1991-12-11

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the federal budget for social housing is inadequate, if we are to meet the needs of 1.25 million Canadian households, one-third of which are in Quebec.
According to the Front d'actionpopulaire de reamenage-ment urbain du Quebec, when Ottawa brings down its next budget it should drop the 15 per cent cut in funding for construction of low cost housing introduced in 1990. In the housing sector about 60 per cent of Quebec's budget for housing comes from the federal government.
Ottawa should undertake to build 20,000 units annually in this country, with 5,000 units for Quebec.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CENTRE
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board's leaked decision to shut down our world renowned Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety on April 1,1992, on April Fool's Day, is no joke.
It is not even black comedy. It is a tragedy which will cost lives, health and productivity. In addition to saving the health and lives of working Canadians, the centre is one clear way to establish working conditions that begin to deal with the dollar side of the cost equation represented by industrial accidents and sickness stemming
from poorly understood hazards, et cetera. It pioneers in the development of safe, cost lowering working conditions.
What will closing accomplish? It will cost this government more to close the centre than to maintain previously promised financial co-operation until 1995 when the centre would be able to stand independently.
There would be $3 million in severance packages and close to $2 million in leases, just for starters. Additionally the loss in memberships and contracts undertaken in good faith with international bodies like the World Health Organization and the ILO is incalculable.
With work place productivity losses presently running at 17 per cent or 3 per cent of the GNP, this decision is so stunning that one must seriously question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


HIGH SPEED TRAIN
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Quebec-Est, a riding that happens to be at one end of the high speed train corridor, I wish to announce that I am delighted with my government's decision to proceed with a feasibility study that will consider the advantages of going ahead with the first high speed train project in this country.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and his counterparts at Transport Ontario and Transport Quebec, have taken the necessary steps to move ahead with a project that happens to be one of the most exciting projects being considered in Canada today, as well as a first for North America.
This decision follows a recommendation by the Car-mann-Bujold report to conduct a more thorough study before a decision is made either to go ahead or scrap the project.

December 11, 1991

We should also realize that the Quebec-Windsor corridor is one of 23 potential corridors in North America.
Because of the very short speaking time I am allowed at this point in our proceedings, I cannot expand on this very important issue. However, not long ago I made a speech on the same subject, and copies are available at my office to anyone who is interested.
It believes that it is in the celebration of all cultural identities throughout this entire country that we shall realize the richness of the Canadian potential.
If our diverse cultural expressions constitute the soul of our nationhood, as so many Canadians believe, then the Canada Council is surely one of the most important institutions in the pursuit of our national destiny.


SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken glowingly, eloquently and frequently about sustainable development. Yet one year after tabling the green plan the government has failed to take one concrete step toward integrating environmental and economic decision making.
If the Prime Minister understands and means what he says about sustainable development, a proposal for an economic union would never have been tabled without a parallel environmental union being fully integrated. The government would not be negotiating a trilateral trade deal, a clearly economic agreement, without making it also an environmental agreement.
I ask the Prime Minister, therefore, either to make a clear statement to the House on what he means and what he intends to do about sustainable development or to stop pretending.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, there are many dimensions to the unity of Canada. In fact the very diversity of the Canadian identity is an important source of our nation's strength.
The Canada Council expresses that precept extremely well in its quest to spawn excellence in our cultural communities. In its peer jury process to inspire and recognize national and artistic standards of the highest order, the council applies the total Canadian perspective. It is not enough to merely excel in your own region or province or even in your own artistic sector. You must stand the competitive test among all Canadians to merit the critical and discriminatory support for which the Canada Council is noted.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1989 a resolution was passed in this Chamber committing this government to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.
Just a year ago the Prime Minister signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which among other things bound all signatories to reduce poverty by the end of 1990.
In the Hamilton Spectator today it was reported that more than 1,550 children would be looking to the Good Shepherd Centre this Christmas for food and clothing. This is a 105 per cent increase over last year.
A number of constituents have written to me asking why the Conservative government has not acted on any of these resolutions. Why has the Prime Minister forgotten about Canada's children?
I urge this government to make one final resolution this year, a New Year's resolution that will stop making promises it cannot keep, and that it will enact the Canada 2000 proposal and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Canada's children deserve at least that much.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Garth liirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, with the apparent dismantlement of the Soviet Union last weekend a startling fact is starting to dawn on Canadians. Canada looks like it will emerge as one of the biggest countries in the world with the failure of the U.S.S.R. and its breakup into smaller units.
I think this should give all of us reason to pause and reflect on Canada. Here we are a huge nation with a small and favoured population and with the second highest standard of living in the world. We are resource rich. We speak two world-class languages. We have social programs that our U.S. neighbours would kill for.
%


December 11, 1991

Given all this, how can reasonable Canadians contemplate throwing it away? But that is exactly what separatists in Quebec are doing and that is what regionalists in the rest of the country are willing to contemplate when they say, as Preston Manning did, that we should deal with Quebec with "benign indifference".
Well, this is one Canadian who wants to be neither benign nor indifferent and my country, one of the largest on earth, is worth fighting for.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, as this sitting of Parliament draws to a close I urge the Prime Minister to agree to a meeting on the economy with the provincial premiers.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would only have such a meeting if the premiers agreed not to complain about the economy. "No whining allowed", said the Prime Minister. He wants the premiers to say that he and his government have been doing just a great job and that the economy has no problems.
I can only hope that the Prime Minister was joking. If the economy is in such great shape, why does he think the premiers want such a meeting in the first place?
Cape Breton has an unemployment rate of over 30 per cent and during this past year we have had a record number of business bankruptcies. Cape Bretoners are very concerned that the new year may bring more of the same.
I urge the Prime Minister to meet with the premier of Nova Scotia and others to work at fixing the economic disaster that has been created under his government.


GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the green plan is well under way. We have started the
changes that are needed to make sustainable development a fact of life in this country. We must now keep up the good work. The federal government will maintain the partnership it initiated with Canadians. In order to build on the successes we have achieved so far, $400 million have been earmarked for 1992-93.
We must also continue the implementation of current projects. The government will introduce new initiatives very shortly, and it will concentrate on changing decision-making processes at all levels of our society. Furthermore, the government will continue to actively promote sustainable development in various international organizations.
We are firmly resolved to implement Canada's green plan from a to z. It is an action plan that looks to the future and at the same time focuses on protecting our Canadian heritage.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CENTRE
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, according to an internal memo the Minister of Labour has been directed by Treasury Board to close down the highly respected Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, unless of course labour and business can come up with over $1.5 million by the middle of next month, a highly doubtful prospect given the made-in-Canada recession caused by this government.
Among other things the minister has been told to present, and I quote:
The names of the chairman and committee members in charge of closing down the CCOHS-plan to terminate contracts with employees and clients, and, a statement of total costs and draft the official announcement on the closure.
One year ago this House supported my private member's bill to reinstate funding to the centre. It has failed to act on that recommendation.

Has the Minister of Labour become a willing hatchet man for Treasury Board, or will it support a national centre whose programs save the lives of working men and women in this country?


STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Student Loans Program is in trouble. It needs change. The amounts available are stuck at 1984 levels, while tuition and other costs have increased dramatically, largely due to this government's policies.
Some universities have even started food banks for students. The provincial education ministers want change. They want the federal government to act now, as it must act, to permit consultation and finalization of a new program by the end of January. If not, changes will be delayed for yet another year. Meanwhile the government seeks in consultations across the country to convince Canadians that education is crucial to our future prosperity.
What better way to convince them to act. Even now, even after seven years of inaction, a new student loans program would at least be a start.


VOLUNTEER SERVICE MEDAL
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea is not a medal of honour but is a service medal. It is being sent by mail to those veterans who apply for it and are qualified by their Korean service in the traditional way.
That is the way the service medals for the First World War and Second World War were sent. That is still the way the Department of Veterans Affairs sent replacement medals which fall within its jurisdiction, and that is the way the Office of the Governor General of Canada is sending the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea. That is also the method agreed to by the president of the Korean Veterans Association of Canada, as indicated in a recently released newsletter I hold here.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has sent a letter to all, outlining procedures for arranging more formal
ceremonies. I suggest the member for Hillsborough refer to that letter. As well, the hon. member for Hillsborough has certainly been the critic for veterans affairs long enough to know medal application procedures.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment admitted that budgets and policies are not assessed for their environmental impact.
Government policy statements do contain the right buzzwords but they lack in substance. For instance, the Department of External Affairs just produced a paper on foreign policy. It reads well until the conclusion that Canada cannot afford to be a leader in the environment.
And why? Because of the false assumption by this government that the environment and the economy are separate. Because of this outdated thinking, Canada has steadily fallen behind in the development of efficient and competitive industrial and environmental technologies. Unfortunately this government still fails to understand and practise sustainable development.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the ingenuity of retail merchants in border towns who are finding inventive ways to keep local shoppers at home.
I have with me the first issue of a publication from the National Thsk Force on Cross-Border Shopping called Cross-Border Bulletin. This publication acknowledges that while cross-border shopping persists as a menacing threat to business, Canadians have already proven they can compete with and outperform their stiffest competition.
I want to share my pride in the merchants of Erie who are no strangers to American competition. In Port Colbome the Community Futures Program and the Community Business Network joined with the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Board to present a seminar entitled "Service Excellence" to 17 businesses as well as students from the business courses of the two local high schools.
December 11, 1991

I congratulate all border communities that are meeting the challenge head on, and I have every confidence that Canadian business will emerge stronger for the effort.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister once again refused to call a first ministers' conference on the economy. He said that his government intended to stick with its policies and that the premiers had no choice but to follow suit and shut up. My question to the Prime Minister is this: If his policies are so good, why did we lose 49,000 jobs last month in this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is completely false. I said nothing of the sort, nothing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement somewhere and I would like to quote what he said on confidence in the economy.
The Prime Minister said outside the House, on the stairs: "We have got a plan of action. That is the way the government is going to go. The premiers are either in or they are out. If they have some better ideas they can bloody well tell us what they are".
I would like to say to the Prime Minister that there are 1.4 million people out of jobs in Canada who want to have an answer from this government. They do not like this "my way or no way" that the Prime Minister always uses. The Canadian people know very well that the Prime Minister cannot lecture anybody on the economic life of this country.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he does not do the right thing and call a conference right away.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, whether he says it in English or French, his statement was false. The Leader of the Opposition
Oral Questions
began by saying that I had refused to call a first ministers' conference on the economy. That statement is false.


Mr. Tobin:: Are you announcing one?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asks if I am announcing one. If the Leader of the Opposition had kept reading the transcript he would have found out that I will announce a decision after the Minister of Finance has met with his fellow ministers of finance, as I have said from the very beginning.
I have been meeting with all of the first ministers. I have had very good meetings with the first ministers on the economy.
They asked a question, and I am trying to answer it. Most of the first ministers have expressed an interest in a meeting, provided that meeting was not a session of whining and complaining. They do not want to participate in that kind of nonsense. I do not want to hold that kind of session because I do not believe it would be helpful.
As I have indicated from the very beginning, the Minister of Finance will meet with his colleagues over two days and will make a recommendation to me pursuant to those meetings as to the advisability of holding a conference. If his view is positive, I would be happy to convene a meeting of the first ministers in Ottawa and get the benefit of their views on how we can improve the economic situation in their provinces and across Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am happier with the answer today because yesterday his own friend, the premier of Nova Scotia, the member from Pictou County, Mr. Cameron, said that he was peeved by the attitude of the Prime Minister. I know that in the legion halls of Nova Scotia they have used another word.
I just want to ask the Prime Minister why he does not change his attitude and think about these unemployed people who want everybody to work together in Canada today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one thing I try to avoid is a peeved person from Pictou. I have a great relationship, as we all have, with Premier Cameron who is doing a tremendous job down there.

