1991-10-09

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: The workers at Phillips Cables in Brockville, Ontario have recently agreed to an unheard of four year wage freeze, that is zero, zero, zero and zero as well as other wage concessions.
Mr. Speaker, these major and very generous concessions by the workers of Phillips Cables are being offered to give the employers options as they try to compete in today's world market. These actions will result in far less disposable income for the workers of Phillips Cables for several years to come. As President Brian McDougall of Local 510 of the Communication and Electrical Workers of Canada has said, "the ball is in the company's court now".
It is hoped that when the company is considering its plans for the future of Phillips Cables in Brockville, it will take into account and remember the loyal and generous workforce that has made a tremendous sacrifice in their acceptance of a four year wage freeze in order that the plant may remain open in Brockville.


PERSONS CASE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I offer very warm congratulations to Dr. Ursula Franklin, a recipient of the 1991 Governor General's Award in commemoration of the Persons case.
A distinguished scientist, teacher, the first tenured female professor at the University of Toronto and a
well-known public speaker, Dr. Franklin has been a tremendous source of inspiration for women across Canada in the fields of science, technology and education.
She has devoted much of her time to promoting the interests of women in academia and to encouraging young women to consider non-traditional careers. Like the famous five Alberta women who fought to have women considered as persons under the British North America Act, Dr. Franklin is an outstanding role model for young women.
I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in showing appreciation of Dr. Franklin's many achievements. She is a person who has made a difference.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the congratulations to Dr. Ursula Franklin and note that Dr. Franklin has a reputation as one being vigorously opposed to nuclear energy in this country.
My concern is about another scientist, a Dr. Rudd, who works with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We saw reported on the news last night that he is being stifled by this government, by his department, in bringing to the attention of the public certain things which he has found out with respect to the effect of massive flooding on the production of greenhouse gases.
I would ask the government to instruct the department to permit Dr. Rudd to make this kind of information available. It will be too late if it waits, as has been suggested, for two or three years for this information to become complete. By that time we would well be in to the development stage of the Great Whale project which is something I think all Canadians are very concerned about and have come to be very sceptical about.
It is time for us to re-think our commitment to massive flooding of northern Canada as a way to solve our export and/or our energy problem.


FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION COUNCIL
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, Calgary is privileged to have an extraordinary organization working to support families. FLEC, the Family Life Education Council of Calgary, can be proud of the role it has played in bringing hundreds of family support organizations together. It co-ordinates information exchange and referrals among Calgary's family support services.
This being National Family Week, I am particularly pleased to honour FLEC today, since it was FLEC that initiated family week in Calgary in 1971. In 1985 it became a national event sponsored by Family Services Canada.
On Monday I attended the National Family Week kick-off breakfast in Calgary. Some 190 people were present, representing 85 of Calgary's family support organizations. I applaud all these organizations for their role in preserving our traditional values. Their efforts clearly capture the spirit of National Family Week, strengthening families, a plus for all of us.


EDUCATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education released its report summarizing more than a year's research.
The commission strongly recommends that the government make a student loan program widely available, with loan payments automatically deducted from income once the graduate's income rises above a certain level.
Such a program would give low-income students better access to education. This measure could also reduce the pressure on full-time university students. They would no longer have to work extra time to pay for their education, and they would no longer face the threat of a huge, unpayable loan as a graduation gift.
As a result, students would find it easier to graduate. Currently about 50 per cent do not complete their programs. This government keeps cutting back funding for education, Mr. Speaker. This year alone the government has cut $1.3 billion from college and university funding, while tuition fees have increased between 6 per cent and 25 per cent.
I strongly urge the government to endorse the commission's recommendation and take action to make education accessible to all Canadians.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, my government tabled a bill to reinforce gun control. Canadians have spoken out in favour of tighter gun controls. This clearly shows the kind of society Canadians want today, and we in this House must ensure that our legislation reflects the choice of the people.
Bill C-17, although not perfect, is a satisfactory response to the concerns of Canadians that also respects the rights of firearms users. Any amendment tabled in this House must support the principle of establishing stricter and more effective gun controls in this country. Any amendment that does not should be rejected outright by members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 is a good bill that provides Canadians with the kind of protection they expect in our society. We are choosing the kind of society we want, and we must do so without hesitation.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Official Opposition in this House held an opposition day on Canada and its position on GATT. Prior to that, my colleagues and I and my party met with supply management groups from across Canada representing farmers on the disastrous effects of a GATT without Article XI. I want to add my support to those 500 Nova Scotia farmers who passed a resolution in Canning, Nova Scotia last Friday, a resolution that both my colleagues from Annapolis Valley and South Shore have endorsed in this House.
I want to read that resolution into the record:



*HHUHHHH *HHHSHHBBl
October 9, 1991

Be it resolved,
That the 500 people gathered at this meeting reaffirm support for
Canada's official position as stated at the GATT negotiations in
Brussels in 1990, and
That any deviation from this position without the support of
Canadian agriculture would be totally unacceptable.


CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for reforming Canada's penitentiary and parole system.
Key proposals in the legislation will tighten parole eligibility for violent and serious drug crimes. In these cases, full parole can be delayed at a judge's discretion to one-half the sentence from the current one-third.
This bill also adds sexual offences against children and serious drug offences to the existing category of violent crimes so that these criminals can be kept in a penitentiary for their entire sentence.
Victims of crime will be recognized in law for the first time. This legislation is the first major reform of the penitentiary and parole system in Canada for decades.
Protection of society is the primary objective of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I applaud this legislation which reflects the wishes of Canadians to restore public confidence in the system and make our communities safer.


CORPORATIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this week we have three more nominees for the corporate carpetbagger award.
Nominee number one: Inglis Ltd.; 650 jobs lost; moved its manufacturing production in January 1991 from Toronto to the United States.
Nominee number two: Bendix Safety Restraint Ltd.; moved its production from Collingwood, Ontario, to the maquiladoras. The last 80 workers lost their jobs in October 1990.
Nominee number three: Redirack; 136 jobs lost. Redirack shut down on Friday, September 28, 1990 informing
its employees of the closure with letters to their homes on Saturday, September 29. It moved its Toronto production to Oakwood, Illinois.
The envelope please. The corporate carpetbagger of the week is Bendix Safety Restraint Ltd.


PERSONS CASE
Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today to offer my congratulations to Jane Manuel of Chase, British Columbia. Jane Manuel is a highly respected figure in her community and in the British Columbia Native Women's Society.
Her many efforts to improve the lives of aboriginal women in her province and her work to repeal the sections of the Indian Act that are discriminatory to women have now been recognized with her receipt of the 1991 Governor General's Award in commemoration of the Persons case. Placing the welfare of her people above all else, she has dedicated many years to working with aboriginal people on health related and legal issues, including child welfare and drug and alcohol abuse.
She has also been active in fostering the renaissance of traditional beliefs and culture in her community.
I am very pleased that Jane Manuel has received this honour for her service to Canadian women.


WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate more than 1,000 children who signed a petition supporting the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the World Summit for Children.
This petition was signed by the following schools in my riding: Felix Leclerc, Frangois La Bemade, Rene Pelletier, Saint-Marcel, Sainte Marguerite Bourgeoys, Sainte Maria Goretti, Saint-Octave.
On behalf of these children in my riding, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister of Canada for his interest and for the concern he has shown for the children of this world. And here are the petitions, Mr. Speaker.

October 9, 1991
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


Mr. Guy Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is in a free fall as a result of the poorly designed policies of the Tory government and its failure to act.
The government has said repeatedly that it has to keep interest rates up to fight inflation, conveniently forgetting that its policies created the problem in the first place.
If we consider that the same government is maintaining an overvalued dollar, we have a recipe for creating an army reserve of unemployed Canadians, to quote Professor Thomas Courchene. In fact, the government's obsession with maintaining the dollar at this level is devastating for many sectors in our economy.

The Tory high dollar is taking its toll on agriculture, tourism and all export related sectors. We have heard enough of the government's pious platitudes, pretending that it has the best interests of all Canadians as motivation behind its economic policies.
The government must stop devising fly-by-night and knee-jerk strategies that imperil our future. It must put our economy back on track by lowering both our interest rate and the dollar.


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the world is watching in horror as the Yugoslavian army decimates the people of Croatia.
The world cannot and must not stand by as witnesses of the destruction of a people. Canada and the world must act now. In March of this year as chairman of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, I tabled a report calling for United Nations involvement in Yugoslavia.
I am pleased to see our Prime Minister taking action at the UN Security Council offering the use of Canadian soldiers as peacekeepers. This decisive leadership is certainly applauded.
The people of Croatia have democratically determined their future as an independent nation. I call upon the
Government of Canada to recognize this fact and act immediately.
We must not fail our friends in Croatia. Let peace descend upon that troubled nation.


JUSTICE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision was split four to three when it decided to allow the extradition of Joseph Kindler and Charles Ng.
Supreme Court judges Cory, Sopinka and Lamer in their dissent wrote: "Canada has the obligation not to extradite a person to face a cruel and unusual treatment or punishment-To surrender a fugitive who may be subject to the death penalty violates section 12 of the charter just as surely as would the execution of the fugitive in Canada".
It follows that the minister must not surrender the appellant without obtaining the undertaking described in Article 6 of the treaty which simply requires the requesting state to undertake that it will substitute a penalty of life imprisonment for the execution of the prisoner if that prisoner is found to be guilty of the crime. The Minister of Justice did not even ask the United States to give such assurances.
"To refuse to seek such assurances is to give an official blessing to the death penalty despite the fact that Canadian public policy stands firmly opposed to its use." wrote Mr. Justice Sopinka, while Mr. Justice Cory called capital punishment the "ultimate desecration of human dignity."
These words are an indictment of the minister's action.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This weekend, Canadians will celebrate Thanksgiving, a holiday that traditionally highlights the valuable contribution made by our farmers, their contribution to our national identity and sovereignty.
October 9, 1991

Today, each fanner produces the food that 65 families need. Nevertheless, most farmers' wives must work off the farm just to make ends meet.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to provide emergency aid of $1.3 billion in new money immediately? Is he prepared to help these farmers not next week but today so they do not lose their farms, their daily livelihood?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, according to what was said in the House yesterday and on several other occasions since 1985, this government has understood the difficulty in rural Canada.
This government has increased the expenditures in the agricultural area some 650 per cent.
The hon. member is quite right. The agricultural industry in this country produces high quality food. Canadians spend less than 15 per cent of their disposable income in food.
I can tell the hon. member the ongoing discussions that we have had concerning the third line of defence with various agricultural groups will bear fruit. The hon. member will have to wait. We understand the urgency and are addressing it in that way.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the most recent bankruptcy figures released today show that in the month of August one farmer a day went bankrupt in Saskatchewan. Last year, this government cut farm support programs by $1.3 billion and it has refused all year to provide an emergency aid package of $1.3 billion in new money for Canadian producers.
How many more farmers have to leave their farms, their homes and their livelihoods before this government will announce a program of emergency assistance for our grain farmers?
I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture: Why won't you put cash in the pockets of farmers right now-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to remember that we have a tradition in this place that questions are put through the Chair and not directly to the minister.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's new-found interest in agriculture and I presume it is sincere. The hon. member says "Why won't you do it today". The hon. member is fully aware of the difficult decisions that government has to make in order to bring a deficit that was created by the party he now represents under control.
We have in the past been able to address the needs of Canadian agriculture. As I have said on several occasions, prior to September of this year, over $500 million had moved to Canadian agriculture, particularly for grain and oilseeds producers. Between now and the end of this year some $1.5 billion will flow from the safety net programs GRIP and NISA. Before seeding next year there will be an additional $1.1 billion. The producers, the provinces and the Government of Canada have contributed to this action.
I say to the hon. member that we recognize that that is not enough. The Prime Minister has recognized it is not enough. This government will do its best to address the shortfall which we recognize. I hope the hon. member will recognize it when it is done.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, as we speak some 7,000 farmers and their urban supporters are gathering at the legislature in Manitoba. Towns have closed down. Something like 80 buses have brought people to Winnipeg today for a gathering to demand action which should have been forthcoming last year, as the minister knows. The government has known about the problem for months and has done nothing.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for? Another midnight call from Grant Devine? When will the Prime Minister and the government stop playing politics with our farmers? When will the government put 1.3 billion new dollars in the pockets of men and women across Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange. I am asked a question, I stand up to answer it and the Liberals start to hoot and howl. The farmers will really be questioning the sincerity of the questioner on such an important matter.
In response to a question from my friend's leader yesterday, I indicated that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, pursuant to a meeting I had with the farmers in Winnipeg last Friday, would be bringing forward recommendations possibly to cabinet as early as tomorrow morning and that shortly thereafter I would be in touch with the House to advise it of what they might be.
There was a statement issued today by Ralph Jesper-sen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who expressed his strong satisfaction with statements and commitments that this government has made. The minister has pointed out that in this very serious problem of Canadian agriculture, we have already increased aid by over some 650 per cent beyond the limits we found it some seven years ago. I recognize that this is not perfect and the farmers are hurting. We plan to do more, but I think my hon. friend would agree that this attitude is better for farmers and their families than that of a former Prime Minister who said: "Why should I sell your wheat".


PORK INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows he has yet to keep his promise to Canadian farmers.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should be aware that the American government is slapping a $22 per hog duty on live hogs being shipped to the United States from Canada, a 300 per cent increase. This will have a devastating impact on our pork producers already facing tough times and clearly goes against the free trade agreement.
Will the Prime Minister explain to this House what he is planning to do to protect our Canadian pork producers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I know has a longer memory than he professes to have. He can recall just within the last four months that because of the CUSFTA, Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we were able to take action against unfair trading practices by the United States
government. We put forward the facts and were successful.
As the hon. member knows, the third and fourth panels found that there was subsidy. We are discussing with the Pork Council to use the same method as in the past for a presentation of facts to a Chapter 19 panel. Once we present the facts, we abide by the recommendation or the outcome of the panel.
We have a process and we will put forward the facts in conjunction with the industry as we did previously and we were successful at that time.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister knows that the U.S. government subsidizes its pork producers in various ways. His government failed Canadians by not getting the definition of subsidy prior to signing the free trade agreement. Now the U.S. is defining subsidies when it wants it and how it wants it just to meet its needs.
I ask the Prime Minister: When is he going to stand up to the Americans on behalf of Canadians and get fair trading rules with the Americans?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, at one point the hon. member from the opposition says: "Why do we not define what a subsidy is". I draw to his attention the dispute resolution mechanism in CUSFTA which even he recognizes works and the pork producers recognize that it works. I suggest to him that we are going to continue to use the process to define subsidies.
We will work with the pork industry to present the facts to a panel. The panel will make the decision on the presentation of those facts.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday, Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine came to Ottawa to meet with the minister. Can the minister tell us if Mr. Devine has now come around to the realization that a third line of defence payment of $1.3 billion is needed? And can the minister assure this House that any aid package that will be announced on Friday deals directly and specifically with the $1.3 billion shortfall in average net income for the 1990-91 crop year and will not borrow money from GRIP and NISA payments due in the 1991-92 crop year?
October 9, 1991


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the hon. member has a concern that I met with the premier of the province of Saskatchewan.
This government and the ministers of this government meet with premiers as part of our responsibilities. He will recall that I met the premier of Prince Edward Island about a very serious matter within his province.
The premier of Saskatchewan wrote my colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and myself on September 28 expressing his view of the shortfall. The hon. member knows the contents of that letter. It has been widely circulated. The premier of the province last night put forward a very strong case on behalf of agriculture in Canada, not just in Saskatchewan, but agriculture in Canada. We have met on other occasions and we will continue to meet to address needs of the farmers.
The hon. member knows there will be an announcement coming shortly and I advise him to wait. He knows what we have done in the past for producers, he has recognized that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, today on a Regina open line program, the premier was implying that a guarantee of $5 for wheat for the next five years had been made. Will the minister give this House that same commitment?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: As the
hon. member knows, I am not going to criticize the premier's arithmetic. "Hie hon. member knows that at this time the GRIP, the assistance program that was designed by farmers, the provinces and the Government of Canada, a price of some $4.15 a bushel was put forward.


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. The minister knows that the
Oral Questions
port of Churchill is issuing layoff notices as early as Friday of this week as almost all the grain that goes through Churchill comes from the province of Saskatchewan and for over 10 days over 10,000 tonnes of grain has been sitting at Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, instead of being delivered to the port of Churchill, which is almost completely empty. How can this government say it is trying to sell all the wheat that is out there?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: First of all, I do not know of the vessel availability for the port of Churchill. If the NDP would just be quiet we could try and discuss this because it is important to farmers, if it is not important to the hon. member from Edmonton.
What we have now is a work stoppage in Thunder Bay. To my knowledge, we do not have vessels in Churchill. I say to the hon. member, and I know members from the Canadian Wheat Board district will agree, the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board is to maximize returns to the producers. The Canadian Wheat Board has done that very well in the past and will continue to do it.
I suggest to the hon. member if there is a reason, it may be that returns are not being maximized according to his suggestion, but in the way the Wheat Board has been doing business over the last number of years.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations is entering a crucial phase. Canada is at a difficult crossroad. We will be facing strong international pressures to abandon our position in support of article XI, which allows for effective supply management programs in dairy and poultry.
Will the minister assure the poultry and dairy farmers of Canada here today that the Canadian government will not be part of any GATT agreement that fails to maintain, enhance and strengthen article XI of GATT?

October 9, 1991
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as always the policy of this government has been developed with stakeholders. The policy we have put forward, the enhancing and strengthening of article XI through the Uruguay round was developed with the supply managed industries and with the producers in Canada. We have not changed that position.
I can tell the hon. member, rather than receiving pressure to bring about change, I have been meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Madigan. I have been meeting with the European Commissioner of Agriculture, Ray McSharry. Rather than receiving pressure from the European Community, I received support for our position, because they believe there is an opportunity for Canada and the European Community to work together to clarify and strengthen article XI.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Canadian farmers want firm assurances from the Prime Minister. Can he promise us today that his government will protect and strengthen article XI of GATT that allows farmers to have quotas? Is he prepared to undertake not to sign any multilateral agreement that does not protect the quotas of Canadian farmers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member must have missed by answer to his colleague. The same question was asked in another language.
I say to the hon. member that the policy of this government and what we have put forward in strengthening and enhancing article XI in the Uruguay round was developed with the producers in Canada, developed with provinces in Canada. It is there. We have not backed away. As I have said on other occasions, we are seeking alliances within the Uruguay round. The hon. member keeps shaking his finger and muttering things. I am not too sure whether he is interested or whether he is grandstanding.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds. Atlantic Canadian agriculture is in a very unfair position. For example, transportation costs for grain makes it 11.5 per cent more expensive to produce dairy products in Atlantic Canada than it does in Quebec, and 33 per cent more expensive to produce hogs than it does in Ontario.
This government has effectively reduced transportation assistance to Atlantic Canada by 60 per cent.
Will the minister now give assurance to this House that he will respond to the needs of Atlantic Canadian farmers and implement the Atlantic Canada feed policy proposal put forward by the Atlantic Farmers Council last June?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, without giving credibility to the numbers that my hon. friend has put forward, I can inform him, as he well knows, that under feed freight assistance the Government of Canada on behalf of Canadians provides assistance to the agricultural sector in Atlantic Canada. As he also knows, at a meeting of federal-provincial ministers of agriculture in Kananaskis last July there was a decision made by all ministers present that we would study the transportation system as it pertains to agriculture. That means the feed freight assistance system in Atlantic Canada; it means the western grain transportation system in western Canada.
We are studying that to see that the dollars we have put forward on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers through agriculture is being used in the best interests of producers, and that has the support of producers.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, according to a proposal the Atlantic Farmers Council made, the federal expenditures in support of the agri-food industry over the past 10 years rose in Atlantic Canada by 4.3 per cent; in Ontario and Quebec by 9.2 per cent; and in the prairie provinces and western Canada 29.5 per cent.

