1990-11-20

Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to nine petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



REVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act concerning Bill C-79, and the bill is presented with amendments.

I would also like to thank the researchers and the lawyers who have done an excellent job for the committee and, in particular, the clerks of the committee, Mr. Birch and especially Mr. Kirby who has been with us now for many months and doing excellent work.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to the chair of that committee. It was a difficult committee. There were some challenging moments. However, because of the excellent leadership provided by the chair, we are able now to file this report and hopefully deal with it expeditiously.
I simply want to say that I appreciate the efforts the chairman made during those difficult moments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, if you requested unanimous consent to jump from motions to the presenting of petitions, I think members on both sides of the House would concur with moving to petitions at this time and then reverting to motions?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will now call Petitions. The hon. member for Kamloops.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is on behalf of a number of people from the province of British Columbia who point out that with the goods and services tax it will mean that Canada is one of the very few countries of the world that will levy taxes on literature, reading material, religious tracts, children's story books, and the like. In a world where we are attempting to use every means at our disposal to reduce the high levels of illiteracy, it seems to me and certainly to the petitioners that this is a very regressive step.
I wish to present a petition on another matter, although it is related, on behalf of a number of petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia, They indicate their opposition to the goods and services tax and that a recent referendum in the city of Vancouver pointed out that 80

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
per cent of the people opposed the goods and services tax and that only 15 per cent supported it, about the same relationship I suppose in terms of the support for the government generally.
The petitioners say that surely, if 85 per cent of the people oppose the goods and services tax, the government ought to listen and back off from proceeding with the tax and consider real tax reform as an alternative.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of the people of Snowdrift in the Northwest Territories with regard to the native people of Canada, specifically the Mohawk Nation.
They indicate that they expect the Government of Canada will immediately act upon its authority and responsibility and deal in a just manner with the struggle of all aboriginal people in Canada to have their land claims and rights properly addressed. Inaction on the part of the federal authorities will only continue to antagonize race relations in Canada and to provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism.
I present this on behalf of the people of Snowdrift who feel very strongly, as do other native Canadians.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions that I would like to place on the table, pursuant to Standing Order 36. They are signed by residents from the great province of British Columbia who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
Whereas there has been the imposition of some 31 taxes since the Conservatives have come to power, these petitioners are opposed to this new general goods and services tax because it will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians and will provide an onerous burden on small business.
Each of the petitions requests the Government of Canada, both in the House of Commons as well as the Senate, to withdraw the goods and services tax as soon as humanly possible.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions to table today and they are about the fact that the government wants to tax books.
Mr. Speaker, we know that taxing reading or books is tantamount to promoting ignorance and that the government's proposed tax on books, newspapers and magazines is regressive in the extreme.
Your petitioners-hundreds of them-maintain that the free distribution of printed matter is a cornerstone of our democracy, our culture and our education. They claim that an educated and productive society will be adversely affected by a provision that would put a tax on books, something unheard of in Canada so far. Mr. Speaker, these people strenuously object to the GST being applied to books or to anything else.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, on behalf of a number of persons from Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster in the province of British Columbia, and a number of other towns and cities in the lower mainland of British Columbia, a petition calling upon the government to withdraw the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out, in particular, that the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business. They also point out the unfair hardship it will mean to low and middle-income Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it makes one wonder, with all of the petitions from all parts of this country, why the government and members supporting the government are not giving more attention to the concerns of that 85 per cent or 90 per cent of Canadians out there who want this tax dumped and want some real honest to goodness tax reform brought in. When are you going to do it?


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with regard to the goods and services tax.
Even the modest amendments which are being put forth by the Senate, such as not putting the GST on books and certainly not on funerals, the government is again refusing to even consider these things. I think the
November 20, 1990

Routine Proceedings
petitioners are getting more and more incensed because of the insensitivity of the government.
I would humbly ask the government, through you Mr. Speaker, that it consider rescinding this abhorrent goods and services tax.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South -Weston):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I would appreciate the opportunity to present to you and to other members of the House a petition with respect to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners in a series of recitals indicate the reasons why they believe this particular tax ought to be withdrawn immediately. They point out, first, that since 1984 the Conservative government has imposed 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadians and, since 1984, the present federal manufacturers' sales tax has been increased by the federal government from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.
The petitioners go on to say that this new tax, which will be hidden from Canadians, will be applied to virtually everything they buy, with very few exceptions. They also point out in their recitals that the imposition of the GST will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians and will create an onerous burden on Canadians.
They conclude by asking this government and, in particular, the Minister of Finance to come to his senses, to understand and realize the very serious harm that this tax will do to Canadians and withdraw it immediately.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldiniand - Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions that were gathered at both the Caledonia and Simcoe fairs regarding the goods and services tax.
These constituents of mine from Hagersville, Caledonia, Delhi and Fisherville, all call upon this government to reject the tax.
The petitioners say that the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small businesses and are concerned about its effect on small businesses. They call upon this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will therefore revert to Motions. The hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni.



ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs, presented to the House on Tbesday, June 19, 1990, be
concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your interest in putting this motion to a vote, because I think it should be voted on by this House. It is an extremely important motion, and I think that once I explain the reasons for presenting it today, the House will want to submit it to a vote prior to the recessing of the session at the lunch hour.
As members will know, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs submitted its report in June of this year on the exiles of Grise Fiord in the Northwest Territories, after hearing direct evidence from the Inuit people involved in that incident.
The evidence dealt with the suffering that 15 Inuit families experienced when they were uprooted from their home in northern Quebec and moved to the high Arctic outposts of Grise Fiord and Resolute between 1953 and 1957.
The committee heard evidence from these Inuit families and people who had spent time at Grise Fiord over a period of months. We heard direct evidence from the people involved. We also heard evidence from the Canadian authorities and from others who were involved in the experiment.
The committee heard evidence from the people who were misled by Canadian authorities as to the reasons for their move up to Grise Fiord in the Northwest Territories. We heard evidence that they had suffered grievously from disease, hunger, medical neglect and social problems as a result of that move.
We heard that even though they had been promised the opportunity to return to northern Quebec if they were not satisfied with the experiment, they were not

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings moved back to their homes within a space of two or three years. Most actually were not moved back to their community in northern Quebec until the 1980s, some 30 years after they were moved up to the high Arctic in the first place.
While the government would lead us to believe that the relocation of these Inuit families was voluntary, in fact witnesses told the committee that the move was led by the RCMP. They said that in those days when the RCMP came to your door and made a suggestion to you, because of the intimidation of the RCMP and because of the tendency of the people to believe and to follow orders from the RCMP, you did what you were told, Mr. Speaker.
Even though it is suggested by the government that this move was a voluntary move, in fact the Inuit families who were ultimately moved from northern Quebec up into the high Arctic at Resolute and Grise Fiord felt that they had no other option, that they were being ordered to move. Therefore they did move.
They also felt that they had been misled because the federal government bureaucrats had told them that there was more wildlife and other materials up there that would make their life better and make them less dependent on welfare. In fact, this was not the case.
Witnesses also told the committee that their treatment by Canadian authorities and by the RCMP included sexual assault, exchanging the right of work or food for sexual favours and the outright use of slave labour by Canadian authorities in the northern communities of Grise Fiord and Resolute. At this point we are told that there is an internal RCMP investigation, though not a public inquiry, into the criminal aspects of the charges laid against Canadian authorities at Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay, but that according to the documents submitted yesterday that came from the bureaucracy, but were submitted by the minister in this House, the RCMP are having difficulty arranging interviews with the key complainants.
I am sure that since the key complainants are making accusations of sexual assault against RCMP members, it is going to be difficult to reach the complainants.
As the House will know, the committee after hearing Inuit witnesses and in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary made the following recommendations.
It recommended that the government acknowledge the role played by the Inuit relocated to the high Arctic in protection of Canadian sovereignty in the north. It asked the government to apologize for the wrongdoing which the government inflicted on the people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay at that time, a result of these concerns about northern sovereignty. The committee also asked that an apology be carried out with due solemnity and it asked that the apology be accompanied with some form of recognition of the contribution to Canadian sovereignty made by the Inuit people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay. The government was asked to consider compensation for the people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay for their service to Canada and for the wrongdoings inflicted upon them.
Those were the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and unanimously agreed to by all parties in that committee, the Conservative members, the Liberal members and the New Democratic members. It was unanimously recommended to the House of Commons, based on the direct evidence from the people who were involved in the incident and who had suffered from the incident and who have direct knowledge of the incident.
In addition the committee called on the government within the customary time period of 150 days to respond to the committee's report. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government's response was tabled yesterday by the minister, and it denied all of the evidence submitted by the Inuit witnesses who appeared before the committee or who were involved in the Grise Fiord-Resolute Bay relocations.
It denied that the motives for the relocation was to defend the sovereignty of the Canadian north. It refused an apology and the government based its report on what it called an independent outside consultant, mutually acceptable to the Makivik Corporation and to the department.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the so-called independent report done by the government in consultation with the Makivik Corporation is completely false in its conclusions. It is selective in its use of the evidence, and its intent was to whitewash the bureaucrats living
November 20, 1990

and dead, retired and still working, who were involved in that incident where a small group of 15 Inuit families were uprooted from their homes in northern Quebec, transferred up to the hostile climate of the high Arctic, and left basically to their own devices.
The issue is that this House now has an opportunity either to accept the report and the recommendations made by a select standing committee of the House, an all-party committee of the House, which came to different conclusions than the bureaucrats, or they can vote non-confidence in their committee and accept the word of the bureaucrats and the internal examination that the bureaucrats had done of themselves by what they call an outside report.
I think this is a very important question for members to deal with. This House, if it makes a decision to vote concurrence with the recommendations of the committee, then supports the select standing committee and the direct evidence that the committee heard. If it decides either not to vote and to talk out this motion or to vote against this motion then what it is doing is expressing non-confidence in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, non-confidence in the witnesses that it heard, and non-confidence in the committee process. That is a very dangerous precedent to be established in the House.
As I said, the committee heard direct evidence from people who were directly involved, as opposed to the report tabled by the minister in the House yesterday which was an internal examination by a consultant selected by the Department of Indian Affairs to examine its own actions. As a result, the House has a very difficult decision to make. It must either vote non-confidence against the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, with whatever ramifications that might have, or vote non-confidence against a report which whitewashes the bureaucracy, both current and past, with whatever ramifications that that has.
The report that was submitted yesterday, as I said, is extremely selective. It was designed to whitewash the bureaucracy and to absolve it of all wrongdoing. The report, in many cases, directly lies to the members of this House of Parliament and those lies must be corrected because they are complete falsehoods. The House should express its opinion about this report by voting in
Routine Proceedings
favour of the concurrence motion. To do so is going to have some serious consequences to the future credibility of standing committees of the House and certainly to the credibility of members who serve on those standing committees.
First, it should be noted that this report says it is a report that was jointly done or that it was done by an independent consultant who was acceptable to the Department of Indian Affairs and to the Makivik Corporation. That statement, Mr. Speaker, is a lie.
What happened was that the Department of Indian Affairs approached the Makivik Corporation which represents the Inuit people in this case. It said: "We have three consultants whom we are going to present to you. You are allowed to select one of them." But they were the three consultants selected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Makivik Corporation and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada said: "We cannot accept the first two because they have done negative reports against natives in the past, so we will accept the only one you are offering to us that we do not know." That is the one that was accepted and the one that did this report.
I am sure that if the Makivik Corporation or the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada looked at this report today, they would not have accepted any of them, but they had no choice. They were offered three choices by the Department of Indian Affairs.
So, this is not a joint study as the minister and as the bureaucrats in his department would like us to believe. This is a study that was imposed upon the Makivik Corporation and a consultant was imposed upon the Makivik Corporation by the Department of Indian Affairs. Makivik had absolutely no choice in which consultant did the report. They were all three Department of Indian Affairs consultants.
From the very first paragraph of this report, it is misleading. It is an attempt to deceive the House into believing that this is a joint study, which it is not.
The then study goes on to say that the sovereignty of the north was not an issue in Canada's decision to move those 15 Inuit families from northern Quebec up onto Ellesmere Island, up to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay. In fact, the minutes of meetings held to discuss this issue are very clear on the subject that Canada's sovereignty was a very important concern of the Canadian government.

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I want to quote the minutes of a meeting held at 10 a.m., August 10, 1953, in Room 304 of the Langevin Block, to discuss the transfer of certain Eskimo families from northern Quebec to Cornwallis and Ellesmere Island. The date it was received in the northern administration was August 12, 1953. I would like to have the opportunity to table this document in the House because it directly refutes the lies that were included in the report made by the consultant to the Department of Indian Affairs that was tabled in this House yesterday.
Mr. Sivertz, who later became the director of the northern operations, pointed out that the Canadian government was anxious to have Canadians occupying as much of the north as possible and it appeared that in many cases the Eskimos were the only people capable of doing this. It was a primary concern of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs at that time to transfer Eskimos, to uproot them from their homes, and to transplant them into the far north in order to establish Canadian occupancy in the far north and in order to establish Canadian sovereignty in that region.
For any bureaucrat or any bureaucrat's report to say that that is not true is utterly false. It is corroborated by its own minutes and by evidence available from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which its bureaucrats know about and which its so-called independent consultants know about. This report that was given to us by the minister is an attempt to mislead the minister and an attempt to mislead the House. It is also an attempt to mislead Canadians about the wrong-doing done against those Inuit families between 1953 and 1957.
I call on the House to support this motion, to vote in favour of it and to tell the bureaucrats and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in no uncertain terms that we do not like to be misled and lied to.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its report also says that it was sending the Inuit families up to the High Arctic for their own good. It said that game resources were running in short supply in northern Quebec where these families lived prior to their transplantation. Game was running short and, as a result, it was said that game was in abundance in the northern area of the country. Therefore, it was worth-while to move these families to the northern area
of the country in order that they would have more game and not be obliged to rely on the welfare system provided by the province of Quebec or the Canadian government.
In fact, that same meeting that I referred to that took place in the Langevin Block on August 10, 1953, even questioned the availability of resources and the ability of those 15 families to survive in the High Arctic, based on the resources that were available.
Mr. O'Neil, a representative of the Royal Canadian Air Force stated that he was afraid that there was not sufficient wildlife in the Resolute area to provide for the proposed Eskimo population, which amounted to 15 families. Mr. Cantley, who was also in attendance at the meeting, replied that he had reason to believe that there was sufficient marine life to support the Eskimo families concerned. No one could say for sure that this was the case and, consequently, the experiment was being staged.
When the Canadian government and the report of the minister and the bureaucrats from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tells us that it was moving these Inuit families up to the High Arctic for their own good because there was more wildlife and fisheries resources there, even the evidence presented to the minutes dealing with this issue in 1953 indicated that members of the committee were concerned that, in fact, this was false. There was insufficient wildlife resources and insufficient country food resources available for those Inuit when they did arrive in the High Arctic and, as a result, they would be faced with starvation or a lack of country food. They may be even further forced to depend on the RCMP or the military for their food.
As a consequence, many of these families suffered hunger, privation and starvation as a result of the lack of food and the lack of success in hunting food in an area that was completely different from the one they came from.
Anyone who makes a comparison between the documents publicly available, the documents available in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the report done by the department's so-called independent consultant can see that the so-called independent consultant selected information, dismissed other information, and, as a result, presented a report to the House that is false, that is full of lies, and that misleads the House.
November 20, 1990

I call on the House to take a very careful look at the documents that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development submitted to us yesterday. I also call on the House to look at the record of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in these kinds of issues. This is the same department that has forcibly moved native people off the land. In Nova Scotia, for example, it has forcibly combined and concentrated the Micmac Indians into two communities as another experiment. This country and this Department of Indian Affairs has done experiments on native people that would be the envy of Joseph Stalin's collectivization program or the envy of Josef Mengele.
It is time that the House recognizes the wrong-doings it has done to native people in the country, systematic wrong-doings it continues to do and will continue to do if it accepts the report issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of his bureaucrats in the House.
The one thing we have to do, and the one choice we have to make here today, is to accept either the minister's report, which is a complete and utter fabrication, a collection of lies of the worst order, or we can accept the report of the select standing committee of the House which was based on direct evidence of the people affected. It is a question of confidence, Mr. Speaker. I hope this issue comes to a vote and I hope that all members on all sides of the House support this motion.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to report to the House on a matter of great importance to Canada's future.
The relationship between Canada and the aboriginal people has certainly had a difficult history. So difficult, in fact, that some are prepared to believe the worst of any situation concerning how we dealt with each other in years gone by. That, I think, is the attitude which has led many to accept the charges that in the early 1950s, the government of the day callously and cruelly uprooted a number of Inuit families from their communities and deposited them without food or resources in a hostile environment, all in the name of sinister and incomprehensible political interests.
Routine Proceedings
We have heard a very passionate presentation by the member opposite telling us that the reports that have been made to the House are fabrications of lies of the worst order. I would like to take an opportunity now in the House to present another view of the issue and to tell the members of the House the government's position on the relocation of the Inuit residents to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the 1950s. Much of this was based on an independent report, not an in-house report, but one of an independent nature.
First, I would like to remind the House that nearly four decades ago the far north was still pristine with plentiful wildlife and the high Arctic held hope and promise for the Inuit, who at the time were facing great hardships further south, and the plan was to improve their social and economic prospects.
In the period 1953 to 1957, the federal government relocated a number of Inuit families from Inukjuak in the northern Arctic of the Northwest Territories. It was only years later that some of the Inuit wished to return to Inukjuak at government expense.
In June of this year, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs made five recommendations about that relocation. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responded to those recommendations yesterday.
To understand the relocation, one must put the events which occurred in 1953 into historical perspective. In the 1950s the Government of Canada tried to assist northern native people in their pursuit of traditional livelihood. For those Inuit who wished it, the government was also willing to help them integrate at their own pace into the economic development that was occurring in the north.
Occasionally, hunting was poor in particular areas of the north and many people experienced hardship. At the time of the move the Inukjuak game had been depleted. The Inuit population was growing. The Inuit living there were facing difficult times.
The government's aim was to relocate the people to areas in which wildlife was more plentiful. The move to the Northwest Territories was based upon the abundance of game in the hopes of providing the Inuit with a better life. There was no hidden agenda in this project. It was undertaken with the best intentions and evidence clearly

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
shows that the people concerned benefited materially from the move in a very short period of time. The facts clearly show that the relocation of the citizens was not done in the hope of protecting Canadian sovereignty.
Historical documents go back to 1930 when an exchange of notes between Norway and Canada occurred to support Canadian sovereignty. This exchange formally and officially recognized Canada's ownership of the Sverdrup Islands which are more northerly than Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay.
The Soviet Union had no designs on our Arctic and the United States agreed that it would use the Arctic islands only with Canadian consent. The only territorial threat, and I use the word "threat" in quotations, was from a few Greenland Inuit who occasionally, hunted illegally in Canada's territory in the late forties and the early fifties.
By 1952, the RCMP was on site and quite ready to deal with such problems. In fact, it was only in the sixties, when the American ship Manhattan went through the Northwest Passage, that the notion that Canadian sovereignty was an issue in the Inuit relocation of the 1950s developed. In response to the Manhattan, the Canadian government at the time started talking about things that were done to protect Arctic sovereignty, and history was rewritten. And the relocation of the Inuit was added to the list of things done by the government to support its control of the north.
The sovereignty issue was again raised in the 1980s by the Makivik Corporation, an organization set up under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. This represented the interests of all Inuit in northern Quebec, where Inukjuak is located. It is important, therefore, that research into the sovereignty issue, conducted by the Makivik Corporation in 1982, concluded that the move did not occur for reasons of sovereignty.
In 1990, Makivik, in its paper to the standing committee, turned its back on its own research in 1982 and declared its belief that sovereignty was the main motivation for the move.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, although sovereignty was not the reason for the move, the Inuit families who did move did assist indirectly in the promotion of Canadian sovereignty. By being part of the north, they were able to help the RCMP. They occasionally assisted the Mounties, who had concerns about the poaching of wildlife on Ellesmere Island. The Inuit from Inukjuak were able to help the RCMP administer the territorial game legislation and, indirectly, aided in upholding Canadian sovereignty.
The standing committee suggested that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was at fault for both the planning and the implementation of this project, which resulted in hardship for the Inuit.
In 1953, the means of transportation in the north left something to be desired. The main form of mass movement, perhaps one of the only means, was by ship. There were evidently problems that occurred because of this. One of the problems of Arctic travel, in fact any travel, is the transportation of goods.
Equipment and supplies which the people would need in their first year were carefully planned, purchased and shipped to selected sites. Unfortunately, some of the equipment was not off-loaded at the appropriate places. Consequently, that first winter in the high Arctic was, for many Inuit, very difficult.
The difficulties that were encountered in 1953, however, in large part were simply because it was 1953. Transportation and communications were relatively primitive. Since that time, there have been tremendous technological changes that have improved conditions in the north. They must also be set against conditions in the bush camps surrounding Port Harrison, from which the Inuit had come. Conditions were very poor and, in contrast to the high Arctic, there was almost no game. Hardships in the south easily matched that in the north and there was no chance for improvement.
I would also like to point out that the oral statements made to the standing committee about extreme hardships and starvation were not substantiated by letters from the people concerned. In the research, for example, an article entitled "Salluviniq's Story" published in 1977 recounts a very different experience. In the article this gentleman, one of the original people moved in 1953, states:
November 20, 1990

Since I moved to Resolute I have never wanted to move back-If I
wanted to move back to Inoucdjouac (Inukjuak), I think the
government might agree to help me.
He also recounts in his story his life in Inukjuak prior to his move and he clearly indicates that there was no coercion involved in his decision to move to Resolute Bay.
There are many other letters in existence written by Inuit at Resolute Bay to relatives and to social workers in the department. They testify to the satisfaction of hunting conditions that were found in the high Arctic. Oral evidence also alludes to some misunderstandings at the time of the move. I can assure the House that there is no question that the best motivations dictated the relocation of the Inukjuak Inuit to the high Arctic. I suggest, however, that many of the misunderstandings may well have occurred because of language difficulties.
Perhaps the major contention of the Inukjuak Inuit was that the federal government had promised them that they could return to their homes at government expense if, after two or three years, they were not happy with their new location. After careful investigation, I am satisfied that some promises were made. As I mentioned, however, many of the letters written by the Inuit did not express a desire to leave and letters written by residents in the late fifties and early sixties in fact spoke of the desire to have family members join them at Resolute Bay.
Residents of the Inukjuak area continued to move north until the late fifties at which time entry to these communities was closed because they became overcrowded.
The earliest request to return on record came in 1960 when a request was made to go back to Inukjuak for a visit. There were virtually no Inuit who expressed a desire to leave the high Arctic for good at that time and there are a number of reasons why people requested to return. Many were not dealt with until 20 to 30 years after the original move. The lack of adequate transportation, which I mentioned, was one of the reasons. Travel arrangements at that time were not easily made. The only means available was by the annual supply ship which arrived and left in late summer.
Routine Proceedings
As well, time lapses between the expression of the desire to leave and the finalization of those arrangements were lengthy. It is not to say that the government was not willing to try, but rather the problems encountered were cumbersome and restrictive. Indeed, in the early 1970s the RCMP used their own aircraft to arrange visits to the Northwest Territories, reimbursed by Canada, and was returning a few Inuit to Inukjuak. Still one fact is clear-at no time did the Canadian government refuse outright any Inuit request for return.
Another problem with moves back to Inukjuak was the lack of housing. If people went back, there was no housing available to them at that time. In 1988, however, DIAND did contribute $700,000 to assist the Government of Quebec in building 10 new homes to accommodate those wishing to return.
It is also likely that requests from the Inuit to return occurred long after the two or three years that the departmental officials had assumed would be the timeframe within which people would want to return home. Nonetheless, returns did continue.
Speaking now for the present, let me make it clear that the government believes it has a moral obligation to fulfil the promise to return those who wish to go back. The department has already spent in excess of some $250,000 on direct relocation costs to date. It stands ready to complete the relocation of those Inuit who wish it.
In light of this information, I feel that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has nothing to apologize for in the manner in which the relocation project was conceived, planned and carried out.
In fact, I would like to quote from the findings of the independent consultant who was acceptable at the time to the Makivik Corporation on this particular question.
The offer was made of three names. It was not a case of picking one person and saying: "You have to accept it." There was an offer made of three different groups and they accepted one of the three.
I quote from this report:
The evidence that we examined does not support the allegation
that the government committed wrongdoing in the planning and
conduct of this project.

