1990-04-27

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 26, consideration of Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee and on Motion No. 9 (Mr. Foster) (p. 10738).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-15 was last before the House, the hon. member for Mackenzie had the floor. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I had risen to begin discussing Motion No. 9 on Bill C-15. This motion proposes to amend the clauses of the bill which outline the rules or the goals of a review of the act. In effect, the ministry of agriculture of the day is to lay a copy of the report before the House after the expiration of 10 years of use of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.
The bill itself lays out some areas that should be looked at when reviewing the act. They are to find out whether the implementation of the act has resulted in the stimulation of investment in the businesses involving the breeding of plant varieties. They should decide whether the operation of the act results in any improvement in obtaining foreign varieties of plants in the interest of Canadian agriculture. They should check whether the operation of the act results in protection abroad, for commercial purposes, of Canadian plant varieties, and they should test whether the operation of this act provides improvement of plant varieties to the
public benefit and particular to the benefit of farmers and nurserymen.
My friend from Algoma has proposed in Motion No. 9 that three more areas be looked at: whether the implementation of the act has led to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada; whether implementation of the act has increased or decreased the expenditure and application of public research in plant breeding in Canada; and whether the implementation of the act has resulted in the transfer of technology to Third World countries and the development of sustainable agriculture in those countries.
The parliamentary secretary argued on behalf of the government that these three additional areas would be very difficult to measure because there is no agreed single definition of sustainable agriculture. I would accept that, except I have great difficulty when I look at the rules that the government is prepared to accept. The criteria that the minister's parliamentary secretary has used for rejecting the additional three points in Motion No. 9 could apply equally to the four points that the government is willing to accept.
It is not easily determined how anyone could decide whether investment had been stimulated by the introduction of this act. The government and the department admit that no baseline study has been done to determine how much investment there is now. So if there is nothing to measure from, how can one tell that there has been an improvement or a diminution of investments? The minister's Parliamentary Secretary could have argued equally strongly that it would be very difficult to carry out this part of the Act, and yet he is prepared to support that.
In the Act itself, the government is proposing to measure whether or not the operation of the Act results in an improvement of facilities in obtaining foreign varieties of plants into Canada. No one knows now how many foreign varieties are working in Canada. I am aware that there are foreign varieties here which the Department of Agriculture probably does not know about or, if it does, it does not seem to have a list that it

April 27, 1990
Government Orders
was prepared to show to us during the course of the committee's hearings.
For protection abroad for commercial purposes of Canadian plant varieties, we have no baseline study to know now what our penetration of the foreign markets are, so how are we going to measure whether it has been improved or diminished?
The fourth point that the government is prepared to support is with regard to whether there would be an improvement of plant varieties to the public benefit, particularly to the benefit of farmers and nurserymen. We may be able to go backward, find what varieties are in existence now, and set up a system to provide that kind of monitoring and measuring. To my knowledge, and from listening to the witnesses we had before the committee, that system is not in very good shape, if it exists at all.
Therefore, on all these items, the minister's Parliamentary Secretary is correct when he said that it was going to be difficult to make a measurement. I do not see how that can justify the government's to not support the three additional points. The whole area is rather fuzzy, but these are all questions that should be looked at.
It is not going to be easy to make the assessment that Section 77 calls for in the review procedure, but it does give some guidelines. I think that the additional guidelines that have been proposed by the member for Algoma do not conflict with the four already required by the Act which have the government's support.
If it is impossible to make the measurement in the 10-year review, the review panel can simply say it was impossible and explain why. It may find that it has to do this on all four items that the government is now prepared to support, too. But it will be able to give the Parliament of the day, farmers, plant breeders, and consumers in the country some idea of the direction in which the country has shifted because of the introduction of this legislation. I am presuming that the government majority will hold to the end of third reading and that it will pass at this stage, even though I think that is a questionable call and that this is not in the best interests of the country.
In conclusion, I would call on government members and, particularly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture to review his analysis of these three points in light of the four that he is already prepared to support. I reiterate that the problems that he has with the three that are being proposed by my friend from Algoma are very similar to the problems that he should have with the four he is willing to accept. Since it is all going to be very difficult to measure, I think he would be well disposed to accept the other three and let us have as broad a review as is possible ten years' hence.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to put on record the concerns that many people from Victoria have expressed to me about this bill.
It is a bill which has not received the attention across the country that it might deserve. Perhaps the title is one that distracts people to believing that it is a very specialized bill. But it is one which many of my constituents feel has grave implications for Canadians, particularly at this time of concern for the environment.
The bill is seen, and in my view quite correctly, as a bill which denies the right to choose the foods and plants which we grow and consume. The bill has not had the discussion across the country that it ought to have. The amendments which have been proposed by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will go a long way to deal with those concerns.
These amendments include a fee which should be remitted to the international board for plant genetic resources that could be used to convert and develop plant varieties and genetic resources around the world. This would ensure that the commissioner consults with the advisory committee composed of breeders, seed dealers, farmers, and the general public, and that reports would be produced. At the very least, Canadians must be kept informed as to the implications and development of this bill.
At this stage, the government seems determined to put it through. I would hope, however, that it would give very careful consideration to the various amendments, particularly the one that is before the House at this point and that it would listen to the very wise words of the member who has spoken and addressed the House on this issue on our behalf.
April 27, 1990


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-15 this morning.
I would just like to point out to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that we in the Liberal party did have some concerns with this bill regarding plant breeders rights. However, we feel fairly satisfied with the processes we went through in the legislative committee where we heard many people with concerns both pro and con for the bill and we had some good discussions.
We feel that this bill could be improved yet, as indicated by the amendments we have put forward, but it appears that the government will not go along with them. However, we feel that the bill has been strengthened to quite an extent. We were pleased to take part in this process and to insist, to the best of our ability, to strengthen that bill. In the bill's original form, the advisory committee was not necessary. We now have agreement from the government that that advisory committee shall be appointed. It is not the prerogative of the minister any more.
We felt very strongly that that advisory committee could serve a very useful capacity in advising the commissioner, who will be put in place with the Act, in the interpretation of the Act. The advisory committee will also be in the position to give advice to commissioners as far as the requirements of regulating and licensing are concerned.
In committee we were very pleased to get the interpretation of the terms "reasonable price" and "widely distributed", as well as those interpretations that did not necessarily exist before. Because of the improvements that have been made to the bill, the commissioner will have to define what "reasonable price" and "widely distributed" are.
We would certainly like to see the passage of the amendments contained in Motion No. 9. We feel that when the reporting stages of this bill take place over the years they would broaden the report and address some of the concerns that other people have.
However, in its so-called wisdom, it is my understanding that the government does not wish to do that. I think, without question, that it is a disappointment to the agri-food industry and to many other Canadians.
Government Orders
I have spoken in the House from time to time about management tools, the agri-food system and the abilities that we have in the system to make our agri-food industry and our primary producer sector, in particular, competitive throughout Canada and the world. That is the name of the game. We must be competitive and have the same abilities as our competitors in order to do that.
During the legislative committee debate, the government provided us with an agreement that has taken place between Agriculture Canada and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which ensures that reporting has to be made on any transactions and any actions that are taken.
There have been concerns, but we feel that, as a result of the effectiveness of the legislative committee and the work that was done there, we could still make some more improvements. However, for the time being, we feel that this bill is sufficient to fulfil the needs requested by the industry for many years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An Hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Foster) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Normally, at this time, the House would proceed to taking the deferred division of report stage of the bill now before the house. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division will stand deferred until 7.00 p.m. on Monday, April 30, 1990.

April 27, 1990


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Danis:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of the House to suspend the sitting until eleven o'clock.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will stand suspended until eleven o'clock.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.29 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 11 a.m.

Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first anniversary of the government's arbitrary decision to close CFB Summerside. Three hundred and sixty-five days have passed since the residents of Summerside and surrounding area were shocked by this announcement. They were shocked that this government made a decision of this magnitude without consultation and without any plan for the future.
A year later the people of this area are still shocked. They are shocked that there still has been no firm federal commitment of jobs. What is really shocking is this government's inability to plan ahead. For a whole year the economy of Summerside and area has suffered because of this government's decision.
Yet there are many Islanders, and many people working to save the base. I commend each and every one of those people and praise them for their dedication.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker,
Canada's volunteer force is one of the largest and strongest in the world. Countless numbers of men and women have dedicated their time, often without thanks,
to causes and programs that could not exist without their generosity.
This week has been set aside exclusively to pay tribute to those citizens of our nation who have made a difference. They have exercised fully their citizenship by their actions and have sustained Canada's reputation as a caring and compassionate country.
I am asking that we as members of this House do something to encourage and support voluntary action as a vital and positive expression of our Canadian way of life.
Some 13 million Canadians from all walks of life and from every cultural background make volunteering an integral part of their lifestyle. Working as individuals or through organized groups like the Ponoka Wildrose Volunteer Week Committee, volunteers are the vital links that hold our society together. It is up to us to make sure that everyone around us is aware of National Volunteer Week.
April 22 to 28 may be the official week to recognize volunteers, but it is only the beginning. Our scores of volunteers are a valuable resource to be encouraged and cherished every day.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada's refusal to intervene in the contract talks between the limousine drivers at Pearson International Airport and the owner of Aaroport, Air Cab, and McIntosh limousines has not only hurt the travelling public through a work stoppage but also the livelihood of over 150 families.
The drivers' concerns are lower driver profits, poor working facilities, refusing drivers from attending co-ordination group meetings and Transport Canada's poor performance refusing illegal scoopers from taking unlawful fares. These are legitimate bread and butter issues affecting the lives and families of each of these drivers and are most deserving of being immediately addressed by this government.
I call upon the Minister of Transport to help mediate this dispute immediately, and to issue temporary permits to the drivers during these negotiations so that their loss of income will not be continued for another two months.
April 27, 1990

It is time that the minister learned to listen and hear the concerns of this important constituency.


ETHIOPIA
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the serious situation in famine-threatened parts of northern Ethiopia, particularly the provinces of Wollo, Tigre and Eritrea, which presently affects the lives of 4.5 million people, recent reports indicate that in fact the small belg rains, which took place earlier this month, have provided some hope. There is the availability of seed for farmers, the migration of people has been quite limited and, in fact, the international effort, with the support of the Ethiopian relief agencies, has provided much needed assistance through the southern route.
Earlier this week the Minister for External Relations had a very important meeting with her colleagues in New York. They were trying to find a way to deal with the present situation in Ethiopia, to which the Government of Ethiopia itself responded just the day before yesterday, adding that everything that could be done will be done by it in order to ensure that relief supplies would reach all those in need of assistance. More importantly, they said and I quote:
As regards the call for peace and national reconciliation, the Ethiopian government wishes to assure the international community of its continued commitment to begin substantive peace talks with the EPLF and other rebel groups and of its determination to reach peaceful political solutions.
We would all hope, Mr. Speaker, that peace would be the final solution to a very threatened and endangered people.


DIEFENBAKER CENTRE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians everywhere honour the memory of the late John George Diefenbaker. As the only Prime Minister from Saskatchewan and by far the most successful from western Canada, he is fondly remembered as a great civil libertarian and friend of ordinary people.
In recognition of Mr. Diefenbaker's contribution to Canadian public life, the Diefenbaker Centre was built
ten years ago on the banks of the South Saskatchewan River at the University of Saskatchewan. It houses the Diefenbaker Museum and the Diefenbaker papers and it is an important archive both for the long-term member from Prince Albert and for a major part of Canadian history.
Now the centre is threatened by a shortage of operating funds. The centre has received its last grant and will close by the end of June unless new funding is provided by the federal government. Given the massive cuts to education funding by the federal government, the university is not in a position to take up the slack.
The federal government must provide funding for this important piece of Canadian heritage. With our nation under great stress, it is more important than ever that we remember our common heritage, not emphasize our differences. When will this government honour Diefenbaker's vision, rather than permit it to be extinguished?


LENDING INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine recently brought to my attention the alarming leeway with which some of our credit card companies and lending institutions are allowed to operate in this country.
This particular customer of one of the major credit card companies has forwarded to me a statement indicating that he was charged $75.17 interest on an outstanding loan in the amount of $80 for a period of 18 days. By some fancy manoeuvring the credit card company was able to invoice this individual that amount.
Because this particular individual questioned this exorbitant charge for which he had been invoiced, and because he protested so loudly, the company reacted and reconsidered. It agreed to credit him on a future billing, so that he ends up paying $4.83 instead of $75.17. The company claimed that it was not in error, this was just a goodwill gesture.
One wonders how many Canadians who are not influential have been duped by lending institutions such as credit card companies. It is worrisome to think that unless customers put up a loud protest, many of them ultimately end up paying too much for a service.

April 27, 1990
When is the government going to take up the cause for ordinary Canadians and look into the methods used by credit card companies to ensure fair business practices are applied in the matter of interest rates when applied to credit accounts of customers?
He *	*


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will join over 900 volunteers in forming a human ring around the Scarborough Civic Centre to celebrate volunteerism in our community.
This event will be a very appropriate way of celebrating National Volunteer Week, and I want to pay tribute to the Scarborough Association of Volunteer Administrators for initiating this ring around Scarborough.
Volunteers play a crucial and often overlooked role in our society. Whether it is in health care, recreation, social assistance or community service, volunteers make all our lives richer.
Tomorrow, Scarborough will celebrate the important contribution volunteers have made to our community. I am proud to be taking part in that celebration and extend to all volunteers in Scarborough and across Canada sincere thanks for taking the time to care.


WHARVES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the livelihood of our fishermen depends on safe harbours and proper wharves, otherwise fishing boats can be seriously damaged and, more important, fishermen risk injury and possible loss of life.
I rise today on behalf of the fishermen in the community of Eastern Passage who are still waiting for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to extend their wharf. Despite repeated promises that the extension was on the regional list of priorities, nothing-and I repeat nothing-has yet been done.
I recently met with Stan Purdy, who expressed the fishermen's frustration with this government's unwillingness to come up with the necessary funds for this improvement. At a time when the Atlantic fisheries is in a state of crisis, I believe that repairing and improving
our harbour infrastructure is one way in which the federal government can show a real commitment to these fishermen.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his predecessor are well aware of the representations I have made imploring them to allocate the necessary funds. I urge the government again today to take action now before there is a loss of vessels or, indeed, a loss of life, because of the lack of this needed improvement.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform members of a critical situation occurring in southern Alberta. Southern Alberta is really a semi-desert area, such that early settlers and political leaders of all parties agreed that settlement required a secure source of water.
Under that policy, 13 irrigation districts have been organized and some 1.4 million acres of land are now irrigated. This has led to a sophisticated society of over
300,000	people raising grain, corn, beans, sugarbeets and other vegetables. As well, we have the most sophisticated beef, pork and poultry production and processing industry in North America. Over 50 towns and villages require irrigation water for their continued existence.
Members should visit southern Alberta and see this area first-hand, before so easily rejecting completion of the Oldman River dam. Indeed, courts should be more sensitive to the real consequences of their decisions. We are not dealing with abstract ideas here, but with the lives and histories of real people.
He *	*


CHERNOBYL
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the tragic explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. This date has been declared by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR as the day of the Chernobyl disaster. Many people died. Three million people are living in irradiated territory in the Soviet Union and evacuations from affected villages are continuing today.
April 27, 1990

Only through effective international co-operation and the joint efforts of scientists and experts from all countries, including Canada, will the consequences of this disaster be dealt with.
I join with many Ukrainian Canadians and Ukrainians in calling for an early closure of the Chernobyl plant and a planned phasing out of other nuclear power plants. I particularly urge the Government of Canada to co-operate fully in international efforts to assist in responding to the Chernobyl tragedy.
As parliamentarians, let us join today in commemorating the memory of those who died following the Chernobyl explosion, and resolve to work together to ensure that we respond to the ecological crisis that is destroying the air, soil and water of this planet.
The Sea of Azov, the Black Sea and hundreds of lakes and rivers in the Ukraine and Canada are dying. We must take action now.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn of Quebecor President Pierre Peladeau's apology for his comments diminishing the place of Jewish people and women in our society, comments which were insulting and personally offensive.
As a Jewish woman, proud of my heritage and the contribution that my people and women generally have made to Canada, I believe it is important to promote a more generous Canadian approach to judging people; not by their gender, ethnic origin or mother tongue, but by their hard work, commitment and achievements. Public scrutiny and even criticism should be based on one's actions, not one's origins.
Mr. Peladeau's statements were unhelpful toward our society's goal to reinforce in our young people the longstanding Canadian values of fairness, tolerance and equality of opportunity, rather than suggesting that, no matter how hard they try, their place will be determined not by their effort, but by their language or heritage.
Tolerant, fair-minded Canadians held out the hope that Mr. Peladeau might change his attitudes and were most pleased that he finally decided to show more
respect for the place of all peoples in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations concerning the future of postal service in Canada was tabled in the House this week.
This report, with its 39 recommendations, is the result of more than six months of work by members of this committee, during which Canadians came to express to us their views and opinions on the future of our Canadian postal service.
Canadians want an efficient, fast, safe postal service that is accessible to all at a realistic, reasonable cost.
They no longer want Canadians' taxes being used to pay for deficits due to mismanagement.
After thirty years in which Canada Post piled deficit upon deficit, it is now making a profit by constantly improving its services to customers. The 97 per cent user satisfaction rate confirms that.
We are now on the right track and we have every reason to be very proud of it. I therefore hope that the government and members of this House will give this report a favorable reception, in the best interest of the future of our Canadian postal services.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of the province of Quebec has been forced to take strong economic measures to deal with the growing recession that has been caused by the Tory's budget and the high interest rate policy.
Quebec has reduced personal taxes to stimulate the economy. It has embarked on a massive $2 billion capital expenditure program to deal with rising unemployment, and it has been forced to accept a $1.75 billion deficit.
The Government of Quebec realizes that a recession has already started, yet this government and the federal

April 27, 1990
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance continue with their opposite fiscal policy of attempting to slow down the economy by maintaining high interest rates.
We call upon the government and the Minister of Finance to abandon their ill-found fiscal policy and to heed the cries from Quebec.


