1990-09-28

Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved: that Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lead off the debate on second reading on Bill C-73, the Crown Corporations Dissolution or Transfer Authorization Act.
Most hon. members will be aware that this bill responds to commitments made in last February's budget. The budget said the following and I quote:
We will continue to privatize Crown corporations and sell investments where government ownership is no longer needed to meet public policy objectives.
We are also winding up a number of Crown corporations and other agencies whose functions can be handled effectively by other organizations.
Organizations that will be wound up and whose functions will be transferred to other entities include Canada Harbour Place Corporation, Canadian Patents and Development Ltd., and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
That is what the budget said and today we are here to deliver on those commitments. The budget named three of the corporations to be dealt with and the legislation we are considering names an additional three. These are
Harbourfront Corporation, Canada Museums Construction Corporation and Mingan Associates.
Before dealing with the particulars of these six Crown corporations and agencies I would like to paint a clear picture of the government's objectives for the better management of Crown corporations.
We know that Crown corporations have played, and will continue to play, an important role in the development of the economic, social and cultural fabric of Canada. Crown corporations can be powerful and effective instruments of public policy-their relative autonomy and freedom to operate make them capable of responding to the needs of Canadians and to changes in the external environment in ways impossible for government departments.
Crown corporations, in aggregate, represent a significant proportion of federal public sector assets and employment-the 57 parent Crowns and 112 wholly-owned subsidiaries account for assets in the amount of approximately $54 billion, employ 140,000 people, and receive annual payments of some $4.9 billion from the federal treasury.

Crowns are often charged with providing goods and services to clients that the private sector, for whatever reason, chooses not to serve, but they are also tasked with being financially viable and, in some instances, with earning a positive return on Canada's equity investment in them.
Our Agenda for Economic Renewal, which was presented in November 1984, is a sweeping plan to renew Canada's economy. The Agenda is motivated by two mutually reinforcing principles: First, to restore health, integrity and discipline to the federal government's finances; and second, to restructure our economic framework to ensure that the market forces of the private sector, not government signals, drive the economy.

In short, we wanted to remove constraints that lay in the way of dynamic economic activity and having done that to let market forces and enterprising individuals

Government Orders
take the initiative. We see that as the way to ensure vitality in our economy and to make it-and to keep it-internationally competitive.
While fiscal progress has been a vitally important part of our action plan, we have also made, and are continuing to make, significant changes that improve the way the economy operates.
The 1984 Agenda paper was the first formal declaration of the government's intention to assess the continued use of Crown corporations as instruments of public policy. It noted that although each corporation was established to serve what, at that time, might have been a public policy purpose, we had to ask ourselves whether that remained the case. If it did not, it was important to consider whether the corporation should be retained. The Agenda paper also noted that some Crown corporations were predominantly, or in some cases entirely, commercial in character, and that it was appropriate to consider whether continued public ownership was in the best interests of either the company or the country.
The Agenda set out this government's approach to management which would be centred on financial discipline and efficiency. It stated that our Crown corporations must set new standards for sound management and financial performance, rather than provide examples of inefficiency and massive losses.
Since 1984, I am pleased to note that much progress has been achieved.
There has been significant rationalization of the Crown corporation portfolio. The number of parent corporations has been reduced over the past six years through the sale of all or part of 18 corporations and the dissolution of eight entities, representing an over-all transfer of more than $5 billion in assets to the private sector.
The privatization program is a success story and an initiative that complements our other actions to curb government spending, reduce annual deficits and control the growth in public debt. Air Canada and Teleglobe were in sufficiently robust financial health to attract enthusiastic private sector investors. The sale of Canad-air to Bombardier has permitted the company to benefit
from the expertise of one of the world's leading manufacturers and to expand its product line into the regional jet niche.
I would like to observe that there have been some real management success stories. For example, CNs balance sheet improvements-long-term debt is down from $3.5 billion in 1986 to $2 billion in 1989; productivity improvements at Canada Post-that corporation became profitable in 1988-89, producing a profit of $96 million in 1988-89 and $149 million in 1989-90. Compare that, Madam Speaker, to an operating loss of almost $400 million in 1984-85; and CMHC, through it's competitive financing renewal process, instituted in 1988, will save an estimated $54 million per year by 1992 by minimizing the interest rates paid by social housing sponsors.
Employment in Crown corporations in general was reduced from over 200,000 in 1984 to 140,000 in 1989. While over half of this reduction was due to the privatization of certain Crown corporations, a very significant portion was attributable to productivity gains that were achieved in the Crown corporations that remain our portfolio. Budgetary payments to Crown corporations in 1988-89, at less than $5 billion, represent a reduction, in real terms, of 9 per cent from those in 1984-85. Liabilities of Crown corporations are down over the same period by 12 per cent in real terms as well.
We have also taken firm action in other cases. The reduction in financial commitment to VIA Rail was a long overdue and necessary step towards ensuring that Canadians retain a passenger service that is, above all, affordable. Marine Atlantic's funding levels were cut by $36 million in 1984-85. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's heavy water plants in Glace Bay and Port Hawkes-bury, Nova Scotia were closed because they were making a product for which there was no market. However, the government recently entered into a joint funding arrangement with provincial electrical utilities to revitalize AECLs research and development program, and AECL continues its restructuring efforts to ensure the longterm viability of its commercial operations. It was amply clear that there is a continuing trend internationally toward more reliance on market forces. It is evident not only in the extraordinary rapid rise of the newly industrialized countries of the Pacific Rim and in the European Community's move towards a single market by
September 28, 1990

1992, but also in the remarkable events that have occurred in Communist states in eastern and central Europe.
The rebirth of belief in the market economy, the reality of the globalization of economies and the benefits of market discipline bring a growing recognition of the interdependence of nations and peoples economically, social and most importantly, environmentally. These realities force both the private and public sectors to become more flexible and responsive to changing conditions.
For those corporations remaining with the Crown corporation family, we must look to continuing improvement in financial performance. Since deficit reduction remains a prime objective of this government, we must work at lowering the net fiscal burden of the Crowns.
For Crown corporations dependent on appropriations, we must continue to examine how the load on the public treasury can be reduced. Much of the room to manoeuvre will have to come from efficiency gains. Profitable Crown corporations will be asked to return more to the shareholder. The government has invested significant resources in these Crown corporations and, as shareholder, it should normally expect a return on its equity. These corporations are establishing divided policies to encourage management to function in a more commercial way. Over the next two years, new dividend initiatives are expected to yield over $150 million. Crown corporations have contributed to the restructuring of the economy, the goal this government put forward in 1984 and will continue to do so as we realize our goal of achieving a more market oriented flexible and competitive economy.
In this environment the government will continue to examine whether certain Crown corporations are still needed to achieve public policy goals, or whether these goals can be met more efficiently through other means, such as through privatization, tax, regulatory or other program means.
It is just this kind of examination, and the purposes, that has led the government to propose the six initiatives contemplated in the bill before us today.
This bill would provide the authority:
(1)	for the Minister of Transport to dispose of the shares of Canada Harbour Place Corporation through
Government Orders
their sale or transfer to another federal entity, thus removing a parent Crown corporation from the management of this Vancouver complex that includes a hotel, office tower, convention centre and retail operation;
(2)	for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology to wind up and dissolve Canadian Patents and Development Limited and transfer patents and licences to departments and agencies of source, including universities who best know how to take advantage of them;
(3)	for the Minister of Agriculture to dissolve the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and transfer program responsibility unchanged to the Department of Agriculture, a saving of a considerable amount of money;
(4)	for the Minister of Public Works to change the Canadian Museums Construction Corporation from a parent Crown corporation to a subsidiary as a step toward eventual dissolution, in recognition of the fact that the Canadian Museums Construction Corporation's mandate was to build the National Gallery of Canada and the Museum of Civilization, both have been completed;
(5)	and for the same minister to wind up and dissolve Toronto's Harbourfront Corporation once a settlement has been negotiated with Ontario, the city of Toronto and other parties. The proceeds from the sale of the assets will be used to provide for the development of parks and infrastructure on the site and to assist in the creation of an independent, locally-controlled entity having a capacity to continue the very excellent cultural programming that we know takes place at Harbourfront in Toronto;
(6)	and finally, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to dissolve Mingan Associates, Ltd., an inactive Crown corporation.
In summary, we are getting out of inappropriate roles and allocating tasks to where they can be best performed without additional overheads and we are recognizing that when a job is done, the shop that did the job should be phased out. Eminently logical actions, each and every one. Actions that can be and will be supported.
Canadians are very much aware of the size of the federal deficit and the debt load. They want to be assured that the government is a careful custodian of their tax dollars. The savings from these initiatives are

September 28, 1990
Government Orders
modest, but the initiatives are nonetheless a clear indication of a process of critical self-examination that will be welcomed. Canadians are more prepared than ever to review how the government delivers public services and goods. If delivery can be arranged more intelligently or more efficiently, then Canadians, I believe, will support a change.
I therefore commend this legislation to the House and recommend its early passage.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak on behalf of the Opposition in relation to Bill C-73, which the government describes as mostly housekeeping and a dissolution and transfer of government-owned assets in Crown corporations.
I would like to start with one or two general comments before I deal with the specifics of the bill. The comments relate to the general field of privatization and regulatory affairs. We can see that it has been recognized for approximately a decade that the role of government in a mixed economy requires continuing reassessment of the government's presence and role in the market-place. That analysis is one that is quantitative and qualitative and we now see, after many years of government growth, the real need to do that.
There are two ways in which we have done that here in Parliament and in government. The first area is the encroachment on the market-place and the cost of government regulatory activity. The second involves the wartime and post-war growth of Crown corporations and Crown enterprises in the market-place. We realized that this growth, this proliferation could not go on forever. In the late sixties and early seventies we became aware of what an economist and author, Peter Drucker, called certain discontinuities which call upon all of us in the western world to reassess the role of state enterprises in our mixed economies and the word I use here is "reassess".
This does not mean that we resort and beat a retreat to Wall Street capitalism. We do not mean that at all. It just means that we have the need to continue to reassess and scrutinize this area carefully, based on short-term and long-term government goals. I know that we do not
have, on the other side of the House, a bunch of neo-Conservative carpet-baggers who are intent on plundering and selling eveiything we have in our Canadian corporate heritage. I know that there are reasonable members and ministers over there and I know that the process of fair and honest scrutiny will continue.
I want to recognize as well the advances that have been made in this area of scrutiny. It goes back well over a decade and is based on the work of parliamentarians and public servants who realized that times were changing and that we had a great deal of work to do. They are to be commended for their fine work in this area.
What we have now is a system of laws, procedures and institutions that are there to audit and scrutinize government presence in the market-place and government regulatory activity.
I would like to put on the record what are now said to be the five preliminary criteria for determination of whether or not a Crown enterprise should be privatized. I put them on the record because they are very relevant to the debate on privatization. They are as follows: First, does the corporation play a continuing role in the support of national and regional public policy objectives? Second, does the company have the potential to be commercially viable? Third, is it ready to operate in the private sector? Fourth, will privatization be compatible with other federal government policies such as bilingualism, competition, foreign investment and trade? Fifth, what will the effect be on the employees, competitors, suppliers or customers, all of which are proper elements of a criterion for assessment of whether or not an enterprise should be privatized.
The first one, does the corporation play a continuing role in the policy area, begs another question. We have to ask just what those regional and national policy goals are. We know that governments will differ from time to time on just what those policies will be. If we are not going to be able to agree on the policy, clearly we are not going to be able to agree on the privatization analysis. There is the nub and there is the debate.
Let us take a closer look at Bill C-73. It is characterized as a housekeeping bill and perhaps a bill that fulfils the promise of that wonderful government budget earlier this year. I say that, of course, with tongue and cheek

just so Hansard gets it right. I would like to look at the six corporations very quickly.
The first corporation that the bill refers to is Canada Harbour Place Corporation. We are basically talking about the Vancouver Canada Place lands. The bill calls for the sale or disposition on such terms as the Governor in Council approves, but it also permits and authorizes Canada Harbour Place Corporation to sell its own assets in the way that the Governor in Council approves. I want to come back to this particular Crown corporation in a few moments.
The second one is Canada Museums Construction Corporation. The provisions of this bill call for the transfer of the share now held by the Minister of Public Works to Canada Lands Company Ltd. I do not think any of us are going to have a major problem with that. That truly is housekeeping, subject to-and this is a subject which will have to be looked at in committee-the need to scrutinize very carefully, from a legal perspective, the completion of contracts on the museums which have been constructed at great cost and also from a perspective of compliance with the warranty provisions in each of those contracts.
These provisions all relate to more extensive and complex contracts. We want to be very sure that the transfer in ownership or control here does not prejudice the position of the taxpayer in those two regards.
The third entity affected by the bill is the Canada Livestock Feed Board. This is basically a dissolution and a rollover of the assets and working agency into the Ministry of Agriculture. There is some speculation that this initiative could save the taxpayer several hundred thousand dollars. How can we argue with that. The fourth corporation affected is the Canada Patents and Development Limited. This involves a dissolution and transfer of the capital assets. I think it can be characterized as a rollover as well. The government believes this will ensure more effective prosecution of the development and sale of patents and the patent rights.
The fifth one is Harbourfront Corporation. This involves a sale of assets and a closing out or winding up of all of the activity, I think much in the way that the Vancouver initiative is planned.
Government Orders
We are dealing with some major real estate assets here. We have a book value of approximately $31 million. We have real estate leases, short-term and long-term, and extensive and complex property rights, something only the overheated real estate market of Toronto could develop. But they are there, they are complex. I want to come back to Harbourfront Corporation in a few moments.
Lastly, Mingan Associates is accepted to be a housekeeping initiative.
I want to come back to two of these entities which are being "privatized". I suggest that this is not just housekeeping, that this is in fact privatization. I wonder out loud why we might not have wanted to deal with each of these privatizations each one on its own merits.
WThy am I being cautious? Why do we have to be cautious about this? Well, there are a few reasons. I want to make reference to some of the other privatizations we have seen over the last three or four years. I am not going to go into detail, but the mere mention of the name ought to be enough to make the minister take note and want to be cautious.
In the de Havilland sale, we sold a large viable entity in which Canadians had invested heavily and which we did plan to reap heavily. We sold it into the private sector, which is not of itseif a bad thing at all, but we sold it for about $90 million. A short time later we settled a lawsuit with the purchaser for almost the same amount of money. With the return to Canadians, I think we basically sold it for nothing or less than nothing. That does not look like much of a deal. I think it should embarrass some of the people who were involved in that.
I can mention the privatization of TeleGlobe. All I have to do is mention it and mention the prospect of the potential down side of too much insider activity which may or may not have occurred in relation to that privatization. I know it embarrassed some.
I want to mention Route Canada. With Route Canada, I know that one of our committees here may want to take a closer look at it. The government sold an asset that had a book value of approximately $75 million for about $29 million. Now, I know that looks bad. I am sure there is an explanation out there somewhere, but what a perfect opportunity for an asset strip.

September 28, 1990
Government Orders
Purchasers called it a leverage buy-out, but it was an asset strip. It was a perfect candidate. Maybe it occurred just because we in government have not learned how to sell things yet. Maybe we really did not yet learn how to do it right. Maybe there is still a learning curve. I and my caucus want to make sure that if we are going to do this kind of thing again, because we have good policy reasons to do it, we do it right. I do not want to make any more mistakes, and I do not want to prejudice any more government employees. I do not want to prejudice any more employees of the Crown corporation. I want to make sure we do the right thing, and do it the right way. Why am I cautious? The mention of a few of those corporations ought to permit us to deduce why. Let us take a closer look at the two corporations at which I want to look more closely.
First, there is Canada Place in Vancouver. I note that it has a depreciated asset book value of $67 million, not an insignificant sum. Also, I want to point out that the land on which that building sits, which is valued at $67 million depreciated dollars, was purchased for $1 in the Vancouver market. I want to put a flag beside that.
I want to say to the government that it is dealing with an asset value that may approach $100 million, that when it is disposed of there has to be the policy analysis that first dictates the privatization. Then there must be a careful procedure to ensure that it is sold properly, without embarrassment and that the taxpayers have recovered what is justly theirs.
The second area is Harbourfront Corporation which has a book value of $30 million. I have to suspect that the book value on these lands, property rights and leases, all of which were acquired over a decade ago, is vastly understated in the Toronto real estate market.
I think we will be looking for a better appraisal and a better statement of just what these assets were, notwithstanding that the minister indicates that it is the government's intention to move these assets into another public corporation, joint or otherwise, involving the provincial and municipal governments in Toronto.
It is also essential that we see the privatization analysis. I am confident we will have an opportunity to ask for this in committee. I am quite sure we will see it. We are not going to sell these assets involving all of
these millions of dollars on such terms as the Governor in Council shall approve unless we see that analysis, not just because it was in the budget.
I am saying all of this for the minister's benefit. I know when he retires in 1993 that he will want to retire proudly, feeling that he has done a great job for the taxpayers and the people of Canada. I want him to be proud of his work. I do not want to see him harassed and hounded out of office by a crowd of journalists and angiy opposition MPs. I know he will take our advice. I know he really believes I said all of that for his benefit.
As well, I want to point out in connection with the Vancouver sale the controversy which has surrounded current and recent past sales of the Vancouver Expo lands. There is a mandatory requirement of intensive government consultation with the local governments.
I have a special interest in the Harbourfront in metro Toronto lands, my riding being Scarborough-Rouge River in metropolitan Toronto. I want to ask if the privatization contemplated here is consistent with what is known as the Crombie royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront. I know that the minister believes that it is, and I have seen it written in some locations that it is, but I am not a believer yet.
Is this a sale, the terms of which are before us? No, we do not see the terms of the sale. The statute does not even say to whom it will be sold or transferred. We do not know that yet.
We are passing a law that says: "Governor in Council, cabinet, sell this asset and get what you can". The minister says no that is not quite what it is, but that is what the law says and that is why we are here: to pass a law. I am looking at the words in the statute. This privatization is supposed to be consistent with the Crombie recommendation.
I would like to read two recommendations of the Crombie royal commission. The first one says: "We recommend first that there be no further sale of lands currently held in public ownership including provincial and federal". The second one I want to read is: "We recommend that aggressive public land acquisition programs be instituted on the waterfront".
September 28, 1990

I remain to be convinced that the sale of these lands now are consistent with either of those two recommendations. That royal commission was instituted by this government. I would like to know why the bill as proposed does not, on its face, come close to complying with those two key recommendations which are found in Volume IV of the report at page 68.
Also in metro Toronto there is a land ownership issue very close to my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River respecting the Rouge Valley lands. The federal government owns pieces of the Rouge Valley. The province owns most of it. Recently the province made a decision to give over all of those lands to the preservation of the Rouge Valley. That was lousy economics, but it was good planning. I caution the government that when it deals with the Vancouver and Toronto lands not to chase the god of great economics and end up with lousy planning.
We all have an interest in the proper disposition of these issues. This is a caution flag. I want everyone to know that we in opposition will be looking at these two aspects of this bill very carefully. We want to see the government's own policy analysis dealing with the sale and disposition. We want to see the program that is contemplated for both of these matters before we can feel comfortable supporting this bill.