That does not seem to me to be very equitable treatment for Atlantic Canada in comparison to its immediate neighbours to the west.
A supplementary question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. At the meeting in Alberta in July, every provincial minister of agriculture endorsed the proposal because they all knew full well that the Atlantic Canadian farmers were getting shafted.
Will the minister give an undertaking to this House that he will respond to the desperate need for feed freight assistance and put Atlantic Canada back on a level playing field, and will he assure us-and this is most important, Mr. Speaker-that this assistance will not be countervailable under this government's free trade agreement?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his previous question suggested that there was a necessity to provide grain to the agricultural sector in Atlantic Canada because of its importance in supply management. He knows better than I do that one of the benefits of supply managed industries in Canada and one of the reasons that producers and governments support them so fiercely is because they take the cost of their production out of the supply managed system.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. member, if he speaks to his colleagues in Atlantic Canada, if the supply managed system in Atlantic Canada was not taking a double bite, one out of the supply managed system and the other out of the free trade assistance, there would be adequate support for the feed freight assistance in those non-supply managed areas in Atlantic Canada.


Coline M. Campbell: Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.


SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: My question is to the Prime Minister.
West coast shipyard workers are incensed at the unfairness in the awarding of shipbuilding contracts by this federal government, which denied the promised Polar 8 to B.C., closed down our largest shipyard and laid off hundreds of workers, as the Prime Minister knows.
Oral Questions
Meanwhile, Quebec shipyards receive billion dollar contracts and the maritimes have contracts worth millions.
What does the government intend to do to restore the B.C. shipbuilding industry and treat B.C. equitably? We also are part of Canada.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, if she has been following the rationalization of shipbuilding in this country, will realize that there has been rationalization on the Great Lakes, there has been a great deal of rationalization in shipbuilding capacity on the St. Lawrence, there has been some in western Canada, and we are looking forward at some time to be able to introduce it in the maritimes.
On the contracts which have been given, I should point out to the hon. member, that the contract which was won in the Halifax-Dartmouth industry was won clearly by that, and the bid that was put in by the west coast industry in 1988 was not successful in that bidding process. They failed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia know that rationalizations mean shutdowns and unemployment, not revitalization.
Literally hundreds of skilled maritime workers who are very senior workers have been on welfare for almost up to two years. This is because of the government's delay in providing appropriate compensation which was promised.
What is the government's work adjustment plan and when will these older workers receive their promised compensation?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions going on with the province of British Columbia and with the various maritime outfits out there in putting together a proper plan. We are looking forward to receiving that finally. It should be coming forth within the next couple of weeks.
I should point out that in that last major shipbuilding contract that went to Halifax Dartmouth Industries and Fenco the largest part, the most intelligent part, the part with all the brains and new high technology, all went to British Columbia, to MacDonald Dettwiler. Fifty million dollars of that went to MacDonald Dettwiler.

October 9, 1991
Oral Questions YUGOSLAVIA


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the crisis in Yugoslavia.
The latest cease-fire with the basic terms being to lift the naval blockade, withdraw troops from the barrack areas, and begin the distribution of release supplies to the cities is the most promising to date.
It is essential that the international community do everything in its power to ensure, unlike previous ceasefires, that this one has a chance to succeed.
Would the Prime Minister share with Canadians what additional action the Canadian government has taken today to ensure strict adherence to the cease-fire by all parties involved and to bring an end to the unnecessary violence and bloodshed in Yugoslavia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may recall that the Government of Canada was the first government to prevail upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to involve himself and his organization in the great tragedy that was unfolding in Yugoslavia.
As a result of that and subsequent actions taken by other G-7 members, the Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed Mr. Cyrus Vance as a special envoy to Yugoslavia. He is to depart imminently, we understand, for Yugoslavia and help arrange a cease-fire that we believe and hope will be permanent and durable.
To that end Canada originally asked for the invocation of the United Nations special authority. We offered concurrent with that the presence of Canadian peacekeeping forces as an important component of a more global and comprehensive United Nations approach to the Yugoslav tragedy.
We are happy to see that progress along these lines is being made because we believe that the dimensions of the tragedy in Yugoslavia are so enormous that it took more than the European community, that it would take the intervention of the UN Security Council, and that process has now begun.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the OAS, in its efforts to return President Aristide to power in Haiti, corroborated the recommendations of Aristide by calling for a trade embargo against Haiti. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs offered Canadian participation in an international observer team to monitor Haitian human rights situations and to bolster democratic institutions.
I would like to know what specific action the government has taken here in Canada to implement and support these statements.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have been very active. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is one of the architects of the policy of the OAS. She very ably and I think courageously represented Canada's interests in Haiti in extremely difficult circumstances. She has participated in putting together a package of sanctions and other pacific means of causing the will of the OAS to be implemented and respected.
We are acting on that and a number of other fronts to try and bring about the reinstallation, the restoration of the democratically elected president of Haiti. To that end we have volunteered, for example, the presence of civilian Canadians as part of a larger OAS or United Nations force. This is because we believe that one of the errors that was made was that while peacekeeping observers were sent in advance of the elections, democracy and democratic institutions in Haiti are much too embryonic to have been left alone immediately thereafter.
There is a very important role for the United Nations and the OAS in making sure that a commission of surveillance be there to assist in revitalizing democratic institutions in Haiti which have not existed there forever and a day.


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, in St. John's, Newfoundland this morning offices of the fishermen's union were attacked by an angry and frustrated group of fishermen. They are threatening to do the same thing with the federal fisheries offices as well.

|
* :
October 9, 1991

Fishermen are upset everywhere because of low quotas for Canadian fishermen off the east coast of Canada, while foreign nations are having a field day both outside and inside the 200-mile zone.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans why this government negotiated a few weeks ago quotas for next year, for 1992, in zone 3NO where all of this dispute is taking place, inside and outside the 200-mile zone,
6,000	tonnes of cod for Canada, 7,200 tonnes for foreign nations, 1,600 tonnes to the U.S.S.R., all within the 200-mile zone.
Why does this government continue to infuriate fishermen with this preference for foreign fishing fleets?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not and cannot enter into debate with the hon. member on all the things he said.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Let me advise the House, I mean those who are interested in fishermen, that as we speak officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are meeting with the fishermen in Newfoundland to try to solve the problem that the member just outlined.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, last night-and this is typical of what really infuriates Canadian fishermen-another Canadian boat was arrested, six crew members aboard, by the warship Margaree, 240 crew, and a fisheries patrol vessel. The Canadian skipper was arrested as he was between two Spanish purse seine fishing boats. The Spanish boats were not boarded-this is inside the 200-mile zone-and the Canadian boat had a measly 200 pounds of cod aboard that was being used for bait.
Our fishermen want to know why these foreign boats are not being boarded. What does the government think the Spanish boats were doing? They certainly were not catching a sun-tan.


Bernard Valcourt: Another Liberal who talks about deportation.
Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated to the hon. member that officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions
are working right now with the fishermen in Newfoundland to try to address their concern. I think instead of just throwing oil on the fire the hon. member, maybe for a first, could come up with a positive suggestion to help the fishermen and stop just gabbling at it.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Recently the minister's message to the executive of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees stated that there is need for a better protection of the neediest refugees such as women and children who are the majority of the 18 million, some of them needing resettlement in countries like Canada.
However, since 1988, under Canada's program Women at Risk which has no ceiling, this government has landed only 32 cases of mother-led families per year.
My question for the minister is: Will he undertake to follow his own good advice by bringing in at least 100 women at risk this year?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member is not criticizing Canada and the refugee determination process that the government has put in place. Canada's reputation in the world is one that is envied. We are as a government and we are as a country doing our share.
I met recently with the UNHCR representative in Canada who is lauding Canada's collaboration and cooperation with the UNHCR, and we are going to continue in that direction.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question was not about the determination process in Canada, as the minister would prefer to think. My question is about our overseas program in which the government has announced that it will only bring in half as many refugees this year as the measly 13,000 that it has promised for the last four years.

October 9, 1991
Oral Questions
I am asking him: Will he try to fill that gap with some and more of these women at risk with their children at risk?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the reason why Canada was unable to meet that target of $13,000 is because of the situation in that part of the world which the hon. member well knows.
What we did instead was take 2,000 of this 13,000 target and speed up the admission to Canada of members of the families of refugees who have been determined as such in this country. That again was lauded by the UNHCR which thinks that Canada is doing a super job.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Quebec mining industry eagerly awaits the signing of the next Canada-Quebec agreement on mineral development. Quebec and Canada are about to come to an agreement on tourism, regional development and forests. Has Quebec started negotiating with the federal government on a subsidiary agreement on mineral development for the mining sector?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed received authority from the Governor in Council to negotiate agreements, first on industrial development, forests and tourism, and that is what we are doing with the Government of Quebec. As for mining, Quebec had not originally given it particular priority. However, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, tells me that he is in contact with the Quebec Minister of Mines and if that province expresses a particular interest, we will obviously be prepared to consider the question.
Sic *


PORT OF THUNDER BAY
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
The minister sent one of his officials to Thunder Bay last night to meet with both parties in the Lakehead grain elevator workers' dispute. At present it is unclear what role the official is playing.
Can the minister clarify for us what exactly Mr. Edmondson is doing in Thunder Bay, what he has reported to the minister to date on his discussions with both parties and, further, can he tell this House whether he is intending to introduce back-to-work legislation?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I did send the director general of Labour Canada's mediation and conciliation service to Thunder Bay to assess the situation after having talked to the union leader and the lawyer representing the pools. Mr. Edmondson will get back to me later today.
My message to the parties in this dispute is that they should settle it themselves. My colleague is aware that over 90 per cent of work disputes in this country are settled through the collective bargaining process. We want them to settle and we want them to settle now.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, the union wrote to the minister last night requesting that he use provisions available to him under the Canada Labour Code and appoint an industrial inquiry into the grain handling industry in Canada. There have been significant changes in this industry over the years. The last industrial inquiry in 1975 dealt only with the Vancouver port.
Will the minister agree in this House today to call an industrial inquiry into the grain handling industry? Also, would he look particularly to the sector in Thunder Bay to see if there is any way we can help this port with its difficulties in the future?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I did speak to the union president, Mr. Daniher and he did bring up the subject of an industrial inquiry commission. He was quite specific in his conversation with me when he said: "Let's talk about this issue once this dispute is settled".
I would ask that all efforts at this time go into settling the dispute.
October 9, 1991

Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Micmac Family and Children's Services of Nova Scotia was informed last week by Indian Affairs Atlantic that it had been refused funding under Project Haven for a desperately needed transition House for native women and children.
Could the minister tell us why this desperately needed project has been turned down?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to advise the hon. member that I am not aware of the reasons for rejection.
I am certainly very familiar with Project Haven and the tremendous importance it has for aboriginal communities, women and families in need, and I will certainly look into this matter immediately.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that the minister's own regional office had told Micmac Family and Children's Services that its documents were out of time. However its documents were in time. They were in the multi-year plan and they were declared to be the primary priority of the department.
I understand that the minister is not aware of the situation, but I ask that he undertake today to review this situation as there are no services for native women and their children in Nova Scotia today.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the normal means of raising such an important issue on the part of a member of Parliament is to send me a note to lay out the circumstances that the hon. member will raise with the House so I might be given the benefit of an opportunity to seek an explanation from my officials.
I have undertaken to do so. I only regret that the hon. member did not call me earlier, before raising the question.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today, ten million Canadians received a very personal message from his government. Indeed, the government, through its propaganda agency, just sent out ten million pamphlets. I looked through that document but I can't find the Prime Minister.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Does he not endorse those proposals? Is he ashamed of them or is he ashamed of himself?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had seen everything. Last week, I saw his acting leader defend federalism, and now the hon. member is taking my defence, protecting my interests!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my picture appeared on the leaflet, the hon. member would be the first to rise and complain that the Canadian government was engaging in partisan propaganda. Canadians know that when the awards are handed out, the hon. member for Shefford will win first prize in Canada for hypocrisy!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Of course, the Prime Minister's picture is not in that leaflet, which is nevertheless a document of constitutional propaganda, of partisan propaganda and of personal propaganda, not for him but for his successor.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: How can he justify spending $15 million to promote his successor for the leadership of the Conservative Party?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, having won first prize for hypocrisy, the hon. member now wins second prize for stupidity!
Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't know who will succeed me at the head of the Conservative Party, but it won't be for a long time yet. Also, whoever succeeds me will be Prime Minister of Canada. But you, my friend, never will be!

October 9, 1991
Oral Questions


PROPOSALS ON ECONOMIC UNION
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. According to an article published on October 4 in the Journal de Montreal, the finance critic of the Parti Quebecois said: "Otto Jelinek has just revealed the true nature of the federal proposals by saying that Ontario would never have increased its deficit 300 per cent had the economic union been in place." Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain that statement, taking into account that the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations says that the new proposals for economic union will have no effect on the province's budget policies?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that concerns arise out of the misleading headline in Le Devoir last week which did not reflect what I said to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, nor indeed did it reflect the body of the article under that headline.
In order to clarify the situation, let me quote directly from the transcript when I said, and I quote: "The economic union package does not interfere in any way, shape or form from the provincial jurisdictions at all, budgetary or otherwise. It is not interfering with anybody's process".
I said that last week, I say it today, and I will say it tomorrow.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The mining industry in northern Ontario is in dire need. Last year in the Timmins area alone we lost approximately 1,000 mining jobs. Every second day, at least once a week, we hear of a mine cutting back or closing down.
My question to the minister is: What is the minister going to do to help this industry?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts forward a valid question and one that is being debated both with provincial ministers and the federal government. There was a recent meeting of mines ministers in Halifax, at which time a number of industry representatives were invited including prospectors and developers.
There are some who would like to see new incentives especially for the junior companies. Most who have been giving us advice know that is not the way to go, and I agree with them.
In terms of mining, there is no question that competitiveness is taking over. It has to. Also, in terms of modernization, we seem to see some of that, for instance in Sudbury and Thompson, just to mention two.
Hopefully we can get an MDA agreement very quickly with Ontario which would help in putting forward not only new technology but also through that new technology getting additional reserves.


ALGOMA STEEL
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: At least the government is consistent. The answer is no.
I have a question for the Minister of State for Privatization through you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday the minister suggested that indeed the assistance as indicated by Finance was in order for Algoma Steel. An official from Industry, Science and Technology suggested that what the minister had said was not the decision or the final opinion as stipulated by Industry, Science and Technology.
Who knows the final answer? What is the final answer? Will there be tax credits? Yes or no.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, we have set out criteria for tax credits in those employee shared projects. The criteria is there. The provincial government of province of Ontario knows what the criteria are.
Some of the criteria cannot be met by Algoma and that is why that particular project was not approved. But the criteria is there for certain share ownership of employees. I sent the criteria to the hon. member and I am sure he understands what it is.
October 9, 1991


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period in an exchange between the Minister of Employment and Immigration and members of the NDP, there were some interjections by an hon. member from the NDP. I also made comments which I categorically and completely withdraw. The comments were inappropriate and ill advised. I want to apologize most sincerely to this House.


Some hon. members:: What did you say, what did you
say?


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I simply wanted to ask -


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu raises a point of order, but first I must recognize the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, as somebody who heard the reference to which the previous member has referred, which was a reference to my colleague-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The tradition and the practice here is that if a withdrawal is made and it is without equivocation the matter is over. The hon. member may want to pursue it with discussions or in some other way, but the reason that the rule is applied in this way is that under some circumstances there might clearly be no end to it. It could go on and on and on and there has to be an end to it.
I have listened very carefully to the withdrawal. I regret the incident. The withdrawal is given and that is the end of it.
Is it that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor has another point of privilege? Is it something different?
I will hear the hon. member.


Steven W. Langdon: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that if somebody is withdrawing something it is necessary in my view for the-
Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to make it very clear that it is not appropriate to continue endlessly a debate when someone has got up and made a clear and abject apology and a withdrawal.
There has to be an end to it, otherwise we would be here all afternoon.


POINT OF ORDER
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, just now, I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister use the words "hypocrite" and "stupid" in referring to members of this House. Is this kind of language parliamentary, Mr. Speaker? If so, we will start using it too, but I still think it would be preferable to withdraw these terms from parliamentary usage.


Mr. Speaker:: I will examine the exchange that took place. Generally, the word "hypocrite" is unparliamentary, but perhaps we should consider the context-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: As soon as I have had a chance to consider the context, I will hand down a ruling.


Mr. McCurdy:: I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the government House leader and then I shall hear the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


DESIGNATION OF ALLOTTED DAY
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow an opposition day.


COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Essex-Windsor tried to make a point which I insist on having the opportunity to make.


October 9, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Within the last few weeks, it has been decided that there should be a committee to pay special attention to the use of sexist terms in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty that I am in-and I am sure that the hon. member would want to co-operate with the Chair-is that our tradition and our practices are that if somebody has offended this House or offended a member and said things that are clearly wrong, the responsibility then lies with the House to complain to the Speaker. If something is clearly wrong, the Speaker then orders a withdrawal or the member can be expelled or the member may not be recognized for a great deal of time.
The member in this case, as has been the practice, has apologized. Hon. members clearly feel very strongly about the matter as perhaps so does the Speaker. I cannot allow, just because this is a hard case and hard cases can make very bad law, that a practice build up of continuing the debate.
If the hon. member wants to broaden the scope of the advisory committee which has been raised as a consequence of some sexist remarks, I invite the hon. member to make representations to that effect.
The hon. member may remember that at the time when we had to deal with that, the Speaker made it vety clear that there was more to this issue than just sexist remarks in this Chamber. Decorum does go beyond just sexist remarks. There can be other kinds of remarks that are equally offensive to all fair-minded and reasonable hon. members.
If the hon. member wants to make a suggestion to me that this be considered, I will take it up with House leaders. I ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and not extend the debate over the actual exchange, which has been withdrawn.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my submission is simply this. In response to a particular incident in this House, the House has undertaken to look at the issue of the use of sexist remarks in this House as a particular case.
I request now that the House expand the purview of that committee to include racist remarks in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly will take the hon. member's representation and discuss it with colleagues.
I also want to thank the hon. member for co-operating with the procedural limitations in how far I could let that discussion go, and I thank him.
[ Translation]
The hon. member for Richelieu. On the same point of order? On another point of order? The hon. member has the floor.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of noise, so I did not hear exactly what you said. Did you say you would come back with an explanation of when the word "hypocrite" may be used and when not? Or will you ask the Prime Minister to withdraw, tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: What I said was that I will look very carefully what exactly was said, the context in which it was used, and I shall report back to the House.
I want to look carefully at it and I give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, October 7 to 13, 1991 is National AIDS Awareness Week, and for the first time since its inception, this week is being recognized all across Canada. From Victoria to Newfoundland, community-based organizations and front-line workers will work to broaden people's knowledge of all the aspects of HIV/AIDS.
The fact that this week, which started as a small local initiative in 1984, has become a nation-wide event is a testament to the dedication and exhaustive efforts of all those involved in the fight against AIDS.

