the gap between our rates and the American rates.
Canadians are suffering the permanent loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, and the minister knows that, and personal and corporate bankruptcies are reaching an all-time record in this country.
How does the minister explain to Canadian businessmen, who are facing high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar, how they are going to be competitive and how they are going to survive in this climate, that was created as a definite plan by the government and proposed in its February budget? What is the minister's answer to Canadian business, if he does not want to answer us?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that in the past couple of months we have seen a narrowing in the interest rate spread between the United States and Canada of 150 bases points. So, we are responding to the concerns that the hon. member has referred to just now. We talk a lot to business people and are hearing those same concerns but we have also responded.
My hon. friend has asked why we got into that position. In 1988 and 1989, it was a very clear picture that we were looking at of strong inflationary pressures in the economy. If we had ignored those problems, if we had let the inflation get out of control, as it did in the seventies and early eighties, those same business people would be facing considerably higher inflation rates today and considerably higher rates of interest and that would have resulted in considerably higher levels of unemploy-
Oral Questions
ment.That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are trying to avoid with the policies we have been following.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ETHIOPIAN FAMINE RELIEF
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so I, too, congratulate the hon. member for Windsor West for his work as Leader of the Opposition and I think we all have appreciated his contributions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It has been a very difficult year for Canada with high unemployment, a recession, and serious questions of national unity and we have all done a lot of soul searching in the House.
But I would like to take this time to look outside ourselves as well, because as a nation we do have a responsibility for people who are in much worse circumstances than ourselves and not ignore the fact that millions of human beings, around the world, are starving during this holiday season. I think we really should look at our role as a nation. There are some four million people starving in northern Ethiopia and it is suggested that what is needed, through Oxfam Canada, is $1.75 million.
Will the government commit to ward off this famine and commit now to that $1.75 million, so that the people of northern Ethiopia can have a happy holiday season too?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I, before I begin my response, add my heartfelt congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition on being relieved of that post. Some of us know what a great deal of satisfaction leaving that post can be. And may I also-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Explain.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, I think there is room for a little ambiguity.
Let me also express to the Leader of the New Democratic Party our congratulations to her on her

Oral Questions
conduct as we draw near the end of the calendar year in which she has been serving as the leader of her party.
On the question of Ethiopia, first, the government certainly shares the very strong view that has been expressed by the member for Yukon with respect to our international obligations and we try hard to honour those. We try hard to honour those through ODA and we try hard to honour those through bringing an early and peaceful end to a conflict in the Gulf, whose principal victims are precisely the poor of developing countries who are faced with the double impact of high energy prices and the loss of remittances coming to their countries.
I am concerned and we are concerned about Ethiopia. There have been discussions raised by private members with regard to the value of a special trip by members of Parliament representing the three parties in the House to that region over the Christmas period. I believe that would be a useful undertaking. I intend to follow through on that suggestion.
We will then take a look at the specific recommendations that those members of Parliament may make to us upon their return.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate the point of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that perhaps there is a place for an independent review of the situation in Africa which is very serious. I would applaud that initiative.
I would like to say that there is an immediate problem that we know about right now. Oxfam Canada has estimated that a million tonnes of grain is needed in northern Ethiopia and a million tonnes of grain in the Sudan. Yet, it is also estimated that right here in Canada we are sitting with 33 million tonnes of surplus grain still in farmers' storage bins.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if the Canadian government consider purchasing that grain from Canadian farmers and donating it to those people who need it right now and cannot wait.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for
External Affairs mentioned, we are indeed concerned about Ethiopia. My hon. colleague probably knows that an agreement to reopen the port of Massawa was finally reached between the Ethiopian government and the rebels. I think this shows that donor countries did try to bring the two sides to reopen the port so that the greatest number of people could be reached and helped. I personally met, a day or two ago, with a coalition of NGOs returning from Ethiopia and discussed with them so as to respond effectively to the Ethiopian crisis in the months to come. We will also go on cooperating, as we did last year, with the international community and the Canadian ONGs through which most of our food aid reaches the Ethiopian people, to provide as much assistance as possible to the Ethiopians.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, our world has completely changed during the year now drawing to a close. But what we must realize as well is that the world is not only a big market but also a big family. I have just referred to the famine which is destroying certain regions of Africa while we here in Canada stare at huge accumulating wheat surpluses. My question is simple: Will the government give these surpluses to the people who are now starving in Africa?


Monique Landry: Surely, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is aware that if we are to provide assistance and food to distressed people in Ethiopia the donor countries have to co-ordinate their efforts to make sure that food assistance does get to the people. That would be our first consideration. We have assistance budgets and, as I have shown in recent years, we are prepared to buy the food and ship it to Ethiopia. I am sure my colleague knows that the on-going war often made it impossible for us to reach the people involved. In the past few years we agreed to deliver food through the means available to us and other donor countries, either via the south road or through cross border operations. But it is not a simple matter of shipping more wheat and foodstuffs, we have to make sure assistance will get to the people.
This is why I sought the co-operation of non-government organizations to gather the necessary information and bring pressure to bear on the party involved. Our efforts have been successful in the case of the re-opening of the Massaoua harbour. This amounts to a major victory for the international community, because we

know we will have new mechanisms to with which deliver the food supplies.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Over the past two years,
14,000	jobs were lost in 63 Montreal businesses. The rate of unemployment has now reached 11.7 per cent in Montreal, the highest municipal rate in Canada. Given this, is the minister prepared to meet Quebec government officials and the Mayor of Montreal to determine an action plan to create full time and indeterminate jobs? Is she willing to take these steps now?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, many steps were taken in Montreal, as in the rest of the country.
I would like to mention one industry in Montreal in particular which is doing very well and that is the pharmaceutical industry. Thanks to the legislation of this government, which the hon. member said was going to lose jobs, it has created hundreds of jobs in Montreal, including hundreds of research jobs in Montreal.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that answer will not satisfy the unemployed in Montreal, the rate of which is higher than any other city in Canada, including St. John's, Newfoundland.
Next month, 1,100 workers at Pratt & Whitney in Longueuil will lose their jobs. They do not need training. They want jobs.
What is the minister going to do for these workers? They do not want to hear rhetoric, they want some action.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, training and jobs go together. That is why the pharmaceutical industry is such a good example. It requires skilled jobs. The jobs are
Oral Questions
created and we have the programs to train people to take those jobs. We cannot have one without the other.
We have in this country, not only a need for jobs, but we have a need for skills. We have a mismatch between those jobs that are available, and the skills available. Clearly, the hon. members on the other side, who have held up our capacity to do this for so long, do not want to listen because they just keep talking.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POVERTY
Mrs. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The National Council of Welfare, which is an advisory body to the minister, tells us that the vast majority of the 1.9 million Canadians who rely on welfare are children, disabled people and single-parent families with incomes up to 50 percent less than the poverty line. During that time, the government refuses to pay its fair share of the costs of welfare, especially in the province with the most new cases.
I would ask the minister to tell the victims of this government's economic mismanagement why it has given up on them.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were being at all fair and accurate, she would not use terminology such as abandoning people.
This year alone, some $5.8 billion will be transferred to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan. The hon. member will also be aware of the fact that since the Liberal government was turned out of office, a significant number of Canadians, almost 1 million, have risen above the low-income cut-offs and about one-third of those are Canadian children. In a number of important areas, this government has taken initiatives in order to improve employment opportunities for Canadians and improve social benefits for Canadians.

Oral Questions
When it comes to dealing with the problems of the poor or of any socially progressive movement, the liberal Parly talks yes, but it votes no.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, this year, half a million Canadians turned to food banks each month in the hope of surviving the last two years of this government.
Will the minister commit today to visit some of the nation's 200 food banks during Christmas so he can see first-hand the poverty that his government has so callously ignored?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, not only do I make a practice of visiting facilities across the country which serve Canadians-whether they be food banks, child care centres or a whole range of other facilities-but I think it is important as well that the hon. member take advantage of the coming season to visit with some of the Canadians who have found jobs in the last six years.
The hon. member should meet some of the mothers who, for the first time, have been able to find employment, who have seen their children rising out of poverty, and who have seen a doubling of the child tax credit. She should talk with Canadians who for so long languished under Liberal complacency and who saw opportunities presented to them as more than one million Canadians have found new jobs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today yet another independent agency, the Toronto Dominion Bank, came out with a report that said: "This is the second worst recession since World War II". It blames, and again I quote: "federal government policies implemented by the Bank of Canada".
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Now that the United States has cut its bank rate to 6.5 per cent, even though the United States inflation rate is higher than here in Canada, will this government cut interest
rates here in Canada in a major way so as to help the hungry and the unemployed in this period of despair as Christmas comes forward?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have been cutting interest rates on a very regular basis starting back in May of this year when the Bank of Canada rate was 14.05 per cent. Last week it was
12.01	per cent. It will be lower tomorrow when the treasury bill auction takes place.
We have been responding to the weakness in the economy with a continuous reduction in interest rates. As I responded to a previous questioner, the interest rate spread between the United States and Canada has narrowed by some 150 basis points during the same period of time.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. I think we have seen clear that this government has failed to protect those who will suffer from this recession in which we are living clearly.
Over 17,000 Canadians use food banks every day, 500,000 a month. That is up 30 per cent over last year. Over 1.9 million Canadians live on welfare. Instead of offering a helping hand to Canada's poor, this government has handed them a kick in the teeth by placing a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
At this time of Christmas, with a hard winter ahead and with poverty and hunger increasing dramatically in this country, will the minister just once change his mind, do just one thing to help Canada's poor and take the cap off the Canada Assistance Plan?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan is a cap of an increase of some 5 per cent over last year in the three most prosperous provinces in Canada.
In his province, for example, there is no cap whatsoever on the Canada Assistance Plan. This year, we will be transferring to the provinces some $5.8 billion in terms of assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is time for members of the opposition to be honest with Canadians. In view of the fact that every Canadian has in their name in Ottawa a share of the national debt amounting to some $13,000, is it his recommendation, and the recommendation of the NDP that we should

Oral Questions
continue to run up that debt and simply pass on the bill to our children?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns the sudden shutdown of the CBC television station in Sydney.
With the closing of VIA Rail, the Canadian Armed Forces base, cuts to Air Canada and the gutting of the Atlantic fishery, the economy of eastern Nova Scotia is in tatters.
The closing of this television station means the loss of dozens of jobs and deprives the people of my riding and that of all Cape Breton of a special link with the rest of the country.
Why is the minister so intent and determined to dismantle another national institution and take away more jobs from an area that is already suffering tremendous economic hardship?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, several study groups studied and recommended the reorganization of the CBC and the Corporation took steps to accomplish just that. I will be happy to explain in greater detail the basis of this decision tomorrow, when I testify before the parliamentary committee.