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on the bill before the House.
As the minister says, the bill deals with six different corporations. In many cases it transfers the work of one of the existing Crown corporations to another agency of the Government of Canada. The main thing we should be doing today is saying to the minister across the way that we want this bill in committee so that we can ask some specific questions about each of these six corporations.
I am concerned, for example, whether or not the employees are being dealt with in a proper way. Those are the kinds of questions that I would like to ask. Employees are going to be transferred from a Crown corporation to a government agency, and I want to know if that is going to be done properly in terms of their benefits, their salaries, and their pensions. Is there going to be job loss? Are the employees in agreement with what is happening? I am also concerned about the
Government Orders
various relevant interest groups, as to whether or not they are pleased with this new activity.
If I can take as an example the Harbourfront Corporation in Toronto, which is going to be transferred to local control. In principle I like the idea of local control. It is a way of democratizing our economy and our country, but I would like to know more details about what the government has in mind about what local control is.
If it is along the lines of the recommendations of David Crombie and the royal commission, my understanding would be that this would be very attractive and would have the agreement of most Torontonians. We would probably give a green light to that. Perhaps we could get more details on that from the minister in committee.
The second looks attractive in principle. It is the Mingan Associates Limited company which was established to obtain land and fishing rights. It is now a Crown corporation. The intent of the minister under this bill is to transfer this corporation to the relevant Indian reserve so that the Indian people themselves have control over it.
I would also like to know what those local Indian people think of the matter, whether or not they have requested it. Is this the route those Indian people wish to go? If it is the route they wish to go, it could be the proper direction or the proper move toward further democratization of our economy.
I have been one for a long time who thinks that we should be moving toward what I call economic democracy in our country, where people have more control over the economic levers that affect their own lives. I would be very interested in whether or not these are the kinds of steps, in these two cases in particular, that would move in that direction.
Those are two moves, the elimination or the transfer of two existing Crown corporations, which indeed maybe interesting in terms of local people or local associations having more control over the lives and over the future development of that relevant agency in terms of their own community.
I notice that for three other Crown corporations there is a slightly different move recommended in this bill at seconding reading. One is Canadian Patents Development Ltd., a Crown corporation that is going to be

Government Orders
transferred to relevant government departments. That may or may not be a good move.
Once again I would like to have a chance to question the minister and relevant officials at a committee to see whether or not this is the efficient way or the proper way to do it in terms of the industry to do it. In terms of research and development in this country, is it a good thing for R and D to eliminate this Crown corporation that deals with patents and transfer its jurisdiction to the relevant government departments? It may indeed be the proper thing or perhaps there is some objection to it from the scientific community or from the research community in this country.
I am sure that the member of our party from Windsor-St. Clair, who is our spokesperson on research and development, might be interested in asking a question or two about this issue later on.
Another agency is the Canadian Livestock Feed Board that is very relevant to those of us in rural Canada. My riding being in Saskatchewan is one of those with people who are interested in this particular agency. I understand that the functions of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board have in essence been transferred in the last two, three, or four years to the Department of Agriculture. The functions of that agency are already being carried out by the Department of Agriculture.
Once again I would like to know whether or not the employees have been dealt with in the proper fashion. Are the employees happy with what has happened? Are the farm organizations pleased with what has occurred? Is all the jurisdiction of the existing board going to be felt in Agriculture Canada? That is the second Crown corporation that will be transferred or has already been transferred to the relevant federal government department.
The third one that is going to be transferred is the Canadian Museum Construction Corporation. That corporation was established a while back to deal with the construction in the national capital region of the National Gallery here in the city of Ottawa and the Museum of Civilization in the city of Hull, just a few metres away from the Parliament Buildings. This corporation is going to be transferred as well to become a subsidiary of the Canada Lands Company.
Again the same questions I raised about other companies and employees are relevant in this case. Also in this case I would be interested in knowing about some of the cost overruns in the construction of those museums, why we cannot be a bit more accurate in estimating how much a major building by the federal government is going to cost before we settle on the tenders and before we settle on the contracts.
There is a lot of concern by ordinary Canadians who are not in the national capital region about the cost of these two beautiful places, these two wonderful places. Before we rubber stamp this transfer by the federal government, I think what we should be doing is calling in the relevant officials to make sure that we have answers to some of those questions.
The last corporation is the Canada Harbour Place Corporation, a corporation that was given a mandate to administer properties at Canada Place in Vancouver as the Canadian Pavilion in Expo 86.
I assume that this is going to be sold to the private sector. Of the six corporations that are going to be dismantled or eliminated by the federal government this is the only one, at least on the surface, that appears to be in a position where it is going to privatized in the classical sense: in the way that the federal government has privatized Air Canada and some of the other corporations in recent years.
Those are the concerns we have in our party. In committee we want a chance to deal with these six corporations in a very specific way in terms of finding out of it is good (a) for the country, (b) for the employees working there, and (c) for the people who are interacting with these particular corporations, be it scientists or be it farmers in terms of the Livestock Feed Board or be it Torontonians in terms of the Harbourfront.
Since I know somebody else wants to make a few remarks before eleven o'clock, in conclusion I say to the minister that shortly we are going to have a major bill before the House to privatize Petro-Canada. My attitude at that time will be totally different from my attitude toward these corporations. I believe the Conservative Party is making a very major mistake going ahead with the privatization of Petro-Canada, particularly at a time when there is a crisis in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.

September 28, 1990

Petro-Canada was established back in 1973, 1974 and 1975 at a time of a crisis in the Middle East. It is our window on the marketplace in terms of the oil industry. We are making a major mistake by selling out to the private sector-part of it probably to foreign investors- this small window we have on the marketplace in Canada.
Most of our oil industry is foreign owned. It is owned by the private sector. Most countries in the world, except the United States, have a very major publicly owned gasoline, oil, or energy company. The Mexicans have and most European countries have it. Most countries in the world have a major Crown corporation that is publicly owned. I believe we are making a mistake.
In concluding, I say that the Conservative Party made a major change in terms of its ideological orientation and privatization about four or five years ago when this Prime Minister was elected, in terms of trying to privatize as much as possible in this country. The Conservative Party of many years ago was the opposite. I remind the House that the Conservative Party is the party in this country that established many of the Crown corporations we have today: the CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian National Railway, to name but a few. Peter Lougheed as premier of Alberta believed in a mixed economy in terms of public ownership in that province. The minister responsible for privatization comes from Brampton, Ontario. Former Premier Bill Davis was one who intervened in the marketplace in terms of Crown corporations.
That is sort of the tradition and the heritage of the Conservative Party of Canada. I think there has been an ideological change in the last few years. I think they have blinkers on, in terms of the value of privatization.
Therefore I serve notice to the government today that when the privatization of Petro-Canada bill comes before this House, he can expect a fight from the New Democratic Party. He can expect our party to try to mobilize public opinion to make sure the Conservative Party does not proceed with that bill in the same way we did 10 years ago when a former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, promised to privatize Petro-Canada, raised the price of oil in this country, and went to the people and was defeated.
Government Orders
Once again we promise to make the same kind of issue out of Petro-Canada as we did 10 years ago and to try to stop the government from privatizing it.


Mr.   Benoit@: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. It seems to me that with this bill the government is pursuing two objectives. One section of the bill deals mostly with administrative reorganization and changes in responsibility, which I imagine is supposed to improve government efficiency. Other parts of the bill concern the privatization of certain corporations. In your speech, you seemed to object to the bill as a whole for reasons that were mainly connected with the privatization aspect. However, there is also that part of the bill that focuses on improving the effectiveness of government administration, and I would like to hear your views on the subject.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I believe I said before that we have a lot of questions about the effectiveness of the bill before the House today. When I say effectiveness, I am talking about administration. I gave as an example a change that would affect three Crown corporations: The Canada Museums Construction Corporation, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and Canadian Patents and Development Limited. I wonder whether administratively speaking, these changes would indeed have the desired results for this country and for the government of Canada. I am not sure. That is why I would like to see this bill in committee, where we can ask the responsible minister, the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and his officials for answers to this kind of question. The proper place to ask these questions is in committee. I would like effective and responsible government but I also want a government that has progressive policies for our country.
This bill also holds out the possibility of having Harbour Front Corporation in Toronto under local control.
As I said a few minutes ago, I agree in principle with the government's proposal but, as usual under our system of government, a lot depends on the details of the bill and the way the regulations are set up. That is why

September 28, 1990
the minister should come before the appropriate committee and answer our questions.


Mr.   Benoit@: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the hon. member for York-ton-Melville.
He pointed out that the bill covers the re-organization or privatization of several very different corporations.
I am wondering whether a single committee would be able to deal with them all, because we are looking at issues related to agriculture, to science and technology, and to other topics more closely tied to the real estate field.
Can the same committee, usually made up of members whose abilities and expertise have something in common, consider the advisability of re-organizing, abolishing or even privatizing various government activities covered in a single bill? Can a committee member be all at once expert in agriculture, expert in science and technology patents, and expert in matters related to real estate.
I have some reservations as to how this might be worked out and, if we are to achieve the goals you have in mind, I should like to hear your suggestions in that respect.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a good question, Madam Speaker.
We have a problem here because, as the hon. member said, we are dealing with six corporations operating in very different fields. For example, one of them is very important to the farming community. Yet another one is a leading concern in research and development in Canada. I would suggest that we need a parliamentary reform, Madam Speaker, for we are often asked to consider what we call omnibus bills which cover a wide range of issues.
It would be a problem because I happen to know that the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, knowledgeable as he is in the agricultural sector, would want to attend the committee proceedings on the bill. As to research and development patents, Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor is our party spokesman.
I agree with my colleague from Rosemont that the matter deserves more consideration, but the government is putting us in a tight spot.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 35 and 31, the House will now proceed with members' statements.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as all members of this House will know, this weekend the World Summit for Children takes place in New York. For the first time ever, heads of state or government will meet to discuss one important social concern, the health and welfare of the weakest and most vulnerable of society, children.
For Canada, the summit is an international event, around which we can find common national purpose. It can be a catalyst which can focus world attention on the specific and urgent needs of children. Children are one of a country's most vital resources. The World Summit is a unique opportunity to draw attention to the specific problems facing children in all parts of the globe.
Mr. Speaker, while much has been accomplishments, there is still a long way to go. Children must become a higher political priority in the 1990s.
I applaud the leadership of our government and our Prime Minister in our participation at this historical summit and look forward to our commitment to focus on "doing the do-able" for the children of Canada and around the world.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, through the mist of the very heady stuff that we have been discussing this opening week of the fall session of Parliament, we find another problem of a different nature but no less magnitude.
In rural Newfoundland, the high number of people who do not qualify for unemployment insurance this year is nothing short of awesome. They do not qualify because this government will not reinstate the variable entrance requirement that takes into account the realities of high unemployment and that would have their qualifying time
September 28, 1990

reduced from 14 to 10 weeks. I estimate the number in my riding alone to be well over 5,000. I met and spoke with them this summer.
They are without money; they are without food, their children will soon be going to school hungry and inadequately clothed. People are close to the point where they are without hope. There is no question the situation is desperate.
I call on this government to take compassion on these people and immediately reinstate the variable entrance requirement and reduce the unemployment insurance qualifying time from 14 weeks to 10 weeks.


GREENPEACE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal Greenpeace activists were arrested following a confrontation with port authorities while trying to draw attention to the export of uranium from Canada. Their actions stemmed from the refusal, two weeks ago, of the Minister of Energy to launch an inquiry into uranium mining in Canada.
Miners, native groups, health professionals, and environmentalists have been pressing for the inquiry for 10 months. They want to know why two million litres of radioactive waste spilled into Wollaston Lake in northern Saskatchewan. They want to know who is regulating the regulators. They want to know why the maximum penalty under the Atomic Energy Control Act is $5,000, half of that for smoking on the Hill. They want to know why development of massive new radioactive deposits like Cigar Lake are going ahead without intense public scrutiny. They want to know why radiation levels, raised by Jean Chretien, remain as much as 20 times higher than elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, pious platitudes and stonewalling are no substitute for truth and action and it is truth and action that we need.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed last night, during the Prime Minister's press conference, that our national network has once again translated into English the part of the speech the Prime minister gave in French but that, with total disregard for
the francophones, it retransmitted without translation the part he gave in English.
The CBC should live up to the linguistic expectations of all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair and discriminatory for our national network to dare broadcast only part of such an important statement from our Prime Minister.
I therefore urge the minister of Communications to look into this problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that this happens and it is totally unacceptable in a bilingual country such as ours.


THE SENATE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Tory times are expensive times, for taxpayers that is.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister created eight new Senate positions using an obscure clause in the Constitution in order to obtain passage of his much dreaded goods and services tax.
Let us look at the cost of these eight unnecessary nominations: $71,900 per year per senator in salary, $21,628 per year in estimated travel expenses, $152 per day for sitting in the Senate, which totals $36,352 per year. That is $129,880 in direct expenses per senator. Based on a retirement age of 75, each candidate in question will result in 183 person-years and a direct cost of $23,768,040. That is the cost of the boondoggle of the Prime Minister. Imagine what the cost would have been had I calculated the 15 nominations of last week. It is almost enough to make John Buchanan blush.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['With reference to the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Richelieu, Mr. Speaker, Hibernia is an expensive project which is not economically sound and even if it were some day to become financially viable the dividends and profits would go directly abroad. Most Canadian economists have shown that it is not a profitable operation as evidenced by the fact that no private corporation was prepared to get involved in this project without the support of the Federal Government.', 'September 28, 1990\nOral Questions\nAs to the spinoffs from the construction, there is no guarantee that Quebec firms will get their fair share.\nFor all these reasons, I am quite surprised not to see a single Quebec representative of whatever their stripe, either blue, red or yellow, rise in this House to discuss openly this ambiguous project.\nMr. Speaker, I wanted to give Quebecers fair warning, because obviously they are taken for a ride.']
Ms. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you have changed the time allotted to the speakers in Question Period all week long. Traditionally, the government side was always allowed two questions. By eliminating the second question, you penalize the francophone government members, thus silencing the supporters the government has in Quebec. So, Quebec has to suffer because you allow a new opposition group

September 28, 1990
to use that time, at the expense of another group of elected members which is at least as important. One gets the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that this small group of individuals that represents Quebec, individuals who have decided to change allegiance while in office, which is their privilege. By acting that way, Mr. Speaker, you bias not only perceptions but mainly the true representativeness of this House.
Allow me to urge you to start allowing again a second question from the government side and to restore, that way, social justice and public morality.



Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, foreign domestic workers in Canada face a variety of problems. Many are poorly paid, drastically overworked and often the victims of sexual harassment. These workers, most of them young women, come to Canada hopeful of a start of a new life. The way they are treated is shameful.
The most glaring example of this inequitable treatment has arisen in the case of Juvy Badua. In Ms. Badua's application for entry to Canada she misrepresented her age, she said she was older than she was. That was wrong. She should not have done this, but she willingly acknowledges this misrepresentation.
But how has the government reacted? They have ordered her out of the country even though she has a job here in Canada. This action flies in the face of previous rulings where misrepresentations as to age and marital status have led only to a slowdown in cases, not in an order to leave the country.
To be blunt, the government has gone right off the deep end on this case.
Why is Juvy Badua being treated so unfairly? Why has she received a punishment which goes so far in excess of her misrepresentation?
I would ask the minister to review Ms. Badua's file and correct this inequitable treatment. Allow her to stay in Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, grain producers in the riding of Macleod have spoken to me about their concerns and their frustrations with world market prices this year. Certain relatively small areas have faced drought and devastatingly low yields for the ninth year in a row. Nothing is more frustrating than personal financial devastation while the media reports boom-time production across the prairies. Nothing could be more frustrating.
But even those with mountains of grain on the back forty face a financial crunch with few sales, low prices, and, I might say, borrowed input costs. In some cases, the only source of cash is the advances available on production not yet delivered.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider waiving, for this crop year, the interest requirement on at least part of the cash advance.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the Dalai Lama said: "the awarding of the Nobel Prize to me, a simple monk from Tibet, fills us Tibetans with hope. It means that despite the fact that we have not drawn attention to our plight by means of violence we have not been forgotten. It also means that the values we cherish, in particular our respect for all forms of life and the belief in the power of truth, are today recognized and encouraged."
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a tragedy that our Prime Minister does not recognize the power of truth and peace. Why can he not accord this great man of peace the welcome he truly deserves during his visit to Canada, a country which prides itself on defending peace and human rights? Canada cannot only defend the human

rights of those countries which are currently in vogue but must adhere to a moral code which stands for the rights of the oppressed throughout the world. By refusing to meet the Dalai Lama, Canada is reneging on its convictions.


WELLAND
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, most of the time in our statements we are complaining about one thing or another happening in our country and across the world. But today I thought I would interject a little bit of good news.
Welland, Ontario, which is situated in the heart of the Niagara peninsula, is becoming known for its magnificent outdoor wall murals. Since the inception of this outstanding tourism and economic development project in 1988, specially selected artists from across Canada have created 27 giant historical murals on building walls in this canal city.
The mural program is a special project of the Promote Welland Task Force. It is a non-profit community organization made up of Welland citizens from all walks of life. They are determined to create a basis for economic revitalization. This grass roots groups has provided the funding and the logistics for the massive artistic effort.
Welland probably boasts Canada's highest proliferation of outdoor art by professional artists. Some of these murals are as big as 82 feet by 32 feet. These can be enjoyed 12 months of the year and it is absolutely free.
We in Welland are very proud of our accomplishments and we would like Canada to be proud of us. We extend an invitation to all Canadians and, indeed, to all people throughout North America to visit the mural capital of Canada and sample our outdoor art gallery and Welland hospitality.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, almost one year ago 14 young women lost their lives when one man's hate exploded into violence at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
In the aftermath, the federal government promised the women of Canada that it would work to end violence
against women. Yet the violence continues. Yesterday, a young woman student at the same school was viciously attacked. Women who face violence often have nowhere to go. The lack of shelter spaces means that one in two Canadian women who need help must be turned away.
Twenty years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada began its report by quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Twenty years later I call on this government to make good on their promise to the women of Canada. Stop the violence.