Still, information about what it means to have AIDS and how it is to be prevented needs to reach many more people.
This week is about awareness, getting as many people as possible to understand that AIDS affects all of us. It is about education and prevention and about the care, treatment and support for those who live with AIDS. It is about joining forces, increasing the collaboration between the spectrum of organizations that together are combatting this epidemic.
October 9, 1991



It is also about international co-operation. I announced earlier today that my department has issued a notice of compliance for DDI. This follows the first joint review of a new drug by the United States FDA and our health protection branch. This means that people with AIDS who are unable to use AZT will now have ready access to DDI. This is good news in our battle against AIDS.

HIV and AIDS have been part of Canadian society for ten years, during which the response from all levels of our society has increased substantially, Mr. Speaker. However, with a disease like AIDS, we cannot afford to become complacent, especially among those who do not see HIV and AIDS as pertinent to them. I believe it is precisely these people who need to be reached this week. The compassion and concern which characterizes Canadians can only be demonstrated when every one of us realizes that AIDS affects us all.
AIDS Awareness Week provides a chance to increase our understanding of this disease. For once we understand something, we lose the blind panic that comes from a fear of the unknown, and fashion tools to fight and eventually conquer. AIDS Awareness Week is also about learning how to provide support and compassion for those who are living with AIDS and HIV, their caregivers, friends, families and loved ones. We need to make this country a more comfortable place for people living with this disease.

Confronting our prejudices is not an easy task, but once these barriers are taken down, we see that illness takes precedence over discrimination. This is a message that can be shard by all walks of life to all Canadians. Awareness and knowledge will empower all of us to better understand and empathize with anyone who is affected by this illness.
Let us hope that awareness of and action against AIDS will continue long after this week is over and increase until such time as a lasting cure is found.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow colleagues on all sides of this House and beyond these walls to do what you can to help in the promotion and success of AIDS Awareness Week.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, for you and I this week is like any other week. It is seven days long or 98 hours of work, sleep, time with friends and family. But for a person with AIDS a week can be a lifetime of wishing there was a cure for this terminal disease.
This week marks AIDS Awareness Week. It is the time when Canadians should be made aware of the seriousness of the disease, the pain and suffering this disease causes so many young men and women and children here in Canada.
I have to wonder, is it Canadians who lack the awareness, or is it the government of Canada?
The National AIDS Strategy that was announced was a tremendous disappointment. The strategy had no new moneys allocated, only a reshuffling of old money. During the previous health minister's address at the Fifth International AIDS Conference in Montreal on June 9, 1989 the minister said: "The second thing that I realized was that we can succeed in this struggle. It lies within our power. I believe that here in Canada the federal government has a crucial role to play. We can provide leadership to help mobilize everyone to work together to defeat this terrible disease".
On June 19, 1991 the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare returned its final report to the House of Commons. It contained recommendations that took months and months of consultations with expert witnesses to prepare. Among those witnesses were people who were trying to deal with AIDS, both personally and professionally. They said high risk groups were weary of HIV testing and needed guaranteed anonymity.
With guidance from these people, the standing committee recommended that there be anonymous surveys in AIDS research and that HIV testing be accompanied by appropriate guarantees of confidentiality.
Also the committee pushed the federal government to encourage the provinces and territories to develop more flexible forms of remuneration for physicians that will more accurately reflect the needs of patients in their practice. Last, the federal government must adequately fund community-based support groups for AIDS patients and for continuing education programs on AIDS treatment and support for physicians, nurses and other health care professionals.

October 9, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Canadians would like to ask the minister; what has happened to these recommendations? It has been four months since that report was tabled in this House. Where is the urgency?
Three years ago the minister's department requested a document from the Federal Centre for AIDS. The report was meant to brief the government on the mental health needs of people who are HIV positive and the care givers of these people. Canadians want to know whether this report has been completed. When can this House expect to see it?
It is my hope and prayer that documents and studies like this one are not simple make work projects that buy the government a reprieve to do very little. Canadians want to know what became of the recommendations of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on AIDS requesting the government to create a joint Senate and House of Commons committee to advise the cabinet and the government on AIDS policy, thereby ensuring programs get adequate support.
I remind the minister of what Henry Sigerist, author of the book Civilization and Disease once said: "We must never say that health conditions are good but must rather ask ourselves constantly whether they are as good as they could be.
Mr. Speaker, please let me say this to the minister- [Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt the House leader who was making a learned presentation, but I cannot get over- We just had what is called a minister's statement, and the minister is no longer here! Has he disappeared? The House leader is trying to comment to the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I wish to remind both sides of the House that the Standing Orders say that House tradition forbids indicating the presence or absence of another member. I again recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: In conclusion, let me say this to the minister. Thousands of Canadians are painfully aware of the travesty of the horrors of AIDS. As a minister of the Crown, it is important to lessen the suffering, the sense of hopelessness and loss. The minister can make health conditions the best that they can be.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to act and to act expeditiously this week and indeed in the weeks to come.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, October 7 to 13 has been designated as National AIDS Awareness Week. It is significant that from a small local initiative started by the lesbian and gay community in 1984, AIDS Awareness Week has become a national event that focuses on expanding the total community's understanding and knowledge about AIDS.
AIDS affects us all, not just those with AIDS and HIV, not just their families and friends and not just their care givers. Three thousand Canadians have died of AIDS. Another 30,000 are infected with HIV.
During AIDS Awareness Week we must pledge to do four things. First, we must improve our education.
We must direct education at all parts of society. We must ensure that it understand AIDS, understand how it spreads and understand how to stop the spread of AIDS.
We must focus our educational efforts on all groups: youth, aboriginal people, gays, lesbians, heterosexual couples, the total community. We must help the community understand about this disease so we can conquer our fears and prejudice.
Second, during AIDS Awareness Week, we must strive to improve our treatment of those with AIDS and HIV. This means we must turn our concern and compassion into better medical treatment and improved community care facilities. We must ensure that bureaucrats do not hold up the use of experimental drugs.
I am very happy to see that the minister has announced that DVT is going to be made available. We must expand our health and community care. We must provide support to friends, families and care givers. We must change people's fears and prejudices so that people with AIDS are not discriminated against in housing and in jobs.
October 9, 1991

There must be an amendment to the Human Rights Act as was requested by the all-party committee on AIDS and as has been promised by this government. If we are truly concerned about the treatment of people with AIDS, we must be concerned about more than just their medical treatment. We must be concerned about their rights and the quality of their life.
Third, we must commit ourselves to expanding research aimed at improving our knowledge and finding a method of eradicating this disease.
Fourth, we must continue our fight against AIDS on a global basis. Canada must continue to help, particularly developing countries, with treatment, education and prevention in AIDS.
During AIDS Awareness Week, I trust all members of this House will lead the way in helping all Canadians understand that AIDS affects the total community. AIDS awareness is not enough. We must commit ourselves to an action plan that improves the care of people living with AIDS and HIV, and an action plan that increases our research so that we may eradicate this disease.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the preparation meeting for the establishment of the Pacific Parliamentary League for Education, Culture and Economic Co-operation held the 26th and 27th in Singapore.
This meeting was extremely important to Canada because Canada sells more of its exports to Asia-Pacific markets than to all of Europe. Three of Canada's largest six markets in the world are in Asia. Eight out of twenty of Canada's strongest markets in the world are in the Pacific region and 42 per cent of immigration to Canada comes from this region.
Therefore, the establishment of a new interparliamentary organization is of new and continuing importance.
Routine Proceedings
The member for Saint-Denis and myself urge the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian government to send representation to the foundation meeting that will be held in Canberra in December.
We present this report and urge that it be followed up with the interest and concern of the government and the Speaker.


JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
This report, unanimously adopted, is the result of consideration of the uncensored and unexpurgated versions of the reports to Corrections Service Canada by, one, Mr. Weir concerning the escape of Daniel Gingras in the province of Alberta and, two, by the Board of Investigations concerning an offender, Allan Legere, unlawfully at large in the province of New Brunswick.
Mostly to clarify and reinforce the rights and privileges of Parliament and its committees, the committee recommends that the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act be amended to require government institutions holding personal information records or information to produce them in their unexpurgated form when properly ordered to do so by either the Senate or the House of Commons.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Canadian citizens residing outside Canada).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.

Routine Proceedings


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is quite simple. It is to allow Canadian electors who are out of the country for an extended period of time, such as government employees or employees who are working for large companies, to take part in elections. They continue to be Canadian taxpayers and many of them want to take part in elections. At the present time, there is no system for them to vote.
This arose out of a letter from a constituent who was in Europe during the last federal election who wanted to vote but could not. He was ineligible for a proxy vote. The purpose of this bill is to remedy that situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Wilbee moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL PRIORITY
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That notwithstanding the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business, concurred in by the House on October 20, 1989, the following will be the order of priority for access to the parliamentary channel during the mandate of the Special Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada: 1. House of Commons proceedings live. 2. Replay of statements under Standing Order 30(1) and of Question Period. 3. Proceedings of the Special Joint Committee live where it is technically feasible. 4. The replay of the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee. 5. The replay of the House proceedings or portion thereof beginning with Question Period. 6. The weekend replay of the previous week's proceedings of the Special Joint Committee.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretaiy for giving us a copy of this motion. Unfortunately, his leader, the Prime Minister, did not proceed with the same courtesy. I think that
television, televising a circus like the one ahead of us now-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Does the House give unanimous consent for the motion moved by the hon. parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. members:: No.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to bring forward a petition from residents in my constituency concerning Bill C-21. They request that all parents, either biological or adoptive, receive the same pay leave under the necessary legislation.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from people in Launay, Guyenne, Villemontel, Authier, Lac Berry and Languedoc, in Abitibi, who humbly ask the House of Commons to consider the possibility of preventive withdrawal for pregnant women as a desirable and necessary option for working women.
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament, when it reviews the Canada Labour Code, to consider seriously the shortcomings in it and to recognize the need to include in the Code clauses concerning preventive withdrawal for pregnant women, with pay, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 190 residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically from the towns of Kapuskasing, Moonbeam, Val Rita, Hearst, Hornepayne, Smooth Rock Falls, Mattice and Fauquier, Ontario.
October 9, 1991

Your petitioners strongly oppose the clause in Bill C-21 which has reduced adoptive parent leave from 15 weeks to 10 weeks while, at the same time, increasing biological parent leave to 25 weeks. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend Bill C-21 with respect to adoptive parental leave and that all parents, whether biological or adoptive, receive the same paid leave to enable them to spend time with their new child or children.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 135 will be answered today.


Mr. Redway: For the period September 16, 1991 to October 4, 1991, what has been the (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question, to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


Harvie Andre: (a) & (b)
Questions answered during the period of September 16, 1991 to October 4, 1991:
Question Approximate Question Approximate
No.	Cost	No.	Cost1	$198	2	$928	610	9	84011	360	12	7013	438	14	18217	1600	19	62020	72	22	13423	126	24	7225	98	26	14427	132	28	20431	54	32	5434	71	35	666
Routine Proceedings
Question No.	Approximate Cost	Question No.	Approximate Cost36	97	37	9838	125	45	7046	70	47	7748	70	53	14954	74	56	33458	40	59	34860	172	61	11562	85	63	6964	92	65	16966	145	67	12568	89	69	7770	70	71	7376	93	77	4478	72	79	39481	161	82	7583	126	84	7785	70	86	32888	154	90	15281	164	93	12494	380	97	11898	54	101	70
TOTAL COST: $12 326
(c) $40.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I request today under Standing Order 52 leave to have an emergency debate on the aggression against the Republic of Croatia by uncontrolled and unconstitutional armed forces of Yugoslavia.
A genuine emergency has arisen due to the fact that the deadline for the moratorium on the declaration of independence by Croatia passed as of midnight, October 7, 1991. No peace has been achieved. As well, the democratically elected government of Croatia is under siege by an aggressor and we cannot reward aggression. That fact we established by the coalition against Iraq.
I am calling for immediate debate because it is of the utmost urgency that Canada take a stand concerning the recognition of the democratic, duly-elected government of Croatia. In order to do that, there must be a debate with the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. I believe members of all parties are cognizant and supportive of that fact.
As Your Honour is aware, there is an all-out war against Croatia, including an attempt by the military to kill both the Chairman of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, Mrs. S. Mesic, and the President of Croatia, Mr. Tudj-man.
Efforts by the European Economic Community and the Security Council of the United Nations have failed. Therefore, the debate being of urgency, it should take priority over the day-to-day business of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member raises a very important question that no doubt concerns many members of this assembly. But given what the Standing Orders say about emergency debates, unfortunately, I cannot follow up or accede to his request today.


Alex Kindy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to explain the criteria for having an emergency debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would suggest that the hon. member refer to Standing Order 52.

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes because of the ministerial statement.

Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 7.12 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-33, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, be now read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate on Bill C-33, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade.
This Act is intended to bring Canadian coasting trade legislation up to date. This govemement is committed to working in partnership with our industries for the betterment of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to reserve what is commonly called the "Coasting Trade" to Canadian ships in waters over which we have jurisdiction. The Bill reserves all commercial marine ativities to Canadian ships within the 12 mile territorial sea and the internal waters of Canada.
In the offshore, that is beyond the Territorial sea, all commercial marine activities related to the exploration and exploitation of non-living natural resources are reserved to Canadian ships.
October 9, 1991

At the present time, coasting trade activities in Canada are governed by part ten of the Canadian Shipping Act. The current legislation defines "coasting trade" as the carriage by water or by land and water of goods or passengers between two places in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port.
Under the present legislation, such carriage is limited to British ships which includes all commonwealth ships. The time has come to clarify this legislation. For one thing, the concept of a British ship has changed since the British Commonwealth merchant shipping agreement was terminated in 1979. The law of the sea was adopted in 1982 by an international convention and the customs and excise offshore application act was passed in 1983. All these events have impacted upon the Canadian Coasting provisions and made it necessary for a new Coasting Trade Act to be adopted.
The current provisions were established in 1934 and were amended in 1966, 1983 and in 1987. Since 1934, a number of things have changed. The most obvious, of course is the offshore oil and gas developments that were not thought of in 1934.

An important part of both the present and proposed legislation is the waiver system that permits the Minister of National Revenue to issue a licence to a foreign ship to engage in the coasting trade of Canada if no suitable Canadian ship is available. I will speak further about the waiver system in a moment.
Before I proceed I should point out that a predecessor to this bill, Bill C-52, was considered during a previous session of Parliament and was passed by the House. However concern was raised in the other place regarding the treatment of cruise ships which delayed the bill until the session prorogued. This concern has now been resolved by defining coasting trade so that a cruise from Vancouver to Alaska and back to Vancouver would not be included in the definition. It is important to note that the definition requires the cruise ship to return to the port of departure and make a call to a foreign port.
This provision does not apply to the Great Lakes, thereby protecting the important tour boat industry that operates day cruises on the Great Lakes. Bill C-33 reserves the Canadian coasting trade to Canadian ships. As with the current legislation, we must appreciate that there is not always a suitable Canadian ship available or capable of carrying out the task needed. Thus, Bill C-33 retains the existing waiver system.
Government Orders
It goes further by establishing a pecking order if there are no suitable Canadian ships available. In such cases, first priority is given to what are known as non-duty paid ships and second priority to foreign ships. A non-duty paid ship is a foreign built, Canadian registered ship on which duties and taxes have not been paid.

This legislation provides for a number of exemptions. For one thing, a specific exemption is granted to a foreign ship used as a fishing vessel as defined by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act as well as to a ship engaged in any ocean research activity commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Similarly, exemptions are made for ships operated or sponsored by a foreign government and authorized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. These exemptions will ensure a minimum of conflict with other legislation.
To be consistent with the law of the sea convention, an exemption is provided to salvage operations in waters that are beyond the territorial sea of Canada and above the continental shelf of Canada. It also exempts salvage by U.S. flagged ships in waters contiguous to the United States as permitted by our Canadian Legislation known as the U.S. Wreckers Act.
In the time since Bill C-52 died on the Order Paper, we have determined that there was a need to ensure that no confusion exists during a marine pollution emergency. Thus there is specific provision in Bill C-33 that a foreign ship may engage, with the approval of the pollution prevention officer, in activities related to a marine pollution emergency.

This bill also recognizes the normal maritime practice whereby in both offshore and Canadian waters ships assisting ships in distress will not be subject to the provisions of this bill. I do not expect there will be any misunderstanding or conflict over this practice.
Another straightforward aspect of this legislation will make the flag requirements for ships compatible with the Canadian Customs regime. These two regimes, while not identical, are very closely aligned. In fact this bill will ease the situation for those wishing to operate ships in Canadian waters and waters above the Continental Shelf of Canada by clarifying the flag requirements which must be observed. The Customs requirements are already well known.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
To summarize, the proposed Coasting Trade Act will extend the jurisdiction of the current coasting trade laws to include: (1) all commercial marine activities within 12 miles with the exceptions noted and (2) all commercial marine activities related to resource exploration or exploitation out to 200 miles or the outer edge of the Continental Shelf, whichever is the greater, again with the exceptions noted.
This act protects operators of Canadian flagships wishing to work within Canadian waters and on the Continental Shelf.