POST OFFICE CLOSURE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the community of Orangedale, Nova Scotia, is a good example of the results of what the government is doing to rural and small-town Canada. In January, the community lost its CN VIA rail station which had been a landmark for this picturesque community for over 100 years. Now, Orangedale residents have learned that Canada Post plans to close its post office there on May 15. This is the unkindest, crudest cut of all.
The government is not content with taking the heart of the community, now it must rob its soul. The vital service is mainly used by senior citizens who are now forced to travel 20 miles to Whycocomagh to handle their special mailing and money orders.
Canada Post, in announcing this decision, offered them a retail postal service with no money to finance it. Instead they are being told that they must accept a rural route delivery which is totally unacceptable to the community of Orangedale.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the government's own Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs released very troubling figures about bankruptcy in Canada. These figures are another brush stroke in the evolving picture-another Voice of Fire, for that matter-of the failure of the government's economic policies.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated that bankruptcies across Canada soared 29 per
cent in the first three months of 1990. Katherine Swift, Chief Economist for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said about these figures:
The first quarter statistics are certainly corroborating peoples'
suspicions of an economic downturn generally.
She went on to say:
I wouldn't be surprised if we see worse numbers over the next few
months.
Why is the minister continuing with policies that are clearly causing financial crisis for thousands of Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I view those numbers with no pleasure at all. The hon. member has asked why are we doing what we are doing.
It is not unusual at this stage of economic development in the business cycle for the level of business bankruptcies to increase. However, it would be far worse if we ignored the inflationary problem today and delayed taking action. If we did so, we would see a much higher level of inflation, a much higher level of interest rates, and the consequent still higher level of bankruptcies that would flow from that.
That is the clear policy of the Government of Canada. I have made that clear in every answer that I have given to the House so far this week.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister's problem is that he is not only concerned about inflation, but he is also obsessed with it, to the exclusion of concern about any other economic indicator. Yet the minister and the government insist on imposing a 7 per cent goods and services tax on just about everything, a tax which the minister himself admits will increase inflation.
Yesterday, Mr. Laurent Thibault, President of the Canadian Manufacturer's Association, confirmed views that have been expressed by many people across the country and in the House when he said that some middlemen will take advantage of the replacement of the manufacturer's sales tax with the goods and services tax to raise prices.
Mr. Thibault said:
That's the difficulty in trying to make a promise that prices will be
lower.
Why is the minister continuing to make promises about the goods and services tax that likely will not and cannot be kept? If he is really concerned about inflation,
April 27, 1990

why is he persisting with a tax that is not only unfair but, by his own admission, highly inflationary?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that I am not obsessed with one particular economic indicator. In the review of our economic policies, we review the widest range possible of economic indicators and arrive at our decisions based on that.
It is very clear that economic history-the lessons that we learned in the late 1970s and early 1980s-fully support the position that we have taken. At that time the government ignored the economic indicators and led us into that most serious recession in 1981-82.


Mr. Mills:: That's not true.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members opposite are saying that is not true. That is absolutely true and people who have reviewed the economic history of that time fully agree with the position that I have taken and stated in the House today.
The hon. member has commented on the goods and services tax. Let me make a few points here. The first is that with the goods and services tax the cost of doing business for agriculture, the resource sector, the manufacturing sector, and the service sector will be reduced. That is going to help our ability to keep the levels of inflation down.
The hon. member has said I have made promises. I have not made promises about what is going to happen with prices. I have pointed out that the transition from the existing sales tax to the goods and services tax should result in a one-time only increase in the cost of living of 1.25 per cent.
If, at the negotiating table, business and labour try to take more out of the economy than it is capable of delivering, then we could see a higher level of inflation. That is a danger that I have been pointing out. That is why I have been calling on the business community to make it absolutely clear that they will pass on these savings to the consumer so that we do not have that inflationary surge.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, interestingly, the minister has finally admitted
Oral Questions
it will be impossible for him and for the government to force businesses to pass on any advantages or benefits of the GST to the public-to consumers in general.
My supplementary is also directed to the minister. Last Wednesday, Mr. Laurent Thibault also stated that the government's current policy, which includes a rapidly increasing tax burden, high interest rates and an artificially overvalued Canadian dollar, is having a severe impact on the competitive position of Canadian manufacturers. Those were Mr. Thibault's words.
Furthermore, Mr. Thibault asked the government to change its monetary policy which is penalizing the entire Canadian manufacturing industry.
My question to the minister is this: When will he finally realize that his policies are not working and that he is the only one who still believes they do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that there are many organizations which have said that they are going to pass on those savings to the consumer.
The head of the Ford Motor Company and Mr. Peapples, the head of General Motors, have said that they will pass on these savings to the consumer. The result will be the reduction in the price of a $20,000 car of $600. That is very important. The price of a $20,000 pick-up truck for a farmer will drop by about $2,000. There are very real savings which the industries involved have made it very clear they are going to pass on to their consumers.
I want to comment on the member's reference to Mr. Thibault. Mr. Thibault said that the goods sector in the economy, the manufacturing sector and some of the companies in the resource sectors, are being very clearly impacted by the policies that we have been following. I understand that. But I have pointed out to people in the manufacturing sector that it is the service sector and the government sector that have been problems in holding up the expectations for inflation.
We heard from the Province of Quebec yesterday. It increased its program spending by 8.5 per cent with an economy that has an inflation rate of about 5.5 per cent. These are the things that I am concerned about.

April 27, 1990
Oral Questions
I am also concerned about some of the wage settlements that have been brought in by governments. I have pointed out that the provincial governments have been increasing in the 6.5 per cent to 7 per cent range, whereas the the federal government is increasing at 4.2 per cent.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and it concerns the Akwesasne Reserve in my riding.
Last night violence broke out again in the Mohawk community of Akwesasne. Four people, members of a search party looking for a missing native elder, were beaten with baseball bats and sent to hospital. Gunfire was reported and electrical power in the village of St. Regis was knocked out.
Can the minister report to us on the progress of her negotiations with the American authorities? Has she finally convinced the Americans to take the necessary measures to restore order on the U.S. side of the Akwesasne Reserve?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the reserve within his riding and I certainly share that concern with him.
We have had ongoing negotiations, talks and, certainly, action by the Ontario and Quebec policing groups to try to give whatever assistance is necessary to Grand Chief Mitchell. There have been discussions with the American officials. I am confident that they are quite aware of our concern and the need for action in this particular case. We will continue our discussions with them and watch carefully over the weekend.
We have a deputy minister on staff here in Ottawa who will be monitoring carefully over the weekend and we will continue to make the necessary contacts to assure that all help is given.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Americans do not wait until it is too late before they move ahead to provide the necessary protection.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.