THE SENATE
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, recent polls have shown this government to be unpopular. This is not surprising when you realize that strong government will many times be unpopular.
Our current deficit is evidence that governments that try to gain popularity through soft legislation fail. Behind the doors of the other House, misguided Liberal senators are holding up a vital UIC bill, a government restraint bill, corporate tax reform as well as GST. These bills have all been labelled as unpopular but they will account for a turnaround of $8 billion in our deficit.
This government is prepared to pay the price for an unpopular but effective government. We are not willing to sit by and watch as an unelected House down the hall holds our taxpayers up to an $8 billion increase in our annual deficit.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: With reference to the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Richelieu, Mr. Speaker, Hibernia is an expensive project which is not economically sound and even if it were some day to become financially viable the dividends and profits would go directly abroad. Most Canadian economists have shown that it is not a profitable operation as evidenced by the fact that no private corporation was prepared to get involved in this project without the support of the Federal Government.

September 28, 1990
Oral Questions
As to the spinoffs from the construction, there is no guarantee that Quebec firms will get their fair share.
For all these reasons, I am quite surprised not to see a single Quebec representative of whatever their stripe, either blue, red or yellow, rise in this House to discuss openly this ambiguous project.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give Quebecers fair warning, because obviously they are taken for a ride.




Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday Canadians saw the Prime Minister fall to a new low, and I am not talking only about the Gallup poll, when he completed his packing of the Senate by using a provision of the Constitution for the first time in our history to appoint the eight additional Senators in a stubborn and desperate attempt to force through the goods and services tax, a tax Canadians do not want.
Why is the Prime Minister continuing to try to ram through the goods and services tax when Canadians know and economists generally agree that it is the wrong tax at the wrong time. It will cause serious damage to an economy already in serious difficulties because of the policies of this government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, far from falling to a new low, I think that all of us would be interested in noting the almost universal condemnation of the actions of the Liberal Party over in the Senate in their efforts to thwart the will and the rights of the House of Commons in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government has ignored the universal, not almost, but the universal condemnation by Canadians generally of this government's misguided goods and services tax.
The Deputy Prime Minister has ignored the point of my question so I will ask it again. Why is he ignoring the
impact of the goods and services tax on an economy which if it is not already in recession, is tumbling headlong into recession at a time when world oil prices are soaring? They are reaching record levels. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister and his government want to jack up the home heating bills of every Canadian by 7 per cent next January and each and every month thereafter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that is undermining the confidence of the Canadian economy it is the actions of the Liberal Party and particularly the actions of the Liberal senators.
Just simply to support that, because it is not only the contention that we have on this side of the House, it is the contention of learned opinion right across the country. Right here, The Ottawa Citizen in today's editorial states:
Senate Crisis Blame the Liberal goons
This fight has nothing to do with whether the GST is a good or bad
tax-Rather, it has everything to do with discrediting the Tories;
Equally contemptible is the blatantly opportunistic NDP which is
calling on the Senate to kill the tax.
The Montreal Gazette, "Hitting a new parliamentary low"; the Calgary Herald-


William Warren Allmand: Nobody believes that.


Mr. Keyes:: Not according to 85 per cent of the population.


Ms. Copps:: Issue the writ.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when I answer the question, and they do not like the answer, they start heckling. They cannot take it.
The Calgary Herald, "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had little choice but to invoke section 26 of the British North America Act-In fact, it could even be argued that he had a duty to do so".
So, Mr. Speaker, what is at issue is whether Mr. MacEachen over in the Senate is going to pick and choose as to what pieces of legislation he thinks are appropriate for the Canadian people or whether those decisions are going to be made here on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!

September 28, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the issue is whether the Prime Minister will have his way in spite of the universal opposition of the Canadian people to this tax.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he thinks that this goods and services tax is the right thing for this country. Will he move immediately to have an elected Senate and see if Canadians will elect senators who support the GST?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether, together with his government, he will amend the Constitution right away to make it possible for Canadians to elect a Senate which would support the GST. Clearly, the reply is no: No to the GST and no to this government!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, for a very distinguished parliamentarian who has served the Elouse of Commons with a very long and distinguished career, I am absolutely appalled and ashamed at the fact that he would surrender the supremacy of the House of Commons of Canada to the Senate.


An hon. member:: That is what he suggests.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is exactly what he said. Now he suggests that maybe we should have an elected Senate. It is the first time I have heard that from him in his 30 years of being a parliamentarian, but it is worth while considering.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Most Canadians believe that the only reason the minister is trying to ram his goods and services tax through Parliament before January 1, 1991, is because he hopes that Canadians will have forgotten their anger by the time of the next election.
Given that we have lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last year, given that we have tens of thousands of firms experiencing bankruptcy, given that the minister
Oral Questions
himself has admitted that we are in a period of recession, will he please explain to the House why he insists on imposing this onerous and inflationary new tax on Canadians at a time when the economy is already badly battered?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague that on what we are debating in the other House, the reason why the Prime Minister took the actions that he took was not because of one bill that is being held up but because of Bill C-21, the unemployment insurance bill, Bill C-28, the income tax bill and the goods and services tax bill.
It is these bills that must be got through to maintain the fiscal integrity of this government. We are not going to allow the integrity of the government to be undermined by a man who was a minister of finance here and failed in that position.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians will find it ironic to hear a Minister of Finance who is no longer believed by the people of Canada and a government that is universally detested promoting a tax that is universally hated, pleading for democracy.
I would like the minister to speak about his tax, the GST. He has admitted that his budget figures were wrong last February. He admitted that he was wrong on inflation. He admitted he was wrong on interest rates, wrong on revenue and wrong on the deficit.
Will he not now admit that he is wrong to be asking Canadian households to pay an additional $6 billion at a time when the economy is in a recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the $6 billion figure is a deliberate misrepresentation by the hon. member. That is not an accurate number, and he knows that is not true.
The hon. member has asked why we are pressing to get this legislation through. This legislation has been widely supported by international organizations which are saying that this is extremely important to getting the financial position of the Government of Canada in a stable position.
I have pointed out in a number of ways how it improves the stability of the fiscal position of the Government of Canada. It astounds me that this man is just right now criticizing the fact that our deficit is going to be up

September 28, 1990
Oral Questions
somewhat this year, I might say after it was for three years running below our target.
I have not heard anything from him congratulating us to the fact that it is below the target. The hon. member is saying that we should not proceed on this. At the same time, he is saying: "You have to get the deficit under control." You cannot have it both ways. This is an important factor in normalizing and stabilizing the fiscal position of the Government of Canada.


THE SENATE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister appointed the eleventh senator from New Brunswick. I would point out to the Prime Minister, according to the Constitution Act 1867 to 1982, that section 22 states: "There shall be 10 senators from New Brunswick". Section 37 states: "There shall be 10 members of the House of Commons from New Brunswick". Section 51(a) of the Constitution Act states:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be
entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons, not less
than the number of Senators representing such province.
It would seem that the Prime Minister has chosen to appoint 11 senators from New Brunswick, but we still have 10 seats in the House of Commons. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he explains this possible contradiction.


Mr. Riis:: A violation of the Constitution.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting question. It has to be divided into two sections.
First of all, there is absolutely no question that section 51(a) in any way impedes the ability of the government to use section 26 of the Constitution.
Our advisers are looking at the relationship between the two sections. There are a number of ways of approaching it. Clearly, section 26 is intended to be a temporary device, because once there are retirements in
those areas, they will not be replaced until the number of senators is down to the proper level.
We are seeking advice on this and there may, in fact, be implications on this for the next generation election. I appreciate the hon. member raising it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice: Clearly, there are some very serious questions here about whether this government is violating the Constitution of Canada.


An hon. member:: She just admitted it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice, rather than operate on maybes, why does this government not simply make a reference to the Supreme Court, as was done in 1982, to get a ruling on what is legal about these appointments.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in fact, it may well be appropriate to seek that as a way of answering the relationship between section 51(a) and section 26. It is a complex issue and we are reviewing it. I would underline again that section 51(a) has no bearing on the legitimacy or the validity of section 26.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly the government is acting in its demolition derby attitude toward government and not even checking out the legality of what it is doing. We have the possible illegal moves in appointments to the Senate on top of an inept performance by the government and an unfair tax. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why not do the right thing and pull the tax now.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, most of us are bewildered and perplexed by this new found relationship between the New Democratic Party and particularly the Liberal senators. I would have thought that the last thing I would have experienced in my days as a parliamentarian here in the House of Commons was to see the hon. Leader of the NDP become a spokesman for Mr. MacEachen.


September 28, 1990


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week, the Minister admitted willy-nilly that Canada was in a recession. Yesterday, the Bank of Canada increased again its interest rates. Does the Minister believe that it is possible for Canada to get out of this recession while maintaining such a wide difference between our interest rates and those of our international competitors, including the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I might make an observation that the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard has changed the direction of Question Period because he is, I believe, quite uncomfortable with the position that the Liberal senators are taking on this particular issue.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would challenge him to start asking questions which would support the position of the Liberal Party in the Senate because I do not think that he is too comfortable in it at all.
He is asking a question on the state of the economy. He probably has not heard today, but the gross domestic product in July was up from June, so this talk about a slowdown in the economy is not as serious as he is talking about. I have acknowledged that there is a slowdown in the economy, but I have said there is a very good reason for it as well.
When you have had a seven and a half year run of very strong economy, it is natural that there is some slowdown in the economy. We were seeing inflationary pressures building up. It was important to get those inflationary pressures under control. This is what I anticipated in my 1989 and my 1990 budget and this is what is happening.
As we go through this period we will be building the basis for a strong recovery in the economy which we anticipate will happen next year.
Oral Questions


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the government what makes me uncomfortable. It is the incredibly faulty economic analysis which I have just heard from this minister.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Martin:: We are in a terrible, terrible recession. We are in this recession because of the failure of this government to bring adjustment measures following upon the free trade agreement. We are in a recession because we have an absurdly high level of the Canadian dollar. We are in this recession because of incredibly high interest rates which this government has inflicted upon the Canadian consumer and Canadian industry. We are in a recession because of the threat of inflation brought about by the GST.
My question relates to what every single business person and consumer in this country knows, and if the minister does not understand it, he ought to go back out and start talking to people who are suffering the ill effects.
My question is: how does this government think we can compete? With the outdated economic policies of this government, how does it think that Canadian industry can modernize in order to compete in a very different world and if our cost of capital is so much higher than any of our competitors?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard some great rhetoric, but I notice that the hon. member did not make one mention at all of the comments that I made about the Senate.
I think the hon. member is feeling just a little bit uncomfortable with the position of his party here and in the Senate on the actions that the Liberal senators are taking.
Let me answer this hon. member's question directly. He referred to the importance of new investment, of becoming competitive, of getting this country in a position where we can compete effectively. Let me ask him then why he is opposed to the GST which will help our exporters compete more effectively It will put our Canadian producers in a more competitive position as under the existing sales tax, importers pay one-third less tax than the companies they compete with in Canada.

September 28, 1990
Oral Questions
Why is he is against this tax when, with the harmonization in the Province of Quebec, the reduction in the cost of new investment is 7.5 per cent. That is equivalent to a 7.5 per cent investment tax credit, which will encourage new investment in Canada, encourage us to become more competitive and encourage a healthier economy.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Small business employs 40 per cent of the labour in this country. Eighty per cent of the net new jobs created in this country are by small business. Over 90 per cent of business in this country is opposed to the GST.
Why does the Minister of Finance continue to say that business supports the GST when it is in fact a fallacy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am under no illusions. There are elements of the GST that some parts of the business community do not like. But that does not in any way take away from the importance to the business community and to the economy of Canada for getting on with what is widely regarded internationally as one of the best things that we can do to improve the competitive position of the Canadian economy. It will improve, as I said to the member for LaSalle-Emard, the capacity of this country to bring in new investment, equivalent to a 7.5 per cent investment tax credit. That applies to small, medium and large-size business. It will improve their capacity to create jobs. It will improve the capacity of them to compete internationally. Surely we have to get over this partisan obsession of the Liberal Party and regard this initiative of the GST for what it is, a major improvement to the capacity of this economy to compete.


Dennis Joseph Mills: My
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Finance. We notice in The Ottawa Citizen today that the PM is exaggerating and this is becoming widely known.
The hardest hit in bankruptcies are the sectors of construction, retail and tourism. These sectors are also
the sectors that are hardest hit by the GST. Where is the logic of the Minister of Finance to proceed in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is the wrong thing to do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I had a visitor in my office yesterday from Germany. He has been living in Germany for about 15 years. He came in and said: "What's this problem about the GST? Tell me, what is it, what type of tax is it?" I explained to him what the tax was and he said: "That is the same as our value added tax in Germany". I said: "Yes, that's right". He said: "Well, what's all the fuss about? It is helping us to compete better as a country". It will help us as a country to compete.
This type of tax is in place in 48 other countries in the world. Some of the smallest economies of the world and some of the strongest economies of the world have this type of tax, and yet the hon. member keeps his head buried right in the sand-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have just heard his justice minister admit that her legal advisers may have blown it in terms of section 51 of the Constitution. Those same legal advisers blew it in terms of their advice on the Canada Assistance Plan which had been struck down by the British Columbia Court of Appeal earlier this year.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has thought of the possibility of those legal advisers blowing it yet a third time, and the courts may find that the appointment of those eight senators to be illegal. If that is the case, not only is the GST legislation illegal, but all legislation passed by the Senate or the House of Commons from yesterday on will be illegal. If that is the case, why does he not do the proper thing and withdraw that tax now? Nobody wants this in the country. Get rid of it.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I strongly resent the hon. member's comment that the government's legal advisers have blown it. They have not blown it at all. The government legal advisers are perfectly aware of the situation with respect to section 51(a) which in no way impedes the operation of section 26.
September 28, 1990

With respect to the case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the tax reference, if I may say it politely, the jury is still out on that. That case is under appeal. Whether or not our legal advisers were correct has yet to be established by the highest court in the land.
All of the parties with respect to the decision to appoint the eight senators had independent legal advice. All of that legal advice strongly supported the view that the government was right to do this. It is absolutely the case. In fact, the government must do this.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the legal advice was wrong in terms of the Canada Assistance Plan and the minister knows that. The Court of Appeal in British Columbia said no.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question about the mandate for his government on the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister knows full well-if I can get his attention, Mr. Speaker-that in the last election campaign his party did not campaign on a 7 per cent GST.
What I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister is: are we living in this country in a democracy or do we have a four-year dictatorship? Mr. Speaker, is it not a proper constitutional thing that should be done now to have the Governor General dissolve the House of Commons, not rely on the Senate to block the bill but dissolve the House of Commons, call an election and let the people decide. Is that not the proper constitutional course to pursue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am kind of amused by this reference that we did not campaign on sales tax reform. Both the Liberals and the NDP have said this.
It is interesting that the Government of Canada had a white paper which set our clearly how we were going to proceed with sales tax reform, but both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party said: "We will oppose this but we will not say what we will do in its place".
This is the clear difference in the last election: we are clearly on record with what we were going to do with
Oral Questions
sales tax reform, and there was a great big blank as far as the NDP and the Liberal Party were concerned.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Some 500,000 Canadian children are forced annually to use food banks or go hungry. I am wondering if the Prime Minister is going to mention this fact in his speech this weekend at the summit for children. Too many Canadian children are neglected and abused.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not the Prime Minister will announce this weekend at the summit exactly when the government will ratify the convention on the rights of the child and become internationally accountable for the treatment of our children?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as all members of the House, should be proud of the fact that the Prime Minister will be co-chair of this weekend's conference.
We in the government are very concerned about the conditions of some children in Canada. We know of the many causes of poverty. Illiteracy, basic lack of training skills for workers, and family breakdown are some of the reasons for this immense problem.
When we talk about lack of training skills in this country, one thing the hon. member could do is ask her friends in the other place to pass Bill C-21-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Danis: As far as the second part of the question with regard to the ratification is concerned, my hon. friend might want to read today's article in The Ottawa Citizen wherein Stephen Lewis indicates that one of the reasons it has not been ratified yet is that we do live under a federal system and we are presently negotiating with the provinces, but I am sure it will be ratified at the earliest possible time.

September 28, 1990
Oral Questions


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister for External Relations.
The Middle East crisis is costing the Third World tens of billions of dollars. It is obvious, in light of this weekend's summit, for children to link the impact of this crisis to the rapidly deteriorating condition of the world's children. This government's cutbacks to Official Development Assistance have worsened the plight of the world's children.
Will this government announce today a reversal of its cutback policy which has sent a signal to the world that we do not care?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of her statement, my hon. colleague referred to the Gulf crisis and to the impact of this crisis on children and displaced people in the affected area. She knows how quick the government was to help foreign nationals caught in the area return in their country of origin and to tend to their immediate needs, by the contributions announced. I do share the concern she expressed in her question for the world's children. She knows full well that this government is presently contributing substantially to the well-being of the world's children throught its CIDA programs, especially through its policies, as well as through the work of non governmental organizations aimed at helping the most destitute people better the conditions they live in. My hon. colleague can rest assured that this government will keep providing assistance to the children in the Third World.


PERSIAN GULF
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Today, as Canadian ships arrive in the gulf, Mr. Shevardnadze of the Soviet Union has warned us that war could break out at any moment. Indeed, it is Mr. Shevardnadze who is leading the effort to have a UN commanded military operation in the gulf.
Why is Canada not leading the effort to have a UN commanded military operation in the gulf? What is our position on the options put forward by Mr. Shevardnadze?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that even though this latest enunciation by Mr. Shevardnadze is appreciated, the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Fortier, has been working diligently over the last several weeks to bring about a unification of the military effort under control of the United Nations.
I am sure the hon. member does not believe that we should wait until that effort has been successful to bring about the force of Canada, along with approximately 26 other countries in the world, to enforce the sanctions of the United Nations and to deter aggression.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that Canada's voice is heard loud and clear in the community of nations now, as it has been in the past, for a UN commanded operation. I want an assurance from the minister that privately and publicly on a UN commanded operation that we will speak out loud and clear so that if in the regrettable circumstances that war breaks out our forces will be part of a UN commanded operation.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do have some difficulty with my colleague's question. I understand his concern and appreciate his support, but he has yet to answer me. Does he believe that Canada should not be involved, as we are with some 25 other nations in the world, enforcing the sanctions under 665 under the authority of the United Nations?