At the same time it allows international cruise ships to operate without meeting the requirements of the Coasting Trade Act. As a consequence cruise activities in Canada can grow and develop and jobs for Canadian ship crew will be protected. As market conditions improve more jobs opportunities will be created for ship crew and those in related industries.
Mr. Speaker, I have set out before you and the members of this House the goals and objectives of this legislation now before us for debate. While I have no doubt that my Honourable friends opposite will have comments to make, I believe that you will find that the time has come to bring our important coasting trade legislation up to date. I believe that this Bill addresses many of the concerns of our industries, and will be of benefit to all those engaged in this vital aspect of our economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the Official Opposition critic on transport and on behalf of my colleagues in response to the second reading of Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade.
As members from all sides of the House will know, the coasting trade bill was previously debated in a much similar form in Bill C-52 during the 1987-88 period, but due to the call of the federal general election the legislation died on the Order Paper.
During the time allotted to me I would like to share with members of the House some concerns that I have
vis-a-vis this bill. Bill C-33 deals specifically with the coasting trade in Canada, or as mentioned in the legislation and I quote: "the carriage of goods by ship or combination of ship and other mode of transport from one place in Canada or above the Continental Shelf to any other place in Canada or above the Continental Shelf".
Of course the bill explains similar provisions for the transportation of passengers, both within the confines of our inland waterways and again to the reaches of the Continental Shelf or the 200-mile natural resource zone.
The principal feature of this particular piece of legislation is that it extends the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act relating to the transport of goods and passengers from the existing 12-mile territorial sea limit to the 200-mile Continental Shelf or natural resource zone. Furthermore, the bill amends the Canada Shipping Act and places the coasting trade provisions within the confines of its own legislation and not under the guise of the Canada Shipping Act. It talks more about the territorial aspects of the marine industry as opposed to some of the other technicalities.
Under the bill foreign ships cannot operate within Canadian waters unless a select group of criteria is met. This legislation allows foreign ships to apply for a waiver to operate in our coasting trade. If after applying the National Transportation Agency determines that a Canadian ship is not available to perform a required service, then Revenue Canada would grant a coasting trade licence to that particular foreign vessel.
As well, foreign ships or non-duty paid ships cannot engage in our coasting trade unless they belong to a select group such as fishing vessels, research vessels, scientific marine research, certain salvage operations and pollution prevention operations. Other cases when a foreign ship may operate in Canadian waters are in times of an emergency when a Canadian ship cannot come to the assistance of another in distress.
Another amendment proposed is that foreign ships which are granted a licence to operate in Canadian waters will, under the bill, have their licences withdrawn with penalties of up to $50,000 if they contravene any act of Parliament which may apply. Provisions in the bill also allow for the detention of the vessel and its potential sale by the federal government following a non-appearance at their trial for violating our laws.
October 9, 1991

Although 99 per cent of our coasting trade is performed by Canadian ships and this bill intends to further protect our industry, I do have a number of concerns in a number of areas which I would like to touch upon quite briefly in the time allotted to me.
First, I would like to raise the safety provisions that foreign ships operating in our coasting trade are subject to. I believe that they should be liable to meet every stringent safety standard that our Canadian vessels must comply with. Our safety standards are tougher than those of many countries, especially the United States, and therefore they cost our vessels that much more.
As well, Canadian passengers on cruise ships would like to be assured that regardless of who transports them they will be guaranteed the same safety standards from any company incorporated on any side of our border.
Clause 4 requires that following:
(e) all foreign ship meets all safety and pollution prevention requirements imposed by any law of Canada applicable to that foreign ship.
But what about any inequities between the laws applicable to Canadian ships and those applied to foreign ships? Will we suffer in terms of safety and of pollution prevention measures because foreign ships do not have to meet the laws imposed on Canadian ships?
We all know that Canadian ships must meet Canadian standards. Of course Canadian owned ships operating in Canadian waters must meet stringent Canadian standards, but what about those foreign ships who apply for waiver? Will they have to meet the same provisions as our Canadian vessels?
Will provisions relating to crew members aboard a foreign passenger vessel be universally applied? Will there be an equal number of masters, deckhands and an engineer on board in Canadian waters regardless of whether the ship is Canadian or whether it is foreign?
I am positive that Canadians do not want us to reduce our standards, nor to increase our danger upon boarding a foreign vessel. These provisions are of concern to many Canadian shippers, whether they operate on rivers in the Thousand Islands region, the Great Lakes or on the east or west coast.
Government Orders
In terms of residency, clause 2 on page 3 of the bill relates to the definition of a "resident". It defines "resident" as someone who has been in Canada for six months and a day, as mentioned in the Income Tkx Act.
Some observers have expressed concern over any fly-by-night shipping operation. That is to say, will they cut corners at the expense of Canadians just to make a dollar? Therefore the question is: What is the level of that commitment? In terms of ownership, what about the ownership provisions in this bill? As we know in the airline industry, a Canadian airline must be 75 per cent owned by Canadians.
We would support a similar amendment to the Canadian Shipping Act that would introduce a provision that would perhaps be along similar lines where it is not now mentioned.
What about the provisions of the coasting trade bill to allow American ships to transport goods to Canadian Distant Early Warning Line sites? What about Canadian shipping opportunities in that area? Again, there have been concerns raised by a number of observers whether we should, above all, be transporting goods to our own DEW Line sites.
Finally, clause 8 on page 7 states:
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the
criteria to be applied by the Agency in making the determinations
referred to in subsection (1).
Does this mean that a carte blanche is given to the government in determining licence for foreign ships, or should this in fact be protected and based in legislation?
We opt for the latter because it is a greater insurance that in fact the government of the day will certainly not be able to make an Order in Council that may be against the national interests of the time.
I believe that the minister and the government must come clean and explain some of these provisions during the second reading phase and clearly in committee stage. Though the government may claim that this bill is its version of the American Jones Act, it does not even come close to the restrictive and prohibitory measures that the American shipping interests enjoy south of the border.

Government Orders
Canadian shippers in the marine industry are looking for leadership from this government to help our industry and, sadly, the government's actions in recent times have meant just the opposite.
We do not have to look too far to see that some of the negative policies of this government have adversely affected the domestic Canadian marine industry. One of those irritants is the cost recovery and user fee program. This government's zeal for cost recovery aims to impose user fees on Canadian marine industry companies. We on this side oppose this policy, as does much of the industry.
Do not take my word for it. Let us see what the industry is saying about the government's own policy. First, from Mr. Nicol, president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, who says: "The federal government's cost recovery policy may do irreparable damage to the Canadian maritime industry and its associated infrastructure. The proposal will increase the cost of doing business for some companies by amounts in excess of $1 million per year". He also says to the minister that "there is no way of applying a cost recovery program".
Do not take just the Canadian Shipping Association's word against this particular economic policy. What does Mr. Cresswell, president and CEO of Algoma Central Marine, the second largest shipping company in Canada involved in transporting commodities on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, say about user fees?
He said in a letter to the former Minister of Transport: "The application of cost recovery is discriminatory and will impede the long-term survival of a shrinking number of operations. The cost recovery policy comes at a time when the marine transportation sector is not in a strong financial position due in part to existing government policy. Moreover the proposed policy falls hard on the heels of transport deregulation. We strongly urge Transport Canada to withdraw this proposed cost recovery policy".
Other individuals have spoken out against the government's policy including Mr. Peter Smith of the Chamber of Maritime Commerce and Mr. Norman Hall of the Canadian Ship Owners Association.
What about shipbuilding? We all remember the Progressive Conservative agenda for government concerning the shipbuilding industry. It was written in 1984 and
said: "A top priority of a Progressive Conservative government will be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry". What has happened to that industry since then?
When this bill was debated as Bill C-52 in 1987 and 1988 Conservative members boasted about the shipbuilding policy. At the time they mentioned that the construction of the Polar 8 ice-breaker would help the sagging industry on the west coast.
As all members no doubt know, not only did this government absolve itself from any commitment to Arctic sovereignty but it backed out of the Polar 8 ice-breaker deal and Versatile Pacific Shipyards breaking the government's credibility in the Canadian shipbuilding industry and sending hundreds of workers scrambling for work.
When the government abandoned Versatile Pacific Shipyards in North Vancouver its mayor wrote the Prime Minister earlier this year and criticized the government's decision to rationalize the shipbuilding industry on the west coast. As yet, no positive response has come from this government.
The Alliance of Shipbuilders Unions in its publication entitled An Industry in Crisis states that today there is practically no commercial vessel construction in Canadian shipyards whatsoever. What does Mr. Les Holloway of the Marine Workers Federation say about the government's shipbuilding record and shipbuilding policy? He says: "We are now facing possible extinction in the not too distant future if immediate action is not taken by the federal government to secure the industry". These are but a few of the many testimonials against the government's marine and shipbuilding policies.
If Canadians examine closely this government's inaction concerning the marine and shipbuilding industry, they will discover according to the 1991-92 Department of Transport estimates who the winners in terms of increased funding were. The minister's motor car allowance was increased as was the departmental administration's. The losers were, among others, the marine and Coast Guard sector. Their funding decreased by almost $58 million. In fact, total departmental expenditures decreased some $24 million from the year before. Cost recovery, user fees and no shipbuilding incentives are but a few of the concerns currently facing the marine industry.
October 9, 1991

It is not only the demise of the shipping and marine industry that has been of some concern for some years in this country, but a general concern that the transportation network, the transportation infrastructure, the transportation industry as a whole, is crying out for some assistance.
We have witnessed in this House and across the country the demise of the trucking industry following deregulation by this government in 1988. For two years now Canadian truckers have been waiting for some government action.
There have been a number of ministers in the interim who have promised relief, who have promised aid packages to help the industry. However, unfortunately we have no such aid program to date.
We know what has happened to the rail side of the equation. We know of the gutting of VIA. We know that there is no high speed rail plan on the horizon. We know what is happening in the airline industry. It is an industry that is certainly on shaky ground, to say the least. It was supposed to be fuelled by deregulation. We were supposed to have more competition. Instead what we are left with is basically a duopoly.
To aggravate the situation even further we have a government that heads into bilateral open skies negotiations with the Americans without even having the courage and foresight to say that it is prepared not to negotiate cabotage rights.
As recently as a few evenings ago the parliamentary assistant to the minister basically commented on the question of cabotage. He, like his political bosses, left the whole question of cabotage rights to American carriers very open at a time when the industry requires the determination of a government to stand tall in the face of American demands.
We are discussing the shipbuilding industry in Bill C-33-and I know that the ministers are counting the clock but I believe that opposition responses have up to 40 minutes-but the question concerns not only the shipbuilding industry. It is not only the maritime industry. It concerns the transportation network per se across this country which has helped build this country, which
Government Orders
continues to try to keep this country intact by keeping Canadians travelling and getting to know each other, transporting goods and commodities, and which is under attack.
There there a number of positive movements in this bill in terms of extending the limits of coasting industry in this country. However, there are also a number of concerns which I hope my hon. friends on the other side-and I appreciate the minister's attendance in the House today-will take to heart and endeavour to address in this bill in second reading and at committee stage where the work is really done. Perhaps we will be open-minded, try to make this bill a better bill and allay some of the fears and concerns raised in light of Bill C-33 and, more important, examine the transport industry as a whole and begin to do some of the things that have been asked and which to date have not been done.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and after consultation, I would like to move:
That after second reading Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of
foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, be
referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is unusual indeed for such a motion to be put at this time. Maybe I was too quick to recognize the opposition member.

Is there unanimous consent for the motion tabled by the minister?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brewin:: Not to the motion, Mr. Speaker, not to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is to transfer clause-by-clause study to the Standing Committee on Transport.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would consent to the minister moving the motion at this time. However, at this stage I take it we are not consenting to the adoption of the motion which is how I heard you move it. I would like to make that clear so that we have the opportunity to continue to debate second reading.

Government Orders
I certainly consent to the minister having the opportunity to move the motion now.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the motion is to send the bill the Standing Committee on Transport rather than to a legislative committee. Members from all sides on that committee have had a good discussion and there seems to be unanimity on the committee so we have no problem with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is the motion to refer.


John F. Brewin: What I wish to do is to put on the record the views of the New Democratic Party on second reading.
I heard you asking the House whether it agrees to the motion.


Some hon. members:: No, no.


John F. Brewin: Just relax over there. If I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I proceed on second reading?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I think there is a problem of comprehension or translation. The motion is not to agree to the main motion but to modify the main motion to transfer clause-by-clause study to the Standing Committee on Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I failed to understand the way in which the motion was put. I think we now have it all sorted out. We are now proceeding with second reading, and it is agreed that after second reading this motion will ultimately go to the
standing committee rather than to a legislative committee. That is what we have just agreed to.
This last little contretemps was a procedural matter. I would like to state on behalf of the New Democratic Party our basic support for Bill C-33.
However we do have some concerns about the bill which we will generally be addressing at the committee stage. I would like to set out our reasons for supporting this bill and also indicate why in our view this bill is a relatively minuscule step to deal with the problem which it seeks to address, and that is the condition of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. This is a most modest step for the government to be taking. The shipbuilding industry deserves far more. It is a very important industry to Canada which this government and preceding Liberal governments have failed.
In clause 3 the bill states that:
- no foreign ship or non-duty paid ship shall, except under and in accordance with a licence, engage in the coasting trade.
That is to say trade on the coasts of Canada. The coasting trade is a technical term which is defined in the act. On the face of it this is fine. However it provides for a set of exceptions and it is those exceptions which we will want to review very carefully.
In his remarks on the bill the minister referred to one exception and that concerns cruise ships. The example he gave of a trip from Vancouver to Alaska and back to Vancouver is a helpful example and one with which we would agree. However there are many other similar cruise ship visits which we want to be assured will be dealt with properly in this bill.
For example, as the member for Victoria I am familiar with cruise ships from the American coast which stop in Victoria and/or Vancouver on their way to Alaska. Are those cruises exempt? If not, what is the significance of this bill for the cruise industry, which is a very vital industry for the Victoria region and B.C. in general? We will want to examine that question.
The concept of requiring licences, in other words taxes and duties to be paid by foreign ships using Canadian waters, is in itself valuable. As I suggested it does not go far enough. It is a minuscule step in the effort to do something for the shipbuilding industry in Canada.

October 9, 1991

Shipbuilding has a long and honourable tradition in this country. Almost from the beginning of settlement in Canada shipbuilding has been an important part of the work that Canadians have done.
During World War II we built one of the strongest, most effective shipbuilding industries in the whole world. Canada's effort in World War II was a remarkable achievement for this country. At that time we built up an enormous capacity to build effective, good, high quality ships with a high level of technical skill on both coasts of Canada and central Canada as well.
The tragedy has been that since World War II successive Canadian governments operating under the principles of so-called private enterprise have allowed the Canadian shipbuilding industry to slowly sink into decline. Today it is barely kept alive by government procurement, in particular defence spending. Every so often communities are given a final respite in the form of some kind of government project which keeps them alive for just a little bit longer.
Canada is one of the few countries with a shipbuilding industry that fails to provide concessionary financing for its own shipbuilding industry. This alone has put Canadian shipbuilding at a significant international disadvantage.
It is said that over the next number of years there will be 60,000 ships built in the world. What we as a country need to decide is whether we are going to compete effectively for that shipbuilding. We also have to decide whether we as a country are even going to compete effectively for our own domestic shipbuilding.
Government studies have indicated that over $1 billion a year is spent on shipbuilding domestically in Canada. Yet much of that is beginning to go outside our borders.
Canada is a maritime nation. Many of its exports are carried by ships. The United States requires, under the Jones Act, that shipping from the United States be done in American-built ships. Canada does no such thing.
The number of U.S.-built ships purchased by Canadian operators alone since the free trade agreement came into force has increased from 10 to 28. The free trade agreement has been perhaps the final nail in the coffin of the shipbuilding industry of this country. However, we still retain because of government procurement
Government Orders
policies at least the shell of an industry. It is essential that we on all sides of this House, and the transport committee perhaps can take some leadership because certainly the government has not taken any leadership, begin to develop a comprehensive shipbuilding industry for this country.
We must make the first and fundamental decision. That is that we in Canada can again lead the world in shipbuilding. We have a highly skilled population. We have a solid domestic industry. We are familiar with how it works and we have the capacity to build an effective shipbuilding industry that can compete internationally.
If we are going to do that we are going to require a comprehensive set of policies of which the bill before us is only one small part.
Let me outline some of the comprehensive policies adopted by the New Democratic Party at its convention in Halifax in June. First, we must require that new fishing vessels be issued licences to fish in Canadian waters only if they are constructed and maintained in Canadian shipyards and all present fishing vessels must be maintained in Canadian shipyards as a requirement of a Canadian fishing licence.
We must understand that we start at home in providing markets for our Canadian industry. We must be willing to recognize that we want to build an industry on both coasts, the east coast and the west coast, and provide long-term continuity of employment on both coasts and in central Canada.
On the west coast we have seen the government break a fundamental commitment it made to the Canadian people and in particular the west coast of Canada when it cancelled the Polar 8, the new icebreaker that was to be built on the west coast of Canada. That firm commitment made to Canadians and British Columbians was broken by the government after the last election when it went to the voters of British Columbia and Canada specifically on the understanding that if it was re-elected the Polar 8 would be built. As a result of that fiasco and the broken word of this government and failure of this government to provide any alternative to the Polar 8, to the frigate program or to the most recently announced mine sweeper program, we find that there has been no serious effort by this government to take leadership in retaining and building a west coast shipping industry.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
The fishing industry itself becomes a place to start and that is where we would start.
Instead of decreasing tariffs, which this government has done under the free trade agreement, it is important that tariffs be increased from 25 to 40 per cent. We make that commitment to the Canadian people. The tariff would apply to all vessels, newly constructed, purchased or refitted outside this country and that would be strictly enforced.
On the other hand, we call for the elimination of all tariffs on vessels entering the country. When they are imported into this country, the parts and so forth needed for vessels, the exceptions that are now provided, would be eliminated. There are so many loopholes in our tariff policy that our Canadian industry is facing dire competition from around the world. Other industries are given concessionary financing by their governments.
Let us look at that. Japan, with the largest shipbuilding industry, offers its ship owners financing for up to 60 per cent of the cost of a new ship, repayable over 13 years and carrying an interest rate in 1988 of 5 per cent.
In Korea, ship owners receive loans of up to 90 per cent. Taiwanese ship owners receive loans of up to 80 per cent. Many areas, West Germany, for example, provide direct subsidies of 20 to 25 per cent on the contract price of vessels. The European Community provides subsidies of 25 per cent on the contract value of new ships.
The concessionary financing and subsidies that are given by these other governments are done as investments in the industry which provides enormous returns to those countries. We know that in our own country when we look at such communities as Victoria, we see the tremendous value to the community of shipbuilding as an industry. Shipbuilding provides good, solid jobs, jobs which involve technical skills and are an important arm of any industrial strategy for any community.
Countries such as Denmark provide special tax and custom duty exemptions. The Netherlands provides exemptions. It is time that the Canadian government, instead of getting out of the business of providing essential and critical support for shipbuilding, began
moving in that direction so that our shipbuilding can be come internationally competitive.
This would include tax benefits that have to be looked at. It includes financial assistance in a range of ways.
In this bill we have already begun to address the idea of goods moving between domestic ports. We would add that the provision should be made that these vessels not only must be built and repaired in Canada, but must be crewed by Canadians.
This bill is an important and useful step, but it is only a small step. We urge its support but we say that we will be making the point at the committee that it must go much further than it has already gone.
Let me just finish by making a special plea to the government in the area of shipbuilding. In the last week or so we saw the award of the 12 mine sweepers as they were originally called, or patrol vessels, to Nova Scotia. We from the west coast do not begrudge Nova Scotia the work.
I had the opportunity of visiting the Halifax shipyards earlier this year, as well as the Saint John shipyard where the frigates are being built. We saw the importance to those communities of this kind of work.
We know from our own experience at home the importance of this kind of work. But what we say is that the government has a larger issue than simply shipbuilding and handing out jobs in one area or another. This country faces a constitutional crisis. It is important in the management of the affairs of this government that the government act fairly to all areas of Canada. Shipbuilding is critically important to the regions of Canada. It is one of those very particular industries that has grown up, not in the industrial heartland, but in the regions of Canada.
This government and this Parliament will be going to the people in all regions of Canada asking for their support for constitutional proposals designed to try to hold this country together. This government persists in handing out one contract to one place and another contract to another, yet in British Columbia it is leaving the shipbuilding industry on its knees. This will add to the difficulties we in all parties will have, of urging those from British Columbia to give support to this confederation.
October 9, 1991

It is important that all parts of Canada be treated fairly. We ask the government to review completely the approach it is taking on shipbuilding. It must recognize the importance of shipbuilding to all coasts and all parts of Canada and begin working with the industry, the unions and the communities in British Columbia, as with other communities across Canada, to build a shipbuilding industry that serves the public and private sectors, that can compete effectively internationally, as I know we can do. It should reflect a completely different vision of Canada than that we have seen in the last few years, a vision of selling out our heritage as a country and the technical skills we have built.
The time has come to work with Canadians to build a strategy that works for all Canadians so that we can again grasp the pride that this particular industry engenders in those who work in it, and the communities in which it is situated.
We ask the government to listen to the pleas that are coming from the west coast, and to help us all build a strong shipbuilding industry.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member for Victoria, speaking on behalf of his party, believes that industries generally should be subsidized. Should we subsidize heavily as he says the shipbuilding industry, the automobile industry, or would he think of more farming subsidies? Would he think of other industries that might be subsidized in various parts of the country?
Is it the policy of the New Democratic Party to just build up national debt and borrow more money to subsidize more and more? Does he not think that perhaps we might be better off if we did not subsidize at all? Should we not just keep our costs of government down so it does not come out of the backs of our taxpayers, our children and our children's children, so we would not have to pay the present debts and interest payments we have to pay on a national debt, caused by massive subsidization?
Is it the continuing policy of his party that we should continue to subsidize and subsidize and subsidize businesses that cannot cut the mustard.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening for the last number of days, particularly during Question
Government Orders
Period, to the agricultural industry in this country making an overpowering case for support at a time when their competitors are being heavily subsidized overseas.
The ideological rigidity of the position suggested by the hon. member that subsidies in themselves are automatically bad and should not be given, leaves industry and the economy of this country completely, vulnerable to international competition from countries which do subsidize their industry either through direct government subsidies, as in the cases, I mentioned, or through completely inadequate wage and working conditions in other countries.
Surely the lesson of the free trade agreement and the disaster it has been for this country suggests the complete negligence of the government in its approach, the ideological rigidity that is leading to the disaster we are in. In the shipbuilding industry in particular a strong case can be made for effective subsidies. A subsidy should be considered on a cost benefit basis, that is to say, in certain industries where we are competing internationally by providing some form of concessionary financing, ultimately the decision is going to be that the returns to our community and to our country will far exceed the subsidy given. That is the business decision which we as a country make.
For us to just continue blindly in every single industry to have the same market conditions apply, to impose for example on the shipbuilding industry exactly the same marketing conditions as on the auto industry or other manufacturing industries is ridiculous.
The government surely must know it by now because it has to look at the results of its policy. The results of its policy is that industry all across Canada is dying and particularly the shipbuilding industry is in grave trouble.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister as he introduced the bill and to the comments just made by the NDP and also the comments made by our critic. I have looked at the bill and I have found to my amazement, to my shock-I just cannot believe it-that we have a bill before this Chamber that is about shipping and ships. There is one big exception. One has to wonder why the exception; I mean, who approved this exception?