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The material we examined leads us to a different conclusion, namely that the project which was conscientiously planned, was carried out in a reasonable effective manner and that the Inuit participated in it voluntarily, in their own search for a better life, and benefited from the experience.
We do not see the grounds for an apology by the government for the manner in which the relocation project was conceived, planned and carried out.
In our view, to apologize for a wrongdoing it did not commit would constitute a deception on the part of the government.
That is not a government quote. It is the report of an independent firm that looked into the facts of the situation.
I sincerely sympathize with any family or family member still wishing to move back to Inukjuak and I hope that they will be able to do so promptly.
We will assist them to do so.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will continue to work with natives and northerners in attempting to reach mutually acceptable and desirable changes in programs and policies.
Before closing, I would like to balance these unhappy recollections of the past with the happier reality of the present.
The people of Canada's north, both native and nonnative, are making great strides in achieving their aspirations, and the government is helping them to do so.
Foremost among our efforts is our commitment to enter into fair and reasonable land claims settlements. Recent milestones in land claims settlements in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are pointing Canada's north in a new and promising directing.
Over the course of the past year, major agreements have been reached in the north which will enhance economic, social and political development for first citizens and the northerners who came after.
The most notable, for its sheer size, was the agreement in principle of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut Land Claim in the Eastern Arctic, the area where Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord are located.
The riches of the north will be enjoyed in greater measure than ever before by the 17,500 Inuit whose home territory covers the 350,000 square kilometres of land covered by the TFN land claim.
In addition to a land mass about half the size of Saskatchewan, Inuit will receive some $612 million in financial compensation, a share of resource royalties, guaranteed harvesting rights and participation in decision-making processes which deal with the land and environmental management.
This is a fair and just agreement.
In signing it, the Government of Canada has clearly said that we respect the historic rights of Inuit who have inhabited these territories for countless centuries.
It recognizes and supports their desire to sustain their traditions and shape their own future. It is that future that we and they must now concentrate on.
It is that future which will see the building of a new relationship between native and non-native Canadians, the relationship which the Prime Minister of Canada promised to work toward when he announced the federal government's new native agenda on September 25.
That is where our efforts should now be focused, and I count on the members of this House to let us get on with the building process.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion that was put forward for concurrence.
I would like to say that the motion that we put forward has much merit. I cannot understand how the government can come back with a counterproposal refuting the essence of what these people have stated to the committee when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on March 19. At that particular meeting we had a number of representatives from ITC and from the group termed as the High Arctic exiles, people who were actually involved in this relocation.
I believe that fancy reports and fancy documents from politicians and from governments do not speak as well as people from Canada who experience their own problems and who recognize the truth of their own lives better than we do.
One such individual was Mr. Allie Salluviniq, a Resolute Bay representative from the Inuit Ihpirisat of Canada. He said: "I am Allie E9-1860.1 am identified as such although I am Allie Salluviniq. All these other people also have numbers, E9 numbers. I was very small when we moved from Inukjuak to the High Arctic, but I
November 20, 1990

do remember vividly when we were landed a large boulder I can relate to and how very cold we were. Some had to be warmed by dogs.
I do want to say that when we were being prepared to be moved out of Inukjuak we were told that we would all be located in one place. Then when we had just about arrived our people were told that they were to be separated. This was devastating. My mother died as a young woman, never having seen her relatives again. I myself am not hurting. It is these people who lived that particular experience that are hurting. We have been woefully hurt by all this. We deserve to be given a further chance to tell our story. We were separated and parted although we were promised that we would stay together. My mother was away in hospital for six years with tuberculosis. I grew up without a mother as a result. These other people will make it more clear", and he goes on.
Then we had further testimony from other people. This one in particular was from John Amagoalik, president of ITC, who said: "You must understand the big change we experienced when we moved from northern Quebec to the Eligh Arctic. There was a big change in diet. In northern Quebec we grew up on fish and game birds and things that grew out of the ground, berries and such. Up there none existed. We had to travel hundreds of miles for any fish. There were no caribou. The only birds were around for only a couple of weeks of the year. We had to change from that diet to walrus, polar bear and seal, and that was about it. It was a big change".
He went on to say: "The environment was very different. It was much, much colder. The winter was much colder and we discovered that there were three months of total darkness. We had never been told that. One of the most devastating experiences we ever had was when we discovered that there was no sun from November until February. The annexes referred many times to the experiment. We were used like laboratory animals, as has been stated by some of the witnesses. Our dignity as human beings has been violated. We need a longer time to tell our story because we are just touching its surface. This story needs to be told. It is a Canadian story. It needs to be explained in Canadian history".
Routine Proceedings
These are the people who spoke for themselves. These are the people who had the experiences that are most unfortunate within the context of our Canadian history.
What is wrong with the motion we presented? What is wrong with what we suggested as a motion, that the Government of Canada acknowledge the role played by the Inuit who were relocated to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the protection of Canadian sovereignty in the north, that the government issue an apology for the wrongdoings carried out against the people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay, that the said apology be carried out in an official ceremony of due solemnity and respect, that the said apology be accompanied by some form of official recognition of the contribution of Inuit of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay to Canadian sovereignty, for example, by the erection of an historic monument or marker and by the issuing of certificates recognizing this important valuable contribution to those relocatees still living or, if deceased, their surviving families?
What is wrong with taking people like Martin Frobisher and naming a community after that individual? What is wrong with taking people like Sir Alexander Mackenzie and naming a river after that person? Why can we not recognize the contribution made by these people under the harshest of circumstances? Why can we not recognize that northern occupancy, as was stated in one of the reports I have was a great preoccupation?
In 1983 the former minister of DIAND, John Munro presented a discussion paper prepared by Environment Canada entitled Environment Canada and the North at the Third General Assembly of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference held at Frobisher Bay in July 1983. This federal paper, in discussing the evolution of resource use policy in Canada's north states on page 59 as follows:
It is worth noting that before World War II priority was given to traditional forms of northern occupancy in large areas of the north. However, the prime reasons for this were not entirely due to concerns for native welfare and northern environmental quality. Issues of Canadian sovereignty were the principal concerns. Both the native people and the environment were used as important elements in formulating strategies to advance Canada's jurisdictional claims in the Arctic. For example, at the turn of the century, Otto Servitude discovered Axle Heiberg and Elvis Ringis Island and claimed them for Norway. In response, Canada reasserted her claim to the islands of the High Arctic. To confirm this claim Canada created a game reserve in the Arctic Islands in 1926 and stated that the hunting grounds of the Arctic should be preserved by the native Eskimos, Inuit. Various additions were made to the preserve up until 1945 at which time over 1.3 million square miles were set aside covering all the Arctic Islands

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
and a large part of the rest of the Northwest Tferritories. lb further
entrench the sovereignty claim, the government relocated Inuit
people from northern Quebec to the Arctic Islands in the mid-1950s.
These were the statements made in this paper by a federal minister who had the same kind of resources to examine the issues. These claims are being made also by the aboriginal people who appeared before us in March 1990.
These people would like a public apology. The independent consultant that was provided for the Makivik Corporation was one of three consultants. The other two were not acceptable. I do not feel that the Inuit people had much choice about who the independent consultant was.
During the years 1953, 1955, and 1957 approximately 17 families were moved from Inukjuak and Port Harrison, Quebec and were relocated by the federal government to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord in the High Arctic. The primary stated purpose by the Government of Canada for this relocation was to reduce the hunting pressure on the resource base Inukjuak. I cannot understand why it is that for political expediency and for their own selfish means the government always uses the aboriginal people, either by relocating them or by capitalizing on the fact that they occupy a certain territory and can be induced to do that or can be used to profile a certain issue.
Let us take, for instance, the Spicer commission. Just recently it said that it would make a meagre foray into the Arctic to go where it all started. I think that is real political opportunism. If we want to make a statement about the issue and the essence of aboriginal people and their first nation status, we should entrench that in the Constitution. We should recognize the contribution these people have made to Canada and support the $10 million the Makivik Corporation has recommended for a heritage fund. That would be the best $10 million investment the government could make for the Inuit. Under the harshest of circumstances and under an extension of the federal government, because the territories is not yet a province, out of 53 language groups the Inuit people have managed to be one of the three languages that have been able to survive. Aside from Cree and Ojibway, the Inuktitut language is still strong and thriving.
Why is this? Is it because the government has poured millions into maintaining the strength of these languages? Not really. It is because the perseverance and the survival skills of these people are the essence of who they are. They have survived under the harshest of circumstances. They have been economically marginalized in an attempt to alleviate the pressure on resources, the hunting and traditional trapping resources in that area. These people have been through the downfall of their sealing industry and they still survive.
What are they saying to Canada? "Canada, listen to us. We have suffered. We want compensation. We want $10 million to help us survive. We want $10 million to profile who we are and what we are about, what our essence, what our language and what our heritage are about".
They are the ones who have allowed their languages to survive. They are the ones who have stayed in the territories in the north, actually in Nunavut, for all practical purposes, in the High Arctic regions. They have made a place for themselves within Canada that no other Canadian would dare to experience. They have been very brave and generous in the kind of hospitality they have extended to people coming into that area.
People ask why they waited that long, why they waited 37 year. Why come back now asking for compensation? When you live in a colonialized mentality, when one lives with cession by law, when you live with imposing governments coming forward and telling you that this is the way it should be, you would have to wait 37 years to engender the leadership you need and to have the growth in community spirit you need to come forward and be able to put forth your case.
Makivit Corporation has put forward a very substantive case. With regard to the pressure that is present to assist Inuit people, the case the Makivik Corporation has put forward is very convincing.
I for one could not understand three or four nights ago when I watched the Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development debate the relocation issue for the purposes of protecting Arctic sovereignty or Canadian sovereignty in the High Arctic. That Mr. Van Loon, Assistant Deputy Minister, would refute,
November 20,1990

deny and virtually call the Inuit people deceptive and liars about their own life and what they are about, I was very insulted. I watched the leader of the Inuit people of Canada being insulted by this bureaucrat who should be advocating, not serving in an adversarial role.
I find this to be extremely alarming. What are these people doing? We supposedly have an independent report. I hope that the results of the motion being debated will be favourable and will be independent of bureaucrats who continue to cripple on all fronts the process of social justice for the aboriginal people across Canada.
There are no better words to explain how the people who appeared that day felt, such as Markoosie Patsauq and Sarah Amagoalik, the mother of the president of the Inuit Thpirisat of Canada. Those people came forward with a most convincing case.
I cannot believe that we recognize outsiders, build monuments to them, and name rivers and islands like Baffin Island after them, yet there is no room in our hearts as Canadians to recognize the people who were here first, who built the country and who maintained and protected Canada's sovereignty. How can we not have the decency and respect in our hearts to do this?
This requires one fundamental thing. It requires the political will of the government. This report should have never existed. This report refuting an apology, refuting recognition of the Inuit's contribution for the protection of Arctic sovereignty, should have never existed. There should have been a unanimous motion which was consented to in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. That should have been upheld. The government should be proud to say to the Inuit people, "We are proud of your contribution. We are happy that you were there to protect our Arctic sovereignty when no one else dared to go". The Inuit people were essentially forced to take on that role and did so under the harshest of circumstances.
We must find in our hearts the respect and dignity that these people deserve and we should give due recognition. I totally support the idea of a $10 million heritage fund because I believe that the Inuit have much about them that is worth preserving and carrying on with in
Routine Proceedings
terms of the over-all Canadian context of who we are and what our country is all about.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, much has been made in this House of the question of whether or not the issue of Canadian sovereignty was paramount in moving the Inuit to the high Arctic. It is ironic that the minister of Indian affairs would stand in this House and submit a report that is obvious fabrication and lies and then the Minister of State-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Raymond John Skelly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from a previous speaker in the House. Those comments were I think justified and quite correct. I was not alluding to the minister but certainly to the consultant.
It is interesting that a previous minister of Indian affairs of this government, the Minister of National Defence said in a letter dated February 5, 1988:
My colleague, the Honourable Tom McMillan, has already written to the president of the Inuit Thpirisat of Canada (ITC) on October 16, 1987 suggesting two options for recognition of the Inuit contribution to Arctic sovereignty. Either Resolute Bay or Grise Fiord could be designated a national historic site and/or the Inuit relocation to the High Arctic could be recognized as an event of national historic significance by an article in "Recognizing Canadian History". By copy of this letter I am adding my support to ITC's resolution and suggest-(the) follow up on Mr. McMillan's suggestions.
There is no question in the mind of the Minister of National Defence, the previous minister of Indian affairs, that this government was at one point prepared to recognize that. Then, all of a sudden, there is a complete reversal, a denial of all the facts. We now have the minister of Indian affairs and the Minister of State creating a tremendously embarrassing situation in this House, calling confidence in the committee, and their own members on the committee, who voted unanimously to submit this recommendation to the House of Commons asking the House to vote on its concurrence.
I would ask the previous speaker this. Does the member not agree that this House is now morally bound to let a vote occur on this motion; that the honour of the committee, the honour of the committee members is at stake; that upon hearing direct testimony and investigating this matter, the integrity of the committee system and of the committee is at stake? I would ask the opinion of the previous speaker on this. Should we not allow, as a

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
moral point, this vote to now come to fruition in this House and not simply permit the government to talk it out?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that it would be morally indefensible not to have a vote. It would be morally indefensible to put forward this kind of a report that totally refutes everything that those people testified to. It shows that it is totally insensitive that the government would not consider the concerns of those individuals, who I believe came forward with a very compelling and very sensitive case. I believe that we should not talk out the motion but that we should put it to a vote. I feel strongly about that.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify one fact that the member from Vancouver Island mentioned. He said that this was a unanimous decision in the committee. I should point out that two government members voted against this motion in committee, so it was not a unanimous decision of the committee.
The other thing I would like to mention is in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Western Arctic. The hon. member made quite an issue of the fact that the Inuit were issued with numbers and this was a depersonalization, degradation, dehumanization, whatever you want to call it.
However, if we look at our system, anyone who served in the armed forces during the war or in peacetime was given a number. When we went to university we were all assigned numbers. That does not mean that our names were not valid, that people recognized us just as an object. It was for particular reasons we were given numbers. As a registered physician, I have a number given to me by the College of Physicians and Surgeons which is used for particular purposes. I do not feel that by being issued a number that I am in any way depersonalized and a lesser person for that.
I would just like to hear the hon. member's comments on that. I understand that it could be taken as an insult, but this happens all the time in our society and I feel it was perhaps misconstrued by some people.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I was busy conferring with one of my colleagues from the party opposite and did not get the last part of my hon. colleague's question. So if you would not mind repeating that last part, I would be very happy to answer it.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, I had just pointed out that many times in our society we are given numbers for identification purposes, or for other reasons, and it does not mean that we are depersonalized or dehumanized. It is not a sign of contempt in any way. I used the examples that every soldier has a regimental number and university students have student numbers. As a physician, I have a number submitted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
These numbers are valuable assets that can be used in certain circumstances to identify me as different from other people. It could be taken as an insult perhaps, but our society demands these types of things. I feel that this has been overrated and that many people have felt unnecessarily that they were being looked down on or looked at with contempt because they were assigned numbers. I would just like to hear the hon. member's comment on that.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I would be very happy. I have a close colleague by the name of Mr. Abe Ookpik from Frobisher Bay or Iqaluit who worked for years on this whole
issue.
I must say that by getting a number at university you do not forfeit your name. By getting a social insurance number, you do not forfeit your name. By going into the military, you are given a number, but people still refer to you by name, Private such-and-such, Private Smith or Private Jones.


David Charles Dingwall: Dingwall.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Or Dingwall. Or Wilbee, Private Wilbee. But when you have been given a number under the numbered process with regard to the Inuit people, it was very degrading. The reason for that is because the people who came to their land did not have enough respect to find a way to learn their names. The Inuit people have very beautiful names. I can think of a number of names. I lived in an Inuit community. I am of Indian extraction and I learned these names. Mangalaluk, Nasagaluak. Those are names that anyone could learn. So, I am saying that yes, there is a stigma attached to it and, yes,
November 20, 1990

those people were treated under certain conditions as less than human.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I will try to make it as short as I can in order for the hon. member to have a little time to answer it. This particular question relates to the fact that the government does not seem to be too interested in acknowledging the fact that the people were moved, specifically, for sovereignty reasons.
One of the reasons I would like to ask the member this question is because I come from a region very similar to the northern Quebec region from where these 15 families were moved. Lo and behold, these particular 15 families were moved to a region that is absolutely different from the region they came from.
They could have moved these 15 families, for example, to northern Ontario, where I come from, which has the same type of terrain, the same type of vegetation, the same types of animals, and the same types of berries to collect, and this would not have been devastating to their way of life. Could the hon. member try to explain why they chose the far Arctic versus northern Ontario, which would have given them the same kind of lifestyle?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up that very good point. There is no way to explain why these people were not taken to a more favourable climate. There is only one explanation and that is one thing that the government will not recognize. These people were sent to the high Arctic for the express purpose of protecting Canadian high Arctic sovereignty, and that is it.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise today to try to reveal the facts about the relocation of the Inuit families from Inukiuak to Grise Fiord and Resolute in 1953.
I would like to share the findings of the Hickling report with the Canadian people and see if, somehow, we can find the truth that exists somewhere between the memory and the cold written records of the past. It was in looking for this truth that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development commissioned an independent study by an outside consultant. The consultant was asked to assess the factual basis of all of those
Routine Proceedings
allegations that were made in the third report to Parliament by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It was felt that it was imperative that a detailed and impartial assessment of all of the facts be undertaken so that the department could prepare an objective and unbiased response, a full response, to these allegations and which had been requested by the standing committee.
Therefore the independent commission began its study. First it consulted with the Makivik Corporation, the organization that was set up under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975 to represent the interests of all of the Inuit of northern Quebec. That, of course, is where Inukjuak is located. With Makivik's agreement, the Hickling Corporation was contracted to conduct the study.
The Hickling project manager felt that, first of all, he must meet with departmental officials to review the history of the claim. This included various previous approaches that had been made by the Inuit Thparasit of Canada and by the Makivik Corporation, requesting settlement of the claim and the responses by the department on those occasions.
The events leading up to the appearance of the Inuit before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, on March 19, 1990, the published proceedings of the committee meeting of that date, and the ensuing interim response by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, were also examined in this investigation.
In addition, the Hickling team sought the assistance of the Government of the Northwest Territories in searching the files for all the possible references to the relocation project. These files had been sent to the Government of the Northwest Territories in the transfer of federal responsibilities from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories in the years from 1966 to 1970.
From all of these sources and after careful and detailed study, a report was developed. I would now like to share relevant sections of that report, from the executive summary of the report, with this House. I should remind hon. members that complete copies of the report are available from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should any member wish to obtain one. The Hickling report states, and I quote:

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Our assessment of the factual basis of the allegations included in our study is based on an extensive survey of official government files, documents, and published and unpublished reports, and learned papers in the possession of the National Archives of Canada, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, various libraries in other government departments, public libraries and sources within the Makivik Corporation.
We found that the decision by the government to actively encourage the relocation of Inuit families to the high Arctic in 1953, and in the two or three years subsequent to that, was not motivated by a concern to strengthen Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic islands at that time.
Canada felt secure in her claim of ownership of the islands at that time, as a result of an exchange of notes between Canada and Norway in 1930, because the Canadian government had consistently displayed its sovereignty in that area for so long and in so many ways as to firmly establish its title to all of the Arctic islands in a manner consistent with international law.
The RCMP participated in the exercise of Canadian sovereignty in the north by their very presence in those areas, and in the various roles they were called upon to carry out their own and on behalf of other federal departments.
They were required from time to time to deal with the illegal hunting of polar bear and musk-oxen by Greenlanders, which was prohibited under the Northwest Territories game ordinance. In carrying out this function, they did indeed assist in asserting Canadian sovereignty.
The study continues:
The Inuit families in question were not relocated to the high Arctic to assist the RCMP in the administration of the Northwest Territories game ordinance, although, in fact, they did so on occasion.
They asserted Canadian Arctic sovereignty by the very fact of living there-


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the rules of the House do prohibit reading a speech directly into the record, a speech that has been written by the Department of Indian Affairs and previously written into the record by the Minister of State for Indian Affairs.
If it is the intent of the government to simply regurgitate this crap or pap, why do we not just unanimously seek consent to call it one o'clock and get out of here, if that is the attitude of the government toward this very serious matter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I believe there is a certain amount of latitude in this House, and that, since previous speakers on both sides of the House have quoted documents or reports, I should show the same indulgence to both sides of the House.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, would you be prepared to give the House some direction as to whether or not an individual is able to read the same speech into the House twice?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member may wish to consider the fact that every member may use notes or other written material, so that, strictly speaking, this is not a point of order. On the same subject, the parliamentary secretary.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the members opposite hear the details of the executive summary of the report because, in listening to the speeches and interventions made earlier this morning, it is clear to me that many of the members are not familiar with the report by this independent group. I think it would be very useful to them to understand the details and the finding of the Hickling team.
The study goes on to state:
They asserted Canadian Arctic sovereignty by the very fact of living there, but that was not the purpose of their relocation.
-(The Hickling) report reveals that the main reason for the decision by the government to encourage some Inuit families to relocate to the high Arctic at that time was the concern to improve the living conditions of Inuit, particularly in the Hudson Bay region.
Relocation from those depressed areas was seen, by both government officials and the Inuit themselves, as a way of breaking out of a growing pattern of welfare dependency, and as a means of providing the Inuit with new and better economic opportunities through improving hunting, trapping and wage employment.
The report states:
Reasonable steps were taken by the government officials to establish and apply suitable criteria for the selection of families, so as to ensure that the best success of the project and the security of the participants. These criteria were developed over a period of several years, with input from a number of sources.
November 20, 1990

Those who were transported to the new location by the C.D. Howe Institute were x-rayed before their departure and appear to have been found free of serious infectious diseases. Some of the participants who were included were quite aged, and at least one was physically disabled, but their participation in the relocation project was not out of line with Inuit culture values nor with the realities of life in the Arctic in those years.
The difficulties of life in the high Arctic were recognized and explored beforehand by the officials, and a reasonable plan was articulated to ensure that those who were relocated were well supported by experienced RCMP officers who knew the family personally and who were knowledgeable in Inuit ways and language.
Experienced Inuit families from the most northern settlements at this time were approached to assist with the project. They agreed to do so and transfer their hunting and trapping skills to the Inuit participants from Quebec.
The first group of Inuit relocated were not as well equipped as they might have been, but apparently this was dealt with after their arrival.
Reasonable efforts seem to have been made to explain the project to both of the Inuit groups involved before their departure, and to communicate the fact that participation in it was voluntary.
It is more than likely that some of the Inuit could not completely envisage what conditions in the high Arctic would be like because these were things that were outside the range of personal experience at the time. While this is truly regrettable, it should not imply a deliberate attempt by government officials to deceive or to mislead the Inuit participants.
A number of the Inuit families in the project stated in letters written to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the period of 1956 to 1963 that game and fur were plentiful in the vicinity of both Resolute and Grise Fiord, and that hunger was not a problem. The frequency of letter-writing from Inuit at Resolute Bay dropped off considerably after 1963, and nearly completely after 1966 with the transfer of responsibility for most aspects of Inuit affairs to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is not possible, therefore, to say whether game and fur continued to be plentiful after the letters stopped coming, but on the other hand there is no reason to believe otherwise.
The report goes on to state:
We believe the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave the Inuit an understanding that they would be returned to their original communities after one, two, or three years, if this was requested. There is no evidence to suggest that the department intended this undertaking to remain in force indefinitely.
Routine Proceedings
The files show that some of the Inuit families living in Resolute Bay wrote to Ottawa, asking to return to Port Harrison (Inukjuak) for a visit. The earliest example of such request that we-
-the Hickling team-
-could find, occurred around 1960.
The determination of the length of the proposed visits quite often required several exchanges of letters. On one occasion, in 1961, Ottawa responded to such proposals by seeming to suggest that those wishing to visit Port Harrison (Inukjuak) should collaborate in charting an aircraft for this purpose, at their own expense. The files would indicate that one group did this in 1962, but no further details are provided.
It is uncertain if there was an official policy on the matter at the time. Our speculation is that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took this position because it considered the individuals involved to be economically self-sufficient. This was the practice followed with respect to Fort Chimo Inuit working at Churchill and wishing to visit their home community.
Early in the 1970s, however, the Government of the Northwest Territories arranged and paid for the transportation of several groups of Inuit from Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay to Port Harrison to visit relatives and to assess whether they wish to be returned to that community on a permanent basis.
Several families subsequently requested relocation and this was done. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reimbursed the territorial government for the costs of both the visits and the relocation.
On one occasion the RCMP used their own aircraft to permit several families living at Grise Fiord to visit relatives in Fort Harrison (Inukjuak), and subsequently relocated them. The RCMP apparently absorbed these costs.
An additional number of Inuit families living at Resolute Bay were relocated to Port Harrison (Inukjuak) in 1988, initially at their own expense or with assistance from the Makivik Corporation of Quebec. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agreed to reimburse the transportation costs for those families who had already moved back to Inukjuak. This offer was subsequently extended to include the cost of transporting a number of other families who had not yet moved but who had indicated that they intended to do so.
These reimbursements, totalling approximately $250,000, were paid out of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's 1988-89 appropriations. In 1988, the department also undertook to provide the government of Quebec with funds, amounting to approximately $700,000, to permit Quebec to add ten houses to the pool of housing identified for Port Harrison (Inukjuak), in recognition of the impact that this inflow of people would have on the 1989 housing plans for that community.
The evidence that we examined does not support the allegation that the government committed wrongdoing in the planning and conduct of this project. The material we examined leads us to a different conclusion, namely that the project was conscientiously planned, that it was carried out in as reasonably effective manner and that the Inuit participated in it voluntarily, in their own search for a better life, and that they benefited from the experience.