Bill Rompkey: In a UN commanded operation.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Yes, the hon. member is saying that he agrees Canada should be enforcing those sanctions. I thank him for his support.


NATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today the Royal Commission on the Status of Women released its comprehensive and excellent recommendations.
September 28, 1990

One of these recommendations was for a national child care program, but this government quickly dropped its inadequate proposal after the last election.
When will will this government introduce a national child care program which addresses the shortcomings that child care experts pointed out in their last proposal? Will it contain national standards with no capping of funds? Will it create the critically needed spaces for Canada's children?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to indicate to the hon. member that the actual date the report of the royal commission on the Status of Women was made public was December 7. That in fact will be the day we will be honouring all those who were involved in the development of that report.
As I am sure the hon. member is aware, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has announced that this government will be moving forward with a national child care strategy. We have already implemented a number of measures through the tax system to assist women in the care of their children. We will be moving forward with other initiatives to help in other ways to achieve that objective.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Women and men; it is not just women.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government's commitment to child care with the capping of CAP, which is the mechanism right now for funding child care spaces.
How can the Prime Minister go to New York and defend this government's record on child care services? One in six Canadian children live in poverty. Over half of our native children live in poverty. Some 40 per cent of food bank users are children. An estimated two million children in this country are in desperate need of child care.
When will this program be forthcoming? Will it meet the needs of Canada's children?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member once again that this government has already committed $2.3 billion over a seven-year period through the tax system to child
Oral Questions
care. That is a significant amount of money that we are putting forward.
Yes, indeed, we are looking at additional assistance, but I do not think the hon. member should expect that the federal government alone or the provincial governments alone can possibly meet the needs of child care. It is going to require partnerships with employers, with communities, with all levels of government, and with parents. All of us have to work together to meet the needs of the children and our families in this country.


FINANCE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the government's proposals for financial reform which he released yesterday.
Yesterday the minister only tabled the trust and loan legislation. This means that Canadians are getting an incomplete picture of the government's policy because he failed to table the Bank Act and legislation concerning insurance and credit unions.
When can we expect this missing legislation? Why does the government continue to keep the financial industry in the dark?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have noticed that together with this first package of legislation I have tabled a complete overview of the principles and the methods that will guide us for the rest of the institutions.
She will also appreciate that we are dealing here with a very complex sector. Some areas of financial institutions have not been touched. They are very central to our economy and have not been touched in certain cases for 70 years.
By proceeding as we have with one major bill and allowing this House to participate in discussions around it-we have been consulting for five years-I think we have a very good package. We want to proceed with this particular package which links with the others and in due course listen carefully to what the members of this House will have to say and come forward immediately

September 28, 1990
Oral Questions
after with the second package which will contain all the improvements that may be made to it.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, a complete overview is very different from legislation. As I said, Canadians only have part of the picture.
Certainly a major way to promote harmony in this industry is to work with the provinces to establish similar regulations across the whole country, yet this minister refuses invitations from provinces to attend the annual conference of ministers responsible for financial institutions.
Why has the minister refused these invitations? Will he agree to start attending these conferences?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we did not proceed with all the legislation at the same time is that maybe we were afraid that her hon. colleagues in the Senate would have indigestion. They have been slowing down our legislation. We would not want to overwork them, would we?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question had something to do with invitations.


Gilles Loiselle: Second, the hon. member would probably be veiy disappointed if I were to send to her copies of the letters I received from the provincial ministers today who were highly complimentary about our movements.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I remind him of a pledge that he made some days ago.
He promised compensation to farmers for lost sales to Iraq. I also remind him that the Trudeau government paid compensation to farmers about 10 years ago during the Afghanistan crisis. Of course this embargo on sales to Iraq could not come at a worse time because farmers desperately need cash right now.
Could the hon. Minister of Agriculture make an announcement now with respect to this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that it took the Trudeau administration two years to calculate the hurt that was inflicted. We are monitoring the situation and, if in fact there is any injury to the producers, it would be taken into consideration.
I think the member is aware that the embargo was put in place sometime in the fall of 1979.1 believe it was in the latter part of 1981 when adjustments for that were made. I think he understands the reasons for that.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should be quibbling over timing. Let's get the job done.
On top of lost sales to Iraq, farmers are experiencing other problems. Bankruptcies are up dramatically in the first eight months of this year, income may drop as much as 67 per cent in some parts of the agricultural community, and of course farmers as consumers are having to face this horrible GST.
Has the minister met with farm leaders or will he meet with farm leaders to come up with a compensation package?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have met with most farm leaders and organizations on this particular issue. They think they understand it, quite unlike the hon. member who has posed the question.
I should also remind the hon. member that most of the commitments, if not all, under the long-term agreement with Iraq for the supply of wheat were filled for 1990. How could there be any major loss or significant loss when in fact the bulk of the commitments under the long-term agreement were filled for 1990?


HOUSING
Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State for Housing. The five-year federal co-operative housing program is due to expire soon. Considering that almost 75 per cent of Montrealers are tenants and that this program is of vital importance to them, I should like to know what measures the minister will take to make sure that the program is maintained and enlarged so as to take into account the preferences of Montreal residents.
September 28, 1990


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing is very popular in Montreal and throughout Canada. Earlier this week we did release a co-operastive housing discussion paper. I intend to make a recommendation to Cabinet before year's end.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The legal basis for sending the army into Quebec appears to be the National Defence Act which, on close reading of the act, allows any provincial premier, be it Premier Bourassa or even Premium Vander Zalm for that matter, to call in the Canadian army unilaterally for an unlimited period of time, with no parliamentary scrutiny, under the direction of the provincial premier, and the federal Treasury pays for it. I find that to be just incredible.
Given that the only protection in the act is the fact that there must be a report filed by the provincial attorney general to the Canadian Secretary of State within seven days of calling in the army, has the government received that report? If it has, would the minister please table it in the House?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague to read closely the act. It says: "within seven days must commence to assemble that information and then provide it".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, now we even learned that perhaps there is not even going to be a report under the act.
The Quebec government has made public how much it is costing them with the police and the other matters. I wonder if the minister could tell the House how much it has cost the Canadian taxpayers to date to have sent the
Oral Questions
army into Quebec. Could he also tell the House how long he expects the army is going to stay in Quebec?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if I knew the answer to the hon. member's second question, I would be able to give him an answer to the first question as to how much it would cost.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
American energy interests, particularly in California, have been trying to create unfair natural gas regulations, unfair from a Canadian perspective.
These pernicious efforts would have had the effect of preventing Canadian natural gas producers from gaining fair access and fair prices in that market. What steps has the minister taken, and what assurances can he provide to this House that this kind of harassment of Canadian producers and exporters will not continue?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question.
For 30 years western Canadians have been supplying gas for the California market on a stable basis. As the hon. member has remarked, the California Public Utilities Commission attempted to change the contractual rules.
I am pleased that, along with the Government of Alberta, the Government of Canada was able to make not only public statements regarding the unacceptability of that approach, but our embassy as well worked very diligently with the administration of the United States.
I am pleased that, while we did not have to invoke the free trade agreement, everyone came to the conclusion that the free trade agreement is a two way street. It works, and in this case it has worked not only in protecting Canadian interests, but Canadian gas producers and has verified the validity and the veracity of the contracts we have.

September 28, 1990
Points of Order POINT OF ORDER


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the junior finance critic for the Liberal Party has taken exception to the word "deliberate" in a statement that I made during Question Period.
I withdraw the use of the word "deliberate" because it is an unparliamentary word, but I would ask him if he would make sure of his facts before using them in the House.

[Translation\


PRIVILEGE
Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I rose for member's statements to draw your attention to the new time allotment during the Oral Question Period in an attempt to point out to you that this new procedure does have unfortunate consequences for Quebec members who support the government.
In my remarks I implied that you were responsible for this decision and, apparently, I used words which could be interpreted as a direct attack against you. I would like to withdraw the words which may have offended you, for I certainly did not intend to question your competence nor to attack you personally. Such was not my intention. I meant to draw your attention once again to a process which is the outcome of unfortunate decisions and which frustrates Quebec members who support the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Bourassa. [English]


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order to draw to your attention what I think is a problem for this House.
It will be recalled that yesterday during Question Period the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was called to order on his references to the Governor General, and he was asked to withdraw those statements, which of course he did.
The unfortunate thing is that even though those comments were withdrawn, they ended up on the National last night at ten o'clock.
Once again, I think this draws to the attention of this Chamber how important it is that remarks which breach the traditions of this House, which make reference to the Governor General or to other individuals, that may well be slanderous, or something that could be in some way offensive, have to be dealt with very quickly and very efficiently.
What happens as a result of that withdrawn statement is that it continues to stay on the record. The net result is that the statement that was played on the National last night is I think a poor reflection on the House and the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to pursue this point of order at the moment. It can be dealt with at another time.
There is a question of privilege which must be heard, because it has precedence over other things. I just might say I am certainly prepared to discuss further the point of order raised both yesterday and today. Members can go back and look at Hansard. Yesterday I stated very clearly that it does not do very much good to correct a mistake afterwards, if the matter is out on the electronic transmission. I am not now referring to that particular incident, but any incident from either side of the House. It is there. There is no sudden surprise when it gets used by the media. That is another matter and I am quite prepared to discuss it further with hon. members. In the meantime I must give precedence to a question of privilege from the hon. member for Shefford.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall what you said in the House on Thesday, October 10, 1989, when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition at the time had asked you for a ruling on the government ad concerning the Goods and Services Tax.
In the course of your statement, Mr. Speaker, you said that there were two main aspects that should be considered: first of all, whether the ad would prejudice the future proceedings of the House and the Finance Committee, which had undertaken an examination of the technical paper, and second, whether it left the public to
September 28, 1990

infer that Parliament had no role in the passage of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, in your learned reply, you made it abundantly clear that the government should never take the support of the House of Commons for granted. In fact, at the time you warned the government, and perhaps I may quote: "However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever happens to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous".
Mr. Speaker, it so happens that I must draw to your attention a similar situation, based on the press release on September 14, 1990, concerning the launching of the Hibernia project.
Mr. Speaker, I was at home watching Newsworld which was broadcasting the events live, when I heard the first statement from the press release, which started like this: "It's official: work on the Hibernia project, estimated at several billion dollars and to be carried out off the coast of Newfoundland, will start immediately, the federal government announced today". Worse than that, Mr. Speaker, while listening to the various speeches, I heard Premier Clyde Wells, and I will quote what he said from the MTT, The media Tapes and Transcript.

-the Hibernia bill has been passed.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House. I was absolutely flabbergasted when I realized that this bill had passed without my being aware of it I checked, and I found that Bill C-44 was still at the report stage. So the government had made a public announcement and issued a press release saying it was official, without consulting the House and its members in effect using Parliament as a rubber stamp.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recall what you said on October 10, and also what Premier Wells said about there being an agreement with the opposition parties. Mr. Speaker, we were never party to any agreement whatsoever to sneak this bill through the House at top speed. As you know, $2.7 billion are involved in this project, including $675 million from Quebec taxpayers, and we demand the right to consider those facts here in the House, Mr. Speaker.
Points of Order
I insist on bringing this press release and all related statements to your attention, because what happened was that they used Parliament as a rubber stamp. You yourself warned on October 10, 1989, that you would not be as generous next time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. Parliament has been disregarded and ignored, by a government has taken its support for granted, which does not that reflect well on members opposite, who are being treated like a herd of sheep or a bunch of voting machines. I know most of them are, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this is an insult to all parliamentarians here in this House, and I would ask you to rule on this matter.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to intervene for a couple of minutes. I want to indicate to the hon. member and to the House that, in fact, the Government of Canada has entered into an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland which is mutually acceptable to both levels of government.
I should also indicate to the hon. member that under the existing estimates, which were by this House at another time, the essential funds to start up the project have already been approved and are in place. So there is absolutely no discrepancy between what we, as members, are now dealing with in this House, that is, Bill C-44, and the fact that the announcements have proceeded and that things are going. I do not see any inconsistency at all. It is an interesting point of order but perhaps it should be better described as debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, so far this is a point of privilege. What my hon. friend-


An hon. member:: A point of privilege?


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is arguing a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The point being made is that the government has prejudged what Parliament will do. We have seen this occur on previous occasions and on those occasions your rulings were very specific.
I agree with the comments made by my hon. friend earlier. I was surprised that legislation had been passed. In fact, it had not been passed when I heard a deal had

Business of the House
been made between the federal government, the provinces and the companies involved. It requires legislation to be passed.
I think it is fair to say that all of us take our work here very seriously. But when the government announces that it is going ahead with this project, it is simply assuming that, not only the House of Commons but the Senate will pass the legislation, I do not think that that assumption ought always to be made. As a matter of fact, the Senate is not even in session any longer. If the Senate were to do what it presumably plans to do, and that is to keep the bells ringing indefinitely, this legislation we are discussing now, Hibernia, would never occur.
When the government suggests that the project will go ahead and guarantees that legislation will be passed, that does not provide much incentive for us here in the House to take our job very seriously. So I simply want to summarize by saying that if the government wants the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, I think it is in their interest to recognize that there are stages through which legislation must pass. We are not even beyond report stage with the Hibernia legislation and from here it goes into the other House.
Time after time we have seen the present federal government consider Parliament to be a nuisance to their agenda. This adds to the public perception that this government would just as soon not have Parliament in session and simply announce their initiatives by decree.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the arguments of the hon. member which, of course, were just a reiteration of what we had heard a few moments ago. The fact is he did not bother to respond to the very simple statement that these funds had been approved, were sitting in the COLA fund, and it is those funds that are being used for startup. I do not know why they insist on ignoring the facts and continue with the rhetoric, trying to present once again an image which is both false and misleading.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, to the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Shefford, I am of the opinion that the matter being raised now was really a matter of debate. That is not to say that the Official Opposition does not find itself on many occasions agreeing with the notion
that this government is taking the House of Commons for granted.
We made it very clear in this party during the initial debate that we prefer to see the passage of the bill in question at the time it was initially debated. It was very clear during the debate. It should be crystal clear that the funding that is currently in place and that has allowed the first contract to be called on the Hibernia project is being funded from the offshore development fund and is not financed or funded by the Government of Canada as a consequence of the passage of this bill. The reality is that if Bill C-44 does not pass the House and does not pass Parliament, the project will shut down when it runs out of interim financing which is coming from the offshore development fund.
What is noteworthy is that despite the support, both at the initial opportunity that we had to debate Bill C-44 in the House and later, the Liberal Party was supportive of the bill, we still see that the New Democratic Party, now joined by the Bloc Quebecois, is out to destroy the Hibernia project. That is an unusual and unholy alliance, but this is a matter of debate and not privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with some concern to the statement made by the hon. member for Shefford. I have received some documents; perharps there are more. This may or may not constitute a question of privilege. I have also heard the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments, as well as those of the hon. member for Humber- Sainte-Barbe-Baie Verte. I think it would be appropriate for the Chair to take the matter under advisement and come back to the House with a ruling.
There is no need to hear more arguments. I get the point, especially regarding the ruling the Chair made a few months ago.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a statement which it is necessary to make. I have received written notice from the hon. member for Essex-Windsor that he is unable to move his motion during Private Members' hour on Monday, October 1, 1990. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in order of precedents pursuant to



September 28, 1990

Standing Order 94. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedents.

The "Private Member's Hour" will therefore be cancelled, in accordance with Standing Order 94. Since the House has no business to deal with at 1 p.m., the House should take recess, after the prayer, until 2 p.m.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, we are once again up against one of the problems we have with our Standing Orders. As all members are aware and so there are a number of options for us to handle the situation for Private Members' Business on Monday. I think you might find consent for the motion that we have used in the passed. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, October 1, 1990 the House meet at one o'clock p.m. and proceed to the consideration of Government Orders front one o'clock p.m. to two o'clock p.m.


Jean-C. Lapierre: No.
Motion negatived.


Albert Glen Cooper: I heard the noes. Then we have a couple of other options, one of which may help us resolve the situation leaving, I think, the House officers in a difficult position. I would put that second motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, October 1, 1990 the House meet at two o'clock p.m. for Statements by Members, followed by Oral Questions and the remaining order of business as provided for Mondays.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I feel it necessary to raise a matter arising from Question Period.
Privilege
It is the second day I have been obliged to raise matters with regard to the Minister of Finance. He was given notice that I intended to rise but did not choose to stay.
At the conclusion of Question Period he rose and referred to having said that I had deliberately misled the House in a question that I put to him. He said that he would withdraw the word "deliberately". He then proceeded to convey the impression that I had indeed misrepresented. The authorities are mixed on whether the word misrepresent is unparliamentary. In Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition it can be concluded that it is either unparliamentary, on page 109, where attempted to misrepresent has been found unparliamentary or, it has been accepted, as noted on page 112.
I feel it is necessary to make the point that I did not fail to check numbers, nor did I attempt to misrepresent in the question that I put. It was a question relating to the goods and services tax and the extent to which the tax will affect a shift in taxation in Canada from businesses to households. In the minister's own statements in this House in second reading debate, he said that it was $6 billion.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The issue was first raised by the hon. member for Ottawa South and raised immediately and properly with the Chair on the question of "deliberately misrepresent." There is no doubt in my mind that "deliberately misrepresent" is unparliamentary. The question of "mislead" or "misrepresent" may or may not be unparliamentary, depending on the context in which it is used. If it is an argument over facts, that goes on in this place all the time. If it is said, and it may well have been, in the matter that the hon. member quotes, it may have been said in a context in which the accusation was a very severe one indeed. That is why I caution hon. members not to just look in Beauchesne's to see what words have, at one time or another, been ruled as unparliamentary, but to remember that it also has to be considered in the context.
In this case, I understand the hon. member, who is a conscientious member in this place, wanting to establish that he did not make this statement carelessly. If the hon. minister has a view about it which is different than his own, that is a matter of debate. However, the hon.