Oral Questions


An hon. member:: Get serious.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberal member from Cape Breton says: "Get serious". He is contradicting his leader who has just implied that Premier Cameron is doing a tremendous job down there, and I agree with that. I look forward to meeting with Premier Cameron and his colleagues across the country to improve the economic situation in Canada. I look forward to hearing their ideas.
I think there would be general recognition in Canada that where we should not expect any ideas-I expect some from the premiers and I look forward to it-is from the Liberal Party in Ottawa.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Public Accounts of Canada for 1991 were tabled in this House yesterday, but the Auditor General of Canada is holding back on full approval because he says: "The government has used improper accounting methods, methods that artificially deflate the 1991 deficit by some $2 billion".
I ask the minister: Why is the government using phoney accounting practices? Why is the government not coming clean with Canadians? Why is the government cooking the books?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I was somehow kind of hoping that the hon. member would give this House the opportunity to hear the statement for the first time, but I read it in the paper this morning so I expected this question.
The hon. member will know that for 14 of the last 15 years the Auditor General of Canada has always had some sort of reservations. This year, if the hon. member goes to the trouble of reading his report attentively, he accuses us in some instances not of using the wrong numbers but the accounting method, he says. In some cases we overstate certain amounts and in other instances we understate them.
I think on balance we disagree of course with certain aspects of the accounting, but I believe we are prepared to stand by our number.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance because I would like to have a serious answer this time.
In 1988 the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants recommended that the government modify its accounting conventions and practices in order to measure and present the deficits and debt accurately and in the same way from one fiscal year to the next. So far the government has done nothing.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to accept the accounting methods proposed by the professionals? In his budget next February, will he finally adopt modem efficient accounting methods?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the government uses such methods.
Of course, one can disagree about the actuarial evaluation of some projections. That happens, by the way. Even two auditing firms will not agree with each other sometimes. But we are very careful about using the most modern state of the art actuarial methods and I must say that our evaluation is quite consistent with the one we had in the budget.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I have here just a partial list of all the lay-offs that have taken place in 1991. There are hundreds and hundreds of companies. There are thousands and thousands of employees. Today we learn about a possible major lay-off in a GM plant of 3,700. Retail stores are closing. More and more people are out of work. Every day families are suffering.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance-surely he does not need to wait any longer-please tell the Prime Minister to hold a first ministers' conference on the economy and get people back to work.
December 11, 1991


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing the hon. Leader of the NDP might do is appeal to her leader in Ontario to stop putting road-blocks in front of a recovery out of recession, as the president of the Ford Motor Company said the other day.
I recognize the difficulty and the hurt that is going out there, but I think it is important to maintain a balanced perspective. She talks about the free trade agreement and the GST, but I have to tell her that in the last year or so these are the firms that have closed their operations in the United States and have transferred their operations to Canada: Canadian Thermos Products, Scarborough, Ontario; Gandalf Technologies, Nepean, Ontario; Huron Cable, Waterloo, Ontario; Hughes Aircraft, Midland, Ontario; Intercity Products, Brantford, Ontario; Kodak Canada, Toronto, Ontario; Keeprite Incorporation, Brantford, Ontario.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly congratulate the Minister of Finance on naming all those wonderful companies that are moving to Ontario, and we know why.
I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Economists everywhere are questioning the economic policies of this government and are crying out for change. I want to say to the Prime Minister that the anger and fury we have seen across the country are very quickly turning to despair, fear and hopelessness.
In fact I can quote from letters that I receive every day. I received one just yesterday from a man who was laid off at his work. He states: "I have worked in the construction trade for 10 years. It is hopeless. I cannot get a job. I cannot hold my head up high".
I want to say to the Prime Minister: rather than simply talking about people who are whining, these people who are laid off are not whining. They are feeling a sense of hopelessness. I call on the Prime Minister himself. Will he call a first ministers' conference on the economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we are going through some very difficult times, but I have not found any knowledgeable person who has suggested we should change course.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that even the treasurer of the province of Ontario would recommend such an alteration of course.
What is in fact occurring, and the OECD reported today, is that there is genuine sluggishness in the world economy. The OECD has reduced its growth projections by three-quarters of 1 per cent to an average growth rate in the industrialized world of some 2.2 per cent. They have adjusted the Japanese growth rate from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent and the United States down to 2.2 per cent. Canada is part of the globalized economy. Canada is part of the global trading area and we cannot isolate ourselves. Therefore, we have put in place a program, a plan that will alleviate the inflationary pressures, that will keep interest rates down and that is the best approach to sustainable growth with price stability.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I wish to ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable to bring the nations's first ministers together to discuss constructively a situation that is so tragic for so many families in Canada, he should seriously consider retiring. I would ask the Prime Minister to use the time he has left to show leadership and compassion and to call a first ministers' conference to implement policies that will give new hope to families across the country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already said many times that I just completed a series of meetings with the premiers across the country.
The Minister of Finance will meet his finance colleagues for two days starting on the 12th of this month. After that, he will advise me on the usefulness of holding a first ministers' conference on the economy.
Several premiers have already said publicly that they would not want to attend such a meeting if the purpose was simply to blame Ottawa, because they approve of the Canadian government's over-all policies. But we will decide to hold such a meeting, and I will be pleased to call one, if we can have interesting ideas from the premiers. I will ask for specific ideas. To date, our policies have produced the lowest inflation rate in 20 years, the lowest interest rates in 18 years, and the highest growth rate in the industrialized world today. In a difficult environment, I think we must admit that is not so bad. Indeed it is very good for Canada.

Oral Questions


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the subcommittee on poverty intended to release its long awaited report on child poverty. Instead, the Prime Minister has pre-empted the report so that he can have a photo opportunity, surrounded by children during the signing of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to stop the rhetoric, stop manipulating children and start acting on the real problems of child poverty.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is sad on the day that the Prime Minister will sign the convention on the rights of children to have that kind of question.
I would appreciate if the member would recognize the role the Prime Minister played last year at the summit and will play this afternoon signing the convention. I would hope that the member from Manitoba would recognize that the Prime Minister committed himself last year to signing the convention and he will do that this afternoon.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, in October of last year the then minister of health and welfare was declared minister responsible for children. He took the occasion to make firm commitments to a national child care program that he said would enable families to work their way out of poverty.
That minister was set aside, his promises were forgotten and poor children in Canada were once again forsaken by this government.
I ask the new Minister of National Health and Welfare to offer Canadians a reason why his soon to be announced strategy on children should be viewed as anything but yet another heartless political ploy by this government.
Is there any more room on the Tory shelf of broken promises?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is always impressive to see the opposition playing politics with children.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as long as we have poverty for children in this country, I will do my best to correct the situation.
This member and her colleagues have asked me many times when the government will finally sign the convention on the rights of children. It will be done this afternoon, and I hope that all members of the House, without any partisanship, will recognize that what is important today for all the children of Canada is that we will sign the convention.
The convention recognizes that all Canadian children have rights. This is a great step forward for the future of this country. I would hope that members will applaud all those children who are in the House today.
There are 36 children representing all the children of Canada. I would hope that the member would admit that something today is good and positive for the children of Canada.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the minister of health.
This Christmas 284,000 children will go hungry. In Montreal alone, it will be 50,000; in Toronto, it will be 60,000; and in my own small city of Winnipeg, it will be 10,000.
Today the Prime Minister will ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. What measures will the Prime Minister take to also ensure the right of Canada's poor children not to go hungry this Christmas is guaranteed?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of this House will agree that as long as there are children in Canada who are living in poverty, we must do everything we can so that the government and society in general can take care of these children.
December 11, 1991