November 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The findings of the Hickling report were not completely positive. The executive summary does include the following statement:
In our opinion, the delay in settling the matter of the return of the remaining original families still at Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord is the only real basis for criticism of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as far as this project is concerned.
This was the finding of the independent Hickling team. Having said that, however, the report's authors continued by pointing out:
The circumstances that caused this delay have already been explained by several deputy ministers since the claim was first formally raised with the department in 1982.
The Hickling report did suggest that:
- a concrete and definitive statement on what action the department now intends to take on this matter would be most meaningful.
Such a statement has now been provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which was tabled yesterday.
In that response, the government has stated that it is prepared to make funding available in the fiscal year 1991-92 to allow any of the Inuit families who were originally relocated, or their descendants remaining in Grise Fiord or Resolute Bay, to return to Inukjuak.
At the same time, the government is prepared to return certain possessions that had to be left behind in Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord when families were returning to Inukjuak in the past, or, if the actual possessions cannot be provided, will provide reimbursement to the people concerned. This will apply whether those people returned on their own or whether they returned under government auspices.
All the independent evidence shows that this project was conceived and implemented with the best of intentions on the part of both government and the Inuit families originally relocated. The evidence shows that the government has since responded honourably to those Inuit who subsequently decided that they wished to return to Inukjuak by financing transportation and housing and now by agreeing to replace lost possessions.
I would like to close by using the words of the team of that wrote the Hickling report which concluded:
We do not see the grounds for an apology by the government for the manner in which the relocation project was conceived, planned and carried out-In our view, to apologize for a wrongdoing it did not commit would constitute deception on the part of the government - It would also imply that the project had not been reasonably successful, whereas this is not the case.
We have listened this morning to a great deal of rhetoric in the House and some of it does not serve the cause of either the Inuit people or the people of the country. I have heard the use of the word "exile", for example, which implies forced compulsion and wrongdoing. This simply was not the case. The government did not force the people to move. They did not compel people to stay. There is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, as indicated by the Hickling report.
Finally, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni used some pretty strong language in his intervention this morning when he accused the government actions as being comparable to those of Stalin. It is not unusual from time to time for members of this House to get a little carried away by their rhetoric, but there is a limit. It seems to me that the hon. member has gone far beyond the limit of what is reasonable and what is logical and what is rational in terms of a rational debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his ill-advised remarks and to apologize to this House.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member was seriously indicating that I had made any unparliamentary statements with respect to this report. I think when you compare this report with the actual documents available from the Department of Indian Affairs and that are in the hands of the Makivik Corporation, anything I have said in the way of characterizing this report as a fabric of lies is accurate. I was not accusing the minister of lying, but I was suggesting that the minister had been lied to by his own consultants.
I would also suggest that the member herself by characterizing this report as an independent report is misleading the House herself because these consultants were hired by the Department of Indian Affairs. Makivik Corporation was given a choice of selecting one of the department's consultants. They rejected the two that
November 20, 1990

they knew were anti-native and only selected the one that they did not know. It was not much of a choice.
Yet the government characterizes this as a study acceptable to the Makivik Corporation. I suggest the hon. member pick up the phone to the Makivik Corporation and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and find out if they accept this as a joint report and she will get the truth loud, clear and simple that it is not a joint report. It is not an independent study. It is simply the bureaucrats circling the wagons again and shooting out at the Indians, as they always do.
What surprises me is that Conservative members in the House who do not have any direct experience, who have not heard any direct evidence, who have simply received the material from the Department of Indian Affairs, to protect the back-sides of themselves who are currently in the department, their retired members and members now dead in defending the actions and the attitudes of the bureaucracy at that time, are telling us today that the bureaucracy today has those attitudes and today is capable of carrying out those kinds of actions and in fact in carrying out those kinds of actions, based on that attitude, are being supported by Conservative members in this House. That is shameful.
I would like to see the parliamentary secretary dissociate herself from that kind of action on the part of this government. You do not have to get up and defend every civil servant alive or dead or retired who has committed these kinds of wrongdoings and admitted them in minutes of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development back to 1953. You do not have to do that. You can take your own position.
What I am saying to and asking the parliamentary secretary is whether she is prepared to stand up and support the standing committee of the House which heard direct evidence or is she again defending a bureaucracy that has a whole history of these kinds of actions against native people in Canada?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again uses inflammatory language, makes statements that are designed and geared to upset people who have a sense of insecurity already. The hon. member seems to have a very difficult time in dealing with what is reasonable,
Routine Proceedings
logical and with the attempt that everybody is making here to try to get at the absolute truth, to find an objective answer to the removal of the people from Inukjuak to Grise Fiord.
The member called the report a fabric of lies. I think that the hon. member should think very carefully before he makes such statements.
If he were not in this House, he would certainly be called to account for his actions.
If he is going to make such statements in this House, the hon. member should be prepared to provide some evidence to back up those statements. There is no evidence at all for such statements.
In fact, the independent report attempted with full honour and full understanding of the seriousness of this issue to dig through the mystery of memory and hard facts as I mentioned earlier in my opening statements and try to come up with what exactly happened.
The world has changed since 1953. Actions that were taken then that were considered reasonable, benign and in the interests of the people who they were dealing with at the time would not perhaps be considered in the same light today. We must remember that we are dealing with the context of 1953.
The study found that within that context, the actions of the department were reasonable and were motivated only by honourable motives and honourable intents.
I also want to respond very briefly to another comment that was made earlier, that people were left to their own devices when they went to the north. This simply is not true.
The movement of people from Pond Inlet, for example, from the high Arctic was a clear sign that the government was concerned that every effort be made to ensure that the relocation of the people from Inukjuak was smooth and that they would fit into the environment as quickly and as readily as possible in order to realize the benefits of the additional hunting and fishing that were available at the time.
I want to correct that for the record.

November 20,1990
Routine Proceedings


Robert Evans Skelly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke in response to my question accused me of making statements that were emotional or based on no evidence whatsoever.
I do have evidence to back up the statements I made. I would like to ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but that is a matter of opinion. There are other members who are waiting for a chance to speak, and I will now recognize the hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 when this government came to power, it said that it would redress and apologize to a number of communities: the Chinese community, the Japanese, the Italians.
We followed the Prime Minister in 1988 when he apologized to the Japanese, in 1990 to the Italians. There is the Sikh community, the Ukrainians and the Chinese waiting.
I am wondering. There is a very short, precise question that I have for the minister. We said about rhetoric and truth-


Raymond John Skelly: You're talking to backbenchers. Way back.


Jim Karygiannis: Well, to the hon. member.
What will it take for this government to realize the mistakes of the past, come forward and say: "Look, we were wrong. Successive governments have not done it. We apologize." It will not cost a darn penny, so why can we not get on with the dealings and actually realize that what we did in 1953 was a tragic and a big mistake, and apologize to our native people?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has a lot of nerve suggesting that this particular government should apologize for things that have gone wrong in the past when most of those incidents occurred during the time when the hon. member's party was in power.
In fact in this particular instance, as I have just said and as we have heard spoken this morning by the Minister of State, the independent study found that there was no wrongdoing by the government of the day. It would be a contradiction to apologize in an instance
where it was found by an independent study that there was no wrongdoing.
As I said before, and far be it from me to apologize for anything the government of that day did, it appears that the evidence says that the government of the day was acting on what it considered to be the best interests of the people at Inukjuak.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a surprising situation occurred in this committee when a number of adults presented testimony to the committee. They were in tears, reliving the emotional experience that they had been put through in the area. They talked about exchanging sexual favours for food and necessities. They talked about rape, forcible confinement, slave labour and their mail being rifled. They gave an enormous amount of direct evidence to that committee. It is interesting that members of the RCMP were accused of wrongdoing. I would like to use a short parallel.
Some time ago in the community of Gibsons, an individual was beaten in the cells. He was beaten to the point where the individual almost died. The RCMP were accused of assaulting the individual and failing to provide medical evidence. The RCMP investigated and found no wrongdoing. They found that the individual had somehow come to a very bad end by his own desserts. That was the RCMP internal investigation and it took some time.
When it was turned over to the RCMP public complaints department, a completely separate organization, they investigated it thoroughly and found out that yes, indeed, the RCMP had assaulted the individual. They had failed to provide medical evidence and in fact, found them guilty of a grievous wrongdoing. Once an independent body is involved, where an internal job is not being done for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the RCMP or the government, then there is hope to get at some justice.
This committee, on a point of almost honour in this House, has submitted a report in which the facts are laid out and recommendations are made. A previous Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is prepared to go along with this idea. The government is now compelled to support some old-time Liberal government of years ago. The documents from the Indian Affairs department absolutely admit that this was an experiment. It is a sad commentary that for some reason there is a reversal of policy on the part of government that absolutely denies reality.
November 20, 1990

I am absolutely disgusted. I cannot think of terms strong enough to express the contempt for what is happening here today. I will sit down. If the government has a second thought on allowing this to reach a vote, this House should be permitted to comment on the kind of activity that has been seen here in the last days.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those very interesting times in politics when we are asked to use our retrospectoscope and look back 37 years to see what actually happened at that time.
It is very difficult for anyone to do this, even if they are members of this House. As I was sitting here, I was trying to think of anyone who may have been present at that time when this exchange was made. It is very important that we recognize that as things are written down, some things are missed or forgotten. To try to come to a conclusion at this stage is extremely difficult. There are perhaps two wrongs being done. Perhaps there was some mistreatment of our Inuit people from northern Quebec and Resolute. I think there is also a wrong being done to our civil servants who have been maligned and who have been accused of many different things to date.
I am probably the last person to in any way support a bureaucrat. I do believe that there is also a time when they should have their opportunity to express their opinions, to defend their position and defend the decisions that were made at that time. All we can do is try to go back to those days and consider what may have happened. These people who were responsible for making intelligent decisions would use whatever information they had at that time, to try to do the best for the Inuit who were the subject of this discussion.
They sincerely believed they should take these people from the area where they were obviously starving, where there was no game, where there was no hope for the future, to try to develop for them a better life further north in the high Arctic. This was the basis for the decision that was made at that time. It was made to try to better the plight of those people. Perhaps at that time, there were things

I see my time is up. I am sorry. Perhaps another time, thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, Harding Carpets survived the great depression. It survived the last recession, but it could not survive this government's economic policies.
After 65 years of manufacturing carpets in Ontario, Harding Carpets has gone into receivership. Last month it closed its plant in Collingwood, and this month it shut down its plant in Brantford. Six hundred people have been laid off, and unless a new buyer is found soon they will not be going back. Many of the people who work in Harding Carpets live in my riding. I would like to tell them that the federal government will help them to adjust, but I cannot because this government refuses to implement the adjustment programs promised in the last election.
I would like to tell these Canadians not to worry, that there are other jobs out there for them, but I cannot because the free trade agreement and this government's obsession with high interest rates have driven thousands of jobs away forever.
I would like to tell these laid-off workers that they will at least receive their due from unemployment insurance, but I cannot because this government has gutted UI, leaving workers needing additional weeks to qualify and getting fewer weeks to collect.
I will tell this government that Canadians are asking for a change of heart, a change of policy, and indeed a change of government.

November 20, 1990



CANADA POST

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post officials are so afraid of farmers and rural townspeople that they are bringing security guards with them to town meetings.
Canada Post recently asked for a closed door meeting with the town council of Arborfield, Saskatchewan. Four aggressive Canada Post officials showed up with one beefy security guard. There may have been plainclothes guards outside because Canada Post officials did not take any chances. They asked the nearest RCMP detachment in Carrot River to be available.
This show of force by Canada Post is most regrettable. Surely, if their case for closure made any sense, they could be selling it on its merits instead of having to resort to intimidation.
Loyal Canadians are being hurt by the closure or franchising of rural post offices.
I call on this government to reverse its orders to Canada Post and stop the intimidation and the closures. Please let Canada Post function in the interest of all Canadians, including rural people.



MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF VAL D'OR

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1990, the municipal council of Val d'Or, with four aldermen absent, adopted the contents and preamble of a brief to be submitted to the Belanger-Campeau Commission. This brief was prepared exclusively by members of the municipal council, while the population of Val d'Or seems to have been neither consulted nor informed about the proceedings.
On November 14 I wrote to the municipal council of Val d'Or, as follows: "As the member for Abitibi, I want to see an economically strong Quebec in a strong Canada. The real problem today is not the Constitution but the economy in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Anyone who analyses the economic situation in Quebec, in Canada, and in our businesses is ultimately confronted with the problem of our national debt."
Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the concerns of the people of Val d'Or, and since 19841 have been active, both in Val d'Or and in the Abitibi area in general, to help speed up the area's economic and social development, for the benefit of our children, women and men.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming obvious that MMT, the octane additive used in Canadian gasoline, is a serious health risk.
In fact, one of Canada's leading neuro-toxic scientists describes the manganese component of MMT as an insidious neuro-toxic substance that is taken in through the respiratory system and destroys brain cells.
Canadian children are particularly susceptible because their immune systems have not developed a blood brain barrier and they do not have an excretory mechanism to remove this vicious substance.
The neuro-toxic effects of manganese may lead to increased incidents of Parkinson's disease and other mental disorders. It is a national disgrace that this government sits idly by and allows the continued use of MMT in Canada when it has been banned in the United States since 1978.
I ask the government to act now and ban MMT and replace it with a renewable additive that is environmentally friendly, ethanol.



NATIONAL DRUG AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of National Drug Awareness Week. This event began some 12 years ago as a spontaneous expression of community concern over the devastation caused by alcohol and other drugs, especially among our young people.
National Drug Awareness Week is an example of grassroots, community based action at its best. It involves schools, businesses, police, the health care community,
November 20, 1990

and thousands of ordinary concerned citizens devoted to the promotion of a responsible lifestyle.
I call on members of this House today to continue to support and promote this worthwhile community initiative.



FORESTRY

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement last week that the federal government is only contributing $100 million to a new forest agreement in British Columbia is bad news for our forests, our environment, and employment in the industry. The president of Western Silvicultural Contractors says 100,000 jobs could be lost.
This government and its Socred friends in Victoria have both failed to deliver for our forests.
The question to ask now is: What about agreements in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario that expired in March, 1989? Are they threatened as well?
The government says budgets are being cut to pay for our effort in the gulf? When will this government make an effort for our forests?
Get on with it. Let us sign those agreements.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps when the Minister of Finance and his bureaucrats speak about the GST they should look at a map. There is a Canada north of the 60th parallel.
Northern Canadians are in Ottawa this week in support of the amendment before the Senate to make special provisions for Yukon, Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and Labrador to zero rate the goods and services tax for northern regions.
The economies of northern Canada have unique characteristics that will influence a differential impact of the goods and services tax on residents of these regions.
The effects of the tax will be negative because our economy is very much a developing economy and our
non-resource industry base is fragile and will not sustain any negative impacts.
One does not have to be a northerner to understand that the very location of the north poses some severe economic constraints, including the remoteness of prime North American markets, longer winters, and higher utility, transportation, communication and other costs. Added to these are small scattered populations, as well as low education levels for a large part of the population.
The GST is definitely another onerous and crippling blow to the northern economy.



FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the lumber producers of the lower St. Lawrence in demanding that the new Canada-Que-bec agreement on forestry development be signed as soon as possible. My government made a proposal worth $100 million to the government of Quebec on August 24 this year, and I think it is most unfortunate that as yet there has been no response to that proposal.
Although I must acknowledge that forestry is a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction, the fact remains that as a federal government, we wish to help owners of private woodlots. They represent a major contribution to the economy of my region, and that is why they deserve our attention.
I say to the federal and provincial forestry ministers that these talks have gone on long enough. Let's have some action. Sign an agreement that will give my region and all lumber producing regions in Quebec what they need to develop and maintain a resource that is essential to our economic survival.



QUEBEC'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, it has been proven that under the present system it is impossible to co-ordinate federal and provincial economic policies in the best interests of all Canadians. The Canadian Manufacturer's Association has condemned this situation. The problem is a very serious one. Ontario's expansionist

November 20, 1990
policies, which had a free rein as a result of lack of federal control, are responsible for rising inflation in Ontario, and Quebec is paying the price.
Today, even if Meech Lake was rejected, Quebec still has every interest in limiting the federal government's spending power. That is why independence is the only formula that will safeguard Quebec's economic stability and ensure its economic growth.
He *	*
[English\


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we must begin to question legislation and regulations that take land and its resources away from residents of rural Canada.
A case in point was made in a letter from Judy Skidmore of Northcare, who explains what occurred in a recent meeting on access of local residents to the Polar Bear Provincial Park in northern Ontario. She writes:
At our meeting I listened in embarrassment and frustration as a young trapper, wearing the Ontario Trappers cap, pleaded with the environmentalists to allow him to build overnight shelter from the rain on his trap line.
The Federation of Ontario Naturalists representative could not agree with him. Several other Peawanuck people explained how their ATVs worked and how they would like to use the four of them in part of the huge park.
I stated our despair and rejection of this meeting, where people of a northern community pleaded with four individuals from Toronto for shelter from the rain and for permission to use ATVs in their own region.
I submit that it is time to listen to the residents of the regions. These are the people who are living off the land, working with our country's rich resources.
H*	H*



REVENUE CANADA

Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue continues to condone the poor judgment of its employees in handling the case of Rejean Perron, a taxpayer from La Tuque.
After I informed the minister that his employees waited until the four-year deadline was past to require Mr. Perron to file his tax return for 1985-86, I would have thought a sensible minister would have taken corrective action to deal with the discriminatory treatment suffered by my constituent. However, the minister insists on closing his eyes to the situation and knowingly allows this serious injustice to continue.
Instead of spending millions of dollars on advertising to convince people that Revenue Canada is fair and equitable in its dealings with taxpayers, I think the minister should do more to ensure that people whose interests have been adversely affected are compensated. That should be your first priority.
Mr. Perron is still waiting for the money Revenue Canada owes him. He did not steal this money. He paid too much on his deductions. He has proven he is a good citizen by paying his taxes, and why should the minister prove himself to be the opposite by denying him the refund to which he is entitled?


Guy St-Julien: Shame!



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers such as my constituents in Nepean will be hard hit by this government's proposal to expose electricity costs to the GST. I have received more than 2,000 response cards from customers of Nepean Hydro protesting in the strongest terms against the application of the GST to their monthly electric bill.
Some of their comments are:
Like food, water, and medical services, electricity is not a luxury,
but an essential and vital commodity that should not be subject to
the GST
It should be considered a service, not a source of revenue.
Pensioners, like ourselves are alarmed and tired of this taxation
invasion.
Successive federal governments have exempted electricity from taxation since the manufacturers' sales tax was introduced early this century.
The GST would cost hydro users an extra $300 million a year in the province of Ontario alone.
November 20, 1990

In summation, the sale of electricity should not be subject to a federal GST.
*	# sfe



CANADA POST

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post often comes under criticism in this House by various members including myself, but I would like to relate to members an incident in my riding where Canada Post bent over backward to accommodate the wishes of my constituents.
The residents at a co-op housing unit located at 143 Ryland Avenue, Truro, Nova Scotia, requested that door-to-door delivery be supplied to their complex. Although Canada Post found it not possible to comply with these wishes, it did put forth every reasonable effort to meet the needs of the residents. It did offer alternatives and left the decision to the people. On at least five occasions the officials visited the site and met with the residents and myself.
I would like to compliment and thank regional divisional manager, Mr. Gerry Roy, and his staff members, Mr. Barry Bennett and Wendall Skier, for their personal involvement and their efforts to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion.
 * *



EDUCATION

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia - Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as Canada proceeds into the 1990s, our youth will need to be both well educated and well trained.
Almost two-thirds of all new jobs will require more than 12 years of education and training, yet we could see one million of our youth abandon high school over the next decade.
In this scenario, all segments of our society must work to encourage our youth to appreciate the merits of education.
For our part the federal government launched a $296 million stay in school initiative to reduce the 30 per cent drop-out rate in high schools.
Other segments are also taking up the cause. For example, two Lambton county school boards have entered into articulation agreements with Lambton College. The purpose of these agreements is to allow students to make the transition to college as easily as possible.
For the students, they provide a better understanding of what is expected of them in high school and college, as well as a clearer picture of career paths.
Important initiatives such as these must be applauded. I encourage more to make the investment in the stock of our country, our youth. I am confident that we will not be disappointed with the rate of return.



THE ENVIRONMENT

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's environment can breathe a little easier with the final passage of the U.S. Clean Air Act. The legislation has been hailed as a victory for the environment by placing a cap and targeted reductions on emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as well as tough new standards for vehicle emissions.
Canadian and American officials are currently discussing a bilateral treaty which would further protect Canadian lakes and forests from the adverse effects of acid rain causing emissions. However, we in Canada have far to go to match the progress of our American cousins. In 1985 the federal government concluded negotiations with only seven of the ten provinces, which called for reductions in emissions, but failed to set the targets, timetables and a national cap, as the U.S. bill does. The current negotiations for a comprehensive air quality agreement will be worthless without clear national standards on the Canadian side of the border.
The exclusion of the three most western provinces and the two territories leaves over half of Canada's environment unprotected by the existing agreements. National leadership is required if we are to seize the opportunity presented by the United States clean air law.
I call on the government to negotiate and implement national standards and a cap on emissions in the pending green plan at least as strong as the U.S. law.

November 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a special word of congratulations to the women who have just been elected to school boards in Quebec. Forty-five per cent! These women will represent the people of Quebec when major decisions are made regarding the future of our schools and our children. This is a major step towards equality. The task will be difficult, but I know women have never been afraid of a challenge.
To the whole team, and especially to all women: congratulations!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench ruled that, when the Prime Minister packed the Senate in order to force through the GST, and the Prime Minister appointed additional senators, including one from New Brunswick, the Prime Minister was in error because he did not, at the same time, create an additional seat in the House of Commons for that province.
Also today the government leader in the Senate admitted that the ruling contradicted another ruling of the Supreme Court in Ontario on the same subject and the matter would have to be resolved by a higher court.
In view of that fact and because these are only two of a number of cases pending in courts around this country, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will suspend all further debate on the GST in the Senate and not resume that debate until this whole matter has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada? Will he take that step today?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has a very novel way of reading the judgments from our courts. Quite contrary to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the court
found the Prime Minister was not entitled to appoint a senator because of the requirement of Constitution Section 51A, he made the following comment: "Some people have distorted Section 51(1) in recent weeks. Its meaning is clear. It does not say a province cannot have more senators than MPs. It says a province is entitled to no fewer MPs than it has senators". The distinction is one with a difference.
Unlike the decision of the court in Ontario, the court in New Brunswick has suggested that following from the use of Section 26 and the appointment of the additional senators, an additional seat in Parliament should be created for New Brunswick. As the hon. member will know, when I addressed this issue before in this House, I said that the issue is arguable.
The court in New Brunswick is taking a different view from the court in Ontario. We will be appealing the decision of the court in New Brunswick because we, with respect, do not agree on the implications of Section 26. However, I think the most important thing about this is that we now have had two court decisions that reinforce the legality and propriety of using Section 26, which make it very clear that the rightness of propriety of legislation passed in this House and in the Senate is not compromised by the use of that power. I think the Liberal senators in the other chamber ought to get on with it and pass our legislation now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not explained why, if she is so sure that the government is right, the government is appealing the case. It does not add up.
Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue said that the government has a secret mechanism to force the GST through the Senate and, speaking in British Columbia, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism admitted that the government may have to, and I quote, "slip a few months" and delay the implementation of the GST. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what is the government's policy? Is it to pursue the stalling tactics of the Minister of State for Small Businesses or the Rambo tactics of the Minister of National Revenue?
Why does the government not end the confusion, refer the whole matter of the GST and the Senate itself directly to the Supreme Court of Canada and get a ruling on this matter before proceeding with the GST?
November 20, 1990


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what I think is more appropriate here is the Leader of the Opposition asking himself why they are following these petty partisan tactics of delay in the Senate when he knows there is no justification for the delays that are going on in the Senate right now. The GST is going to pass. Everybody in this country believes the GST is going to pass.
What the delaying tactics in the Senate are causing is uncertainty with the small business community. If he would listen to the members of 17 different organizations who met with Mr. Chretien and others, the delays are costing the business community of this country.
There is also a very real problem that the delays will result in low-income people not receiving a total of $600 million in low-income credits. Is that what members of the Liberal Party want, to see the low-income people in the country not receiving the GST credits? That is the question they should ask the senators.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals want is what Canadians want, and that is that the GST be scrapped, so that Canadians will not have to get only a part of the GST back through the credits while still lining the coffers of the government with the rest. That is what Canadians want.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses has also been quoted as saying about the GST: "I do not think we should pass it Christmas Eve and bring it in the next week. I think that would be wrong".

Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister of Finance insist on introducing this tax on January 1, when he knows perfectly well that his Minister of State is right? Why does he not suspend debate until the whole matter of the GST in the Senate is settled by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the Opposition why he is supporting the petty politicking of the senators in the other place in delaying the GST when he knows that the Liberals have no alternative, when Jean Chretien has said that there is no alternative, as he has?
Oral Questions
His only response to that is: "Oh, I am going to form a little committee to see if we can find an alternative." The Leader of the Opposition knows that there is no better alternative.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that any alternative that the Liberals propose would be worse than the GST. It is playing political games with Canadians to hold out the possibility that there could be something better than the GST.
The GST will help our exporters compete internationally. It will help Canadian producers, whereas now importers pay one-third less tax. The GST will help reduce the cost of new investment.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the Executive Chairman of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office said in a letter, and I quote:
"We recognize the Great Whale project as a project that comes under provincial jurisdiction, and we believe that federal environmental assessment procedures do not apply".
Mr. Speaker, this is a flagrant contradiction of all the government statements made here in the House. Does the government intend to keep its word to environmental supporters in Quebec? Is it prepared to confirm that the project will not be split? Will the minister immediately issue a disclaimer on the contents of the letter sent by his official?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the hon. member opposite to read a few more paragraphs from the letter, because at the beginning of this letter, Mr. Robinson explained very clearly, and I quote:
"The federal environmental assessment and review process, a federal resource for environmental assessment and review, applies to the Great Whale complex since it is expected to have an impact in areas that fall under federal jurisdiction such as fish, marine mammals, migratory birds and the ecology of Hudson Bay".

