1990-06-15

[Stage Direction]
39 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 15,1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and to make provision for the application of certain orders be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-68, which is presented for second reading today, is necessary to ensure that the Government of Canada can continue to manage public lands in Yukon.
A recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal has declared that withdrawal orders under Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act do not prohibit the staking of mining claims in Yukon. This decision eliminates the use of procedures under which the government has, in the past, set land aside, land for future use or to be held pending final decision on the use of that land.
Some of the reasons this government and previous governments have withdrawn lands include: Setting aside three potential sites for an airstrip pending the result of assessments of the sites for their suitability as an airstrip; setting aside lands that have been identified during land claims negotiations for the selection by the Yukon First Nation under a final agreement; and, setting aside lands for right-of-way.
All of these reasons for preventing the creation of new third-party interests in land are essential to good management of public lands. It was, therefore, of great concern to this government that a court declared certain lands open for staking under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. This is why the Solicitor General, the former minister for northern affairs, stated in this House on February 13 of this year that it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation to take effect from that day, to make the lands withdrawn under the Territorial Lands Act not available for staking under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
The bill that we are debating today has been drafted to enact the promise made on behalf of the government. This bill proposes to amend both the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. The changes proposed for the Yukon Placer Mining Act affect Sections 17 and 98.
Clause 1 of this Bill proposes amending paragraph 17(2)(E) to make the words consistent with Section 98. Clause 2 of this bill would amend subsection 98(1) by replacing the word "is" by "maybe" in the first sentence. This will ensure that the Governor in Council may prohibit entry on several parcels of land where only one is actually needed. For example, various choices for the location of an airport. However, until studies are completed it is not possible to identify which of the several possible sites will be selected.
This change in the wording of subsection 98(1) gives government the flexibility needed to properly manage these lands. It will prevent confusion and protect the lands from third-party conflicts until final selections are made.
Subsection 98(1) is further amended by adding "the settlement of aboriginal land claims" as one of the purposes for which prohibition of entry may be ordered by the Governor in Council. In addition, the purpose has been changed from a "a public purpose" to "a purpose in the public interest" in order to ensure that a broad power is being granted. This could, for example, include a privately-run enterprise such as a forestry nursery or a

June 15, 1990
Government Orders
fish hatchery which could be considered in the public interest.
Clause 2 of the bill also proposes to amend subsection 98(2) to make the language consistent with the changes proposed for subsection 98(1) of the bill. As I explained earlier, this provides for flexibility and proper land management.
Clause 3 of the bill proposes changes to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act by the addition of a new Section 14.1 which would have the equivalent effect in the Yukon Quartz Mining Act as Sections 17 and 98 do in the Yukon Placer Mining Act, as amended. Specifically, this would provide powers to withdraw lands from disposition by Orders in Council.
Clauses 4 and 5, are very important amendments. They permit the proper management of territorial lands by validating all current withdrawal orders under the Territorial Lands Act or the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
The concluding clause of the bill provides that Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive come into effect on February 13, 1990, as announced by my colleague, the Solicitor General. If this bill should meet with the approval of Parliament, the authority delegated to the Governor in Council, will be no greater than what earlier governments of Canada have, in good faith, believed they were exercising before.
It is important to remember this point, because prior to the Halferdahl decision, the Crown believed it had properly protected these lands. There is a need to set land aside while decisions for its use are being made. The government has been negotiating aboriginal land claims in the Yukon for several years. Government negotiators promised to set aside land, which had been identified by the Yukon First Nations for future land claim settlements. This was done in good faith by the government. However, the effectiveness of these actions was challenged with respect to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Land claim negotiations have been going on in Yukon for many years. We are now in the final stages of a settlement and the government must ensure protection of selected lands so that negotiations would not suffer a major setback. The government is now asking Parliament to provide the proper authority so that the government's
promise to the Council for Yukon Indians can be fulfilled.
The question of retroactivity of this bill was given careful consideration before the bill was prepared. The government decided that the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should announce this in the House, that a bill would be introduced to take effect from the date of this announcement. There is a question: if the Council for Yukon Indians were promised by negotiators for the Crown that certain lands will be withdrawn from disposition, with the intention of protecting them from further alienations, why not keep that promise? The answer is that we will keep the promise to the extent authorized by law. Federal lawyers have filed an appeal of the court decision. In addition, I am now asking Parliament to make a new law that will allow proper management of lands in Yukon, but which would also protect the existing rights of third parties under the law.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support that I have received from the Yukon mining industry, following Minister Cadieux's announcement. The representatives of the industry support the settlement of Yukon aboriginal land claims and have written to support making specific changes to the acts, so that the failure to proceed with this bill would not be a reason for failure to complete a land claim settlement in Yukon.
In closing, I urge members of the House to support the bill for good land management in the Yukon and to meet our commitments to the Yukon First Nations and provide better administration of Yukon land for all Yukoners.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and to make provisions for the application of certain orders. This is a rather long title for a rather simple bill.
This bill clarifies a situation in respect of lands that are withdrawn for the purpose of aboriginal land claims settlements in Yukon. It protects these lands from encroachment by other interests. According to the government's press release, the changes will firmly establish the Crown's right to prohibit disposition of mineral rights on Yukon lands which are required for a purpose that the government believes to be in the public interest.
June 15, 1990

Specifically included are those lands which have been withdrawn by Yukon Indians for the settlement of their land claims.
The government thought these lands were protected. A court challenge with respect to the Yukon Placer Mining Act, proved the government wrong.
It has been government practice for some time to withdraw from the public domain, lands which are claimed by aboriginal peoples while negotiations on the settlement of these claims are proceeding. The legal authority to do so is contained in various sections of certain pieces of legislation. For example, Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act permits the Governor in Council to withdraw tracts of territorial lands from disposal, upon giving reason. Territorial lands are defined as lands in Yukon or Northwest Territories that are vested in the Crown or are lands over which the federal government has the power to dispose.
Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act permits the Governor in Council to prohibit entry on certain lands for the purpose of locating a claim or prospecting for gold or other precious minerals or stones, except on some terms as he or she may prescribe. The Yukon Quartz Mining Act contains no provisions to withdraw lands or prohibit mining on certain lands as specified in Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act. However, Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act provides for exceptions to the general rights to acquire mineral rights.
The government's position has been that a withdrawal under Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act should be considered an exception under Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
The government's position with respect to the applicability of the Territorial Lands Act withdrawal orders to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act was challenged. A prospector staked 265 mineral claims in an area withdrawn for the settlement of the Kluane Tribal Council land claim. The mining recorder refused the mineral claims. The matter was brought to the federal court on July 12, 1988. On February 12 of this year, a judgment in favour of the individual was brought down. The decision was based on the fact that subsection 3(3) of the Territorial Lands Act states:
Government Orders
-nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the operation of
the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act, the
Dominion Water Power Act, or the National Parks Act.
The judge decided, therefore, that any withdrawal orders made pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act could not have an effect on the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. In other words, claim staking under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act could not be curtailed by orders pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act.
The judge ordered the mining recorder to accept the claims. The day after the court decision, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, made a statement in the House of Commons. He announced that the government would be bringing forward legislation to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. Also, he indicated that the forthcoming legislation would be retroactive to that day, February 13, 1990.
The government had to act fast to prevent any further mining claim registration disputes. On March 9, the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced the promised legislation, Bill C-68. This bill amends two pieces of legislation: the Yukon Placer Mining Act, Sections 17 and 98, and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, Section 14.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the lands withdrawn for the settlement of aboriginal claims are clearly within the definition of withdrawn lands.
The amendment to Section 17 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act changes a phrase "prospecting for minerals" to "prospecting for gold and other precious minerals or stones". This new wording clarifies the definition of placer deposits. The same wording is already utilized in Section 98 of this act. As such, this is basically a housekeeping or clarification amendment.
The amendment to Section 98 is more substantial. It specifically includes land which may be required for the settlement of aboriginal land claims in the definition of land upon which prospecting or locating a claim may be prohibited.
New subsections are added to Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. The new subsections ensure that there is not an unfettered right to acquire mineral claims. Subsection 14.1(2) lists the types of land upon which the Governor in Council may prohibit entry and lands required for the settlement of aboriginal land

Government Orders
claims are included. The wording is essentially the same as that in section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
In essence, this bill closes a loophole that the government did not know existed. It will protect aboriginal lands from encroachment while negotiations proceed towards a final settlement. It will also provide clarification and certainty for the mining industry.
For these reasons, we, in the Official Opposition, support the bill with some reservations. We recognize the need to deal with this legislation expeditiously since we are, in effect, retroactively approving prohibitions, back to February 13, made under the acts Bill C-68 is amending. We have consulted with interested parties on this legislation.
I do want to add our profound regret that the Kluane Tribal Council was the victim of this loophole and that there was not enough foresight on the part of the government to prevent this unfortunate situation.
In 1973, the Council for Yukon Indians presented the federal government with a document entitled, Together Today for our Children Tomorrow. This document expressed the aboriginal rights of the Yukon Indians to the territory of the Yukon.
Accepted for negotiations in 1973 by the federal government, settlement negotiations have been ongoing since. An umbrella final agreement was ratified on April 1, 1990. Individual agreements are being negotiated with the 14 Yukon Indian bands.
At the present time, 17.9 per cent of the total area of the Yukon is, for various reasons, withdrawn from the staking of mineral claims. The land claim settlement represents 8.6 per cent of that 17.9 per cent.
The information kit on this bill provided to us by the minister's office contains an information sheet on the Council for Yukon Indians Comprehensive Land Claim. I want to challenge an underlying premise of that background paper which outlines the government's claims negotiation policy.
The document states, and I quote: "Comprehensive claims negotiations are conducted with aboriginal groups that continue to use and occupy traditional lands and whose aboriginal title has not been dealt with by treaty or
superseded by law." Aboriginal people have long contested the government's presumption that it could extinguish or wipe out aboriginal rights by passing legislation that effectively prevented the exercise of those aboriginal rights.
The recognition and affirmation in 1982 in the Canadian Constitution of existing aboriginal and treaty rights has lent some weight to our position. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently confirmed that the rights recognized in Section 35 of the Constitution do have significant and contemporary meaning.
I am not a lawyer, but even a layman can see that the Supreme Court decision in the Sparrow case a couple of weeks ago is a significant victory for aboriginal peoples. The Supreme Court judgment also contained some serious warnings for the federal government.
The Supreme Court stated that Section 35 demands a generous, liberal interpretation. It said that legislation that affects the exercise of aboriginal rights will only be valid if it meets the test for justifying that interference.
That calls into question, in my mind, every piece of legislation that could affect aboriginal rights, including the acts that we are amending today by this Bill C-68.
The government has a responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. There is a restraint on the exercise of federal power. Federal power must be reconciled with federal duty. These are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court went on to say that the best way to achieve the reconciliation of federal power with federal duty is to demand the justification of any government regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights.
According to the Supreme Court, the test for justification requires that a legislative objective must be attained in such a way as to uphold the honour of the Crown and be in keeping with the unique contemporary relationship between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
I want to quote the next couple of sentences directly from the Supreme Court judgment:

The extent of legislative or regulatory impact on an existing aboriginal right may be scrutinized so as to ensure recognition and affirmation. Section 35(1) does not promise immunity from government regulation in contemporary society but it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise. The government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation that has some negative effect on any aboriginal right protected under Section 35(1).
This is a very forceful message from the Justices of the highest court of this land to each and every member of Parliament in the House. All of us have a responsibility to examine every piece of legislation that comes before this House to ensure that it does not infringe or deny an aboriginal right in a manner which cannot be justified.
Some of us carry out this type of examination as a matter of course, out of personal conviction or interest. But I suggest that this responsibility is incumbent on every member of this House, and most particularly on members of the government.
What is required first is an answer to the question of whether the legislation under consideration has the effect of interfering with an existing aboriginal right. If so, other questions must be asked. The Supreme Court has suggested what these other questions ought to be. Is the limitation unreasonable? Does the regulation impose undue hardships? Does the regulation deny to the holders of the right their preferred means of exercising that right?
If a case of interference with an aboriginal right is found, there must be a test of justification. The justification test involves two steps. First, is there a valid legislative objective? The second has to do with the honour of the Crown in dealings with aboriginal people. The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-a-vis aboriginal people must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified.
The bill we are debating today will rectify an oversight, a negligence on the part of the government that has had the effect of clearly interfering with the rights of the aboriginal people represented by the Kluane Tribal Council.
We in the Official Opposition are supporting the corrective acts contained in Bill C-68 so that the rights of other Yukon Indian people are not interfered with.
Government Orders
But we caution the government that it must take its trust responsibility with respect to aboriginal peoples far more seriously than it has to date.
Whether it is the re-examination of past legislation, current proposals or future initiatives, or whether it is in the conduct of current land claims negotiations, the federal government has been served notice. The meaning of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution is to affirm aboriginal rights. It is to be construed in a purposive way. The government is in breach of trust if it does not protect aboriginal rights from unjustified interference.
It is of no small significance that the Supreme Court found the justification of "public interest" to be so vague as to provide no meaningful guidance and so broad as to be unworkable as a test for the justification of a limitation on constitutional rights.
It may well be that much current and proposed activity or development in aboriginal lands which does not have the consent of the aboriginal peoples affected, and which infringes upon their aboriginal rights could be found unconstitutional.
I take this opportunity to urge the government to conduct itself according to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. The recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights in our Constitution imposes an obligation on the government. As the Supreme Court has said, "recognition and affirmation requires sensitivity to and respect for the rights of aboriginal peoples on behalf of the government, courts and, indeed, all Canadians".
I want to draw to the attention of the government and this House a communication from the Council for Yukon Indians which I received in my office this morning. It has some recommendations for us which I support. It recommends:
1.	Legislation be retroactive to September 30, 1987, when the first interim land protection agreement was initiated by the parties to the land claims negotiations for Yukon.
2.	Lands that are identified for selection and interim protection are being alienated due to the lack of adequate protection by the Minister. There must be justification for such action and equitable remedies for each incident.
3.	Legislation must take into full consideration the recent Supreme Court decision, R. vs. Sparrow, May 31,1990. Specifically, the Minister's fiduciary responsibility.
4.	Bill C-68 to be taken to the Committee for full review.