David Charles Dingwall: My supplementary is to the same minister. The minister will know that the primary tool to facilitate and enhance national unity has been the CBC. Canadians in the poorer regions of this country want to know from this government how it will achieve this vital objective when, in fact, it shuts down those institutions that in effect bind all Canadians together. Why is the minister so intent and so determined to shut down this national institution, the CBC, which can and has facilitated national unity in this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government always looked upon the CBC as a government agency with an important role to play, as evidenced by all the programs made available to the Canadian people. With that in mind, the government always made sure that the average increase in the global revenues of the Corporation was higher than the combined average for government programs as a whole. However, this does not preclude the CBC-as any private network, newspaper and daily paper in Canada and in most Western countries-to adjust to market conditions because our nation may be predicated on unity, but it is also predicated on free market, Mr. Speaker.


HOSTAGES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
All Canadians have a great admiration for the character and determination showed by the Canadians who were held hostage in Iraq and Kuwait. I think we are all very pleased that they are now home for Christmas. I want to say that for many of them the trauma they experienced did not end with their release. Many of them are now suffering very serious economic hardship because they had to leave their jobs and assets. Some are having a very trying time making a personal adjustment after their difficult experience.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to offer services and resources by the government to help these very brave Canadians in their adjustment back to Canada, including writing off the travel costs which External Affairs has imposed upon them in terms of their return from Iraq and Kuwait? Could the minister give that undertaking in the House today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that everyone admires the courage of the Canadians who were trapped in Kuwait. There is no doubt that everyone in this House

December 19, 1990
Oral Questions
is very gratified that the very strong and unflinching position taken by the international coalition led to persuade Saddam Hussein to release all of the hostages.
The hon. member raises a question as to whether or not Canada should, in this particular instance, change a policy that has been applied without variation since 1961, a policy that was applied without variation during circumstances when difficult questions arose while the member who poses the question was a member of a government which applied that policy without variation.
The member knows that the arguments made against changing the policy when he was a minister were as valid as they are today. I have considered the question as to whether we should change because of the unusual pressures upon these Canadians, a policy which the hon. member respected when he was a member of a government and which other governments have for nearly three decades now. My view is that we should not change that policy. Naturally, if there are some particular circumstances that the hon. member would want to draw to my attention, I would be prepared to look at them.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to make the record correct, in our time in government we did not experience the kind of hostage taking that Canadians have experienced in the last period of time in Iraq and Kuwait. I think this is a special circumstance and I would sincerely ask the minister to reconsider his position and the position of the government. I ask him in specific terms if he would have his own officials undertake to contact each of the hostages and their families directly to determine what the nature of their economic and personal circumstances might be and whether in fact some resources, some help or some way of helping them to come back into the country can be offered and also gain from them the kind of information and experience that they had, especially in Kuwait in light of what we heard about atrocities and economic sanctions?
These Canadian hostages are a valuable resource to Canada. I think Canada should be treating them properly. I ask the minister to reconsider his position and give these Canadians the proper deference and the proper credit they deserve for what they did for this country.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have answered most of that question. I said that I have considered very seriously whether we should change a policy that was respected by the Liberal Party and by ours, respected by the hon. member when he was a minister, with respect to the principle that there would not be compensation for Canadians who were caught in extraordinary circumstances abroad. I also told him that I would be prepared to look at any serious proposal that he put forward.
With respect to the other part of his question, I think it would be very helpful to my department, and perhaps a subsequent report to Parliament, to consult with the Canadians who were prisoners in Kuwait and in Iraq. I have instructed my officials to undertake that kind of consultation, particularly with a view as to gaining their information on the situation in that region and their view as to improvements that might be made in the way Canada responds to circumstances of that kind should, God forbid, such circumstances occur again.
I think it is particularly important to do that, Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent report by Amnesty International, whose commentary upon the atrocities committed by Iraq in Kuwait should cause great concern to everyone in this House. Very often we neglect the fact that this crisis exists because a war was begun by Iraq against Kuwait and the most cruel kind of treatment is being imposed upon the people of Kuwait.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with respect to the final, final round of the GATT negotiations which are now being arranged for Geneva early in 1991 to break the deadlock in the agriculture panel and in the services panels.
Is our government still working toward the inclusion of agriculture in the GATT rules? What changes to our October 15 position are we proposing in an effort to get an agreement? What other actions is Canada taking in order to resolve the current impasse?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I think has been indicated here this week, we are still of course fully engaged in attempting to resolve the problems that developed in the latter stages of the Uruguay Round at Brussels two weeks ago. That process is continuing. I am keeping in touch with other trade ministers, particularly from the United States, the European Community and other countries. I am hopeful that certainly by the end of February that the round can be successfully completed. Whether that will be so or not, of course only time will tell.
We have not changed our own position, but we are prepared certainly to review it. We are reviewing it and we are prepared to be flexible if other people are prepared to be flexible as well. That is what is necessary if there is to be a resolution of these problems.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, does the government prefer to have a solution that will freeze and reduce the export subsidies or is it seriously looking at the kind of proposal that Premier Grant Devine put forward of having a food tax to finance the further subsidization of food production in this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. gentleman is in favour of a food tax. When we mention taxes around here usually they turn purple in the face at the very mention of a tax. We will take the hon. member's suggestion that there should be a food tax imposed in Canada under consideration. But it would not be for very long, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, before we would be forced to reject that.
With respect to the negotiations on agriculture, to have a solution to that, the GATT rules must apply to agriculture. We must have a definite position taken by the countries concerned with export subsidies, border measures and internal support, otherwise the final outcome could be negotiated. But the parameters are very clear. There must be a definite commitment with respect to those areas.


EXPORT AND IMPORT CONTROLS ACT
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the Minister for International Trade a question
Oral Questions
regarding a matter that has significant implications for Canada's defence industry. Provisions of the Criminal Code effectively inhibit Canadian industry exports to our friends and allies.
The government has been repeatedly requested by affected Canadian industry to bring forward legislation to permit these exports, subject of course to strict controls under the Export and Import Permits Act.
My question to the minister has two parts. First, will the government introduce such legislation and, second, if so, when?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is well aware of the problem that exists with reference to one of our export industries. I think one of those concerns is located in the hon. gentleman's district. He has been very diligent in bringing forward the problem and in urging a solution.
The answer is that legislation is prepared and will be introduced shortly after the House returns.


MEDICAL EMERGENCIES
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Some 77 persons on average die world-wide each year of cardiac arrest while aboard commercial aircraft. Many European airlines provide the defribillaters for medical personnel aboard flights in case of emergencies.
What is the minister doing about the need for defribillaters and other life saving medical supplies on board our passenger airlines?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my friend raises an important issue which probably arises as a result of a very unfortunate incident this last weekend.
I have reviewed the situation, and I have asked my officials to begin to prepare the necessary amendments to the air navigation orders to require that flight attendants be trained in CPR.
My hon. friend makes an additional suggestion. I will take that up with my officials in the airlines and get back to him.

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford, only one question, please.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Being aware of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Buckingham and the representations made by Jean Chretien before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, as the constitutional issue stands now, can the minister tell me whether they amount to the same thing? Could she tell me the difference between the constitutional position of Jean Chretien and that of Brian Mulroney?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: This is a challenging question, Mr. Speaker, and I could respond in more detail if we had a few hours to spare. But the answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has a vision of Canada and he has always tried to achieve it. I think he made the necessary efforts to hold the country together during the Meech Lake Accord process and that he will continue to work to that end, Mr. Speaker.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas. In that light I appreciate very much the opportunity from this row to ask a question and further the answer of the Minister of Justice as to the mandate of the Prime Minister.
Since there is no minister here for interprovincial or interfederal relations-that minister is in the Senate, wherever he may be-I ask the question of my old friend, the Acting Prime Minister in a semi-serious way. I hope that there will be some consideration of this question, as there are many things to consider over the break.
Since we have finished the circus in the Senate, with all of that disgraceful situation, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and/or whoever is the minister in this House for federal-provincial relations. I hope some day there may be a minister in this House for federal-provincial relations.
This is the last question before Christmas. Will the Deputy Prime Minister seriously consider something that is not going to ever be resolved unless we consider this question? The question is this: forget about constitutional reform, will this House of Commons, in the new resumed session after Christmas, decide to have de facto Senate reform by cutting off the Senate water, the Senate electricity, and the Senate money so that we do not have to worry about Senate reform?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: How that meets the spirit of Christmas I do not know, but the minister may want to reply.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to return the hon. member's wish to the House for good cheer and hope that he will enjoy his share of it in the course of the holidays.
I can advise the hon. member that it is not the plan of the government to do anything to try to deprive the members of the other place of any of the requisites necessary to do their jobs, however those may be defined.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to take a moment to express to my colleagues-

A very sincere wish to all of you and to all of your families for a happy Christmas and a good new year and I include in that a wish for our country.
There will of course be this afternoon from four o'clock on a reception in the Speaker's chambers, and I would like to invite all hon. members to join with me.
I thank you for your help and co-operation during the year.

Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	[English]


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 76 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table today, in both official languages, the second annual report to Parliament on matters relating to official languages, for which I am responsible.

This report I am tabling pursuant to section 44 of the Official Languages Act relates to the 1989-90 fiscal year.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report on the impact of the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, Bill C-31, on Indian communities and the individuals.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONGRESS


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, copies of a document entitled "Canadian situation as regards the indigenous and tribal peoples' convention (No. 169)" adopted at the 76th session of the International Labour Congress in June 1989.



PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table for consultation purposes, in both official languages, a draft bill on protecting our archaeological heritage.



FRENCH CONSTITUTIONAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the privilege of tabling, in both

December 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
official languages, the final report of the French Constitutional Drafting Committee Responsible for Providing the Minister of Justice of Canada with a Draft Official French Version of Certain Constitution Enactments.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 take pleasure in presenting to the House, in both official languages, the eleventh report of the Canadian Section of the IAFP. This report concerns the activities of the Commission on Parliamentary Affairs which I had the honour to chair and which met here in Ottawa from October 10 to 24 this year.



REPORT ON SPEAKER'S VISIT TO POLAND

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, on behalf of the Speaker, the report of the Speaker's visit to Poland in November.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 61st report of the striking committee.
This report deals with the membership of the special joint committee established pursuant to the special order adopted by the House on Monday, December 17 of this year. Upon presentation this report is deemed adopted.



BRETTON WOODS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS ACT-TABLING OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, without amendments.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee, senior officials of the Department of Finance, and our clerk, Ms. Sirpaul, and all
research assistants and support staff who worked until late last night so that we could table this report today. To all, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons dealing with the issue of human rights and the provision of Official Development Assistance to Guyana.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, in both official languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence of this report later this day.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL-SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, in both official languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence of the report this day also.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In so doing, I would like to make the following remarks.
The ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which I have the honour to table today, relates to serious weaknesses in financial management and control in the Department of External Affairs. In particular, the department has failed properly to control accountable advances to employees to such an extent that approximately $25 million in advances were outstanding on March 31, 1990. These advances to employees relate to a variety of purposes including vacation leave, family reunion travel, educational travel, medical travel, et cetera.