Government Orders
When you are drafting a bill for legislation, Mr. Speaker, normally in a department like the Department of Transport, a copy of that bill prior to its printing is sent around to each federal government department and agency. Sometimes it is sent to provincial governments for their input.
I rather suspect that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for this outrageous, unacceptable, unthinkable exception that is present in this legislation. It is under clause 3. It is under "prohibition". It says that this bill applies to all vessels except in clause 2 does not apply in respect of any foreign ship used as a fishing vessel.
What is the purpose of this? What is the purpose of the Canadian government bringing in a bill which says: "Oh, this does not apply to a ship if it is a foreign ship and it is used as a fishing vessel". You start to think and wonder why an exception is made.
True, we have foreign fishing vessels all around the east coast of Canada. We have Bulgarian ships, Cuban ships, Denmark ships; that is, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland. We have EEC vessels, vessels from Iceland and Japan. We have foreign fishing vessels from Norway, Poland and the U.S.S.R. Then there is a section called "others". That is nine foreign nations, plus others.
What I am reading from is a sheet of paper that is called "the quota table for 1992 for foreign fishing vessels". These things are approved for 1992 by the Canadian government in consort with the nine other nations to allow these nations to carry on fishing activities around Canada's coastline. The bill says: "any foreign ship used as a fishing vessel is excluded from the act". Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting insert by the federal government.
It is very interesting because we are at a moment in time when we have an absolute crisis in the fishing industry. Even the fishermen raided the offices of the Fishermen's Union this morning in Newfoundland, and sort of beat up the place. I understand they smashed the windows and a few other things. These are frustrated fishermen, frustrated not so much at the Fishermen's Union but with the federal government, that the federal government would be in such a cosy position with these foreign fishing vessels that are described in this bill before us today.
Why, do you know that this year, for the first time in Canadian history, those very foreign fishing ships outlined in this bill, and excluded from this bill, are allowed to fish in our waters for Canadian quotas, hired by Canadian companies? That is why it is in this bill today. Now we have discovered it. Oh, yes. That is why it is there, because Canadian companies have been offered by this government foreign ships to catch their own quotas.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


George Baker: It is shocking. Here we have the best fish that comes out of the water, the fish that a man fishes over the side with a hook and line

that is the best fish that comes out of the water-not something caught by some gigantic 450-foot Soviet factory freezer trawler.
The Government of Canada for the first time in our history, for the first time since we joined Confederation in 1949, is allowing foreign ships to be used by Canadian companies. Mr. Speaker, would you blame the Canadian company that hires a foreign ship like this? Would you blame him? Would you blame a company that would hire a ship from the U.S.S.R. or Cuba to come up and catch their quotas in Canadian waters? Would you blame them?
Why, Mr. Speaker, those ships don't have a bottom line. Talk about free enterprise. They can go out for two months and fish, there is no bottom line. The government of Cuba owns those vessels. The government of the U.S.S.R. owns those vessels.
The Canadian government turns around at a time of desperation in our fishery and says to the fish companies: "All right, fish companies, you can use these foreign vessels described in this bill today; you can use them to catch quotas of turbot up in zone 2-J off the Labrador and northern Newfoundland coast; you can use Soviet vessels to go up on the Labrador coast; you can use Japanese vessels to go down off Nova Scotia and catch squid; you can use vessels that are from Poland and you can fish for redfish up on the northeast coast of Newfoundland; you can do all that. We see it today in the bill. Oh, what protection! What protection the Government of Canada gives to a foreign ship if it is used as a fishing vessel, it is excluded from the provisions of this bill. The NDP stands up here today and says; "Oh, we are in favour of more shipbuilding". Very carefully the critic said; "We want to maintain foreign fishing vessels in Canadian shipyards".
October 9, 1991

Interesting, Mr. Speaker. Maintain them? Maintain factory freezer trawlers? Why, Mr. Speaker, they should not be allowed in our waters.
No foreign nation today, nobody on this list provided by the Government of Canada and excluded from this bill, not one of them can teach a Canadian anything about catching fish. I tell you what they can teach them; they can teach them how to destroy the fishery. They can teach them how they destroyed it up in the northeast Atlantic and down around Africa. That is why countries like Namibia turned around this year and chased them out.
If we had a bill like this, which we do, in other nations in the world-Britain, France, Portugal-could we see something like this in the bill? No, because Canadian vessels are not allowed to go off the coast of any country in the world and fish or carry on an activity like that, not one country in the world.
Yet Canada this year and in 1992 has approved these outrageous quotas for nine foreign nations. It is an outrage. I brought up one of them today in Question Period and I was looking at another one a moment ago: 12,965 tonnes of cod in a zone called 3M commonly known as the Flemish Cap.
It is a piece of water in the Atlantic that comes up to about 15 fathoms out off the coast. It is a marvellous fishing ground because the sun gets in and goes to that cap. The fish congregate around it for spawning purposes. The scientists turned around last year and said: "We do not agree with any nation in the world fishing there."
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what Canada did, together with these nine other nations in the world in Halifax, Nova Scotia three or four weeks ago? They sat down in the privacy of their meetings and opened a new quota for the first time in eight years, against the advice of the scientists to catch codfish.
Who got the quota? I will tell you who got it. EEC, 6,465 tonnes; Denmark, that is the Faeroe Islands and Greenland, 2,900 tonnes; Norway, 1,200 tonnes; U.S.S.R., 1,200 tonnes; Poland, 500 tonnes; Cuba, 480 tonnes; Canada, 100 tonnes.
We have a bill before us today that is called an act respecting the use of foreign ships. What does it do? It
Government Orders
turns around and makes one exception for foreign ships in our waters, and that one exception is foreign fishing vessels. It is an absolute disgrace.
Why this year, we had 100 factory freezer trawlers off our coastline. Do not forget that we have only one factory freezer trawler in Canada. National Sea has one. We do not have them because we felt over the years and governments past always felt that if you brought in factory freezer trawlers, you would have your fish plants on the ocean. You would have to freeze the fish, then unfreeze the fish if it was not good quality and yes, you would probably make more money.
It probably was not a good technology because it would destroy the spawning grounds. This year, 100 factory freezer trawlers fish the coast of Canada with a licence from the Canadian government. We see them here today. These are Canadian quotas for Canadian companies that now will be able to be exempt from this act before Parliament, because that is in the bill.
It is a disgrace. That is all I have to say about it. I do not know what else I can say. It is an absolute, total disgrace to the people of Canada. This morning we had fishermen ripping up their own union offices in total and utter frustration because last night at 8 p.m. a boat was brought in by the warship Margaree, the Canadian warship.
It was a little Canadian boat. There are six people in the crew. Last night, they were sitting between two Spanish purse seine trawlers who would be exempt under this act inside 200 miles. They were sitting there, the captain told me on the phone. All of a sudden, out comes a fisheries patrol vessel and behind that the Margaree with 240 crew members aboard from the Canadian Navy, swooping down.
What do they do? They come and get that little Canadian boat, and they see 200 pounds of codfish aboard that was being used for bait for tuna, and the armed forces seize the boat. They take it away from the two Spanish vessels and they bring it right into port in Newfoundland. The captain then has to turn around this morning and buy back his own fish. It cost him 52 cents a pound for a total of $104 for the fish that he had aboard that he was being arrested for, but those two Spanish vessels were not touched.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
An even greater disgrace than that is that in that zone, this year coming up, 1992, the Soviet Union will have 1,624 tonnes of cod given to it inside Canadian waters, inside of our 200-mile zone. The former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows exactly what I am talking about. He knows what I am talking about because I will tell you what he did, he exchanged it for capelin. Right, Mr. Minister. The minister got them out of there by saying: "Oh, go catch capelin and go catch redfish and go catch silver hake".
The minister is nodding his head because that is what he did.
Again, Mr. Speaker, here we have a crisis in Canada, and the Soviet Union is shown for 1992 with 1,624 tonnes and a Canadian boat gets picked up last night for catching 200 pounds. Here we are today debating a bill that is going to exclude all of those foreign vessels if they are used as fishing vessels.
I understand how difficult it is to be a minister in a government and to be advised that External Affairs has done this and that and this is the custom to do and the department says: "This is the way it has always been done and you cannot really disturb that." All it takes is for somebody to sit back and say: "Right is right is right and wrong is no man's right. We are going to stop these foreign boats from getting these Canadian licences and from being exempt in this bill. We are going to stop them because we are not allowed to go and do the same thing off their coast". Let us do what Namibia did. Imagine little Namibia last November. Let us do what it did, kick them out and have no more of this nonsense of saying as a policy: "Well, we are going to exclude them from the act and what our party position is". That is what the PCs say and the NDP; we will maintain them in our own shipyards.
That is not good enough. Canadians want them booted out. Canadians do not want them in Canadian waters any more.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am listening and enjoying what are always entertaining comments of the member. They are always entertaining if not redundant. It reminded me of the great western Canadian, former
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. There was a story that went around about Mr. Diefenbaker that whenever he got a question in the House, if there was any doubt about it, it went something like his response would be: "Are you asking me about wheat? I love Parliament". He liked to talk about Parliament and would answer the question about Parliament. So if he did not know the answer he would talk about something like Parliament. I am always reminded of that when the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls gets up.
I appreciate that this bill, Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, was just introduced this afternoon so one cannot expect the member would have had an opportunity to have read through it. I am sure he would not have made the comments he had had he made an effort to read right through it.
With respect to the comment made several times by the hon. member, subclause 3.2. states:
Subsection (1) does not apply in respect to any foreign ship or
non-duty paid ship that is
(a) used as a fishing vessel, as defined by the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act, in any activity governed by that Act-
The simple answer is if the member had only read the next paragraph from the one that he got so exercised about he would have seen that all of his reservations are completely covered by the bill. It is simply a matter of his concerns being covered in another act. We cannot have two acts saying exactly the same thing. We simply make this exception in subclause 3(2)(a), used as a fishing vessel as defined by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, so that we do not have double legislation. It is already covered in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I want the hon. member to be aware of that so he would be perhaps less exercised and more straightforward with the viewing audience as it were.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the hon. member is relatively new in the House and perhaps he has not read the legislation as carefully as he should.
For years, as you know, I had a job as a law clerk in a legislature and if there is one thing I learned in that position it was to thoroughly read the section.
October 9, 1991

Does the hon. member know what the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is? That is the question. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is the act the governs the fisheries. It governs what happens around the coastline of Canada. It covers licensing. It covers what boats do. It covers what boats cannot do and what they can do, It is under that act that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gives permission to the Halifax regional office and the St. John's regional office to issue the very licences for fishing that all of these foreign nations get. It is under that act. And the member stands up there and says: "Oh, but his concerns are covered under that act". That is why I am talking about it. It is under that act that they get the licences. Now it is under this act they are exempt.
It is rather interesting. That covers the hundred FFI's, the factory freezer trawlers, off our coast. There are another 20 or 30 of them out there. The second clause covers them. It says that also exempt are ocean research activity foreign vessels commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
There were 17 such licences issued this year by Halifax DFO and they were out there fishing various things: mackerel, herring, a little bit of cod up north. There was not one observer aboard these vessels, not one representative of the Government of Canada aboard one of those vessels in section D because they are exempt from the observer program of the Canadian government, and we wonder where our fishery has gone.
Section B of this act here exempts even those vessels that are in Canadian waters. Come on, foreign vessels, you can have a free-for-all here. It is only Canadians who are prevented from going out and fishing.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this legislation today deals with many concerns that we have with coastal transportation. I would like to put a couple of comments to the hon. member since he shares a piece of geography that is very similar to the one I represent. I would like to deal with some of the communities in that area and one in particular.
Our concern for this government's absolute neglect of coastal transportation starts basically with the cancellation of the northern tax benefits which has absolutely shafted people who live in your communities and in my community. To put it down in this transportation problem is that food in the community of Ocean Falls costs
Government Orders
300 per cent to 600 per cent more than food you can buy in Vancouver or in Ottawa. A two litre container of milk costs $6 if you are lucky and can get it fresh. Everything else, fruit, vegetables and things along that line are almost unobtainable fresh. Automobiles: to remove an automobile or take an automobile in is $600 each way. Health care: if you are lucky you get a doctor once a month if the weather permits. Dentists: one of the residents I was talking to the other day had an emergency, a toothache, that absolutely incapacitated him, a $500 charter in and out, $52 for a tooth extraction. It is absolutely paralysed because of the coastal transportation policy of this government.
Air traffic to Vancouver is more than $500. You can fly to England or Hawaii cheaper than you can actually move from Ocean Falls to Vancouver, Bella Bella to Vancouver, from Kitsault or the Klemtu area to Vancouver.
The coastal transportation policy of this government is nothing short of disgusting. For someone who managed to pick up a job in that desolate area it took $10,000 to move their household furniture, themselves and their kids into that area because of the coastal transportation policy of this government.
In each one of those communities I mentioned, Bella Bella, the Klemtu or Ocean Falls, the Department of Transport has said it is no longer interested in building wharfs to move goods in and out and passengers in and out. They say that in the 80 year life cycle which is up in 15 years, no more wharfs. Their highways are gone. Their transportation is gone.
This bill today on coastal transportation has probably got-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


George Baker: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I totally concur with what the hon. member said, especially as it relates to British Columbia and the east coast of Canada. I want to alert him to the fact that the critic for transport for the Fiberal Party, the official party spokesman for transport for the Liberal Party, stood up in this House a few moments ago and made reference to something that every member of Parliament should get a copy of. It is the new charges to be imposed, as he said, by Transport Canada on every ship that uses the Canadian coastline because now they are going to have to pay a fee for using the navigational aids, which includes buoys.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, did you ever think you would see the day when you had to pay to use buoys in the water? This government is introducing a policy and I am sure that we can make sure that the NDP gets a copy of this so that they too can see what this federal government is doing to shipping.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important piece of legislation before the House this afternoon. It is important to discuss the transportation policy of this government in relation to second reading of this bill.
The thing that I would like to make a couple of points on is basically the deprivation that this government has created in a rational transportation system along the coast of British Columbia. I am sure my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls concurs in the same dilemma that is faced by rural communities, coastal communities in Labrador and Newfoundland. We get a situation where it would be nice to have any kind of a coastal vessel that provided rational transportation.
There is a community where the Heiltsuk Indian band lives at Bella Bella of about 1,700 people, a community that has been there more than 12,000 years. It is likely going to be there another 12,000. They need one thing to make their community work, an absolutely critical thing. They need a roll-on, roll-off ramp so they can connect to barges that come in and connect to the B.C. ferry. That would reduce the cost of food in that community about 600 per cent. It would reduce the cost of building materials 600 per cent or more. It would reduce the cost of moving an automobile or a pick-up truck that is needed in a community like that or construction equipment about 600 per cent, from $600 down to probably less than $100.
This government absolutely refuses. It will talk about coastal shipping but it will not talk about the infrastructure needed to get that coastal shipping, passengers and freight into those communities.
At Bella Bella it is absolutely critical that this government provide the infrastructure to deal with coastal
shipping. A roll-on, roll-off facility is needed there and it is absolutely crucial.
It is interesting that this is an Indian community, the Heltsuk Indian band. It obtains a good measure of funding from the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs, Health and Welfare and a number of other federal agencies. This demonstrates the use, or abuse, of the taxpayers' dollars by this government because it is this government that is paying 600 per cent more for food. For a family on social assistance, the federal government must pay the social assistance at rates that provide food at 600 per cent. It would drop down to a normal figure if the government would simply provide that roll-on, roll-off facility.
Bella Bella, like many other Indian communities in Canada, is in serious need of housing. There are two and three families living in some houses. When they are paying hundreds of percentage points higher than in urban areas it is coming out of the federal taxpayers' pockets. The way to reduce that is to allow it to come in by major hauler on the B.C. ferries. The B.C. ferry could stop and unload there if the federal government would place a roll-on, roll-off facility on the Indian reserve.
This is one of the most outrageous things I have seen in the 12 years I have been in this House of Commons. I have been asking the federal government to consider that facility for 12 years. When we started talking about it the cost was $1 million. The federal government has spent far more than $1 million every single year on the excessive costs for food, shelter and basic services because it has not addressed the key transportation issue for the Bella Bella area, the Campbell Island home of the Heltsuk Indian band.
It is time for the ferry facility. The roll-on, roll-off facility which will hook into coastal shipping and transportation is now estimated to cost $5 million. The cost of food has gone up, the cost of building materials has gone up, and the cost of construction equipment moving in and out has gone up. The cost of plant and equipment for their new fish processing operation has gone up. Yet, that is still an extremely good buy.
October 9, 1991

The B.C. Ferries, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Transport and the provincial Ministry of Transport could co-operate to place that facility there tomorrow and everybody would save a substantial amount of money.
The policy of this government is absolutely disgusting. It is bent on depriving people of an opportunity for a decent life, especially in this Indian community.
If this was the only problem maybe we could say: "Oh, well, it is just a small community on the coast of B.C." However, about 30 miles away is the community of Klemtu. Klemtu is the home of the Kitasoo Indian band, about 500 people scratching a living off probably one of the most barren areas in British Columbia. Coastal shipping is absolutely critical to them. Yet this government will not in any way help them. Their costs for food are similar. For example, a two litre carton of milk which would cost $2 at Mac's Milk here costs $6 in Klemtu if they can get it.
Just simply having decent coastal transportation that will dock there will help. There are two other Indian communities adjacent to it that nobody will service. However, if proper infrastructure was built in those communities so that they could move freight on and off their dock easily, if the federal government made an arrangement with the B.C. ferry system to stop in those Indian communities, the price of food would drop about 600 per cent; the cost of building houses and the cost of bringing construction equipment in there would also drop.
In these communities it costs more than $500 to go to Vancouver and back. That is an outrageous cost. They cannot leave there. It costs too much money. Many people in those communities are unemployed and on social assistance. If there was decent coastal transportation from Vancouver direct, such as the ferry service or another coastal shipping operation, that cost could be cut in half. As well, the service could virtually be guaranteed in all weather. It is astounding that the attitude of this government is to cut, cut, cut. What is happening is that it is cutting into its own spending. It is amazing what it has done. It is prepared to deny these people a decent transportation system, a roll-on, roll-off facility to connect to the B.C. ferry system. At the same time, it is willing to pay 600 per cent higher costs in food. It is willing to pay higher costs for fuel, oil, gasoline and
Government Orders
diesel in the community. It is willing to deny, in the case of Ocean Falls, these communities medical and dental health, and other critical services.
It is a strange thing. It pays for the cost of the housing in those communities at outrageously inflated costs because they have got to be brought in by barge, and in some cases by landing craft. This is an intolerable situation. It is allegedly saving money on one hand and then throwing it away with vigour on the other because the people have to live, must have housing and food. Yet the federal government will pay them as long as they are on welfare. This is a government that actually facilitates the growth of the welfare system by denying some rational development in terms of a roll-on, roll-off ferry service in one area, and denying Klemtu a decent transportation system.
The people of Bella Bella have come forward with a plan. They want to put lights on the airport runway so they can have a reasonable scheduling of air services in and out of there, so that if somebody gets sick and needs a Medivac out they can do it more safely. They need a non-directional beacon on that airport so that there can be some instrument approaches made.
It is astounding. The federal government has been very, very reluctant to provide any of the infrastructure in that community that would allow safety, rational costs and the potential for economic development. It is time both for compassion for the people who live there and concern about their quality of life, which has been devastatingly poor because of the fact that nothing can be afforded. It is hard to get decent housing, it is hard to get food at a reasonable cost. It is truly time that this government woke up. Even with the wrong-headed economics practised by this group since 1984 and the devastating effect it has had on those communities, any kind of a sense of compassion would ensure that this happened.
It is amazing. The government packs off close to $250 million to transport particles around in this KAON development. I am sure it was done as a political stunt in order to help a dead government but certainly that dead government will not benefit one ounce from that $250 million from the federal government. It is viewed by most British Columbians as a joke, as is the waste of the $250 million contribution by the provincial government.