June 15, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address Bill C-68 at this very critical stage. I must say that recent results which have occurred in Yukon have perhaps in some respects made the processing of this bill less critical than it was a few months ago.
I want to begin by saying that the legislation capsulized in Bill C-68 amends the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. It is to be retroactive to February 13, 1990.
We understand the reasons for this retroactivity. While we normally are concerned about retroactive legislation, perhaps I will take a moment or two to explain the necessity for it in this case.
Before I do, I simply want to say that the amendments we will be looking at regarding these two mining acts will ensure that withdrawn lands, including lands identified as being of interest to Yukon Indians, will not be open for the location of new mining claims. The changes will firmly establish the Crown's right to prohibit disposition of mineral rights on Yukon lands which are required for a purpose that the government believes to be in the public interest. As I say, just to emphasize, those will also be lands under claim by Yukon Indians.
Our first concern was with whether or not it is such comprehensive and broad sweeping legislation that it would be of concern to miners in Yukon. My leader, who represents Yukon has had extensive and intensive consultations with the mining community generally in Yukon and the placer miners specifically regarding this legislation.
I must say that their comfort factor has to do more with the certainty that they have in terms of filing claims in the knowledge that certain lands are excluded and certain other lands are not. That precision is appreciated by the placer miners and the mining community generally. If we have rules that everyone understands, then it is just a matter of getting on and following them.
In the original press release from the minister he stated that he proposes to bring forward these changes to ensure that the mining industry clearly knows which areas are open for staking and exploration and recommends that people intending to stake mining claims in the Yukon should first contact the mining recorders
office to determine the status of the lands in which they are interested.
Again, I think it is fair to say that that particular initiative lends a certain exactness to the process and is appreciated by the miners generally.
I also want to say that consultations with the Yukon territorial government indicates that it also supports this bill for the reasons that I have just stated, as well as others. The Council of Yukon Indians, while generally in support of this legislation, have some concerns. We are aware that it has recommended at least three specific amendments to the legislation that ought to be considered. We will be pursuing those in committee.
Perhaps I should say at this point that while there has been some question as to whether or not we should move expeditiously with this legislation and move through all stages, perhaps even in one day, the feeling is that that ought not occur for two reasons. The first has to do with the information that has now been made public regarding the concerns that the Yukon Indians have regarding the legislation. Obviously, they have to be considered in detail.
Also, our concern that this legislation ought to go to a legislative committee for some examination flows out of a concern that my hon. friend from Skeena has.
In June, 1984 we passed expeditiously a number of amendments to the same legislation, based on the comments of the bureaucracy, which assured us that there were no real problems, that all aspects had been considered and that it was all very straightforward.
Lo and behold, all of us will recall the nightmare experienced by John Turner. I do not mean the Leader of the Liberal Party, but another John Thmer who was victimized by an earlier piece of legislation which made revisions to a mining act and with respect to which, again, the member for Skeena had received government assurances at the time of the vote that there would be no outstanding claims.
To simply set aside that possibility from occurring again, we are asking that this matter go to a legislative committee, not for an extensive set of hearings, but at least to provide an opportunity for those people who want to make representations. I assume that representa-
June 15, 1990

tives of the Yukon Indians would certainly want to play a role in that process.
These amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act are by and large the result of a court case. Members thought that under Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act the withdrawal of public lands for public purposes, including land claims, would be clearly understood. In order to designate certain parcels of land in the Yukon for specific public purposes, including the settlement of aboriginal land claims, and to remove the possibility of new third party interests being created in such lands, lands have been withdrawn from disposition under Section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act. In so far as mining is concerned, prohibition orders under Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act have also been promulgated.
Although the Yukon Quartz Mining Act contains no provision to withdraw lands or to prohibit mining on certain lands, as in the case of the Yukon Placer Mining Act, it has always been the government's position that a withdrawal made under section 23 of the Territorial Lands Act is considered a reservation within the meaning of section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Section 14 provides for exceptions to the general right to acquire mineral rights under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. That seems to be fairly straightforward. I think everyone following that would understand clearly the process that we have been going under in terms of the basic assumption.
However, the government's position with respect to the applicability of the Territorial Lands Act withdrawal orders to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act was challenged in the courts by Mr. L. B. Halferdahl when he staked 265 mineral claims in an area withdrawn for the settlement of the Kluane Tribal Council claim. We are all familiar with that particular process. Mr. Halferdahl's mineral claims were refused by the Mining Recorder. That was pretty straightforward. We appreciate that those claims would be refused, with the Mining Recorder perhaps not quite clear in terms of which of these acts took precedence.
However, the matter was brought to the Federal Court and on July 12, 1988, a judgment was handed down in favour of Mr. Halferdahl. In his judgment, the Justice based his decision mainly on the fact that because
Government Orders
subsection 3(3) of the Territorial Lands Act states that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the operation of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act," any withdrawal orders made pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act could not have an effect on the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
In other words, claim staking under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act cannot be curtailed by orders pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act. Mr. Justice Collier had ordered the Mining Recorder to accept Mr. Halferdahl's claims.
That really caught everyone by surprise. I remember the day the order came down. I think there were a lot of comments around the House of Commons that this surprised everyone and something obviously had to be done.
In order to protect all these various withdrawn areas in Yukon, which I think account for almost 70 per cent of the entire Yukon land mass, from further staking, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Pierre Cadieux, announced in the House on February 13, 1990, his intention to bring forward legislation to rectify the problem. This legislation, if eventually passed, would be retroactive to the date of this public announcement.
We have heard that the Council of Yukon Indians has concerns that the retroactivity ought in fact to go even further to protect its interests in terms of very specific claims. Because I know those listening are interested in the situation in Yukon, I want to make it very clear that this proposed legislation that we are debating today at second reading stage would affect only Sections 17 and 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act and Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. It is also proposed that the Yukon Placer Mining Act be strengthened to ensure that lands required for the settlement of aboriginal land claims may be considered as lands required for public purpose.
As well, it is proposed that the equivalent of Section 14 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act be expanded-and I want to emphasize that point-by adding equivalent prohibition provisions to those contained in the amended Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act. Both of these mining acts are proposed to be further amended in order to validate as at February 13, 1990, all existing withdrawals under the Territorial Lands Act and prohibitions under Section 98 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act,

June 15, 1990
Government Orders
and any orders passed between February 13, 1990, and of course when these amendments take effect.
It is most important that this retroactivity take place, otherwise the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the existing Yukon Placer Mining Act would take precedence over these lands which, for various reasons, ought to be removed in the best interest of the public. In most cases in Yukon we are dealing with Indian land claims.
Having said that, I want to get into some of the details of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act as they presently stand and some of the changes that we would be recommending. In the consideration of time, however, I will simply say that we will raise these in committee. I think that that precision and exactness would have a more appropriate place in committee discussion as opposed to the discussion of the principle of the bill that we are doing now at second reading.
Let me conclude by simply saying that we support the major thrust of this legislation. The legislation is timely. While the settlement in Yukon does not necessitate quite the consideration that we would normally have given this legislation, we feel that it is appropriate now to send it off to the appropriate legislative committee, bring forward the appropriate witnesses and move expeditiously to pass it through all stages and get it off to the Senate for ratification there before it is finalized. This will set the record straight in law on just what the opportunities are for the miners of Yukon and to ensure that the rights and interests of the general public are adequately protected.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, I do not want to take more than a couple of minutes. I just want to make a comment on this particular bill.
Basically, it is a bill on land use. I know that land use across the provinces is considered to be a provincial responsibility, but that land use as far as the Northwest Tferritories and Yukon, to a certain extent, is concerned is still a federal responsibility. This points directly to the dangers of not having in place the kind of regulation and thus the lack of control that allows development of land to be made at the behest of the person who thinks they can make a few bucks on it rather than the common good of the people.
In many cases, particularly in Yukon since the finding of gold, the development and the mining of gold was considered to be much more important than anything else in the development of Yukon.
We have the same kind of situation right now in the rain forests of Brazil where large areas of the rain forests are being devastated so that some placer mining can be done. That is the type of thing that happens if you do not have in place the regulations and controls necessary to allow development of land for the good of all people.
I know this particular legislation is before us basically because of the concerns about the land claims of the aboriginal peoples of Yukon. That in itself is a major story, I suppose, and something that needs careful understanding in terms of aboriginal rights and their definition.
It does also deal specifically with the use of land. My point in getting up even for these few minutes is to put before the House and the people of Canada the fact that we in Canada must look much more closely at regulation. We must not think that deregulation of all industries in terms of all use of land is acceptable. We must recognize that we should have in place the kind of legislation which allows us to make sure that development occurs in such a way so that the rights and the best interests of all Canadians are recognized.
I say this particularly now because we are recognizing that over the last 50 years in Canada we have not put in place regulations which have protected the environment, the land and our standard of living, the standard of living that we think we should be able to have in Canada. We have not put the regulations in place and now find ourselves suffering and having to make changes which are much more costly than they would have been if we had put them in place in the first instance.
This piece of legislation, as I understand, will go to a legislative committee now. I hope that some of the concerns of the people of Yukon will be recognized and dealt with in committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Labrador.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I know time is short but I want to make a few comments
June 15, 1990

on this bill to say that the bill certainly goes in the right direction, but that it does not go far enough.
I want to support the recommendations of the Council of Yukon Indians. I want to draw particular attention to the third recommendation of the Council of Yukon Indians, that is, legislation must take into full consideration the recent Supreme Court decision of Sparrow in British Columbia.
That court decision, it seems to me, will have ramifications all across the country, as has been pointed out by the First Nations. I just want to point out to the government the situation that is occurring in my own riding now, not with regard to placer mining but with regard to fishing which I think bears on this point.
The government has restricted food fishing for trout in the Lake Melville area to three weeks, whereas normally people in that area, most of whom are members of the Labrador Metis Association, would be able to fish for food throughout the season, as I think is their historic right.
Second, a recent government regulation has restricted the salmon quota on the coast of Labrador and has reduced that quota by 43 per cent. This is at a time, I might say, when there was a crisis in the cod fishery and at a time when there was an ice blockade on that coast. It seems to me that that court decision has implications for this situation as well.
I draw to the attention of the government that while it is moving in the right direction it must, as the Council of Yukon Indians point out, take into consideration in all future legislation and in regulations the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to Sparrow.
Aboriginal people do have rights in this country, not simply to the protection of their lands during and after the land claims process, but in respect to their food fishery as well.
It seems to me the government should revise those regulations that it has brought in this year. It should be cognizant of the Sparrow decision in all future legislation and regulations that it brings in with regard to native people in this country.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I realize I have just a couple of minutes before we move on to other orders of the House. I am looking forward after Question Period to providing the House with the government's position on Bill C-72.
I must say that I just returned last night from Iqaluit where I spent the last couple of days. For the first time as a Canadian I had the opportunity to appreciate truly the north. I feel that many Canadians are missing a very important part of their heritage by not taking the opportunity to visit the northern parts of our country.
My hon. colleague across the floor was there with us yesterday as we met and listened to Innu people and northerners speak about their concerns about the Arctic, about the beautiful opportunities that we have there, as well as about the problems that are there as far as the environment is concerned and the possible pollution that is approaching the Arctic.
Certainly, there have been steps taken by this government to work on the Finnish initiative and other initiatives to protect the environment of the north.
As we enter into debate on Bill C-72, which is a bill to establish the Canadian Polar Commission, we see that this is a step which we feel will further enhance the opportunities of the people in the north, and also put us in a position to act more positively internationally on the scene. The Arctic is a very important part of our country,

June 15, 1990
5. ft 31
but it is also affected by the actions of other countries in the northern hemisphere.
The eight countries that are working together on northern opportunities for the Arctic are very, very important in the future not only of Canada but those countries as well. As we enter into debate following Question Period, I look forward to imparting to the House the information about Bill C-72 and the establishment of a Canadian Polar Commission.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, in spite of my respect for the Supreme Court of Canada and its enlightened jurisprudence, I must express disappointment in its decision on C 195.1 of the Criminal Code (street soliciting).
For my part the dissenting judgments of Madam Justices Wilson and L'Heureux-Dube reflect more fully the value we place on free speech and the availability of other solutions to the important goal of freeing neighbourhoods from the plague of public commercial sex. I recommend, for example, the study by Paul Fraser of Vancouver.
The House committee which is studying the impact of this law, 195.1, has had a lot of evidence that the law has not worked nearly well enough to justify its existence.
The courts impose ineffective light sentences because they feel accurately, I believe, that the vast majority of prostitutes whom they sentence are more victims than criminals. We need to relieve neighbourhoods of the blight of street soliciting, but we need a better solution.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, Toiy neglect in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie goes beyond lack of representation in this House. At a time when unemployment in the riding is over 20 per cent, this government is trying to increase unemployment even further with its high interest rate policy and its failure to do anything for East Montreal.
Half the families in Laurier-Sainte-Marie are singleparent families, and eight out of ten of these single parents are women. These people have suffered under this government. They have suffered as a result of cutbacks in co-operative housing and funding for women centres, and they have suffered due to a lack of manpower adjustment programs.
It will be a long and hot summer for the Conservatives in Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Madam Speaker. Voters in the riding are going to judge this government, and once again, the Tories will have every reason to fear their candidate will lose his deposit.
On the Liberal side, when Jean Chretien, the next leader of the Liberal Party, winds up his leadership campaign, he may well see a second member for the New Democratic Party in Quebec, Ms. Louise O'Neil, elected on August 13.


HOUSING
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, as the population in Canada ages it becomes increasingly important that the federal government take action and an active role in providing adequate and affordable housing for our senior citizens.
That is why I am pleased to be representing the Minister of State for Housing in my riding at the June 16 opening of the new Masonic seniors complex in Woodstock.
The federal government will be making a contribution of approximately $50,000 annually over a period of 35 years. This direct contribution is in addition to the

insured loan of $600,000 provided by CMHC required to construct this complex.
This initiative is another strong indication of our government's commitment to assist the elderly in our society in maintaining a decent standard of living. I commend the Minister of State for Housing for his support in making this project a reality.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, with only a few days to go until June 23, 1990, by which date the Meech Lake Accord should be ratified-a date that is also an important occasion for the future of my political party-I would like to congratulate all those who said a forthright yes to Quebec and to its expected return to the constitutional table.
The support of all three parties in this House and the unconditional support of seven Premiers in English Canada, including Peterson, Vander Zalm and Getty who represent the provinces with the largest population, is very significant, and I find this very heartening.
A nation cannot evolve unless its leaders are determined to see it evolve, and I hope that in future constitutional discussions we will be able to apply the principles of honesty, integrity and openness on behalf of the unity of our country.


LITERACY VOLUNTEER AWARDS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, at the opening of the Canadian Library Association's annual convention yesterday, I had the opportunity of announcing on behalf of the Government of Canada the establishment of Canada's Literacy Volunteer Awards.
The awards program will work in partnership with the Canadian Library Association, the Canadian Association of Public Libraries, the Canadian Library Trustees Association, the Association for the Advancement of Science
and Technique of Documentation, the National Literacy Secretariat, and the members of Parliament.
Canada's Literacy Volunteer Awards will recognize individuals and organizations in our community who have made an outstanding contribution to the promotion of literacy. We encourage more Canadians to become involved in the fight against illiteracy.
On behalf of the Secretary of State I want to thank the organizations which have worked with us on the creation of the program for their co-operation and for their commitment in promoting literacy in Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, when the economy was improving in 1984, this Conservative government had all the answers and took credit. Now that the economy is in decline, this same government washes its hands and blames others.
Yesterday the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reported a 34 per cent increase in bankruptcies since last year, with a 21 per cent increase in corporate bankruptcies.
Last Friday Statistics Canada reported that unemployment rose from 7.2 per cent to 7.6 per cent in the month of May, with over one million Canadians out of work and a loss of 165,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year.
When will the government wake up and readjust its economic policy? High interest rates are not the answer at this time, and the government should take moderating action.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs had good news for British Columbia's veterans last Friday. The Minister of Veterans Affairs and British Columbia Health Minister John Jansen signed an agreement to provide 200 long-term health care beds for veterans.
This agreement, worth up to $35 million over the next five years, provides for the capital cost of priority beds for veterans in centres as needed throughout the province. The distribution of these beds is to be decided upon in co-operation with the province. This will ensure that veterans who are no longer able to carry on in their own

homes will at least be able to continue living closer to their communities.
Through this agreement the federal government is responsible for two-thirds of the capital cost of the new beds, and Veterans Affairs Canada will pay a daily co-payment fee to the province for each veteran occupied bed.
If I may, I quote from Mr. Jansen: "This agreement represents a major improvement in the level of service to veterans-and demonstrates the strong co-operation between the provincial and federal governments on matters concerning veterans."