CUSTOMS
Don Boudria: My
second question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister is of course aware that Canada Customs at the Cornwall port of entry is located on the reserve in other words-on Cornwall Island.
What steps has the minister taken or does he intend to take to ensure the safety of Canadian customs officers and all users of the Cornwall bridge?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that Revenue Canada and myself, as minister, have been quite concerned about the potentially dangerous situation on Cornwall Island for some time. That is why we have taken numerous precautionary steps, including agreement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and provincial police forces to supplement the forces already stationed around the customs office buildings. That is why we have put additional security measures in the building and are currently expanding and improving those operations.
As far as the safety of the customs officers are concerned, I can assure the hon. member that every step has been taken.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question is for the Minister of Finance. Business and consumer bankruptcies across the country are rising dangerously because of the government's high interest rate policy. Last month alone, there were more bankruptcies, over 4,100, than in the worst month of the worst year on record in the country, 1982. The Premiers, the CLC, the House finance committee and the CMA have all called for interest rate cuts.
April 27, 1990

Will the minister, even if he will not listen to these voices, at least listen to these 4,100 tragic bankruptcies in a single month?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to accept the word of the hon. member in anything that he puts in a preamble to a question. In the preamble to his question yesterday he purported to put forward a quote from me and he distorted that quote by leaving some key information out of it. I do not forget and I do not accept for a minute what the hon. member has just said in his preamble if he is going to distort in that sort of dishonest way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. minister has a quarrel with an hon. member on something that was said or implied in the House, it should be brought to the Speaker.
At the moment the imputation that the hon. minister has just made is not acceptable. I would ask him to withdraw, and I will ask the hon. member to put another question. I ask both the hon. member and the minister to be very careful.
I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has made an imputation that the hon. member was dishonest. I know that the hon. minister would not want to leave that on the record.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thought you were asking the hon. member to ask the question again, but I will take back what I said about using that one word "dishonest". What I said about the incorrectness of the member's quotation still stands.


Mr. Simmons:: That's bargaining.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is not bargaining. Don't be silly, Roger.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not bargaining with the Speaker. I am planning on stating the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has asked the minister to withdraw the imputation of dishonesty. That has been withdrawn, and the matter is closed.
Oral Questions
The hon. member will put his supplementary question, and I know he will be conscious of the comments of the Chair and under the circumstances, be very careful.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact those statistics came directly from the statistical bulletin of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy which was released yesterday.
Can I ask for clarification from the Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is giving the lead question on behalf of his party, and I understand that. I would ask him to put his question.
If there is to be an argument about anything that has taken place before it will have to take place at another time. Please put the question.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 1982, the minister attacked the Liberal government because 40 per cent of bankruptcies were taking place in Quebec. This year, according to his statistics, 42.5 per cent of all bankruptcies will occur in Quebec. Is the minister proud that he improved on the 1982 figure for Quebec?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier answer I am not pleased to see companies go bankrupt, but I do know that this is one of the elements of the type of market system that we have at this stage of the business cycle. The number of bankruptcies of companies does increase.
The difference in 1982 was that we had been in a recession for a full 12 months. The interest rates were still quite high relative to the inflation picture of the day. Today we have not been in a recession. Today we are still seeing inflationary pressures that are causing concern. Those inflationary pressures were clearly subsiding in 1982. That is a very clear distinction between 1982 and 1990.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that it is 1990. He is responsible for policy.
Consumer debt is reaching intolerable levels, 75 per cent of personal disposable income, up from 60 per cent in 1984. That can only lead to more bankruptcies, with

April 27, 1990
Oral Questions
these high interest rates. Will the minister stop repeating the common old refrain in his answers, or does he think that there is any Canadian left who believes what he is saying?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read into the record some comments made in an editorial in The Financial Post, one of the leading financial newspapers in the country.
Clearly there are people in this country who do support the position we have taken. Those people have the foresight to understand that if we do not take this position, if we do not get the problem of inflation under control today, then the problems in the future, the bankruptcies that the hon. member is concerned about, will increase even more because of the fact that inflation will increase and interest rates will increase even further. That will lead to a much greater slowdown in the economy and bankruptcies will flow from that. The foresight we are using in the conduct of monetary policy, financial policy and economic policy today we believe will save us from the problems we had in 1981-82.


JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Justice, and ask him about the reported hearing and judgment recently made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of secrecy.
This may be the first time that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that secrecy should prevail over one of its hearings and decisions. I think it is important to ask the minister whether the government is a party to this proceeding, whether it has any knowledge of the matter larger than the knowledge which the public has, and whether it is in favour or against the imposition of secrecy in this matter.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important question. In the absence of the minister who is away on government business, we do not have any knowledge other than what is reported in the press at this time. Of course, it is still before the Supreme Court, as my hon. friend knows, and I would suggest that we not comment further until the
Supreme Court decides what to do with this particular case.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the minister. I want to press him on this and ask whether any steps will be taken or any representations made by the government to the Supreme Court of Canada in connection with this matter, not because the Supreme Court of Canada is necessarily wrong in its decision, but just to provide greater assurance to Canadians that the public interest is being served in this matter.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I obviously appreciate my hon. friend's concern. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who will be back early next week, will take that into consideration. As I have suggested, it is before the Supreme Court and I do not think we should comment any further at this stage.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, my question is addressed to the acting minister.
Just a few months ago in an official report to the United Nations, the government told the world how wonderfully women are doing in Canada. Now the task force has stripped away the phoney veneer of equality and exposed the sexism and stereotypes that keep the work of women in the Public Service underutilized, underpaid and exploited. Given the minister's promise of immediate action early this week, what has the minister done to stop the discriminatory firing of women at twice the rate of men?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board accepted with appreciation the task force report and the great work done by the task force which was initiated by the Treasury Board.
The task force has indicated some legitimate concerns in terms of how the Public Service under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission does not permit women the opportunity that they should be provided. The President of the Treasury Board also pointed out that in those areas which are totally under the discretion
April 27, 1990

of this government, in other words govemor-in-council appointments, the record is exemplary, far better than any predecessors.
The briefing note I have from the minister in terms of the newspaper article about women being fired at a rate of twice that of men is that that statement is simply not accurate. Those figures do not stand up to the analysis that I have in my hand.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. Women in the Public Service do not believe and do not want more words from the minister. They want action. There is clearly discrimination and firing going on. Will the minister immediately, if there is any question about the figures, put lay-offs on hold until he can get to the bottom of the question and stop the victimization of women.


Harvie Andre: I wonder why the hon. member feels it is necessary to be so accusatory and to not acknowledge that it was this government which brought forward that task force and asked the task force to do the study. It is this government which has shown, in terms of GIC appointments, its concern. By its actions it has demonstrated that it believes that women are every bit as capable as men of taking on these important decisions.
It is this government and the minister who said the recommendations of the task force are immediately before the Treasury Board and should be brought forward. I do not think it serves anybody's purpose to be indignant and to make false accusations about the motives of this government.


REAL WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The Secretary of State Department has funded and is considering funding again REAL Women. In their recent newsletter they promoted the view that feminist women are to blame for the Montreal massacre. They also promote intolerance to gays and
Oral Questions
other minorities in our society. In view of the cuts that this government has made to equality-seeking organizations, will the minister assure this House and will she assure Canadian women that this anti-equality organization will never again receive federal funding.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, although I haven't seen the letter, I have certainly read the newspaper reports on it. If those are accurate I am deeply offended by it, as I am sure all members of this House would be.
The Secretary of State is not here today. I understand there is an application that has not been responded to. I will be discussing this matter with him and bringing to his attention this most recent incident because as you know the criteria for funding under the women's program are for organizations that promote full equality for women.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, women in this country are feeling pain, and minority groups in this country are feeling pain. There is a lot of pain in Canada right now.
Will the minister urge the Secretary of State and her other cabinet colleagues to give some kind of guarantee that this organization that promotes intolerance in our society will never again get federal dollars?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that the objectives of this government, in its policies and its programs, are to ensure that we work toward full equality for women so that there is economic equality, legal equality and social justice. Only organizations that promote those goals should even be considered for funding by this government. That would certainly be my view and I am sure the view of my colleagues.


ETHIOPIA
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations and International Development. It concerns the current situation in Ethiopia which I know all Canadians are extremely concerned about, particularly with recent reports of the threat of famine to millions of people in the northern part of that country.

April 27, 1990
Oral Questions
In terras of the present situation of famine threat, as one organization has said, it is more the result of war rather than the weather. I know that the minister has been working with her colleagues and attempting to find some solution to this. I believe she met with a number of her counterparts in New York earlier this week and developed a set a principles. Could she tell us what she thinks these principles might achieve and what they represent in terms of some resolution of this very serious crisis.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for this question and his abiding interest in the situation in Ethiopia.
According to our assessment, the aid now in place is not sufficient to reach all the people in the stricken areas. It seems there are still millions of people who will not be reached. Despite Canada's continuing efforts, I felt that for humanitarian reasons we had to do more, and that is why, on behalf of Canada, I took the initiative in co-ordinating the drafting of a statement of principles-in fact, a code of conduct-for the purpose of guaranteeing delivery of food to people in the stricken areas.
This statement of principles, endorsed by the Common Market countries, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, is an appeal to the parties to the conflict to, first of all, suspend hostilities; guarantee safe delivery of aid by neutral agencies such as NGOs, international organizations and the churches; recognize the role of the United Nations in food delivery; and abstain from all military attacks on food convoys. I repeat, all these countries endorse this initiative for humanitarian reasons, and the Soviet Union, although it did not endorse the statement, did endorse the intent of the recommendations. I hope this new initiative will make it possible to open new corridors so that we can deliver larger quantities of food to people in the famine-stricken areas.


COMMUNICATIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the government has once again ignored the local and human impact of its budget by jacking up the fees that cities and towns across Canada must pay to operate
emergency radios for fire, ambulance and police across this land.
In the city of Cote St. Luc, in my own riding of Mount Royal, they expect their fees will increase by 1,000 per cent. The government has put its hand right into the taxpayers' pockets.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why has the government decided to increase this exorbitant and unconscionable tax on public safety?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
The fees in question were established under the Radio Act amendments, which the hon. member, as I recall, spoke to, dealt with and made a contribution to in 1986 and 1987. In 1987, the law was passed which provides for no discrimination and no artificial subsidization of users of scarce radio frequencies across the country.
In no way will there be any adverse impact upon public safety with this move. The municipalities and organizations in question have had three years forewarning and have had ample opportunity to budget for these changes. I should point out as well that 20 per cent of municipalities across the country have had reductions in the user fees.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question. I have some doubts about that figure. I remember when we debated that bill, Mr. Speaker, I said that we would have such a situation. Now we are faced with a 1,000 per cent increase.
Is the Finance Minister prepared to promise today to withdraw this dangerous indirect tax which threatens the effectiveness of these essential lines of communication for police, fire and ambulance services for the public? Is the Finance Minister prepared to make that commitment?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recall that while percentage increases may seem rather inordinate, the fact of the matter is that cities such as my own which used several hundred radio transmitters and receivers, were liable to pay only $288 per year whereas, private, charitable and safety organiza-
April 27, 1990

tions which were not related to municipalities, were paying the full fees.
So I am sure that the hon. member, in her constant quest for justice and equity, will agree that this is only fair.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Some six mining communities in the Timiskaming and Algoma districts are facing the loss of some 3,500 jobs this year because of the closure of mines. In Elliot Lake alone, this involves some 2,000 jobs for miners and another 1,500 estimated jobs in the service industries.
Is the government willing to put in place, in co-operation with the province of Ontario, an over-all economic recovery program to help these communities and the families who face the loss of their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman puts forward a point of view that is a very clear reflection of regrettable developments in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, to name two areas, particularly northern Ontario where his riding is located. He is correct about Elliot Lake. We have had some discussions in terms of Elliot Lake as to what might take place with respect to responding at least in part to the lay-offs. I remind him of the work of FEDNOR. It stands by, ready to help.
With respect to Community Futures and the work of the Department of Employment and Immigration, I should say the federal government has tried with decentralization in respect of the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs to move people from urban areas of Ontario to places like Kirkland Lake. These are steps we have taken. They do not replace the job loss. I would never pretend that that is the case. I do not know what the government of Ontario would have in mind, but
Oral Questions
appropriate contacts could obviously be made if those interests are there.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, although FEDNOR is a useful program, in its three years of development it has created only about one-third of the number of jobs which will be lost in one year in this one industry.
Would the minister's department be prepared to take a leading role in putting together a major cash commitment for industrial and community adjustment, for decentralization of government offices out of Toronto and Ottawa and for a major funding commitment for economic restructuring for northeastern Ontario in the face of this tremendous emergency?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that supplementary question because there is additional information which I can share with the member about FEDNOR and what is being done by the federal government in northern Ontario that would interest him.
First, he is wrong in terms of job-creation. FEDNOR has created over 1,400 jobs. That is very close to the level of concern for job creation that exists in Timiskaming now.
As the hon. member knows, FEDNOR has had a special task force there. We have had officials in the whole Kirkland Lake-Timiskaming area for the last four months putting together a strategy which answers a great deal of what he has suggested. Most important, I think we should work together with the province of Ontario to come up with a broader strategy. We are trying to do that. FEDNOR can help but we need a broader strategy and this we are doing.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The minister has been very upset lately because we have compared his words of 1982 when he opposed a high interest rate policy, and his actions today when he is implementing and supporting a high interest rate policy. Yesterday, in answer to my question on wage controls, the minister said, and I quote:

April 27, 1990
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, 1 have made it quite clear that 1 do not believe in wage
and price controls. I do not think that they work.
That was the minister's answer yesterday. Can the minister explain why, on August 4, 1982, he voted for the Liberal regime of wage and price controls? Where is the consistency in the words and actions of the Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the position that I took in that particular vote may have related to a range of issues that were being discussed at that time.
Before I comment on what I might or might not have done in a particular vote, if the hon. member had had the courtesy to send me a notice of the question so I could refer to it, he might get a better answer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister of Finance does not remember what he said on a bill which kept us sitting through June, July and until August 4, 1982. The legislation was the Public Service restraint act. He voted with the-


Charles Joseph Clark: Another deliberate contempt of the rules by the NDP.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -government almost each and every time he had a chance. He should remember what his policy was.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. What is the difference between a Liberal finance minister and a Conservative finance minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity the hon. member has given me to draw these conclusions.
Let me reflect back to 1979-80, when the Liberal finance critic at the time, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, was asked whether he supported the high interest rate policy at the time, and whether he would resign if that interest rate policy was not changed. He said, not once but twice, that he would resign. He said it twice. I was sitting right beside him. He said right beside me, that he would resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Despite the minister's enjoyment of being given a great opportunity to consider the question extensively, I think we will have to move on.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
He will probably know that the Newfoundland premier, yesterday, indicated that his colleague, the new fisheries minister here, had scuttled negotiations between the Newfoundland and federal governments on the subject of a fisheries aid package.
How can the federal government here possibly come up with a satisfactory package if it refuses to consult with the Newfoundland government whose fishermen and whose plant workers are being mauled and pummelled the most by the current fisheries disaster? Is this part of this government's continuing isolation of Newfoundland over the constitutional issue? Are there fish in Meech Lake after all?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two separate questions here.
If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is isolated, that is an action quite clearly of their choice after a debate that they rammed through the House of Assembly of Newfoundland.
With regard to the question of an assistance program to help the fishery in Atlantic Canada, and particularly the northern cod fishery which is in serious crisis, the hon. member knows there have been extensive negotiations. I have been part of them myself. They have been going on for some time.
There has been some area of disagreement in that, at least in some of the discussions in which I have been involved, the government of Newfoundland which has contributed to the problem does not appear very willing to contribute cash to the solution of the problem. Naturally, as we are bringing forward a policy which my colleague hopes to announce in a few days, we hope that there will be an acceptance of responsibility for its share of solving this problem on the part of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
April 27, 1990


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that it is not only a disagreement, they have stopped talking altogether. That is quite a different thing than a disagreement.
I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. When does he anticipate that the proposed, much talked about, much awaited aid package will finally be made public? What does the minister see as the real purpose of the package? Is it to help the fishermen and plant workers to bridge the gap to better times, or is it just going to be the latest element in what I submit is the government's insidious plan to shut down rural Canada by so-called diversification, a code word for resettlement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as a former supporter of Mr. Smallwood, the hon. member is a much greater expert on questions relating to resettlement in Newfoundland and Labrador than I am.
There is no insidious plan on the part of the government of Canada. We do, however, have a determination to finally take account of the fact that there is a very serious problem in the northern cod fishery. We are putting together a policy that has involved extensive consultation as to the means by which we can provide a long term answer to that problem. We have been consulting extensively with the unions, with the companies, with provinces that are willing to be forthcoming. We expect that the announcement will be made in the next days or weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the House there will be a single question from the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, and a single question from the hon. member from Windsor-Lake St. Clair.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence, I will direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This year, the fishermen of Cheticamp, who started their season this week, will be subject to new restrictions on their fishing activities because at the very last minute, the Minister of Fisheries decided to introduce a program to monitor fish landings, but without sufficient re-
Oral Questions
sources. Because of the lack of observers for this program, times and locations where fishermen can land their catch have been limited, which may put downward pressure on prices and fishermen's incomes.
Why is the Minister of Fisheries making fishermen in Cheticamp and elsewhere in the Gulf pay for his department's lack of planning?