Government Orders
If we had that $500 million on the coast of British Columbia for things like economic development, proper housing, and proper transportation, the people living in the communities of Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Klemtu, and Shearwater would have a basically decent life. From the signals we receive from the present Conservative government it is not likely that any consideration will be given to those people during their term of office.
It is my hope that they will be able to move ahead. At Klemtu there is an important project to put an airport in there. The cost of servicing that community with food, other items, and passenger transportation by float plane costs an arm and a leg. Several of the airline companies have asked that this government consider putting a fixed-wing strip in there so that they can provide the community with freight and transportation at a much cheaper rate. So far nothing. Hopefully the government will come forward and provide an opportunity to create a co-ordinated coastal transportation system.
This government is closing down the lighthouses. I do not know what coastal shipping and coastal aviation is going to do. Several years ago when this issue came up there was a huge uproar about automating the lighthouses.
They said: "Yes, we recognize that it is the wrongheaded thing to do. The safety of coastal shipping depends on that". They said: "We will upgrade it. We will give them hourly weather reports. We will give them radio communications and we will enhance the services provided by those lighthouses".
Every transportation medium said: "We need them. They are a safety element". What did they do? They have now come back with a proposal where the public is not involved. They will try to shut them down again to save a few lousy bucks that will put in jeopardy the lives and the transportation safety of the system in British Columbia.
Second, they are now starting to close down remote communication outlets in such areas as Bella Coola and Ocean Falls. You need to have those remote communication outlets. They are saying: "They are not used enough". That is because they are used in an emergency. They are there when you cannot communicate with anybody else.
What these guys sitting on the government benches, the Conservative Party members, are prepared to do is to say when people are in emergency, when there is an aircraft or ship in difficulty and they need a Medivac: "Sorry, it costs a few dollars to keep that remote communications outlet open. We are going to shut it down".
It is time that stopped. That is part of the coastal shipping operation. That is part of the coastal transportation and the safety of the people who live and work there, of the Indian communities in the area. It is absolutely a right of those people to have a decent system of transportation and decent safety.
They are now closing down transportation beacons along the coast. One individual was saying that it is now getting more and more dangerous to fly up and down the coast of B.C. He was describing one operation he was involved in, transferring from Vancouver to Alaska the baggage that had been left from the cruise ships that go up and down.
It turned into quite a nice little business for the airline to bid on, but they said they are now closing down non-directional beacons and radio navigation equipment along the coast of B.C. I do not know what we are talking about when we say "coastal shipping". There is not going to be anything for these people to work with.
Again, the member for Gander-Grand Falls turns around and rightly informs the public and the House that they are now going to start charging user fees for the navigation system, for buoys and things along that line. That is absolutely ludicrous. Of course, they have been trying very hard to get a user fee system involved in getting weather services to save people's lives by getting good weather reports.
They are going to charge people for that. People are not going to use it because it will cut costs. Everybody wants to sharpen the pencil. Someone is going to venture out into bad weather and kill a whole shipload of people or an aircraft full of people.
It is not only in the marine sector where they are trying to impose the user fees. It is in the air side as well. It is time to stop this wrong-headed approach. Nobody puts a toll on the Trans-Canada Highway that the federal government helped to build, and the provincial governments maintain the highway system in the provinces.
October 9, 1991

Those are regarded as infrastructure for the convenience, the safety of the public and the economic development of the province and the country they are found in. This wrong-headed, stupid approach to charging the people who live on the coast of British Columbia and on the coast of Newfoundland more and more money is an absolutely wrong-headed and unsafe approach.
With regard to the transportation policy of this government, I cannot resist putting a couple of more things on the record. At Port Hardy, the people who live in Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Klemtu and in Shearwater all move up and down the coast of British Columbia. It is right on the Pacific Ocean. The storms howl in all winter, and it really is a tough place to work in the marine environment and in the air environment.
Every day those aircraft go out. They are trying to serve those communities at very high cost. How does the Conservative government try to help them? They come along, go to Port Hardy and say: "We are going to take out your BHF direction finding equipment."
When an airplane is lost out there, the flight service station will not be able to locate it and help it find its way back to that flight service station in the airport. It is on its own.
What happens is that as in the past, that thing saved people's lives. I personally heard it happen on the air, using that VDF direction finding equipment. It must be maintained in there. If it breaks down, the government will say: " We are not going to put it back". But it has got to be kept in there.
There is another absolutely blind, stupid thing done by this government in that same Port Hardy flight service station which is a transportation key on the coast of British Columbia. It turned around and said: "Oh well, we are going to save some money. Instead of operating this flight service station 24 hours a day, if somebody phones in sick, we are not going to pay any overtime for anybody else to come in. We are just going to close it down".
When they close it down, they cannot give them an altimeter setting for the aircraft. They cannot monitor whether or not the instrument landing system is functioning. So now when a pilot arrives to take somebody out of the hospital on a Medivac they cannot descend
Government Orders
below 5,400 feet because they are on a non-precision approach. What happens is that the person is going to sit in that hospital because these guys have to over-fly that airport.
This is to save a few lousy bucks. I do not know who the government is prepared to let die in that hospital because they cannot be flown out of there. When is it going to stop? The people who live and work in those communities deserve some fair treatment. They do not deserve to be hung out to diy for a few lousy dollars, an overtime shift that could cost somebody their life.
When the navigation equipment on an airplane acts up, which it does, and an airplane gets lost with a load of people, the only thing between them and oblivion is that VDF direction-finding equipment. The government could save a few bucks, but it will lose a plane load of people, and it is prepared to make this unworkable, unsafe and extremely expensive.
I do not know what kind of an appeal could be made to the government members. It is time to look into that transportation system. Look at the money you are paying out in some of those Indian communities for welfare, with a 600 per cent increase in food and housing costs. You are killing economic development. Any hope is lost for many of those people to be able to get up on their feet. There is tremendous initiative there, all kinds of innovations. Some of the hardest working, creative people I have ever worked with are in there and yet they are absolutely stymied by the unwillingness of this government to look seriously at what the needs of the transportation system are, to help the quality of life and to help economic development.
I would urge the government, using this bill dealing with coastal shipping, as the mechanism to look at smaller communities such as Ocean Falls, Shearwater, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, and I make an appeal. When you are paying $6 for a two litre carton of milk, 600 per cent more for bread, eggs, fruit to give your kids, and fresh vegetables, all this can be saved. But for some help, why not leave the northern tax allowance in place. You do not need the money that badly, to deprive kids of decent food, to deprive people of safety. You do not need the money that badly. Those people work hard and it is just amazing what this government has done to them.

Government Orders
Restore that northern tax credit and allow them to at least retain some of the money they work so hard for, and give their children a benefit in that area.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

Bernard Valcourt: that Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how delighted I am to rise on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Communications, to begin debate on this extremely important piece of legislation.
There is an urgent need to recognize the status of artists in Canada. The status of the artist's legislation has been discussed by commissions, committees, standing committees and task forces for the last 15 years. The principles which lie behind it have been debated for at least the past 40 years. All parties represented on the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture have urged the government to act on the status of the artist. The arts constituency is urging the government to act on this bill and the public at large is equally supportive. Our homework has been done, thoughtful discussion and consideration have been given, and the time for action has now come.
Canadian artists need Bill C-7 because it enunciates the principles through which the federal government will act on their behalf. It will provide the leadership combined with the actions of Quebec, which has its own status of the artist bill, to encourage other provinces to provide similar legislation at the provincial level.

I am thinking of a province like New Brunswick, where our Acadian artists are working very hard to make a name for themselves. I think the Province of New Brunswick would do well to follow the lead of the Parliament of Canada and adopt its own legislation on the status of the artist, as Quebec already has.

Because, the Lord knows that artists deserve it. Their contribution to our society is invaluable and their creations give an expression and human dimension to our deeply held convictions. Sometimes some people say that subsidies for artists are sufficient and ask why we need to do more. Well, a closer look at the facts tells a very different story.
There are approximately 30,000 artists in this country and the Canada Council provides 15 per cent of its funding, or roughly $15 million, in the form of direct grants to artists. It does not take a genius to figure it out. That is not very much money per person. In fact, it is about $500 per person.

Professional groups working in the performing arts in Canada today have a total budget of $350 million, but only one third of that amount comes from our three levels of government. The remaining two thirds comes from box office receipts or private sector funding.
As you can see, the community's financial contribution, although essential, is not really substantial while the artist's contribution can be quite substantial.
Generally speaking, in Canada artists have a university education-an average of 17 years of schooling during which they developed their skills. However, at the peak of their careers, most artists can expect to earn less than a garbage collector.
People sometimes ask me, and I am sure other members in this House have been asked the same question: Why do we need special legislation for artists and not for engineers, lawyers or plumbers? The answer is quite simple: an artist's life is unlike that of any other worker in this country. Take, for instance, an actor who plays a role in a current play, say for four weeks. In the morning, he might have a workshop or a rehearsal for another play; that afternoon, he might work at McDonald's to earn some extra money, and the same evening he is on the stage.
October 9, 1991

Now, how would you describe this person from the tax point of view? Is he a student? A contractor? An employee? For performing artists, this kind of life tends to be the rule, not the exception. It is bad enough artists have trouble surviving. It is intolerable that they do not have a recognized special status in this country.
The purpose of the bill before the House today is to officially recognize the importance of artists in our society. It covers the whole area of professional relations between artists, associations and producers under the jurisdiction of the federal government, including the CBC, the National Film Board, the National Arts Centre and the broadcasting industry.

The bill provides for the creation of a tribunal parallel in structure to the Canadian Labour Relations Board which is designed to be sensitive to the specific needs of Canadian artists. It will do this by accomplishing three tasks. First, it will divide the arts universe into sectors. Second, it will certify an artists association for each sector. Third, it will regulate scale agreements entered into by certified associations and producers.
The principal advantage of this process is that artists and producers associations which are certified will no longer be liable to prosecution under the Competition Act. The tribunal will be vested with the powers needed to arbitrate grievances, to settle cases of unfair practices, and to impose penalties for infractions.
By legally acknowledging the specific working conditions of artists and recognizing their right to form associations and negotiate minimum conditions of work, this bill will finally establish a place for artists in our labour relations legislation.
I am aware that representatives of the artistic community have expressed some concern regarding certain aspects of the operation of certified associations under the regime instituted by the bill. The Minister of Communications has indicated the government's willingness to consider improvements to the relevant provisions provided that any modifications are seen by all sides as preserving the balance and the basic principles underlying the legislation.
Government Orders
Bill C-7 also creates a council on the status of the artist to advise the Minister of Communications on matters relating to the professional status of the artist as well as to conduct further studies and research.
The council is composed of outstanding Canadians who promise to speak forcefully and effectively on behalf of their colleagues.
The highlights of the bill are formal recognition of the professional status of artists in Canada, the creation of a tribunal, and the formation of the advisory council. However, no one should view this bill as the sum total of what we need to do for Canadian artists. Rather this bill is a foundation upon which we can build. It is a stepping stone to examine a whole range of issues which affect artists. We are taking measures to protect artists' royalties from the bankruptcy of a cultural enterprise. In addition we hope to put a program in place which will ensure that the artist receives the royalties which are his or her due.
Recently my colleague, the Minister of Finance, prepared legislation which allows employed artists to deduct some of their professional expenses. It will also provide incentives for visual artists to donate their paintings or other works of art without penalizing them on their tax returns.
These are but a few examples of actions we are taking in this field.

With Bill C-7 before the House today, the government wishes to provide a framework for government involvement in the arts community which goes beyond mere subsidies. In fact, my colleagues and I see the arts world as a dynamic and growing industry that goes to the very heart of our identify and deserves government support.
I am convinced that Bill C-7 will improve the status of the artist in Canada, but I would also like to address some doubts that have been voiced in this respect.
Some members of the arts community said they were afraid that decisions by the tribunal on the status of employee or dependent contractor, as opposed to independent contractor, might be reviewed and reversed by the Canada Labour Relations Board.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
Let me say right now that this cannot happen. The Canada Labour Relations Board will not be able to review the decisions of this tribunal, any more than the tribunal will be able to review those of the Canada Labour Relations Board. All appeals will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, which will have sole review jurisdiction over the Board and the new tribunal.

Canadian artists represent a dynamic pool of talent upon which numerous industries draw. Obviously the performing arts, but also broadcasting, book publishing, sound recording and film industries, our newspapers, magazines and reviews, draw upon them. Our educational system is learning to draw upon them.
This talent pool is absolutely vital to Canadian interests in terms of our identity, our shared cultures, and our social and economic well-being.
This bill is so elementaiy, so straightforward, so absolutely necessary that it should not require massive debate. It will finally, after 40 years of discussion and debate, give us the foundation from which we can move forward on a whole range of policies.

-Mr. Speaker, I therefore move:
That Bill C-7, an Act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada, be referred, after second reading, to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place.

And fewer than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Fewer than five members have risen. Pursuant to Standing Order 73(3)(b), the motion is deemed adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on second reading of this most needed piece of legislation.
I want to begin by doing something that I do not often do, which is agreeing whole-heartedly with the Minister for Employment and Immigration. The hon. minister said today that this bill should not be taken as the sum total of government policy on status of the artist, that it should be taken as a foundation. What I agree with in particular in his words is when he said it should be taken as a stepping stone. Perhaps the stepping stone analogy is a good one, when we talk about bills of this nature and even when we talk about the process of development of legislation within the Chamber.
I would hope that the stepping stone that the government has introduced to date will be added to with more stepping stones and a stronger foundation when it indeed goes to committee for further review and for possible amendment.
I would like to quote from the Applebaum-Hebert report, the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee of 1982, when it was said: "The largest subsidy to cultural life in Canada comes from unpaid and underpaid labour of artists, from the artists themselves".
That is probably the truest comment that has been made, not I must admit on the status of artists in Canada alone, but on the status of artists of artists world-wide. It is probably true in any country of the world that artists are the major subsidizers of culture and cultural life.
We come to realize this. It was nine years ago that a federal committee made the statement and told us this. The difference is that we have an opportunity to assist the artistic community and to remove some of that incredibly onerous burden of being the main subsidizers of cultural life in Canada.
I think it is particularly apt that this bill should come forward at this stage in our development, at this stage in our history when we are all so concerned with our national identity, with questions of national unity, and when we are all looking for the ties that will bring us together as opposed to those that will push us apart.



October 9, 1991

Bill C-7 had its beginnings 11 years ago when Canada signed the UNESCO recommendation to consider the implementation of a broad range of policies to recognize and encourage the development of the role of the professional artist within society. That UNESCO resolution included funding, training, professional status for artists, access to social programs such as health care, pensions and unemployment insurance, and protection from unfair labour practices.
Pursuant to that, in 1986 the hon. minister of culture of the day appointed Gratien Gelinas and Paul Celene to consult with Canadian creators to develop recommendations for the federal government as to how to implement the spirit of the UNESCO declaration.
The 41 recommendations made dealt in the main with measures which fall under federal government's domain. The very first recommendation that the government acted upon was the creation of the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artists.
Under the co-chairmanship of Paul Celene and Henri Dominique Perras, it included representation from major disciplines in the arts. It developed draft legislation referred to as the Canadian Artists' Code with the Department of Communications and other departments of the federal government.
In 1989 the then Minister of Communications appeared before the committee on communications and culture regarding various policy options on the status of the artist. That committee eventually made 11 recommendations in its report to the government.
In May 1990 the government tabled its response to the standing committee and promised the following measures: first, to extend the right to collective bargaining for self-employed artists and the creation of appropriate administrative procedures; second, to create a permanent body, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of the Artist, to advise the government on a continual basis on ways to improve the socio-economic conditions of professional artists; third, to provide a maximum $1,000 employment cost deduction for employed professional artists; fourth, to provide a mechanism through which visual artists can donate works of art from inventory for tax credits; fifth, to protect the royalties of artists from the bankruptcy of a producer; sixth, to recognize the right for compensation for public use of works of art;
Government Orders
and, seventh, to provide a statement of fundamental principles.
The absolute necessity of this bill having the teeth to deal with the recommendations promised by the government can be seen by anyone who has had anything to do with almost any segment of the artistic community of this country.
We have across this country thousands of people who live basically a hand to mouth existence. It is an amazing thing that two years ago I attended the ACTRA lobby on the Hill. It was a very exciting day to meet face to face with some of the most revered and respected actors on the Canadian theatre, television and movie scene.
I spoke to one woman who shall go nameless, but her name would be instantly recognizable across this country, and she told me that for the year just past she had made in the vicinity of $4,400 in her profession. It is a ludicrous amount of money. We know that.
Frequently, as artists will tell you themselves, they do not have much choice in the matter. There is something in the God-given talent that they have that says to them: "I must do this. I don't have a choice. If I don't do this, my life is not working the right way. I am not happy". It is unfortunate that in pursuing the muse, in pursuing the talent that they were bom with, they are forced to live in what does not even come close to a poverty line existence in this country.
It is something that we cannot as a nation go along with any longer. Some 500, 600 or 700 years ago in Europe actors were considered to be gypsies and to be a class of people just barely above robbers, highway men, thugs and thieves. Even then when bands of actors and entertainers came to villages and towns across western Europe everyone turned out because it was something that brought together the spirit of the community, that made people able to face their lives which in those times were particularly terrible with a lighter heart, with a better feeling about themselves, and with an opportunity to leam something perhaps about another part of their own country, about a different country, whatever.
I do not think there is any question and I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not agree that the existence of a vibrant, active, creative artistic community is an absolute essential to the existence of a vibrant and creative Canada.