HEALTH CARE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, the time has come for this government to live up to its mandate and show leadership in the health care delivery system in Canada.
When a country is faced with hospital crisis from coast to coast to coast; when deaths of cardiac patients are being reported in major centres because of shortages of acute care beds, nurses, or technicians; and when children with life-threatening illnesses are being turned away from children's hospitals because of acute bed closures, the Tory government must rethink its fiscal responsibilities and priorities.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare must ask himself: "Is this the time to be putting a lid on federal health care support?" He must then, on behalf of all Canadians, those Canadians who trust and rely on him, convince the Minister of Finance that federal belt-tightening is weakening Ottawa's presence in health care and threatens the universal system set out in the Canada Health Act.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, June 10, 1990 marked the beginning of the third National Access Awareness Week in Canada.
This week we celebrated the achievements of persons with disabilities and worked toward the elimination of remaining barriers to their full economic and social integration.
Governments at all levels have programs and services which benefit persons with disabilities. Many of these are related to areas that were highlighted during Access Awareness Week: transportation, housing, employment, recreation, and education. As a result we may tend to think of these in terms of specific government initiatives. However, during the past week it helped to give attention to other aspects of the disabled's integration into our communities.
I hope National Access Awareness Week provided all of us with the occasion to become informed about the events which are ongoing in our communities. By sharing in these activities we will not only gain in awareness but also find new ways of helping to meet the challenges faced by disabled Canadians.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, in a couple of weeks, on July 1, we will celebrate our country's one hundred and twenty-third birthday.
For such a young nation, we have a lot of which to be proud. We are very lucky to be Canadians. Our country is one of the best places in the world in which to work and to live. Other countries look to Canada as a leader in world co-operation and development. Those of us who have travelled outside the country can appreciate how very fortunate we are.

Now is the time to get together to celebrate everything we share as a people. Our natural resources, our fundamental rights, our diverse cultures and our tolerance are what makes Canada a country that is appreciated throughout the world.

For the last 123 years Canadians have worked together to make our country what it is now. I am confident that this same spirit will carry us into the next decade and indeed into the next century. This is the land of compassion. This is a land of opportunities.
June 15, 1990

On behalf of the people of Ottawa Centre, Happy Canada Day.


HOUSING
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, during National Access Awareness Week I would like to draw the attention of the House to the efforts CMHC has been making to provide greater accessibility in the area of housing.
Under the social and co-operative housing programs, the common areas of each project must be accessible in order to obtain mortgage insurance from CMHC and to qualify for federal subsidies.
The sponsors are required to provide a minimum of 5 per cent of their dwellings as mobility units, ones which can be readily outfitted to meet the specific needs of people with disabilities. Further, the sponsors can obtain full financing and subsidies on the cost of adapting these dwellings to the needs of specific clients.
As well, CMHC has assisted over 9,000 households to adapt their homes to meet the needs of family members with disabilities, through the Residential Rehabilitation Program. We can be proud of the proactive position of CMHC, which brings reality to the slogan for National Access Awareness Week: "Independence, That's Living!"


PASSENGER RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, the federal government has been repeating incessantly that Canadians have given up on passenger rail and that it is the way of the past.
We have known all along that that is not the case. Industrialized countries, our competitors around the world, are moving to modem rail.
The latest to choose rail in Canada is one of our most important centres for innovation, creativity and culture. I am speaking of course of MuchMusic. This June, Much-Music's veejays have been riding the rails, across the country, with the latest in videos, promoting the first ever Canadian Music Video Awards.
On behalf of VIA supporters everywhere, I applaud MuchMusic on choosing an efficient, environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
If I can make my own RSVP request, it is for this government to listen to the people and restore the passenger service it cut so foolishly in January.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, this week national, provincial and local organizations, in co-operation with the Department of the Secretary of State, are marking National Access Awareness Week.
It gives all Canadians an opportunity to work together to answer the following question: What can we do to ensure the integration of all people with handicaps into community life?
As one of my constituents wrote this week:
I just want to comment that to someone who has difficulty
climbing stairs, there is no such thing as two short flights of stairs-if
there are two sets of stairs, that is automatically too many for
comfort. The alternative?
They were told by people to stay in their cars on a ferry, yet there is a sign on the ferry which says that people cannot stay in their cars. They are faced with a double question. Being handicapped, does one leave the ferry? Does one stay in the car? What does one do?
In this week of national awareness things like that should not be happening to handicapped Canadians. I hope that after this week people will have achieved some greater awareness of the difficulties.


THE SENATE
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the Prime Minister for accepting the nomination of Stan Waters from Albertans and appointing him to the Senate. I offer my congratulations to Mr. Waters.
The process of reforming the Senate is under way.
Don Getty has shown courageous leadership in holding the Senate election and in moving Senate reform to the top of the national agenda.

Oral Questions
Alberta's Liberal senators should take note of the prevailing democratic winds. Stan Waters' first duty is to encourage other senators to not stand in the way of democratic reform of the Senate. Albertans would like to see the election of at least seven new senators from Alberta five years from now in a newly reconstituted Senate.
Some people and parties talk a lot about Senate reform. Our government is actually doing something about it.
Congratulations to the Prime Minister, Premier Don Getty and other First Ministers for their tremendous accomplishments.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In recent days, the aboriginal peoples of Canada have expressed deep concern and, in fact, a deep sense of grievance, about the outcome last weekend of the First Ministers' Conference.
I understand that the Minister of Justice and other ministers met the leaders of aboriginal peoples in Ottawa yesterday. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us what was the outcome of the meeting. Has a result satisfactory to these native leaders been achieved? If not, what does the Government of Canada intend to do to respond further to the deep concerns and the deep sense of grievance of aboriginal peoples of this country as a result of the outcome of last week's constitutional conference?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first, I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge that the Meech Lake Accord and the document that was signed last week contain some very important provisions with respect to the aboriginal people.
Therefore, it is certainly in everyone's best interests to see that the Meech Lake Accord and the documents that have been signed by the First Ministers would be ratified as quickly as possible.
With respect to the meeting that took place yesterday, not only Senator Murray but the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development attended the meeting of Indian leaders. It was a very friendly and amicable meeting. The Indian leaders laid out their positions very clearly. The ministers listened and took cognizance of their concerns. They have undertaken to deal with each of them in a very specific way.
I can advise my hon. friend that discussions with respect to the points that were raised yesterday are ongoing at the present time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Premier of Newfoundland has invited all provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada to address the Newfoundland House of Assembly on the 1987 constitutional amendment.
I therefore ask the following question: Will the Prime Minister himself go to Newfoundland to speak there and if so, when will he go?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland have been in contact almost on a daily basis discussing this very important issue.
As the Prime Minister indicated in response to a question earlier this week, if there was a feeling that his presence would be helpful in the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, clearly he would be prepared to visit Newfoundland. I think that is still a matter for consideration.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Legislators in Manitoba have said that they believe that the Constitutional Amendment of 1987 will not be ratified by their legislature by June 23.1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the government is of the view that
June 15, 1990

there is a means of extending the deadline, should that prove necessary, just exactly what does the federal government intend to do and what is its response to this particular situation in the province of Manitoba?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in Article 1 of the document that was signed last week, there is a clear undertaking on the part of the Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland, to use every possible effort to achieve a decision prior to June 23, 1990.
We still believe that that target can be achieved and we also believe that every effort is being undertaken by the respective legislatures to achieve that target. The fact that there is a procedural wrangle is something that we anticipate the respective legislatures, in this particular case the legislature of Manitoba, will deal with. The federal government is offering its assistance in every way, shape and form, as well as with the aboriginal people as a result of the meetings yesterday and ongoing discussions to see whether we can be helpful in breaking the logjam.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It now appears that the Meech Lake Accord will not meet the deadline in Manitoba. The Manitoba legislature adjourned a few minutes ago until Monday and it is becoming more pessimistic in that Assembly every minute.
Let no one put the blame on Elijah Harper or on the aboriginal people of this country. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of one man. The man, who, in his own words, chose to roll the dice and he chose the date when to roll the dice. By delaying the First Ministers' Conference, he has gambled with the future of our country. That is what he has done.
Oral Questions
I put this question to the Deputy Prime Minister: Will he go immediately to his leader, the Prime Minister of our country, and suggest in the strongest terms, that the current constitutional crisis is now his, and his alone, and his responsibility.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, let me assure the right hon. member that we are not putting the blame on anyone and certainly not putting the blame on Elijah Harper, just to make that very clear.
There are procedural rules and privileges that any member can exercise in the democratic process. I find it very strange that at this late hour, particularly as the right hon. member suggests that there is a crisis, that he would engage in the kind of political rhetoric that he has just engaged in. I will simply refrain from commenting on the latter part of his question.


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Manitoba both warned the Prime Minister on several occasions during the past few months, that legislative time was running out. So did the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Yet, the Prime Minister refused to heed those warnings of his two colleagues. He allowed time to run and he allowed pressure to build.
I want to ask the Prime Minister again, if he will impress upon his leader that the consequences are grave and that the responsibility for solving what has now become a very grave issue, lies with the Prime Minister of Canada who put us in this mess.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be argumentative but I think the right hon. member would recall that the first effort in breaking the logjam came from the legislature of New Brunswick, wherein they brought forth the idea of a parallel resolution which was followed by immediate action on the part of the federal government in setting up the Charest committee.
That is a fact. That process did take place and quite frankly, notwithstanding what the right hon. member suggests, there was an undertaking by all First Ministers to use every possible effort to pass the Meech Lake Accord prior to June 23. We believe that that undertak-

June 15, 1990
Oral Questions
ing is serious and we believe that they will use every possible effort to see that is achieved.


MONTREAL PORT CORPORATION
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Montreal Port Corporation, a federal crown corporation and its general manager, Dominic Taddeo, seem to be on a virtual shopping spree with Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
I have a copy of an invoice for $1,725 billed to Mr. Taddeo at the Port of Montreal for Montreal Canadiens season hockey tickets, an invoice also showing the Port of Montreal entertained ten people at a gala at a staggering $500 apiece. The Port of Montreal was also billed for $4,428 for Expos season tickets.
Can the minister confirm that the Port of Montreal actually paid these bills and, if so, does he think this is a good use of taxpayers' money?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will take my hon. friend's concerns under advisement. I must admit that I tiy to brief myself for Question Period, but no minister's briefing includes going through all the invoices of every crown corporation or every local port authority. We just cannot do that. We try to come here and answer questions. There is another forum for my hon. friend's questions. Obviously, if she wants those answers, she could put the question on the Order Paper.
In the alternative, I come here to try to answer the questions I can answer, and I will certainly look into my hon. friend's concerns.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the Montreal Port Corporation has been purchasing land as well near Contrecoeur using federal Tory fundraiser Maurice Mayer as its agent. Mr. Mayer, it seems, was in line to make a very good commission. I have one invoice of August last year showing he had billed $186,637 for his services.
Can the minister tell us how much money in total Mr. Mayer made on this transaction and why was not the port itself or Public Works handling this transaction, as they are able to do?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, obviously within the ordinary course of business the Port of Montreal purchases land. That comes as no surprise to any member of this House nor any member of the public.
What I really want to ask my friend is whether she has evidence of any impropriety in any of the transactions that she talks about, or is this just another allegation floated out there in an effort to smear innocent people?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that it is the duty of this House to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are accounted for and spent well on behalf of the taxpayers.

Since there are many ethical questions about the land purchases in Contrecoeur and the excessive spending of members of the board of the Port of Montreal, will the minister order an inquiry?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, since we have a question on the floor of the House, since I have suggested that I will look into my hon. friend's concerns, obviously I will look into them. We do not go running off calling for inquiries until we make some investigations and ask ourselves if there is an answer to my hon. friend's allegation. If you want a smear campaign, I will not give it to you that easy.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the trade figures in a release by Statistics Canada today.
The Deputy Prime Minister would recognize that once again we have experienced a substantial decline of over $1 billion in our trade figures. Perhaps more dramatically, we have a $750 million decline in our trade with the United States. I would remind him that in 1984 we had a $20 billion surplus in trade with the United States.
How can the government continue to support the continuing high interest policy, high dollar policy, and a trade agreement which is leading to the erosion and
June 15, 1990

destruction of the industrial and trade capacity of this country?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows that we continue to have a surplus. The reason for the declining surplus is due to the imports, primarily of machinery and of high tech goods, in order to get our economy ready to be extremely competitive under the free trade environment.
We have had record imports of new machinery and new capital goods-which is an indication of tremendous confidence in the Canadian economy-in the manufacturing and service sectors to make us very competitive in the decade ahead.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the reason we have a trade decline is because the government's economic policy is creating that problem.
Since the minister is now answering questions on the trade issue, how does he explain the fact that in the automotive trade industry, the most important industrial sector in the country, we now have a deficit of $131 million? It is the first time in years that we have experienced a major decline in the automotive trade sector.
Combined with the loss of 165,000 jobs in manufacturing in the year since we signed the free trade agreement, does he not understand and agree that what we are experiencing is the de-industrialization of Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, we have heard this de-industrialization theory for the last five or six years in Parliament.
The truth is that in the automotive sector almost one-quarter of all the automobiles being produced on this continent are being produced in Canada. We have put in place a context of competitiveness for the auto sector far above that of the United States. Cycles change, they go up and down, but over all we are in a much better position than the United States when it comes to our proportion of automobile production in North America.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the first five months of this year, 4,424 Canadian businesses and 15,050 individual Canadians were driven into bankruptcy by the government's high interest rate policy.
How many more Canadians must lose their homes, their farms, their businesses, and their jobs before the government comes to its senses?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we share the concern of the hon. member about these bankruptcies. I would like to remind the hon. member that they are considerably fewer than they were under the Liberal government.
He should also know, and I think he does know, that we are at the end of a record cycle of very vigorous economic growth. The economy has been working over capacity for some time and there are some pressures and disruptions that we need to correct.
He talks about the symptoms, interest rates, but the problem is inflation. As long as the inflationary pressure is there, we will have to continue to maintain our monetary policy.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, let us look at the result of the government's monetary policy. Bankruptcies are up. Job-creation is down. Foreign control is up. Research and development is down. Our April trade surplus plunged 88 per cent. Canada lost 172,000 manufacturing jobs since January of last year.
Will the minister act now to stop this economic free-fall or, like Candide, does he still believe that this is the best of all possible worlds?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, from May, 1989 to May, 1990 there have been 124,000 jobs created in the country. This is not an economic free-fall.
My hon. friend quotes the bankruptcy statistics. It is important that we understand and have sympathy for those in a position of bankruptcy. The number is 4,400. Put that against the job creation in the last year in the small business sector. We have had over 200,000 small businesses start in the last year alone, unincorporated,