We all deplore the existence of food banks. However, I think we must be realistic, and I imagine everyone will agree that it takes time to turn the situation around. In fact, it has existed for some time, and I think there were food banks when the hon. member's party was in power.
However, as I said before in English all Canadians should be glad to see the results of the work done by the Prime Minister of Canada at last year's summit in New York. This afternoon he will make good on his commitment to sign the convention on children's rights, and I hope that all members of this House will appreciate that fact.


POVERTY
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The current struggle to have the basic necessities of food and shelter is reaping its devastating effect on Canadians in the north.
Northerners for the first time are now forced to establish dependencies on food banks, and there are school children who share their lunch with those who are coming to school hungry.
What is the minister prepared to do with the conditions of poverty in this country so grim that people are walking homeless and hungry at minus 47?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is the same as the one I answered before.
Once again, I said that we are very sensitive to the problem of poverty, particularly for children and people who the hon. member represents. I know very well that where we have one poor child in the country, in native communities we have two.
I know and I recognize that very well. In the strategy that I will put forward, I want to put particular emphasis on the aboriginal people and the problem of poverty for children.
Oral Questions SOCIAL CHARTER


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the European Community adopted a social charter. The Prime Minister often cites the European Community as an example for the direction in which the world is going.
Will he now acknowledge that the time has come for Canada to adopt a social charter to define the principles and the values we share and to protect the institutions and programs that reflect those principles and values?
Will he undertake today to raise the issue of a social charter with the premiers in future constitutional discussions?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the issue has been raised in very general terms by the premier of the province of Ontario. I can arrange for the hon. member to speak to the premier of Ontario if that would be helpful.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, I will not do that if it is not desired.
What I think is needed now is some detail from those provinces and others that are interested in a social charter. I think it would be helpful to have that come before the special joint committee so there will be a specific proposal that can be looked at by the special joint committee and upon which recommendations can be made to this House and to the country.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child today, the Prime Minister will accept the principle that "the essential needs of children should be given high priority in the allocation of resources in bad times as well as in good times".

Oral Questions
"In bad times as well as in good times", the principle of first call.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he is being so inconsistent. If he is so committed to the over one million poor children in Canada, why is his government so consistently attacking the social programs upon which they rely for their very survival?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada spends, I think, in excess of $15 billion a year at the moment in looking after children in various ways.
Reforms to the tax system that we have brought about have favoured the working poor. My hon. friend is shaking his head. The fact of the matter is that all of the tax changes have been designed to help working families and the working poor. I think that is pretty obvious and is recognized by experts. There is nothing inconsistent at all with anything that is taking place except this. My hon. friend says food banks. No, that is wrong.
The minister of health just said it properly, when one child in a country like Canada is in poverty, that is one child too many. What we are working toward by trying to restructure the economy to build new wealth is to have more genuine resources so that we can distribute them to people in need, beginning with children. The declaration this afternoon is pursuant to an international convention on behalf of children, which benefits children. I will be damned if I can figure out why the NDP and the Liberals are making partisan shots at something so important as the welfare of children.


CHILD POVERTY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why Liberals are raising this question is because UNICEF itself has said that Canada's proportion of children living below the poverty line has increased over the past couple of years. That is from the United Nations itself.
That's false? If the Prime Minister is still learning how to read, he should start reading that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The Chair has been fairly patient on this subject. I would like the attention of the House, please. The Chair has been fairly patient on this exchange. However, I am now asking members to put
questions and I am asking ministers to do the very best they can to answer. I do not think we are advancing the cause everybody seems to be so excited about by some of the conduct in the Chamber.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister signed the declaration last year, every world government committed to putting forward a clear plan of action by the end of 1991. We do not yet have a plan of action.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. In the next 24 hours, before this House closes, will the government table its plan of action to deal with the problem of children?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the plan of action will be tabled in the House around February or March.
The reason is very simple. We live in a federation where we are trying to be in line with all the provinces. In the case of children, I think the positions of the provinces have to be put all together, which has not been easy even for the convention because the convictions are not the same all across the country.
I can assure the member that within the next two or three months we will put in front of the House of Commons a plan of action dealing with children and I believe we will do what is necessary to help all children of Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on my supplementary let me go back to the Prime Minister.
When he signed that declaration Canada committed additional resources, close to $350 million, to a world action plan. In the meantime we have cut back our ODA budgets.
I ask the Prime Minister this: Would he endorse the idea of using those funds withheld from countries with unacceptable human rights records, such as the $30 million we withheld from Indonesia, and direct that money to programs to address children's poverty around the world?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are going to make and will continue to make very substantial contributions to children both in Canada and around the world.

Our immunization programs for the Commonwealth and the Francophonie are regarded as a model for the world. Our contribution to children's programs at the United Nations is, I believe, second to none. In fact I think with a population that is 31st in the world, Canada ranks fourth or fifth in the entire world in the size of its contributions to the United Nations and its agencies, and that is a record without parallel.
That has improved over the last number of years so we will be happy to.
My hon. friend says there has been a reduction in ODA. That is wrong. There has been an increase in ODA and there has been an increase in the programs to children, both in Canada and throughout the world.
We have not done enough. We acknowledge that. There are children at risk here in Canada for reasons of poverty, for sexual abuse, and this is an important societal problem that requires the efforts and the enlightened leadership of members of all parties. This is the one question that surely ought to be free from partisanship.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week the Auditor General reported that the federal government advanced $13 million to Cape Breton Wall Coverings, a company whose activities were such that the provincial government refused to grant it the necessary environmental certificates required to operate.