November 20,1990
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the letter that the federal government maintains all its prerogatives in terms of environmental assessment, and this is repeated throughout the document the hon. member just quoted.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, this morning Mr. Allan Penn of the James Bay Advisory Committee, who was there when the letter was put out, said it was very clear that the problem is not lack of jurisdiction. Ele made it very clear "that the current government has retreated significantly from its previously expressed concern" for James Bay. In other words, the problem is not the law, it is the lack of political will on the part of this minister and this government.
I would ask the minister not to fudge and I would ask him not for his usual pre-recorded announcement. If he fudges, then it is good-bye to his green plan and it is good-bye to Bill C-78.
Will the minister agree to exercise full federal jurisdiction in the case of James Bay? Will he agree not to split James Bay II up? Will he agree not to allow a shovel to hit the ground in terms of the airport or the road in the case of James Bay, until such time as there is a full, federal, complete public hearing on the project? Or again, are we dealing with Rafferty II in different skin?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly said that the purpose of this government was to have a full environmental review process conducted on projects of this kind throughout the country and that all these projects should be reviewed before construction starts. That is exactly what we intend to do in this case.
-k


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The House will recall that not so long ago the government was warned by the leader of my party about the constitutional uncertainty that the appointment of the eight senators would create. The judgment in New
Brunswick today validates that concern expressed by my leader.
Does the government not realize the constitutional quicksand that it is drawing the country into? Will it not do the right thing, the thing that would solve the problem and ask the eight senators that they appointed
to resign?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government would follow the spirit of the two judgments that we have from the courts, that, in fact, the appointments have not invalidated the activities of this House or the other House; and that the business of the Government of Canada should continue. I hope that the hon. member and his colleagues will urge the members of the other place to continue with the business of the Parliament of Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice should realize that any court judgment which calls into question the way in which the House of Commons is now constituted, that is to say, without the one extra member of Parliament from New Brunswick that the judge said would be necessary, is a very serious matter and not something that should be treated in the flippant way that she has just treated it.
Surely the minister realizes how difficult it will be to solve that problem without delay. The resignation of the eight senators would solve that problem without delay.
The Minister of Finance said he is concerned about the uncertainty that events in the Senate have created with respect to the business community. Is he not concerned about this most recent judgment, that is the one we have today, about the uncertainty that that will create? Would the government not move to resolve that uncertainty? If it is not willing to ask the Senators to resign, will it refer the matter to the Supreme Court immediately so that the matter can be dealt with?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Justice has just said that this decision, together with the Ontario decision, reduces significantly the degree of uncertainty that
exists.
November 20, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Why aren't you appealing it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend asks why not appeal it. The Minister of Justice has said that the only basis for appeal is one narrow part of the judgment, not the basic substance of the judgment, which says that the Prime Minister was perfectly in order in using the Constitution to appoint the eight senators.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about one narrow part. We are talking about the judge having said that we must do without delay what is almost impossible to do, and that is to add another seat to the House of Commons. That is not something that should be taken lightly by the Minister of Finance.
He talks about uncertainty. We read in the paper today that the Manitoba government may well refuse to collect the tax for the federal government in certain sectors of the Manitoba economy. More uncertainty.
Why should any businessperson, consumer, or provincial government, for that matter, plan to collect or pay this tax, when the government refuses to deal with the uncertainty itself by referring this matter to the Supreme Court?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat again that there is no uncertainty about the validity of what the government has done. I can quote from the judgment of the Court of Ontario: "Finally, if New Brunswick is entitled to an additional member in the Commons, that is a matter for Parliament. The court has no jurisdiction to declare the House of Commons improperly constituted".
This House of Commons is properly constituted. The Senate is properly constituted. They should get on with their business.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BILL C-78
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who probably knows that this morning the National
Oral Questions
Coalition of Environmental Groups held a press conference to urge the minister either to strengthen or to scrap his proposed environmental assessment legislation.
The minister would alleviate public concerns about his bill by amending it to give the Minister of the Environment, rather than the minister proposing a project, the power to reject projects which would cause significant environmental impact.
Will the minister assure the House today that he would bring forward appropriate amendments to the committee before it starts its clause-by-clause study of the bill?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for expressing his concern and, obviously, his interest in Bill C-78.
As we all know in the House, we do not have the kind of environmental assessment legislation that we need in this country. Bill C-78 is a very important step in that direction to establish the kind of legislation we need.
As I have said throughout this process, I am more than happy to hear the recommendations of colleagues on potential amendments to the bill. Certainly, I will undertake to bring appropriate amendments, should they be presented to me, before the committee before we get to clause-by-clause.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his reply, but he knows very well that it is better to have a bill with clout, than legislation that has no public support.
Therefore, again, will he undertake to support amendments in committee, whether they are proposed by us or by members of his party, that will give the Minister of the Environment the final say on the approval or disapproval of specific projects?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, I have indicated to all my colleagues opposite that I was more than happy to receive their suggestions for potential amendments to the bill and I have done the same thing with the provinces.
I have a short list of proposed amendments that we are studying very carefully. Yes, I will undertake to propose to the committee some amendments before we get to clause-by-clause, those amendments that we feel are in the same spirit as that of the bill and that will effectively

November 20, 1990
Oral Questions
strengthen that piece of legislation. We need it and we need it soon.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister will know that the Canadian airline industry is in a bad tailspin and, to make matters worse, yesterday the minister outlined in Toronto that the airlines will be forced to pay higher user fees, estimated to be upward of $300 million by the chairman of the Air Transport Association of Canada.
How can the government think of imposing such onerous user fees on an industry that is already badly destabilized and when the blow will hit hardest those who can least afford it, namely the far regions and smaller communities of our country?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should know the full story. Yesterday, in my remarks to the association, I referred to the consultation paper that had been put out to the industry in July of this year. I referred to the fact that we were open to consultation and that, in fact, we had extended that consultation period, at their request among others, from November 1 to February 1.
What is not in the article is that after I spoke my officials participated in a full morning session on the very issue of cost recovery. There are lots of consultations going on. That is what the whole process is all about. The consultation period is by no means finished.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I agree that on the one hand the minister agreed to extend the consultation, but on the other hand, yesterday, at a major airline conference in the country, he said very clearly that the airlines will be paying higher user fees and that there will be a new regime of those higher fees. One cannot have consultations and then directives in the same breath.
Again, why does the minister continue to threaten the airline industry with higher user fees? Those higher fees will break the backs of the smaller airlines, pass on increased costs to a travelling public that can hardly
afford to travel this vast country as it is, and, thirdly, exacerbate the regional inequities between the larger airports and those in the regions where, despite where one lives, all Canadians deserve quality air service.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the session was about. I suggested that there would be higher user fees and cost recovery. I said I was open to a consultation. That is what I was there for. That is what I was there the day before to do. That is what I did the evening before. That is what I did during the day. That is what my officials did yesterday. That is consultation.
Now, with my hon. friend's background, and the party he represents, obviously he would not know anything about that kind of consultation.


THE SENATE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I want to return to the New Brunswick lawsuit.
The minister will recall that four times in the House the leader of my party suggested to the government that it refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada because of the constitutional chaos it could cause. She will recall that she once said that that was arguable. Then she went to Vancouver and had a press conference and said: "Well, I have been advised by the Department of Justice that the these senators represent all the regions in Canada and, if you do not agree with me, go to court". Well, we did and we won exactly on that point.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: How does the minister propose to get the eleventh MP from New Brunswick? Is she aware that that will likely include a constitutional amendment? Therefore, could she please tell the House which seven provinces does she have on her side to bring forward an amendment to agree to the GST?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the hon. member's opinion that it would require an amendment to the Constitution to add that seat.
November 20, 1990

The decisions that have come down on this subject confirm the position that I have taken in the House that the appointments are valid. I have stated that in the House and nothing that has been decided by the courts have stated otherwise. Clearly, the existing House of Commons is validly constituted.
The judgment from New Brunswick indicates that the Government of Canada should now find a way to add an additional seat to the House of Commons to represent New Brunswick. On this point, the judgment is in conflict with the decision of the Court of Ontario. It is on this point that I want to appeal the judgment. The difference demonstrates the difficulty in interpreting these provisions.
I believe that the issues are in front of the courts. No court has suggested that the government is not legally well founded in doing what it is doing with respect to the senator appointments and I am quite content that the legal process have its way in determining what else the government should do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The judge says that if Parliament fails to promptly devise a method of creating and filling 11 seats, the court could be asked to do so.
Does the minister not realize that she is putting all the laws of this Parliament in jeopardy if we do not have a legally constituted Parliament?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister was wrong before. She could be wrong again.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The government is suggesting that adding a member of Parliament for New Brunswick is nothing but a detail. This is no detail. It is a major constitutional amendment!
Here is my question. How does the government intend to implement the decision rendered by the Appeal Court of New Brunswick? Will the government delay implementing the GST?
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental question. It deals with the legitimacy of the decisions made by this House and by the Senate. There is no doubt about that.
There is no doubt whatever about the legitimacy of bills passed in the House or legislation passed in the Senate. Neither of these decisions makes any reference to that, the legitimate way in which these houses are constituted, given the fact that those eight senators were appointed.
The question is, and I have said it in the House before that it is an interesting one based on the very difficult and arcane language of the Constitution, what flows from the valid use of that power. There is a difference now between two courts, the court of Ontario and the court of New Brunswick as to what flows.
Because we respectfully disagree with that aspect of the judgment of New Brunswick, we will appeal it, but at no time will the result of that decision impugn the validity of decisions made in this House or in the Senate. That is the technical detail.
If the courts confirm that another seat is required, then we will act to fulfil the judgment of the courts. But, respectfully, we disagree with the interpretation of the court of New Brunswick on that point.


SCOTIA SYNFUELS PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
The people of Nova Scotia cannot believe his decision to turn down the Scotia Synfuels Project. This project would create 2,000 jobs for more than 36 years. That is more than three times the number for Hibernia and at a fraction of the public sector cost. It would produce four million barrels of high quality, clean fuels for Canadians and a clean use for Cape Breton coal. This project for tailor-made for the Cape Breton economy.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1990
Oral Questions
Why is the minister turning his back on this important project? Why has he abandoned his mandate for industrial development in Atlantic Canada?
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, first, that we have just announced within the tax credit two projects for Cape Breton for $24.5 million which means that we are not overlooking the economy of Nova Scotia.
Because it is in my hon. friend's riding, he knows very well that the Synfuels project has been running for 10 years now. What was requested by the promoters of the project was, first, that they wanted to have a $200 million Cape Breton tax credit. They wanted to have more. They also wanted to have a loan guarantee and an interest buy-down. That was not possible because of the fact that there was no private sector money guaranteed. Mr. Gillespie himself said that in The Globe and Mail yesterday.
The technology was good. We agree with that, but there was no money. It would be a very high cost for the Government of Canada and this point in time. This is the reason why we decided not to accept the deal.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. The minister will know that the premier of the Province of Nova Scotia, the entire provincial assembly in that province, labour unions, as well as all of the municipal representatives in Cape Breton Island, are supportive of this particular project.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: In the name of fairness and human decency, would the minister not agree to meet with the principals of this particular project and to sit down to work out a plan which is suitable to the Government of Canada, as well as the principals, in order to see that this project is realized for Canadians who live in that particular region of the country?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that in any part of the country we need money to make a deal. We can have the support of all the provinces if you want, but you could not have the $500
million from the private sector to guarantee your project. You ask for a $200 million tax credit at the same time that you ask for a loan guarantee and the interest buy-down. It could not be a good deal. At the moment, you are not able to put even $1 and you want us to give a credit.
There is no way that we will support any project where the money which has to come from the private sector will not come. That is as simple as it is.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. I do not see him in his seat, so perhaps his parliamentary secretary would answer.
Cross-border shopping in the United States continues to have devastating effects on retailers in Canada's border towns, including a serious loss of jobs in the retail industry.
Has the government any plans to at least acknowledge the mounting problems its economic policies are causing and offer some relief for Canadian retailers who are facing very bleak pre-Christmas sales in the border towns?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem raised by my friend-not from London, unfortunately, but my other friend-has been the subject of discussion for the last two weeks with the municipalities along the border with the Canadian Retail Association.
We believe that we can find an answer, but I understand for those retailers at the border it is not easy. However, it has been a fact of life for those retailers for a long time, dealing with the United States and Canada.
Once again, the officers of my department are working with those people, and we believe we can find an answer in a little while.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Is the federal government familiar with the plan announced recently by the Ontario government which would make funds available to retailers in specified border towns in Ontario, designed to help them
November 20, 1990

in their business promotion plans to offset that trend to shop in the United States?
Has the federal government any plan to participate in this initiative now, or will it be offering a similar plan before Christmas?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are not as rich as the Government of Ontario, and we prefer to see if there are any other options that we can consider with those whom we are dealing with at the present time.
We are not considering-if I want to be very upfront- any possibility of putting money in any plan before Christmas. The fact of the matter is that we are working in different ways to face the problem, but in those ways, I do not have any package or subsidies at the present time.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.
No one is fooled by what is going on with the $24 billion James Bay II or the $8 billion Great Whale projects.
Quebec wants to proceed with an assessment of the roads and airports now, and then construct the $6 million worth of roads and airports while the environmental assessment of the flooding of the reservoirs and the dams is undertaken and then cry economic ruin should any part of the second phase be found unacceptable.
Does the minister not finally agree that the assessment must include the entire project in one piece? Otherwise, it is a process that will lead to roads to nowhere and irreparable environmental harm.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on quite a few occasions in this House, the government believes that there has to be a full environmental assessment done on the project before work begins.
That is the position we have had. That is the position we have been discussing with the province of Quebec, and that is the position we will stand by.
Oral Questions


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has decided to split the Great Whale project into two parts.
Discussions about a joint environmental assessment have been going nowhere now for 18 months. Will the minister, for once, do what is right rather than what Quebec Hydro wants and today implement the only choice that there is to protect the environment and proceed alone if necessary to assess the Great Whale project and its infrastructure as one piece, not as two?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points very clearly to my hon. colleague, one that I mentioned earlier on.
Under various acts and regulations, the federal government has all the power and opportunity to conduct a full EARP review. On the other hand, we are also dealing with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that was signed by the federal government, the Quebec government and by native people under the auspices, by the way, of the former Liberal government back in 1975. That is a legally binding agreement. We are trying, with the agreement on the one hand and with our power to have a full EARP review unilaterally declared by the federal government, to reach an agreement with the province so that the process can be done in a way that we will have the results before construction starts.


CRIMINAL CODE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On many occasions, my constituents have complained of the fact that young people under sixteen years of age can buy small arms ammunition. Can the Minister tell us today whether the purchase or sale of ammunition is illegal when the buyer is less than sixteen years old, because it seems to me that, in Quebec, merchants do not follow the regulations?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, while the control of firearms is governed by the Criminal Code, ammunition is normally controlled under the Explosives Act.

November 20,1990
Oral Questions
Pursuant to section 120(1) of the regulations implementing the Explosives Act, ammunition shall not be sold to a person under the age of sixteen, unless the person can produce a valid permit issued in accordance with the Criminal Code. It is then the responsibility of the merchant to establish the age of the buyer. The regulations came into force on January 18, 1990, and impose restrictions regarding the age of the buyers for other types of explosives as well, including pyrotechnic devices. As a general rule, you must be at least eighteen years old to buy other types of explosives and the related material.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Experts from our national bank say that transfer payments largely benefited the richest provinces and fueled inflation in these provinces during the past few years. We also know that the minister's high interest rate policy is aimed at reducing inflation in these same provinces. Not only is Quebec at a disadvantage but it is paying for the mistakes made by these provinces and the federal government. Does the Minister of Finance intend to do something about that and to compensate the damages caused to Quebec's economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the transfer payments benefit all provinces as regards some programs. The Established Programs Financing, the payment that is most important to the province of Quebec equalization, the province of Quebec is the largest beneficiary of that program by a substantial margin. We do have the normal review of equalization coming up, I believe, in a year or a year and a half's time. Those discussions are under way. There are representations that have been made by a number of provinces in the course of this review, Quebec being one of them. We want to allow those discussions to proceed before making any decisions on equalization.


Nic Leblanc: I was not referring to equalization, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about transfer payments to provinces under bilateral agreement concerning programs. What I mean is that Quebec is losing billions of dollars because of that policy. Will the federal
government compensate Quebec for the billions of dollars the province and the people of Quebec have lost because that monetary policy penalized Quebec during many years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are the Established Programs Financing transfer payments which are on an equal per capita basis, regardless of the province, so that Quebec has equal access to that program in the same way as Ontario or British Columbia or Nova Scotia.
As far as the payments for equalization are concerned, Quebec has a major benefit in that program as the largest beneficiary of that payment. All the other programs of transfer payments are a good deal lower than those two payments, the next one being the Canada Assistance Program. Again, that is on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. For every dollar that Quebec spends, the federal government spends an equal amount of money. So, Quebec is not being disadvantaged by any of these programs.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Canada Post. Canada Post has removed postal services from hundreds of small Canadian communities, forcing many Canadian citizens to drive as far as 22 kilometres just to mail a letter or receive mail. The $149 million Canada Post had in profits is at the personal expense of many rural citizens. Will the minister, in fairness to all Canadians, guarantee equal postal services to everyone?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest th.e hon. member get somebody else to write his questions for him because they are distorting the facts entirely.
There have not been hundreds of closures. There have been several hundred new post offices opened. There have not been any of the closures the gentleman is talking about. We have independent auditors who say that the service is getting better and that there has never been a time, in the 150 years of postal history, when everybody received the same postal service because everybody does not live in the same circumstances. I
November 20, 1990

know the hon. member will want to re-check his facts before putting any further questions.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my facts are quite accurate. Here are a couple more facts for this minister and this government: Not only is the government taxing funerals with the GST and taxing the stamps that letters of condolence are being sent with, but the government is now depriving those on unemployment insurance and welfare by taking their cheques away, because they are unable to get them quickly, because the government is closing rural post offices.
The minister very well knows that citizens must have access to postal services. Will he take the responsibility required in his job and give fairness to all Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really stretching on that one. Those welfare recipients the hon. member is talking about will get a cheque on December 13, if the Liberal senators can be moved to take a decision.
Moreover, we have independent auditors to see that as soon as we mail the cheque, it will be delivered on time everywhere in the country, no matter where they live.
Third, Canada's postal service is second to none in the world, and we have independent experts to verify that as well.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There are about 500 furniture retailers in Quebec who stand to lose a full year's operating profits because they will not be adequately compensated for the federal sales tax included in their inventory. Yesterday, the Quebec Furniture Retailers Corporation claimed that this injustice would put a number of furniture retailers out of business.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree to withdraw the GST so as not to harm Quebec's furniture industry and the 21,000 people who earn a living in this sector?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to furniture dealers as a whole. There are some furniture dealers who get a rebate that is equivalent to the amount of existing federal sales tax in their inventories. Other people will not get a full rebate and that, unfortunately, is what happens when there is an average rebate. Some people are below the average, some people are above the average.
But I would say to the hon. member, if he is really concerned about these furniture dealers, he will go down the hall and speak to Senator MacEachen and say: "We want to get this tax passed because the GST will result in putting the Canadian manufacturers of furniture on a level playing field with the international manufacturers of furniture".
Today, the international manufacturers are paying one-third less sales tax. That is why we want to get this sales tax through, to help those furniture manufacturers. But, if Senator MacEachen is still going to run the show, if Senator MacEachen is going to ignore Jean Chretien, then there is-


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, this is not theoretical. It is the truth. This morning, I spoke to the Vice-President, Finance, of Groupe Rona-Dismat, who said that implementation of the GST would have a very adverse impact on members of his group. He told me that some would not survive. Why is the minister asking the private sector to take such losses in the middle of a full-scale economic recession? Why put companies, jobs and the families that depend on them at risk?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member was talking to the representative of the furniture industry, did he say to that man what the Liberal alternative to the GST would be? Did he say that no alternative has been suggested? Did he say that there is an alternative, that it is going to be another form of sales tax? Did he say that there is going to be an alternative of increased income taxes for companies and for individuals?


PRIVILEGE
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question asked by the member for Hamilton East yesterday.
I answered a question dealing with Consumers Gas Corporation acceptance by my department, Investment Canada. I said at page 15388 of Hansard:
- I will step in, not only with Premier Rae, but with former Premier Peterson who accepted the deal before he was defeated.
I would like to withdraw the section: "Premier Peterson who accepted the deal before he was defeated".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to discuss an alleged contempt of the House of Commons.
With reference to the question of privilege I rely on Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the twenty-first edition, at page 115. I draw Your Honour's attention to the recent decision of Elizabeth Weir against the Attorney General of Canada, specifically on page 17 which concerns me. I will make sure you have a copy of it, Mr. Speaker. I just want to read a short paragraph on page 17: "The judge says the situation calls for the exercise of political imagination and ingenuity to devise a method of giving New Brunswick an eleventh member without delay and without disrupting the continued representation of the province in the House of Commons. If Parliament fails to promptly devise a method of creating and filling an eleventh seat, the court could be asked to do so. While the court cannot tell Parliament what to do, it is the guardian of the constitutional rights of citizens
and will if necessary find a way to ensure that these rights are observed".
What the judge in the case is asking is that there be an additional seat for the province of New Brunswick. I almost said the province of British Columbia; you know, Mr. Speaker, how I was involved in trying to retain a seat from that province.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that under our Constitution, specifically sections 41 and 42, provinces are represented proportionally in the House, that is the number of members in effect is proportionately weighed among the provinces. So if we give New Brunswick another seat, B.C. may want another seat or Quebec may want another seat. It is very difficult to do so without a constitutional amendment.
What concerns me is that pending a constitutional amendment in order to implement the judgment which the judge said should be implemented forthwith, the acts of the House of Commons that we have passed since the GST senators were appointed or that we are passing now in fact may not be legal. Let me put it this way: there may be a cloud on them.
My point is that the government has lowered the authority of the House. It has been in contempt of the House, specifically, by casting a shadow over all legislation passed by the House through the government's refusal to ensure that Parliament was constituted in conformity with section 51A. That is with the new appointments to the Senate.
Second is its refusal to refer the legitimate questions raised about the composition of Parliament-Parliament is the House of Commons and the Senate-to the Supreme Court of Canada for a speedy decision. There is a real question now, as a result of this judgment and as a result of the existing sections of the Constitution, that this House may be improperly constituted. That is a serious matter, and the government is in contempt in my view for not pursuing this matter right away. Government members should have pursued it before. We warned them and they would not pursue it. Now they have a judgment of a court. They should be pursuing it. Not to do so is to be in contempt of Parliament.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would suggest that the hon. member's comments about the possibility of Parliament being improperly constituted are incorrect. The court in New Brunswick has just
November 20, 1990

issued its judgment today where it takes a different view of what flows from section 51A of the Constitution as a result of the use of the appointment powers of section 26. With respect, the government takes the view that on that point, on the point of whether New Brunswick is or is not entitled to another seat, the court in New Brunswick is in error. For that reason we wish to appeal that decision.
I think it would be highly inappropriate for Parliament to act on a statement of the law until all of the recourses for appeal have been proceeded with.
The judgment has just come down today. The Government of Canada has not made a decision as to exactly what route for appeal will be sought. It may be that it would be appropriate to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be appropriate simply to appeal to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. I would like to have that decision made based on a judicious and thoughtful review of the circumstances.
I am not aware of this issue being raised in any of the other provinces. There is litigation pending with respect to the use of section 26 in the province of British Columbia, and there is ongoing litigation in Ontario on a different point. Whether those who had judgment in Ontario will wish to appeal the decision based on 51A is something I am uncertain of. They did indicate some wish to do so but appear to have withdrawn that.
I have never suggested that there was not an arguable issue here. It was the view of the government- and we acted on the view-that the use of section 26 did not require the election of another member of Parliament in New Brunswick. I think we should seek a clarification of this in the courts, but I would underline again that at no time has any court, either in Ontario or New Brunswick, indicated that as a result of the use of those appointment powers or any of the implications flowing from section 51A this House is improperly constituted.
It is the tradition in our law that we do not execute judgments until we have exhausted all of the avenues of appeal. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member's comments about the need to act on that judgment
Privilege
are premature until all of the avenues of appeal and a definitive clarification of the law has been obtained.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there is some reason in procedure for what the minister is saying. I understand the minister has just got the decision today. The minister would indeed want to look at it, as she said. She would want to consider what she is going to do with it. I understand and appreciate that. That seems to me to be sensible.
What is concerning me-and I say this to the minister-is that just about anybody in the country may now want to challenge one of the laws that we have passed as saying that the House was improperly constituted. That presents some difficulty.
I would be prepared to put this off until tomorrow, to bring the point back after the minister has had a little time, as she asked for, to consider what position the government will take. I understand it is reasonable for the government to have at least a bit of time, but time is of the essence here and I would be prepared to have this matter recalled tomorrow.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The minister seems to be dealing with this matter in a very summary fashion. I do not think the minister and the government appreciate the gravity and the consequences of the decision of the court.
This Parliament, in my respectful submission, was properly constituted at the time of the last general election in 1988. There was a certain action that was taken recently by the Prime Minister and the government to appoint senators. The whole question of the Senate situation in the province of New Brunswick has caused the court to render an opinion and call into question the appointments made by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the consequences of a future court with perhaps this case on appeal, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, deciding that yes, in fact from the moment the Prime Minister appointed the eight additional senators this Parliament was improperly constituted. I would ask you to consider