Government Orders
There are two kinds of contributions that they make. We have talked a bit about the cultural contribution. Those creative people, playwrights, artisans, crafts people, directors, choreographers, film makers, the producers of radio programs and on and on, all of the different creative arts that we are fortunate to have in this country, also create jobs. If they were paid what they were worth, if they were paid even close to what they were worth, they would be expanding the tax base in this country as well. It is in the best interest of all of us to see that their financial situation is improved and augmented in the best way we possibly can.
It used to be, again in the European tradition, that wealthy individuals would sponsor certain artists. It is doubtful we would have the great treasures of Michelangelo were it not for the Medici. It is doubtful that we would have the writings of Shakespeare were it not for the patronage of the Earl of Surrey. It is doubtful whether we would have many of the great works of art, literature and music that form the basis of the cultural of western civilization, were it not for the patronage of the wealthy. There still is a role for that to a degree. That is why we see private foundations and private donations to the arts. There is a place for that. However, in the modern nation state that is Canada the major benefactor for the arts, to ensure that the arts develop in line with the national vision that we are defining and redefining every day as we speak, has to be the government.
The government has a responsibility to be the Medici of the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st in Canada.
The government has to set the policy and the standard. Otherwise, the regional pulls, the various cultural pulls might create an imbalance and we do not want an imbalance. We want to see a sense of fairness and we want to see the continuation of the vertical mosaic, not the melting pot that is Canada.
These contributions are what enable us to define and distinguish ourselves as a nation different from and unique among other nations. We must provide an adequate network of support which would be an enabling factor in the improvement of the socioeconomic status of the artist.
We know that the cultural sector has been weakened, and weakened severely, by the free trade agreement. Although I believe that every member of this House firmly believes that culture should not be on the table in
the new round of free trade talks between Canada, the United States and Mexico, does anyone seriously believe that if Carla Hills, the American trade representative, says it is on the table Canada is not going to have to discuss it, at the very least, at some point? The scales have to fall from the eyes of hon. members on the government side. Ms. Hills is not to be trifled with. If she says she is going to talk about it I think she is going to talk about it.
While I am delighted to hear the protestations of the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Communications, the Prime Minister and other members of government that culture is not on the table it is going to take more than mere words to protect Canada's cultural industries and Canada's cultural creators from that massive cultural machine to the south of us.
As we sit on our side of the longest undefended border in the world, we know that on every television set in this country and on every radio station we are inundated with American television programs and American music, we are inundated with American literature, American motion pictures, American newspapers, American magazines, and so on and so on.
Amazingly in spite of this, Canadian cultural industries and Canadian creators and artists have managed to survive and even thrive in what has not been a garden adequately watered.
I remember as a child delighting in the few Canadian productions I used to see on the fledgling CBC. I remember when television first came, at least when it first came to Cape Breton Island, and I remember watching a Canadian Howdy Doody instead of an American Howdy Doody. I remember watching Robin Mac-Neil, now a co-host of the MacNeil-Lehrer Report on public broadcasting in the United States, do a wonderful program for children out of CBC Ottawa called: "Let's Go to the Museum". I remember watching puppet shows that were Canadian, produced in Montreal. I remember watching a librarian from Toronto, whose name I believe was Beth Gilanders, on a show called Hidden Pages on early television get Canadian children interested in going to libraries. All of these things were wonderful and we have always done reasonably well in cultural endeavours relating to children. We give ourselves a good start but then there is this vast wasteland in between. That wasteland begins at the age when children become teenagers and start to develop their own interests in cultural matters.
October 9, 1991

As a teenager I do not think that I saw a movie made in Canada. They were not being made in Canada, with the possible exception of short subjects before feature presentations fortunately made and kept alive by the National Film Board. I certainly was an adult-I believe I had finished university-before I saw my first Canadian-made feature film. There was one exception, the movie The Little Kidnappers made in Cape Breton in the late forties or early fifties shown when I was a child. However for the next 25 years there was nothing else.
Over the last 15 years we have seen a tremendous rebirth, a renaissance, or perhaps first birth, of Canadian culture in the making of films, the writing of plays, and the creation of literature. We have a literature in Canada that can stand on its own with any other. The fact that some of our greatest writers happen to be women is merely an added attraction of our cultural industry.
It says something to young Canadians, and to older Canadians as well, when they turn on their television set and see a program that is clearly set in a Canadian city or in a Canadian rural area. It gives them a sense of self within their national context. It gives them a sense that this is what their country is creating and that it relates to them. For the young Canadian in Birdall, Manitoba, seeing a movie set in Montreal gives him a sense of identity and connection with another part of the country. He says to himself: "That was made in my country, and that is important to me, and that adds to my sense of identity as a Canadian".
I happen to be spending more time talking about actors but I suppose it is because that is the cultural industry I have been fortunate enough to be somewhat close to. I think of an actor such as Kenneth Welch and remind everyone of his magnificent portrayal in the mini series based on the Thatcher murder case. Ratings on the network that showed this mini series in Britain a couple of months ago were the highest ever recorded in the British Isles. That is a Canadian-made series with Canadian actors based on a Canadian situation. We can compete, in both our official languages, with any other country in the world and do well, not only do well but excel.
Government Orders
Everything must be done to support the position of those creators of this culture and to safeguard the position of those who mirror the values of our society, the political, social, ethical and economic values of this country. We must protect our ability to exercise our sovereign rights as a nation with respect to a strong cultural sector.
In May 1990 when the government tabled its response there was a tremendous response from the cultural communities themselves. Bill C-7 has two major domains. First, labour relations. The legislation provides self-employed artists the right to be allowed to collectively bargain through their organization. In order to receive recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining, organizations will seek certification from an independent commission to be known as the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. We applaud this, but there are concerns relating to clause 22(2). This clause states: "No artists association may be certified if any of its bylaws has the effect of prohibiting its members from working with artists who are not members, are former members or have been suspended or expelled from the associations for reasons other than professional misconduct".
It is the understanding of ACTRA that Bill C-7 will thus prohibit closed shop in the cultural field.
The goal of such legislation should be not so much to prohibit the entry of performers, but to ensure that Canadian performers are assured of employment opportunities. There is no question that art should be international. There are great artists we would want to see perform in our country and there are certain circumstances where we would be mad not to permit this.
The situation that comes to my mind first and foremost is the one that surrounded the transfer of the musical Miss Saigon from London to New York. As most of you who are familiar with the cultural industries are aware, the American performers' unions made a concerted effort to say that there were American actors who could have played the role. That is the point. It is not to take anything away from the British actor who originated the part, but there were American actors who could play the role.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
I think there are exceptions to this that we have to deal with in Canada, as in any other country. When I think of the great Maggie Smith, John Gielgud and great actors from various countries in the world, when we have the opportunity to have them in our midst, we should be grateful and take that on.
However as with any profession, the kings and queens if you will, are few and far between and the vast majority of the performers are good, solid, journeymen professionals who can do the job. There are just as many in Canada as there are in any other country.
The particular fear surrounding 22(2) is that Canada is opening up its cultural borders in this particular area when other countries are closing theirs down. We have to create a balance that supports our own home grown actors, who are as fine as any in the world, who are envied the world over. We have to set up a situation whereby there would be reciprocity between different countries. We can do this, but we have to say to our own actors: "You are good enough. We do not need to import someone. When productions are being done in this country, you are going to have the first shot".
The Canadian Conference on the Arts, in speaking of the creation of the Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist, has called for the council to be managed at arms length from the Department of Communications and any other government department or agency for it to be the most effective. We support this and we are sure that this will be the end result of the creation of the council.
The Liberal Party supports the bill, but really hopes to see improvements at committee stage because we feel it does not go far enough. It only marginally improves the socioeconomic status of Canadian artists and does not fulfil the government's own promises in response to the standing committee's report of December 1989.
What is missing are taxation provisions, bankruptcy protection, compensation for public use of art works and access to social benefit programs. Artists are still waiting for the government to take action on the income averaging provisions.
The standing committee recommended that artists be given the right to stabilize their income by setting aside a
part of their artistic income in an artistic account on which tax liability would be deferred and that the Income Tax Act be amended accordingly. The government only promises to examine income averaging provisions as it seems to be its view that such allowances already exist through liberalized RRSP rules.
The response of the Canadian Conference on the Arts is that the RRSP solution is seriously flawed. RRSPs were created to provide pension incomes, not to serve as an income averaging device. This is a very specialized situation and one that needs a very specialized response. Bill C-7 does not address the government's commitment to protect artists' royalties from the bankruptcy of producers.
On the recognition of the right of compensation for the public use of artwork, the bill remains silent on the right of compensation by the government for the public use of works of art.
Clause 2(e) recognizes the importance of compensation but it does not provide for any formal recognition or mechanism so that that compensation may be paid.
With regard to the access of social benefit programs, many artists are self-employed and unable to benefit from health or income security plans and unemployment insurance plans. That is why the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture recommended that proposed legislation give artists who are represented by certified professional associations the right to be an employee for unemployment insurance purposes on that part of income generated from salaried employees. The UI Act should be amended accordingly and the Minister of Communications should explore the demand for and the viability of establishing private group benefit plans for creative artists.
That is what the need is, Madam Speaker, and I know how well you know that.
The government's response to the first recommendation was to continue to examine the eligibility criteria of the UI program with a view to expanding coverage to artists within the framework of the UI Act.
October 9, 1991

The government's response to the second recommendation was to pass the issue over to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of the Artist to propose options to solve the problem.
With the greatest of respect and as much as we want this bill, I think that we can find the options now and I hope that we will be able to do so within the amendment process. We feel that the government has failed to adequately address and act upon the four unanimous recommendations of the standing committee.
If the government is committed to improving the socioeconomic status of the artist and I believe it is, it would also provide adequate funding for the CBC so that job cuts are not so necessary.
It would remove tax on books and magazines and newspapers because this tax is causing fewer publications to be purchased and fewer authors to be published.
It would restore postal subsidies to Canadian magazines.
If the government is committed to fostering and promoting the Canadian film industry, it would fight the American domination of cinema screens by introducing the long awaited film distribution bill.
This bill is, in the words of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, a first step, a foundation, a stepping stone. But we need more than just a stepping stone. We need a bridge, and we need a strong foundation. It is my firm belief that that firm foundation can be built on this bill as it stands with a few changes, a few amendments. I firmly believe that it is the desire of the government and all members of this House to ensure that as a group, the artists of this country deserve the best that we can give them. They are utterly and intrinsically important to our cultural survival, our sense of self, our sense of identity as Canadians, our ability to communicate among ourselves, to ourselves and about ourselves.
I believe all of us who sit in this House represent artists. There is not a riding in this country that does not have its artistic contingent. All of us-I know I certainly feel this way-have almost an envy, if I can use that in the best sense of the word, for those people who have been given the talent, drive, ambition and perseverance to continue to create in an atmosphere that does not foster creativity. They continue to create when they could make more money and have more security else-
Govemment Orders
where. They continue to create when, because it has taken us such a very long time to get even to this point, they must sometimes wonder if we are listening here, if we are aware of what it is they are trying to do and if we care.
I think, Madam Speaker, that we do care. We care very much. We care for the artists in this country because we know how important they are, just as everyone of us in this House cares for this country and, I pray, is determined to preserve it. Part of that preservation, a very major part, is the cultural input of creative artists in this country.
Therefore I say in conclusion that this bill is a good first step. It needs some improvement. I cannot wait to get to the part where we are allowed to make those improvements.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I think it is tempting to perhaps cite the irony of the fact that this legislation, Bill C-7, which is the bill to recognize the status of the artists in this country, should be presented by a government that has conferred such significant cuts on the cultural institutions in this country. It has imposed a GST on books and has put the cultural industries of this country at risk by the free trade agreement that was negotiated in the past and a trilateral free trade agreement now in the process of being negotiated. It is a government that has failed as yet to provide sufficient protection for Canadian film distributors.
I think that that would be perhaps mean and inappropriate at a time when the artists of this country have for the first time achieved what they have been seeking for so long. They have achieved recognition of their status as an important part of this country and as professionals in this country with the protections that they ought to have as workers, artists and professionals.
I am going to say a great deal during this debate about the significant contributions that those whom we describe as artists provide to this nation. I think there is a danger that in treating them in the abstract in an idealized and perhaps philosophical manner, citing the historic contributions that they have made to the human psyche and the way in which they have reflected the best of our imaginations and our creativity, we will glamorize them too much and probably see worth in glamorizing even the starving artist.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders
The fact is that our artists, our performers, have to grapple with the same economic hard times as the rest of Canada Being the parent of two artists, one a dancer and singer and the other a singer, I must say that as a parent, proud as I am of their talents and skills, I cannot help but say that I feel a gnawing concern about their financial futures. The starving artist is in fact too much of a reality.
For example in 1990 ACTRA members earned an average of $8,540 from work as professional performers, writers and broadcast journalists in the recorded media.
Revenue Canada information indicates that professional artists are among the lowest paid groups of workers in society. In fact they are the lowest paid group in society. They earn less than pensioners. Self-employed artists in this country earned an average annual income of around $16,000 in 1988. This small pittance was not earned without hard work and without having gone through a great deal of training and apprenticeship in their crafts.
The average artist has acquired 17 years experience in his or her artistic field and devotes from 35 to 45 hours a week to their crafts. So there is a significant need to attach to the status of the arts the appropriate economic return to ensure that artists and their families can survive.
The New Democratic Party supports this legislation because the New Democratic Party supports the arts and the artists' place in this nation, not because it is politically convenient but because the arts is an important component of Canada's well-being.
We see the work of the artistic community as being somewhat complementary to the goals of our own party. That is to improve and enrich the lives of Canadian citizens. That is not just in an abstract way. There are significant economic benefits that accrue from the creativity of artists. It is one of the most important portions of our economy and those who are engaged in this enterprise should be aptly rewarded.
In supporting Bill C-7 we are acting in accord with our past record in supporting legislation, as we did for a revised Copyright Act, that would enhance the status
and the economic returns for those who are engaged in the creative arts.
Bill C-7 comes at an interesting time. It comes at a time when we are trying to define ourselves and determine what gives us unity. We must recognize that an important part of this projection of our unity and the identification of what constitutes the basis for our national unity is the contribution of the country's painters, writers, performers, designers and poets. They must be recognized as important to crystallising that identity.
We support Bill C-7 because it recognizes the important contribution of artists to the cultural, social, economic and political enrichment of Canada, as well as the right of artists and producers to freedom of association and expression. It does indeed give legislative force to their recognition as professionals.
It also calls for the establishment of a permanent Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist with a mandate to promote the interests of artists not only to the Minister of Communications but generally throughout this nation, to enhance the status of the arts and artists, and to maintain close association with those organizations that represent the artistic disciplines across Canada.
Most important, with respect to the desperate economic straits of professional artists, Bill C-7 provides for a Canadian artists and producers professional relations tribunal which will be responsible for overseeing the collective bargaining process in the arts and culture sector, including the recognition of professional associations and the creation of a process for negotiation ending in arbitration.
This is an important step which recognizes the unique position and unique needs of artists and separates them from the purview in most aspects of the Canadian Labour Relations Act. The tribunal in defining the professional status of artists will determine whether, for example, a person is a producer or an artist or whether an independent contractor is a professional artist or not.
This is a positive move, according to artists, toward the same rights as other workers and other professionals have. There are, however, significant flaws in the legislation which we hope to address in committee and to which we hope the government will be sympathetic.

One of these has been identified by the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which acts as a voice on cultural issues for over 200,000 Canadian artists and cultural supports. It cites clause 2(e) with its rather cryptic reference to the importance that artists be compensated for the public lending of their work.
This is an issue which is extremely important to artists. They are given short shift because there is no place in the legislation that will give force to this identified right. Unless there is provision to ensure the appropriate compensation for the public showing of art, it should be deleted.
There is no use having something in the bill that means nothing. We will be struggling to ensure that clause 2(e) is given legislative force to ensure its implementation. It is especially important for writers, visual artists and others who will not belong to a collective bargaining unit.
Passage of Bill C-7 with an appropriate amendment in this regard will certainly be seen as a real benefit to artists.
Clause 22(2) of the bill also creates a problem for Canadian artists. It restricts cultural labour organizations from taking action against non-members.
The intention of this is to ensure that there will not be a closed shop approach to the cultural labour market. In fact, what it does is prevent cultural labour organizations from taking any measures to protect jobs in Canada from foreign workers in a situation where there is not corresponding access to the market in the country from which those artists might have come.
The artists want this clause of the bill amended to allow protective measures to be taken against foreign artists where there are no reciprocal agreements in existence. The provision should be completely removed.
We would also like, along with the artistic community, to see amendments to Part II, clause 8(3), of the bill accepted. The bill in this regard defines artists as independent contractors or free lancers but gives the Canada Labour Relations Board the power to decide which artists are deemed to be employees for the purpose of labour relations. These artists so deemed would not be covered under the Status of the Artists Act.
Government Orders
This means that those artists could be subject to rules which are inappropriate to the arts, the inappropriateness of which has been recognized by the creation of the new tribunal. Therefore, the members of the artistic community would like to see an amendment to the bill that would allow the tribunal provided for in the bill to make its own determination and have equal footing with the Canada Labour Relations Board in that respect.
As it now stands the act would give precedence to the CLRB instead of the tribunal. The Alliance for Canadian Television, Cinema and Radio Artists which represents 10,000 professional performers, writers and broadcast journalists working in Canada put forth recommendations for a compromise which calls for the institution of an appeal process. Second, it calls for the amendment of the wording to state: "Unless such persons shall be independent contractors at common law". This would be added to clause 8(3)(a) and (b).
The New Democratic Party supports recommendations for these amendments. There are some others which need not be detailed here.
The bill does not address some of the issues concerning taxation in respect of which artists have called for reform. They want to see additional personal exemptions for employed artists. They want to see the establishment of a social benefit scheme for artists. They want a dual status for artists: freelance for the purpose of the income tax and copyright and employee for the purpose of social benefit. They want to see bankruptcy provisions and income averaging. These issues should be pursued with alacrity.
We have always as a party advocated a comprehensive review of the tax system, not only to provide fairness for artists but fairness for all Canadians. What the artists seek is appropriately a part of that kind of reform.
The bill, as we said, initially is welcome. It is long past due. It is of paramount importance. The artistic community wants it and they need it. The country needs it particularly at this time.
We look forward as a party to making appropriate contributions to strengthen the legislation so that full satisfaction will be given to those needs.