June 15, 1990
Oral Questions
and 138,000 incorporated. That is just a little over 1 per cent of all the new start-ups in small business in Canada.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, the minister has suggested that somehow all these jobs have been created. In fact, unemployment rates are up as well as personal bankruptcies. At the same time, the inflation rate has fallen to the lowest point it has been at since 1987. In short, the justification for high interest rates is disappearing and the damage to people from those high interest rates is growing dramatically.
Does the government recognize that to protect Canadians, it must now finally, reduce interest rates in the country?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the fact that the CPI has declined is indeed good news. However, we have to look at the reasons why it has. We see that two factors, basically, have caused this to occur. For example, the increase in taxes from the federal and provincial governments in the spring have been more or less swallowed. There is also the fact that companies' profits are the lowest they have been in the last seven years, a situation that cannot continue.
We have a veiy artificial situation here. Meanwhile, the ongoing pressures are there, especially for the unit labour costs. The pressures are veiy real and in no way can we relax our effort to deal with this because this is the real threat to the Canadian working people.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is typical of the government to blame workers for its mistakes.
The fact is that average weekly earnings have declined by 2.9 per cent since 1984 when the Conservatives came into power. The fact is, too, that at this stage in the cycle, as the minister puts it, output is slowing down and therefore naturally unit labour costs increase. It means nothing in terms of indicators. It is just a statistical output.
Will the minister recognize that it is his own high interest rate policy which is slowing down output and, therefore, creating the rates of higher unit labour cost that he says he is fighting? In short, will he get out of the
vicious circle he is in by cutting interest rates right across the country?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I wish it was that easy. Our policy has been approved and supported by all organized groups, the OECD and others.
With regard to unit labour costs, we are not blaming labour, we are just looking at the facts. To develop themselves, our business and industry have to be competitive. Our competitiveness has continually decreased over the last few months. This is what needs to be tackled, otherwise we will never be able to compete and more jobs will be lost. This is certainly something we do not want to occur.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOODING-EMERGENCY RELIEF
Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Defence. The severe rain storms in British Columbia, and in particular in my constituency of Okanagan Centre, have caused severe property damage and a tragic loss of life.
Can the minister responsible reassure the people of British Columbia that the federal government will provide assistance under the disaster financial assistance arrangements to the Province of British Columbia?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm with the hon. member that the federal government will indeed provide financial assistance under the guidelines of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements and a federal Emergency Preparedness Canada official will be appointed immediately to work with British Columbia officials to co-ordinate this federal response.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Siu family of Toronto is under deportation order because they have retained legal status in China.
June 15, 1990

Oral Questions
They and their child will be persecuted in China because they were refused permission by the government to reproduce.
Will this government abandon its policy of deporting Chinese nationals who are seeking to have, and to protect the lives of, their children?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax, being an experienced lawyer as she is, would know that the process involved means that the decisions are taken by immigration adjudicators and then the Immigration Refugee Board, both independent bodies.
As far as the deportation to China is concerned, the hon. member should know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has suspended all deportations and the suspension remains in effect as of now.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, that sounds very comforting, but it is not very comforting to the Siu family when they are being told that once their child is born they will have to return. We know that children in China who are unregistered are being refused food and medicine. A little compassion goes a long way, maybe as far as experience.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. [Translation]
Why does the government refuse the Siu family the basic right to give birth to their child in safety? Why does the government insist on putting the future of this child and its parents in danger?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, with her experience as a lawyer, the hon. member, as I said earlier, should know that all cases where the Immigration and Refugee Board orders someone deported, for example.

-must be reviewed on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. This case will be reviewed like all others.


CONSUMERS
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the appointment of Nicolas Murray, chairman of the board of the Consumers Association of Canada, to the position of president of the government's GST information office.
Why has the minister undermined the credibility of the consumer protection agency by offering a patronage position to Mr. Murray behind the back, and I repeat behind the back, of the executive of the Consumers Association of Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, of course I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question, but I want to inform him and the House that last evening there was a full board meeting of the Consumers' Association of Canada. At that meeting, Mr. Murray, in the interest of consumers across Canada, offered his resignation which the Consumers' Association accepted with regret. A Consumers' Association press release of this morning reads, in part:
This move allows Mr. Murray to assume his new position as chairman of the new consumer information office unencumbered. CAC is pleased with the-appointment of Mr. Murray, an outstanding consumer information communicator. CAC feels it is important to have Mr. Murray's agency report directly to the public through Parliament.
Which of course he will.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, this very instant I have received the same communique. There is one sentence which the minister left out, that is:
The CAC board has accepted the offer of Mr. Nickolas Murray to resign from his position as president of CAC.
My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the present non-informed or non-informative minister. The roughest guesstimate one can extract from the minister's non-informed declarations is that of the $19 million budget provided to the

Oral Questions
GST Public Relations Information Office, staffing and office space would amount to about $3 million.
How much of the remaining $16 million will be spent on the government's GST propaganda?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about uninformed or misinformed. I think there is no one who has spoken on this matter in this House who is more misinformed than the hon. member who just asked the question.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Murray, a consumer advocate for many years, is a very good choice on the part of the government. In the interest of consumers he took it upon himself to offer his resignation last evening.
I talked to him this morning and he said this to me: "The most important thing in my mind is to serve the consumer to the best of my ability as head of the Consumer Information Office and I will be able to do just that".
There is no propaganda. There is no misinformation. What this is, is to support-


Eugène Bellemare: You should work for Barnum and Bailey.


Otto John Jelinek: If you would keep your mouth shut and your ears open you would learn something.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister may want to conclude his answer by speaking through the Chair.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, this is character assassination by the hon. member of Mr. Murray. On the part of the Government of Canada this is supplementing the market-place which will allow consumer prices to be passed on to consumers, providing the information that is necessary and required by consumers across this country.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for small business. It concerns the shutting down of Fruehauf Canada Limited, which was announced earlier this week, terminating 334 jobs. This morning Solaray in Brantford
announced it is shutting down permanently, throwing 125 more people on to the unemployment lists.
In both cases it was brought to my attention that it was caused by a combination of high interest rates, deregulation in the trucking industry and the free trade deal. The president of Fruehauf Canada Limited blamed the free trade deal publicly. He said it is because there is no such thing as a level playing field between the Canadian and American manufacturers.
The minister knows that a nation that loses its ability to make things, to manufacture, loses its ability to survive. What in God's name is this government going to do to stop this ridiculous decline in the manufacturing industry in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, in terms of what the
government is going to do immediately, we have a full range of assistance programs which we will be making available. More important in the broader context, we have a consolidation of Fruehauf. It is moving from Brantford to Ingersoll. The consolidation is occurring in Canada. It is not occurring elsewhere.
There has been a slow-down in orders, which led to the original problem. The management made it clear that it was a slow-down in orders primarily, not the FTA, that was the problem.
More important, Madam Speaker, we must remember that in southern Ontario, from where the member comes, we have had endless openings, one after the other. Chrysler has had a $400 million expansion. Stelco has had a multimillion dollar expansion. Freightliner has had an over $100 million expansion, and there are 1,000 new jobs in CAMI just down the road from Brantford.
So things are strong in southern Ontario, thanks to the free trade agreement and thanks to the new competitiveness of our economy.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, what the minister says is extremely misleading. The trucking industry in Canada was about 80 per cent Canadian-owned a year and a half ago. By the end of this year about 65 to 70 per cent of it will be owned by the Americans because of the free trade deal, and that includes the manufacturing of tractor trailers as well.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In conversations with congressmen in Washington this week, I learned that they are extremely

apprehensive about jobs going to Mexico if the United States enters into a free trade agreement with Mexico. They said the same things to me this week that we were saying two years ago about Canadian jobs going to the United States.
I want the Deputy Prime Minister to tell this House and the nation today that Canada will not enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico at the risk of losing what manufacturing jobs we have left.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, there are further details about the Fruehauf development which I think the House should know as well. We have found a need in the past to change the licensing agreement for trucking with the Ontario government. The GATT has found this inappropriate. That has nothing to do with the FTA, it has to do with GATT, and that has affected the over-all potential of this company. The consolidation is occurring in Canada, in Ingersoll.
More important, the hon. member should know that it is companies such as Fruehauf that are going to benefit enormously in the years ahead from the removal of the most iniquitous tax we could ever put on an industry like that, the manufacturers' sales tax.
After the Senate sees the sense of this, come January 1 one industrial capacity after another in southern Ontario, the Brantford area especially, is going to gain enormous strength as a result of this change.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last month Canada lost a crucial decision by the free trade lobster panel. The United States intends to increase the minimum size of lobsters again in 1991 and 1992, also under the pretence of stock conservation.
Will the minister specify what he will do to avoid the impact of the next two increases and to minimize the fishermen's loss due to the latest ruling?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this question is essentially similar to what this House has heard in the last two or
Oral Questions
three weeks. There is a slight difference. He wants to know what more we are doing.
There are two major things the government is doing of which the hon. member should be aware. The first is the promotional campaign that the Government of Canada is putting forward for large lobsters and, indeed, for small lobsters-large lobsters in the United States, small lobsters over all.
What is happening is that the inventories have been selling down very, very nicely. We have moved from about a $20 million inventory to an inventory of about $2.4 million. This promotion program is working well. In addition, we want to work with the industry, with the unions and others to come up with another approach to deal with the difficulties the small lobster export industry is facing. They are difficulties which can be met through promotion and co-operation with the industry.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the fishermen in eastern Canada will certainly appreciate that when they are selling their lobsters below cost.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister is no doubt aware of American state legislation which makes the import of processed lobster very difficult. Will the minister now specify what he will do to guarantee access to the American market for processed Canadian lobster?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the member, of course, wants iron clad guarantees in all situations, but here is what I can tell him. The conversations going on now with the industry are focusing on that matter in particular. I expect that given the new context, some creative new ideas will emerge. We are seeing them emerge. That, together with the promotion campaign, will hopefully address what the hon. member is concerned about.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I am sure he and all the members on his side of the House know that the deal that sold CN Route to the Fingolds and to Manfred Ruhland was truly a lousy deal. Eveiyone on this side, and certainly all the employees of CN, past and present, know about this terrible

Oral Questions
transaction. The minister should know that you cannot continue to Watergate the facts of this deal.
Will the minister table today all of the agreements of purchase and sale, the financial agreements, and all of the consents that were entered into to complete the sale, and the audited statements just prior to the sale of Route Canada?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I reject completely the premise of my hon. friend's question. My friend knows that this company was losing between $30 and $40 million a year. That is good Liberal business practice, but it does not work anywhere else. The only alternative was to shut down the company. We sold it and gave the employees a chance to make a go of it. Under those circumstances, it was a normal business transaction by CN with respect to one of its subsidiaries and that information remains with CN, and not with the government.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. I appreciate that answer. I really feel that the employees had nothing to do with the success or failure of that company, after it was sold. The success or failure was due to the mismanagement by the Fingold's and Manfred Ruhland.
To verify what the minister has just told us, we need the books and the records of the company. All we are asking is for him to table those records so we can ascertain for ourselves whether the deal was a lousy deal or a good deal.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows that those records are with the Registrar in Bankruptcy because the company is going through bankruptcy proceedings. That is where the records are. This is a normal thing. That is why we have a Bankruptcy Act.
Two weeks ago I was in Thunder Bay where there was a demonstration by the grain handlers because they are concerned about the amount of grain going through that port. Yet my hon. friend never raises a question about events current to his riding. I think he should get up to date with the concerns of his people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who will be well aware now that three Canadian firms are bidding to sell up to 12 million tonnes of water to the city of Santa Barbara, California. This is the first of an ongoing series of bids.
Yesterday, in response to a question from me, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the government is opposed to large scale water exports by interbasin transfer. Does this include canal transfers, pipeline transfers and supertanker transfers of water as well?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, in order to respond in detail to my friend's question I think it best to consult the 1987 Water Act. Under that act any proposal to export water must be consistent with the federal water policy of 1987. That policy clearly states the government's opposition to any large-scale water exports by interbasin transfers. The FTA does not oblige Canada to export water to the United States. The hon. member knows that.
In the case of Santa Barbara the situation is quite different. I understand that three Canadian companies were on the city's short list of bidders and the companies will, of course, have to meet the province's licensing requirements. But we are not talking about any interbasin transfers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, not long ago the Prime Minister was quoted in Fortune magazine as follows:
If someone wants to buy a little of our oil, a little of our
water-hell, we're in the business. That's what it's all about.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. With the Prime Minister having said he is prepared to sell our water to the United States, is this government saying that it is prepared to accept massive supertanker sales of Canadian water to the United States?
The government ought to know that once you turn on the tap with the United States, and other cities add on to this tap, there is no way that Canada is going to be able to turn it off.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member talks about massive sales of water he truly is all wet.
We have all read the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement could not be more clear. Two things that it allows is the sale of bottled water, which probably makes good commercial sense for water bottlers, and tank containers of water. Beyond that, the free trade agreement does not allow this.
I again invite the hon. member to read the 1987 Water Act.


HOUSING
Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing. There are 5,000 low income families on the waiting list for co-op housing in Toronto. According to The Toronto Star, one of the units in a subsidized co-op housing project intended for low and moderate income persons is being occupied by the NDP member for Trinity-Spadina who makes $80,000 a year.
What is the minister going to do about this situation?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will know, part of the co-op housing philosophy is to have a mixture of incomes in a particular project. However, the hon. member will also know that it has been the federal government's policy since 1985 to ensure that all of our money is targeted toward low and modest income people.
This year the co-op housing program is being reviewed by the federal government and situations such as the one pointed out by the hon. member are extremely unhelpful in that particular situation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will allow two single questions. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.
Oral Questions TOURISM


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and it concerns the ad contract given to Camp and Associates for tourism promotion.
As the minister knows, his government, in answering my access to information request, has refused to make public the ratings of each bidder for that contract. Of course, by coincidence, Camp and Associates was the bidder that got the contract.
I want to ask the minister just exactly what it is that the government has to hide.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I have two very important revelations for the hon. member this morning. First, he should be reminded that Treasury Board guidelines dictate the choice of the advertiser for the Government of Canada. Treasury Board guidelines put together a panel of public servants who make this decision and the decision, as the hon. member knows, was made from six invited firms that came to bid on the work.


Don Boudria: You whited out the pages.


Thomas Hockin: A further revelation, which is so important, since Camp has taken over the advertising for Tourism Canada, Canada has now a very strong image in the United States, and it is our major job to advertise in the United States.
In 1984 when we took over, on nine attributes of tourism the United States came first in seven and Canada came first in two. The results that I received last month indicate that on those nine attributes Canada is now first in seven and the United States is first in only two.