November 20,1990
Privilege
in your deliberations the consequences of that happening. Any Canadian bringing forward an action in the future challenging any law of this particular Parliament could throw the entire country into chaos.
While this Parliament maybe supreme, it is incumbent upon the minister and the Conservative government to show respect for the rule of law. The courts have put into question or into dispute the appointment of these eight additional senators.
It seems to me that this government and this minister have a responsibility to ask immediately the Supreme Court of Canada to render an opinion on this matter as quickly as possible to avoid the very real potential of chaos in this country.
The possibility exists, for example, that a law could be passed by this Parliament and only carry by a single vote. The consequences could very well be different if an additional member of Parliament were sitting in this House from the province of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, I too would ask you to rule that our privileges would in fact be severely affected by the inaction of this government or by this government not acting quickly to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam has raised a very interesting issue which has been commented on by the hon. member for York South-Weston, and of course we have heard from the Minister of Justice.
According to what I have heard there are two judgments, one in conflict with the other. The minister has said that the most recent judgment which came down yesterday or today is going to be appealed.
If I were to accept the argument that this is potentially a question of privilege, I would then be faced with having to decide whether on what I have heard there is a prima facie case of privilege. It would be very difficult to do so on the basis of two conflicting court judgments as of today, even if it were appropriate for the Speaker of the House to be sitting in judgment on the interpretation of two different judgments.
Both hon. members have suggested that the government ought to take the matter immediately to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a matter of policy and a matter of argument, but I do not think it is a question
in which the Speaker of the House of Commons can order the government to do that.
Certainly today, as the situation stands, I do not feel that there is a sufficient case made for the Speaker to say that there is a prima facie case of contempt against the House, which of course would then go to the House for a vote and then, if the vote passed, it would go to a committee.
There are some obvious interesting procedural aspects to all of this to contemplate in the event that the situation did lead to a prima facie case of contempt. At least today, I do not think the Chair has to get into that.
I thank hon. members for their intervention. I thank the hon. minister. These are interesting and intriguing arguments that have been put forward. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Chair to intervene at this time.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to belabour the point, but the previous question of privilege suggested that there was a contempt of Parliament by the actions of the government. I would like to approach it from a different perspective.
The ruling of the Superior Court of New Brunswick is no ordinary matter. It is not an ordinary matter dealing with a law of this Parliament. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that our privileges are affected because the very work, the very authority of this House has been put into question, not by an inferior court appointed by a provincial government, but a Superior Court appointed by this Parliament. It is a federally appointed court in the province of New Brunswick.
The minister suggests that because there are conflicting opinions, somehow the decision of the court in New Brunswick has been neutralized. What if the court decision in New Brunswick was the only decision we were dealing with? Would the position of this House be any different?
Mr. Speaker, my respectful submission to you is that because a single Superior Court has called into question the issue of the eight senators appointed by the government, it also calls into question the legitimacy and the authority of the House of Commons. As we speak today, this judgment, this ruling, which is significant, suggests that we may be improperly constituted. Surely if there was ever a breach of privilege, it is the suggestion by a court that we are illegitimately deliberating here in the House of Commons because that court has called into
November 20, 1990

question the legitimacy and the authority of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take this matter under advisement, seek legal opinion from somewhere- wherever you seek your legal opinions-to determine whether in fact a breach of privilege does exist, not on the question of contempt but on the general question of a Superior Court in this country calling into question the authority and legitimacy of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's argument. It is very much a repetition of the argument that was given before on the question of privilege upon which I have ruled. I know that the hon. member would not be asking me to contradict a ruling that I just made a few minutes ago, but let us take for a moment the hon. member for York South-Weston's question of privilege as a completely separate matter and relating to the hon. member's own privileges.
The Chair is still faced with the same situation, even if it is accepted that it is a question of privilege. I am not saying it is but even if it was, the Chair would still be faced with the question of whether or not there is a prima facie case to put to the House.
The hon. member says that the New Brunswick judgment is of great importance because it is a Superior Court. So I understand is the judgment in the province of Ontario. We have two conflicting judgments and it is not for the Chair to either decide which of those courts is correct, although I am terribly tempted to do so, having given opinions on such matters for many years before I came to the House of Commons, but I am not really permitted to do that.
Second, I do not think that I am helped particularly by seeking a legal opinion, as the hon. member for York South-Weston said, from somewhere.
As I say, the issue is fascinating. It is fascinating to me and I think it is fascinating to hon. members, but I have to be very careful that I stay within the bounds of what I am permitted to do and I am afraid it is not appropriate for me to intervene.
The hon. Minister of Justice.
Privilege


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this discussion but a number of comments have been left on the record that I think ought to be clarified.
The hon. member for York South-Weston and the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam have both suggested that judgments of the courts of Canada have indicated that the appointment of the eight senators was improper. I think that is a very unfortunate impression to leave in this House because neither of the courts have found the appointments improper.
The judgment of Mr. Justice McRae of the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division says: "I have concluded that with respect to this question the appointment of the eight new senators does not violate the Constitution Act of 1867". In view of this finding, it follows that the House of Commons is validly constituted. It goes on to say that the court has no jurisdiction to declare the House of Commons improperly constituted.
The court in New Brunswick took a different view of the implications of the use of that appointing power for the right of New Brunswick to have a certain number of senators, although the court there very clearly makes the point that, as Mr. Justice Stevenson says, some people have distorted Section 51A in recent weeks. His meaning is clear. It does not say a province cannot have more senators than MPs. It says that a province is entitled to no fewer MPs than it has senators, the implication being that Parliament should remedy that.
Once again, the New Brunswick decision is a declaration. It provides no remedy. The suggestion is that Parliament should provide the remedy. I think the appropriate course is for a final legal judgment to be obtained. With respect, I would suggest that it is no more proper for this House to follow a judgment of the court of New Brunswick than of the court of Ontario. But I think it is very unfortunate if the impression is left on the record of this House that either court found the appointments improper, because that was not the case. I think the issue was a very different one from what the hon. member suggests.

November 20, 1990
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I was trying to make it very clear that there are conflicting opinions. It is not for the Chair to delve into them under the present circumstances. The hon. Minister of Justice rises, I suppose, on a point of order, but the ruling is made and that concludes the matter.
We have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Ottawa West.


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege relating to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Environment this morning.
I had a motion properly before the committee, of which I had given due and proper notice, having first notified the chair and all members of the committee some time ago that I intended to move the motion. Having given notice of the motion three weeks ago, I properly moved the motion this morning.
Before the motion could be voted on, one of the three government members indicated his intention to leave, specifically to break quorum and to prevent the motion being put. He urged his colleagues to leave with him, which they did.
The committee is desperately short of time to address the large number of urgent problems confronting the environment. The action at committee this morning further cut into that time by cutting the meeting short and preventing the committee from dealing with any other issue, until the government members of the committee choose to return, presumably with a large enough majority to beat my motion and carry on with the rest of the very lengthy agenda of the committee.
Canadians wish to have the House of Commons address these issues. To disrupt the proceedings in this way and squander the time of the committee is deplorable. This is the kind of negative partisanship that undermines the collegial atmosphere which the committee has developed over many months in light of the urgency and the universality of the problems with which we are dealing.
This morning's action by government members has prevented me, and through me, my constituents from being represented" in debate on these important issues, both at committee and ultimately in this House, given that the motion requested the committee to take certain actions and report to Parliament on certain matters.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair and other hon. members know with what concern the hon. member brings these environmental matters to the committee. The hon. member has commented upon the collegial attitude that has existed for a long time in the committee and one would hope, of course, that that would continue.
The difficulty that the Chair is in again is a difficulty which I have referred to a number of times. The committee is there and the committee is the master of its own work, unless something happens in that committee which is so extraordinary that the Chair has to view it as a breach of privilege or a contempt. It may well be that a day or two from now the committee will re-engage in harmonious discussion, the Chair does not know. While the hon. member certainly has a grievance which she has expressed, I cannot find any means by which it would be appropriate for the Chair to interfere in the committee's deliberations.
I would hope that hon. members could come to some kind of working agreement and get on with a job that we all wish they would do.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for clarification?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West is asking for clarification?


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my concern is that committees are in a very real way an extension of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to in any way keep the hon. member from raising a matter of importance, but I listened to the hon. member give a full and complete presentation. Perhaps I erred in letting it go on as long as I did, but it is not something that I can interfere with.
I think the hon. member will have to take her arguments across the floor of the House in debate, Question Period or privately, but I do not think we can continue this here. We are getting into debate as to what is or is not going on in the committee. I think that before
November 20, 1990

long there would be other members rising to ask whether it was in order to continue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Alan Redway (for the Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-90, an act to amend the Bank Act (extension), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, in my introductory remarks today to Bill C-90, an act to extend the Bank Act, I will be dealing lightly with the bill itself and concentrate more on the reasons why we are seeking an extension.
Bill C-90 is basically a straightforward bill. It seeks extension without modification of the Bank Act. As we all know, the Bank Act expires on March 31, 1991. Bill C-90 would extend the existing act until April 1, 1992. This will allow the government the time to get on with the reform of financial institutions legislation, including substantive amendments of the Bank Act as announced on September 27.
It is important that we have this extra time, this additional year, although changes in financial institution legislation may appear to be mere technical adjustments. They are in fact very significant, in part because they represent adjustments to an industry that is itself of major importance.
All Canadians will be affected by this legislation, and I think for the better.
The manner in which the federally incorporated financial institutions serve the needs of Canadians will be directly affected by the legislative and regulatory reforms that we have announced. I believe these institutions will operate more effectively and competitively and that they will be more accessible to meet the demands of Canadians.
Government Orders
Let us recall that the money handled by Canadian financial institutions funds the mortgages of Canadians. It finances our automotive purchases, shelters and invests our savings. It makes available the investment needed for new and expanded industries and businesses.
The success of these institutions is key to our economic success as well as our security as savers and investors.
Because of the particular importance of financial institutions in channelling savings to finance economic growth, it is essential that they be sound, innovative, dynamic and internationally competitive. The challenge was to develop a regulatory approach that protects the public while it encourages innovation and efficiency in our financial sector. We will meet that demand.
The objectives the reform of financial sector legislation will achieve are that, first, they will enhance protection for depositors as well as policyholders. Second, they will benefit consumers by increasing competition and by widening the spectrum of services offered by the financial institutions. Third, they will strengthen the ability of Canadian financial institutions to compete at home and abroad. Fourth, they will lay the groundwork for harmonization discussions with the provinces.
Hon. members will recognize that in order to protect consumers the government tightened up on prudential rules in 1987. These will now be further strengthened, including additional enhancements to the supervisory system. For example, tougher self-dealing rules will be implemented. The self-policing role of directors and auditors will be made more effective through mandated roles and responsibilities, and the superintendent of financial institutions will have increased powers to require information that will enable problems to be anticipated.
Consumers will find shopping for financial services more convenient and will benefit from a wider choice of financial products since banks, trust and loan companies, and insurance companies will be allowed to compete more directly with each other. The interests of consumers will continue to be protected. For example, the new Bank Act would also include the service charge disclosure provisions now contained in Bill C-9 which is before Parliament.

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
By opening new avenues of growth for Canada's financial institutions, the new regulations will strengthen the ability of these institutions to meet the new challenges that have evolved in the global marketplace.
However, we are all aware that there are competing interests within the financial institution community which cannot all be completely reconciled. In those cases we have sought a reasonable balance. For example, banks and trust and loan companies will be restricted from offering most insurance services and retailing of most insurance products in branches of deposit-taking institutions will be prohibited. This ensures that insurance will continue to be sold by qualified, licensed insurance brokers and agents working independently of any deposit-taking institution. At the same time, however, banks and trust and loan companies will be given the power to promote goods and services, including insurance, to their credit card holders.
The government has spent considerable time consulting on its proposals with financial institutions and then-associations. It has integrated these views with its own continuing analysis on the needs of an evolving and dynamic market, both nationally as well as internationally. The process has led to firm, pragmatic policy decisions that are being put forward by this Parliament.
This exercise in reregulation represents a balancing of individual, national, international, and federal-provincial, as well as commercial and prudential, concerns that, as a package, will serve the public interest well and permit our financial institutions to get on with the job.
The measures set out a framework for strong national institutions to serve the national interest.
The reforms also respect provincial rights of supervision and authority in the financial sector. There is a need for a greater consistency among federal and provincial rules in order to avoid balkanization of regulatory regimes and permit our institutions to compete more effectively at home and abroad. The new legislation and proposals take into account a number of concerns that had been expressed by the provinces regarding matters such as commercial links, the in-house trust powers of banks, and provisions allowing for improved sharing of information among federal and provincial supervisors of financial institutions. This opens the door to in-depth
discussions with the provinces to clarify responsibilities for the supervision of financial institutions.
Co-operation between federal and provincial authorities is the most responsible way of ensuring the stability and growth of our national and regional financial institutions. This would reduce the possibility of regulatory and supervisory duplication. The goal is to avoid, in practical terms and to the degree possible, the multiple regulation of federal and other institutions operating in several different jurisdictions. This approach could be designed to have institutions regulated as much as possible by their jurisdiction of incorporation.
I believe that the reforms of which I have spoken are important, are in the interests of consumers, and strongly support the need for increased competitiveness. Canada's financial institutions need all of those things today. But to deliver these benefits, we need time to prepare and get parliamentary approval of substantive amendments to the Bank Act that we will be bringing forward. The Bank Act extension before us today will give us that time.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in favour of the motion for passage of Bill C-90, the Bank Act extension legislation.
I speak in favour of this bill, not because I agree with the government's financial sector policy, but because of the dire consequences if this bill is not passed. Bill C-90 extends the expiry date of the Bank Act and that, in turn, extends the licences of Canada's 10 domestic banks and the 57 foreign banks operating in Canada. Without this extension, these banks would lose their licences to operate on March 31, 1991 when the current Bank Act expires. This would cause a total collapse in our entire financial system and throw our entire economy into chaos, so that is why I am speaking in favour of the motion.
There are more than 3,000 Canadian financial institutions, operating today in Canada and throughout the world. Together, they have close to $1 trillion in assets. Through some 1,400 branches across the country, with close to 500,000 employees, Canada's financial institutions serve practically every individual and business in the country. Clearly, a collapse would not be allowed to happen, but this is the serious kind of problem that the government is tempting by waiting until the last minute to introduce an extension of the Bank Act.
November 20, 1990

A much more responsible approach would have been to introduce a new Bank Act this past September when the government introduced the new trust and loan legislation. The banks are central to Canada's financial system and it is important that Canadians are able to see the whole picture, that they can see the legislation that this government intends to bring in in connection with the four pillars, and not just see the legislation, piece by piece. Today, we have the last-minute introduction of Bill C-90 which is the latest example of government's unorganized approach.
I would very quickly like to go through the government's performance or record in the past five years in bringing in modern, new, financial legislation. In 1985, the government introduced a green paper on financial sector reform. That was followed by a blue paper in 1986. That was followed by four years of waiting by the Canadian financial institutions as they watched their global market share tumble.
Time is of the essence in the financial sector because of the rapid change occurring world-wide. Certainly a very important question in this whole area is: What has the government done for consumers and depositors of financial institutions?
Modern, new financial legislation should provide consumers with a better choice of financial services at more competitive prices. Consumers of financial services in many parts of the world are enjoying the benefits of modem legislative framework. There is no reason at all that Canadian consumers should not enjoy the kind of benefits as others enjoy in other parts of the world, but the government has denied Canadian consumers these benefits simply because it has delayed and delayed the legislation with regard to financial institutions.
We are also concerned that depositors at Canadian financial institutions continue to enjoy a high level of confidence that those deposits are safe and they are being wisely managed. This kind of continued security would be achieved through new financial legislation which emphasizes improved self-regulation, as well as a strong role for the Superintendent of Financial Institu-
Govemment Orders
tions. As we all know, the government has denied Canadian depositors those benefits as well.
Contrary to what the government may think, there are consequences to the years of delay in bringing in meaningful financial sector reform. In fact, between the time the government released its first policy paper on financial institutions and the time when the new Bank Act is passed, close to seven years will have elapsed. That is seven years during which the government knew and acknowledged that the current act is outdated and is hindering our banks' ability to compete. That is seven years during which it failed to introduce new legislation to do something about it.
Here we are today debating an extension of the existing Bank Act when we really should be debating a new Bank Act. Instead of telling the banks what legislative tools they can use to operate and compete in a tremendously competitive world market, the government again is asking for more time. Reluctantly, we have to agree to give it more time, not because we agree with the government's approach, but because of the dire consequences we would face if Bill C-90 is not passed.
The soundness of the Canadian financial system and, indeed, the entire economy depends on it.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so quick as the previous speaker was to give agreement to this bill. This is a bill to extend the charter of the banks until 1992.
Last spring the government promised us a new Bank Act and it did not deliver. Last spring we were promised Bank Act changes and we have not got them. What have we got now? Bill C-83. The government says: "We are going to start reforming the financial institutions and Bill C-83 is going to be the first in a series of amendments to the financial institution operations of this country". So, we have got Bill C-83 and it has had second reading and it is in committee. Sometime in the next two years we are going to get the Bank Act, and then we are going to get the Insurance Act changes.
Why are we going through this strip-tease? Why are we going through this whole performance? First, it drops Bill C-83, and then we are going to get another dropped

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
in a few months or so, and then we are going to get the Bank Act. Why? Is it not better that we see all the cards on the table so that we can see how the amendments to the Trust and Loans Act meshes with the Bank Act and meshes with the Insurance Act? Why are we going through this? What is the gain? That is the question to be asked. We should see all the cards on the table so we can see the total picture. That is my first criticism.
It is not as if 1991 came upon this government suddenly. After all, it went into the free trade agreement and that is what is motivating the changes to the way the financial institutions operate. That is the real rationale, to follow what big brother in the United States is doing. God knows the problems they have with their savings and loans and their banks. If one looks carefully at what is portending for us in Bill C-83, one will see that we are following exactly what is being done in the United States. I will deal with the specifics later.
The other question I would like to touch on is what does the future hold for us? Look at what Bill C-83 has done and that is the trend, brothers and sisters. That is the trend. If one looks at how C-83 handles power, the concentration of power in Bill C-83 is in the minister's hands. Look at what is happening. Bill C-83 gives the minister special powers. Is this the trend for the Bank Act and other acts amending financial institutions in this country? The power is going to be centred in a political minister. We have had an example of how a political minister can make and use special powers.
We had the example of Amex. Amex does not qualify by the description of what a bank is in Canada. Yet the minister used special powers to give American Express things that Canadian banks cannot do. A Canadian bank cannot do the things that Amex was given. This is the special power used by the minister. This is the kind of example of what special powers can bring about. He used the special powers and gave Amex all sorts of powers and rights that Canadian financial institutions do not have. In other words, he changed the rules to suit the players, after the fact. It seems to me that the question is a legitimate one. Is this the way in which we want financial institutions in this country to be regulated and controlled? How are the consumers of financial services treated in that kind of scenario?


Lynn Hunter: Badly.


John R. Rodriguez: Absolutely. Very badly.
In 1985 the finance committee brought out the green paper. They gave a blueprint for the way in which financial institutions ought to be regulated. It does not talk about giving special powers to ministers who have political connections. That is not what they talk about.
I would like to put on the record what the finance committee recommended on page 30 of that 1985 report. Consequently, the committee proposes the creation of a national financial administration agency, NFAA. This would be an autonomous Crown corporation involving representatives of the provinces, the financial industries and the federal government on its board of directors.
The committee suggested there be four provincially-appointed directors from the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces. There would be eight industry-appointed directors, two from the chartered banks, and one each representing the trust companies, the life insurance companies, the property and casualty insurance companies, the financial co-operatives, pension funds and security firms, if provincial ownership rules were changed to allow them to be closely held by federally-incorporated financial institutions. There would be five federal government directors, one appointed by each of the Bank of Canada, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and three by the Department of Finance. In addition, the board would hire an inspector general of financial institutions as chief executive officer of NFAA and who would also sit on the board to give a total board membership of 18. The chairman of the board of directors will be appointed by the Minister of Finance. This agency would act as the regulatory and supervisory agency for all federally incorporated financial institutions and for any provincially incorporated institutions if the provinces so desire.
It would establish conditions for memberships of institutions in the various consumer protection plans of this administration. Provincial institutions would have to comply with these conditions in order to obtain coverage under these plans. The agency would administer separate funds for each type of financial activity that would
November 20, 1990

act either as direct providers of consumer protection plans or as backup resources to industry-operated protection plans.
It goes on. It outlines the supervisory role that this agency would have. It does not propose that power be put in the hands of the minister. It involves the provinces because you have to harmonize the rules that govern trust companies that are incorporated provincially. They have to be harmonized.
This provides an opportunity and a vehicle to involve the provinces and to bring them within the ambit of the federal law. This does not allow the minister to exercise any special powers. We have a serious problem with that whole direction which we have seen in Bill C-83. It is pointing in the direction for the Bank Act, if that is the pattern, and it is pointing in the direction for insurance companies as well. We do not cotton to that idea very much. That is one strip-tease the minister can forget.
The minister talks about deregulating the financial institutions and reregulating them. That was the boast of the minister when he introduced Bill C-83. He is deregulating and reregulating them. Where is the power for the reregulation? The power for the reregulation is going to reside in a political minister, not in an agency as was recommended by the green paper in 1985.
Why was this proposal not incorporated into the changes affecting financial institutions? Why was it not? We are very concerned about the fact that we are getting into another recession. We remember the last recession and we remember the loosey-goosiness that resulted in the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank. We remember them very well.
We also remember that in the last dozen years 10 trust and loan companies have had to fall back on using deposit insurance. Now we have another trust company that is on the death watch. We want to put this kind of power in the hands of a minister?
I may as well touch on the other issue that concerns us very much. Here is a minister and a Conservative government that represents special interests in this country. Then we look at the recent appointments into the Senate. All they have appointed are members of the same club. That raises for me another important question as to whether this Parliament should be looking at any regulation with respect to financial institutions until we have had some conflict of interest rules that binds
Government Orders
members of Parliament and in particular binds the Senate.


An hon. member:: Castonguay.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians should quiver in their boots when we think about the potential for conflict of interest.
Who have we got over there? We have some of the most vitally interested people in the way financial institutions are regulated in this country.
We have this fellow Trevor Eyton. He is hooked in very directly to Royal Trustco and Edper Enterprises. We have Mr. Castonguay hooked into the Laurentian Group. We have Mr. Denino hooked into Cabot Ttust. We have a whole host of them.
You can bet your bottom bitty that these are the people who are going to end up on the Senate finance and banking committee. That is the special interest.
We expect Canadians to believe that the rules governing financial institutions are going to be done in a most impartial manner. It is like thinking that Colonel Sanders is looking out for the social interests of the chickens. It never happens.
This is a serious concern. They are going to get plucked and tucked-I will stop right there. Initial consonants have never been my strong suit.
There should be no progress on any of this kind of this legislation until we have had a set of conflict of interest rules, which this government introduced. It has been sitting on the shelf. We should not be proceeding.
Another area that concerns me, and I heard the minister repeat it many times: The word is "globalization". That is the new word.
We have to get participants that are lean and mean, and also bigger at the same time.


Lynn Hunter: They look like they are fat and mean to me.


John R. Rodriguez: The member says they look fat and mean.
That is what is going to happen.
I got the impression as I listened to the minister and watched the trend on Bill C-83 that the move to globalization of financial institutions is becoming more important than the interests of Canadians.

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
Why else when time and again on the whole question of bank service charges and trust company service charges when we cried out to have some ombudsman appointed who could look out for the interest of consumers, that idea was never followed through by the government? It was not interested in it.
It said: "Oh well, the superintendent of financial institutions would look out for that". The superintendent of financial institutions is more interested in the solvency of the institutions, not in ordinary consumers being very concerned about the way they are gouged in the marketplace with bank service charges.
It seems to me that as they move toward building these giant financial institutions that they want to build, in fact the interests of Canadians fall farther and farther behind.
These institutions began with us. Now they want to look to other interests, not the interests of Canadians. Pure profit is all that motivates their decisions.
It seems to me that they are destroying national markets to restore global markets. On that question, I have to ask: Where is the social responsibility of the financial institutions in this country? Where is their sense of social responsibility?
I saw one of the big banks in this country. We are all hearing horror stories of banks moving in on farmers, closing in on small businesses and demanding repayment in tough times. How did they treat Campeau Corporation? They forgave. They wrote off $80 million. The National Bank wrote off $80 million. How do they treat the small business person?


An hon. member:: Student loans.