October 9, 1991
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member has the floor.


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today to the bill on the status of the artist, because I am convinced Canadian artists have a fundamental role to play in expressing the personality of our country.
Here and abroad, it is our artists who have given eloquent expression to our collective identity and the distinctiveness of our regions. However, despite their success, those same artists are often forced to live in economic circumstances that are marginal, compared with those of their fellow citizens.
In 1951, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences said in its report that:"One mesure of the degree of civilization attained by a nation might fairly be the extent to which the nation's creative artists are supported, encouraged and esteemed by the nation as a whole." The time has come to recognize the tremendous contribution made by Canadian artists and to improve their working conditions.
The status of the artists bill is the final stage in a long process of careful reflection. I would like to recall, for the benefit of all members, some important milestones in that process.
The Massey-Levesque report stated in 1951 that most artists in this country could not make "even a modestly comfortable living" and was concerned about the paucity of cultural assets in this country.
In 1982, the conclusions of the report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee were scarcely more optimistic. The report stated that although the contribution made by artists had increased steadily in the past 30 years, their working conditions had remained practically unchanged. The committee said that artists could be defined as poor, highly specialized workers.
The Siren-Gelinas task force created by the Government of Canada in 1986 felt it was both remarkable and unfair that Canadian artists had been able to gain national and international recognition while remaining well below the poverty line.
The task force recommended creating a Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist, with a mandate to survey the needs and aspirations of the arts community and advise the government on all matters, issues and policies affecting the status of the artist.
What is the status of the artist in Canada? A study ordered by the federal Department of Communications found that the average professional artist was about 44 years old, in most cases self-employed. He had 17 years of experience in his particular discipline. He spent from 35 to 45 hours a week practising his art, while another 10 to 15 hours was spent doing other work in order to survive.
The average annual income of artists in Canada is $15,000, which is not a lot compared to that of an assembly line worker in the automotive industry, $27,500, or a high school teacher, $36,000.
I would add that artists' income is most often variable and intermittent and that they are not entitled to the benefits most Canadian workers enjoy, in particular unemployment insurance, disability insurance and retirement plans.
Therefore, we may wonder whether the working conditions of Canadian artists are as good as they can be and, that being so, we may be concerned for the new generation of artists whose often bold, experimental and provocative production is necessary for cultural renewal. It is not surprising that more than half of the creators consider their work a vocation rather than a business or a profession.
To do so, it will create the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal whose purpose will be to accredit self-employed professional artists' associations so that they can negotiate and enforce labour contracts that set minimum pay and working conditions for their members, without risk of prosecution under the Competition Act.
The bill will also set up the Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist. Its mandate will be to inform and advise the Minister of Communications regularly on any matter concerning the status of artists and it will succeed the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist. The experience of this committee was conclusive. The Government of Canada benefited from its contribution in its last three years of existence.

That is why the government wishes to establish the Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist permanently, so that it can carry out the necessary research and work and propose viable solutions to the problems that have confronted artists for many years, concrete problems like access to private benefit plans, tax matters or unemployment insurance.
The Council will therefore advise the government on projects and measures to promote the status of artists in Canada.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada intends to provide artists, creators and performers with a favorable climate for artistic creation and expression and to take more account of the realities of their profession.
With this in mind, the government proposed additional measures in response to the report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to improve economic conditions for artists. These measures include raising public awareness of the arts, improving tax breaks for visual artists who give works to organizations designated by the Cultural Property Import and Export Act or to the state, considering a compensation program for artists in case cultural enterprises fail, preparing a study on access to private benefit plans for self-employed artists, and introducing measures to enable salaried artists to deduct for income tax purposes work related expenses up to $1,000 or 20 per cent of their income from artistic activities.
These examples show that the Government of Canada wants to give artists their rightful place in Canadian society. I would add that many decisions made in previous years already went in that direction. For example, for several years, artists have been able to deduct the depreciation of their musical instruments from income tax. National service organizations in the arts sector will soon enjoy special tax status giving them the same benefits as charitable organizations.
In 1988, we revised the Copyright Act to better protect the economic and moral rights of creators.
In March 1990, the government of Canada established the Task Force on Professional Training for the Arts in Canada to help develop a policy in that area.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, in closing, this government intends to live up to its commitment to the arts community. On October 31, 1989, the Prime Minister told this House that the government would act as swiftly as possible to allow the legitimate needs of the Canadian arts community to finally be met, and this for the first time in our history.
However, I want to point out that, had it not been for the commitment of the Siren-Gelinas Task Force, for the perseverance and untiring co-operation of the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist as well as for the support of the arts community, there would never have been a bill on the status of the artist.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until seven o'clock p.m., at which time we will proceed with private members' hour?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.32 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 7 p.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being seven o'clock, the House will now proceed, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
October 9, 1991

Donald Alex Blenkarn: that Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the same bill that was introduced in the last session of this Parliament as Bill C-314 and we had two days of debate on it. When I filed the bill again for this Parliament, and having had the bill drawn, the committee examining the bill wanted to know if it was an important bill. They decided in their wisdom for the second time that they believed this House ought to pass the bill.
Essentially this is a bill concerning criminal records. Before I continue with my remarks, I want to read into the House record the provisions of section 736 of the Criminal Code. The section states:
Where an accused, other than a corporation, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable in proceedings commenced against him by imprisonment for 14 years or life, the court in which he appears may, if it considers in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to public interest, instead of convicting the accused by order direct the accused be discharged absolutely or on conditions prescribed in that probation order.
Then when you go on to section 3 it says that where the court directs under subsection (1) that an offender be discharged of an offence, the offender shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence, except the offender may appeal from the determination of guilt as if a conviction were in respect of the offence, and (b) the attorney general and in the case of summary convictions the informant, or the informant's agent, may appeal from the decision of the court, not to convict the offender of the offence as that decision were a judgment or verdict of acquittal of the offence or a dismissal of the information against the offender and the offender may
plead a quattr' occhi in respect of any subsequent charge relating to the offence.
The guts of the matter is very simple, you are not convicted. You may have done the act. You may have been wrong. You may have offended the principles of criminal justice but you are not convicted. The judge said that he is not going to convict you. You are absolutely discharged or if you do certain community work or whatever is in the order you are discharged if that work is done. There is no conviction.
Yet our bureaucrats in their great desire to keep records under the Criminal Records Act decide to keep records. We have to keep records on everybody and you know the cost of keeping records. Of what do they keep records? They keep records of the fact that the fellow was not convicted. Otherwise they keep records of convicts. They keep records of convictions. They keep records of sentences. They keep records of all the nasty things people do. And in this case they keep a record that he was not convicted. He was not convicted. Yet his record is kept.
What is the penalty? The penalty in most criminal convictions in my experience as a lawyer in a small town is in the long run not the fine or the jail term. It is not the conviction so much as the record because the record sticks like you-know-what to the blanket. There it is and it ain't lint.
I want to tell you that that is what the penalty is.
People not convicted suffer the same penalty as people convicted because in order to get rid of the record they have to apply to the National Parole Board to get off the hook, to get a discharge, to get a clean slate.
If you decided you were not going to convict somebody, but you decide they have committed an offence, so lots of us have committed offences. One was a member of our former cabinet but was not convicted. He was given an absolute discharge. A member of this House, very recently, was given an absolute discharge. Guess what? He has a criminal record. If he goes to a border point, maybe he has a criminal record and they will not let him in. It appears on the television screen. In the office they pump it out, they put your name in, and there is the record.
October 9, 1991

The judge said: "Absolutely discharged. I discharge you. There is no record". That is what the Criminal Code of Canada says-no record, no offence, no conviction. But there is a record. Oh, boy there is a record. We keep that record to make sure that this person pays and pays and pays, no matter what.
Why did I bring this bill forward? I have had case after case as a member of Parliament of young people coming to my office in Mississauga who all of a sudden have been faced, either at the U.S. border or in employment offer or elsewhere, with somebody who has drawn their criminal record. Now they got discharged. They were never convicted, but their criminal record maintained by Canada is there. By golly, even though the judge said "discharged, go home and sin no more", they are convicted as far as the criminal records department is concerned.
Forget the criminal vote. Forget Parliament. Do not worry about what Otto Lang said, what this party said or what the New Democratic Party said when this provision was made in the Criminal Code in 1972. Forget Parliament. We are bureaucrats and by golly, boy, we are going to keep those records. We are going to do it and we are going to make sure that he pays and pays and pays. That is the kind of thing we have right now in our jurisprudence. That is the kind of thing that causes me, probably once every two months as a member of Parliament, to have to do something in one way or another to help a constituent.
The other day, for example, my constituent David Clark was to attend a university course in St. Petersburg, Florida, to become a better organized person to deal with psychological assistance to alcoholics. Fie attended that course all last spring and went back to Florida on September 16. He was arrested at the U.S. border and handcuffed for two hours while they checked his record out. Then he was told he could no longer enter the United States of America because 10 years ago a judge in Brampton gave him an absolute discharge. He was at a party that was raided by the Peel Regional Police and was found with two joints of marijuana.
This druggie was stopped of course because he was a druggie and there was his record. Record of what? A record that he was discharged. A record that the judge said: "You are not convicted, go home and sin no more". But there was that record. By golly, we kept it. We kept it
Private Members' Business
good. The record said: "You can't come in, fella. You can't take your course. You can't come back into the United States". He had been there several times, but this time they happened to bring him up on the computer.
This has got to cease. This kind of thing is not the kind of thing that a society like ours can allow to continue. It is not a big thing. It is not a massive change in law or anything like that. It is a situation where this Parliament has been snubbed, this Parliament has been put down by members of our own bureaucracy. Why? Because they love to keep records, love to tie people up. It is about time we cleaned the matter up. It is about time we changed the system.
Since I brought the matter up the Solicitor General's department has been on to it. It has done some investigations. It has found that the cost of getting a pardon through the National Parole Board involves on average 13 months in time and 91 person-years of public servants' efforts. Imagine. That is the average. That includes people who are really convicted, real criminals who want to apply for a pardon and they have got to prove that they really were not involved in nefarious activities since the date of their conviction.
It also involves people like David Clark who 10 years ago was caught at a party and had two joints of marijuana in his pocket. What a terrible sin that he should be stuck with this against him forever and ever and ever, unless we spend on average 90 hours of public servant time cleaning it up and on average 13 months of time in the National Parole Board. It is overloaded with applications because of looking after this nonsense.
The minister says he is going to do something about it. He says maybe we can look at situations where people have not offended again in a three-year period and, if they did not, for a three-year period we might automatically discharge them.
My view on this bill is that if someone has been convicted this way let the appeal periods go on because obviously the informant may want to appeal or the Crown may want to appeal the conviction and so on. There may be the problem of raising atrophies acquit. After two months from the date the guy went to court, automatically get rid of all the records. Get rid of them. Throw them out. Throw them away. Indeed let him be there while they are thrown out so he knows his record is not there.

October 9, 1991
Private Members' Business
After all the judge has said, like our Lord said: "Go and sin no more". Let us get rid of this piece of legislation. Let us get this matter changed. I ask the House to adopt the bill and to move it to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in once again entering into this debate. I spoke on it, I believe it was December of last year, when the hon. member for Mississauga South introduced it into the House for second reading debate as Bill C-314. It has now come back as Bill C-238.
By way of introduction, though, I wish to make the point that a year ago it was not the opposition that held up the bill or talked it out. It was his own party, and I believe it was the parliamentary secretary to the then Solicitor General.
I stand corrected by the minister's parliamentary secretary, but it was one of them at least who came in to the House and simply talked the bill out.
Obviously at that time, and that was less than a year ago, the government did not see fit to adopt this bill. I hope that in the interim it had second thoughts, will adopt this bill and pass it into law after it goes to committee.
I have no objection whatever, Madam Speaker, in allowing this bill to pass second reading tonight without a vote. I assume it would be unanimous and then it would go to a legislative committee.
Before I do, though, and I will be very, very brief, I think the member for Mississauga South touched a very raw nerve when he talked about records and bureaucrats keeping records. I simply want to expand upon that for a moment or two.
Recorditis is a disease. It is a disease of virtually every police force and law enforcement agency in the world. When the RCMP turned over its records from its counter-intelligence and security department to CSIS, there were no fewer than 500,000 records that CSIS had to go through. Finally, I believe CSIS has been able to do away with about 95 per cent of those records.
Obviously, they were not important in terms of national security. That is a very major field in this country. I dare say if you go to any police department in Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union, the KGB, in England MI-5 and MI-6, in France and Germany you will find the same thing. Police officers and their agents suffer from recorditis. They cannot find security of a personal nature in their work unless they have literally tons of records on people, whether they are guilty or innocent, whether they have gone through a trial and been convicted or whether they were given in this case an absolute discharge or conditional discharge. I see absolutely no reason why anybody in a free society such as ours, a liberal democracy where the rule of law is the basis of our justice system, who has been given an absolute discharge or conditional discharge should have any record at all from that moment on. I see absolutely no reason for that.
And yet, as the member very eloquently stated a few moments ago, we have this situation in this country where law enforcement agencies, courts and so on, have to keep records.
The hon. member made reference to, I believe, somebody in his constituency who attempted to get into the United States. Well, the member knows that once the Canadian authorities hand over any information to the U.S. immigration department or the border patrol or whatever it is called, then of course it is up to the United States authorities as to whether or not they want to put it in their computers or more importantly, keep it there.
Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about that. I am very fearful that even if this bill becomes law, everything that is in their computers as of the day this becomes law will remain in their computers. There is untold damage that has already been done and I am afraid that would be perpetuated year after year, generation after generation, as the names remain in their computers.
I agree with this bill, particularly clause 4 which provides for the destruction of a criminal record where that record relates to an offence for which a person has received an absolute or conditional discharge under the Criminal Code and sets out when such destruction is to occur. It also gives a person the right to view the destruction of that record.
October 9, 1991

I think that is key, because there will always be a lingering doubt because of past experience, that somewhere there is a copy in some computer bank that will remain forever and ever. The person should be present when the record is destroyed so that that person is satisfied that he or she no longer has a record.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say. I give concurrence that this bill should go to committee and be studied further. I hope the government will see fit to pass this into law.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill but I was in the House and listened very carefully to the proposer of this bill and also to my colleague from the NDP.
I want to make a few comments and perhaps play the devil's advocate. May I say that I have no problem with the bill proceeding to committee for further discussion. In playing the devil's advocate, I would like to ask a question and examine the situation.
In Canadian criminal law, only three things can happen. Either a person is acquitted, in which case it is found that the person did not commit the crime, or the person is found guilty of the crime but is given a conditional or absolute discharge. Third, a person is found guilty and convicted.
What sort of criteria do judges use when they start the determination after a finding of guilt whether or not to register a conviction or give an absolute or conditional discharge. Of course, that is what happens.
The first thing the trier of fact has to decide is, is there guilt. Once the judge decides yes, there is guilt then the next question becomes: Should we give an absolute or conditional discharge or should we register a conviction?
Let us not forget that there is a finding of guilt. We are not talking about an innocent person. We are talking about someone who has been found guilty of committing the Criminal Code offence for which they have been charged.
Having said that, what sort of considerations are taken into account? Among them is the severity of the offence and whether or not that person has been in trouble with the law before. That is a very important consideration.
We have all heard the old adage: you are entitled to one mistake. You can learn from your mistakes. Why
Private Members' Business
destroy a person's life with one mistake. I agree with that. It makes eminent sense to me, and that is one of the things that the judge will look at.
If it is two joints of marijuana and the person is 19 years old, is that the kind of offence we want to have a conviction registered for so that that person stands convicted? Of course not. In that circumstance, we give an absolute or conditional discharge. That makes sense. It is fair and it is humane.
Now we come to: What do we do with that information? We have this bill and the bill provides in the explanatory notes that the purpose of this act is to provide that where a person is discharged under the Criminal Code in respect of an offence, all records relating to that offence must be destroyed.
What comes to my mind is the following. One of the criteria that is used by a judge in determining whether an absolute or conditional discharge should be granted is whether there have been previous brushes with the law, previous findings of guilt. While that person might very well be given an absolute discharge the first time he is caught with two joints of marijuana, that same judge might decide to give a conditional discharge if it is the second time he has been found guilty of possession of two joints of marijuana.
Suppose he is arrested and found guilty a third time of possession of four joints of marijuana or half a kilo of marijuana. Maybe it will be a conditional discharge, but just perhaps it might be a conviction. What is my point?
My point is and I ask the question-there might be an answer, and I hope there is and I certainly hope that the committee considers it-if all the records are destroyed, how does anyone know who is considering whether to give an absolute or conditional discharge whether that particular person, having been found guilty of that offence, has been found guilty of a previous offence, perhaps a similar offence, which may be relevant in the judge deciding whether or not to grant an absolute or conditional charge, or indeed, register a conviction? If all record of that conditional discharge has been destroyed, I presume there is no way the judge could ever know that this offence occurred or how many times before a conditional or absolute discharge has been given for similar offences. This, from a devil's advocate point of view, troubles me.

October 9, 1991
Private Members' Business
If there is an explanation for it we will hear about it in committee. If there is no explanation for it we should think about it because it is relevant, the person is not innocent. They have been found guilty but are judged not to merit the registration of a conviction against them.
In that circumstance we are not talking about an innocent person. We are not talking about someone who has been acquitted. There might be an instance where it would become relevant on a subsequent charge of which the person has been found guilty when the trier of fact and the imposer of the sentence are trying to decide whether the second time they have been found guilty it is appropriate to give an absolute or conditional discharge, whether there should be a conviction registered. It might be important for that judge to know that this person had received an absolute discharge at some point in time for the same offence and obviously did not learn his or her lesson and has now been found guilty a second time.
If that concern is not dealt with in this private member's bill might I just mention that perhaps there should be some consideration of that. Perhaps the record should be sealed as opposed to being absolutely destroyed, banned forever from use except upon a finding of guilt again another time.
It might be relevant to the judge who decides whether there should be another absolute discharge or a conditional discharge or a conviction. It might very well be relevant to the protection of the public whether that person had been given an absolute or conditional discharge.
I merely bring that to the mover's attention. There may be an explanation, I hope there is, but if there is not I hope it is considered in committee. I certainly think the intent is worthy of being moved along.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has brought before us a piece of legislation that is thoughtful, well researched and worked over. I think it would appeal to members of all parties to recognize that there is an
obvious wrong done when a person has to bear the burden of a record throughout a lifetime and there was no further misdemeanour or offence by that individual.
That position was presented and received the agreement of the hon. member for Brant. We were then challenged by the hon. member for Scarborough West who brought before us the reflection that there may indeed be some reason to give some more thoughtful consideration to this matter because the judges themselves may very well be opting for a lighter sentence, or no sentence at all, on the basis that they believe a first offence did not warrant the criminal charge. His point was that the record should be there if there were subsequent offences so that it could be then considered in any subsequent offence.
Clearly the concern for members of the House is the criteria that trigger the dismissal of all records, or the timeframe or the combination of those two matters.
As I am persuaded by the member for Mississauga South and the member for Brant on the one hand and also that there is some logic in the caution expressed by the hon. member for Scarborough West, I move:
That the hon. member for Mississauga South withdraw his bill and
that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and the Solicitor General for study and a recommendation to
Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot has moved a motion. The House has heard the motion and we have the assent of the hon. member for Mississauga South. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, order discharged and bill withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 7.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 10, 1991