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that the present problem is the result of a lack of planning. The hon. member asked a specific question. I am confident that the minister, if he were here, would be able to give a specific answer. Unfortunately, I don't have the details but I will advise my colleague, the responsible minister, of this question, and I can assure the hon. member that he will receive a detailed answer.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to whomever speaks for the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Trade or the Prime Minister or whomever.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Like many other parts manufacturers in the automobile industry, Kelsey-Hayes of Windsor, which is owned by Varity Corporation, is moving to the United States. In this instance, however, the government can do something. Varity Corporation, which was previously Massey-Ferguson, was bailed out by the federal government to the tune of $125 million, as a result of which they entered into a covenant to ensure Canadian jobs and the government has an equity position in Varity.
Will the government use its arrangement and equity in Varity to help prevent the loss of additional Canadian jobs in Windsor? Save those 450 jobs that are about to be lost. The government has an opportunity to do something. I ask it to commit itself now to do something.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to my hon. friend. This particular development in Windsor is of concern to the government. It is true that the

April 27, 1990
Point of Order
government has an equity position and will use that leverage in an appropriate way.
As the hon. member should know, in Windsor through the past five fiscal years an unprecedented number of jobs have been created as a result of the policies of this government. We are going to continue to pursue those policies. When it comes to Varity Corporation in particular, we will do everything we can to help.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that continuing on a matter that was raised some days ago the hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt wishes to speak on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, during the last sitting of the House before Easter recess on April 11 it was suggested that I had some prior knowledge of a disturbance in the gallery after the recording of the GST vote on April 10.
To clarify this matter, I would like to say that passes were handed out by my office but that neither I nor my staff had any prior knowledge of what the two young men had planned to do.
While I may understand their frustration with the GST, the way in which they expressed their dissatisfaction is totally unacceptable to me. I do not condone and totally dissociate myself from this kind of action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member and I think that the response to this statement indicates the appreciation of the House.
The hon. member for Essex-Windsor has a point of order rising, I think, out of the Question Period.


POINT OF ORDER
Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the course of responses back and forth with the Minister of Finance, the suggestion was made that
the quotation which I presented to the House from him yesterday was somehow incorrect.
I wanted to quote what I quoted yesterday as coming from the Minister of Finance, the then opposition finance critic in 1982.
The inflation rate is between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. The current
interest rate at 13 per cent or 14 per cent is simply too high.
I have also the original-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would like to keep the record straight but it is getting into debate and I think it is perhaps going beyond the usual very brief point of order. I think it is a point of debate. I think I will have to leave it here.
I would like the hon. member to avail himself of Question Period or the "late show". I think there are other ways to settle the matter.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I had just one final point to make. Yesterday during Question Period I had sent to the minister the exact quote from Hansard in which he had made those statements.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps that is where it will have to be left. I am sure the minister and the member can discuss the matter further if necessary, at another place and at another time. Statements by Ministers.


STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Solicitor General.
The point I have to raise with the Chair is that around 9.30 this morning, the Official Opposition was notified of two different ministerial statements. We did think that the time was rather short, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I bring the following matter to your attention. After receiving notification that there were to be two statements from two different ministers, hon. members began preparing themselves to respond. Less than half an hour ago one of the two ministers announced that he had changed his mind concerning his presentation of that particular statement.
I think, and the House will appreciate, that that does cause some serious inconvenience for a number of members in the House. I would hope that the Speaker could assist the House in determining what the proper procedure should be in such cases where ministers give,
April 27, 1990

first of all, minimum notice, and second, withdraw at the last minute without making their presentation.
This is not in reference to the Solicitor General, but to the other minister, namely the Minister of Housing, who had given such indication earlier this morning.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell just said is correct. I believe the opposition has been asking us for a long time to advise the critics when ministers want to make statements in the House. In fact, if we had not advised the critics and the minister had made a statement, the hon. member would have been the first to criticize. In this particular case, a decision was made to advise the critics because the minister might make a statement. Out of courtesy to his opposition colleague, we sent a copy of the statement. Later, it was decided that there would be no statement right now. If this caused some problems for the hon. member, I think it was all done in good faith.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member in reply, and then I will see the other member.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that we are getting notification ahead of time. That is good and proper. It was not a reflection on that principle, which obviously we fully support. I just would hope that, when we do get such notification, in order to make the House function smoothly as possible, the information provided be as accurate as possible as often as possible. Perhaps the deputy government House leader can take note of that.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: On the
same point, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief intervention. We too appreciate as much notice as possible.
We recognize that, as things go, sometimes 9.30 a.m. for 12.10 p.m. is the best we can do. I would ask, through you, Sir, that the government take a look at how it approaches these things, particularly in light of the fact that we have, like the Liberals, one of our colleagues preparing to make a non-statement.
Routine Proceedings
As we all know, our time is eaten away by many things in this House, and if we do not have to do something, it is a bit better. The government can take a look at that, and perhaps find a procedure that is acceptable to them and helps us as well.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the answer to a question from me during Question Period today, the finance minister was explaining the difference between himself and the Liberal finance minister who had offered to resign if the interest rates remained high. You cut off the Minister of Finance, and if he wishes to finish the statement with his resignation, we would give him lots of time to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no limit to the ingenuity of hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, each year, scores of Canadian men and women are killed as a result of workplace accidents in the service of their jobs, or suffer through the agony of industrial disease.
We must not eradicate from our memory the dead Canadian workers who have given what is most priceless-their lives-while trying to earn a living for themselves and their children.
April 28 is the National Day of Mourning for workers who have been injured or who have succumbed to death and disease as a result of noxious workplaces.
I would like the Honourable Members, employers and workers to remember that progress and economic growth shall not be paid for with the price of the lives and well-being of workers.
Let us honour and respect the workers of Canada who have given so much of themselves to us.

Workplace hazards can lead to human suffering and great tragedy. For example, a chemical spill oozing dangerous fumes can cause nausea, insomnia and damage to the body. Such incidents of occupational injuries

April 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
and disease occur not only in storage facilities but along the railways, inside factories and at the office desk. No one is immune to the dangers of unsafe work environments. One in every 10 workers still suffers from work-related injuries. There are medical costs and there are incalculable costs in human suffering. We all pay for occupational health and safety fatalities. In 1988, worker fatalities and injuries represented a loss of some $22 billion to Canadians.

Canadians have demonstrated their deep concern for the environment. The workplace is an occupational environment where the majority of Canadians spend their adult lives. This is why, among other things, Mr. Speaker, the safety and health of workers should not be endangered as a result of exposure to hazardous chemicals, nor should office workers suffer the consequences of poor indoor air quality.
We all share the objective of promoting healthier and safer work environments. This year has shown significant progress in the promotion of cleaner and safer workplaces. The Non-smokers' Health Act and its regulations came into effect last December 29. It is important to protect workers and Canadians from the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.

Several important amendments have been proposed to the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations, regarding the levels of sound. The consequences of loss of hearing, because of exposure to unacceptable levels of sound are devastating. The amendments reducing the maximum permitted levels and duration of exposure to sound, should have the effect of reducing compensation costs for occupational hearing loss in the workplace by $37 million, based on the estimated reduction in the number of compensation claims over the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, the government promotes co-operation and consensus in all important matters affecting the lives of Canadians. This spirit of partnership has carried over to the workplace, where labour and management participate more and more in the decision-making process affecting the health and safety of workers.

Miners in Cape Breton are the immediate beneficiaries of such pragmatism, Mr. Speaker. The newly established Coal Mining Safety Commission ensures that workers are given a say in the decision-making process.
This spirit of partnership is also evident in the government's relationship with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. A Business Plan has been prepared by the Centre's Council of Governors which confirms that this excellent organization can become self-sufficient. The government's commitment to the Centre has been renewed, and the Centre has met this challenge of a new financial direction.

It is my firm belief that occupational safety and health is a state of mind that requires education and training to nurture. It is too late to talk workplace safety to a machine operator trapped in the wheels and axles of his engine. Safety must be preventive and anticipatory. Governments and laws are there to regulate, but it is the workers and employers who prevent workplace deaths and injuries.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about occupational safety and health, let us keep in mind the suffering and dying workers of Canada. Let us not forget the gruesome malignancies caused by workplace hazards that disfigure the soul and body of honest workers trying to make a living.
We must remember that together we can and do make a difference. But let's make sure that occupational health and safety becomes a reality for all of us.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Solicitor General for providing an advance copy of his remarks on the National Day of Mourning.
Tomorrow, April 28, Canadians will pause to remember those working men and women who suffer from industrial-related injuries or illnesses and those who lost their lives while on the job. We all know there are many risks involved in helping to keep this country going, including working at jobs that are sometimes dangerous
April 27, 1990