Half of these are overdue and in many cases should have been repaid long ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You are just tabling a report. I am sorry, I will allow the hon. member to bring it up to the table.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, if I may on a point of privilege, it is normal when tabling a public accounts report to give an explanation of that report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I agree, and the hon. member who has been here for a long time realizes that, and I realize that. But, it should be a short report.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling, but the records will show differently.
In these times of fiscal restraint and high deficits, the annual interest cost alone in these overdue advances may amount to $1.5 million. This is a burden that taxpayers should not have to carry.
The real problem is a lack of professional standards in its accounting operation within the department, and the department must ensure that these standards are achieved and maintained in all areas of financial management and control.
The committee has asked for an early response for the department by January 31, 1991 and has asked the Auditor General to assess this response on behalf of the public accounts committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



BANK ACT


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce an act entitled an act respecting banks and banking.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On division? Agreed on division.


Gilles Loiselle: 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.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, although normally 48 hours' notice is required, I wish to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table a bill for first reading.


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I realize the minister wishes to table a bill, but I wish he would specify which bill before asking for our consent.


Marcel Masse: I don't know what the exact procedure is, but in any case, this bill-



STATUS OF THE ARTIST ACT


Marcel Masse: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an act respecting the status of artists and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada.


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


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Sixth and Seventh Report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion concerning the usual practice of allowing committees to report at times when the House is adjourned. The motion is the following:
That notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when reports of all committees are completed, the committees may report their findings by depositing their reports with the Clerk of the House and the reports shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I also have a motion concerning travel for the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs as follows:
That members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs or their respective substitutes be authorized to travel to Brussels, Vienna, Bonn, Budapest, Prague and Canadian forces bases in Germany for a period of not more than three weeks between January 15 and February 15,1991, in order to determine the implications for Canada of European security developments and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. parliamentaiy secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Consent on division. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? A point of order, the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand. You are asking the House if the hon. member has unanimous consent. Somebody yells no and then you say it is passed on division. I do not understand.
If unanimous consent is required and there is somebody who yells no, then obviously it is defeated, is it not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will put the motion again. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. parliamentaiy secretary to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Consent on divi-


An hon. member:: No.
sion. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?	The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): There is no
consent. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the govem-


Some hon. members:: Agreed.	ment House leader.

Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, surely we have the right to introduce a motion at this stage and to ask that it be put to the House. As I understand it, we are quite able to proceed. The answer could be that it is passed on division, but certainly that would be within our rules.
I do not know if the NDP are refusing to let a committee travel. I would have some problems with that.


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


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I am responding to my hon. friend who somehow implied that the New Democratic Party caucus was not supportive of this work. I take personal offence at that kind of comment because he knows it is not the case. The point is that when unanimous consent is sought, it must be obtained before we can proceed. If someone says nay, that ought to end the discussion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the standing committees of the House were given special responsibilities under the reform of Parliament in 1985. One of those responsibilities involves taking any planned for activity involving the expenditure of public funds, and in particular travelling outside of the country, first of all, to the liaison committee of chairpeople which covers the span of this Chamber, to seek permission for a budget, and subsequently to go to the House leaders of the parties for permission to move a motion.
The House has reserved for itself the right to divide on the issue of whether or not those plans should be approved or not. But just as we believe that members have the right to introduce bills at first reading and should not be blocked in the introduction until we have seen it, all the parliamentary secretary is seeking at this stage is permission to share a motion with the House. If the House wishes to divide, then the House has that right.
Surely we do not want to block the introduction of motions relating to the work of the standing committees of the House. If we do not allow the motion to be put in one case where they have worked in a planning and development sense, they will have to cancel almost a year of effort on behalf of those members who intend to travel before this House will meet again. It is being blocked by somebody who simply refuses to allow the House to divide on the question. I suspect the will of the House is to approve it. But surely no one in this
Chamber wants to block that kind of long-term effort on behalf of the standing committee. If we do the House is in a real pickle in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As there was no notice given, I must request consent again. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. On division? There is no consent.



HON. JOSEPH SMALLWOOD 90TH BIRTHDAY

Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to deal with the following motion which it is my great pleasure to move, seconded by my friend from St. John's West, our benevolent and beloved trade minister, and my friend from Kamloops.
I also want to acknowledge the co-operation of the hon. members for Shefford, Beaver River and Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Joey Smallwood, the former Newfoundland premier will be 90 years old this coming Thesday, Christmas Eve. I went to see him a couple of weeks ago. He is in great shape, good humour and very alert. At this time I want to give the House the opportunity to salute the man who played such a vital role in bringing together in 1949 two great dominions, the Dominion of Canada and the then Dominion of Newfoundland.
So, it is my pleasure to move:
That this House, on behalf of the people of Canada, and particularly on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, express its esteem and its appreciation to the Hon. Doctor Joseph Robert Smallwood, the only living Father of Confederation for his distinguished career in the service of the people and for his historic contribution to Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Shefford.

December 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, the Minister for International Trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the motion just moved, of which I was a co-sponsor, I want to say that the person whom we are honouring in this motion had a distinguished political and public career in two countries, Newfoundland and Canada.
I am delighted to have the chance to join in this expression of goodwill towards him, even though at times in the past, he has addressed me most severely. I join in the general admiration of his contribution to this country and to his province.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, I am pleased to second this motion. We all remember vividly the work that Joseph R. Smallwood did on behalf of the people of Newfoundland.
As a man who had a vision in terms of bringing Newfoundland into the Confederation of Canada and a nation-builder in terms of Canada as well as Newfoundland, I think we would be well advised to recall the approach that he often brought to those difficult discussions at that time, particularly in this time of nationbuilding ourselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order or on the same motion.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same motion, Mr. Speaker, since you did not recognize my point of order for which I had the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member should know that there is such a thing as decorum in this House, and when a minister rises, I recognize the minister first before I recognize the hon. member.


An hon. member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or is he replying to this motion?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member from Newfoundland, because Joey Smallwood was one of the first to use the referendum formula. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Smallwood precedent will be followed in reverse, with far more conclusive results and with no need for two referendums.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Like my friend before me, Mr. Speaker, I will be very short. I certainly support the motion. I was consulted beforehand.
What I want to let the House know-especially the other side of the House-is one of the reasons that Joey Smallwood, one of the original fathers of Confederation, is the character he is, is the fact that he reached across many political boundaries.
I know, when it comes to the Newfoundland, political boundaries sometimes merge and dissolve. I just wanted to compliment the mover of the motion and the seconder to let people know in the House, especially on the government side, that here we have, in the best ecumenical way, the member for Burin-St. George's moving a motion and the member for St. John's West seconding it.
In conclusion, most members on the government side do not appreciate that many years ago there was a fellow called Brian Peckford who put in nomination the name of John Crosbie to run against the man we are now honouring, Joseph Smallwood.
In terms of the Christmas season, it is interesting and educational for government members to know that there can be many multitudes of cross-currents, so that one does not have to live and die one way or the other.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Brian Peckford put in nomination John Crosbie's name against a fellow called Joey Smallwood whom we are honouring today. I am glad we are, but let the government members not forget that there can be switches too.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.

Routine Proceedings


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Order, you say. The orderly way is what we have done today.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would just make it very clear that it is not my intention to deny unanimous consent, but I know one of my colleagues from Newfoundland will know perhaps why I am rising.
I cannot personally support the motion out of respect for some of the activities of Mr. Smallwood over the years, but because it is Christmas I will not deny unanimous consent.
Anyone who has been a long-time member of the International Woodworkers of America will never forgive a premier who was the only premier in the history of Canada ever to banish a free trade union from the entire province of his jurisdiction. For that I will never forgive him.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, Joe Smallwood is a constituent of mine. Joe Smallwood is a man who I, as a very little boy and a student, used to visit just to talk about the history of Newfoundland and some of the things in the future.
Perhaps the biggest compliment that we could pay to him today is the nature of the debate we have heard in the last five minutes. For the man who is living on the Roaches Line in Newfoundland to inspire the controversy in the House some 90 years after he was bom, this may be the biggest compliment to him.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent was denied three times during the last few minutes before this motion was agreed to. I would like to know why, when the Chair asks for unanimous consent and it is
denied, the motion is carried just the same. Could the Chair indicate on which Standing Order its decision was based? We had no prior notice of these motions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the hon. member to come to the table so that I may discuss it with him and the clerks before we make a decision on it. It was adopted on division. He can come to the table and we can discuss it a little further.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, following the point of order that was raised by my hon. colleague, the member for Shefford, I, too, would like to raise a point of order. In explaining the Chair's position, as I understand it- and I may have misunderstood-the Chair stated that the reason that the member for Shefford was not recognized on a point of order was because the minister stood and every time a minister stands in the House, the minister must be recognized.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, and correct me if I am wrong, but in a point of order it is always the person raising the point of order who is recognized before the mover of another motion and, in particular, when there has not been a formal notice of motion given.
I may not agree with the point raised by my hon. colleague from Shefford, but the fact is that everybody in the House is supposed to be treated equally and, if somebody has a point of order, the point of order has to be heard before they can be denied out of hand. You cannot rewrite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to say to the hon. member that I saw the hon. minister rise and I saw the hon. member for Shefford rise. I did not know whether the hon. member for Shefford was rising on this motion or on the motion regarding Mr. Smallwood. Therefore, I recognized the hon. minister in that respect. That was the reason I did it.
I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls on the same point of order, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


Mr. Baker:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is correct by custom that, when two persons rise in their places, from custom the Speaker does recognize the one who is a cabinet minister.
As far as the business that was raised concerning unanimous consent, perhaps if members could be a little

Routine Proceedings
quieter in the House the Speaker could hear them when they object to this request for unanimous consent.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that bothered me in the decision you made earlier, and I am sure Hansard will bear me out, is that you recognized me, you gave me the floor and then at your request I had to yield to a minister. I would like to know whether every time a minister asks to be recognized, you will ask us to yield the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to thank the hon. member for Gander for his comments.
I would like to say to the hon. member for Shefford that that is not the way it happened. If he would like to come to my chamber, I will discuss it a little further with him. That was not the way it happened. We do have decorum in here.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Hamilton East, but this is not the Ontario Legislature either. She has been here for six years. She realizes that when a minister does rise and a private member rises, as far as decorum in the Chamber is concerned, we usually give precedence to the minister.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The house is my witness, Mr. Speaker. There might have been some confusion in your mind, but my microphone was on and I had the floor. I would not want precedent to be created by which a private member has the floor and you take that right away from him or her on a sign from a minister. I suggest we should refrain from creating such precedent in this House. I swear, Mr. Speaker, on my children's life, that I did have the floor and that the light on my microphone was on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. Notwithstanding the points of view expressed by anybody in the House, it is important that we have the same rules for everybody.
I am concerned that, according to the Standing Orders, when a point of order is to be raised during the
debate, a point of order is recognized over and above any other debate in the House. That has been a longstanding practice of the House.
It seems to me that on more than one occasion, the Chair seems to have selective memory-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -when it comes to points of order from the opposition and the government. It may be the Bloc Quebecois today and it could be another party tomorrow. All I am asking is for equal treatment for everyone. I am sure it has nothing to do with where I came from. I have been in this place for six years. I have seen Speakers who have respected equal treatment, and I want to see the continuation of equal treatment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to thank the hon. member for her comments.
Motions.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Mr. Bob  Homer@Mississauga West: Mr. Speaker, the House does not seem to be in a very generous mood at this time, but if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the sixth and seventh reports of the Standing Committee on
Justice and the Solicitor General, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Motion negatived.