Routine Proceedings
member has said that he feels that he made that in good faith. The hon. minister has withdrawn any suggestion that there was any deliberateness on the part of the hon. member and I think that that is where the matter must end.
Again, it is an example of how careful we do have to be, even in debate, and even in the rough and tumble of exchanges in this place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to one petition.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, March 29, 1990, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take this opportunity to rise in the House and request that the House concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
As the House will be aware, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, over the period of last winter and last spring, took it upon itself to interview leaders of the national and regional aboriginal organizations in order to develop an agenda that Parliament, the government and the people of Canada could deal with through the nineties, to address, as per the title of our report which is called The Unfinished Business Between Canada and its Aboriginal Peoples.
As a result of this investigation carried out by the standing committee, we identified an agenda of approximately 30 items, extremely complex and detailed items, identified thanks to the assistance of the aboriginal leadership of Canada. There were 30 items which represent the outstanding grievances of aboriginal people in Canada and also represent what aboriginal people would like to see dealt with in the 1990s.
It would be appropriate, although this is not one of the recommendations in the report, that Canada consider the decade of the nineties as the decade in which we, as Parliament and we as a people, commit ourselves to finishing that unfinished business remaining between us and our aboriginal people.
I understand that the government is required to respond to the reports of select standing committees within a certain period of time. I believe that period is 120 days. Well, 120 days has expired and what response have we received from the government on this detailed report, concurred in by all parties represented on that committee?
I will tell you how the government responded to that report, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State for Canada cancelled funding for aboriginal representative organizations, cancelled funding for native communications, newspapers, reduced funding for organizations such as friendship centres and native broadcasting organizations. The government has consistently refused to set up an institute, again through the Secretary of State, to protect aboriginal languages which are dying out in this country at a great rate. Yet at the same time it set up an institute for heritage languages that have a base overseas. Aboriginal languages are the languages resident in Canada, born in this country. If they die out here, they will not remain anywhere in the world. Yet the Secretary of State refused to set up an institute for aboriginal languages, as proposed by one of my Liberal colleagues.
There have been continued delays and obstruction by the Minister of Indian Affairs to the settlement of important native claims and grievances. That, along with the funding cancellations, has led to the incidents we saw this summer. The refusal of the government to allow natives to be recognized, either in the constitutional process or recognized as distinct and founding peoples in
September 28, 1990

our constitution, resulted in the failure of the constitutional amendment this spring and summer.
The delays, inaction and negative actions taken against aboriginal people after the tabling of this report indicate that the government was not willing to put native people in the forefront of the agenda in this country. As a result, some significant things happened this summer.
The first was the refusal by Elijah Harper, a member of the legislature in Manitoba, to allow the constitutional amendment to pass in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, which resulted in the failure of the constitutional amendment proposed by the government to bring Quebec into the constitutional family. That was done as a result of the refusal by the government to recognize the legitimate claims by native people in this country to be included in the Constitution and to have their society recognized as a distinctive component of Canadian society.
The second and even more damaging result in terms of what it has done to this country and it's reputation in terms of the divisions it has created between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians with the government's refusal to pay attention to this agenda was the incidents we saw this summer at Kanesatake and at Kahnawake, near Montreal. The spectre of armed native warriors throwing up barricades, after years of frustration, having to resort to arms in order to persuade this government to pay attention to the aboriginal agenda, has been an embarrassment to all Canadians and an embarrassment to this country's reputation world-wide.
Those have been the results of the failure of the government to deal with the aboriginal agenda that our committee talked about and assembled in this report that was tabled in the House on March 29, 1990.
There has to be a more effective government response. There has to be a much more effective government way to deal with this aboriginal agenda.
What happened as a result of the debate on the motion that the government tabled on the first day of the House reconvening? Of course, that motion is now obsolete. Even though it is adjourned, it calls for the Mohawks and their allies to leave the treatment centre at Kanesatake, to submit to Canadian law and turn over
Routine Proceedings
their arms to the police and to the Armed Forces. That is now an obsolete motion.
It is the only thing the government has on the agenda of this House to deal with the concerns of aboriginal people. There is nothing else on the agenda in this House. Unfortunately, that is an indicator of the kind of good faith with which Canada deals with native people. There has to be something more coming from this Parliament than that feeble motion, presented the first day, which is now obsolete.
That motion also refers the issue at Kanesatake and Kahnawake to the select Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. This is a completely inappropriate reference. We should be referring that to the committee that drafted this agenda in the first place and having the confidence of native people in Canada that it is capable of dealing with those issues.
Since that motion is obsolete, I would suggest, as others have done in this House, that the government present a new motion to the House which sets up a parliamentary commission or a special inquiry into the events which led to the confrontations at Kanesatake and Kahnawake this summer, investigates the appropriateness of the behaviour of all parties involved, investigates the type of reaction that the government got involved in, and makes a report back to this House and to the people of Canada on exactly what led to that incident and provide recommendations as to how we can avoid those incidents in the future.
This is an excellent recounting of the grievances of aboriginal people in this country. I think it deserves to be read by every single member of Parliament and by all Canadians. It is basically grievances and problems as outlined by the aboriginal people of Canada themselves and conveyed to this House by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Essentially what this report does is call on Parliament to make the 1990s the decade in which Canada commits itself to dealing with the aboriginal agenda. I think that some proclamation should come from the Parliament of Canada indicating that it intends to deal with the aboriginal agenda in that way, by making a proclamation declaring the 1990s to be the decade of Canada's aboriginal people, the decade in which this government and this Parliament intends to set in motion the pro-

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
cesses to deal with the outstanding business that remains between Canada and its aboriginal people.
I suggest that an appropriate way to kick off this decade after a proclamation is made is to invite the native leadership of Canada to select among their number either a native leader or elder that they believe has the stature to make an address to the joint Houses of Parliament to outline to parliamentarians and to the people of Canada the hopes and aspirations of the aboriginal people of this country and what they would like to see dealt with. It has been suggested that someone of the stature of Georges Erasmus be invited to the House of Commons to present, on behalf of all aboriginal groups in Canada, a statement of the hopes and aspirations of the aboriginal people for Canada and their relations to Canada in the future.
We have had a number of heads of state address this Parliament since I have become a member of Parliament. We have had the King of Jordan address our Parliament. We have had the President of the State of Israel. However, it does not necessarily have to be restricted to a head of state. We have also had Nelson Mandela, the great African leader of the African National Congress, come to address Parliament. The one group that has yet to be recognized by Parliament in that way is the aboriginal people of this country. I think it would be appropriate to establish a decade of aboriginal people, a decade in which we commit ourselves to resolving that unfinished business, to ask the aboriginal leadership of Canada to put up one of their number, a leader or an elder, who will address the joint Houses of Parliament and outline to us their hopes and aspirations as to how they would like to participate in this country of Canada.
I think that the first thing that Parliament can do in order to demonstrate its good faith to the aboriginal people of this country, coming out of the problems that we have experienced through the last summer and in terms of the failure of the Constitutional Accord and the armed confrontations at Oka and Chateauguay, is to vote concurrence in this motion which outlines the aboriginal agenda for Canada and sets in motion a decade of activity which will complete the unfinished business between ourselves and the aboriginal people of this country.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-44, an Act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, and, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal at both stages of the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. We are now, after the Minister has given the notice, back to questions and comments following the speech by the hon. member for Comox- Albemi. On a point of order, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, when you called questions and comments, the hon. minister got up on a point of order with respect to Bill C-44,1 believe, and therein the confusion. Are you awaiting comments on the point of order or are we now back to the matter which was before the House?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Of course I am not calling questions or comments on a notice that was given by the minister on a point of order which was quite in order.
We are now returning to the 10 minute period of questions or comments following the speech by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi on concurrence in the report. No one rose on questions or comments. Is the hon. member arising on questions or comments?


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who pointed out that Mr. Erasmus should be invited to testify before this House, if he would have any objection to hearing the testimony of native chiefs or leaders from Quebec as well. I wonder because I read in this morning's papers that there is no concensus among native leaders. For instance, Mr. White Duck, from Maniwaki, criticized sharply Mr. Erasmus this morning. This cast a totally different light on the Oka crisis. Would he have a problem with Quebec native leaders testifying before us on what is happening in Quebec?
September 28, 1990


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. I think he misinterpreted what I suggested in terms of asking the aboriginal leaders of this country, which would include Quebec, to have one of their number address the joint Houses of Parliament. I think it would be an appropriate way of beginning a year in which this Parliament commits itself to deal with the issues, as I pointed out, that remain unfinished between Canada and its aboriginal people.
I mentioned someone of the stature of Georges Erasmus, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. No, I did not specifically ask that he be invited.
Certainly there are disagreements on issues among provinces, municipalities, political parties, and various groups. It is understandable that there would be differences among aboriginal groups as well.
I think it would be appropriate for this Parliament to call on the aboriginal leadership of this country to select one of their numbers, a chief or an elder, to come and address this Parliament on the hopes and the aspirations of the aboriginal people of this country.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to know-I skimmed through the report this morning and it contains a number of statistics-whether the committee also analyses figures on housing, income and percentage of the prison population, on a province-by-province basis.
Do we have statistics by province that tell us something about housing and income and about the prison population as a percentage of the provincial figure?
I would like to know whether the committee has those statistics and if it does, could they be tabled?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, what the committee was doing in its report and in the research it carried out up until March 29, 1990 which resulted in its report was trying to give Canadians a broad picture of the quality of life enjoyed by native people in Canada as compared with the quality of life enjoyed by other
Routine Proceedings
Canadians and to show that there were disparities which have to be corrected.
I know the information the hon. gentleman mentioned is available with respect to aboriginal inmates in prison on a province-by-province basis. There is a Canadian Bar Association report. There is the report of Max Yalden, Canadian Human Rights Commissioner. That information is widely available. I know there is a lower number of aboriginal people in the population of Quebec than in other provinces. However, the number of aboriginal inmates is far too high in all provinces, and that is why we have this report. It is one of the issues this report calls on Parliament to deal with.


Gilles Duceppe: I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that first of all, since 1986 the Department of Indian Affairs has had information on these matters, by province, and I am somewhat surprised that they are not given here. Is it perhaps because they put Quebec in a favourable light? I am not sure.
I would also like to know why no Indians from Quebec were asked to testify before the commitee unless some were invited but did not show up. In any case, no Indians from Quebec testified before the committee. Is there any explanation for this?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I thank the questioner again. The committee makes it a practice to invite all aboriginal organizations. In this one we attempted to invite the national organizations, but others were notified and did volunteer. Included in those national organizations were organizations which do represent native people in Quebec. We felt that we had a relatively broad representation from every province in Canada and from all of the territories.
In addition, the statistics are basically national statistics because we are the national Parliament dealing with national issues. I am sure there was no intention on the part of the committee to eliminate statistics that would have been favourable to one province or another. If it has happened, it was not the committee's intention to do that.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to discuss the committee report Unfinished Business. Certainly the committee put a

Routine Proceedings
lot of time and effort into this issue. I compliment the chairman and members of the committee, as well as those who also attended committee hearings and took part in it.
In the forward it states: "The purpose of the report is to share some of the understanding that we have accumulated". The report does not prescribe specific action other than to strongly suggest that Canadians, through their governments, have a lot of work to do in this decade. This is not a challenge facing only one government or only one minister. This is a challenge for all Canadians, a circumstance that has developed over a series of generations and one which will require concentrated commitment over many years.
I think that is an apt introduction to the report in that there is much to be done. There is also much that has been done. It is very unfortunate that the cloud of Oka this summer has obscured much of the work that has been done by the native leaders in this country and the activities they have been involved in to better the standard of living for their people and also their future.
I would like perhaps to take some of the points mentioned in the report and just review some of the things that have been happening in these particular areas.
I became Minister of State for Indian Affairs in February of this year. In the six months that I have been involved, as well as with the problems of which we are all aware, I have also had the opportunity to travel across this country to meet with many of our aboriginal people and their leaders. There are many more I would still like to have the opportunity to meet with.
One of the first things that was spoken about in the committee report was the self-government agenda of Canada. We have a program for community self-government for Indian peoples, many bands are currently looking at this as an opportunity to move forward in rightfully taking over control of the decision making for Indian people.
One of the first opportunities I had was on March 9 of this year at Whitefish Bay, Ontario, where we signed the first self-government agreement with that group. Shortly after that I had the opportunity to sign a self-government agreement at New Credit, Ontario. It was rather a unique self-government agreement in that it was done with the Mississaugas and Chippawas of Ontario and it is
a two-level self-government agreement. The band council itself will take on certain responsibilities, and the nine band councils and chiefs will take on other responsibilities.
These two particular signings gave me the opportunity to see from our native people the need to make sure that the programs that we have are flexible, because what met the self-government needs at Whitefish Bay would not have met, if it had been a standard self-government agreement, the needs for the people of the Mississaugas and the Chippawas at New Credit. It is very important that we keep flexibility within self-government agreements.
As mentioned earlier, many bands are looking at it. We have agreements that are close to signing and others where bands are now exploring. The whole purpose of it is that the bands themselves must first want to enter into the agreement. They must have an idea of what they want, the type of self-government that they want. Then we will sit down and work along with them to bring about an agreement that meets their needs within the framework of Canada's Constitution.
Land claims is another issue about which there has been much discussion in the debates this week. On August 23 of this year I met with the Indian Chiefs of Ontario, the Indian Commissioner of Ontario, and members of the provincial government. We sat at that meeting and one of the important requests that came out of it was a request put to Mr. Harry Laforme, the Indian Commissioner of Ontario, to bring about a report on land claim process: what was wrong with it, why it was not working, and recommendations for change.
Mr. Laforme has done done an excellent job. In fact his report was just tabled this morning. Here we are a month and a few days from that initial request to put the report together, and he has done it. I look forward to reviewing the report, when I have an opportunity to do so, and seeing what we can do to take his recommendations and put some of them into operation. He negotiated or discussed input with chiefs across Canada. Much of it came from his own experience in negotiating land claims in Ontario. I am really looking forward to working on the results of the report and seeing what can be done to implement it. Certainly we send our congrat-
September 28, 1990

ulations to Mr. Laforme for presenting so quickly the report that we can start to work on.
I am sure my counterpart, when he is named in the provincial government in the coming week, and I will be able to get together and work. The provinces across this country have a large responsibility when it comes to land claims and it is something that we have to work together on.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been working with the people of Saskatchewan and of British Columbia on land claim issues there as well. We have some indications of agreement from the premier of British Columbia that he too is willing to work toward settling land claims in British Columbia.
Things have been happening on this matter. We are certainly going to continue to work in this area, with the help and the contribution of native peoples across Canada.
We hope to sign and work on land claims in the future. Certainly much has been done in the way of land claims since this government took office in 1984. We have signed agreements to settle claims both of a comprehensive type and of a specific claim type. I have been part of some of those in Ontario. Certainly my hon. colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has also signed them in the north.
We are proud of those agreements. They are agreements that have been a long time coming. The process is too slow and something has to be done to speed them up, but certainly we have signed and entered into negotiation on more land claims since this government took office than was done for many years prior.
As we go through the report, we see another point that was touched on by the committee. It was the need for economic development as a very important tool for the future development and progress of our native people.
The CAEDS program that our government put into operation is starting to work very well for native people. I have had the opportunity to work with several Indian bands on their programs. They have some very interest-
Routine Proceedings
ing and innovative ideas for changes in economic development. We have committed some $1.4 billion to native economic development over the next five-year period. There are some very interesting projects coming forward. We have a board whereby native people themselves make decisions as to whether or not a business should be funded.
We have a real responsibility to make sure as we help native people develop in the business field that they are successful and have all the backing that they require. Native businesses started some 20 years ago and we now have 5,000 native businesses. Some 2,500 of those have been developed within the last six months.
Our native people are making great strides in economic development, but as I mentioned earlier there is still more that can be done.
On the environment issues, I do not think there is a people in this country who has a better understanding or lives more closely to the land than our aboriginal people.
The Minister of the Environment worked on the development of The Green Plan which included an environmental strategy. The northern part of Canada must be protected.
We held consultative hearings The Green Plan which I attended in Yellowknife and Iqaluit. I had an opportunity to hear first hand the input from the native people and the concerns they had about conservation of resources, about protection of the water, and about the protection of the landscape itself. Much in the way of material has been left behind in the Arctic that must be removed and shipped out. It will be expensive, but it is required. When it comes to the Arctic environment, it is something that we cannot do alone in Canada because the Arctic is not exclusively ours. We are working internationally with other countries to ensure that we can work toward a clean environment in the Arctic.
We have consulted with our aboriginal people in the northern part of the country and will continue to do so. There are sections within the land claim agreements which offer the opportunity to put together groups so that native people will have a say in what is done as far as

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
environment and economic issues are concerned within their area.
Another point that I would like to touch on in the report is education. Education is a key to the future for our aboriginal people, but there is one underlying theme in education that must be followed. The very proud heritage and culture of aboriginal people must be maintained in the education of the future.
On Wednesday I came back from Fort Hope, Ontario where I had the honour of opening a new school in that community. It is a beautiful building, one that has been designed to fit in with the landscape and nature. It is of wood with many glass windows so that the students do not feel confined. As we were opening the building, the chief made the very important point that when it comes to schools and education the building is only a shell, that it is really only what happens within that building that is important as far as education is concerned.
They have classes in that school on native culture and native language which are taught by the elders. This is their link to the past and their preservation for the future. They are also equipped with computers whereby they can provide the children of Port Hope the opportunity to be prepared for the future and to be able to progress as the country and the world are progressing in technology and in knowledge, but at the same time not forget where they come from and their veiy proud heritage.
I was also in Norway House in Manitoba where they have done a great deal of work on education for students who had dropped out of school and want to return and for elders who want to improve their knowledge and their skills. They have a very interesting computer program. The first thing the program does is to test the reading level of the individual. It looks at the course individuals want to take and then it adjusts that course to their reading levels so that if they need help with their reading skills they are not held back from completing the course they may want. At the same time it produces a course to increase their reading skills.
This is the type of change in education that is necessary. It is more than just the three r's that are necessary. We have to be able to identify the needs, produce the programs to answer those needs, and ensure that the
resources and facilities are there in order for it to happen.
We do not have enough of these types of schools. It is something we are committed to work on both at the curriculum level and the physical level. Another thing that is necessary is the opportunity for native people to be involved in the administration of education. They need to be in a position to enter into decisions on curriculum and school facilities. In some cases, this could be through a school board, which is an area that is being looked at.
I was in Fort Francis where the native representative on the local school board has been elected chairman of that board and is having a real influence as far as native education is concerned.
Even before the children get to school there is a need for child care. Many of our native mothers who have not been able to better themselves through education because of having the responsibility of motherhood, are entering training courses and child care is very necessary for them.
In June, I met with a group in Meadow Lake who, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare's innovation program for child care, have begun a program that I was very pleased to hear about. It was one of the recommendations that we made in the special committee on child care, which I had the privilege to chair in 1985.
They have entered into what in the committee we called a "hub and spoke" situation whereby there is centralized control and supervision of child care which is conducted in homes throughout the reserves. They have brought together more than one reserve, so that the core supervisory and administrative needs are met by a small group, but is far-reaching. There are native homes for the children to attend throughout the reserves in the area where they can still stay within their native culture. The administration of that care can be done with native supervision in a centralized office.
I am looking forward to watching that program grow. I think it is an ideal example of how child care can be handled where you do not have large needs, as in a metro area, but rather small needs over a much wider area.