On this first anniversary of the green plan, how can the government justify grants to companies that violate the environmental laws of this country?

Why in a country that desperately wants to embrace sustainable development and is looking for leadership is the federal government going the other way by funding companies that break the law of the land?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the specific case is concerned, the
Oral Questions
hon. member will not be surprised at all if I say to him that I will have to look into that matter. I do not have the information here at hand; neither am I expected to have the information about a company that received a grant in Cape Breton.
I will be happy to look into that matter.
First of all, the compliance to environmental regulations on a local level is something of provincial jurisdiction, but that being the case I would be happy to look into the matter.
He refers to the green plan. I would be curious to know whether this is a matter that was dealt with before or after the green plan.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, there can be no better example of the lack of accountability or of the unconsciousness of this government that this item was raised in the Auditor General's report over a week ago.
Surely to God the little hacks that the minister has around him could pick that up.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the question gets much worse. The Auditor General said that the government knew about the problem. The company has now gone into receivership. The depression is very clear. Can the minister think of a better example of why bad environmentalism is also bad economics? Does the government not have enough problem with hazardous waste sites-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Jean J. Charest: It is difficult to try to draw a question from the statement made by the member. It seemed incoherent to me, Mr. Speaker.
Let me point one thing out about a comment that was made by the member. He alludes to the Auditor General's report and some complications around the Auditor General's report. If he goes back to the same report on the chapter on the environment, he will also find that the Auditor General notes that his remarks were made before the green plan was implemented.
Oral Questions LAND CLAIMS


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, in a precedent setting announcement the B.C. government said it is ready to negotiate and settle land claims in that province. Last week the minister of Indian affairs appeared to place a roadblock in the way of negotiations by demanding a cost sharing agreement to be in place with the province as a precondition to those land claim negotiations.
In view of the B.C. minister's very positive response yesterday to the B.C. First Nations task force, is the minister willing to drop his precondition so that negotiations of the B.C. land claim can proceed as quickly as possible?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I want to, together with all members of this House, commend the Government of the province of British Columbia for its recognition that this historic injustice of some 120 years of denying the existence of aboriginal rights and title in British Columbia has now been addressed by the government of that province and that it has joined with us in agreeing to establish a treaty commission, together with the leadership of British Columbia First Nations, to get on with negotiating honourable settlements to these matters.
I think it is also obvious that the people of British Columbia will benefit more than all other Canadians from the settlement of these matters and that British Columbia must share in the roles and responsibilities that both governments must bring to the table in this process.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response, but I think he is aware that negotiating a cost sharing agreement with the province of B.C. could be a time consuming process, complicated by references to the courts. It could take a long time. As the minister has already indicated, it has taken 123 years to date.
Would the minister be willing to begin land claims negotiations immediately if the province were to agree to a framework agreement for discussing sharing of the costs prior to negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: I point out that the question may be out of order, but the hon. minister may want to deal with it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If I may, Mr. Speaker, now that the British Columbia government has stated its position and the minister has expressed his willingness to sit down and discuss this matter, I am certainly looking forward to discussions next week. I look forward to the co-operation of the British Columbia government in recognizing its responsibilities in this matter.


TAXATION
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last June the minister indicated in the House his willingness to consider ways of making the tax system fair and equitable, particularly as it relates to Canadian families. Since then the Schachtschneider family has lost its case in the courts and many other families are looking in dismay at a tax system which discriminates against them.
Can the minister tell us when he will do something to ensure that the tax system treats all families equally?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the very good work that the hon. member and other members of Parliament, and particularly members of the Conservative Party, are engaged in on this very important subject.
I want to assure him that the recommendations that have been advanced are being taken seriously. We are looking at them right now. I am sure that we can derive some positive conclusions from the recommendations that are forthcoming.
All I say is congratulations and we hope that together we will be able to improve this situation.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Garth  Dirner@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

A year ago critics were warning that the introduction of the GST would fuel the underground economy as businesses scrambled to avoid paying the tax. That perception is certainly being fuelled now by those same critics.
I ask the minister to tell the House, now that we have had almost a year of GST, if the underground economy is expanding. If so, is the GST responsible for it and, if so, what is he going to do about it?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was this government that had the courage to scrap the old outdated federal manufacturers' sales tax because of the impediment that it had on Canadian competitiveness.
We predicted, based on the tax roll, registration of between 1.4 million and 1.6 million registrants for the new value added tax known as the GST.
I am sure that all hon. members will be pleased to know that as of last month there were 1,727,975 registrants, confirming the New Zealand experience that much of the underground economy, not all of it but much of it, has come up from underground, taken advantage of the write-offs and the input tax credit for the benefit of Canada's competitiveness and Canada's economy.


POVERTY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
It is hard to believe that metropolitan Toronto has been reduced to a city where one in five Torontonians live below the poverty line and over half of the city's homeless happen to be children.
I ask the minister: Why has this government been so indifferent to this colossal economic tragedy and when can Toronto expect federal initiatives to stimulate an area of the country that is indispensable for our national economic prosperity and reverse a social face that is becoming uglier by the day?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have several housing initiatives that are in place. One of the best ways to stimulate housing is to
Oral Questions
bring interest rates down and keep them down. That is clearly the most important way.


Sergio Marchi: But people aren't working, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to ask me that question, I will answer that question as well.
The fact of the matter is that one of the bright spots in the Canadian economy is the investment in the housing sector which has increased by 17.2 per cent in the third quarter and that has brought housing starts in the month of October to 204,000, a 17-month high. That should be encouragement for everyone.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I must submit to the Minister of Finance that if he is doing his very best then I think his very best is no longer good enough for Canadians.
This month, Toronto will reach a very depressing milestone: 100,000 welfare cases. The commissioner of Toronto's community services department says: "We are probably about where we were in the winter of 1938-39".
My question for the Minister of Finance: When will this government act on this serious crisis and bring back much needed hope to the people of Toronto?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are going through some difficult times, lire recovery is certainly not as buoyant as we had expected, nor as buoyant as we would like. That is reflected as well in the global conditions.
As we just learned a few minutes ago, the OECD has revised downward its growth projections from 2.9 per cent to 2.2 per cent on average. TTie U.S. economy has been adjusted downward from 2.9 per cent to 2.2 per cent. Canada's outlook is still very promising according to the OECD and others because we have a plan. We are staying the course. We will continue to stay that course because that will provide the long-term basis for prosperity.


TAXATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

Oral Questions
In 1980 the PQ govemement introduced a payroll tax in Quebec. In its last budget the federal government made it clear that it would no longer allow companies to deduct provincial capital and payroll taxes from their federal income tax.
My question is this: Today, in view of the state of the economy in this country, is the Minister of Finance prepared to reverse this decision for the benefit of companies in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba?
Hon, Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, we took advantage of a meeting with the Conseil du patronat on Monday this week to discuss the matter.
We understand the concerns of Quebecers, Ontarians, and other Canadians in this respect. I can inform the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is reviewing this question and that he may have some news for us when he meets with his provincial counterparts.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.
Recently the Eddy Match Company of Canada had two truckloads of commercial matches stopped by American customs at Buffalo because the made-in-Canada logo was not located underneath each commercial name on each package of matches and in the same size lettering as the commercial message itself.
What a lot of balderdash. Why did the government not insist on having this silly regulation changed instead of walking away from it before signing a free trade agreement at any price and thereby putting many Canadian industries and jobs in jeopardy?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the particular case, but I will certainly take it up with our department and get back to the hon. member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, this non-tariff barrier is a blatant act of bad faith in the U.S. in light of the free trade agreement. For several Canadian industries this has become an irritant which was not a problem before.
What is the government going to do now to correct this horrendous non-tariff U.S. customs regulation which this government willingly, if not irresponsibly, adopted when it signed the free trade agreement?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that this has to do with the free trade agreement. If it is particularly a problem with respect to printing, we will take it up with the department concerned and I will get back to the hon. member.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On the weekend we heard in connection with Air Canada that the Minister of Transport, who has special responsibility for the Montreal area, had no intention of stopping the wholesale transfer of skilled jobs from Montreal to Toronto. Will the minister stop washing his hands of the matter and start saving the few jobs left at Air Canada in Montreal?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member for Longueuil is that he should not start false rumours. There are absolutely no plans for Air Canada to move any part of its headquarters out of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.
I have a ruling that I must give at this time and I have two points of order which I will deal with in a moment.


An hon. member:: Questions of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member thinks they are questions of privilege. I will speak to the hon. member in a moment, but in the meantime I have a draft ruling which ought to be given.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: After having co-operated with the Chair and twice postponing his question of privilege, the hon. member for Timiskaming rose on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, to protest certain comments made in the House by the hon. member for Sudbury in an exchange which took place during Question Period on Thursday, November 28, 1991.
On that date, the hon. member for Sudbury asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works a question concerning the termination of a contract for the construction of a veterans affairs building in Kirkland Lake.
The parliamentary secretary responded, and then in a supplementary the hon. member for Sudbury put the question:
I want to know the real reason behind this nonsense. Is it because
the owner of the second site and the member for Timiskaming just
happen to be brothers-in-law?
That was denied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.
The Debates show that someone then shouted out: "It sure helped the brother-in-law" and another hon. member said: "All in the family".

As I explained to the House on Tuesday last, I am concerned not only with the question raised by the hon. member for Sudbury but also with the mood that was created by that question. The Chair has to decide whether that question and those comments are merely out of order or whether they constitute a question of privilege.

The hon. member for Timiskaming was given quite a full opportunity on Tbesday last to respond to what he termed "allegations which have caused damage to myself, my family and the riding of Timiskaming".
The hon. member for Sudbury, for her part, has stated in response to the member for Timiskaming, and this is important, and I quote: "I do not for one minute infer any wrongdoing on the part of the hon. member, absolutely none".
Our jurisprudence is fairly clear in this regard. There has been no direct charge against the hon. member for
Speaker's Ruling
Timiskaming raised by the hon. member for Sudbury and any inference to this effect has been categorically denied by the hon. member for Sudbury.
On the narrow issue then of whether a question of privilege can be found on this basis, the Chair cannot decide in the affirmative.

There is, however, a more troubling aspect to this whole matter. It lingers and has a suffocating effect on fair exchange in this place. That is that once certain words are uttered, it is very difficult to retract them. The hon. member for Timiskaming referred in his comments the other day to the hurt that the remarks made in the Chamber had caused him, his family and his constituents and he pleaded that in fairness: "We should once and for all be able to clear such allegations and not allow them to happen".

In coming to a decision on this question of privilege, the Chair is somewhat consoled by the fact that an opportunity to clear the issue has taken place. Prevention is more difficult to address. When certain words are uttered in this place, they receive wide and instant dissemination. Quite frankly, they leave an impression. The words may later be retracted, the inferences or offence the occasion caused may be withdrawn, denied, explained away, or apologized for. However, the impression is not always as easily erased.
The Chair has on numerous occasions in the past urged hon. members to respect the conventions and traditions of this place and to conduct themselves with the civility becoming representatives of their constituents. That type of civilized conduct should encompass not only interventions in debate but also questioning, statements and even those types of comments usually attributed in the official Debates to: "some hon. members".

The Chair wishes to emphasize that a major element of this civilized conduct consist in refraining from personal attacks. There is good reason for this. First of all, in a general sense, respect for the person is the building block upon which our society is structured. Second, few things can more embitter the mood of the House than a series of personal attacks, for in their wake they leave a residue of animosity and unease.

December 11, 1991
Points of Order

Accordingly the prohibition against personal attacks in our Chamber is fundamental to maintaining order in this House. That is why my predecessors and I have so frequently in the past interrupted when personal attack seemed imminent.
However, while the Chair is granted many powers, it is not omniscient and cannot predict what course debate or questioning or interventions will take. Accordingly, in the final analysis the Chair must depend on the responsible attitude of each hon. member.

Statements are made here to attract attention: the attention of the House, the attention of one's constituents, the attention of the media and the public at large. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that members do not realize the potential impact of their words on the audience they reach.