John R. Rodriguez: Student loans. They are tough, real tough. Here are the banks. What contribution do they make to affordable housing in this country? They can make profits on affordable housing, but they can make bigger profits by lending to those risky things that Campeau Corporation got itself into. Pure profit.
I ask the question: What is the social responsibility? Here is a banking system that could find a $1 million bonus for a horse that wins the Triple Crown of Canadian racing, the Bank of Montreal. Isvestia won the three
prime races in this country, and for doing that the owners of that horse get $1 million from the Bank of Montreal.
Where is the social responsibility? Where do we see it reflected? Do we see it in affordable housing? Do we see it in the training of Canadians in post-secondary education? Do we see the banks participating in any kind of training programs? Do we see them investing any of the hundreds of millions of dollars, the fantastic profits that they have been garnering in the last year or two? Have we seen any of this?


An hon. member:: The clerks pay more in taxes than they do.


John R. Rodriguez: The member says that the clerks pay more in taxes than some of these banks do, which is probably correct, but do we see any sense of community responsibility or social responsibility? No.
I cannot be so sanguine as to run in and say: "This is fine; you can do this". I have to start ringing the warning bells that this government is headed in the wrong direction. It should stop and reflect somewhat on where it is headed.
I want to ask another question. Government members have made a great big thing about the ownership of banks. They said that no individual or group can own more than 10 per cent of the shares of a bank. Does that cover a father with 10 per cent of a bank and a son with 10 per cent? Is that permitted? I ask that question. Can a father own 10 per cent of a bank and the son own 10 per cent of the same bank? I mean one family would have 20 per cent of the ownership of a bank.
What is the direction toward ownership of banks? We have seen the move with respect to schedule B banks coming in from the United States. They are going to be able to do all the things that schedule A banks do, yet they are not covered by the same rules that apply to schedule A banks. Canadians are covered by one set of rules. Americans are covered by a looser set of rules. The whole question of ownership needs to be looked at. We ought to look at the way ownership rules apply.
I get the distinct impression that as the pillars of the financial institution or the financial world in this country collapse the power is being shifted into the ministry, into the minister's lap. This causes grave concerns.
November 20, 1990

Look at all the smoke and mirrors being played with so-called Chinese walls which after they get through with them are more like Swiss cheese. There are no walls at all. They are just picket fences.


Benoît Bouchard: You are very impressive.


John R. Rodriguez: The minister says I am impressive. It is easy to be impressive when dealing with a subject so vast, a subject that I feel so strongly about, that is the question of economic power in this country. Is it being wielded for the benefit of all Canadians?
The answer I come up with, as I read Bill C-83 and about where the government is headed with respect to the way in which financial institutions are going to be regulated, gives me grave cause for concern. However, look at the smoke and mirrors. It says that we will have these walls because insurance companies will continue to market insurance and banks will not be able to market insurance through their branches, but banks can own an insurance company.
Why are we playing this charade? Insurance companies right now are taking deposits. They lend money and they are marketing insurance. They are operating like a bank. When one takes out a life insurance policy and pays the premiums, one is in effect making a deposit. When one accumulates value in the policy, one can borrow money from the insurance company. In fact insurance companies are much like banks. They take deposits in a way and they lend money, yet they are going to be marketing insurance.
What charade is that being played? We have to set out what those pillars are going to be in the financial institutions, if we are going to have pillars, and then we should set rules that apply to everybody. Either everybody is covered by the rules or no one is covered. We cannot have different rules for different organizations in the financial world. We certainly cannot have the power vested in a minister because we have been down that route before. Most definitely Parliament ought not to be dealing with changes to the Financial Institutions Act until Parliament has a proper conflict of interest law that covers both Senate and the House of Commons.
Grudgingly we are going to let this bill go which extends the charter of the banks until 1992, but I am
Government Orders
serving notice that this party in this comer of the House has very serious questions.
We are not buying a pig in a poke. If it means that Bill C-83 does not get passed until we see the Bank Act and the changes to the Insurance Companies Act, then we are going to wait. We need to take a look at the total picture. We are not going to pass one and then find out that something does not fit or something does not gibe or the philosophy is not maintained throughout.
I serve notice to the minister that in fact we are going to be asking serious questions. We are going to question the direction in which this government is moving toward deregulation and reregulation of financial institutions.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you check with the House you will find unanimous consent to proceed through all stages of Bill C-90 today, which would include reference to Committee of the Whole instead to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion of the parliamentary secretary that the House proceed forthwith to adopt all stages of this bill?
The Deputy Government Whip-


Mr. Boudria:: The Deputy Opposition Whip.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Opposition, of course.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hope that will indeed be the case in the very near future, and my colleagues as well. Thank you for your encouragement.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that one of our members would like to take a few minutes to add a few words, and after that, we are prepared to accept this proposal. If the House is willing to accommodate us, we will be ready to proceed immediately afterwards.


Dave Worthy: I have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some very brief remarks on this bill.

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
I have met with many people from the insurance industry and many people from the bank industry. I have formulated the personal opinion that maybe it is time that the insurance business and the bank business try to bring in for the average person a straightforward solution regarding insurance.
Right now the average person can spend up to $4,000 or $5,000 on insurance costs if he has one or two cars, a home, and a small business. I believe it would be more feasible to amend the Bank Act so that banks can get into the sale of insurance. This would drive the cost of premiums down and make insurance accessible to the public. Members of the public at large would receive better service and greater accessibility to insurance if they only had to take a few minutes to go to the bank and purchase the insurance they need.
Insurance today is a complicated procedure. One has to hunt from insurance agent to insurance agent, which is costly. Right now an individual who has to spend an average of $4,000 on insurance might find a difference of 25 per cent to 30 per cent if that individual could go to the bank and talk to the bank manager or other professional who deals with insurance. He would be provided with a better, more accessible package, at a lower cost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hastings- Frontenac-Lennox	and Addington-Correctional
Service Canada; the hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley-Forestry; the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-National Defence.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Bank Act (extension).
Shall Clause 1 cany?
On Clause 1-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question with respect to why there is a need to further delay the introduction of the Bank Act review. This was promised last spring. It is not as if this thing suddenly came up and slapped the government in the face. The government knows that every 10 years the Bank Act is reviewed, and the government knew that 1991 was coming. Why is the government going through this process? Why do we have to put it off and why do we not have it when we were promised it last spring?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is that, in trying to deal as responsibly as we possibly can as a Parliament, not just as a government, we are taking the proper steps and going through the proper process. We have initiated Bill C-83, pertaining to trusts and loans, which is now before the finance committee. It will receive full and open debate and discussion.
At the same time as Bill C-83 was tabled, we also tabled the policy paper indicating the similarities and differences of the way the rules would apply to other institutions. We will be proceeding as quickly as we can with the other required legislation. The government has indicated that all pieces of legislation will be introduced at the same time. It will not be a staggered impact; it is going to be done and it is being done, I think, as quickly as we can do it, if we are going to be acting in a responsible manner.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the answer of the parliamentary secretary is not satisfactory. We have Bill C-83 before us and it is the basis of my next question. It seems to me that if we are going to have a series of acts that amend the way financial institutions operate, then as a responsible parliamentarian, I should have the proposals before me. I think it is very important to see how the one hinges on the other. These things are not going to be done in isolation.
In fact, in Bill C-83, as the parliamentary secretary well knows, there are many crossovers. The Bank Act will be applied, in certain instances, to other financial institutions. Certain aspects of the Bank Act, for example, disclosure on service charges, will not be enforced against trust and loan companies because there is some
November 20, 1990

argument, which I have not accepted, about provincial jurisdiction.
But I think that we are entitled to see the whole package. Since the hon. member raised it, why don't we have all of these bills before us? Is he suggesting we could hold Bill C-83 in committee and not deal with it until we get the other bills amending the legislation pertaining to the financial institutions of this country, so we can have the total picture? We do not want this strip-tease approach. I think we have a right to see the whole package and so do Canadians.
The parliamentary secretary says that they will all be implemented at the same time. Oh sure, they will all be implemented at the same time. We wanted them all introduced and discussed at the same time. We are going through this exercise with Bill C-83 and I think that it is not acceptable, because the government knew well in advance that the Bank Act had to be reviewed in 1991.1 want the parliamentary secretary to deal with those questions.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I value the comments of the hon. member and I know that he has had long experience with the subject matter which we are discussing. However, the subject matter of the proposed legislation we are dealing with today is a very simple and basic housekeeping position of extending the Bank Act for a year, so that we can go through the process of dealing properly and responsibly with all parts of the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, no, no, no. The parliamentary secretary cannot get away with reading the scribbles from his bureaucrat. There is no way that I can accept that.
This bill is to extend the Bank Act. The question I am asking is why are we extending this? It will go to 1992, and hopefully we will get a Bank Act review before then.
At the same time we will present Bill C-83, amending and changing the way in which financial institutions operate. So it is a very straightforward question. Why has the government not brought before Parliament the various bills that will amend the way in which financial institutions will operate. We do not want this kind of piecemeal approach where if the House passes one bill, it will give us the next bill. Pass that, then we will get the
Government Orders
next one, and then they will all be implemented at the same time and all proclaimed at the same time.
It seems to me that for the government to argue that it needs an extension, it must justify why an extension is really needed. I am suggesting that this government has been derelict in its duty and that it has had enough time to know that 1991 was coming and that it had the responsibility to review the Bank Act.
Even the Financial Institutions Act, C-83, has been promised to the financial institutions for years now and finally they have got it. The Trust and Loans Act that Bill C-83 amends has not been amended since 1917 and God knows how long it has been since the Insurance Act of this country has been amended. It is not as if suddenly these things all rose up out off the ground and slapped us in the face. These things have been around.
Now government comes to Parliament and says: "We don't want the banks to lose their charters when the House prorogues. We want to make sure that the banks can continue". Well, that is not good enough. I ask for a logical explanation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I think I know what my colleague from the NDP is trying to get at. I am sorry that we cannot hear a definite answer from the government. Perhaps we could try and get an explanation.
The government obviously knew a number of years ahead of time that the Financial Institutions Act had to be reformed. There is now such a bill before the House. Presumably it knew at the same time, at least when it came into power in 1984, that it had to revise the Bank Act, or at least it must have discovered from reading the legislation that it expired in 1991.
Given that it knew both of those things, why is it that we only have a bill for one and nothing for the other? I think that is what our colleague is after. What we are hearing is that one bill does impact on the other. We are presenting completely new legislation in one area and in the other one we are just saying: "Okay, let us extend the old rules for one year". That is really what I think our colleague is trying to find out. I also think that the whole House would like to know the answer to that question.
In other words, can we get a commitment that there will not be a further extension after this one which our colleagues have indicated they are willing to grant, that no further extension will be necessary, that there will be a bill proposed, and that the other bill, which is presently

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
before the House for consideration, will be delayed so that we can examine both pieces of legislation concurrently. That, I think, is the question that the House would like to ask and the House would like to get an answer for it at the present time.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to dodge the question earlier. There were two other people seeking the floor and I did not want to hog their mikes.


An hon. member:: You were planning to give an answer?


Dave Worthy: Why yes, I am prepared to. I know we are not in Question Period, we are in Committee of the Whole. Normally you let people have their say on things.
I like your analogy this afternoon of the strip-tease and obviously you want nothing but the naked truth. I wish I could provide it for you.


John R. Rodriguez: No, no, no.


An hon. member:: Bear with us.


An hon. member:: It's a cover-up.


Dave Worthy: As my colleague over here says: "Bear with us", and the other one yells out, "It's a cover-up." I do not know which one it is.
I cannot, of course, answer for all of the events that have taken place leading up to the financial institution reform and I sure as heck cannot answer for all the things that will or may be coming up in the next one or two years. I feel we would be terribly irresponsible if we did not proceed as a government in a proper and staged way. Possibly the way we are proceeding is not the best. The hon. member obviously feels that it would be better to dump everything at one time. I feel that anything that I have seen from the government side of the process is that it is a sincere effort to try to pragmatically and properly address the financial legislation. It is proceeding in an ordered fashion.
The bill being discussed today is the Bank Act extension. Most of the criticism and comments we have been hearing from the committee concern the financial institution reform as a whole.


John R. Rodriguez: No, no, no.


Dave Worthy: Yes I did. I think financial institution reform is a good thing for Canada. I think the comments of the hon. member are that it is overdue and that we should be proceeding more quickly with it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions for the member. We are dealing with Bill C-90, which consists of two sections. We are being told by the government that this bill must pass and if it does not pass, there will be chaos in the financial communities.
Can the member indicate to me exactly what would happen in practical terms if this bill is not passed? This bill would allow banks to carry on business until 1992. What would happen if, for whatever reason, this Parliament does not pass this bill over the next several months? Is he telling Canadians that the banks would lock their doors and tell their consumers that they cannot come in and deposit or withdraw funds? Will the banks have to liquidate? Let us get serious about the consequences of this bill not passing. I am not involved, as I am not one of the financial critics for this party, but as an ordinary Canadian listening in on the debate, I would like to know in a very sincere way, what the practical consequences would be.
My friend and colleague from Nickel Belt, the member of the New Democratic Party, seems to have worked himself into a frenzy over this bill. Just a few moments ago I thought he was going to take off. If there wasn't a ceiling in this place, he would be flying high. I was worried about his blood pressure for a few moments. We know that the New Democratic Party and particularly that member is anti-bank. They do not like banks. I am not sure whether it is because their mortgage rates or their business loan rates are so high. We know the New Democratic Party would like to nationalize banks. That, in fact, is a policy of the New Democratic Party.
The purpose of my intervention is not to criticize the New Democratic Party.


Don Boudria: Why not?


John V. Nunziata: Why not, the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell asks. The reason why not is that our friends in the New Democratic Party are wallowing in hypocrisy. As they say in Latin res ipsa loquitur, which means the thing speaks for itself.
November 20, 1990

If I may return to the subject matter of the day, Bill C-90, can the member answer my simple question. What would the consequences, in practical terms be, of this Parliament not passing this bill?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think it was the hon. member from your party, the critic for this ministry, who went into a fair amount of detail and was going through what she thought a lot of the ramifications might be. She was painting the disaster scenario. I did not mention it.
I would be concerned because obviously the Bank Act is the act that enables the process of banking transactions to take place. Without the Bank Act extension, banks would cease to be able to function, as I see it, in their process. Beyond that, it is beyond my capabilities to answer. It would be very serious if it was not passed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am enjoying, as much as is possible in these serious matters, hearing the parliamentary secretary from the Cariboo, British Columbia, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt. They do share an interest, a little secret, I suppose. They do share an interest in horses and it is nice to know that they know something about banks, too.
First, I want to say that we should be careful about this strip show stuff. This is a family program out there now and we do not want to hear this, especially when it comes to banks-strip bonds or whatever, maybe, but not strip shows.
I want to raise two points with the hon. parliamentary secretary. One is what my friend from Nickel Belt raised, and that is the notion of conflicts and why the legislation does not deal with potential conflicts. We have now, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt mentioned, a Senate that is stacked with financial people, bankers and big businessmen. The other day in the Senate one of those senators abstained from one of the GST votes. I hope I am not wrong on this and I stand to be corrected, but one would have thought that the senator abstained because he had a conflict of interest. It was over an insurance amendment. My initial reaction was that it is quite honourable of the hon. gentleman. I am told he abstained because he did not like the bill being against the insurance industry, and he did not want to vote for the bill. He was a Tory senator, one of the recently appointed senators.
Government Orders
Why are we not getting some conflict of interest matters with respect to banks and with respect to politicians in representing banks, and so on, on these bills that we vote on? It is easier in the House of Commons. One might have a connection with the bank, but it is such a big House with so many members, it is diffused. When the Senate is so packed with bankers and financial people, there is a real conflict of interest that arises. I ask the parliamentary secretary why there is not anything on conflict of interest in this particular legislation or at least a statement from the government that it is prepared to bring in good conflict of interest legislation and, particularly, prepared to bring in Senate reform legislation?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John R. Rodriguez: Of course, Allan MacEachen is a big consultant for the banks.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Liberals, particularly the member for York South-Weston, are heckling me. They are a little worried about the NDP in York South-Weston and some of those areas. They may need our votes to get back to the House, so they had better take it easy on us.
The second question I want to ask is the issue of checks and balances that was raised. We are getting letters about this. I have a letter from Shirley Potter. Mrs. Potter is from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, and her letter is very typical. She writes to me and says: "I am writing to express my serious concern over a situation of a government which allows a Prime Minister to function unchecked in a manner which expresses his total contempt for the electorate, as well as the majority of the elected representatives. It is time for a serious look at the absence of checks and balances which exist and for action to be taken to correct the situation so it can never happen again".
Mrs. Potter goes on to talk about the fact that power is concentrated. In this country we have power concentrated in banks that decide to whom they will lend money and we have power concentrated in the hands of virtually one man, the Prime Minister.
The government comes to the House, after using closure 15 times in other acts to push things through and, when it comes to its friends in the banks, it wants to extend this legislation. It is not just housekeeping, it is a whole extension of the Bank Act.

November 20, 1990

Government Orders
Why do we not have conflict of interest legislation along with this or some statements? Why did the government not bring in changes in the Bank Act? Does the government expect, even if we give this extension to it, that it might come back to the House with a new or revised Bank Act? Is it possible that it would come back with a new or revised Bank Act to deal with some of the things that we have to do?
I just want to end with this. A Liberal member has said that we in the NDP are against banks. That is not true. We just want to hold the banks accountable.
I have a copy of a speech by Mr. G. F. Gaffney, the senior vice-president of the Royal Bank of the B.C. district. He was speaking on October 15 at the Empress Hotel in Victoria. He gave a very good speech on the banks and the environment. This man is starting to bring the banks up to date, making them responsible. Therefore, I ask the parliamentary secretary: Will the government not bring its legislation up to date, rather than postpone it? If we agree to this postponement today, is there a possibility that the government might bring in some legislation, sooner than the extension period that we will give to the Bank Act, to revise the Bank Act in terms of conflict of interest, in terms of checks and balances, and to look at the situation of the conflict of politicians in the Senate who are voting on these vital bank matters?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of points brought up. To start with the hon. member's first point, I am not sure which end of this horse that I am, but I will leave that to his imagination.
The hon. member made two different points on conflict of interest. One is within the financial institutions themselves. I think the hon. member recognizes that there have been improvements made in the legislation that has been tabled and the policy paper that has also been tabled. I fully expect that reform of the potential conflicts within the boards of directors of financial institutions is being adequately addressed there.
He also got into Senate reform, checks and balances, and I believe the member is bringing up many comments and many points of view that are recognized across the country. It is just because of this that our Prime Minister initiated the citizens' forum that is now in the process of
talking to Canadians, not only to Canadians in the Cariboo, to Canadians in Nickel Belt, and to Canadians in Newfoundland, but also to Canadians in Ontario and Quebec who also have opinions on this. Hopefully, coming out of all of that, there will be a reform that all of us will welcome.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Chairman, I come from a small business. In any sense of the business, whether it happens to be small or large, one has to have a playing-field and a certain game plan of what one is going to do over the next couple of years.
Coming at the 11th hour, the government saying: "We need this legislation passed immediately or tomorrow we are not going to have any financial institutions. They are going to collapse". I feel that it is somehow irresponsible.
The member across talked about responsibility, sincerity, and everything else, and we are here today to address financial legislation. I am wondering if somewhere down the line we are going to sit down and look at the Bank Act and say: "Okay, we are going to bring in a Bank Act that is going to be for the long run". We should not, every so often, change it around and every so often come at the 11th hour to ask the House to give an extension for one or two years. The banks will not have to see what we can do tomorrow, and then a year from now tune in again to see where we are going.
Is it not time that the banks of this country of ours, for once and for all, got a permanent Bank Act so that they can look forward, trouble-shoot, and put things together. They should not have to come at the 11th hour to ask us for an extension. It is irresponsible that, at the 11th hour, a businessman must hang on to the television screen watching the Canadian Parliament to see if he is going to be in business tomorrow.
If we are going to talk about responsibility and if we are going to talk about fair government and all these things, I think that this should have been dealt with a long time ago.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member's point is well taken.
The government has indicated that it will be bringing in the new Bank Act just as soon as it possibly can. It will be early in the new year. If it is not a permanent act-in


November 20, 1990

other words, if it has a sunset clause in it-I think it would be at that point that the hon. member should make his recommendation that we look at a more permanent timeframe for it.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this discussion and what I would like to know is why the government has not taken its responsibilities seriously and introduced a Bank Act, rather than an extension?
In 1985, there was a green paper on financial institution reform. In 1986, there was a blue paper. It is now 1990, four years later. What has the government been doing for four years? Why has the government not introduced the Bank Act, rather than the extension of the existing one? Second, I would like to know exactly when we can expect a new Bank Act?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, if we introduced a new Bank Act today and tried to put it through in time to satisfy the date, the first thing that would happen would be that we would be accused of moving far too quickly and being dictators in the House.
I cannot account to the House why it has taken as long as it has. I know there have been many stages and the stages have probably been fruitful. We will probably end up with a better bill because we have taken that time.
But I cannot, and I really do not want to, go back and try to answer for the last three or four years. I would say that, if we are going to be dealing responsibly today, then we should be proceeding to give this extension to the Bank Act which that hon. member and the hon. member for Nickel Belt have indicated we should do. We could then make sure that next year, when the Bank Act does come in-and it has been indicated that it will come in as early as possible in the new year-that we then proceed with it as responsibly as we possibly can.


Mr. Assistant Deputy  Chairman@: We are still on clause 1. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary referred to Bill C-83. In fact, he signalled that Bill C-83 was a flagship of the other legislation that will come and it points the way for the Bank Act.
I have already disagreed with him that in fact we should see all of the minor ships in this flotilla and not
Government Orders
just the flagship. I am prepared to suggest seriously to the finance committee that we hold Bill C-83 until we see the other cards in the hand.
Look where Bill C-83 heads us. The parliamentary secretary raised this and I want to raise it, too, and that is with respect to the special powers that will be vested in the Minister of Finance, if C-83 is the flagship and it points the way. That is the problem. On page 32 of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Trade and Economic and Affairs in 1985 there was a proposal with respect to the supervision of financial institutions and the regulating and overseeing of financial institutions. It is all outlined in recommendations Nos. 1 to 6, the establishment of a national financial administration agency.
That agency will have a board of directors. That board of directors will represent the provinces and financial institutions. It will represent the Department of Finance and the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, therefore, consumers will get their representation.
Here is what has been happening and it is the point I raised with the parliamentary secretary. If that is the path, then the government is closing off any potential for the implementation of this kind of recommendation in a subsequent Bank Act amendment.
I am saying that ought not to be dealt with in Bill C-83, so that when we come to the Bank Act it cannot be said: "We have already decided that in Bill C-83, so we cannot raise this matter with the Bank Act revision".
I have, Mr. Chairman, a serious concern about vesting that kind of power in a minister. I think that this was the better route. I want to know why this recommendation of the finance committee was ignored.
It also gives the provinces opportunities to harmonize their legislation governing their financial institutions with federal legislation.
I want to know: What is the justification for ignoring this recommendation?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I think the points you are making indicate the wisdom and also the need, obviously, for this bank extension that we are dealing with this afternoon.

November 20, 1990
Government Orders
I do not have a perception that the legislation that has been put in in Bill C-83 is either fixed or unchangeable. The process that you have indicated, the recommendations that you are making and the questions you are raising in the finance committee and on the floor today are not only proper, but it is the way legislation should be processed.
In fact, as this process proceeds as it should, we will end up with the financial reform legislation properly constituted, properly reviewed, properly debated and flown through the committee precisely so that we can deal with it in the manner that we require the extension of the Bank Act that we are asking for today.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask, since we have people from the department for whom I have a great deal of respect with regard to their knowledge of these matters, about the matters I raised in my speech.
Does the 10 per cent ownership, a rule of banks, apply to the same family? Can a father own 10 per cent under the present Bank Act and can a son own 10 per cent of the shares of a bank?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to respond.
Under the present act, if a father and a son were to act independently, there is not something that would preclude it. If they started to vote their shares together or were shown to be in concert, then the interpretation right now would be that that would not be allowed.
I would like to point out as my comment though under the new powers that you have been critical of where the minister does have more discretion in the future under the new acts regarding trusts and loans where the minister has more discretion, he would probably be able to make decisions on some of those stock transactions that you are concerned about.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I am very critical of the special powers that ministers have. We saw the special powers of the minister that allowed American Express to be declared a bank in this country when it is not even a bank in its own country by its own rules.
Yet, it comes here and is considered a bank. There was a great deal of suspicion at the time. The reason why it got special treatment from the Minister of Finance was
because the head of American Express supported vigorously the free trade agreement.
I am not a cynical person, so I would not dare suggest that. There was this common rumour around that that is what it was. I do not believe in special powers for ministers. That is why I support the recommendation of the finance committee which said these things ought to be regulated by this national financial association with a board of directors which sets those ground rules and supervises that. Then the consumer is protected.
I have no confidence in this system where somehow or other every time the father and son vote together it is a potential conflict. Are there rules that say they cannot vote together at all? Surely that is ridiculous. Either the 10 per cent rule applies or it does not apply. To think that families do not have a vested interest is ludicrous.
I want to ask about dormant accounts in banks which, after 10 years, are deposited with the Bank of Canada, I believe. What happens after that? Do another 10 years go by? What is the procedure? Who gets the money from these dormant accounts? How much money was in the dormant accounts last year, for example? How much money are we talking about in dormant accounts?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, the officials have indicated that they would be quite prepared to answer any of these questions, but they do not have the information with them right now to do so.