So we are moving in those areas, and as I mentioned earlier, will continue to do so. Unfortunately, I will probably have to continue to say for several years that things are going to be moving more slowly than what we would like, but they are moving.
I think the statement by the Prime Minister in the House this week where he outlined the four pillars of future relationships with aboriginal people, the work that has to be done in the land claims area to speed that up and also in the whole relationship between governments and native people was a very important. I think that goes a long way to really cement the work that has been started. He has given his full commitment to it and I know he will continue to support the efforts and, in fact, continue to direct us to ensure that those commitments are met in the future and are met as quickly as possible.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this report and to again compliment the committee on the work that it has done. I look forward to the work that it will continue to do as a very important committee in the structure of the House of Commons.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, while I am encouraged by the positive tone of the Minister of State's presentation, I am a little concerned about the recent fiscal arrangements of the junior minister. I point out that a document dated March 15, 1990, put together by the Assembly of First Nations analysed the last budget put forward by the government, and tell us a few outstanding facts. The two-year fiscal reduction of $100 million is deceptively buried in the 1991 main estimates of the budget papers, $26 million was cut from approved levels for capital facilities and community services, $15 million from band management, $7 million from welfare services and $2 million from economic development for each of the two years.
The question I have for the junior minister is this. With a crippled economic base and no tax base, just where do native people find the finances to offset lost federal revenues?
Can the Minister of State explain to us if she is prepared to readjust the glaring inadequacies of the last budget and actually turn around that funding to Canada's first people?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned, the reductions he spoke
Routine Proceedings
about was in the proposed budget. When you look at the budget of last year compared to this year, the increase in funding in the budget of Indian Affairs was actually 8 per cent. Our budget was raised, compared to other budgets within the government. While they were all taking cuts from actuals, we were taking a reduction in what we had hoped to spend. But our budget still increased 8 per cent over the budget from the previous year.
For instance, the increases in education were some 8.7 per cent, for a total budget of $736 million; the economic development increases were 28.4 per cent, an increase of $20.5 million; under land revenues and trust we had an increase of $11 million, which was 23.8 per cent, for a total budget of $58 million. The government also invested an additional $28 million into on-reserve capital facilities and related services.
The other thing that also should be taken under consideration, is that under the current financial arrangements, we have entered into what we call alternate funding arrangements. Alternate funding arrangements provide for the administration of funds by the Indian bands themselves and not by the Government of Canada. This is the way it should be.
Seventy-two per cent of the Indian and Inuit fair budget is administered by the bands, not by the Government of Canada. They must report to us on an annual basis with an audit. But we no longer do, as the party to which this member belongs used to do in a very paternalistic way, decide how the money should be spent, not the Indian people. We have moved to that. We have increased the budget. Not only have we increased the budget, but we have given control of that budget where it belongs, the Indian people themselves. They decide within their capital budget what they want to spend it on. They decide within their operating budget what they want to spend it on, and they are doing well with it.
No, we did not get as much in the 1990 budget as we would have liked, but we did get an increase over 1989 and we have worked with that increase to make sure those dollars are well spent and spent under the control of the native people of this countiy. The AFAs are working very, very well.
Again I have had the privilege of signing about four or five of these since March of this year. There are many other bands who want to enter into this arrangement and when they have reached the stage where they feel they

Routine Proceedings
are in a position to take over the control of the spending, then that control will be given to them.
This is another reason why education is so important. We need more young Indian people taking business and economic courses so they can use the funds provided to them to make a better future for the Indian community.
Yes, there were reductions from what we had hoped we would get, but we still had an 8 per cent increase. I think that increase has been spent wisely because it is under the control of the Indian people.
of the comments that he made and make sure that they are passed on to my colleague as well.
The point that I was attempting to make concerning the CAEDS budget was that the native people have a role to play in assessing the value of the projects that come forward. The final authority still lies, in some cases, within the minister's office, but not in all cases. It depends upon the size of the requirement for a particular project that comes forward. The fact is that we are involving the native people in the decision making. I think we have to look through the whole program.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the minister.
It is all very interesting to hear what the government is saying today in terms of what more they can do for the aboriginal people. I think one of the best examples of what they can do to ensure that the aboriginal people are going to trust this government is make a couple of changes in their land claims policy.
First, it should adopt a policy that the aboriginal people have the inherent right to self-government and; second, take out the extinguishment clause in the land claims policy. Those are the two issues I would suggest that the minister talk to her colleagues to see what they can do to adopt them.
The minister made reference to the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, which by the way was started under the leadership of the Liberal party as the Native Economic Development Program. The minister mentioned that it was the aboriginal people who make the decisions on whether or not to award funding or loans to aboriginal groups. Does not the final approval rest with the minister at this time?
It is not the huge corporations that we often think of, or very large programs and businesses. There are a lot of small businesses that, given the opportunity to start under the CAEDS program, can grow to something very large. More than that, it is not only a business opportunity for the individual who wants to start it but it is a business opportunity on reserve, or off reserve, but basically on reserve, to offer jobs to native people. It offers a service to native people that they often do not have. It is those small and very important businesses that we must address and make sure that they are funded so that they can give the individual the economic opportunity, the job opportunities for native people on reserve and the services that are necessary within that area.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, the last couple of days and months have been important. Watching the television just yesterday morning where it showed that picture of personnel from the army with an Indian women with her child in her arms reminded me of visiting Cyprus. I thought that we would never have to resort to such a thing here in Canada. Yet, we saw those pictures for almost 70 days.
The hon. minister got up and gave us an overview of education. She also spoke of the environment in the Arctic and what the government, with other countries, is doing. I would like to challenge the hon. minister to name those countries.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question that the hon. member raises, the whole issue of land claims, both comprehensive and specific, are being looked at in the department, along with consultation with the native people of this country, to see what can be done to make them more effective. I will take cognizance
My most important question for which I have not yet received an answer is why this government and this minister did not go to her boss, the Prime Minister of this country, and ask him to recall the Parliament last summer?


We can sit here for the whole day but my questions are precise. Why did they not recall Parliament? Would the hon. minister tell me what other countries that they are dealing with on the environment in the Arctic?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, along with seven other countries in the circumpolar area, has formed a group which has already held meetings and which has been working on the Arctic environment. I hope my memory serves me correctly on the countries that are involved. They are the U.S.S.R., Norway, Finland and Greenland. They come to mind initially. I think what the hon. member must realize is that the water that flows into the Arctic comes from our Mackenzie Valley river system. We have very, very little industry within that particular area. But also flowing into that same body of water that provides the water in the north for our native people are river systems coming from deep within the U.S.S.R. where it is highly industrialized. We do not know what the sources of the contaminants are, we do not know if it is coming from a river system within the U.S.S.R. or whether it is coming from our own Mackenzie Valley.
We cannot clean the Arctic up on our own. We can only clean the Arctic up with the co-operation of the other countries in the area. That is why we have been, very, very active within the circumpolar group. Meetings have been held and we will still continue to hold meetings. We have had representatives in the U.S.S.R. who have been working with people there. It is a very serious matter and we feel that by working together with all of the countries in the circumpolar group we will be able to make a difference in the Arctic, differences that are very, very necessary.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, what the aboriginal people of this country feel about the recent events and the way the government has been acting, I would say, to paraphrase a former Prime Minister of this country, welcome to the 1990s. I say that because I think that whatever happens over the next few years, never again will our concerns and issues be put on the backburner.
The Prime Minister has been saying that we are going to have a new agenda for the aboriginal people. Yesterday The Globe and Mail, after the pull out at Oka, stated "that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney praised the army and stressed that the government had not made any
Routine Proceedings
concessions." The rule of law has prevailed so the Prime Minister was all praise for the army.
I must admit that throughout the Oka situation, there have not been any shots fired at anybody. However, in saying that there had been no violence, I would just like to point out that we saw, live on TV and in the newspapers, as pictures, of a woman and her daughter being thrown to the ground by the army. So when people say there was no violence, one can be very selective about the description of violence. We saw tanks, machine guns, helicopters hovering overhead at night, we saw a razor wire-I am not exactly sure what a razor wire does but I suspect it is not that easy to just cross over a razor wire-we saw communications cut off from the rest of the world to the group and we saw all sorts of intimidation tactics. So I do not think that we can all rest easy that there were no further deaths after the unfortunate death of Corporal Lemay.
I do not think we can all rest easy and say, "it is over". We can all say, "Thank God, it is over", but we cannot just shove it off to the backburner and say, "Well, nobody died". There was violence. Unfinished business, I think, is really an apt description for the report. I think we will over the years attempt to do justice to this report. I think it is perfect timing for this report. Hopefully the government will be announcing major new initiatives. So far it has not announced concrete initiatives. All we have been hearing are words, nice words, but only words to date.
As I mentioned earlier in my question, I would like to touch on the subject of land claims. Again I hesitate to use the words "land claims". What are we doing? We are trying to claim some land from the government, land that was never given up, land that was never ceded, land that was never surrendered to any government, to anybody, except in a few cases down south. When I say never I mean the eastern Arctic, the area that I represent, more than anywhere else. But there are a lot of cases around here as well.
That is why I think until such time as the government recognizes our problem with the issue of extinguishment of aboriginal rights, there will be other forms of protest against the government continuing over the years until such time as the government recognizes that there is a need to recognize that inherent right to self-government. Until there is that recognition, we cannot just give up rights which we have never given up and which in

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
some cases supersede the Constitution and the laws of Canada, as has been pointed out by various court cases.
One of the great errors or misconceptions by the Canadian people is that when people think of aboriginal issues or aboriginal people, they think in terms of social problems and issues only. I think that people have to be aware that we want participation in economic situations, the constitutional development and the political arena, not just on social issues.
Aboriginal people are more than social problems. It is time that people realized that they cannot continue to treat it as a social problem only, but must start treating aboriginal issues as ones that need to be addressed at all levels and forms.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday or the day before that one of the first things they were going to do was do away with the issue of six land claims at a time. This I think bodes well for the numerous land claims negotiations that are going on. However, these could have been addressed long before this. Why has it taken this government six years to address this issue? Why has it taken that long to address the issue?
Approximately a year and a half ago, in April 1989, the government delivered a Throne Speech, mentioning the words "aboriginal" or "the north"' three times in that very short speech. I said: "It sounds like they are sort of giving us"-I cannot remember the proper term, I think it was something like "the velvet glove; you make sure that they notice that they have been mentioned three times but what we do afterward is not necessarily what we say we are going to do". That is exactly what has happened over the past year. There has been nothing done. Probably as much as aboriginal groups do not condone the armed conflict, there probably would not have been anything done if it had not been for the events at Kanesatake and Oka.
I think that as a result of what happened also in June there would have been a lot less done until aboriginal issues made the issue of the day through various media forums. It was very heartening to see how strong the power of a word can be when watching for something like a week or maybe a little longer a member of the legislature in Manitoba say "no", and that is all he said. It was very, very interesting to see that. It quite put in the
perspective of what the power of a word can do when a person is determined to do something.
I mentioned earlier that all the nice words that are being said now have to be followed up. When Elijah Harper said "no" to the Speaker, he meant to follow through. That is exactly what we are saying to the government. When you are saying whatever you are going to be doing for the aboriginal people, you have to be able to follow through over the course of the next number of years.
It is very urgent that the government of the day also recognize that we cannot let what happened over the summer to just be forgotten. The government has to allow an independent inquiry into the events at Oka, a special independent inquiry to ensure that everything comes out, how all the things about came about or what happened.
I was talking about the violence that we saw. I am not even sure that what we saw. I am not at all sure whether there was more. What happened when the cameras were not around at Oka? What happened that the cameras did not see? We do not know. When you see violence, you think of physical violence only. I remember over the course of the summer where food was not allowed to go through, where people were not allowed to go through, all sorts of things. It was a basic abuse of human rights. Therefore, there has to be full inquiry into that issue. The Canadian people have to know what really happened.
On the first day after the session of Parliament started, the government put a motion forward praising the actions of the army. It was quite unbelievable that the government would do that when the issue was still going on. How could it have foreseen what was going to happen?
Now that the issue is over would have been the proper time to put forward a motion. Again, the motion did not address the real issue.
The government through this motion is really trying to gain political points. At the same time, it is trying to make sure that the opposition party might vote against its motion so that it can say to the the Canadian people
September 28, 1990

that the opposition voted against a motherhood issue. It is a motherhood issue.
We all know the army was doing its job. We do not argue with that, but to try to separate what the army was doing to the people at Oka and what the army as a whole is supposed to do is not what we would have agreed with. Instead of being non-partisan about the whole issue at Oka, the government decided to be partisan and tried to make the opposition look bad through its motion.
The constitutional issue of recognition of aboriginal people as a distinct group of people has to be recognized by the government and by the Canadian people as a whole. The Prime Minister keeps saying that the constitutional talks failed. What he selectively forgets is that the 1983 Constitutional Conference chaired by the previous Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, was successful in that it got some amendments that were proclaimed in June 1984.
Again, Quebec did not sign the Accord, but nine other provinces did. So there were some constitutional amendments made in their respective legislatures. There was some success at the Constitutional Conferences.
It was the last two that had no hope of success. In one instance in the last Constitutional Conference, the Prime Minister walked out without even the benefit of trying to come to an agreement. This is basically saying that it was not important enough to try to get the agreement of all the provinces.
Shortly after, the Prime Minister basically locked up 10 premiers until they got an agreement together and came out with a flawed constitutional amendment. Fortunately for the aboriginal people of this country, it was killed by an aboriginal person in the legislature of Manitoba.
One of the areas that the minister touched on was the economic conditions, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. One of the problems that I as a previous member of the Native Accounting Development Program encountered was that we always had a lack of capital for the aboriginal people, a lack of equity.
There were always various businesses wanting to start up, but because of a he lack of equity, they could not do it. It is all very well for the government to say it is going out with the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Develop-
Routine Proceedings
ment Strategy. However, if it is not prepared to give special consideration to the aboriginal peoples' conditions or financial state, that may fail. I hope the department will take that into account, the fact that there is a lack of equity among the aboriginal people and until such time that that is taken into account by groups like the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, we will not have a chance.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, in the report Unfinished Business which we are discussing this afternoon, there are some very interesting statistics at the back of the report in Appendix C which is entitled "Socio-economic Conditions of Native People in Canada". If one looks at those statistics, one notes that in many areas the situation is much worse for Inuit people than it is for Indians. Of course, for both aboriginal groups it is very bad compared to other Canadians. For example, with respect to life expectancy, the life expectancy of a Canadian male is 72 years of age and for a female it is 79 years of age but for Inuit, it is 60 years in Labrador, 62 years in northern Quebec and 66 years in the Northwest Territories, much below that of the Canadian non-Inuit person.
If one looks at infant mortality for all Canadians, it is eight deaths per 1,000 births but for Inuit it is 28 deaths per 1,000 births. This is a horrible record. When one looks at suicide statistics for Canadians, there are 15 suicides per 100,000 people and for status Indians there are 34 suicides per 100,000 status Indians, but for Inuit in the Northwest Territories there are 54 suicides per
100.000	Inuit. The incidence of violent death is 54 per
100.000	Canadians and for Inuit there are 173 violent deaths per 100,000 people. In the area of overcrowded housing, only 2 per cent of non-aboriginal people live in overcrowded housing, whereas 31 per cent of the Inuit live in overcrowded housing. Only 17 per cent of nonaboriginal Canadians did not attend high school but for Inuit, 53 per cent have not attended high school and for status Indians it is 45 per cent.
We listened at an attempt at justification by the minister a few minutes ago of what was being done for aboriginal people. I would like the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, himself an Inuit, to tell this House, faced with these statistics whether his people can take seriously the statement made by the minister.