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved:: That the nineteenth report of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections, presented to the House on Friday,
November 23, 1990, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked for consent. I did not ask for unanimous consent. Therefore, if there was a no, could we take that as permission on division?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member needs unanimous consent because it was only presented today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there are certain procedures at hand that the House knows very well. If somebody gives notice that he or she wants to move a motion later this day, meaning probably somewhere down the pipe, they can do that. At that time, we do not need unanimous consent because he or she gave notice.
In this case, I take it the member did not give notice because he could hardly have done so. He rendered the reports today. But his own side, his own Tories, refused him unanimous consent, not us.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Mississauga sought the unanimous consent of the House for a motion for concurrence in a report from the justice committee, dealing with the Weir report and the escape of Daniel Gingras in Alberta.
You asked for unanimous consent, Sir, and let the record show that it was Conservative members of this House who denied the unanimous consent to deal with that important issue, an issue important to the residents of Alberta and, indeed, to all Canadians, and that was with respect to the massive failure of this government in the criminal justice system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there further motions? We will proceed to petitions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 rise to table before this House a petition signed by almost 18,000 people. It was
Routine Proceedings
sponsored by the leaders of the union of professional and office employees of Abitibi-Price in Jonquiere, which has Mr. Daniel Maltais for president. All these petitioners call upon the Parliament to ensure that the management of Abitibi-Price will maintain their research centre in Jonquiere.
Mr. Speaker, I also join the chorus of the people of my riding and all the employees of Abitibi-Price to urge the company officials to suit the action to the overtures they made recently to the effect of carrying out in Jonquiere high quality research to meet their needs.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 8,000 citizens of Windsor and area. I believe that these 8,000 names will be part of 40,000 tabled today alone from the people of Windsor.
The petitioners ask that whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television station in Windsor is the only one located in the Windsor-Essex area, a region otherwise dominated by U.S. broadcast media and the station, therefore, provides a vital and irreplaceable service for the population of the area, the petitioners are urging this Parliament to request the CBC to do everything in its power to restore the television service to the Windsor area.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the distinct honour of presenting a petition on behalf of over 700 constituents from my great riding in northern Ontario, Parry Sound-Muskoka, with respect to the forthcoming closure of the Emsdale post office.
In approaching Parliament directly, the petitioners are expressing a widely held belief that rural Canada is being discriminated against by Canada Post's policy of rural post office closures.
The petitioners are humbly asking the Government of Canada to stop the further penalization of rural Canada by directing Canada Post Corporation to end its policy of rural post office closures. Further, in the rural areas already affected by the Canada Post policy, the petitioners respectfully request the reinstatement of the same level and quality of postal service in their communities as

Routine Proceedings
had existed prior to the implementation of the corporation's policy.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present a petition from 6,300 of my constituents regarding the Young Offenders Act.
These constituents who are mostly around the town of Hagersville call on this government to revise the laws of Canada, to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated Juvenile Delinquents Act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. members on my right and then I will go to the left. The hon. member for Halton-Peel, and then the hon. member for Abitibi.


Mr. Garth  Tinier@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table petitions containing the names of more than 50,000 people, collected largely due to the efforts of Mr. Gordon Domm.
These individuals are concerned about the increase of violent crime in our society. They ask this Parliament to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes which would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.
These petitions come from the following communities: Niagara Falls, Brantford, Kitchener-Waterloo, St. Catharines, Hamilton, Burlington, Simcoe, Guelph, Lancaster, Kincardine, Ripley, Campbellville, Cambridge and Dundas, Ontario.


Guy St-Julien: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions from residents of Val-d'Or and Sullivan in Abitibi who ask that the Government of Canada shelve the project concerning the Parliament Hill sector. At a cost of $68 million, it provides for parking facilities and a shopping centre under the Canadian Parliament Buildings. They urge the government to consider the need to maintain as they are the environment and the historic character of
the buildings and of the site of Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
The petitioners suggest that members keep their parking facilities as they are-parking spaces behind government buildings and outside like those of plant workers-and that the Canadian government has priorities other than building parking and shopping facilities on Parliament Hill.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition at the request of the right hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra concerning the quillback rock cod, which is a commodity of high culture value to Vancouver's Chinese Canadian community.
The petitioners are asking the government to reverse its plans to reallocate quillback quotas. They ask the Minister of Fisheries, following a request from the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, to remember the importance of the quillback industry to the Chinese Canadian community of Vancouver.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to share in petitions that are coming from Essex County and the city of Windsor. The residents there feel very much cut off from Canada with the cuts that have occurred in the CBC station in Windsor. They feel that they are inundated with American news broadcasts from directly across the border and in a very special way they have lost their contact with the local media, and local television.
They feel that the broadcasts out of Toronto are not answering local needs, nor giving the Canadian viewpoint to these residents. They humbly ask this government to do all that it can to restore the CBC station in Windsor. They ask the government to make sure the funding is available for them so that that station may be brought back, as well as communications throughout Canada to the level it should be.


Shirley Maheu: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from hundreds of people concerning the cancellation of the cultural enhancement program of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism

and Citizenship, a decision which will have a disastrous impact on the quality of teaching in our heritage language schools.


Shirley Maheu: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by several members of the Ottawa area asking that Parliament reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in proper form. It is a little different perhaps than some other petitions in that it is in reference to volunteer fire departments, their members and the income tax receipts they are allowed, presumably to help them remain volunteer firemen. They do not get paid in that endeavour. According to section 61(b)(viii) of the Income Tax Act they are allowed to issue them with a receipt but the fact is that the receipt was $300. In 1980-81 it was raised to $500 and it has not been touched since. They petition the government to review that income tax procedure to allow volunteer fire departments to be issued with an income tax receipt, something that is appropriate to today's times. They often wear their own clothing. They do not go and pick up a uniform. That is the only pay that they get. In some small communities throughout this country volunteer fire departments are very often the service clubs in those villages and communities.
I would like the government to consider this seriously. I am not sure what it does with all these petitioners but I hope it will give this one some priority.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on behalf of residents of Mount Pearl, Conception Bay and St. John's, Newfoundland, who are petitioning the government to re-examine the decision to impose the GST on reading material in Canada. It is a violation of the concept of freedom of
Routine Proceedings
speech to tax the written word, to tax the ability of people to communicate with each other.
The petitioners call upon the government and all members of the cabinet, including the member for St. John's West, and the parliamentary secretary, the member for St. John's East, to find their voices to speak out against this ungodly tax on reading material and against books.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this would be in order in any jurisdiction, the Newfoundland legislature, here in Ottawa or even in Ontario where they may sometimes do things differently, I do not know. Perhaps the member from Hamilton can tell us.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time today an hon. member of this House has made a disparaging remark about members from Ontario. Even though I have the greatest amount of respect for my friend and colleague and former rat packer, even though I have the greatest amount of respect for him, there comes a time when members from Ontario have to stand their ground.
Another member earlier made a comment about my friend, the member for Hamilton East. Even though at times she might annoy different members in this House, she has every right to sit in this House. Even though she has the misfortune of coming from Hamilton, it is not to suggest that all people of Ontario have the same inadequacies as my friend and colleague.
I would ask the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte to apologize to the people of Ontario.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I was merely reflecting upon a comment by the Speaker earlier when the Speaker said in response to a point of order that the member in question was not in the Ontario legislature now. I wanted to be absolutely sure in presenting my petition that whatever jurisdiction we were in, that the petition be received and that the word of the people of Canada be heard. I happen to believe that whether we are in the Ontario legislature, the Newfoundland legislature or the Canadian legislature, it is important that nothing be done to impede the ability of the people of Canada through their representatives to be heard.

Routine Proceedings
I know my colleagues from Ontario appreciate that and agree with everything I am saying, in particular, my colleague from Hamilton East. There really ought not to be a distinction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a petition but I want to state on the point of order that I am sure that the Speaker did not mean to reflect in any way negatively on members of the Ontario legislature when he made his comments. I am sure he recognizes that members of Parliament, whether they are elected federally or provincially, respect decorum and respect the rules of the House. I am sure that he would want to reflect on the intemperance of the statements made about the Ontario legislature.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, this is not a petition on the CBC cutbacks even though the government has viciously closed the one person bureau of the CBC in the city of Hamilton.
It is in fact a petition on the GST as it relates to beer. In the holiday season, I am sure Mr. Speaker, that my colleague, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants will probably want to second this petition, the reason being that the petition of the undersigned residents avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common. The Prime Minister and the Conservative government have ignored the wishes of the people and are imposing the goods and services tax. This is the important point, Mr. Speaker. The finance minister promised that the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax and the implementation of the GST would make Canadian industry more competitive and then, in the same breath, raised the excise tax on beer by 45 per cent to make up for lost federal revenues. This excise tax on beer displays disdain for small businesses that employ many people and have been taxed beyond reasonable limits. They will have to pass this tax increase along to customers and cut the number of employees.
Therefore we the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to cancel the 45 per cent increase in excise tax on beer, which is designed only to recoup lost revenues as a direct result of the implementation of the unfair, regressive and crippling goods and services tax.
This is signed by more than 800 residents of the great riding of Hamilton East. It will be followed by many more thousands of signatures which I will personally be collecting over the holiday season.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