John R. Rodriguez: I would appreciate receiving that information.
Since we have the opportunity, I also want to find out-and I would like the information sent to me in writing as well-how much banks make on Canada's national debt. In other words, how much of the banks' collective profits come from the use of depositors' money in purchasing Treasury Bills? Is it possible to get that information because they certainly have a vested interest in the national debt of this country?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am a little confused but I would have thought that is something that could have been asked on the Order Paper or through the normal process.
November 20, 1990

I have some concern with how it affects the passage of Bill C-90.1 am sure that if the question were written out for the officials, they would be quite happy to try to get the information.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I think these questions have to be asked when the people who are knowledgeable in the whole process of financial institutions are present. That is why I put them on the record. If we could get the information., I would appreciate receiving it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Loiselle moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? With leave of the House, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


M. Andre (for Mr. Loiselle) moved: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, just before this gets passed, on division, at third reading and goes to the other place, I want to once again-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for very long. I just would like to indicate that it is my intention to declare tomorrow an allotted day, a supply day.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House leader could stay for a moment. It was my understanding that we had passed, with unanimous consent, a motion to adopt this bill at third reading this
Private Members' Business
day and there are only two minutes left. I notice we are still debating, so perhaps we could get some clarification as to whether or not the unanimous consent that was achieved earlier this day will be adhered to. We did not put up a speaker, not for lack of interest in the bill, but we wanted to indicate that it was our understanding to live with the consent we had engaged in earlier this day.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing considerable rhetoric from the NDP over the last hour or so, notwithstanding the fact that earlier this day they gave their undertaking and commitment that they would pass this bill, unanimously, by five o'clock, so stop the hypocrisy and get this bill passed.


John R. Rodriguez: The only hypocrisy comes from the member who just spoke. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to conclude by flagging the concerns we had. We heard the parliamentary secretary attempt to answer. He did not answer the question as to the rationale for having this postponement and so at report stage, on division, we let the bill go and we will let it go on third reading, on division.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed, on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5 p.m, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   NATIONAL HERITAGE DAY MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley) moved that Bill C-288, an act respecting National Heritage Day, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
November 20,1990
Private Members' Business
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to speak in the House this afternoon on my private member's Bill C-288, an act respecting National Heritage Day.
I want to place before the House today a bit of the brief history of National Heritage Day. I also want to talk about some of the recognition that already exists for this bill. As well I want to call upon this House-and I hope the government in particular will endorse it-to support this very important historic legislation.
Bill C-288, an act respecting National Heritage Day, really looks at two or three fundamental areas. The first is a way to recognize the cultural history that we all share from coast to coast to coast or to look at the heritage that we have been raised with. In doing that we would emphasize that in Canada as we have come to know it we do not wish to have a monolithic view of our role in history, our role as citizens of this country. I think this bill will recognize those views and attitudes. It will actually create a National Heritage Day, which would be the third Monday of each February. It would also be a welcome break in the long haul in this northern country from the Christmas break and the festivities for many through to the Easter-time period on the calendar.
There is no question about it. It is a chance for all of us to catch our breath. Perhaps a few rays at that time of the year would probably go a long way toward helping cheer all Canadians, thus giving them a chance to strive to do more work at their workplace, to enjoy their families more, and to continue to participate as full citizens.
Let us take a brief look at how I would argue that National Heritage Day is already recognized but in name. Of course that it what this bill would do. It would officially sanction many different events across the country. We are starting to group together and starting to know our National Heritage Day.
In 1973 the Heritage Foundation Association of Canada really started it all by declaring that the third Monday in February would be an opportunity to reflect back on our cultural heritage and our role as Canadians, our cultural heritage as it relates to many things: our environment, our buildings, and our lives.
It has gone on from there to Alberta, which now recognizes National Heritage Day in its own unique Alberta way as Alberta Family Day. As well, there have been representations in the past to have National Heritage Day, the third Monday in February, recognized as International Peace and Goodwill Day.
Around that time of the year, as we listen to editorials and commentaries on the radio, watch them on television and read them in the newspapers, we realize that many newspapers and media outlets have endorsed the concept of National Heritage Day: The Toronto Sun, The Evening Telegram and The Gazette, to name a few, have all gone on the public record as endorsing and supporting National Heritage Day.
Generally on National Heritage Day we get a message from one of the ministers of the Crown. It is usually the Secretary of State who will make some wonderful comments about his concerns for the country and our multicultural diversity and will give an endorsement to National Heritage Day.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have one of these books as well, but even in the official House of Commons date book which all members of Parliament receive Heritage Day is recognized. I would argue that in essence we are already starting to recognize National Heritage Day. It is my view that my particular private member's bill is going to legislate and put into law what we are already practising.
Parliament was dealing with this bill as early as, according to some references I was able to find, 1980 when the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Ms. Pauline Jewett, a former member of Parliament from my caucus, made a number of motions and representations to have National Heritage Day recognized.
In 1981, the Hon. Stanley Knowles really started the ball rolling in bringing forward motions on a regular basis, trying to recognize and get the concurrence of this House for National Heritage Day.
Perhaps it is a small honour to try to carry on that tradition. If we are unable to have this bill passed by this Parliament today, I will be making every effort in subsequent Parliaments to bring forward this legislation so that at some point in time we can actually legislate it.
There is some rumour, perhaps behind the curtains, about this session of Parliament. Are we going to continue sitting until Christmas? When might we rise?
November 20, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Are we to expect to prorogue soon and come back some time in the new year?
Mr. Speaker, I know you will know about a break when we know. Perhaps Parliament will not be sitting and we will not have an opportunity to recognize National Heritage Day in this House. If this Parliament prorogues and comes back with a new session of Parliament, certainly one of my colleagues or I will make eveiy effort to see that this bill is brought forward again so that we can eventually consider it.
There is a good reason to support the bill today. It is not a very long one. Anyone who is interested can certainly contact my office to obtain a copy of it. It is a five-section bill. We also have coming up in 1992 Canada's 125th birthday, which was recognized in the Throne Speech back in 1989. The government made a commitment at that time that it would be developing considerable activity around what to expect in 1992, Canada's 125th birthday. Throughout the country Canadians in various communities and areas will be celebrating Canada's 125th birthday.
Montreal will be 350 years old. Closer to my home, the Alaska Highway, a very important transportation link between Canada and Alaska, will be celebrating its 50th. If it is not done for 1991, I suggest that this would be perfect legislation to bring forward-and we will even let the government bring it forward-to help all of us celebrate Canada's 125th birthday in 1992. There are opportunities today and in the future to go forward and support this legislation.
In debating the bill it is important to outline a few of the points in the legislation. There has been some debate and discussion. I did appear before the relevant committee to make a submission about why I thought this bill should be deemed votable. I made the submission based on some comments about the cultural history of this country in response to one of the questions asked of me.
Does Canada really need another holiday? What about the lack of productivity that we will suffer in Canada? That is one of the arguments used against this legislation or this proposal. I responded to it this way. I said that it was to the benefit of employers, organizations and Parliament, for the better you are, the more happy a soul
Private Members' Business
you are, the better a person and the more productive you are going to be.
I took the argument and turned it around. I made the argument that through declaring a National Heritage Day we would actually increase the productivity of the nation, largely by giving people at that time of the year when it is a little dark and a little cold a chance to catch their breath. They will feel all that much better about themselves, about perhaps who they work for, about their communities, about their provinces and about their country. In fact we will gain a great deal from any of the so-called productivity losses that have often been mentioned by critics of this particular proposal.
I would like to read into the record a couple of definitions which I think will be important for people who have been following this debate. It is from clause 4 and I quote the definition of a general holiday. I think is important, given that we are talking about national policy. It reads:
The definition "general holiday" in section 166 of the Canada
Labour Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"general holiday" means New Year's Day-Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 195;
I did not read the amendment which this bill would make to the Canada Labour Code. That of course would make National Heritage Day a general holiday in Canada, subject to some of the usual rules that we have come to know. I suppose some of them have been bent a little from time to time by employers, employees and others, but the general recognition would be that the third Monday in February would become a general holiday as it is known in the Canada Labour Code.
There are a couple of other sections as well that I should mention. One in particular is a consequential amendment to other legislation. It is always important to give a little background as to how we obtain a day like this and what are the results of that. Often we are at home debating and wondering about our participation in some of these holidays, where they came from, and what is the background to them.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
I will read into the record clause 2 of Bill C-288 which deals with the whole question of the consequential amendments:
All that portion of the definition "holiday" in section 35 of the
Interpretation Act preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
"holiday" means any of the following days, namely, Sunday; New Year's Day; National Heritage Day; Good Friday; Easter Monday; Christmas Day; the birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning Sovereign; Victoria Day; Canada Day; the first Monday in September, designated Labour Day; Remembrance Day; any day appointed by proclamation to be observed as a day of general prayer or mourning, or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving; and any of the following additional days, namely-
And it outlines a couple of the additional days. As we can see from my brief reading of this bill-if I had read a couple more sections I would have read the entire legislation into the record today-that very simply this Parliament could implement a measure to which, to be frank, we have given lip service over time. If Parliament were to act, I think we would be sending a clear message to all Canadians about how we view and see our cultural heritage. I am sure the offer of a general holiday in its basic sense would be well received by most Canadians.
What would be a better way to celebrate this country's cultural heritage? What would be a better way to celebrate in 1992 Canada's 125th birthday. I have received support from a number of organizations, such as the Canada Heritage Association, as well as a number of letters from people across the country, in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and elsewhere who have written to offer their support for this bill. I am certainly gratified by their response and want them to know that we will be continuing the discussion and the debate. Perhaps we could start a petition campaign to ensure that Canadians from all across the country will urge this Parliament to develop as soon as possible a National Heritage Day.
In conclusion, I want to just call upon members for their support of this bill. I certainly hope for and urge the support of the government for this legislation. I would ask it to consider, if it does not see fit to support the bill at this time, that legislation be brought forward in a new session of Parliament, if that is what it is going to be, next year, and that it be a part of the celebrations in 1992 of Canada's 125th birthday. I think that way we have the opportunity obviously to do something good for Canadians, to show our respect for our cultural heritage and as well to be a part of the celebrations that we see coming up.
With that, I appreciate the opportunity here today to present this bill and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that in subsequent sessions of Parliament we will be bringing forward this legislation and we hope it will receive positive support from all members.
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, to speak on this bill before us provides a welcome opportunity to comment on the meaning and the celebration of our heritage.
I first want to record my appreciation to our hon. friend and colleague, the member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley. The substance of Bill C-288, which he has introduced, is by no means new to the House of Commons, which he indicated in his remarks a few moments ago, but the concept reflects and helps to serve to represent an important and continuing effort to give Canadians the best kind of opportunity to celebrate our heritage.
It is more than 17 years since the idea was proposed by Heritage Canada. Since that time it has gained increasing recognition from parliamentarians, from agencies of the federal government, from provincial and local governments, voluntary societies and individuals in the community. Three years ago the then Secretary of State, the hon. David Crombie, called Heritage Day and I quote, "a uniquely Canadian occasion to celebrate both unity and diversity". In a 1987 booklet entitled "Proud to be Canadian" he observed and I quote again, "Canadians in fact have relatively few occasions when we can come together to celebrate our heritage. We certainly do so on Canada Day and with the recent proclamations of Environment Week and Citizenship Week by the federal government, there will be growing opportunities to understand the shared aspects of being Canadian".
We can acknowledge our heritage even without a holiday, much as we observe Mother's Day, and I keep encouraging my children to observe Mother's Day or Father's Day. My husband encourages Father's Day
November 20, 1990

celebrations and my children want to know when it is kid's day. Every day is kid's day.
For 17 years Heritage Day has been observed in this manner, as Mother's Day and Father's Day. Historical societies and architectural conservationists, many among the volunteer societies hold special ceremonies and celebrations each February to mark Heritage Day. Some municipalities have proclaimed a day of celebration and teachers in schools have special projects for their classes to help their students to be more aware of their heritage especially in the community around them. These are all very laudable activities and we appreciate them, but still they only touch a small fraction of the population of Canada.
Our heritage must have a special place, a priority in our thoughts, words and activities. At no other time before now have we had an understanding and respect for our heritage that has been so important as we try in the 1990s and beyond to shape the future of Canada.
I know that respect for our diverse heritage does not simply depend on a heritage day holiday. Of course our great July 1 holiday celebrates our achievements of the nation. But a heritage day could also be very special. It could celebrate what we have achieved as people living and working together in this multicultural society. We could celebrate our potential as a people to build a better Canada for the future.
There is another simpler distinction between Canada Day and heritage day. I think this is important, having been a teacher, that Canada Day falls at a time when usually the schools are out, when there is a holiday. So the celebration for Canada Day has to be done within the school before Canada Day even takes place. That has been a difficulty for us, to have that renewed spirit of the actual day of celebration. It falls outside the traditional school year. It is important that we celebrate a heritage day that would be within the school year.
Our heritage is indeed important to us all and the schools can play a very important part in encouraging, understanding and having enthusiasm for our cultural heritage. A heritage day during the winter could really receive great momentum from the classrooms across the country. With school resources, such an excellent shared objective would be shared by our younger generation.
Private Members' Business
They would understand our heritage as no generation before has done.
Those who believe that it is reasonable for Canada to celebrate national holidays comparable in number to other countries have suggested individuals who might be honoured on a heritage day. Of course this has been suggested, and notable among those persons, would be Sir John A. Macdonald. I am sure that all of us would be pleased to toast Sir John for his foresight and fortitude in bringing together the provinces to form our great Confederation of Canada.
His birth date is January 11. Perhaps not the day of the year that would be the most agreeable to have as a holiday, but indeed that would be an option also. It has been a long tradition to celebrate the birthday of the monarch in May, and that is celebrated in May no matter when the birthday of the monarch is.
Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday could then be celebrated annually at a date to be chosen. Why not roll this into a celebration of a heritage day of itself? Heritage day could permit great flexibility to the communities, to organizations or to individual citizens in what they may celebrate. The birthday of our first Prime Minister, I believe, is a great and excellent subject for celebration.
Many valuable suggestions have been made on what we should celebrate as a national heritage day. Heritage Canada has leaned to the celebration of our fine old buildings, our great accomplishments in architecture. One cannot really quarrel with such an objective for our built-in environment, as we now call it, is a major factor in the quality of life that we lead.
Celebrating surviving achievements of the past is a step to protecting the best of the past and to give future generations a better future.
As I noted before, there is nothing exclusive about celebrating a heritage day. We could give specific time to achieving a greater understanding of the contributions of aboriginal peoples. A heritage day could also cast new light on the need for national unity.
One intriguing suggestion would have a central theme proposed annually for each year of celebration. That theme would naturally attract a great deal of special attention from the media but would also exclude other kinds of community or individual celebrations as well. Let us not overlook the opportunity that a heritage day

November 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
could give for special local events in our own constituencies.
I have underlined many opportunities for celebrating our heritage. As Canadians we truly have many reasons to celebrate in this beautiful and bountiful land.
Therefore I close by again thanking the hon. member for presenting to us this renewed opportunity to consider the best manner in which to set aside a time for celebrating our national heritage and I salute him for having this opportunity for us to discuss it.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the hon. member on his excellent initiative in introducing his Private Members' Bill, C-288, concerning heritage day.
Also I would like to take this opportunity to thank the speaker before me, the member on the government side for her wonderful words of appreciation of Canada and her appreciation for a day when Canadians can celebrate their heritage.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask me where I would like most to live in all the countries around the world, I would answer very quickly "Canada". Why? As someone who has a heritage other than those who have founded this nation, I have come to the conclusion that this is the land of opportunity.
Canada is where I was given everything that I have: my education, my first job, and the opportunity to bring members of my family together. As well, we have freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to say whatever I would like as an individual without fear of someone watching me from behind, or undermining everything I say.
In a way, Canada to me is a heaven on earth. I am sure it is the same for a lot of people who live in this country, especially those who come from a background other than the founding people. They knew it then and that is why they chose it as a land to settle in.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet to see a bill that has been introduced in the House where there has been so much consensus around it. As the member who introduced this bill has indicated, there has been discussion on this issue as far back as 1974 when it was discussed on October 15.
Also, on March 18, 1975, the then member for Winnipeg North brought up the issue. On April 10, 1975, there was a report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where this issue was also discussed. Discussions took place on April 22, 1975, February 13, 1976, and October 31, 1977.
On March 17, 1978, the then Liberal member for Windsor-Walkerville, Mr. MacGuigan, the member for Hillsborough, as well as the member for Winnipeg North Centre, representatives of the three political parties in this House, spoke in favour of a heritage day.
As the hon. member has indicated, on May, 1980, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace spoke on the issue. On September 4, 1983, November 2, 1983, May 15, 1984, February 16, 1987, April 7, 1987 and December 18. Throughout these many years, there has been a discussion back and forth on the issue of Heritage Day.
We already recognize one day in February as Heritage Day. On that day, as the member who spoke before me indicated, the minister of the government who is responsible for multiculturalism makes a statement. There are other celebrations in other parts of the country.
Only in the province of Alberta do they actually celebrate a heritage day and look at it as a holiday. That is every first Monday in August.
I truly believe that recognizing this Heritage Day is a step forward. There is no question about it, but there are those who are opposed to declaring Heritage Day as a holiday because of the fact that we might lose one day of activity. I suggest that it is the opposite. I think productivity would improve if we had a day of rest in February, when we can reflect on what we have here in Canada as a country, when we can celebrate our differences as a people and when we can appreciate what has been given to us by this land and by this society as a whole.
I have done a little bit of research in order to discover productivity what happens around the world and if we are alone in trying to celebrate a heritage day in February.
In February, Mr. Speaker, for your information and for the information of the House, several nations celebrate their independence, constitution, or their founding. For instance, Sri Lanka celebrates Independence Day in February. Mexico has what it calls Constitution Day. Tanzania celebrates its founding. In Iran, they have a national day. Japan also celebrates its founding, and the
November 20, 1990

United States of America celebrates George Washington's birthday. Cyprus, Bolivia, Burma, Guyana, and the Dominican Republic all celebrate a day in February, either in recognition of their independence, as a way to celebrate the founding of those countries, or as a way to celebrate their heritage.
In my view, we are not alone in trying to set aside a day in February in order to celebrate our heritage and in order to appreciate what we have around us.
I stand before this House to say that we, in the Liberal Party, in the 1988 election pledged that, if we formed the government, we would make sure a day in February was set aside as a national holiday. We are on the record in support of Canadians taking a day of rest in order to reflect on what Canada is all about and the fact that here in Canada you can be anything you want to be, Mr. Speaker, providing you appreciate the fact that we live in one of the best countries in the land. That is what Canada is all about.
I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to talk about the pros of it, because, as I indicated, there is an agreement on this issue from all sides of the House. It is my hope that the legislation will be adopted by the government, that we can move forward to enact this legislation into law, and that we can get on with it.


Jean-Luc Joncas: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on second reading of Bill C-288, an Act respecting National Heritage Day, and especially, Mr. Speaker, because this proposal may have a major impact on Canadians as a whole.
As citizens of this country, we have a right to be proud of our historical and cultural heritage and the major contribution made by men and women who, over the years, helped to make this country what it is today. We also have a right to be proud of our origins, our language and our family and religious traditions. Together, these values reflect not only our ties with the past but also our admiration for those who made that past.
Private Members' Business
Considering the profound changes taking place within our society, I believe it is imperative that governments and, in fact, each and everyone of us, make a conscious effort to preserve our history and our cultural identity. In fact, many of the problems confronting our country today are caused by ignorance, carelessness and a lack of tolerance for the cultures of others.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think the question is whether Canadians should emphasize the wealth of their heritage but how we should go about it. For instance, if we support the underlying objectives of this bill, I think we must ask some very serious questions about the economic and social impact.
Adding another holiday at the national level would have a considerable impact on productivity. The ensuing loss of productivity would be about 0.4 per cent of our Gross National Product or about $2.56 billion. Considering the present state of the economy, it is something we should think twice about.
This amount does not, of course, include the additional funds required to promote this day across the country and any other funds the government will have to commit to related support activities. Briefly, creating a National Heritage Day, in addition to having a very serious economic impact, might seriously undermine the credibility of a government that, in a recession, is encouraging Canadian businesses to be more productive.
But there is more, Mr. Speaker. I must point out that the passage of Bill C-288 would not in any way commit the provincial governments any more than it commits employers whose businesses are not subject to the Canada Labour Code. This means that a meagre 8 per cent of the Canadian workforce would be able to take advantage of this measure and take the day off on this national heritage day.
In other words, initially, the measure would be unfair to the majority of the workforce. We must therefore consider whether this type of measure is reasonable.
The bill before the House today may create some confusion, because a number of provinces like Alberta and Quebec already have holidays whose themes are very similiar to that of a heritage day. I am referring here to Heritage Day, celebrated on the first Monday of August, and Family Day, celebrated on the third Monday of February in Alberta. Although Quebec does not have its own heritage holiday, the fact remains that "La Saint-Jean" is steeped in the love of our heritage.

November 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that a day set aside to celebrate our national heritage ought not to conflict with existing provincial holidays, let alone create confusion in the minds of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I admit it has become imperative for all Canadians, particularly younger generations, to identify more readily with their country and to stand proud. But the real question is to know how we should go about it. For example, is a national heritage day the ideal solution? To what extent would this kind of celebration make people more aware of the wealth of their history and heritage values generally?
I for one do not believe it is the best solution if we take into consideration the economic, social and political repercussions of such a measure. Nor do I believe it is the appropriate means to pull Canadians out of their lethargy.
I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that this kind of celebration would change the public's mentality and radically alter the perception Canadians have of their country and its institutions. As well, we ought not to entertain the suggestion that at the rate of a day a year we will manage to make our leaders, our corporate elite and our educators feel that they are closer to their country and its institutions.
Finally, let us be realistic and reject the notion that we can select a symbol-important though it may be-to rally our youths and all our fellow Canadians around history and teach them to appreciate the values and traditions they have inherited.
Because of their complexity and the high stakes involved, all problems in a society call for long-term solutions. In a nutshell, an illness which affects a whole generation commands a cure which is effective only on a similar scale, but that does not translate into outright rejection of necessary short-term measures if we are to avoid stagnation. That is to say that, in this case as in many others, there is no miracle solution.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the solution is to be found in a collective effort toward educating the upcoming generation. It is through the youths that we will be able to instill into the Canadians a greater pride for our traditions and heritage. It may be true that the population as a whole will only be too happy to have a day off in the
middle of winter, but I doubt very much that the Canadians, who are notoriously practical-minded, will spend that day reflecting on the meaning of their heritage. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley may wish it were not so, but you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that there is often a long way from dream to reality.
If Canada were to have its National Heritage Day, this decision would have to result from a consensus among the federal government, the provincial governments, the business leaders, the trade unions, the organizations devoted to the preservation of our heritage and the population. To accomplish that, we must endeavour to develop a true sense of heritage in the population and work together to build a social, economic and political climate conducive to the successful transmission of this message.
A National Heritage Day must result from the broad consultation of all concerned and its mechanics must be unequivocal. A National Heritage Day that would apply only to a minute part of the labour force would not deserve to be called national. To unilaterally pass Bill C-288 could jeopardize needlessly the achievement of this objective, by disregarding the concerns of other interested parties.
Mr. Speaker, while we support the general thrust of Bill C-288, we have serious reservations regarding the method contemplated and its possible consequences.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, this government is determined to do its best to give the preservation of our heritage priority status. The important steps that were taken earlier on this issue reflect clearly its willingness to act.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the discussion on Bill C-288. I commend the previous speaker and all other hon. members who have spoken on this bill.
As I see it, the bill touches and really raises two questions. One is the importance of our heritage and our desire to recognize, appreciate and study what it is that makes Canada the great nation that we all know it to be. Second, it raises the question about the value of a statutory holiday, the impact that designating a day to celebrate our heritage would or could have on the feelings of Canadians toward our country. It requires us
November 20, 1990

to balance the positive impact that it could have with the very real impact on productivity and the cost to Canadian employers.
Previous speakers have alluded to the specific problems that exist in my province of Alberta. We celebrate Heritage Day in August and last year the provincial government designated a new holiday, ironically on the same day that this bill proposes for Heritage Day. It is called Family Day. Perhaps it is not too ironic because Canadians have long recognized that the period between Christmas and Easter coming, as it does, during the coldest, darkest and least productive period of the year, could be enhanced with a designated holiday.
While we are looking at what Heritage Day might mean in the life of Canada, we cannot ignore the economic aspect. A new holiday will cost every employer, including the government, every municipality, every hospital, and every business, not only overtime costs for essential services, but lost work time as well. We have to balance this with the value of the holiday, the value of it for morale and potential improvements in productivity that I am going to concede will be there. With the possible exception of, perhaps winter sports enthusiasts, most Canadians do suffer the winter doldrums and would probably like to have a February holiday, like Albertans.
The date aside, I have talked to people in my constituency about a new national holiday to mark Heritage Day. Most people, in fact almost all, agree with the need to recognize and celebrate our Canadian heritage. Most people like the idea of having another holiday but there are many who raised the fundamental concern that I mentioned earlier, and that is the cost of such a holiday. Some even equate it to a national self-indulgence and question whether we have to provide Canadians with a paid day off in order to have them appreciate being Canadian.
It is my strong personal feeling that this country cannot afford at this time to impose, and I use that word deliberately, Mr. Speaker, because even though Canadians say they would like a holiday, I am not aware of any great, ground swell of support or public demand for this proposed holiday. It is not the right time for us to impose on Canadians a new paid, national holiday.
Private Members' Business
Having said that, I want to add that there is merit in this bill. I think the hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley has done the House a service in introducing Bill C-288. This is an important time in the life of Canada to be considering our heritage and to be discussing ways in which all Canadians can most productively consider it.
Heritage Canada first proposed Heritage Day some 17 years ago. I understand it consulted representatives of the Canadian tourist industry before suggesting a date for the holiday. The overwhelming response was in favour of the third Monday in February. They felt that that would encourage Canadian domestic travel at a normally low season; they felt that it would establish a market among people who lacked the time and money to travel abroad; they said it would also attract Americans to Canada for winter recreation and national celebrations. I question their conclusion in this case because my preference, when travelling, is to avoid holidays whenever possible.
Their conclusions also raise a question as to our ultimate objective. Are we trying to recognize heritage or encourage recreation? I think this is very basic to our debate. We all agree that it is a worthy thing to respect our heritage, but why do we need a holiday to do it? Could we not merely proclaim a special day?
As mentioned by previous speakers, we have done that now for about 16 years. There have been strenuous efforts by voluntary associations that have led to municipal proclamations honouring Heritage Day. There have been special events staged by groups of citizens and by government agencies here in the national capital. Environment Canada honours Heritage Day by, among other things, announcing the winners of its prestigious annual heritage awards. Some schools have even made Heritage Day a special event, with maximum student participation. Museums have special displays and concert halls stage special presentations.
This is good as far as it goes, but only a fraction of Canadians are touched by our unofficial Heritage Day. I believe that we could gain something very substantial for Canada with a Heritage Day for all Canadians.
We in this House are particularly aware of the trauma that Canadians have suffered in recent months with the hopes and disappointments of the Meech Lake Accord. We have seen too often a very emotional reaction to the news of the day. Now with the heartfelt wishes of this House behind them, a citizens' forum will soon be