or performing tasks that could have dreadful effects for workers and their families.
I, too, would like to note that it is our duty as legislators to help reduce the risks of injuries at the work place and to provide as much information as we can so that workers will recognize and be fully aware of the hazards involved.
There are thousands of jobs in the country which have potentially dangerous consequences if not carried out properly. Sometimes accidents are a result of mechanical failure which is a reality of the modem world which we have created. However, there are also the human factors-fatigue, exposure, and a host of other problems to contend with.
The Solicitor General has just moments ago stated that in 1988 workers' fatalities and injuries represented a loss of some $22 billion to Canadians. In 1987, 894 Canadians died as a result of occupation-related accidents. Twenty-five million person-days were lost due to accidents and injuries. Obviously, this is not an insignificant problem. Over $7 billion are spent in Canada annually to cover medical costs ensuing from accidents, including costs for pensions, insurance, and loss of earnings.
The minister has just explained to the House that one in every 10 workers still suffers from work-related injuries. I believe that this number is probably much higher than that. Recognizing the problem is not enough. It is not enough for the government to rise to pay tribute to injured workers.
An important debate was held in the House a short time ago concerning the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. For 10 years we noted that the CCOHS has provided Canadian workers with impartial, unbiased information on occupational health and safety topics to help workers and employers avoid the pitfalls of accidents. However, the government has decided to remove its funding and has begun a process to privatize the centre whose goal it will be to favour the production of markets as opposed to the delivery of services, and that is a direct quote.
I remind Canadian workers of what the Solicitor General said just moments ago. He asked us all, including members of Parliament, that progress and economic growth should not be made at the expense of the
Routine Proceedings
well-being or the lives of workers. I will pray for those Canadian working men and women who suffer from industrial related accidents and for those workers who lost their lives while earning their daily bread.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House in recognition of tomorrow as a day of mourning for workers who have been killed or seriously injured in the workplace.
I would like to repeat the statistic that in 1987, the last year for which we have figures available, 894 people were killed while at work. In addition to that, 614,011 people received disabling injuries while at work in 1987.
What is interesting about that number is not only the horrendous number itself, but the fact that in the 1970s only between 400,000 and 500,000 Canadians who received disabling injuries. In other words, the trend is going up in workplaces across Canada.
There are many statistics that can be used to discuss what is happening to Canadian workers when they go to work each and every day. We can talk, not only about the deaths and the disabling injuries, but about the longterm disabilities and injuries that these people face and the suffering that goes on in their families, and, because of the nature of workplace contaminants, the suffering that takes place in the community as a whole.
For example, in the city of Flin Flon, in my constituency, not only do the workers have a much higher risk of dying and being injured at the work site, but the people who live in the city as well experience a much higher incidence of cancer and other very serious illnesses causing death or permanent disability.
On that particular issue, I would like to point out that the Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting has been trying for years to get federal government funding for modernization of that plant. Even though there were encouraging words from the federal government prior to the 1988 election, nothing has taken place to date. We still have that very ancient, dilapitated system in Flin Flon and no real action from the federal government. Whether in my riding or across Canada, we can show examples of the federal government failing to act on this very important matter.

April 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It is interesting to note that the only major change to enhance worker safety in the last year has been the result of the private members' bill introduced by Lynn McDonald, the former New Democratic MP, which limited smoking in many of the workplaces across Canada, and passed by the House.
Other than that, the federal government has not taken any serious initiative. There has been no new legislation. It has not passed my private members' bill which I re-introduced on April 11 of last year with regard to a day of mourning. In addition, as was previously mentioned, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has been made a user-pay operation and the federal funding is being completely eliminated. Only those organizations and those workers who can afford to pay for information are going to be aware of the dangers that exist in the work site. That goes against everything that the Solicitor General said in his statement.
If the workers, their unions and the people involved in an operation are unaware of the risk that they face, then improvements are not going to take place. If funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is going to depend on those organizations that can afford to pay for the information, then it is going to become a tool of management. It is not going to be available for the workers, their families or the people in the communities affected.
It was a very sad decision that the federal government made. It affects the work and health of workers right across the country. I would say that today would have been an appropriate day for the minister to announce that there would be funding for this centre, a centre which I have toured myself, which many workers have used in the past, and which is providing a very good and necessary service for Canadians. It really makes a hypocrisy of the minister's statement to see what the government has actually done.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the minister and both hon. members for their interventions on this matter.
It has become customary in the House that at this time we should stand and take a minute's silence to remember our fellow Canadians who have died in the workplace.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]


OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to establish the office of the ombudsman, and amending acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce a private members' bill. The purpose of this bill is to establish the institution of a federal ombudsman who would deal with specific complaints from the public against administrative injustices and maladministration, and who would have the power to investigate, criticize, and publicize but not to reverse administrative action.


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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 882 Canadians who want to express their grievance, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to the government's proposal to institute a goods and services tax or, as is now affectionately known, a grief and suffering tax.
These Canadians call upon the government to immediately withdraw this regressive program and they ask that Parliament reject any proposal for the goods and services tax.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 260 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.
April 27, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 260 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): 1.	For each year from 1979 to 1990 (to date), has the government calculated (a) the poverty line (b) the number of Canadians living below the poverty line (c) the number who (i) fell below (ii) moved above the line (d) the annual consumer price index (e) the annual percentage increase or decrease in the net number of Canadians living below the poverty line and, if so, what is it?
2.	Has the government calculated the cumulative consumer price index between 1979 and 1990 and, if so, what is it?
Return tabled.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 262.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Starred Question No. 262 be called?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the response, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned question is as follows:]


Mr. Arseneault: For the fiscal years 1987-88 and 1988-89, were FRDA funds allotted to group ventures in Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what total amount of money was spent by group ventures (b) what amount of money was spent on (i) construction of roads and bridges (ii) treatment work performed in the forest (c) what (i) percentage (ii) amounts of funds were spent on supervision of construction and treatment (d) what total operating budgets were involved?
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Funds were allocated under the Canada-Nova Scotia Resource Development Agreement (1982-89) (FRDA) to 18 group ventures in Nova Scotia for the 1987-88 and 1988-89 fiscal years. Expenditures by the Group Ventures under the FRDA were in two categories. The first category was for operations, administration and the hiring of professional staff.
Expenditures in this category were paid for by the provincial government and amounted to $1,618,258 in 1987-88 and to $1,848,344 in 1988-89. The second category of expenditures was for the completion of actual forest work. Expenditures in this category were paid for by the federal government and amounted to $4,088,930 for 1987-88 and to $4,668,720 for 1988-89. In total, the amount of money expended by the Group Ventures for both categories combined equalled $5,707,188 in 1987-88 and $6,517,064 in 1988-89.
Of the total expenditures on actual forest work, road and bridge construction amounted to $1,237,630 in
1987-	88 and to $1,200,770 in 1988-89. For silviculture activities, $2,387,510 was expended in 1987-88 and $2,828,650 in 1988-89.
With respect to supervision, it is difficult to accurately establish the exact amounts spent since all staff of the group ventures performed supervision as part of their regular salaried duties. The groups, however, were provided with specific funding from the federal government, under the forest work category, to hire additional staff for supervision duties. The amount provided in this category was $337,640 for 1987-88 and $413,300 for
1988-	89. These totals represent 8 percent and 9 percent respectively of the total amount of funding provided for forest work in 1987-88 and 1988-89.


[Stage Direction]
1987-88	1988-89
($) ($)
[Stage Direction]
Group venture operation, administration and
professional staff	1,618,258	1,848,344
[Stage Direction]
April 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
Forest work
- silviculture	2,387,510	2,828,650- roads/bridges	1,237,630	1,200,770- other*	126,150	226,000- supervision	337,640	413,300sub-total (federal)	4,088,930	4,668,720TOTAL (federal and provincial)	5,707,188	6,517,064
* This refers to other activities such as management plan preparation, surveying and renewal of boundary lines and fire pond construction.
Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

I am sure there are other members of the House who share my concern that, since that last time you were asked to consider an emergency debate on attitudes toward women and violence against women, the situation has only grown worse.
I submit that a debate is needed to bring to the attention of the public, of members, and of the government the need to increase programs and initiatives to counter these attitudes. Because many of these women's centres which undertook this education work have had to close their doors in the past weeks, this can only be viewed as an emergency facing the women of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for giving me notice well in advance of this application. As hon. members will know, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has been pursuing this matter with great diligence, not just in the last few hours, but for a long period of time.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing order 52, to seek leave to adjourn the House for an emergency debate.
Canadian women are alarmed at the evidence of a rising tide of attitudes which makes light of the issue of violence against women. Two incidents in particular have underscored the spread of this dangerous view. One is the high profile rugby party which made light of the Montreal massacre of young women. A floor plan of the scene of the murder was uncovered with drawings marking the spots where the women fell. Toy guns were passed around to participants.
The second incident was a newsletter circulated by the B.C. Ministry of Tourism which offered an excuse for the massacre. It read: "Who knows why he did it? The thought immediately occurred to me that he might have been a man whose child had been aborted by a feminist and that might have been enough to trigger a terrible response".
I do want to indicate to the hon. member that when she raised this question yesterday in the House during Question Period, and I was forced only for procedural reasons to ask her to put her question, my intervention, which I would have preferred not to have had to make, especially on this issue, was strictly procedural.
I commented yesterday to the hon. member that I know something about the club and the place where this terrible incident happened. The hon. member indicates that she also is familiar with the club, its members and the place. So, as your Speaker, I have a sense of personal anguish over that particular incident and, of course, others. There is no question in this House how we all feel about the terrible event in Montreal, and the many other things to which the hon. member and other hon. members have referred.
The hon. member has asked for an emergency debate. I want it very clearly understood by hon. members and also the public that it is sometimes difficult for a Speaker to adequately explain why an emergency debate might not be granted when the issue is of such terrible importance to the country, as is this. There is no question in this House among all fair-minded members, and I think among decent people across the country, that this issue is of very great importance to us. It affects our