John V. Nunziata: From Hamilton to Hamilton.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, Hamilton is well represented in the House. My friend from York South-Weston may be surprised to learn the world does not rotate around Toronto.
I have the duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to represent a group of constituents from the Toronto area, seeing as they need people from Hamilton to support them.
The Government of Canada saw fit since Confederation and without hiatus to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books, and newspapers, et cetera. Since it is now including them in the GST, these petitioners from Toronto, Willowdale, and Amprior are crying out to this government 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.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to present a petition. I would like to read the recitals; there are just a couple of them.
The Prime Minister and the Conservative government have ignored the wishes of the people of Canada and are prepared to implement the unfair and regressive goods and services tax. As we know it is now implemented and is law.
The finance minister has promised in the past that the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax and the implementation of the goods and services tax would make Canadian industry more competitive. Then he suggested raising the excise tax on beer by 45 per cent to make up for the lost revenues.
The petitioners in this particular petition ask the Government of Canada to cancel the proposed 45 per cent increase in excise tax on beer, which is designed only to recoup lost revenues as a direct result of the implementation of the unfair, regressive and crippling goods and services tax.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, a great many residents of Arborfield, Saskatchewan have sent this petition for consideration by the Parliament of Canada.
They note that there have been many instances by this Conservative government of direct attacks against the rural way of life: cuts to communications systems, whether it is VIA Rail, the branch lines or CBC.
However, they are most immediately concerned that the government reverse its policy on the closure of rural post offices, maintain the rural post offices and postal services and, through this means, accentuate rural life in Canada.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third petition I have presented on this subject. They have been certified under Standing Order 36. It comes from hundreds of people in the Chinese Canadian community of British Columbia, many of them in my riding of Vancouver East.
The petitioners are very concerned with the decreasing supply of live rock cod fish, a fish which is of high cultural and economic value and provides food for some 200,000 Asian Canadians. It is a staple food for families, restaurants, and tourists.
The petitioners are concerned that the federal government's negligence and mismanagement have limited the supply of live cod to a three-month season, while sport fishers are allowed an unfair quota. Of course this is diminishing the supply of very necessary food.
Therefore the petitioners demand that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recognizes the special value of these fish to the Asian community and to visitors to Canada and immediately initiates management action which will ensure that a year-round supply of live codfish is available. This must include adequate federal attention to the long-term sustainable management of these fish and fair allocation.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have both the pleasure and the pain to present to the House today part of a total of over 40,000 petitions from the citizens of Windsor and Essex county protesting to this government the cutbacks in the CBC which have
Routine Proceedings
led to the suspension of our local CBC station in the city of Windsor.
These petitions are signed by people who request Parliament to do everything possible to see to it that the CBC is given the sustenance and support to be able to carry forward its important task of providing local programming for the people of Windsor, Essex county, Sarnia, Lambton county-the people of that entire district who as a result of these cutbacks have been deprived of any local news service whatsoever.
In this country that is like cutting Windsor off and sending it to join the United States.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I have several thousand signatures on petitions from Windsor to present.
I would like to say that today, just today, 41,000 signatures have been presented from Windsor from all sides of this House. We appreciate the alacrity of the clerk of petitions in processing some 33,000 petitions overnight. That was wonderful, and it benefits the people of Windsor.
In addition to the 41,000 that are actually being tabled in this House today, 6,000 were tabled yesterday and some 10,000 or 15,000 have already been delivered to the House of Commons, and the people of Windsor still continue to sign.
The reason for this is that Windsor is a microcosm of what is happening to Canadians right across this land, as their institutions are alienating them from their own country.
I would like to quote clearly what the people of Windsor, Essex county, Kent county, and Lambton county are saying to this government. Wherefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to preserve local CBC television broadcasting in Windsor and in all areas deprived of such service by the Mulroney government cutbacks and by the decisions of CBC management.
These are people who are talking from their hearts and from their very souls to be allowed to remain Canadian in the face of American dominance.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to introduce to the House a petition signed mainly by

Routine Proceedings
people from Regina, Saskatchewan, though I notice as well that there are some from Vancouver, Vancouver Island, et cetera.
These petitioners point out the Canadian involvement as a result of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in the sending of military ships, planes, and ground communication to the gulf.
The petitioners also note the reports of military build-up in the gulf region. They note the statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs about Canada's commitment to participate in any warlike activity that should arise.
Therefore the petitioners ask that the Government of Canada do all in its power to secure a negotiated settlement and withdraw Canadian Armed Forces from the gulf region.
I am sure as well the petitioners wish Canada and the House peace on earth and a good Christmas.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition. I would like to say that the petition is the work largely of my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex who brought the matter to the attention of a number of people from across the country, including Newfoundland. This petition is from the greater area of St. John's, including St. Thomas, Paradise, and Manuels.
The petition addresses the issue of pollution being caused by automotive emissions. It calls on the government to take steps to reduce hydrocarbon emissions dramatically and recommends a way in which this can be done. The petitioners pray that government would see fit to make a minimum 3.2 per cent oxygen content in gasoline fuels mandatory.
I compliment my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex. I commend this petition to the House and hope the appropriate department will take the appropriate action. I have great honour and pleasure in supporting the petition without equivocation.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of 3,600 signatories from the area of Windsor opposing the CBC cutbacks.
The petitioners are strongly opposed to the cutbacks in the CBC. What this government is doing by failing to support the CBC is that it is tearing the very fibres of this country all to pieces.
This is a very serious issue. Because of the spirit of Christmas, maybe there have been some spirits going around the House. However, it is a pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Windsor who oppose these cutbacks.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions concerning the restoration of VIA Rail services from the communities of Kaslo, Winlaw, Nelson, and Revelstoke within my own constituency; from Vancouver, Kamloops, Langley, Kelowna, White Rock, Port Coquitlam, and Burnaby in British Columbia; from Calgary, Alberta; from Regina and Estevan, Saskatchewan; from Winnipeg, Manitoba; and from Ottawa, Ontario.
First, the petitioners condemn the activities of this government that led to many cuts in Canada's vital passenger rail network and urge the government to restore, among other actions, VIA Rail services across the country, in particular The Canadian line through the heart of the Canadian Rockies.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to deliver over 2,000 signatures of residents of the Windsor area who, like people all across Canada, are outraged at the financial broad axe this government has taken to the CBC.
The petitioners ask that Parliament take all the necessary measures to preserve local CBC television services in Windsor and in other areas deprived of such service by the federal government cutbacks.

They ask that they be considered along with the over 40,000 signatures which have been submitted by other members of the House only today in regard to these devastating cutbacks.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners, all people from my own riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan, humbly sheweth that Canadians need Petro-Canada during this time of serious price instability in the petroleum industry to take the lead as a green energy company and to remain 100 per cent Canadian.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defeat or repeal Bill C-84 and keep Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation acting in the best interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and add to the almost 50,000 names a further 1,350 signatures against the cutbacks to the CBC, in the Windsor area.
Mr. Speaker, these names are simply a few of the hundreds of thousands of people across Canada who are outraged at this government for cutting back on that thread that keeps Canada together. I represent many people in my riding who, like these people from Windsor, want that funding returned to the CBC.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I rise to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by numerous residents of Edmonton, Alberta and Toronto, Ontario, who object to the goods and services tax in so far as it applies to books and the printed word.
Even though that tax has been adopted by the House, I am sure these petitioners will have noted the tax is such a disaster that the Minister of Finance has recently introduced a series of proposed changes to the act. One hopes he can keep introducing a string of changes that
Routine Proceedings
will relieve Canadians from any obligation to pay this odious tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a statement. On Tbesday, December 18,1990, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised a point of order regarding the acceptability of a petition which the hon. member for Kamloops had risen to present.
The petition in question contained, in addition to the signatures of Canadian residents, the signatures of several persons not resident in Canada. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rightly pointed out that it is not the practice of this House to receive petitions from non-resident aliens. Citation 688(1) of Beauchesne's fifth edition reads as follows:
Aliens, not resident in Canada, have no right to petition Parliament.
This citation is based on a ruling recorded in the Journals for March 20, 1880 at page 165. The Chair faces a dilemma however. If this petition cannot be presented because it contains several unacceptable signatures, then those Canadians who signed the petition in good faith will be denied this opportunity to petition Parliament.
When Speaker Bosley was faced with a similar situation in November 1984, he made the following statement:
On reviewing the Canadian and British precedents, I found no clear answer to the admissibility or non-admissibility of a petition which is signed by Canadian citizens and, at the same time, by non-Canadian citizens, not resident in Canada. In October 1983, Madam Speaker Sauve ruled that a petition signed by American citizens was not receivable. That petition was signed exclusively by American citizens. Our precedents on petitions related to private bills indicate that petitions from foreigners have been accepted from time to time when the subject matter related to legislation or an area of jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament. According since I could find no clear direction in our practice and procedure and so that those Canadian citizens who signed the said petition not be denied their ancient right to petition the House of Commons and since this is the first time this issue has arisen in this Parliament, I ask the House that the petition presented by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre be received by unanimous consent.
After having considered the problem, the Chair believes that the right of Canadians to petition their House of Commons would be better served if petitions, which are otherwise in order and have been so certified by the Clerk of Petitions, can be presented even if they contain

Routine Proceedings
the occasional signature of a non-Canadian not resident in Canada.
Such signatures would not, of course, be counted among the 25 signatures which a petition must contain in order to be certified. I therefore rule the petition which the hon. member for Kamloops intended to present on Tuesday, December 18, duly certified and presented to the House. I must thank the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have to raise this question of privilege now, because we will not have the opportunity to do so for quite some time.
During the course of this sitting, especially at the motions stage, I shouted "no" at the top of my lungs every time the parliamentaru secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House asked if there was unanimous consent to table motions for which notice was not given.
Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders are very clear on this subject. Not only have you heard me say no but, each time, you declared: "Agreed on division."
This means not everybody said "yes". A couple of minutes ago, I checked with the Thble and was told that nobody heard me.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time. So I would make a request: either you have a loudspeaker installed or you provide hearing aids to the Table officers and to the people who occupy the Chair from time to time. It was obvious to every witness in this House that the parliamentary secretary did not get unanimous consent to table his motions.
Mr. Speaker, I can only shout as loud as my lungs will allow me. If the acoustics of this room is defective and if the sitting arrangment is not right, that is your responsability, Mr. Speaker. It was your decision to line us up against the curtains.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there have been several instances of hearing problems on your part. I do not wish to give you any advice, but this is a real problem because sometimes you heard us and sometimes you turned a deaf ear today. I for one, Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. member:: On the same point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The same point of privilege.


Albert Glen Cooper: Are you going to let him speak?


An hon. member:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Go ahead. [Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, he is not a minister, so you can allow me to finish.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I feel my privileges were infringed upon by your deafness and that of the Table officers. I therefore request a major remedy, if not by our Standing Orders, at least for your ears!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am very much intrigued by the hon. member's understanding of the rules and his insistence that this House act upon those rules.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that one of the longstanding practices of this House has been first, that we pass a motion to allow committees to report when the House is adjourned and second, it is also a longstanding practice that this House approve committee travel when committees of this House choose to travel around the country.
I should also remind the hon. member that it is equally a convention that questions during Question Period are given largely to that side of the House, with a very small number going to the backbench on this side. However, it is not a rule. It is simply a tradition or a convention.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to keep in mind when the Chair rules on this point of privilege the behaviour that we have seen demonstrated by the hon. member this afternoon which has caused a great deal of frustration, not simply to this side of the House, but to every member-

Routine Proceedings
who sits on committees and who participates in those cannot be partial unanimity no more than one can be committees and this House of Commons.	half pregnant.
The hon. member is approximately l/255th part of any questions that should be allowed in this House of Commons. I hope the Speaker will keep that in mind because we have on this side some 130 members that would be more than happy to take his questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank the hon. member for Shefford and I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I would like to say that the only time the Chair heard a no, and it was on division, was when the hon. member read the motion concerning the travel of members, and the hon. member for Mississauga West moved his motion. I distinctly heard no's but there is a lot of noise here this afternoon. I know it is the time of the year when everybody wants to leave.
I will check the record. I will then come back and rule, but I just feel the hon. member must realize that today is an exceptional day because we are closing down the House of Commons for the holidays and so therefore there was noise and I did not hear the hon. member. I am sorry, but I am saying to you the only two no's I did hear was the hon. member after the travel motion and also the motion by the hon. member for Mississauga West. I will look at it and then I will go ahead and rule. The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: If I may make a point in reply to what the parliamentary secretary was saying-

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says I count for l/295th, but unanimity is like pregnancy. There


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is another topic. We are not going to get into that right now. I think that we should get on with Questions on the Order Paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 361, 371 and 386.