November 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
touring this country to elicit views on our constitutional options. This direct involvement of the Canadian people was a sound course of action by our Prime Minister and a very wise course for the times. Yet, is not the real need of this country what I like to call a defence of Confederation? That does not imply an unchanged constitutional framework. We must change and adapt.
We must show our genius for compromise where and when it most matters, but we must enter discussion of change with a real perspective. It would be fatal if our national dialogue consisted only in scoring debating points or indulging in put downs. Instead we should be examining what we have really accomplished together and how we did it.
What are our strengths that made this one of the most envied countries in the world? This is a defence in depth. This is the real preparation for a sound change in the future. How do we accomplish this? We invite our fellow Canadians by one means and another to use the past as a learning tool for the future, and the past does not mean dry history lessons. It means understanding our roots, the contributions of the many cultures who enriched our mosaic, the contributions of our native peoples, the differences that we can see between the way we run our country and our community and the way that others run theirs, all in a spirit of active and responsible citizenship. When we do this, we shall find mistakes that we have made, but the more we examine our common heritage the more likely we are to be impressed by the positive side of our story.
We shall better understand our accomplishments in creating unity, excellence and human satisfaction out of our cherished diversity. Are we asking too much of Heritage Day to do all this? A Heritage Day could be an ideal occasion to focus our thoughts in this way, but it must be for all Canadians. I have no doubt that all the people of Canada would respond and that the media would give great help by their attention to whatever theme or themes of heritage were to be uppermost in a given year.
A Heritage Day for all Canadians would be an ideal occasion because unlike Canada Day, it would come at a time when most of our young people are in school. They would be a very big part of the process of discovering and evaluating our heritage. Their teachers and we, as parents, would be anxious to help them, but I suspect it
would be the young people who would be helping us by turning our minds down channels too long neglected.
I do not know exactly what these young people and the rest of us would do. Consciously or otherwise, we would be searching together for the meaning of heritage. We would be looking more at our roots and perhaps digging up unanswered questions about how we came to be what we are. I think we would get to know one another better and therefore become even more tolerant of those whose legacies and perhaps language are different. That too would be a healthy process.
Is it too late to begin the defence of Confederation? Anyone who believes it is too late portrays a tragic lack of confidence in our future. I have got confidence in the long-term survival of Canada and I believe that the time is always opportune for new means to build its future soundly. The time of national re-examination makes consideration of our heritage especially urgent now.
Perhaps what we are asking is nothing less than a change in the Canadian character. We seem to rejoice in our widespread reputation for modesty, caution and self-effacement. It is a false reputation. For modesty and caution did not build this country. But we and our forbears seem to think that it was rudely boastful to talk about the positive things we have done and are doing. That sort of modesty is a luxury we can ill afford today. We Canadians are still on a voyage of discovery together. We must understand better how we got here before we plot any future course. A heritage day for all Canadians could become one of the single simplest most effective means we could imagine to give our thoughts dimension and perspective.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for presenting this bill. It is important for all Canadians to celebrate our heritage, but I cannot support the concept that designating another paid holiday is the best way to do so.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I note that there is but five minutes left today in this debate, which is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have spoken for a long period of time on this bill. There is a lot to say about the issue of promoting our national heritage and, of course, there is the whole debate that we should entertain as well of whether or not the best way of achieving that is indeed to establish an additional day of holiday.
November 20, 1990

[Translation\
As you would know, Mr. Speaker, we already have a fair number of rather special holidays. Of course I have in mind those we celebrate on July 1 and June 24. The latter might be designated as well, for it would be an important day for a good many of us, particularly in the electoral riding I represent.
But what matters today is that members be allowed to show where they stand. The House ought not to let this bill drop to the bottom of the list. I think that if the bill is struck from the Order Paper, that is if members keep going until 6 o'clock and thus manage to talk it out, as we say, it makes it that much easier for the government to avoid a vote on an issue which many members consider important.

I will now ask the House to vote immediately and if no Conservative member rises, that means the government has the courage to vote on this issue, either for or against it. If the bill is talked out, Canadians can conclude just what kind of courage this particular government has. We will find out in a few seconds.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand up and talk to this bill in spite of what my friend and colleague from across the way from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said to challenge me.
In the course of my comments, I was intending to say a number of things relating to the very fine speech given by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, but I would like to refer to one comment he made before I deal with the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal that the hon. member has made, as have many of our colleagues over a number of years in the past made a similar proposal. The one thing that makes me want to hesitate has been alluded to by my friend from Red Deer. The one thing that makes me hesitate is this problem of productivity to which my hon. colleague opposite referred. If I could really be convinced in a day
Adjournment Debate
and age such as now when the last figures I saw indicated that our labour unit production costs are going up and we are now somewhat beyond the United States of America in that area and losing our competitive edge with them, this would not be an appropriate time to bring in such a new holiday.
If the hon. member can study the concept of the law of diminishing returns, I would be interested to know what a study would be on this. I would think that we must have enough enterprising management people in this country who, over the last number of years, decided that they should give their employees more and more holidays in order to make them more and more productive. If that is not the case, maybe we should know what the figures are in that regard.
Finally, Mr. Speaker-and I probably have half a minute left-my friend from Glengarry, Prescott-Russell made a reference to the importance of this bill and the concepts of heritage. I want to remind him that when I first came in here about 15 years or so ago, it was a member from the Liberal Party who chose to help deny some of our heritage when they brought in a bill to do away with Dominion Day. I have never forgotten that. I was in the House. It was a Friday afternoon. I was very disappointed because that, to me, represents a great deal of our heritage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
['The motion to\nadjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, recently I rose in the House to ask the President of the Treasury Board what steps will be taken to facilitate an early retirement and retraining package for front line correctional service employees.
These correctional service employees are responsible for the custody and control of offenders, who, in many cases, have become Canada's most hardened and dangerous citizens. My concern stems from the fact that these CSC staff work in an environment that is continually both stressful and perilous. It is urgent that the issue of early retirement and retraining be addressed.
In response to the question I asked the minister, he was good enough to indicate "soon". However, in fairness to these employees, they have been waiting for almost two decades.
I hope that the government will introduce this legislation now, or at least indicate that in the next session of Parliament and in the Speech from the Throne reforms will be made in addressing, once and for all, this long-awaited change.
In 1967, the Correctional Service of Canada was included under Part I of Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This acknowledges the Treasury Board as the employer with responsibility of all aspects of personnel administration.
Since 1971, the Union of the Solicitor General Employees, which represents the interests of the major portion of the CSC employees, has been attempting to secure some form of early retirement provisions for correctional employees.
The role of these employees is unique. As I mentioned before, the environment of corrections is dangerous and stressful, not only for the CSC staff but their families as well.
While there has not been a continuation of staff murder, this cannot be interpreted to mean that violence or the potential for violence is no longer present.
According to the report of the Solicitor General of Canada 1988-89, there were a total of 678 assaults on staff and 26 hostage takings for the period of 1984 to April 1989. The threat of violence is always present and requires staff to be constantly on their guard.
There were also 195 incidents involving the use of gas and 743 incidents involving the use of firearms during the same five year period. As well the murders, suicides and assaults which occur among the inmate population, though they do not physically harm the staff, produce severe psychological effects. No one can remain immune to the effects of seeing violent death.
Being constantly alert to possible violence and out-thinking, the offender is wearing upon the correctional officer. Many employees spend a longer time in a penitentiary than the inmates they control.
In its report on penitentiaries in 1976, the parliamentary subcommittee said at section 258:
The debilitating effects of penitentiary work is reflected in the low percentage of individuals who remain in the service until retirement. This may also reflect the lack of career opportunities and job diversification. Employees are concerned about the fact that once they are burnt-out, it is very difficult for them to start a second career in another field. The subcommittee is of the opinion that provision be made for them to find alternative employment if they are no longer able to function in the penitentiary environment but are not yet eligible for retirement. But early retirement itself is essential.
It is necessary to recognize the unique nature of corrections work. Changes should include two important areas. First, early retirement would permit those employees who have worked in direct contact with offenders for a significant part of their careers, 25 years or age 50, to retire and to receive an immediate earned pension at an earlier age and shorter service than is now possible.

: i'i;:



During the late seventies and early eighties, 11 staff members have been murdered in the line of duty. There have been numerous staff taken hostage as a means of negotiating various deals and countless physical assaults by violent inmates who have nothing to lose.
The second necessary change concerns retraining provisions for employees who are unable to continue their work in the operational correction service. This proposal would assist employees in acquiring marketable skills which can be applied in a second career.

November 20, 1990

This change would allow for employees who are removed from their position and could not be placed in another position in the Public Service to be entitled to retraining for a period of up to two years.
The staff of the Correctional Service of Canada have had early retirement provisions foremost in their minds since 1971. They have seen their fellow Public Service employees who work as air traffic controllers successfully acquire the same provisions that they are seeking. All they ask is that their occupation be declared a unique one, therefore requiring unique retirement provisions.
Implementation of these proposals will require amendment to the regulations of the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is urgent that the question of an early retirement and retraining program be addressed for these employees and it is imperative that the suggested proposals be implemented.
Correctional Service employees play an integral role in the safeguarding of Canadian citizens. The federal riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington which hosts institutions such as Joyceville and Millhaven, as well as Kingston institutions, have a high number of people with serious conviction. Thus I am hopeful that the government will facilitate this request for such a package and repay the CSC staff's vital role to society.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board the important contribution made by the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington on behalf of correctional service workers, not only in his own constituency but across Canada.
The government recognizes and appreciates the stressful work performed by operational employees of the Correctional Service of Canada. This stressful work carried out under very difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances can result in serious burn-out as a result of the stress and burn-out factor. This results in the conclusion that it is essential to disregard the normal age of retirement for public servants.
This issue was studied by a parliamentary subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which recommended that special early retirement arrangements would be appropriate as one means of dealing with the job related stress engendered by corrections work.
Adjournment Debate
The government agrees in principle that an early retirement program would be an important tool in the prudent management of its valuable human resources engaged in correction work.
Similar conditions of job related stress and burn-out led to the introduction in 1981 of early retirement provisions for air traffic controllers. The primary thrust of the amendments that were made to the Public Service Superannuation Act at that time was to permit air traffic controllers engaged in operational service to retire with full earned pensions at reduced age and service thresholds without incurring the reductions which normally are applied under the Superannuation Act.
An air traffic controller who has 25 years of operational service and is at least 50 years of age may retire voluntarily with his or her full earned pension, a 50 per cent pension based on 2 per cent per year service, and will not be subject to the normal retirement reductions which would be applied to other public servants retiring under similar circumstances.
In addition, with as little as 20 years of operational service, an air traffic controller who is at least 45 years of age may retire with an immediate annuity but in such case would suffer reduction in his or her earned pension of up to 25 per cent. This is a major difference in comparison to other public servants.
In further recognition of the stress factor, the rules are even less restrictive for voluntary retirements requiring only 20 years of operational service with no minimum age requirement. I should add that in return for all of these more generous retirement arrangements, controllers engaged in operational services are required to contribute an additional 2 per cent of salary to the pension plan.
I have gone into some detail regarding the early retirement benefits presently available to air traffic controllers because it has been proposed by the representatives of correctional employees that an identical program be made available to those correctional workers who are engaged in operational services. It may well be that early retirement arrangements for correctional employees will be similar, although there may be variations to reflect the particular characteristics of this group.

November 20,1990
Adjournment Debate
Finally, I should add on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board that in view of the government's overall legislative agenda the preferred approach to Public Service pension reform is to proceed with it as a package. I do wish to assure members of this House that the hon. President of the Treasury Board has indicated to me that work is proceeding well on pension reform. It is probable that the legislative proposals will be ready for introduction early in the new year. I assume that is good news to my colleague, the hon. member, and to those whom he represents.
Included in those proposals will be appropriate enabling provisions to put in place a program which will address the particular retirement concerns of correctional employees. I know that they will welcome that news.



Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on November 2, I rose in this House to ask a very important question about the state of our forest agreements that have gone unsigned, particularly in British Columbia, my home province, and in the other three western provinces.
Last week, when Parliament was not sitting, we learned that the federal government had reneged on promises to guarantee adequate funding for a forest agreement. We also learned last week that this government was only going to be able to contribute some $100 million to a forest agreement, which is less than the agreement that expired on March 31 of this year. We have yet to hear what are the results of those forest agreements in the other provinces where they have expired.
I am angry. I do not want to understate it because I think it represents some of the attitudes and views of people in British Columbia who frankly are furious over this government's refusal to get on with the job of signing any of these forest agreements.
These agreements are the foundation of the federal effort in forestry, which gives us the vehicle to talk to the provinces and to work with our forests. One just has to take a look at some of the recommendations from an earlier forest committee report which we tabled that are now rendered useless because of this government's failure to renew and deal with these agreements. I am referring to the recommendation which I strongly support about the protection of 12 per cent of Canada's forest lands. How can we do that without support from the federal government?
That is now a rejection. We now have to reject that report, because we have to send a strong message to this government about how serious we are about the needs of our forests.
What can we do, with some of the recommendations about forest management on National Defence lands and those forest lands administered by and with the Indian people of this country? Without those forest agreements and those abilities to use those funds and resources, the ability of the federal government to participate and share is gone.
Those recommendations, as I said, will also have to be rejected because they will not be doing the job. I am emphasizing this because I have put my soul into talking about these forest agreements since being elected. I have reason to.
In my part of British Columbia, 40 per cent of the NSR land that has been left from harvesting has to be addressed by these agreements. If we had these agreements, they would make a contribution toward adding to our annual cut. They are not in the plans, projections and recommendations of the forest committee report.
I now feel that we have been let down by this government and by members on the opposite side, to the point that when we want to send a strong message to this government we now have to do that. We have to reject these recommendations.
They will not work, especially in the case that I have presented. We have relied on these forest agreements to see that we have Indian lands available to Indian people to harvest and to manage properly.
Forestry Canada has to work with some of the other departments like Parks Canada and others to efficiently manage our forests. We must reject those ideas now, because we cannot implement them in an adequate manner because of the lack of these agreements.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, just how important those have become. I said in the House earlier today that some 100,000 jobs in British Columbia are likely to be lost due to the lack of these forest agreements being signed. Forestry Canada cannot operate because of the lack of
November 20, 1990

these agreements to properly deal with any international forestry concerns and other areas.
I say with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing this with my constituents, with others, that we have to send a strong and determined message to the government and to this House about how we feel, about how useless those recommendations have become in light of the lack of any forest agreements. I want to send a strong message that we must withdraw our support of those recommendations in that report because we cannot implement them.
We cannot do proper forestry work with those recommendations without any forest agreement signed. I hope the government hears that message clearly, about how important I feel and believe those agreements are, and how strongly I feel the need to withdraw my support for that forest committee report.
We cannot get the job done if this is the way we are going to continue. I say to the government, get on with it. Let us sign those forest agreements.
I hope the government is listening and that we will not have to come back to any more of these late shows in the future and hear more and more words with no action.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with a great deal of amazement, and now he is leaving us, which goes to show how important this is to him.
I was in Kamloops last weekend, where I met members of the British Columbia association of wood producers. People told me, at least those I spoke to, that the Minister of Forestry, Mr. Oberle, was doing an excellent job at the forestry level.
These people know what amounts are on the table, but they also realize that forests, contrary to what the hon. member for the New Democratic Party says-they know that forests, being a natural resource, are a provincial responsibility. They also know, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government does not intend to act unilaterally, which might further harm relations between the federal government and the provinces.
Adjournment Debate
We recognize the jurisdictions of each administrative body, but what we want to do through these agreements is, first and foremost, to give the forestry community in British Columbia, the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes a chance to benefit under a forest resources development program that is adapted to their needs and also, Mr. Speaker, in line with sustainable development as proposed and maintained since 1984 by our various Forestry ministers.
I also may remind the hon. member, since he seems to be saying that the federal government and its minister have done nothing, that from 1984 to 1990, we increased the forestry budget by over 300 per cent. In 1988, Mr. Speaker, we again started to sign agreements with various provinces. I am thinking, for instance, of the agreements with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We made proposals to all Canadian provinces. There is a concrete proposal on the table for each province, and it was put there by Forestry Canada.
Contrary to what my colleague from the New Democratic Party is claiming, I believe the Minister of Forestry Canada has done an exceptional job by above all respecting the jurisdictions of each province. Furthermore, as the minister in charge of the Department of Forestry, he is trying to find ways to give our resource a durable future, and with the means at his disposal, to give our forest producers, our businesses and in fact all Canadians, the means to develop viable forestry operations in Quebec and Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself this evening to the cost of operations in the Persian Gulf by the Canadian forces.
At the outset, I would like to remark on what I see as a great opportunity and a challenge in the building of a new world order in this operation, made possible by the remarkable and unique unanimity of the United Nations and, indeed, by the unanimity of the Security Council. It is safe to say that is made possible by the demise of the cold war seen at the beginning of this week.

November 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate
What we are seeing is a bunch of like-minded countries making peace by quarantining the source of the infection and, in this case, by imposing an embargo against one country that invaded, pillaged, and claimed ownership of another country. In our world today, that is considered unacceptable.
Before I get into the cost issue, I would like to recognize the tremendous contributions made by the Canadian forces. It is not a token effort. It is a very strong effort. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are almost a half a million troops in the Middle East. There are over 100 ships and a countless number of different types of aircraft: fighter aircraft, ground attack aircraft, carrier aircraft, land based aircraft, you name it.
Canada has sent three ships, a handful of airplanes, and 1,700 young men and women. To this date, we are responsible for 25 per cent of the interceptions of surface ships going through the Persian Gulf. That is the crux of the embargo-25 per cent. We are dealing with well over 500 interceptions at this point in time, but I do not know the exact number. So, I want to presage any comments that I have on cost, which is a concern of mine, with the overview of my feeling on what is happening there with respect to the Canadian forces.
I bring up the subjeci of cost because I think it is having somewhat of a negative effect. We committed the Canadian Forces three months ago. Now, three months later, we are having a great discussion on how we are going to pay for this operation. This all stemmed, of course, from a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on October 22, and I just want to relate some of the chronology.
I asked the minister how he was going to pay for this operation and he suggested to me that, at that point in time, it was going to come out of DND's hide. They would pay for it themselves. I was somewhat distraught to hear that because, as I will say later, I am aware that after severe cuts Canadian Forces is on the verge of rust-out. They do not have much fat left in the system. In fact, they have no fat.
On November 11, three weeks later, I was delighted, and I am sure the Canadian forces planners were delighted, to hear the Prime Minister say that he was going to damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead, because money was no problem. He said the deficit had nothing to do with freedom.
The relief of senior DND planners must have been great when he said that there was going to be substantial additional funding. My heart rose. I felt happy. Alas, three days later, somebody must have got to the Prime Minister, and said: "Prime Minister, you cannot go around saying that. Money doesn't grow on trees". Then the Prime Minister drew back, and he said: "No, no. We are now going to pay for it from existing expenditures and that the hat would be passed around to other government departments and they would finance the defence of freedom".
My point here is that when the government commits Canadian forces to an operation such as this one in the Gulf, there goes with it other corresponding commitments. For example, how many, how long, how much, what sort of command and control, what is the bottom line for withdrawal, follow on long-term commitments, and so on.
I am not convinced, with the perturbations and the confusions we have had with funding, that it augurs well for the future with respect to some of these questions.
Will the embargoes work? Well, we do not know. It could take up to a year from now to find out if it is going to work.
There is no question about it, it is going to be costly for all the countries involved. But if we do not achieve it peacefully, it is going to be even more costly. We are looking at both sides, 300,000 casualties and anywhere from $50 billion to $150 billion. That is horrendous. I am concerned about the cost and the follow-up in this particular presentation.
With the state of affairs now, no matter what happens or how it happens, it has to end with Saddam Hussein getting out of Kuwait. What happens when he gets out? Do we fold our tents and go home? I think not. We have got to think through this thing, very systematically and very logically.
These are parts of the questions that I have and, specifically, I have a number of concerns. First, when the parliamentary secretary addresses my presentation on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, I want assurances that the Canadian forces gulf operation will not suffer from this fuzzy funding formula.
November 20,1990

I am relatively assured that that will not happen, but, moreover, I want further assurance that the remainder of the Canadian forces, already on the verge of rust-out, will not be stretched beyond reasonable limits in the maintenance of combat readiness. That is more important now than it has been any time in 37 years, in my opinion. In particular, I would like to hear guarantees that the Canadian forces capital acquisition budget will not be tapped to help finance this operation, because there is a tomorrow and we have to be ready then, too.
More than anything else-and this is the underlying theme of my presentation this evening-this side of the House does not want to learn that the government is unwittingly laying more responsibility on the Canadian forces but giving them fewer resources over all to do the job. That would be a prescription for disaster. The Canadian forces will always have a can-do attitude, but I hope that they do not have to have that kind of can-do attitude until they just cannot do.
Finally, in the face of this discussion matter and, indeed, in view of the awesome defence cuts in conventional arms on both sides earlier this week, it is not unreasonable for Canadians now to expect to have some public input into what surely must be at least some defence policy strawman in preparation for a badly needed defence white paper.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for the good words he had to say about the great job our Armed Forces are doing in the Gulf. I am just back from the Gulf. I was there last week and I had the opportunity to meet the Army, Navy and Air Force people who were sent there.
About the figures he quoted, he said that 25 per cent of intercepts were made by Canadians. I had 23 per cent, but we could always arrive to a compromise. What is more interesting to know, though, is that that much is done with less than 3 per cent of all the equipment presently deployed in the Gulf area. With only 3 per cent of the equipment, the Canadian Forces make 23 to 25
Adjournment Debate
per cent of all intercepts. They are really doing a great job.

Tb come back to the question of my hon. colleague, I would like to reiterate the response given him when he asked this question in the House on October 22. At that time he was given an assurance that the men and women serving on behalf of Canada in the Persian Gulf are being provided with the resources they require to fulfil their mission. This situation has not changed.
I am sure all members will appreciate that the Persian Gulf crisis was not anticipated and, therefore, we had not made provision for such an operation in our defence budget for the current year. Therefore, the costs of the operation were being covered from the existing budget.
The Prime Minister has announced that Supplementary Estimates will be tabled in the House shortly by the President of the Treasury Board in light of our commitment to support our contingent in the Persian Gulf and as a result of additional unanticipated expenses related to the army being called out in aid of the civil power in Oka. Cost information for the Persian Gulf and Oka will be provided once the estimates have been made public.
There has been a considerable amount of speculation in the media on the cost of the Canadian forces participation both in aid of the civil power at Oka and in the Persian Gulf operation. Until such time as the Supplementary Estimates are tabled, it would be inappropriate to comment further on this issue. I am sure that the hon. member would not wish to fuel further speculation.
The forces in the Persian Gulf have had priority in terms of funding from different allocations. That means that, as far as current defence spending programs go, some effects were felt, even before additional funding was sought.
For example, in the operations and maintenance portion of the defence budget, activities not directly related to the gulf operation have been given a lower priority. Certain exercises have been cancelled. Allotted flying hours and ship days have been transferred from other activities to the Canadian forces in the gulf and some new defence contracts may have been delayed.

November 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate
However, I would like to assure the House that no existing capital equipment contracts have been cancelled or changed as a result of the gulf operation. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to
adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 21,1990