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I seem to have a lot of work to do and I have only got 26 years left of my life expectancy. I thank the hon. member for his question.
It is very true what the hon. member was pointing out in terms of housing, benefits to the Inuit and in terms of health. I take a special case in the Keewatin region area where I am from. All our patients are taken to Churchill or Winnipeg. That in itself may not seem so bad, but just imagine a woman who is having a baby having to go to Churchill or Winnipeg, cities in a different province, for a month and if it is a special case, maybe up to two months. That in itself may not seem so bad, but it is the psychological effects that it has on the family. That creates stress, and those kinds of things are prevailing.
Yes, there is very poor housing. We used to try to point out to the Government of the Northwest Territories the difference between the houses which the government provided for its employees and the low cost or low rental houses the government provided for-and I do not say just Inuit-the people, as well as the amount of money that was poured into the houses for civil servants and the amount of money that was not poured into the regular houses.
In terms of other issues, we have the highest suicide rate. I just want to point out that I have lost two brothers to suicide. That kind of thing is very much a case. It is time that we hold the government to the words it is using, that we take the government to task.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq told us that he felt insulted when the government presented a motion stating that it praised the army for its conduct during the events at Oka.
I would like to say that we in the Bloc Quebecois also spoke out against the first paragraph of the motion, but I must say I am surprised that the Liberal Party, of which he is a member, did not challenge this passage in its amendment. I suppose it agreed, at the time.
In any case, I would like to ask him-he must be knowledgeable about aboriginal land claims-how many agreements have been signed so far and in which provinces?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I must admit some ignorance here, Madam Speaker, as much as I hate to do it. Very few land claims agreements have been signed. Although hundreds of land claims have been put forward by aboriginal groups across the country, to date there have been very few settlements of cases.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to say there have been four agreements to date, three of which were concluded in Quebec and a fourth in the Yukon, but only Quebec, as a province, is taking part in negotiations, since all other provinces have so far refused to do so.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, I do not think we have any lessons to learn from the member. As a member from the Northwest Territories let me say that we have one land claim negotiated under the Inuvialuit. We have two claims under process already. The Government of the Northwest Territories takes part in all discussions with respect to the ongoing land claims negotiations with the federal government. The province of Quebec is not an exception.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I want to take the time to congratulate my hon. colleague for the work that he is doing in this particular field and for the time he spent over the last two to three months dealing with the way his people were being treated.
I want to put to him the question that I tried to put to the minister and unfortunately got no answer, due to the fact that maybe the minister danced around or ran out of time. Does the hon. member think that this government should have recalled Parliament right away when the Oka crisis broke, yes or no?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, very shortly after this happened on July 11, the Liberal Party of Canada asked for a recall of Parliament, remembering that two years previously the government had recalled Parliament because of 117 boat people coming into one of the maritime provinces.
I think that Parliament should have been recalled. The issue would have been dealt with much faster. Shortly after Parliament returned there was a disengagement of
September 28, 1990

the incident in Oka. The events of the whole summer could have been prevented if the Government of Canada had recalled Parliament.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs entitled Unfinished Business.
I very much enjoyed this report. I recall in 1984, just after I first came to Parliament, that I served on that standing committee. I know the good work that was done during that time when Mr. Penner was involved with that committee. I am very pleased that good work is continuing that good work under the chair of the hon. member for Macleod.
There is just one paragraph in the report that deals with aboriginal women. The committee indicates that the Native Women's Association was unable to appear during the set of hearings that led up to this report, but it indicates that it is aware of some of the issues aboriginal women would wish to discuss. Certainly in other areas of the report it talked about child care, housing, and education, issues which I know the Aboriginal Women's Association would have brought to the committee's attention.
I would like to discuss some of those issues, some of the government's response, and some of our initiatives to deal with those issues.
However, before I move on to that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on a remark made a bit earlier by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who opened this debate. He indicated that he felt that other than the motion which was put on the floor and debated on Tuesday of this week, there really had not been anything substantive or specific about what this government's actions were with respect to aboriginal people in this country.
I would beg to disagree. This week in almost every Question Period I think there have been questions raised on issues arising either specifically out of the situation at Oka and Kahnawake or broader issues about Indian land claims and self-government. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other ministers who have responded have indicated their specific plans to proceed in a rapid and appropriate way to start to deal effectively with some of these issues. This was all
Routine Proceedings
predicated upon the peaceful resolution of the situation at Oka, one that we were pleased to see occur on Wednesday of this week.
The most important contribution to this over-all debate-and I am sure it is a contribution which in the minds of many Canadians has been vitally important in helping them think about these difficult issues-was a speech made by the Prime Minister on Tbesday, September 25. I remind members that the Prime Minister on that occasion did indeed set out a very specific agenda. He said:
The agenda I believe we ought to be addressing will have four main pillars: land claims, the economic and social conditions on reserves, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments, and concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.
He then went on and quite specifically talked about three initiatives in areas of land claims. Certainly the one that I am very pleased about, being a member from British Columbia, is that we will be abandoning the old style of only being able to deal with six land claims at a time. The largest number of outstanding land claims are in my province of British Columbia, and it has been very difficult to move ahead with them under the constraints of the old policy. I welcome the announcement and congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Prime Minister on it. That, along with the provinces' indication that they will be prepared to undertake joint discussions, I hope will mean that we will be able to move ahead substantially with land claims issues in British Columbia.
The other dimension that the Prime Minister talked about related to social conditions on reserves. All members who have had the opportunity of visiting reserves across this country know the variety of conditions. There are some that are excellent. I have in my own riding the Mount Currie community where the previous government and this government together provided the funds to establish basically a whole new community with very good housing and support services.
However, we know that is not the case in some parts of the country like northern Ontario. The Prime Minister's commitment that we were going to be working with the Indian leadership and the provincial governments on a range of improvements to basic community programs

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
and services such as water and sewage facilities will be welcomed by our native people across this country.
It is something that is fundamentally needed in order to move on to some of the other kinds of programs that are so essential, but I think the point the Prime Minister made as well is something we should all reflect on when we talk about the essential of ensuring that our native people have a sense of dignity. Of course that sense of dignity can only come as their own self-esteem is developed and grown, and perhaps in no area more importantly than for aboriginal women. Of all the issues we talk about and the difficulties we face with respect to aboriginal people, aboriginal women are often and frequently more disadvantaged than perhaps others.
When I came to Parliament, the very first piece of legislation I was involved in-and I sat on the committee-was Bill C-31, a bill that this government brought forward to redress a basic inequality which many aboriginal women in this country had faced for decades and decades: the fact that if an aboriginal woman married a non-aboriginal male she was disenfranchised; she no longer had status and her children no longer had status. I think the hon. member who is sitting in the chair right now served on that committee with me.


An hon. member:: Not aboriginal. Only Indian.


Mary Collins: Indian, I am sorry. He and the hon. member opposite will recall the many hearings we went through and the delegations that came to appear before that committee. There were diverse opinions. It was not something where there was unanimity.
However, this government had made the commitment and that legislation became law in June, 1985.1 think we all recall Flora MacDonald, a previous colleague of ours, who provided a lot of leadership on this issue during the 1980s.
That bill has made a difference, that change in legislation. It has meant that Indian women who were disenfranchised have been able to come back to their bands and obtain membership and housing. However, we know that the implementation has not been universally equitable across this county. Indeed there are some difficulties with that.
One of the provisions was that this piece of legislation would come up for a five-year review. I must say that those colleagues of mine who served on that committee, and others, where these kinds of provisions were included were seeing how important they are and that automatic review of legislation after a period of time by parliamentary committees is very important, because we cannot know everything when we write these laws. Sometimes they work out a little differently. They certainly may need some changes or amendments.
Over the last five years, in order to implement this legislation the government has committed some $859 million. Those funds have gone to bands. In this current year, 1990-1991, there will be about $17 million in funds for secondary and elementary education. There will be another $37 million for post-secondary education. There has been funds for housing and funds to support the reinstatement of these Indian women.
In the past little while a special committee has been established. I think it is an indication of the kind of collaboration and consultation to which this government and this Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is committed. The committee is chaired by Bill Monsieur, Chief of the Six Nations Reserves, and includes memberships from the AFM, from the Native Women's Association of Canada, and from the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations.
We expect that the committee will make its report around the end of November and will be making recommendations for improvements in the legislation to deal with some of the difficulties that are still faced. I am certainly looking forward to that report and to improvements to ensure that Indian women do have true equality.
Another area that I think is very important-and my colleague, the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, mentioned it as well-is economic development programs which will enable native people to take control over their own destinies and their own economic activities. The CAEDS program was mentioned already, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy which is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. It has been an important component.
September 28, 1990

We are already seeing that some $875 million has been designated under that program for the first five years. Also that program emphasizes partnerships with non-government groups as a primary vehicle for native economic self-sufficiency.
In my own agency of the Status of Women we have been working with our provincial colleague. At our federal-provincial meetings of ministers we put forward a plan of action for aboriginal women's economic development. In collaboration and co-operation with three national native women's organizations-the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Inuit Women's Association and the Indian and Inuit Nurses of Canada-we have undertaken a strategy and a plan to provide greater opportunities for aboriginal women to have access to funds through CAEDS and other government programs to advance economic development.
We are all aware that in Canada it is women who are starting up small businesses. I think it is something like two or three times as frequently as men and they are twice as successful. That the same pattern exists within the aboriginal community. I know my colleague from Nunatsiaq would agree with that. I know from my own riding where I have three Indian reserves just how effective some of the Indian women have been in their small businesses, but they do need support, capital, and opportunities. I am looking forward, as I am working with my colleagues, to the implementation of an aboriginal women's economic development plan and that being done in consultation.
All these programs have to be done with native people. They have to set out what they think will work. Governments, bureaucrats, and politicians do not know necessarily what is right. These programs have to be done as partnerships.
The time is getting short, but I just want to mention three other important issues that relate to aboriginal women. We all know the importance of child are. It was raised earlier today in Question Period. Certainly for native families it is very important. Through the child care initiatives fund, we have had 53 projects to support native families. That includes both on and off reserve at $5.7 million. Certainly that is a good start. The Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development has visited some of those projects, as I hope to do in the next little while as well.
Routine Proceedings
Project Haven, which is an initiative of this government under our Family Violence Program, provides support for capital for the construction of shelters for women who have been abused. Under that program, 87 spaces have been provided for native women and their children.
As well, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a special $3 million allocated under the Family Violence Program for its initiatives. I know when I have talked to my ministerial colleagues from the Northwest Territories, Minister Marie-Jewell and Minister Margaret Joe from the Yukon who are native women themselves, one of the issues that is really the top concerns is this issue of violence against women within aboriginal communities. We are looking forward to working together on new programs to support and to try to not only provide assistance to women who are victims of abuse, but to try more vigorously to look at the root causes and work on prevention and education programs to hopefully some day eradicate this issue. I know my time is up-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I interrupt the hon. minister. The time has expired.
The parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Shields:: Madam Speaker, the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is, indeed, very important. There are a number of people who would like to continue to speak on it. I am wondering if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to continue with this order of business for the next hour. I think members would appreciate it very much.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we have a very important private member's initiative coming up for the next hour. We always have to respect the right of individual members of the House. I think my hon. friend from Athabasca is absolutely correct, this is a very important debate.
On behalf of my party I am prepared to say that we are prepared to stay later today to allow all those who wish to participate in this debate an opportunity to do so. It is very important. The situation facing native people in the country has never been more acute. It is more focused than it ever has been and we have an obligation as members of Parliament to do something about that. On behalf of my party we are prepared to stay here for the

September 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
entire weekend, if necessary, to deal with this important matter.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that may sound very noble, but perhaps we could have a practical modification to that. Perhaps I could assist the House by suggesting that we move now to private members' hour and that we resume consideration of this subject at three o'clock for, perhaps another hour. Maybe that would be agreeable. But to leave it wide open, I think is probably not very reasonable. I do agree that other members would be interested in participating and perhaps it would be a good suggestion to move now to private members' hour and resume consideration of this issue at three o'clock for an additional hour. We could then adjourn at four o'clock, unless, of course, some time before four o'clock the House directs otherwise again.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, that is certainly more than a compromise. I suppose we can be happy for whatever little debating time we can get on this issue. I am prepared to support the suggestion. I think my hon. friend from Athabasca is very wise, that to extend the sitting this afternoon is a very appropriate gesture. I applaud the government for being prepared to set aside more time on a Friday afternoon to discuss this. I look forward to extending the session as long as we can. If it is an hour, I will certainly agree to that.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I really apologize for members of the House when they try to work in political manoeuvring.
We all know that we adjourn the House at three o'clock. This is to allow members of Parliament to return to their ridings when they have duties for the weekend. My suggestion was that we continue in the next hour and, indeed, we could accommodate the private members' bill early next week. We could make that a priority that he become the very first one next week. It certainly is not acceptable to continue on for the weekend, because many of us in this House have important duties elsewhere. Indeed, I am meeting this weekend with some people of the aboriginal community in my riding and it is more important that I be there, along with some of the other members.
If it is not acceptable to extend for one hour and it is not agreed-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand the motive of my hon. friend from Athabasca. Perhaps he has thought ahead in knowing that the Prime Minister is in New York today dealing with children, and knowing that my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is introducing a bill that would do away with a hate that is levelled against children in Canada, which I think is a good initiative, does my hon. friend not want to debate this today for fear of embarrassing the government because of what it has not done in the past? Is that what he is trying to do?


An hon. member:: We have reached no agreement.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Obviously we are getting into a debate now and there is no agreement. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I have a special responsibility in this Chamber as the whip for the government party. Across the way is my colleague who is the deputy whip for the Official Opposition.
We have several times this week tried to reach agreement for the conduct of the nation's business in a regular planned kind of fashion. The debate we have been having today represents an unplanned intervention.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who cares in this chaos?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think the Canadian people care. I think when they go to the ballot box to vote for somebody to represent them they expect that-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be an agreement so I would suggest that we move on with private members' business.
I have to recognize the hon. member on a point of privilege. I do hope the hon. member will very quickly come to the point. The hon. member for Athabasca.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops stood in this House and impugned the motives of the member for Athabasca, myself. Very clearly he did so. The "blues" will show that. I ask him to stand up and do the honourable thing and withdraw those remarks immediately.
September 28, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am not going to resign. I was curious, Madam Speaker, and perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend's intentions. He knows what the topic of private members' hour is all about, it is about the horrible thing that is perpetuated against children in our country that the government continues to allow.
Now all I can say is that knowing that and wanting to set aside the private members' hour until after the Prime Minister has done his duty, I suppose, on the stage in New York, I just found to be rather distasteful. That was the point I was making and if it has offended by hon. friend I will certainly withdraw that remark, but it seems that that was what he was up to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we do understand that the hon. member for Kamloops was not imputing the motives to the hon. member.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND

Don Boudria: that Bill C-207, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to bring to the attention of this House a matter which should be of concern to all of us in Canada. I am speaking of the violence against children; more particularly, I am speaking of the issue of the hate propaganda against children which I believe to be a cause of this violence.
There exists a product in this country today which is known as Garbage Pail Kids. This product exists in our country, but luckily, I suppose, it is not manufactured in our country. It is produced elsewhere and brought across the border into Canada. This product, which I referred to previously as Garbage Pail Kids, is produced in the form of a bubble gum card. These bubble gum cards depict
Private Members' Business
children being mutilated, murdered and dissected. The whole purpose of this is supposed to be to provide entertainment, and I use that word very loosely. The product in question is designed to be sold to children. The cards in question are sold with bubble gum, therefore the purchaser is intended to be a child. The child purchasing this sees other children in positions that I have described earlier and as such, the whole exercise cheapens the value of human life in ways that are almost too sad to describe.
I will take but a moment and give you a quick description of these cards. There is a picture of a child whose back is being scratched and where you see blood flying everywhere. This child is being scratched with a rake and the joke is supposed to be, rake Jake. That is supposed to be the name of the child in question.
In another one of those so-called funny cards, we have a child whose name is Mason Mace and he is being clubbed over the head with a spiked mace and his head is falling off. All of this, of course, is supposed to be funny, accordingly to, at least, the promoters of these products. The Topps Bubble Gum company was interviewed when I brought this to the attention of Canadians some three years ago. When they were interviewed, they said children liked gross and these cards are gross. That may be so, Madam Speaker, I do not think there is anyone who will disagree with the fact that they are gross, but that does not make them right.
I have complained about these cards on several occasions. I wrote a letter in August of 1988 to the senior assistant Crown attorney of Ottawa, the judicial district of Ottawa-Carleton, who, of course, is an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, to see whether these cards offended the provisions of the Criminal Code. He wrote back to me at that time and indicated that although the cards were certainly not acceptable beyond any stretch of the imagination, that there was nothing that he could do because of the way the Criminal Code is written. I wrote further to the then Minister of National Revenue, the member for Central Nova, bringing the matter to his attention as well, describing how these cards were offensive and objectionable and why they should not be permitted to come into this country from the United States.

Private Members' Business
On September 20, 1988, the minister wrote to me and said that he had had his officials review the schedules of the Customs Tariff Act which prohibit the importation into Canada of certain material. The minister says in his letter and I am paraphrasing here, that he does find the material offensive and objectionable, however, it is not permitted by him to stop the importation of these awful cards into Canada because they do not offend the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code of Canada, under its hate propaganda provision states: "Everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable for imprisonment of not longer than five years." It says further that: "In this section genocide means any of the following acts committed against an identifiable group." The identifiable group is further defined by saying the following: "In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin." Of course, children are of all races of ethnic origin, colour and race, therefore, because these cards do not promote hatred against a specific origin, religion or race of children, the minister was apparently unable to stop the importation into Canada of this awful material. What I propose to do in my private members' bill is very simple. I propose to add one word to the Criminal Code.
The Criminal Code of Canada, as I said previously, states that we must not promote hatred against an identifiable group and that this group is identified by means of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin and I propose to add one word, the word "age". In other words, under this new definition, if you promote hatred against an identifiable age group, that would also be an offence as well as promoting hatred against someone because of their colour, because of their race, because of their origin and so forth. To promote hatred against a specific age group would then be an offence under the Criminal Code.
Just relating back to the cards in question, just in case anyone is unsure whether this amendment would in fact accomplish the objective, I want to state to you, Madam Speaker, that the children in question all appear to me to be within the age group of roughly a few months to three or four years. It is quite easy for anyone to determine
that what the cards promote in fact is, in my opinion, hatred against very young children and I do believe that the amendment that I am proposing would correct the situation.
At the very least, I am sure that those who export this product into Canada and those who import it, those who purchase it here, once this amendment is passed, would be quite reluctant to attempt to import the product or even for those who sell it to people across the border would be reluctant to selling it because of course they know that they could potentially be charged for a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I know that the number of private members' bills that is passed in this Parliament in any given year is, shall we say, small to say the least. Only a handful of bills do make it. I am asking colleagues on all sides of the House today to set aside any differences that we might have for the good of our children.
We are opening today this United Nations conference on children. We could in a very small way make a contribution this afternoon, in the few minutes that this House has to sit before adjourning for the weekend. I propose that we adopt this bill at second reading. In the event that there is a minor change to be performed, or course the committee that would be studying the bill clause by clause is well equipped to do that. It would do so if given the opportunity. That opportunity of course is contingent upon this House not talking the bill out, in other words, this House adjourning the debate prior to three o'clock in order to permit the vote.
Naturally, it is my hope that members on all sides of the House would vote in support of this private member's bill, a bill to end hatred against children, or at least in a small way improve that condition.
Madam Speaker, I believe I have one or two minutes left and I just want to indicate to you that I have received correspondence from people right across the country on this issue. I will read a letter sent to me by E. M. Zaleski of Windsor, Ontario which states, and I read selectively:
Dear Mr. Boudria:
I was particularly pleased to read about your stand to ban thebubble gum cards "Garbage Pail Kids" with their sick advertising from being sold in Canada, since I, myself, have just written a letter to the president of Topps Chewing Gum Inc., complaining of the grossness of their cards. I enclose a copy of this letter.
September 28, 1990