COMPETITION BUREAU
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will be aware that the Director of the Competition Bureau has complained publicly that he is the last to hear about mergers, that companies are entering into mergers and telling him after the fact.

June 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
This is something that we have been saying for a year or so has been happening. He has given notice that he is not going to take it any more. I ask the minister what action the government is going to take to stop this practice so that the Competition Bureau is not reduced to being a rubber stamp for big industry.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the last part of his question is totally false. The Competition Bureau is not a rubber stamp to the industry. It never has been, is not, and will not be in the future.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs today is out of this Chamber on official government business. He will be back next week. I will take the question as notice and I am sure the minister will respond accordingly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


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



COPYRIGHT ACT


Barbara Greene: for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Copyright Act (fair use).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, after considerable consideration and consultation, I have produced a bill which I think goes a long way to alleviate the concerns of users about the copyright legislation currently in place, while protecting the initiatives of the government to encourage the establishment of collectives and protect creators' rights.
This bill actually provides an incentive for creators to join collectives and make their work accessible to users. At the same time, it provides an appropriate balance with respect to the rights of users such as educators, librarians, politicians and other people in our society who need to communicate, and the rights of society in general.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an Act to amend the National Capital Act (description of National Capital Region).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

He said: The bill that I am proposing before the House today is to amend the boundaries of the National Capital Region in an easterly direction, extending to an area at or near Plantagenet, Ontario.


Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill would be to extend the territory of the National Capital as far to the east as the existing territory now extends to the west of Ottawa.
Madam Speaker, this bill enjoys the support of all municipalities concerned.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When will the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



TRADE ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS ACT


Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-318, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to Canadian establishments laying off employees.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing is for the establishment of a trade adjustment review board that would have the responsibility of designating those industries or locales that are affected by substantial lay-offs or job dislocation caused by trade matters or other changes in the industrial area. It would then be able to provide or to utilize its powers to apply various benefits to workers under the present programming of the government, and also to provide ways of organizing these. I think it is a proper response to the major and serious industrial changes going on in Canada at the present time.


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

['Agreed.']
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, on April 3,1989, something over a year ago, the hon. member for Kamloops gave notice of a private members' bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (estimates).
I must say that I have been sitting on the edge of my seat since April 1989 waiting for the hon. member for Kamloops to introduce this bill. I thought the contents would be most interesting since I presume he is amending the presentation of Estimates to this House. I know his interest in procedure and form, and I wonder if he could indicate when we might see this bill?


Nelson Andrew Riis: At the earliest opportunity, Madam Speaker.



Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition signed by many Canadians on a subject which is extremely important to them.
Canada Post Corporation does not have strict regulations governing the distribution of publications that are deemed by many to be offensive. Those who are trying to bring up their children in a responsible manner with healthy morals deserve to be given the opportunity to do so with the minimum of interference.
The petitioners state that a change in the review standards by Canada Post could prevent the recurrence of incidences of wide-spread outrage and complaint. They petition Parliament in large numbers to change the Criminal Code accordingly.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I have two sets of petitions, one of which has been signed by over 2,000 Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax on books, newspapers, and magazines.

June 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They ask the House to reject this bill when it comes back before the House again.
I also have another set of petitions on behalf of people who are opposed to the GST.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have a double entry in today's petition lottery.
The first petition has over 700 signatures primarily of residents and citizens of the city of Winnipeg protesting the major cut-backs in veterans' benefits that the government took in the last budget. They are asking for restoration of the full range of those benefits in view of the great service veterans provided to this countiy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the second set of petitions has over 1,700 names registered by people in the city of Winnipeg concerning the goods and services tax and asking the government once again to reconsider its very serious decision to impose this tax upon consumers.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have petitions today from 2,240 Canadians from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and from my own province of British Columbia.
The petitioners state that, since the choice to bear children or not to bear children is a matter of personal choice and not a matter of criminal law, since the Canadian Medical Association already has guidelines and regulations in place concerning abortion and that criminal sanctions do nothing to address the reasons why women seek abortions and do nothing to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, they call upon this government not to proclaim Bill C-43.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of citizens of Ontario, Kapuskasing, Moonbeam and Toronto, to present petitions which call upon the government to reject the current proposed goods and services tax which shifts the tax burden to ordinary Canadians
and put in place tax reform which would be much more fairer to all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table yet another petition signed by residents of the province of Newfoundland who object to the government's goods and service tax.
These petitions were gathered at the behest of my distinguished colleague, the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, who brought this petition to Ottawa to present on behalf of these persons who are opposed to this tax. They are also opposed to the 31 previous tax increases imposed on them by this spendthrift government, and they are opposed to the continuation of the proposal to impose this tax and call upon Parliament to reject it.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again present several hundred names collected in my riding and elsewhere from citizens opposed to the goods and services tax. I recognize by the addresses that probably 90 per cent of the signatures on this petition are seniors who are concerned that their already limited income will be even further diminished by the imposition of this tax. The petitioners remind the House that the Liberals on behalf of Canadians strongly oppose this new goods and services tax and they pray that Parliament does not adopt it.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, a petition from the people of Newfoundland.
They call upon this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax as it is an unfair tax burden on the people of Newfoundland as well as people elsewhere in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is from a number of employees of CN, as well as CP Rail in Kamloops, who are concerned about the government's cut-backs to VIA Rail services.
They simply cannot believe that the government of the second largest country in the world, geographically, would not have a decent passenger rail system which is environmentally friendly. They are asking the govem-

i
Mi

ment to invest in a first-class passenger rail service for the country as opposed to curtailing parts of it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents of Kamloops and other parts of central British Columbia who point out that the 7 per cent goods and services tax will have an adverse affect on the tourism industry and the hospitality industry generally and will put Canada in an unfair competition position vis-a-vis the United States.
They believe that literally thousands of American tourists will stay home as opposed to visiting Canada, and thousands of Canadian tourists will go to the United States to avoid the 7 per cent GST on their goods and services related to tourism.
That is to say nothing of the tax on reading which now makes us the only country in the world that does so. Naturally they are asking the government to come to its senses and stop this tax. If they were here, they would call on the Liberals in the Senate to kill the bill as well.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, before we move to Government Orders, I want to acknowledge the decision of the government to agree to accept the refugee application of Mahmood Hassan Randeree. The case has caused some major discussion in the House of Commons over the past two weeks.
Government Orders
I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of Employment and Immigration for listening to those entreaties and to acknowledge the fact that the government had made a mistake and was wise enough to correct that mistake.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I would like to thank the hon. member and tell him that we certainly do appreciate that message and it will be related to the minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon that Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the legislative committee.
Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise to continue debate on Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission, which was first announced in Leningrad last November by the Prime Minister. Now it seems rather fitting that we are discussing legislation to fulfil that promise after the recent visit of Mr. Gorbachev to Ottawa.
The Prime Minister has continuously acted on his commitment to enhance Canada's role in the international forum. The establishment of the Canadian Polar Commission is a culmination of this leadership in enhancing Canada's role in circumpolar and scientific affairs.
I have been very fortunate of late to spend time in the north. As mentioned earlier, I returned to Ottawa yesterday after visiting Yellowknife and Iqaluit to participate in the Arctic environmental strategy consultations, another important initiative of this government.
Not many Canadians have had the opportunity to travel to our north. I can assure members that since

Government Orders
becoming Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development my appreciation for the north, in particular for all northerners, has increased tenfold.
At the end of last month, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development embarked on one of the most interesting excursions that he has had to date. During this trip not only did he participate in the historic signing of the eastern Arctic land claim, but he also spent a night in an igloo and experienced first-hand polar science by visiting the Igloolik Research Centre.
There are many components of northern life that amaze me, but one that is particularly salient is perhaps the environment and, in even broader terms, the science of the north and northern life.
Polar science and the ongoing research happening in this country is for the benefit not only of Canadians but for all people who live in a northern environment. Furthermore, it expands the understanding and respect for the north which all Canadians should share.
Tremendous progress has been made recently in the north. The Council for Yukon Indians and the Dene-Metis have reached the final agreement stage, and the TFN has signed an agreement in principle. I am sure everyone realizes that the environment of political certainty and stability created by these settlements bodes well for the continued economic and political development throughout the north.
However, this economic and political development is not a random occurrence without rhyme or reason. Development has been carefully orchestrated by this government's commitment to a solid policy and program framework in the north. The approval of the Northern Political and Economic Framework in 1987 effectively demonstrated this commitment.
This northern framework points our way toward developing the north in a sound and sustainable manner. I believe such development will be further enhanced through increased knowledge that will be provided by the Canadian Polar Commission.
As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister has heartily supported the creation of the Canadian Polar Commission, but he is not alone in this support. Two extensive studies commissioned by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have both recommended its creation, but the need for this commission does not simply respond to my department's point of view. Over the years there has been widespread support for a polar commission that includes territorial governments, aboriginal groups, private enterprise, research institutes, and universities. This bill fulfils that need in an effective manner.
The creation of this commission is an initiative which fulfils an important role in Canada and ultimately among circumpolar nations. The Canadian Polar Commission will promote and disseminate knowledge in and about the polar regions, not only in this country but wherever northern issues are a concern.
The thrust of this commission's activities is to monitor research and information about polar regions in an international capacity. What is more, it will foster the promotion and development of such knowledge through co-operation with organizations, institutions, and associations, private and public, national and international.
In the scientific world it is imperative that professionals and practitioners be kept informed about the extent and nature of our polar science. The Canadian Polar Commission responds to this need.
The commission will also lead to the development of a comprehensive Canadian polar information system. Furthermore, an increase in the field of polar knowledge will in accordance with Canada's foreign policy enhance Canada's international profile as a circumpolar nation by fostering international co-operation and by increasing international attention to Canada's polar regions by addressing such issues as resource development, legal or jurisdictional questions, security concerns, and global environmental problems including the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer, and water and airborne contaminants.
After sitting in on the hearings on The Green Plan and the Arctic environmental strategy in both Yellowknife and Iqaluit, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that these issues are of great concern to the people who live in the north, our Inuit, our Dene-Metis, and our other northern Canadians. This commission will answer needs that have been brought forward during these hearings.
The commission will also initiate, sponsor, and support conferences, seminars, and meetings. It will provide support for the publication of studies on polar subjects as well as recognize achievements and contributions in polar matters. In this way it gives prominence to the
June 15, 1990

scientific research and its applications for Canada's polar regions.
During these times of fiscal responsibility funding for scientific research obviously cannot be lavish. However, the commission will bring greater focus and efficiency to the diverse and dispersed Canadian polar research community and will link research efforts more effectively.
The Canadian Polar Commission will receive core government funding this fiscal year of approximately $1 million, but it will be encouraged to seek non-government support for its endeavours as well.
The activities of this commission will be managed by a board of directors consisting of up to 12 members, including a chair person and two vice-chairpersons. They will be appointed by Governor in Council on the recommendation of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and will serve terms of appointments of three years.
Persons appointed to this board of directors must have knowledge that will assist the commission in the furthering of its purpose. Its membership will reflect the ethnic, linguistic and regional diversities of Canada's polar regions.
Although the commission's principal office will be in the national capital region, regional offices will be established in other locations with at least one such office north of 60. The commission's presence in the north will be appropriately visible and significant with at least half of its meetings being held there. I believe this will challenge the commission to decide priority areas of focus, which will help to establish its national and international credentials.
My colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I plan to ensure that the presence in the north is an effective presence, a presence which seeks input from northerners, particularly those appointed to the commission and those interested in its programs. We will table a report on the commission's activities each year in the House of Commons.
Government Orders
The creation of a polar commission is a great step toward enhancing Canada's future as a leader among the circumpolar communities of nations. It reinforces the commitment made by the Prime Minister in Leningrad last November. This commission is a response to a number of issues and priorities. Therefore I ask the co-operation of all members of the House in ensuring prompt passage of this bill.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, I commend the minister with whom I came down from Iqaluit yesterday for her appreciation of the north. I invite all ministers and all members of Parliament to come up to the north. If they are from the other party, I will not even take credit for bringing them up there.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the second reading of Bill C-72, also known as the Canadian Polar Commission Act. We in the Official Opposition support this bill in principle because it is a good initiative and is long overdue. For too long, knowledge about the north and knowledge for the north have been at the bottom of the government's priority list.
I would like to relate how we view the fact that there has been a lot of research which has not been co-ordinated. Many people have come up to do research in the north. As a matter of fact during the middle 1970s and late 1960s there was a joke going around that every Inuit family consisted of a father, a mother, some children, and an anthropologist because there were so many of them coming up there. Most times we did not know what they were doing. We knew they were studying, but we did not know what they were studying. It got to a point where we laid down the law and said that we appreciate people coming up to do some studies, but there was some invasion of privacy in some cases. However, I think that good co-ordinated scientific research in the north will alleviate that. Northern science efforts have ebbed and flowed and waxed and waned according to the level of interest in southern Canada at a particular time.
The proposed polar commission has had an exceptionally long gestation. Almost five years have passed since September, 1985, when the then Minister of Indian

June 15, 1990
Government Orders
Affairs and Northern Development established a working group to study the feasibility and advisability of establishing a national polar institute in Canada.
The report of the working group entitled, "Canada and Polar Science" was released publicly in March, 1987. A subsequent Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development commissioned another report, known as "The Shield of Achilles: The report of the Canadian Polar Research Commission Study" and it was completed in May, 1988.
Both these reports confirmed the existence of serious problems respecting polar research in Canada. Both reports identified a need for a more co-ordinated integrated system of research, science, and knowledge.
There is research going on, as I mentioned earlier, but it is being done by a number of very different organizations who are sponsored by a variety of interests for a range of purposes. There is not enough sharing of information between all the players. I must state that during a meeting the minister and I attended yesterday some comments were made that there was not enough co-ordination between departments. One department did not know what the other was doing in terms of research and they were not sharing the information. There was general agreement that there should be some co-ordinated effort to have a working group consisting of several departments so that each department would know what other departments were doing.
Again there is not enough support being given to the polar research community. As a result Canada is well behind other circumpolar nations in research and development.
It is worth quoting some excerpts from the 1988 report of the Canadian Polar Commission Research Commission study:
The great diversity and widespread dispersion of those engaged in research in and about Canada's polar regions has slowed and handicapped the development of a strong and effective Canadian polar research community.
The many problems-are accentuated by the striking lack of knowledge about what is and is not being done in many fields of polar research, by a serious sense of isolation among much of that community, and by the woeful lack of knowledgeable support for polar research among major public and private institutions in Canada. Moreover, many thoughtful observers are increasingly concerned, even alarmed, about Canada's disorganized and sporadic participation in international polar research. The worlds of polar knowledge and
northern public policy are uncomfortably distant from each other in far too many cases. Perhaps most troubling of all is the persistent sense of remoteness and alienation of Northern Canadians from most Canadian polar research and, indeed, from national affairs generally.
I will touch on this aspect of northern alienation in a few moments, but I want to first draw to the attention of this House a recent report of the Science Council of Canada. The Science Council's report entitled, "Harnessing Science and Technology for Cold Regions" was released last December. That report contained some very harsh criticism of the government. The report of the Science Council revealed that more than 30 federal departments and agencies, over 30 Canadian universities, numerous individual firms and industrial organizations, several provincial and territorial governments, as well as native development corporations and private organizations in both northern and southern Canada, are engaged in some aspect of the development and application of knowledge pertaining to the cold climate technologies.
However, the expertise is thinly scattered and there is widespread dissatisfaction within this community regarding the scope and focus of northern science and technology-
The council had strong words concerning the lack of sustained commitment by the government to polar research: "In Canada, there has been a failure to address the changing nature of northern scientific and technological needs. There are no clear national scientific or technological goals: nor is there evidence of national leadership".
The Science Council went on to describe how, in stark contrast to the inadequacies of Canadian national policy, many other nations in the world, including the United States, West Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, France, Japan and Sweden have been increasing their commitment to cold climate technology.
The problems of the circumpolar world require international co-operation. Canada is a signatory to numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements which include co-operation in the polar science and technology and exchanges of information. Clearly the proposed polar commission could serve as a focus to promote polar science co-ordination. Without its own set of priorities, the Science Council of Canada believes Canada is in danger of giving away the shop.
June 15, 1990