April 27, 1990

children, our loved ones, our parents, our schools, the workplace, and it is of very great importance.
However, having said that, I know that the hon. member would agree with me that given the diligence of which she and other hon. members are capable, there will be other opportunities, sometimes each day and certainly in the coming days, to pursue the matter further.
With great reluctance I have to say that on strictly procedural grounds, I do not feel it appropriate to order that all of the business of the House be set aside for an emergency debate.
I want to stress to the hon. member and also to the public who has heard her important plea that the matter is treated with a great deal of concern and must be addressed constantly.
The hon. member on a point of order.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is appropriate, but I would like to thank you for your diligence in thoroughly looking at my request. I certainly respect
your response.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for her courtesy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, which a legislative committee had reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker:: There are 30 amendment motions on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion.

These motions are in the names of the hon. members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Winnipeg North, New Westminster-Burnaby, York Centre, Cape Breton-
Government Orders
Highlands-Canso, Bruce-Grey, Halifax West, Wetas-kiwin, Kitchener, Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville and Fraser Valley East, a total of 30 motions.

Motions Nos. 1, 21, 23 and 23A were dealt with in the legislative committee. Motions Nos. 1 and 23 were ruled out of order there.

In ruling Motion No. 1 out of order in committee, the chairman of the legislative committee stated the proposed amendment would go beyond the principle of the bill as it was agreed to by this House at second reading and also adds a new concept. I concur with the chairman's ruling.
Motion No. 23 was also ruled out of order in committee as it would impose a new penalty under the Criminal Code for a new infraction of the law not envisaged in the bill as read a second time. Again, I must concur with the chairman's decision in that case that this amendment would be beyond the scope of the bill. Thus the proposed motion cannot be selected here.
Motion No. 23A is similar to Motion No. 23. A variation in the wording does not, in my opinion, make this motion acceptable and thus, I cannot select it.

Motion No. 21 was moved, debated and negatived in committee. Although it contains a slight variation in its wording, it does not affect the intent of the original motion moved in committee. For these reasons, pursuant to Standing Order 114(10), I will not select Motions Nos. 1, 21, 23 or 23A for debate.
Motion No. 2 has been withdrawn.
Motion No. 3 is in order and it will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions No. 3A and 3B are both irreceivable as they add a new concept to the bill. These amendments by specifying an implanted fertilized ovum would appear to limit the medical procedure to only the very early stages of a pregnancy. That would render this amendment conceptually the same as other amendments which attempted to add a gestational concept. This would violate the principle of the bill.

April 27, 1990
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 4 and 22 are similar, both dealing with sentencing. They will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 4 will be applied to Motion No. 22.
Committees enjoy considerable power over a bill but procedural authorities are clear that there are some general limitations over which they are bound. First, a committee is bound by the decision of the House given at second reading on the principle of a bill and second, an amendment that is beyond the "scope" of a bill is out of order. For further clarification of and information about these points I would refer the House to May, twentieth edition, pages 549 and 550 and pages 555 to 558; Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citations 763, 764, 773 and 774 cover the same ground.
Motions Nos. 4A, 7, 8, 11, 13A and 18A are thus not in order as they attempt to add new concepts to the bill. They are beyond the scope of Bill C-43. As hon. members are aware, this is not an admissible type of amendment.

Motions Nos. 5 and 6 are identical and therefore the Chair will select only Motion No. 5. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 9, 10, 10A, 12 and 24 are all in order. However, Motions Nos. 10 and 10A are the same and the Chair will only select Motion No. 10. Motions Nos. 9 and 24 are the same essentially, as they both strip the principle from the bill. Both of these motions are in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and after consultation with her the Chair has decided to select Motion No. 24. Motion No. 9 will not be put to the House.

Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 24 will be debated and voted on separately. However, the House will have to note that the question will only be put on Motion No. 24 if all other selected motions are negatived.

I have concerns with respect to Motion No. 13 because it seems to the Chair to be attaching a condition to the performance of an abortion where there is no medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk. It
seems to add a concept to the bill that was not envisaged at second reading, but I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and rule Motion No. 13 in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 are identical. Therefore, I shall select Motion No. 14. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 16, 17A and 17B are in order and will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 17A and 17B. A negative vote on Motion No. 16 will require the question to be put on Motion No. 17A. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17A will obviate the question on Motion No. 17B but a negative vote on Motion No. 17A will require the question to be put on Motion No. 17B.
Motions Nos. 17 and 18 have been withdrawn.
The Chair at first had doubts about the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 19 but on reflection I have decided to give the hon. member the benefit of my doubts. This motion will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 20 is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

For the convenience of the House, I will recapitulate.
Motions Nos. 1, 3A, 3B, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 13A, 15, 18A, 21, 23 and 23A will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 2, 17 and 18 have been withdrawn.
The following motions are in order and will be debated and voted on as follows:
Motion No. 3, a separate debate and vote;
Motions Nos. 4 and 22 are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 4, applies to Motion No. 22;
Motion No. 5, a separate debate and vote;
Motion No. 10, a separate debate and vote;
Motion No. 12, a separate debate and vote;
April 27, 1990

Motion No. 13, a separate debate and vote;
Motion No. 14, a separate debate and vote;
Motions Nos. 16, 17A and 17B will be grouped for debate with an affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 obviating a question on Motions Nos. 17A and 17B, but a negative vote on Motion No. 16 will require the question being put on Motion No. 17A. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17A will obviate a question on Motion No. 17B, but a negative vote on Motion No. 17A will require the Chair to put the question on Motion No. 17B;
Motion No. 19, a separate debate and vote;
Motion No. 20, a separate debate and vote; and
Motion No. 24, a separate debate but a vote only if all of the other selected motions are negatived.

I want to thank all hon. members for their co-operation.

I think I should add something and that is that we have, with considerable success, had an informal way of having discussions between the table officers and hon. members when amendments are filed. This has expedited the work that has to be done. I want to thank all hon. members and the table officers for the hard work that has gone into these particular amendments.
I might also advise the House that I have personally read all the amendments and have been very much engaged in the difficult decisions that had to be made in dealing with the procedural aspects of the admissibility of some of the amendments. I hope that hon. members will bear with us in knowing that we have to apply the procedural law as it is and it takes nothing away from the importance or the thrust of the propositions which hon. members were putting forward.
Again, I thank hon. members for their co-operation. [Translation]
I will now propose Motion No. 3 to the House.
Government Orders BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make and I think that if you consult the House, you will find that there is unanimous consent on both of them.
First, I propose:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, the House meet at 1
p.m. on Monday, April 30, 1990, and that it consider Government
Orders from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
If this motion is accepted, the government intends to call Bill C-26.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just want some clarification and assurance from the government that if we agree on this motion, it is definitely understood that we will consider the above-named bill, that is, Bill C-26, and not another one, because it is exceptional to extend the hours in this way for a government order. We are prepared to do it, of course, provided that we have this assurance; if the minister is prepared to confirm that it is indeed so, all right.


Marcel Danis: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. That is the government's intention. We will call Bill C-26.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that we, too, have been consulted and we are in agreement with this change. I just want to point out that we are in fact giving the government one more hour of government time. I would like them to remember that down the road a bit.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

April 27, 1990
Government Orders


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, we have done a substantial amount of work today. I think it would be proper to call it three o'clock, if the members agree.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if we might have missed a step. I am advised that we have to adjourn this particular debate before we can call it three o'clock, or am I mistaken?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no necessity to adjourn this debate.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure that what I want to do is a point of order, but as one who has proposed more amendments than probably anyone else, I just thought I would indicate my appreciation to the Clerk and the staff for the excellent advice that they have provided on this most sensitive issue, namely, the amendments to the abortion bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 30, 1990