The Chair can devise no strategy, however aggressive or interventionist, and can imagine no codification, however comprehensive or strict, that will as successfully protect the Canadian parliamentary traditions that we cherish as will each member's sense of justice and fair play. Especially at this time of crisis of confidence in our parliamentary institutions, our constituents deserve and will tolerate no less.
I should tell the hon. member I already have two points of order. I will get to the hon. member as soon as I can.
I think I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and will decide whether it is privilege or order. I will hear the hon. member.


POINTS OF ORDER
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an incident that occurred during Question Period, which I took to be very serious.
During the course of my asking a question on child poverty, the Prime Minister responded with very unparliamentary language. It was language that I would refuse to repeat to the House.
The Prime Minister was given notice during Question Period that this point of order was going to be raised. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister could not have stayed and listened to your remarks on the last point of order.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking for the assistance of all hon. members.
Hon. members have constantly breached the rules of this House this afternoon. It is impossible for the Chair to hear it all. I have asked the House to steady down. I am asking each hon. member to do so.
The hon. member will continue, and there is no need for editorializing today.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask that the Prime Minister withdraw his unparliamentary remarks as heard by this side during Question Period.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what remarks the hon. member is talking about.
When we see the "blues", I am aware of-


An hon. member:: It has nothing to do with the "blues".


Harvie Andre: Hon. members opposite are not allowing me to make my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: You heard it too.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member just said that this point has nothing to do with the "blues".
I probably will have to look at the "blues" before I can respond to the point the hon. member is making. In the meantime, the hon. member has put forward his question of privilege. It is not at all difficult to find what the exchange was.
The hon. government House leader is answering in response in the absence of the Prime Minister. I ask hon. members to hear the government House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think your comments earlier in respect to another question of privilege were well taken. Perhaps we could all learn from them.
Indeed, there was a reaction to what was a very pejorative preamble to the hon. member's question. It was inaccurate and pejorative. That produced the kind of reaction that kind of pejorative accusation invites. That is why Beauchesne's suggests that they are out of order.
As I have indicated, I heard no such unparliamentary remarks on this side. I heard lots on that side.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised, as a question of privilege-it may be a point of order; I have to look at it-his complaint about some comments that the Prime Minister made to him.
The hon. government House leader, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is responding. Other members may want to respond, and I hope it will not go on too long.
We could probably conclude the matter-I hope eventually satisfactorily-if all hon. members would just remember that the fundamental rule is that when a member is on his or her feet they are not to be interrupted unduly.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I was endeavouring to try to say, we will examine the "blues". I heard reaction to what I indicated earlier was a pejorative preamble to the question of the hon. member. That is the kind of thing that happens. I wish it would happen less in both the reaction and in the pejorative preambles.
We should all wish that it would happen less. Nevertheless, we will examine the "blues". I am sure that the Prime Minister, who has demonstrated many, many times in the past that he respects the rules of this House and the rulings of the Chair, will respond appropriately depending on what the "blues" say.


Mr. Speaker:: I also have a point of privilege from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I gave notice to the Chair and the Prime Minister that I wished to raise this point.
I cannot repeat the words that were said but they were directed at either the member for Winnipeg North Centre or myself, or both, in which-
Points of Order


An hon. member:: Twice.


Don Boudria: Twice. We were, and I will paraphrase, described as illegitimate sons. I will not use the words nor the prefix that was attached to it except to say that it starts with an / and it was not complimentary.
Both of those words were said. It is true. Members on this side of the House-


An hon. member:: Fuddle-duddle.


Don Boudria: -certainly heard and saw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that, at least partially, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is up on the same point as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
At this point I have the complaint. The hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that we now have had two opportunities for the members on the opposite side to malign the Prime Minister, to suggest that he said things which I did not hear.
I would ask in fairness that the hon. members permit us to examine the "blues" before using code words and languages. It is a little bit objectionable that founding members of the rat pack would talk about behaviour.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Merry Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not need to hear anybody further on this point. I will examine it very carefully. The House has heard the undertaking of the government House leader.
The hon. member is rising.
I am afraid that I do not need much assistance now.


Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I appreciate that you are not interested in further interventions. I know there will be many further interventions if you permit them.
However, Mr. Speaker, do you plan to come back to the House tomorrow with your observations, having read the "blues"? My concern is that, because of all these hon. members who heard or saw the sounds uttered by the Prime Minister, we continue this discussion tomorrow if they do not appear in the "blues".

Points of Order


Mr. Speaker:: Given the calendar I will certainly tiy to come back to the House tomorrow.
The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Speaker to entertain the point of order from the member for Northumberland since notice was given. As the House leader for the government side has launched a number of accusations against members on this side who have raised this particular issue, I think it would be very pertinent to the record if the member for Northumberland could pursue her separate point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I just asked the hon. member for Northumberland if it was the same point and I think she indicated that it was. Is it the comment complained about?


Mrs. Stewart:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to exercise my discretion to close it off here.
I do so because if a number of people are going to get up and say exactly the same thing there is no end to it. We have the point, and I certainly have the point.
I think it is appropriate now to move on.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast has been rising.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I am appealing on a point of order to your wisdom.
As you know today is the 60th anniversary of the date when Canada ceased to be a colony and became fully independent. I wonder whether it is proper for this House to be sitting and debating things like who is insulting whom. Rather, we should recess and reconvene tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member had put that suggestion about an hour ago we all would probably be a lot better off.


COMMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER-REQUEST AS TO WHETHER A RULING WILL BE MADE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in referring to the parliamentary House Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, said that he was a hypocrite and insignifiant. I asked you twice whether those terms were parliamentary-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could just save the House and the hon. member some time. I have that matter before me. I am going to try to deliver a ruling on it at the very first opportunity. I am seized with it, I know about it; and I have just about finished my deliberations. I will do the very best I can to respond. I do not need it argued twice.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You are a hypocrite and insignifiant.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


PRINTING
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I seek guidance from the Chair.
In October I had an article which I wanted to send to my constituents sent down to printing. Unfortunately I did not see what I was signing and I apparently signed that it was political. Therefore they could print it.
I wrote to you in October, Mr. Speaker, and this week I got an answer back. I asked for the bill for that printing, but I am even more annoyed because then I sent Hansard down to be printed and somebody in printing said: "No, it is political".
I would like to know from you, Mr. Speaker, what goes into Hansard that is so political that we cannot have it offset. What I wanted to offset that day was the Prime Minister's speech and my party leader's speech on the Constitution, and yet someone in printing said it was political.
I want the Chair to show me that somewhere in Hansard there is something not political and that is not why we are here.