Mr. Rodriguez: Did an official party, led by the Minister of National Revenue, visit Czechoslovakia in August, 1990 and, if so (a) who were the members (b) what were the costs to the government incurred by each member for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) other costs associated with the trip?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, the Minister of National Revenue visited Czechoslovakia in August 1990. The following is a list of the members of the party that accompanied the Minister and the costs to the Canadian government incurred by each member.
a) Member	b) i) Transportation	ii) Accommodation	iii) Other CostsHon. Otto Jelinek, Minister of National Revenue.	$5,400.72	$172.83	$102.23Mrs. Otto Jelinek	$5,400.72	-	$58.80Mr. George Com,	$3,234.72	$84.42	$58.80
Hon. President,
Czechoslovak Association of Canada, Past President,
Canadian Ethnocultural Council Member, Executive Committee of the Council of Free Czechoslovakia, Auditor, Society of Czechoslovakian Arts and Sciences,
Advisor, Czechoslovak (Toronto)
Credit Union.

December 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
a) Member	b) i) Transportation	ii) Accommodation	iii) Other CostsMr. Steve Dover,	$3,234.72	$84.42	$82.71Special Assistant,	Customs and Excise.	Mr. Vic Little,	$3,234.72	$84.42	$58.80
Chief of Staff.


Mr. LeBlanc: Did the Strait of Canso Industrial Development Authority (SCIDA) engage Mr. Lawrence O'Neil to act as a lobbyist and if so (a) by whom was he paid (b) how much was he paid (c) who did he contact (i) on what date (ii) for what purpose?


Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works and Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act):: The Strait of Canso Industrial Development Authority (SCIDA) engaged Mr. Lawrence O'Neil through his law firm as a barrister and solicitor. He was not engaged to act as a lobbyist.


Mr. Nunziata: For (a) 1987 (b) 1988 (c) 1989 (i) How many Canadians made contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans (ii) How many Canadians cashed in their entire Registered Retirement Savings Plans or a portion thereof and what was the dollar value involved in each of those years (iii) What was the cost to the Federal Tfeasury in deferred taxes as a result of contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans?


Otto John Jelinek: (a)(b)c) (i) (ii)			
Taxation Year	1987	1988Number Amount (000)	Number	Amount (000)RRSP Contributions	3,483,648 $9,024,444	3.802,255	$10,599,878RRSP Withdrawals / Deregistrations	428,821 $1,922,510	508,074	$2,556,916
Final data for the taxation year 1989 is not yet available.
(a)(b)(c) (iii)
The Department of Finance has estimated the cost to the Federal Treasury in deferred taxes as a result of contributions for both registered pension plan and registered retirement savings plan to be about $6 billion for the 1989 tax year. This amount is arrived at by projecting prior years figures obtained from a study undertaken in 1985 by the Department of Finance on the cost assistance for
retirement savings. A separate figure solely for the deferral of taxes from registered retirement savings plans is not available.
Reference: "Cost of selective tax measures", Department of Finance, August 1985.


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


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 397 and 405 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 397 and 405 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Does the federal government provide funding under the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Application Program, and if so (a) what are the objective and eligibility criteria (b) which companies qualified for assistance (c) what is the breakdown, by (i) province (ii) year, for funds expended under this program?
Return tabled.


Mr. Wappel: For the period from now and continuing through December 31, 1991 does the government plan or intend to provide funding to (a) the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada (b) Serena Canada and, if so (i) when (ii) in what amount (iii) one-time or sustaining (iv) for what purpose (v) by way of grant or loan (with full loan particulars) (vi) with what system of accountability in place?
Return tabled.
December 19, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 403.1 ask that the response be printed in Hansard as if read.


[Stage Direction]
^
Mr. Saint-Julien: Has the Canada Post Corporation installed a supermailbox at a distance greater than 600 feet from the customer living the furthest distance from the supermailbox in the area served and, if so, was the distance between (a) 600 and 625 feet (b) 626 and 650 feet (c) 651 and 675 feet (d) 676 and 700 feet (e) 701 and 725 feet (f) 726 and 775 feet (g) 776 and 800 feet (h) 801 and 825 feet (r) 826 and 850 feet (j) 851 and 875 feet (k) 876 and 900 feet (t) 901 and 925 feet (m) 926 and 975 feet in) 975 and 1,000 feet (o) greater than 1,000 feet?


Harvie Andre: In 1985, Canada Post Corporation developed and announced its delivery policy including the use of community mail boxes (supermailboxes) as the equipment and mode of delivery that would be used in situations that would previously have gone to door to door delivery. The distance between customers served by the community mailbox and the equipment was established at 600 feet or 180 meters. Generally, this practice has been implemented for the largest majority of the 600,000 customers who are on the service as of 1990/91.
There are, however, circumstances where the Corporation cannot stay within the criteria due to the layout of the subdivision or municipality. In these cases, if Canada post stayed with the criteria it would result in the boxes being placed where they were in full frontal view of several homes on the same side of the street. In these circumstances Canada Post has moved the boxes to the ends of crescents or some distance away to a place where it could find a piece of property that would accomodate the box on easement without imposing on the homeowners adjacent to the equipment. There have been other circumstances where Canada Post has been petitioned by customers to move the boxes to another location and who agreed that they didn't mind walking the extra distance.
In other circumstances Canada Post has taken the initiative and surveyed its customers. In still other circumstances municipalities have asked the Corporation to place the boxes in certain situations which exceeded the 600 foot criteria and Canada Post has solicited and received the support of the customers involved. In urban
centers where the Corporation has put such exceptions into service, generally, the customers don't have to walk any more than an additional 300 feet to their community mailbox. In all cases, the Corporation has entered into discussions with the municipal representatives of those serviced by the community mailboxes.
Where Canada Post has placed community mailboxes in cluster sites in suburban and rural settings, in most cases, a portion of the customers reside more than 600 feet from the equipment and therefore have to travel greater distance.
These exception have occurred in a number of cities and towns from coast to coast, in most provinces. Canada Post has endeavored to consistently apply the criteria. However, the Corporation has had to remain flexible in situations where it served the municipality, its customers or its approach to installation in a more practical fashion than sticking rigidly to the standard.
The specific information requested is not available. [English]


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-25.


[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents
related to the report prepared by DPA Group, Inc., entitled 'A
Study on the Reduction of Energy-related Greenhouse Gas
Emissions", referred to in the House by the Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources during Question Period on Friday, May 4,
1990.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for Production of Papers P-25 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.
In response to this motion, the government is tabling excerpts from all major documents relating to the report prepared by DPA Group Inc. entitled, "A Study on the Reduction of Energy-related Greenhouse Gas Emissions".

December 19, 1990
Government Orders
I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions of which you are not aware. As you will notice on the Order Paper, the first order of the day is Bill C-88. The opposition parties, at least the one which I represent, would like to give their consent to that bill being passed as soon as possible, so that we can get to the adjournment motion. Therefore, we will have only one speaker who will be very brief on Bill C-88.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I need to ask the House a specific question because on this particular bill there are two ways we can move: one is that the government could move at the report stage an amendment which would, therefore, require the consent of the House for us to proceed to third reading.
Perhaps I can ask the question. I am not sure that I am in order, but I would like to ask the question of the House whether or not there would be consent for us to deal with this technical amendment at report stage and then go to third reading.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent.


Albert Glen Cooper: On a point of order, I therefore want to indicate that the government will not be proceeding with the amendment at report stage. We will call for concurrence and third reading of this bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Charles James Mayer: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak briefly to the bill today.
It is a bill I am proud to introduce because it is going to enable Canada to assist the people and the countries of eastern Europe in their reconstruction and their development. It is a bill that required co-operation from all members of the House that were on the committee dealing with it. Although we did hear some very credible witnesses, it was processed in a very proper and quick manner. I want to thank all members of that committee who co-operated with us in this endeavour. I think all parties in the House will be supporting this bill.
What is so important to us in Canada, and something which many people forget, is that so many of our ancestors have come from Europe. More than 15 per cent of Canadians can trace their ancestors back to eastern Europe. Probably more than most other Canadians, they recognize that eastern Europe is not a block, although there is a bloc of countries, and each of those countries is unique. Each of them is different than the other and each has problems that are unique.
In trying to address the problems that we all know that these countries have, the need has been recognized of the establishment of a bank to deal strictly with the countries of eastern Europe. This bank will be able to specialize in the needs of the people of these countries, along with the needs of their businesses and the needs of their governments. As well, in co-operation with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, it should try to assist governments in particular and businesses in these countries to get established and hopefully to prosper.
Their prosperity is important, not only to the countries of eastern Europe, but to all countries around the world and especially to Canada. In our trading relationships of the future, we will look with great hope to the emerging-

trade that we know will come from the countries of eastern Europe.
The assistance by this special bank will also be critical in leveraging investments from private financial institutions. It will be through this combined financial effort that the various countries will find it possible to move from a state where they have been very centrally controlled. Although each one of these countries has been handled differently, they all seem to have a unified desire and need to move much of these state-controlled operations into private hands. It is in this way that the bank of eastern Europe will be able to assist.
I am very proud to have been able to play a part in its inception. I want to thank all those in the House who have worked with me.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to speak very briefly on Bill C-88. With this legislation, Canada will be able to be a founding member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
We supported this bill at second reading, as we did in the legislative committee. In fact, our party succeeded in getting the agreement to an amendment which I think all members will agree has made this bill more effective.
The original bill required the Minister of Finance, who is the representative on the board of the bank, to report annually to Parliament on the bank's activities. The amendment states that this report has to specify the progress that the bank made in areas of sustainable development and human rights, two areas that the bank must examine when making loans.
That amendment was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, and I want to congratulate him for a very constructive amendment. I think all members will agree that it improves the legislation tremendously.
My colleagues and I probably could have made other improvements to this legislation, if the government had allowed us the opportunity to study the bill and to call further witnesses.
We were allowed four witnesses over three days. Certainly we are very grateful to those witnesses who came before the committee on such short notice. We heard from university professors and a lawyer whose firm has had extensive experience with the countries of
Government Orders
central Europe. Of course, we also heard from federal government officials.
We wanted to hear also from business people who are actively involved with these countries. We wanted firsthand experience so that we would actually know what is taking place in the countries of eastern Europe. We would have liked to have called witnesses from the Canada-Soviet Business Council, as well as members from other business councils dealing with Poland, Hungary, and other countries.
This should have been possible because the government joined this bank in May. Instead of trying to get parliamentary approval immediately, it waited for seven months to do so. Then, in early December, we were told that it had to have this bill right away and we could only have very few witnesses. It was another way in which we could see the government's total lack of control and total lack of organization.
Certainly this new bank is a very important institution because the countries of Central Europe are suffering from tremendous economic and social problems ranging from massive debt to serious internal food distribution problems. They are really suffering the effects of 45 years of inefficient state planning and almost total state ownership. Converting from command economies to market-driven economies is certainly no easy task. If the people in these countries are willing to try, we have a duty to help them.
Certainly these people are already under tremendous economic strain, but their needs are not all economic. Some of the greatest needs are technical in nature, such as creating the proper business environment in order that business deals can be put together. They need advice on tax law, business contracts, foreign investment, and in many other areas.
This bank is also going to act as a catalyst because it is going to be able to bring business people together from the east and the west. It is going to be a catalyst toward getting business deals together. This kind of outreach from the west to the countries in central Europe will certainly benefit Canada and potentially even my province of Prince Edward Island.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that time is running out this afternoon and, as many of us have spoken extensively on this bill at second reading, I want to conclude my remarks by reaffirming my party's support for Bill C-88, which will allow Canada to play a very important role in