The 1987 Canada and polar science report described in some detail how northern Canadian residents view science and research as a two-edged sword. It can be beneficial but it can also be detrimental. Quite often there is conflict between the traditional knowledge of the aboriginal people and the scientific data bases of the non-aboriginal researchers. Northerners object to the outside or southern scientific activity that excludes, ignores and dismisses their knowledge and information. They resent the fact that everything is controlled from southern Canada.
I would just like to again elaborate on some examples. Some years ago during caribou surveys in the Keewatin region in my riding of Nunatsiaq, the biologists found there was a decreasing herd at the time. The numbers were roughly 150,000, down from 450,000. At the time the Inuit hunters of the Keewatin said that that just was not the case. It was not possible and they knew it. Again, they said some have moved. Sometimes there are movements in different years, sometimes the caribou come right through, in this case, Rankin Inlet. At other times they do not come through Rankin Inlet in big herds. The Inuit hunters are very, very knowledgeable about the movement of caribou, because they have hunted for as long as we have been around the Keewatin region, which is roughly about 4,000 years, I believe. The biologists did their survey and decided that there were only 150,000.
It was going to start imposing quotas. People who came from the South who were allowed to hunt five caribou a year were suddenly told that they could hunt only one caribou a year. They wanted to hunt more than one. It was the Inuit who use the caribou for food and clothing who felt the hardship.
Whether it was different biologists or the same biologists, a year or two later the movement of caribou was different again. The report came back saying a mistake had been made and there were still 450,000 caribou. That is a good example of the contradiction between the knowledge of the Inuit, the authorities and the biologists at the time.
I admit that the relations between the biologists and the Inuit have improved somewhat over the past few years. The biologists realize that the Inuit knowledge is vital to research. We have maintained that it was always
Government Orders
vital to any kind of research because of our intimate knowledge and very strong ties to the land.
I will give you another example of where it has not improved. This example is so recent that it is still ongoing. The communities of Lake Harbour, Pangnir-tung and Iqaluit have hunted beluga whales for as long as they have been around, which is a long time. They have always hunted beluga whales, but earlier this year the Department of Fisheries and Oceans decided that there were not enough belugas. They wanted to do away with any form of hunting for the next 10 years.
The Hunters and Trappers Association and the hunters in those three communities told the officials that they did not know everything about belugas. After a conducting a sporadic survey they tell us there were only a few hundred. They wanted to tell the hunters that they could not hunt for the next 10 years.
The newly formed Nunavut Planning Commission intervened and decided that perhaps imposing a quota of five for each community would be sufficient. This was all right until, again, the hunters and trappers said: "What about us? What about our views? Do we not count? We are the ones who hunt the animals. We know where they go. We know their movements. We know the land because we hunt around Lake Harbour, Iqaluit and Pangnirtung."
This issue is still ongoing, but it is another case of where the people's knowledge of the land was not considered before the decision to impose some restrictions on the hunting of the beluga whales was made.
Since then, there have been ongoing discussions about that issue. I hope it will be resolved to the satisfaction of the hunters of those communities, rather than to the satisfaction of other groups.
Again, I must reiterate that the hunters are not going to kill for the sake of killing. They have never done so. They kill for food and when hunting is done in those communities, it is self-regulated. In some cases, there are quotas. We have the quota system on polar bears, but it is self-regulated if there is no quota system. I just wanted to point those things out.
There is a conflict between traditional and scientific knowledge. I just gave two examples. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that interest about the Arctic peaks in southern Canada when there are sovereignty, military concerns or economic development interests. From a

Government Orders
northern perspective, very little of what has been done to date seems to have been done for the benefit of the people who live in the north.
Lately, environmental concerns have prompted renewed interest in northern research and science. Toxic contaminants from outside Canada's borders have permeated the northern food chain.
This country needs a Polar Commission. There seems to be a widespread consensus on this fact, and increasingly southern Canadians have come to realize what we, Inuit, have always known. Canada is an Arctic nation. Seventy-five per cent of Canada lies within the Arctic or sub-Arctic. Canada's northern border forms along the longest ocean shoreline in the world. Canada is a circumpolar nation. We have much to contribute to the world in terms of increasing the world's knowledge about our environment.
We have consulted with interested groups on this legislation. All are supportive of the establishment of a Polar Commission. Again, there are some concerns. The purpose of the commission should be strengthened. The commission should be given a role in establishing goals and priorities. The imperative is missing.
In addition to canvassing the state of knowledge, the commission should advise the government on national goals, objectives, and priorities. It should provide direction. The commission should have the freedom to advise the government on any matter relating to the polar regions, at any time.
I am pleased that the language used in this bill refers to knowledge rather than the term "science". It seems that the government is assuming, within the scope of the word "knowledge", aboriginal knowledge. Perhaps the government could specify that aboriginal knowledge is included. Also, the government may wish to make clear that social science, as well as physical science, is covered by this commission.
Earlier, the minister gave the location of the head office. We have some concerns about the location of the head office of this commission. The government proposes to locate its head office in Ottawa, with regional offices in the north. We suggest that the head office should be in the north, with regional offices in the south.
We have some questions about the commission's budget. We want to ensure that sufficient financial resources are given to the commission to enable it to do a credible job. Again, the minister stated, earlier, that there are going to be about 12 commissioners, including a chairperson. I would suggest that a majority of these commissioners come from the north and have a very good knowledge-and I emphasize knowledge-of the north. I think it is very important that the commission, in its deliberations, should know exactly what it is talking about and who it should call on, whether it is in terms of animals, climate, or geography. Who better than the people of the north would know these things?
All these issues we will discuss in greater detail in the committee. For the moment, as I said earlier, we express our support in principle.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous two speakers and have enjoyed their comments. I am delighted to have an opportunity to add a few comments to those already made.
This particular piece of legislation to create an arctic commission is long overdue. If my memory serves me, I believe that we are the only polar nation that does not have a commission in place. I must say that, on behalf of the New Democrats in the Elouse, we are pleased with this initiative coming out of the study made public at the end of May, 1988, and now we are taking action on this legislation.
I want to say from the outset that we are a northern nation. As a matter of fact, I think the global perception of Canada is just that, we are a northern people. The fact that the overwhelming majority of our land mass is Arctic or sub-Arctic only emphasizes the need for such a commission. The fact that our Arctic coastline is, by far, our longest coastline, brings home the fact that much needs to be done.
I recall, not long ago, being with the parliamentary delegation visiting the U.S.S.R. and meeting with the Arctic Institute of the U.S.S.R. We heard about all the Arctic and sub-Arctic research going on, in not only the hard sciences, but the social sciences and in all aspects of the northern environment, both in terms of physical aspects, as well as the human and cultural aspects. They
June 15, 1990

elaborated at some length and indicated the role of their polar commission and the research that was going on and, more importantly perhaps, the research that was being co-ordinated by their commission.
They then asked us what Canada had of a similar nature. It was slightly embarrassing because we had to think very quickly as to just what we had that was even similar and we could not come up with anything, other than to point out that we have a number of institutes around the country. I think particularly of the Canadian Institute of North America, based at the University of Calgary; and the Boreal Institute at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. There are others where there are serious specialized activities going on regarding research into northern Canada and northern Canadian issues.
Let me begin by talking about Bill C-78, an act to establish a Canadian polar commission, by saying that we support this bill in principle. However, we have many concerns that we would like to see addressed in order to ensure that the commission is an effective and functioning body and not simply window-dressing for the government to give the impression that it is doing something regarding the northern parts of the country and, I might say, northern issues globally.
In principle, we support the bill. At this reading, which is second reading where we discuss the principle of the bill, it is important to say, right off the top, that we support this bill in principle.
The government first announced that a commission would be established in August, 1988 in response to the excellent study by Professor Thomas Simons, from Trent University, entitled: "The Shield of Achilles".
When members of Parliament read the report, an excellent report which pointed out the need for such a commission, we were very motivated and encouraged by the fact that the government indicated it planned to move. That is a long time ago but, finally, it is moving and I guess we should be thankful for that. Nothing much was done.
The Prime Minister, when he visited Leningrad in November of last year, announced the establishment of the Canadian Polar Commission. That was one of the announcements he made in the Soviet Union, based on the rather embarrassing experience that some of us had being there just prior to the Prime Minister's visit. However, the Conservative government once more an-
Govemment Orders
nounced that a polar commission would be established and The Green Plan was released this spring.
Most of the initiatives pertaining to the Arctic, which were included in The Green Plan, unfortunately were just old and rather over-used initiatives. That is why we wish to ensure that there will be some real results from the establishment of this commission.
We believe that Canada should be a leader in the area of circumpolar co-operation in the broad range of areas of scientific, social, historical, environmental, human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. We feel, as a result, that the establishment of this commission is a step in the right direction. However, as I said earlier, we have many, many concerns.
I think it is fair to say that people around the world expect of us, as a developed country with a fine educational and research basis, that we should lead the way on a number of polar research issues. While we have made incredible gains in certain areas, at certain institutes, and in certain departments, the co-ordination of this has been overlooked and certainly things could be an awful lot better.
The mandate given to the commission, while very broad, should ensure that the function of the commission is to set priorities for the government and to keep the government on track addressing the very real issues facing our north, not just academic dissertations, but something more than a dissertation that will sit on the shelf and see no action.
I must say with some regret that this happened with a study done back in 1987 on Broughton Island which found that there were very high levels of PCBs in the food chain and in the blood samples of the local people. Two-thirds of the children had abnormally high PCB levels, yet no action was taken on the piece of research. We hope with the polar commission in place there will be some incentive not only to study the problems but to take action on them.
We ought to ensure that the commission co-ordinates the work being done by various government departments and agencies and that the wheel simply is not being reinvented time and time again regarding arctic issues.
One ought to mention when the research was being done on the creation of this commission, there emerged from an inquiry across Canada an incredibly strong consensus by Canadians from all walks of life that a Canadian polar research commission was not only desirable, but required urgently. Whether we were hearing from polar researchers presently in place or from universities, industry, aboriginal leaders, politicians, govern-

Government Orders
ment officials from federal territorial and provincial levels, various research organizations or granting councils, or many interested Canadians, we found that they wanted a Canadian polar research commission in place as quickly as possible. It will do us all well to act on this piece of legislation as quickly as we can without being careless but move expeditiously. I am certain we can once we have begun this stage of the bill.
The great diversity and widespread dispersion of those engaged in research in and about Canada's polar regions has slowed and, in some respects, handicapped the development of a strong and effective Canadian polar research community. The research that takes place is rather disorganized and sporadic, and I must say that the worlds of polar knowledge and northern public policy are uncomfortably distant from one another. There is a desperate need for co-ordination. We are hopeful that the commission will provide that necessary infrastructure to co-ordinate these efforts.
It is important that the commission not undertake initiatives that duplicate the responsibilities or the efforts of others. It ought not to take over activities where the work can be done by others, perhaps more effectively or more efficiently. Instead, it should build upon, complement and support the work of the many diverse existing Canadian institutions, programs and organizations that are dedicated to the development of polar knowledge.
This is something that not only the commission ought to guard against, but should ensure that it not simply duplicate work, and I must say the excellent work, that is being done currently in our country.
We should recommend in the strongest terms possible that the Canadian Polar Research Commission must be concerned with the full range of knowledge in and about the polar regions and not be limited to the contemporary and restricted meaning of the word "science", or even to define formally notions of research as might be expressed in universities or industrial research and development ventures.
I am thinking of heritage and cultural issues. The indigenous knowledge of northern aboriginal people, the large and small scale technological developments appropriate to northern development and the whole range of the humanities and social sciences together form important components of polar knowledge. The commission must address the development of these facets of polar knowledge with the same enthusiasm it demonstrates for the development of polar knowledge in the natural and applied sciences.
I believe it will be reflected in the committee hearings that too often when we think of polar research or northern research, we think in terms of the pure sciences. An appeal will go out to broaden the scope of the work of the commission as much as possible.
When the report entitled The Shield of Achilles was being developed, the views expressed by those sought out for their views indicated an appreciation and a recognition for the fact that we have a broad sweep of the terms "research" and "science".
It is also important that while we call the commission an Arctic commission we also recognize that the definition of the word "north" means a variety of things to many people. Depending on the discipline or perhaps the individual, the definition of what constitutes the northern part of Canada will vary from person to person or from institute to institute or from source to source.
I believe the mandate of the Canadian Polar Research Commission should reflect the broadest sense of the word. I agree that while no clear line of demarcation presently exists between the north and the rest of Canada, we all would recognize the nordicity of our country developed by Professor Hamelin, who I think is from the University of Quebec at Laval, which offers what is probably the best guide but which is nonetheless the real sense that most Canadians have of what is the north and what is not.
In order to give guidance to the work of the commission, our definition of the north would certainly include research in and about Yukon, the Northwest Territories,
June 15, 1990

the Arctic Seas, Nouveau Quebec, Labrador and certain northern parts of our provinces.
I want to refer briefly to what the mandate of the commission ought to be. The primary functions of the commission should be to monitor continuously the development in Canada and elsewhere of knowledge in and about the polar regions and to report regularly and publicly thereon. It is important we see that the work of the commission will go beyond simply research into Canadian issues.
Also, the mandate should be to promote and encourage the development of polar knowledge in Canada, and to encourage national, public and private institutions and organizations to support the development and dissemination of such knowledge.
I might add that it should advise the Government of Canada when requested, on any matter relating to polar regions, and perhaps from time to time on areas about which the commission is not necessarily requested to do so.
The mandate should also include the commission to act as a source of information about polar research matters for Canadians and Canadian institutions, and to foster contact and co-operation among members of the Canadian polar research community and between that community and the international polar research community.
I do not think we can over-emphasize that in recognition of all the countries that are polar nations involved in the polar community, there is a need to have this type of co-ordination between countries. That is probably as important as the work that we do within our own country.
Obviously the role of the commission in this international research should encourage the commission to devote an appropriate portion of its time and its resources to monitoring, fostering and reporting on Canadian participation in international polar research. The rapidly growing interest in circumpolar co-operation and the general importance of international Arctic affairs demand that Canada have a focal point for knowledge about Arctic research. I believe that the commission would provide that focal point.
It is recommended that the commission be composed of 12 commissioners. I suppose that is arguable. But I
Government Orders
suppose 12 commissioners, as long as they are working commissioners, would be appropriate. Other members have also indicated that we feel veiy strongly that a significant number must be residents of northern Canada, as well as being knowledgeable about northern Canadian issues.
I do not think there is any question that those who have spent their entire lives, or a major part of their lives, living in the north or working in the north would be appropriate to be named as members of the commission because we see these commissioners as not being a typical board of directors but, in fact, very much working commissioners.
In conclusion, it is important that the commission report to Parliament. If there is one thing that the Parliament of Canada is interested in, and perhaps ought to be much more interested in, it is what is going on in our northern regions. Therefore the suggestion that the commission report directly to a minister and through that minister to Parliament is appropriate. This of course would assume that all of the commission's reports, including an annual report on the state of polar research in Canada and elsewhere, should be made public, tabled in Parliament and then sent to provincial and territorial governments and to other interested institutions and persons.
The budget of the commission needs to be adequate. I know that we have been given a basic budget that outlines what ought to be included. But I must say that in my first examination of this budget I think it is extremely modest. The work required of the commission in the first few months of its existence is critical, especially in terms of its establishing its credibility in the eyes not only or our scientific community but of Canadians generally. Without being specific about areas of the budget which I would like to see increased, and there are two or three which probably could be even decreased, a substantially larger financial commitment would be appropriate. However, I will leave that matter until we get into discussing this legislation at the committee.
We support this bill in principle. We believe it requires a very specific and clear mandate. We believe that it ought not to overlap with work being done presently and that it ought not to involve itself with work that can be better done by others.