This is a letter I received from Windsor. I have another letter which I received from Mrs. Maiy Hawes of Calgary, Alberta which states:
Last night my granddaughter showed me a collection of "Garbage Pail Kids" and 1 nearly threw up. You are right to say these cards should not be allowed in Canada.
I could read on and on from the stack of letters that I have here. Individual Canadians are not the only ones who have written to me on this issue. I just want to read to you a short excerpt from a resolution passed by the Peterborough County Board of Education on November 25, 1988 in which they adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Topps Chewing Gum Inc. product called 'Garbage Pail Kids' is most objectionable and is contrary to the values taught in our public schools, and
WHEREAS this product is available in retail outlets throughout Ontario,
I will just read the conclusion:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Ontario Public School Boards' Association petition Topps Chewing Gum Inc., the Federal Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Provincial Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Relations to have these products withdrawn.
Clearly, Canadians do not want this product. [Translation]
Madam Speaker, we know that children buy these cards. But even if they have the opportunity to do so, we parents have to guide them and stop them from buying them. Of course we all know that if you give loose change to a child going to the convenience store he will not necessarily return with what you expect. We know they can buy whatever is on the shelves. For the same reason, we do not want our children to buy pornographic material in convenience stores.
I think we all hope our children will never again be able to buy this kind of hate products aimed at other children. These products lower the value of human life, so I urge all my colleagues to support me with a view to banning them as soon as possible.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I want to join my House of Commons colleagues who, a few seconds ago, congratulated the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his initiative. In response to his invitation of a moment ago I can tell him that government members on
Private Members' Business
this side of the House do not intend to take a partisan approach to this issue. I hardly think the matter raised by my colleague from Glengariy-Prescott-Russell will prompt members to express diverging views because they are Liberals, New Democrats or Progressive Conservatives. There can be no partisan politics when dealing with such issues. As far as we are concerned, at least, there is no point of view which stems from ideology as such. The question raised by our colleague is of some concern to many Canadians.
We all know that in recent years the courts had to rule in a few hate propaganda cases. The Keegstra case in Alberta immediately comes to mind as do those of Andrews and Smith in Ontario where these cases went all the way to the superior courts. I believe that at this very moment, the Supreme Court is being asked to judge in this connection on the constitutionality of certain sections of the Criminal Code, including subsection 319(2). This means, Madam Speaker, that the subject raised by the hon. member here in the House today is now being considered by our courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada, specifically with respect to the Keegstra, Andrews and Smith cases.
I also want to join the hon. member in condemning this kind of propaganda-let's call it propaganda, he used the word-which some people see as "entertainment". Quotation marks are indeed in order here because personally, I see no redeeming features in the kind of illustrations on the cards being sold to children. I tried be objective and see whether there was anything positive here but quite frankly, I cannot, and that includes the product itself.
I don't think extensive research is necessaiy, Madam Speaker. I don't think anyone will order a doctorate thesis on the subject. I think any reasonable person will agree it is not the kind of product we want to sell or make available to children.
One wonders about the motives of the people who distribute and about the kind of person that would have the guts to create this kind of product. It raises a number of questions that are quite troubling for us and for all members of this House.
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly about the present provisions in the Criminal Code on this subject, and which have been there for some time.

September 28, 1990
Private Members' Business
First of all, hate propoganda is an offence that is defined under Common Law. Under our legal system, however people are not prosecuted under Common Law but our Criminal Code is based on Common Law. People are prosecuted for offences that are specifically defined or codified the Criminal Code.
This is one of the principles of our criminal law. Law professors tell us you can do anything in Canada, provided there is no law against it. That is one of the first things you learn at law school, in criminal law. Therefore, this problem, and the hon. member was right to remind us, must be considered within the context of the Criminal Code.
The current provisions of the Criminal Code stem from a study which was carried out in 1965. In January of that year, Hon. Guy Favreau, the then minister of Justice, had appointed a Special Committee to study and report upon the problems related to the dissemination of hate propaganda in Canada.
This Committee, also known as the Cohen Committee, completed its study in 1965 and recommended a number of amendments to the Criminal Code. Anxious to harmonize the new legislation with the major tenets of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as well as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in line with the Cohen Committee recommendations, Parliament included in 1965 in the Criminal Code a number of provisions concerning hate propaganda.
If I mention these international conventions, Madam Speaker, it is because there is a close relationship between the current provisions of our Criminal Code and the provisions of International Law as it existed at the time.
These provisions deal with advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, and wilful promotion of hatred. Section 318 of the Criminal Code criminalizes advocating genocide. Everyone who advocates genocide is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. No proceeding for an offense under this section may be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I wish to emphasize that these are exceptional provisions. This is not the kind of provisions
which we find in most of the offences mentioned in the Criminal Code. There is a reason for that. In fact, in the case of hate propaganda, an additional review is required. Before legal action can be taken, there must be a political examination, so to speak-and again, I use quotation marks-but there must also be a political will to act before charges can be brought.
In other words, at this level the persons must be committed to suing the person or persons concerned or the organization, according to the values stated or judged, or the prevailing circumstances.
The subsection 319 (1) of the Criminal Code mentions the people publicly inciting hatred. The base of the offence is the incitation to hatred in a public place-and this is the important part of the article-in a way "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" The term "public place" is defined in the Code as including any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied". Those who break the law in this regard are liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
The subsection 319 (2) of the Code covers the case of persons who, by communicating statement, wilfully promote hatred.
This violation differs from the previously mentioned one in that it is not necessary for the wrongdoing to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Moreover, the statements must be communicated other than in private conversation. Because there are limits to what the legislator can do and to what we can do as a society, Madam Speaker, I think that common sense would dictate that we at least not seek to regulate in that matter. Private conversations should not be regulated either. That is pure common sense.
As regards the latter violation, Parliament adopted means of ensuring freedom of expression is protected for, in our society, Madam Speaker, every individual liberty is measured against the liberty of others. Let us not forget that freedom of expression, as described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in section 2 b) of the Charter in particular, is what serves to counterbalance these provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting hate propaganda.
September 28, 1990

The definition of "identifiable group"-and I think that is the key of the problem-which would be modified by my hon. colleague's bill, applies to the three offenses I have just mentioned.
Madam Speaker, I think it is obvious based on the historical background of the provisions relating to hate propaganda, that these provisions were originally intended and are still intended to protect visible minorities, religious groups and ethnic minorities in Canada. The underlying principle of the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada on which the present provisions on hate propaganda are based-and I am about to conclude, Madam Speaker-was to provide better protection for minority groups against racism, antisemitism and religious intolerance.
Madam Speaker, that is what in legal circles is called the genus of an article or argument-in other words, a definition that is used to achieve a specific purpose. What the hon. member is proposing today is a definition that goes beyond the genus. That is why the government does not see this particular amendment, at least not in its present form, as the ideal solution to the problem described by the hon. member. It may be the answer later on. However, at this time, Madam Speaker, we believe that the problem described by the hon. member could be dealt with more effectively other than by adding to a section that is now being challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada. My point is that in the next few months, the Supreme Court will have to rule on the validity of all these sections and at that time will decide what the law will be. Furthermore, in a context that is rather technical, it may not be the ideal solution to include age in a definition that cannot suitably include this factor.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I think that as legislators we must act prudently and wait a few months until we have a judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada, which we can then use to propose to Canadians an effective and lasting solution to the very important problem raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I join with others in commending my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on his initiative on this most
Private Members' Business
important and critical matter. I join with my colleague from the Conservative Party who has just spoken and say that indeed this is non-partisan. This is not a political issue. It is an issue of compassion and caring where we, as Members of Parliament, are attempting to do something to rid this country of hate propaganda levied against children.
My hon. friend from the Conservative Party has indicated that we should see this in the context of amendments to the Criminal Code. That is one context, but I suggest there is another.
This weekend the Prime Minister will be co-hosting the United Nations World Summit for Children on behalf of Canada. While there is a lot of cynicism in terms of our Prime Minister, would it not be a perfect signal for the Parliament of Canada on the eve of the UN World Summit for Children to agree to refer this matter of hate propaganda levied against children to the appropriate committee for consideration in terms of dealing with this issue? I will be the first to say that perhaps this is not the best way to deal with it. At least it is a way. That forms another context in which I think we should examine this whole issue. We are only too familiar with the fact that children grow up today in an atmosphere of violence, violence that is demonstrated by their daily and weekly viewing of television. If you watch television, as a normal child in our country probably does, you see hundreds of killings every month on television. That rips the status of human life in terms of the image of the child.
We tune in to television in our homes now at certain times of the day and in some cases all day long to pornographic films, soft pom, hard pom, so any child now who can turn the dial on a television set can view some pretty interesting television to say the least, to say nothing of the rap tapes, discs, and records that one buys, that children tend to buy, and to listen to the messages that are sent out on those tapes, discs and casettes is something disgusting.
This is the context in which children today are being raised. It has been brought to our attention that these bubble gum packages imported from the United States carry these little pictures of kids that are supposed to be entertaining, as my hon. friend indicated. These are pictures of children with their heads cut off, pictures of

Private Members' Business
children hanging from trees-lynched, if you like, Madam Speaker-where their hands are being burned in boiling water, where they are being ripped open with a knife, where their legs are being chopped off, where their stomachs are being ripped open, where their backs are being lacerated, where they are being run over by vehicles, where they are being twisted to death in the form of torture.
I can go on and on, but I think the point is well made. These are disgusting. This is not something that I think anyone would suggest is entertaining for a young person. Yet you can buy these in any shop in our communities.
I am sure all of us have received representations from parent groups, school groups and individuals coming to our offices, saying that this is coming into Canada. This is not right.
Well, as parliamentarians we ask what can be done. Surely we just cannot sit back and say that the existing Criminal Code does not allow us to do anything, just sit back and accept this.
What can we do? Well my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has come up with a suggestion. That is that we have regulations in the Criminal Code that does not allow hate propaganda against certain groups, and he has mentioned them, based on cult groups, based on colour, sex, creed, religion, country of origin. So we are able then to combat this type of hate propaganda that is aimed at those particular groups.
But we have nothing too prohibitive in that same way for hate propaganda that is destined against children.
This very simple Private Member's Bill attempts to include the wording of an identifiable age group as part of the criteria where hate propaganda can be brought into the courts under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I think this is a great initiative. It is at least an initiative, Madam Speaker. I become worried when I hear my hon. friend from the Conservative Party say there must be better ways to deal with this and so we will leave it for now.
I think it is perfect that on the eve of the United Nations World Summit for Children that the House of Commons would take this initiative. We all admit that this may not be the answer, but to simply refer this to the appropriate committee to indicate, first of all, our
intention, our support for this initiative, and our disgust at this type of hate propaganda against children in our country, is a very laudable initiative.
We all know the rules here. If the debate ceases before the hour hand reaches three o'clock, this will then be put to a vote. I will say, representing the New Democratic Party, that we would vote in favour of this initiative. I have heard from my friends in the Liberal Party who say they will support this initiative. All eyes will be on the Conservative Party to see whether they support this initiative.
If they do, we will simply have a voice vote and the whole matter is referred to the appropriate committee. Simple, clean, and one of the most positive initiatives this House could take at the end of a very, very chaotic week in the House of Commons.
On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I want to say we support this initiative. We are abhorred at the kind of hate literature that is coming into our country from the United States. It is disgusting in all ways and forms. If this initiative can prevent this type of hate literature from getting into the hands of our children, we will be taking a step in the right direction.
I encourage all my colleagues to stop this debate well before three o'clock to advance this initiative.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to support my colleague who brought this bill before the House.
To me there are not enough words in the English language to say just how evil are these cards by the name of Garbage Pail Kids. They are vile, repugnant, and against everything that is decent and humane about our society. For people who distribute them to say that they distribute them because children like them and want to buy them is to be totally irresponsible.
If we listen to the evidence of so many children who live in poverty in this country today, they will tell us in as many words that they feel like garbage, that their peers call them garbage, and that adults treat them like garbage. We cannot tolerate and allow this type of propaganda, this type of reverse sensitization to exist in our country.
September 28, 1990

We are judged by what we do not do as often as by what we do. Good people often fail to do what they must do. What we lack so much in this country today is leadership. Again I just want to applaud my colleague for taking the initiative at this very important point in time in bringing forward this proposed legislation. I do not want to take up a lot of time because I want to ensure that this legislation is passed in this House this afternoon by voice vote.
Last night on national television, on the CBC program The Journal, we watched the story of the plight of children world-wide, children who are treated so indecently, like garbage. In some nations of the world today, because children are considered as garbage, they go about killing children on the street. We have to stop. We have to take the opportunity to turn the tide back and do something to address the very dire straits in which children around the world and in Canada find themselves. We must take the initiative as responsible adults to speak out on their behalf. Even though some children because of their age may think that this is amusing, the children that it hurts have no voice in this country. They depend upon us to speak up on their behalf.
I support my colleague's bill. I would urge and expect all of us to affirm it in a vote this afternoon.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I will make my remarks quickly so that we can get to the vote. I want to thank my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, for his determined and thoughtful initiative.
What we see here is nothing more than an housekeeping matter in the Criminal Code. He wants to add the word age. In fact it would arm the government minister with the necessary tool to prevent the proliferation of this kind of horrendous material. It is hate propaganda. There is no question of that.
We have these bubble gum cards, produced by Topps Chewing Gum Incorporated, with pictures depicting babies and older children expressing pain and agony while under dissection or surprise at having been impaled by the horn of a unicorn. This serves no one and in fact is nothing short of sick.
Private Members' Business
Where do we stop? What do we see next? Will we maybe see elderly persons? Will they pick up elderly persons and start making a mockery of them in this kind of disgusting material?
Given that the municipalities and school boards have condemned the product, it remains incumbent upon us to support them. I would hope that the House would adjourn debate on this motion to allow us to vote and vote in the affirmative in support of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Bill C-207 and, in the process, to denounce this product and any product like it.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I want to commence by letting the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell know that I think he has undertaken today to put before parliamentarians an issue that demands our attention and requires our sensitivities. I am one who having looked upon this legislation believes that there are some technical inadequacies to it and that in some parts, perhaps in its greatest failing, does not go far enough.
I pondered as I heard the hon. member read through a list of categories of people which he says the present legislation would restrict from hate literature and then point out that age was not one of those categories. If I heard him correctly, I did not note either that gender was one of those categories. It would seem to me that a further and more thorough examination ought to be undertaken with respect to a number of these criteria.
I believe that there would be a lot of advantage for this House in some ways in waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the hearing of the Keegstra case and its pronouncements on hate literature to give us a durable kind of resolution that we might undertake.
Having said that, none of us in any corner of this Chamber would ever want to be in a situation where it would appear that for some reason we were not able to stand up, not only for an age that are called children but for an age that is called innocent. These criteria in my judgment are not as thorough as I would like and not as extensive as I would like. There are some technical limitations to them, particularly on a weekend when we stand on the eve of a world conference being held in New York to recognize the plight of children around the

Private Members' Business
world. The descriptions thereof are well beyond the imagination of the majority of Canadians.
In the country of Brazil there exists today some 25 million street children. I remember that statistic with ease and with pain, because it is exactly the same number of street children as the total population of Canada located in one country. Street children are children who wander loose and alone without their parents.
The hon. member puts before us the whole notion that there is coming into this country the kind of material he described. From the speeches I have heard from others, I can only recognize that they have seen that material also and I accept it as fact. I have not seen it, but I do not doubt it. All I know is that if it fits the descriptions I have heard, it is not in a context which is appropriate that we have that kind of material within our society.
I suppose, to repeat, what I sense is that we would be better off-I say that quite genuinely-to have done a more thorough examination of the matter. I believe that there are other categories of the question of hatred that ought to be examined.
I also believe it would have been far more prudent for us as parliamentarians to have moved after the Supreme Court completed its deliberations with respect to the Keegstra case and laid before us all its recommendations.
Because of the evidence the hon. member has laid before us and because of the inability of this sector of society to be able to stand to protect themselves, it is appropriate for us as parliamentarians to accept the amendments that the hon. member wants to send forward to committee stage. Perhaps at that time we can expand on them. I am not sure to what extent he sees it, but I would presume that we should be able to expand in some detail and into different dimensions.
If in that process we can find even a much better bill that is different enough to change the character and nature of the bill, I believe that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will have started an appropriate initiative. He will have forced officials to come forward with an appropriate total response.
If that leads to a different, fuller and more expanded piece of legislation than what is being proposed, so be it. Let's wish, at least as I sit down, that as they meet this weekend in New York we can become a planet that is
more caring for the young and is more intently interested in those who are unable to protect themselves.
Then we can stand on the right side of right, particularly in this case, in the interests of children who are being perpetrated upon by unholy material which in the final analysis can do nothing other than make all of us as a society stand together and say: "We repulse such information perpetrated upon our young."


Jean J. Charest: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. After having consulted with colleagues in the House, especially with the member from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent in this House at this time, after a very trying week of debates for Parliament, especially on the eve of the world summit on youth as my colleague from Crowfoot and others have mentioned.
This would be a good opportunity for the House to offer its unanimous consent so that this subject matter could be sent to a legislative committee for study. We could take into consideration all the arguments that were brought before this House today and take into consideration all the elements that will be coming into play in the next few months. Then the House of Commons and the government together will deal with this issue in the most efficient manner as possible.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I confirm that there has been such a discussion. As I understand it, you will require unanimous consent, first, to withdraw the bill and, second, to ask that the subject matter be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee. Given that the House seems to be favourably disposed to that, I want to thank everybody even if they are not disposed to it.
I cannot presume that such consent has been achieved. We will have to you, Madam Speaker, to ask the House if it is so disposed. If such consent is achieved, I will thank hon. members in advance for their co-operation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too want to confirm that the discussions have occurred. This is a wonderful way to culminate a week. It has not been an easy week for anybody, but I cannot think of a more appropriate way to end it off than to withdraw the bill and send the subject matter to the appropriate committee. It advances the initiative taken by the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.

I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we are pleased with the element of co-operation we have seen for the first time this week, almost for the first time this year. Again I say to my colleagues in the House of Commons that this is a very positive initiative with which to end the week.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, first I should like to set the record straight: they say everybody was consulted and there is general agreement, but I can tell you that such is not the case and that nobody in this House speaks for me. The fact is, given the obvious merit of this motion and exceptionally, I will co-operate with the members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Sherbrooke precisely because we are talking about the future of our children. This, however, should not be taken as a precedent.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?
Private Members' Business


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it three o'clock?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, perhaps as the sponsor of this bill, a bill turned motion now, I could take this opportunity to thank all colleagues for the support they have just given me.
All partisanship aside, which the Prime Minister and I may have occasionally, I want to wish him a successful weekend in New York City on behalf of the children of the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.57 p.m.﻿13607
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 1, 1990