Government Orders
helping the people of central Europe build their economies. I look forward to its passage today and to the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development next April.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this bill which is before us comes from an initiative which was originally put before the international community by Franyois Mitterand, the President of France.
It is a suggestion that is one of a number of important responses that we need to make to the dramatic and very welcome developments which have occurred in eastern Europe. We can see across eastern Europe a whole spread of democratic revolutions taking place which we expect will put into place in the future a series of societies and economies that much better serve the people of those countries than was true under the previous communist regimes.
This bill has Canada join in a small way in the process of trying to assist the transition of those economies from essentially Stalinist bureaucracies, in most cases, to economies in which it will be possible for privately-owned enterprises and state-owned enterprises to play an important role in interaction in the marketplace in meeting the needs of people in those economies.
We were particularly pleased to hear some of the witnesses who spoke to us in the legislative committee. They made the point very strongly that we are dealing with a difficult transition in eastern Europe which requires as much support as possible from the people of North America, the rest of Europe, and Japan. The establishment of this bank will be a step which will make that transition somewhat easier.
It is for that reason that we support this legislation and we hope very much that the bank will be a positive addition to the capital resources and the managerial resources of eastern Europe as it moves toward a more prosperous and, above all, a more democratic future for its people.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Questions and comments.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: The
hon. member mentioned the desire for democracy expressed in Eastern Europe. I would say that with it came, above all, a desire for national identity. There were countries that wanted to free themselves from the yoke of the U.S.S.R. Within the U.S.S.R. we see republics that wish to express the fact that they are a nation. I am thinking specifically of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. If these countries decide to become independent, and considering the bill before the House, would the hon. member recognize the desire for independence of these three republics, for instance? Does he recognize the right of these three republics to self-determination? And should Canada, on this basis, help countries like the Baltic countries in their development? I would appreciate the hon. member's comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot answer for the Government of Canada. Personally, however, I think it is important to realize that a lot of changes are taking place in all European countries, and for instance, in the U.S.S.R., there are republics that entered into a federation about 60 or 70 years ago. The question is whether this federation will continue. I have no answer to that. I cannot predict whether the federation will be maintained. If there are changes that result in the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., I think it will be important for us as a country to help those countries, even if we are not happy with the dissolution itself.
Personally, I think that if the result is a movement towards independence by one or two or three of these republics, I think that is their right. And I hope-and I think this is important-that the bank will analyse the situation and conclude that it has a duty to help these new independent republics.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


Gilles Duceppe: You also said that a very bureaucratic and centralized system within the Soviet federation had led to disastrous consequences, both for democracy and for the economy. I would like to know whether you see

any useful lessons here for Canada. Canada is a federation. Don't you think that a very bureaucratic and centralized system within a federation will necessarily smother national or even regional aspirations?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult to consider these questions in the context of a debate on this bank. As I said in my remarks, the important thing is to avoid a Stalinist bureaucracy. There would be a number of issues to be raised if we were to refer to our own country, but it cannot be said that we have a Stalinist democracy. We do have a bureaucracy, of course, and I would not like to see an overly centralizing bureaucracy here in this country. Still, and I should think the hon. member would agree with me, we cannot say that we in Canada have a Stalinist bureaucracy, even with this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford, for questions and comments.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech because I know he is familiar with the subject. But I would ask him whether he might not fear that Canada's participation in this European bank could be detrimental to the international assistance we have given in the past to other world nations in dire need. What I mean, is that a number of countries now receiving Canadian assistance-which is unfortunately too limited and has been declining over the years-may now be concerned that the Canadian participation might be taken from the same appropriations. Therefore, countries which until today have traditionally relied on Canadian aid for their own development may be wondering whether, as a result of the liberation of Eastern Europe, the funds which used to be earmarked for Africa and other Third World nations will be redirected towards Eastern Europe, often for commercial or political motives, to the detriment of the poorest countries of the world. While examining the bill, did the hon. member get the assurance that this will not happen? I realize he cannot speak for the government and that government members have precious little to say about this today, but I would like to know whether the hon. member shares my concern.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no legitimate fear on that score. The question was raised in
Government Orders
committee. It is a crucial issue and no one can predict what the government decision will be. For instance, it cannot be said that, after participating in this bank, the government will continue to be as generous as it has been so far with developing countries.
But I think this is an important bank. Since Canadian government assistance does not rank among the best, I do not think we ought to fear that Canada's participation in this bank might lead to a situation likely to create problems for developing countries.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to have an opportunity here for the remaining five or six minutes to participate in this particular debate. I have to say that having spent the afternoon here in the House of Commons, I am not feeling in a particularly generous mood, nor do I feel very much of the Christmas spirit but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you can identify with that feeling.
What we are involved in here is something that has certainly caught the entire world's attention. I can recall not so very long ago visiting the city of Berlin and looking at the wall. I can remember standing on the free side of that wall-if I can describe it that way-beside a beautiful German building, looking at this absolutely horrendous, ugly piece of construction that separated me from a couple of young soldiers just a few feet away sitting in a tower on the eastern side of that wall.
I can recall at that moment my feelings of anger and frustration at dealing with a situation that was absolutely impossible. I thought at that moment of the words of John F. Kennedy who stood there as well and spoke of the horrors of the wall and what it meant to the people of Europe and, in particular, the people of Germany.
Not long after standing beside that wall, I took the opportunity to walk through Check Point Charlie and go into the eastern part of Germany and experienced the absolute culture shock that anybody who has crossed the wall can identify with.
Here we were in western Berlin in a city that was so vibrant, so alive, an obvious tremendous economy, an air of excitement. Whether that was at three in the morning or three in the afternoon it was a city that was so much alive. You could feel the dynamics that were working

Government Orders
within that city. When I walked that few feet to cross through Check Point Charlie, the atmosphere changed.
My first experience within about a block of the entrance was to come upon a small park in the middle of the city. I took a few minutes to stop and sit there. A young woman with, I assume, her mother and her two-year old daughter were in the park. What I found so fascinating was here we were in the middle of a city in an open park on a Friday afternoon and I am watching a mother and a young daughter and that little girl-like any two-year old-wanted to get up and play, have fun, and get into the excitement. The mother kept saying to her: "Shh-shh". Mr. Speaker, at the same time I had left at home here in Canada a two-year old daughter. I can imagine how I would have responded to her in a park like that in Canada. I could not by any stretch of my imagination suggest to her that she be quiet.
The reason I tell that story, Mr. Speaker, is because that picture of that young woman and her daughter demonstrated to me so clearly the significance of that wall, what that wall stood for, what that wall meant. We saw because of that wall a tremendous division of ideology, a tremendous division of opportunity, and a tremendous division of people. A wall that would divide people from one family could be living on either side of the wall-
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 5:00 o'clock p.m.?


Some hon. members:: 5:00 o'clock p.m..


Albert Glen Cooper: Is it 5:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Speaker?
I wish to continue my remarks after 5:00 p.m. o'clock. [Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I was fully aware that the House had adopted a motion stating that at five o'clock we could vote on the adjournment, but that it was a conditional motion. Consequently, if the conditions are not met and that it is later than 5:00 o'clock p.m., I would like to know if the debate simply goes on and if the
proceedings continue as usual? Is this the best course to follow, that at that point the motion is void?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to respond for a moment to the hon. member for Shefford. I think it is important that hon. members and the public understand the procedural situation.
We are now bound by a motion granted by unanimous consent, which reads as follows:
That, no later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, December 19,
1990	the debate on Government Notice of Motion dated December 17,1990 in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, regarding winter adjournment, be deemed to have been completed and all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion will be put forthwith and without further debate, provided that each opposition has had an opportunity to move an amendment or subamendment.
Given that I think it is appropriate to proceed. I ask hon. members to listen carefully because I think that they will see that this is proceeding appropriately.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made on TUesday, December 18, 1990, the House will now proceed to Government Business No. 26 in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the winter adjournment.


WINTER ADJOURNMENT
Harvie Andre: That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until 2.00 o'clock p.m. Monday, February 18,
1991	provided that at any time before the said date the Speaker may fix a time at which the House shall meet either in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), if the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time; or, after consultation with the Government, for the sole purpose of granting Royal Assent to any Bill or Bills, after which the House shall stand further adjourned in accordance with this Order; and
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, if the House is not recalled pursuant to Standing Order 28(3) before Monday, February 18, 1991, the then scheduled adjournment in accordance with Standing Order 28(2) from February 18, 1991 to February 23, 1991 shall be cancelled.
I think the appropriate thing to do now is to give each opposition party an opportunity to move an amendment or a subamendment.

Government Orders


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your ruling, I would like to move an amendment that deals specifically with the question of timing.
We all know that this country and the world in fact face a very important deadline on January 15, when we will have to make crucial decisions about war and peace. We know that there is a great deal of apprehension among the Canadian public about that decision. It is a decision that should not be made without Parliament sitting at that time.
There is a number of precedents. The French Assembly has already decided to come back on January-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the hon. member will not be surprised if the Speaker rises to say that the object of the exercise of the hon. member rising is to present the amendment and not to present debate, important as his comments may be.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I did it only to assist the House in understanding the reason for this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker is most appreciative that the hon. member's comments were only designed to assist the House, but I would ask the hon. member to put the motion.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "Monday" and by substituting the following:
"January 14,1991, provided that at any time before the said date, the Speaker may fix a time at which the House shall meet either in accordance with the provisions of S. O. 28(3), if public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time; or after consultation with the government, for the sole purpose of granting Royal Assent for any Bill or Bills, after which the House shall stand further adjourned in accordance with this order, and provided that, if hostilities commence in the Persian Gulf area or appear to be imminent, the Speaker shall immediately set a time not more than 48 hours thence for the House to meet".