Private Members' Business
We look forward to the work in the the legislative committee and to hearing not only appropriate witnesses from the aboriginal people and various research organizations, but interested people in northern development, as we define the north, to ensure that the commission not only is an effective and efficient commission but the best polar commission going.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Larrivee):: May I call it two o'clock and proceed to Private Members' Business?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Leonard Donald Hopkins: that Bill C-300, an act to amend the Criminal Code (obscenity) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, in a statement on February 8, I brought to the attention of the House an incident that had occurred involving a lingerie company's catalogue that had been delivered to residents on three Canadian Forces Bases in Ontario.
The catalogue in question arrived unwrapped and contained pictures that are obscene. In many cases children in the families were the first to see the catalogue. This has upset many parents who feel that their fundamental right to choose what is acceptable or not has been challenged. This is best described by a paragraph in a newspaper article which states:
The call for changes was sparked by a full-colour booklet that contained pictures of semi-clad women sent to residents of three military bases in Ontario late last year.
Porrier, who was offended when one of the 30-page catalogues arrived in her mailbox, was angry that it arrived without an envelope to prevent children from seeing it.
She and others have since complained.
That is why I bring this bill forward. I will read the first paragraph of the bill which really sets out its purpose. It
states:
1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding, immediately after section 168 thereof, the following:
"168.1 (1) Everyone who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering unsolicited visually obscene material is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Hence the purpose of the bill is to strengthen the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the mailing of obscene material.
The targeting of Canadian Forces Bases was unfortunate and a bad judgment call in itself. It indicates that the producer felt that he was tapping a willing market. This was insulting to those people. Content aside, this fact provoked those who received the catalogue.
In her letter to me one resident said:
My right to choose what is acceptable, or not acceptable in my home has been challenged-I feel violated. My freedom to choose has been taken from me. And something that I do not wish, has been thrust upon me.
In an effort to obtain some answers I wrote to Canada Post asking for an explanation of the review process that governs any distribution. I will just read one paragraph of that letter to Canada Post in which I stated:
From your legal point of view, I understand that the circulation of this catalogue does not violate any Canadian laws. I would like to clarify Canada Post's position on this issue. What criteria applies to the distribution of publications that might be deemed by some to be obscene? What is the review process that governs any distribution? What standards are applied to the distribution itself?
June 15, 1990

I got a reply from Canada Post. In part, it reads as follows:
The Corporation is obliged to deliver mail which is tendered to it which does not violate the provisions of-the Criminal Code and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act -
In your letter you have asked what review process is used to govern the distribution of unaddressed admail and what standards are applied to the distribution itself. The standards which are applied are those which are set by the Criminal Code-The review process which is used provides that where the employee at Canada Post Corporation who receives the mail piece believes that it may be obscene, he may refer this matter to his superiors who can then contact our Legal Affairs Branch for a legal opinion on the matter. Through our divisional and national control centres, it is possible for an employee to complete this process within a very short period of time, usually within a matter of hours.
My reasons for introducing the bill are these, and I have stated some already. There is an obvious lack of clarity in the Criminal Code with regard to such mailings. There is no question about that.
In introducing this bill I am seeking to strengthen the Criminal Code by providing stronger guidelines for Canada Post. This bill will make it possible to respect people's right of choice and what they consider to be their codes of morality.
It is realized that there are varied opinions on this mailing. Many people would not think twice about it, whereas others are extremely upset by it.
Therefore, what I am endeavouring to do is to provide through legislation a reason for Canada Post to improve the standards of packaging of such items, thus forcing the producers to reconsider their packaging and mailing methods. In doing so we will also be protecting the right of choice and respecting people's moral standards.
The catalogue in question arrived unwrapped and contained pictures that are borderline obscenity or pornography. In many cases children in the families were the first to see the catalogue. As a result, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why some parents were justifiably upset.
The Fraser committee into prostitution and pornography in Canada has recommended more context sensitive and precise definitions of obscenity. Unfortunately, these legislative amendments have not been adopted. For that reason I have introduced Bill C-300.
Private Members' Business
In introducing this bill, I am seeking to strengthen the Criminal Code by providing stronger guidelines for Canada Post. This bill makes it possible to respect people's rights of choice.
At present, Canada Post is simply following the guidelines that it has to work on. It will continue to do so. It claims that it is not up to it to monitor the mail. It probably reacts more than it acts, although some of the things that come to its attention are certainly questioned. But there is a great area in between that is very questionable.
In this bill I am trying to put a clarification into the Criminal Code as to the meaning of obscenity and to strengthen the hands of Canada Post by amending the Criminal Code accordingly. I would appreciate it very much if the House would take these matters into serious consideration. The veiy fact that the producer of this particular catalogue targeted three military bases in Canada without sending it at that time to other communities in Canada shows that he had a lack of respect and a lack of judgment for those communities, and I do not think that is fair ball. The Criminal Code should be there to protect people from these publications, if they do not want to receive them. That can only be done if we put the guidelines in for Canada Post to follow.
I thank members of the House for their attention.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-300, which would amend the Criminal Code to include a provision dealing with one aspect of the mailing of obscene matter.
The control of pornography and obscenity has been a concern to Canadians for a long time. It is connected with our concerns about sexual assault and also the way in which our society views women and children.
The report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, the Fraser committee, which was referred to by the hon. member who introduced this bill, concluded that there were two kinds of harm flowing from pornography. The first was the offence to the general public who were involuntarily exposed to it. The second was the broader social harm to the values of equality that are enshrined in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the hon.

June 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
member voted in favour of the enshrinement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We are not alone in attempting to deal with this concern. The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in the United States recently supported an attack on pornography. In its final report it concluded that the problem was in some ways getting worse.
In Canada, the Criminal Code has contained provisions against the sale and distribution of obscene material for a number of years. Other federal legislative provisions deal with it as well. For example, the customs tariffs have prohibited the importation of materials of an immoral or indecent character. Provincial legislators have created censorship laws and bodies to enforce them and municipalities have regulated the sale and display of obscene publications within their jurisdiction.
However, the legal scene has changed since the charter came into force in 1982, enshrining as fundamental freedoms in section 2(b) the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication".
Chief Justice Dickson recently wrote that freedom of expression was entrenched in the Constitution "so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream".
In our consideration of the issue of pornography, as with many other issues in Canadian life, the charter has created a number of situations in which values must be weighed against one another and a policy developed that will meet our concerns about a social problem while at the same time respecting the fundamental freedom of others. This weighing process must take into account not only the situation of a person attempting to sell hard core pornography, but also other concerns such as artistic or literary merit and the needs of the scientific and medical communities for technical literature that might in other contexts be considered obscene.
This bill would, for instance, prohibit the mailing of a book containing reproductions of some of the greatest works of art. The legislators will attempt this reconciliation of values and interests.
The problem with this proposed bill is that it attempts to deal with a very difficult problem. I commend the hon. member for introducing this bill because it is a difficult problem. But I believe it is being dealt with in a piecemeal fashion.
We must bear in mind the importance of this fundamental freedom and the careful balance that must be made in attempting to reduce its protections. In that it has not fully balanced considerations such as the one that I mentioned about artistic and other community values, I say that this bill is premature. I strongly suggest that this is a matter that should be reviewed in full and in detail by the Minister of Justice as part of a complete package before any legislative action is taken.
I would ask that the Minister of Justice proceed to give us a legislative package that we can work on.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate on Bill C-300, introduced by the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I also acknowledge the incident that the hon. member set forward as the reason for his letter and his bill. We can certainly understand the unsolicited nature of the material that was sent to these particular residences.
It seems though that the unsolicited nature of the material arriving is more to the point than the actual definition of obscenity that the hon. member has put forward in this particular piece of legislation. The difficulty that I have with the Private Member's Bill is the definition that is put forward in this particular piece of legislation.
The matter of obscenity is one that has consumed individuals and legislators for quite some period of time in order to find the balance between what is acceptable and would allow artists and other individuals to have the freedom to express themselves. On the other side of the coin is what society abhors and would not want to have our children and other individuals see.
It is obviously a matter of censorship and where do we draw that line. It is something that has been going on for ages and it will continue. It is something with which we will deal. There was an attempt in the last Parliament to deal with certain aspects of it.
Section 168 of the Criminal Code provides:
168. Every one commits an offence who makes use of the mails for
the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything that is obscene,
June 15, 1990

indecent, immoral or scurrilous, but this section does not apply to a person who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything mentioned in Section 166(4).
Section 166(4) outlines exceptions to the offence created by that section which I just read with respect to the restriction on the publication of various reports of judicial proceedings. If a Crown prosecutor or anybody else was dealing with some obscene material as set out under this section, they would be able to be transmitted through the mail to these individuals. They would not be caught by this section. This is the only restriction that applies to this particular section. I would indicate that the matter has already been dealt with in the Criminal Code.
The hon. member's proposed bill would add another section after the one that I have just cited, basically dealing with unsolicited obscene material.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: "Visually obscene material". You are not on the same subject.


Kenneth David Atkinson: Visually obscene material, and I grant that that is what is in the bill as proposed. As I indicated, it is already a crime to send obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous materials through the mails. If this particular material was considered under that subsection, it would be obviously caught by that particular matter.
What is the definition of obscene? The statutory definition of obscene materials is those in which there is an undue exploitation of sex or of sex and violence.
The exact nature of unacceptable images and written descriptions is not set out in the Criminal Code but has been left to judicial interpretation. The courts have based their interpretation on what is referred to as the community standard of tolerance.
With respect to the community standards test, guidance is provided by the following statement from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1984 decision in Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd.:
What matters is not what Canadians think is right for themselves to see. What matters is what Canadians would not abide other Canadians seeing because it would be beyond the contemporary standard of tolerance to allow them to see it.
This is an objective standard that is decided by individuals in the community through a jury trial. They apply this particular standard to what they consider to be
Private Members' Business
visually obscene material or any obscene material in any other medium.
This has proven to be a good way to deal with the matter, because a jury of the peers in that community are the ones who decide what is tolerated within that particular community.
It is something that shifts, as well, over time. That is the reason that obscene or visually obscene has not been defined in the Criminal Code up to this particular time. I think we can all agree that over the years that line has shifted as standards change within a particular community-
That is the reason that judicial interpretation has been used for this particular definition of obscene. It has proved to be a workable definition relating to each individual community.
If we take a moment to examine what is presented by the hon. member in Bill C-300, we will see that the proposal is an amendment as I mentioned immediately following Section 168. It would introduce a special restriction on the use of the mails for unsolicited, visually obscene material.
Visually obscene material is defined in this bill to include "any matter or thing in or on which is depicted (a) a nude person; (b) a female person who is not nude but whose breasts or any part thereof is not covered by something which is not non-transparent; (c) a person who is not nude but whose (i) genitalia or any part thereof is not covered by something which is not nontransparent, or (ii) buttocks or any part thereof is not covered by something which is not non-transparent."
The bill obviously is based on two concerns. First, that the mails are used to distribute materials which include depictions containing nudity or revealing any part of the buttocks, genitalia, or the female breast. Second, that the mails are used to send such materials when they are unsolicited.
That is more the concern that I would read into this particular bill and also from what the hon. member mentioned as the incident precipitating this particular piece of legislation being brought forward.
We have to think for a moment about how far-reaching such an amendment would be. I will give an example which I think would raise some concern for members of this House.