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment that the hon. member has moved is, of course, an understandable one. It is directed to meet a very serious matter which our country, along with other countries, faces.
I do not think it will come as too much of a surprise that the hon. member will find that the Speaker has to look very carefully at the wording in this amendment. Quite frankly, there are procedural difficulties with it. I am going to read the last four lines of the amendment:
-and provided that if hostilities commence in the Persian Gulf area or appear to be imminent, the Speaker shall immediately set a time not more than 48 hours thence for the House to meet.
That may be a very commendable thing for the Speaker to do, but that is not he task I have to perform at the moment. I say, with full understanding of why this amendment has been put forward, that these lines introduce a new concept into the motion relating to hostilities in the Persian Gulf area. To my mind, the consequence of that is that it introduces a new concept and enlarges the scope of the motion. I am afraid I have to rule it out of order.
While there may be a number of citations that I could give the House, if hon. members will refer to the volume, Decisions of Speaker Lamoureux on page 313 and 314, they will understand why I have to make the decision that I have made.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, taking into account the time of year, I am certainly in no mood to challenge the learned and wise decision of the Speaker.
I would suggest that, under the circumstances, if it is only the last phrase that gives the Speaker some problem that portion of the motion could be deleted and the other part could be left standing. This would change the date simply to January 14, as opposed to February 18. While it does not give us quite the same scope, flexibility, or discretion for Parliament to act, I would still hope that Parliament would be prepared to come back on January 14, considering that would just be the day before Mr. Bush's January 15 deadline.
This is a way in which Parliament will be allowed to Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is probably aware that present itself as the forum for decision making, not the	might be a very practical way of meeting the objectives of
cabinet, the ministers or the Prime Minister but the	the hon. member and the Official Opposition, but it
people of Canada, through their elected representatives, would require consent.

December 19, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: No.
Mr. Speaker There is not consent, so I cannot proceed further.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on a quick point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker. Frankly I think the general purpose of the motion that is before the House will take care of any unfortunate eventualities that may occur. That is why we are here.
I have another sub-point of order which I perhaps would not want to try to get involved with here, but you talk about the opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to be one-perhaps there are others-who question some of these motions which are agreed to by party consent. We have to think of other members besides the official recognized parties.
But in terms of the motion that my friend in the front row of the Liberal side has moved, the general adjournment motion takes care of it. It is then within the wisdom of the Chair, after consultation with leaders, as to whether the House goes back.
I will not presume on the House any further, but I have another point to raise later on.


An hon. member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
I have had to make a ruling on the motion from the official opposition. I just want members and the public to realize that when I referred to the opposition I was referring specifically to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition because this is the motion we are dealing with. There is no suggestion that I am not concerned about other members of the opposition.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it is your decision not to accept the proposal, I am sorry. We could accept the proposal except some of our hon. colleagues behind us to the left did not want to give it consent.

Unfortunately, it seems that certain members from the Bloc Quebecois are not very cooperative today.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we do have difficulty meeting the condition of the adjournment motion and where it says that we have the right to move an amendment, I would like to be able to move that amendment.
We could perhaps find one that would be acceptable, but in order to meet the conditions of the consent order for adjournment, we would have to be able to move an amendment that would be acceptable to the Speaker in the House. I am sure that with the able assistance of the Table, we could find the right words to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's comment is greatly appreciated, by the Chair but needs unanimous consent at this time. Unfortunately for the member, it was not obtained and the decision is quite clear.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think I found a solution.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what we need.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The order adopted yesterday states clearly that each opposition party will be allowed to move an amendment or sub-amendment. You just said that the amendment moved by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre is out of order because it is beyond the normal scope of an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, you are correct when you say that the member for Winnipeg South Centre cannot resubmit another amendment, but the opposition has the right to submit an amendment.
I submit to you that another member of this House, in this case the whip of our party, could present an amendment which will be, I think, Mr. Speaker, acceptable to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I rule on the intriguing question which has been put to me by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw one thing to your attention. The motion adopted on December 18 does state: "-at 5.00 o'clock p.m. at the latest."
It is now 5.20 p.m. Unless you go by Pacific time, I suggest it is even too late to table the said motions. We said "at 5 o'clock p.m. at the latest" and, as far as I know, unanimous consent was not given to ignore the clock either.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be the reason the hon. member has, but I am satisfied we are proceeding on a proper procedural basis. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "Monday" and substituting the following:
"January 14,1991, provided that any time before that said date the Speaker may fix a time at which the House shall meet either in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) if public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, or after consultations with the government for the sole purpose of granting Royal Assent for any bill or bills after which the House shall stand further adjourned in accordance with this Order".


Mr. Speaker:: The House can do anything it wishes if there is consent. There was not consent to accept the amendment. I have listened to the intriguing argument of the Official Opposition. My difficulty is that when looking at the motion, the exact words are "provided that each opposition party has had an opportunity to move an amendment or subamendment". I think I am pressed back into the position that my colleagues in the Official Opposition have had that opportunity. I have had to rule the amendment out of order despite how serious the issue is, but I do not see any way that the Chair can get around these words, "provided that each opposition party has had an opportunity to move an amendment or subamendment".
If the House wants to proceed in another way, I certainly am prepared to listen to comments if there was consent, but without that, I think I have to proceed.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats would have been very pleased to support the Liberal amendments, so I am sorry it was not found to be procedurally correct.
Government Orders
However, I wish to address one provision of the motion and move an amendment which enables the government to pass into law those bills that are currently in the Senate without the House sitting.
We reluctantly support this provision with the exception of Bill C-43. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is not like the other bills in the House.


An hon. member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to put her amendment. As I had to point out, the placing of an amendment at this time under the motion that was accepted by the House is not a time for debate.
I ask the hon. member to put her motion.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "granting Royal
Assent for any bill or bills", and replacing that with "granting Royal
Assent for bill or bills other than Bill C-43.


Mr. Speaker:: I find the motion in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Chris Axworthy: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the vote on the amendment, we will remember that Bill C-43 was a free vote. I wonder if we could not-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not an appropriate point of order at all. The question is on the amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: 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.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think there might be a predisposition to apply the vote just taken to this one, in reverse.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
December 19, 1990

Government Orders


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was present for the first vote but I abstained. I would therefore like my vote recorded with the government side on the assumption will that we go ahead and apply the vote.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have my vote recorded with the government. I abstained on the amendment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, under other circumstances, we might have been willing to consider the application of the previous vote to this motion. It will be impossible for us to do so because we treated our vote on the previous motion as a free vote. Therefore-
Reid
Ricard
RobitaiUe
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle Venne Vien Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Winegard
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Weiner
;-Assiniboia)
Worthy-120
++NAYS
Members


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the third

December 19, 1990
Government Orders
reading stage of Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of
Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has asked that the House consent to proceeding with Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. What the hon. member is asking is that it be now read a third time and do pass. That requires consent.
The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out that it is already passed 6 o'clock p.m. and that they will not find the required consent, because they did not have the courtesy of advising us of the motions they had to pass today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think the motion was made under Standing Order 26. It is always admissible. If 15 members do not rise, then it is acceptable.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: That's right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That was Standing Order 26 that the member was using.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that, but we are after the hour.
Let me make it very clear what is being sought here. The government wishes to proceed with a bill to third reading. Because we are after 6:00 o'clock p.m., that will require consent. Is the House prepared to proceed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order. As the Speaker and hon. members of the House would recognize, we could move an amendment where we would try to clarify specifically that the House would be called back if there was the imminent conflict-


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that that may be a very interesting thing to say outside the House, but it is not a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, when I rose on the motion, the business before the House, before we stopped at 5:00 o'clock p.m., was Bill C-88.1 had the floor. You, Sir, had not risen to call it 6:00 o'clock p.m. to adjourn the House.
I would therefore argue that the House was still sitting. I had put the motion prior to you having called it 6:00 o'clock p.m.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do think that the point is a moot point. It is not a weak one.
Standing Order 26 says the member must have the floor. As far as I know, the Clerk had not read the order that was to be discussed after the votes had been called for. The Clerk had just sat down.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this party is willing to give the government Bill C-88 today. We will agree to extend the hours, but not all night.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has made a representation which I think in view of the response from the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I do not need to go into.
What is being asked now basically is, will the House proceed with this bill.
Just so that all hon. members know exactly what is being asked, and so that the public will know what is being asked here, the government wishes to proceed and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has agreed to proceed and we will take the consent of the House that Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, be now read a third and do pass.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford is clearly indicating that he is not in agreement.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what happened by way of House order was that during discussion of Bill C-88, the House stopped the proceedings to have a vote on the motion for adjournment and so on.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Harvie Andre: Prior to that, my parliamentary secretary was speaking on debate. He rose prior to the adjournment and put a motion under Standing Order 26, extension of hours, which the Leader of the Opposition agreed would be appropriate.

Now, the question comes down to the clock. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Order states explicitly that Question Period will start at 2.15. p.m. Ibday it started at 2.20 p.m. because the Chair showed some discretion in view of circumstances. The Standing Orders state explicitly that Question Period shall end at 3:00 o'clock p.m. but because there were members who wanted to ask questions, Mr. Speaker kept Question Period going.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, when you have the concurrence of the overwhelming majority of the House to recognize that at 6.01 p.m. or 6.02 p.m. we were still sitting, it seems appropriate at least to put the motion and whatever happens, happens.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to respond to the hon. government House leader. As hon. members know, this House can do what it wishes when there is sufficient determination to do so. I certainly cannot find anything unreasonable about the suggestion of the hon. government House leader, especially given the response of the Official Opposition. But, it is not my place to get into that argument. We can proceed now and dispatch this bill in only a few minutes if there is agreement. If there is not agreement, we cannot proceed.
I am going to ask the House again: Will the House consent to continue the sitting?


An hon. member:: No.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, one point has to be made clear. The Official Opposition is willing to support the wishes of the government. However, before we leave this place tonight, the government must understand once and for all-and this is said with no hard feelings-that all members of this House are equal and that,
Government Orders
when there are deals to be made, all members should be consulted.

The only reason I could put to the House a very difficult point that required unanimous consent was because I went to see the then hon. member for Moncton, Mr. Jones, who was totally and adamantly opposed to what I was suggesting. He said: "Because you came and treated me as a member of the House who could say no, I give you my consent".
For future reference, maybe every member should be consulted when we need unanimous consent. There is no unanimous consent. We are ready to go ahead but there is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker has decided that if there is not unanimous consent, we cannot proceed, therefore we should listen to Mr. Speaker and adjourn. Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to the government House leader. It is true that earlier today I did not see the clock, but there seemed to be unanimous agreement that that was acceptable.
The hon. government House leader has indicated to me that there was not unanimous agreement and I should certainly be more careful in the future. Again, as long as the public knows exactly what is taking place here, the government has asked for consent to move and finish the bill.
It will require consent. There is not consent. As a consequence, I must say that as it is past 6:00 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, February 18, 1991, at 2:00 o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 21,1990