June 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
If an individual was given a subscription to Sports Illustrated and then subsequently the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated arrived at an individual's home, it would be considered to be on an unsolicited basis. I would dare to say that from the definition included in this particular bill, from what I have just read, that particular issue of Sports Illustrated would be considered obscene. At the veiy least some portion of a female breast is depicted as well as possibly bare buttocks, but it is considered one of the tamer forms of available publications. If this publication is caught by this law, one can see what difficulties would ensue.
It is a real difficulty to define what is obscene. My hon. friend has made an attempt to do it, but I would submit that what has occurred in trying to define visually obscene material is that the standard has been drawn too tightly and not something that should be decided by each individual community as set out already in the Criminal Code.
I have other concerns with the proposed bill as well. In my view a provision of this nature would be anomalous. It creates a special statutory definition of obscene with respect to using the mails for unsolicited, visually obscene material. That definition would be different from the definition used for obscenity in other sections of the Criminal Code. There would be this difference for one type of material as opposed to another.
In trying to deal with the whole aspect of obscenity and pornography, it would create a great deal of difficulty. As my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga West indicated, it is probably a premature matter. I commend the member for his attempt at the unsolicited aspect of it. In defining obscenity, I think he would run into these difficulties with the piece of legislation that is put forward.
Between 1977 and 1988 there were 43 bills introduced into Parliament, including six public bills to change the law governing pornography. The most recent of these was Bill C-54 which died on the Order Paper on October 1, 1988 when Parliament was dissolved. That bill proposed to define as illegal the visual presentation of explicit sexual behaviour which was further defined in detail. Arts, literary, museum, and media groups, as well as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, considered the definition of pornography to be too broad because it included explicit sex.
We are dealing with a definition in the proposed Bill C-300 which does not even refer to specific sexual acts. Bill C-54 caused a great deal of controversy, not only for the reverse onus that it put on an individual, but as I mentioned for the various groups that felt the definition of pornography included in it would restrict a lot of people, to the point, having sat on a library board in my municipality, where the library board and the officers of the library were concerned that they could be called to account for this book or whatever they had in their library. It does create some concerns.
Obviously that piece of legislation is important and something that should be revisited. Everyone in this House abhors the depictions of sexual violence against women and sexual acts against children. It is something that should be dealt with. We will have to try to work toward a definition and a process that will allow us to do that.
It is interesting that in 1987 an Angus Reid poll found that only 37 per cent of Canadians thought the definition of pornography should include depictions of sexual intercourse between consenting adults. Therefore one might conclude from this that the majority of Canadians consider nudity or partial nudity in visual presentations to be acceptable.
Quite frankly, in my view, if one looks at the community standards test to which I referred earlier, I rather doubt that most Canadians would be intolerant of their neighbour sending or receiving a subscription to a magazine or catalogue as was mentioned.
The unsolicited aspect of it, as I say, is the matter that my friend is trying to get at, but with the definition that is included here I do not believe that we could support the bill. We will go on from there. I believe it is inopportune at this time to consider any amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with the matter of pornography or obscenity.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to voice my objections to Bill C-300, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code to make the mailing of unsolicited visually obscene material an offence. Mr. Speaker, my objections obviously do not arise from a belief that such practices should be encouraged but are based on the fact that this amendment is not useful. Its substance is remarkably vague. It is the reverse, Mr. Speaker, of that spirit of tolerance

June 15, 1990

that encourages most Canadians to support the free expression of ideas and the free distribution of photographic, audio-visual or other material.
The Criminal Code provides that using the mails to transmit obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous material constitutes an offence.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to broaden the concept of obscenity, but only when the mails are used, since the other sections of the Code dealing with the use of obscene material are not affected by these amendments.
I can well imagine that some people do not appreciate receiving letters or packages in the mail containing pictures or photographs of persons who are nude or whose bodies are not decently covered. Fortunately, the Criminal Code prohibits such practices when the content is indecent or obscene.
However, the scope of this amendment would seem to be far too broad. If it were passed, it would be possible to prosecute, under the Criminal Code, a person who uses, for commercial or other purposes, works of art or nude or semi-nude persons represented therein.
Strictly speaking, the proposed amendment would make it an offence to send by mail photographs of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, just because a person of the female sex is not entirely covered. Imagine!


Eugène Bellemare: And of the male sex!


Fernand Jourdenais: And also of the male sex, my colleague is perfectly right! What about Adam?
So, Madam Speaker, considering the tenor of my comments, it is probably unnecessary to stress the problems with interpretation-as you know, the same subject may elicit varying interpretations,-often leading to 20-minute arguments and speeches in the House-as well as the uncertainty the bill would cause if it were passed.
We need only consider how difficult it would be to determine exactly what the word "covered", used twice in the amendment proposed by the hon. member, is supposed to mean. What happens to the snapshot or that well-known ad where we see a child with part of its buttocks open to view? A baby-and this is supposed to be obscene? Can we reasonably claim that this snapshot
Private Members' Business
is obscene? However, Bill C-300 before the House today criminalizes the mailing of such photographs. Does anyone disapprove of this kind of photograph? I think the hon. member is pushing obscenity too far.
There are of course any number of examples, but I am confident that my colleagues here in the House, and we are not supposed to comment on those who are absent, Madam Speaker, they are perfectly right- However, I am sure they would feel the same way I do about the bill before the House today and its lack of precision.
Madam Speaker, Canadians don't want reactionary measures that will make our country the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Canadians have shown, and continue to show, tolerance for the views of others. As far as obscenity is concerned, tolerance is especially important and desirable, considering the wide range of opinions in our society on what should be considered obscene.
This tolerance has been expressed on many occasions, and the government must try to promote tolerance with legislation that is appropriate to the circumstances.
To paraphrase a former Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart, it is very difficult to define obscenity. However, Madam Speaker, one thing is certain: We know it when we see it.
Madam Speaker, how can anyone claim to see anything obscene in a photograph of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or of Michelangelo's David? Nevertheless, that is the kind of conclusion forced on us by the amendment proposed by the hon. member which gives a definition of obscenity which, I am sure, fails to meet any of the current standards of Canadian society.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I am not saying that all Canadians should be delighted to receive pictures in the mail that may be somewhat offensive. My point is that our legislation already provides that this use of the mails is illegal when our society's standard of tolerance is exceeded.
The question is not necessarily what the individual considers to be in good taste, but how far Canadians are prepared to tolerate certain things and to what extent their tolerance level has been exceeded in each specific case.

Private Members' Business
Madam Speaker, with respect, Bill C-300 merely imposes a view of the world that no longer corresponds to current standards in Canadian society. The bill tabled by the hon. member opposite makes illegal what the vast majority of Canadians do not consider to be obscene.
In cases where there is genuinely obscene material, the Criminal Code provides that this is an offence. I see no reason to go beyond what the Criminal Code already provides. We as Canadians are proud of the range of opinions and views expressed in our society and of our ability to respect them.
Madam Speaker, we must not undermine this tolerance, which is our strength as a people, by passing legislation whose impact is considerable and goes well beyond the existing social consensus on the difficult question of obscenity.
For six years I have seen and heard the hon. member opposite in this House, and I know him to be very respected and a man of extraordinary integrity. Before drafting my speech, I gave the matter considerable thought, but I cannot accept Bill C-300, for all the reasons I just mentioned.
Therefore, Sir, I cannot support your bill.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this motion and I think it is certainly a measure worthy of consideration.
I trust that the minister will report to the justice committee on this important matter in a reasonable period of time. I, too, think it should be looked at as part of a larger package.
I have some specific concerns about the proposed motion, because the kind of pornography that I would like banned is much more specific. It is not simple nudity. I personally do not have any problem with the portrayal of women's bodies. I do not think that is pornography. What I and I believe most people are really concerned about is when women's bodies, children's bodies and men's bodies are portrayed in a degrading or dehumanizing way. It is the type of portrayal that frequently sends a hate message to society.
I think this legislation is too general to address such an issue. It is suggesting that the depiction of women's bodies in general is wrong or hateful. The bill is much too simple and would require a number of amendments.
The kind of legislation that I would support would attack the worst of the pornography that is in our society. Most of us can agree on what is generally offensive material, which is material that combines violence with nudity or children being used in a sexual way. We can only really attack the worst kinds of pornography in our society through legislation but even that is a small part of the total answer to this problem.
As a media studies teacher, this is one of the subjects that we were trying to grapple with. Legislation can never address the influences upon young people in our society and the tremendous amount of mainstream pornography that confronts us. Pornography can be far more insidious because many people do not even know when they are seeing material that dehumanizes other human beings.
For example, if one looks through a popular women's magazine that one could find on the stands in a Loblaws store or any other supermarket, one can see pictures and products that promote rape myths about women. You will see pictures in which women are depicted as enjoying pain and being violated. You will see pictures that treat women as things, simply there for sexual purposes. There are images of domination and violence against women in our society, making other people think this is sexually attractive.
Think of some of the names of products in our society that suggest that women are, in fact, simply meant to be violated. I think of products with names like Impulse, which suggests that women are always ready, or Poison, the perfume. A recent Calvin Klein Obsession ad frequently depicts a woman surrounded by a group of young men. In some of them, there was a hazy type of photography used, so that it appeared that everybody was nude. We had what was being used simply to sell Calvin Klein perfume or the Calvin Klein name for jeans and so on, the picture of what was, in effect, a teen gang bang.
June 15, 1990

To young people in our society, these kinds of images infiltrate their consciousness. It looks to them as if this is fun. However, of course, when we hear from rape victims, it is no fun at all.
In one unit in my program in media studies we had a play and discussion on date rape. The particular play pointed out many of the myths about young women and about what happens in a particular date scene, and some of the myths that young men have about women as well. For example, when a young woman wears a sexy dress, some young men may think that she is looking for more than a simple date. At that particular session when we talked with the students, three young female students actually collapsed and experienced a tremendous traumatic feeling about the whole thing because it had happened to them. We were prepared for this in advance and, as teachers, had to deal with these children. They were taken out of the room and talked to. They were just ordinary young girls that had gone out on a date, expecting to go out on a date, expecting to have fun, go to a movie with a young man, and ended up being raped. That was three in a group of about 100 young people.
In fact, one hears some young men say things like "she was looking for it". What gives some young men the idea that when a young girl wears an attractive dress she is looking for more than a good time, that we all think is a good time? I think it is the constant invasion into the minds of young people through the media. It is totally unavoidable. If one looks at ads in the subway, even in the city as we drive around, one can constantly see images of young women looking as if they enjoy being violated.
I think of another ad in which shoes are being sold. In fact, I can think of several shoe ads. In one particular ad in Vogue, the woman's head looked like it was being kicked. Her expression, of course, was a dull kind of expression, the eyes sort of glazed over, and her mouth was very large and open with very large pink lips. Again, a very sexy looking attractive face combined with a violent action. It looks to people, in the subconscious very frequently, as if pain and sexuality are attractive.
This kind of insidious attack in our society is something that is really frightening. This is one reason why, in Ontario, media studies education has been made a mandatory part of the curriculum. It is also one reason
Private Members' Business
why I am very concerned about copyright legislation. There are many advertisers who do not want teachers to look at their material and decode it with students. I am sure they would certainly like to attack many media studies teachers when they examine these sorts of things in classrooms, because we do copy them, make slides out of some of the ads, and go over what is happening so that the students can see how they are being manipulated when they go out into society.
Rock videos are some absolutely startling examples of mainstream pornography that certainly are very, very damaging. Almost always young male rock singers dominate women. Women are depicted as things. They very frequently have uniform-like outfits on. They do not do anything; they are just there to look attractive. They are seldom playing instruments. They are simply sex objects. They are there, I am sure quite consciously on the part of the rock video makers, simply to be a sexy figure that is associated.
The young men almost invariably are placed higher on the stage. The woman is always down. The woman is only there for the purpose of appearing sexy. There are many insidious things that rock videos do besides dealing with sexuality. They also depict authority figures in a very negative fashion. So, it extends much further than just women.
Education is probably the best answer to the problems of mainstream pornography throughout our society. An alert and aware population, that can see when it is being manipulated, can counteract the insidious influence in our society.
I have also thought that we should be rewarding, using a positive approach, rather than just dealing with it through legislation. We could provide awards for the positive values that are presented by advertisers and by the media. One can see many examples of advertising that exerts a very positive influence in our society. It is very effective. Rather than this constant preoccupation with negative values, if positive values were promoted by advertisers, they would probably sell better products and society would be better as a result.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to this bill

Private Members' Business
sponsored by a long-term member of Parliament, my friend from the Official Opposition.
Private Member's hour reflects the best of the Parliament. It has changed over our joint tenure in the House, his much longer than mine of course. In the past, Private Members' bills would go year after year being talked out and going to the bottom of the list. They had virtually no chance of ever coming to the fore.
Private Members' Business today has much more significance. It does not mean a bill always goes through the first time, the second time, or even the third time, but because a certain number of bills are drawn and have to come to a vote. The government, and certainly the bureaucracy, have to spend much more time thinking about Private Members' bills. I commend my friend for taking the time to develop a bill for us to debate. This helps the people of the country see what we are about.
The intent is certainly legitimate. There is absolutely no doubt that there are major abuses of the obscenity legislation as defined in the Criminal Code. We can all recognize them on the extreme end of obscenity. We would all agree that there are abuses and, indeed, the existing Criminal Code does a pretty good job on it.
The problem we run across as legislators, of course, is in the middle where we are trying to draw the specific line at artistic freedom, and between our own personal beliefs of what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and unacceptable. When something crosses the line, we should use the full weight of society-all the police forces and the judicial system-by throwing people in jail for short or even long periods of time for breaking the laws. The longer I have been here, the more hesitant I have become to substitute my view for the many views that exist in the community. I guess it reflects a number of counterbalancing pressures that we find.
Having said that, there is no doubt that it is up to Parliament, after a sufficient amount of debate and consideration of different types of bills, to come up with a decision. Our distinguished friend has put forward his proposal.
To a certain extent, it depends on which area of the country one is from. There is no doubt that my riding has a more small "c" conservative view on obscenity. There
are pictures in books which would be more objectionable to more people in my riding than in certain other ridings. That reflects that I come from a constituency with a small city, small towns, many farmers, and some deeply fundamentalist religious groups that are truly and honestly offended.
Having said that, within the city of Lethbridge, a small city of 60,000 people, there are a group of people who are not nearly so offended. Indeed, they would argue passionately about my friend's definition which would define even a picture of a nude as obscene and not allow it to be sent through the mails. They would honestly and legitimately not agree with that because they are in no way offended. They refer back to the long historic development of humans and artistic freedom being able to depict these types of things.
I wish we could have a committee stage because I would ask my friend whether his definition would include even medical books that show a nude person for medical purposes. I know he personally would not intend that to be the case, but as I read the definition, I was a bit worried as to whether that would be covered. Maybe it would not. That is the advantage of the bill ultimately coming to a vote. It would then go off to a committee which could hear lawyers, church people, the artistic community, and ordinary citizens to get their perspective on this bill.
As I say, it depends a bit on whether one is from a big city or a small town. It depends on the region of the country we come from. As well, Canada is becoming more and more part of the global community. There is absolutely no doubt that our young people, having been raised on a diet of television, feel that the world is much smaller and much more theirs than do some of us who are older. That means, of course, with additional trade, commerce, and travel, that the world standard has to be taken into consideration.
As we move up to a broader level of generalization, we know that more individual perversity, odd, and queer things can occur. But in this country, since 1982 particularly, when we entrenched as part of our fundamental law freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, the country has been put into a whole new dynamic. That was eight years ago. Eight years in the life of a nation is a drop in the bucket. In eight years, the ideas of people change.
June 15, 1990

Fifty years ago some of today's Playboy magazines probably would have landed the publisher in jail. One hundred years ago they would have had their heads chopped off. We all know that in the criminal law we have gone from over 700 offences for which people would be killed by virtue of capital punishment. Canada has no offences on the civil side for which the state can impose capital punishment and we have just one in the military where capital punishment applies during active wars.
Our whole conception on a global basis is changing quite dramatically. Whenever Parliament draws a line, it is almost instantaneously out of touch with that infinite variety of relationships and attitudes that people display as we go from a rural society into an industrial society. Now we are moving into an even more complex type of society which people generally refer to as an information society. It is highly technological.
I think we should be careful. I very much appreciate the effort that my hon. friend has made. I am sure he will continue to push with this bill. I am sure he will put it on the list again and in one of the next sessions it will probably be drawn. Then members of Parliament will have to go through a very detailed process internally. We will have to listen to the witnesses who come to give their
Private Members' Business
perspective on the bill. We will have to consult with our riding associations and people in our riding. Then we will have to stand, be counted, and draw a line. That is the way the system works.
Madam Speaker, I see my time has expired and I thank you for the time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
At this point, I may remind hon. members that Mr. Nelson Mandela, Deputy President of the African National Congress, will address members of the House of Commons and the Senate, in the Commons Chamber, at eleven o'clock a.m, pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 13, 1990.

It being 3.00 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1.00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 18,1990