Points of Order
The second point I want to make is that I would like to have the bill I asked for on October 3 so I can pay it, because I do not want to be seen by people as sending something considered political even if it is in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall do the very best I can to respond to the hon. member for South West Nova.


COMMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER-REQUEST AS TO WHETHER RULING WILL BE MADE
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know when you intend to respond to this point of order. You have been postponing a ruling on the kind of language used in the House for at least six weeks. Are the words "hypocrite" and "insignifiant" parliamentary, yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: I will give a ruling, but the hon. member will withdraw what he said about the Speaker.


Louis Plamondon: I do not know whether what I said was parliamentary because you have not yet given your decision. But as soon as the Prime Minister withdraws, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much, but that is not good enough. The hon. member clearly hurled an insult straight at the Speaker. The hon. member's duty is to withdraw that. I will come back with the ruling. I am seized of it.
I am asking the hon. member to do his duty to this Chamber which, after all, is something that is an obligation to all of us.


Louis Plamondon: Which terms does the Speaker want me to retract?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member suggested that the Chair was a hypocrite.


Louis Plamondon: I said that the Prime Minister-I was repeating what the Prime Minister said to the parliamentary House leader of the Bloc. I asked you whether, if I were to call you-


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I am seized with having to decide whether what the Prime Minister said in the context he said it was unparliamentary, and I will do that.
I am telling the hon. member that what he just said to the Chair-forget that it is John Fraser; it is the Chair of this place-was unparliamentary. It is appropriate that the hon. member get up and courteously say: Mr. Speaker, if it was unparliamentary, I was excited or I was angry but I withdraw.


Louis Plamondon: In the same context in which the Prime Minister said those words, I withdraw the terms I believe are unparliamentary, namely the words hypocrite and insignifiant. I used them in referring to you in order to get the Chair to apply the same decision to the Prime Minister. I therefore withdraw the terms hypocrite and insignifiant which I used in referring to you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. That is not good enough for the Chair, nor for the occupant of the present chair, Mr. Fraser. The hon. member should withdraw his remarks unequivocally.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make it clear that I share the views of the House leader of the Official Opposition. I think we are having some difficult times here. We are having some difficult times in terms of this institution and the respect the public has for it and has for us.
The hon. member made an allegation, used unparliamentary remarks toward the Chair, and if he has any modest remnant of concern for this institution I would ask that he withdraw unequivocally.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could avoid having a debate today and leave it until after Christmas, some time in February, until the first week we get back on February 3. We have waited almost a month and a half, and I think we can at least wait until after Christmas in order to avoid a parliamentary crisis on these issues. We are sovereigntists and we have a right to be sovereigntists here.

December 11, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to the House that it would be very hard to dispute, if one looks at the statistics, that the hon. member and his colleagues have been treated by the Chair other than with almost antiseptic care to give them the benefit of every right that an hon. member has in this Chamber.
That does not mean that every member sitting where they are is always going to agree with the Chair any more than it means that members elsewhere are going to agree with the Chair. There is a fundamental to this place, and that is that as long as one is in it one has to respect the institution.
The hon. members have every right to free speech in this place. I am doing the very best I can to maintain that but what the hon. member just did was an attack on the Chair, an attack on the integrity of the Chair. I am asking the hon. member, because the hon. member knows the sense and the mood of the House, to make it quite clear that he regrets that and unequivocally withdraws it. Then we can get on with the other matter which the hon. member has a very proper and correct interest in.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear at the end of my comments that I withdrew what I said about you, Mr. Speaker, and that I merely used those terms to provoke a decision by the Chair to make the Prime Minister withdraw as well. I do not think this is parliamentary language, and I most emphatically withdraw what I said. I hope the Prime Minister will do the same with what he said about the parliamentary House leader of the Bloc Quebecois.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. That is I think clear enough for the House. I will do the very best I can to return on the other matter.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to you and you say that you respect us. I must tell you that I do not feel very respected in this House. We do not have a research budget. We are not recognized as a party and then we are asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has a complaint, but the Speaker does not have to make a decision. After all, we had a debate on this subject a few months ago.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination which was recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 18 of the Law Reform Commission Act and Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a report entitled Aboriginal Peoples and Criminal Justice, which I had requested from the commission under subsection 12(2) of the Law Reform Commission Act.


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


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House the first report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development on the National Research Council's IRAP.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members and staff who worked on this committee, often at very difficult times. I take the opportunity to thank them and wish them Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with the accountability of CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, this committee requests a government response to this report.
I will also give notice later this day that this report be debated and concurred in at the appropriate time.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN ACT


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof.


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


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement changes to the Income Thx Act to assist
Routine Proceedings
employees that wish to purchase the corporation that employs them by allowing these employees certain tax advantages specifically for this purpose. It will encourage co-operation among workers and allow them direct operation and control of their work environment.
I would strongly encourage all members to support this bill.


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



WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, I have a very important motion that has the support of more than I think two-thirds of members of this House on the implementation of a world summit for children and the promises thereto.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House take note that the first meeting of Heads of State and Government to address the problems afflicting children around the world, the World Summit for Children, was held at the United Nations on 29 and 30 September, 1990;
That this House take note that Canada was one of the instigators of the Summit;
That this House take note that the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, was the co-chairperson of the Summit;
That this House take note that the promises made at the Summit have the potential of saving 50 million lives in this decade;
That this House take note that the 71 Heads of State and Government in attendance committed to develop programs of action by the end of 1991 and to make available the resources to implement the promises made at the Summit;
That this House take note that Canada must keep its leadership role in the fight for child survival if the promises are to be kept on a global scale;
That this House take note that UNICEF now estimates that, of the $20 billion per year in additional resources less developed countries will require to implement these promises, $7 billion will have to come as assistance from donor nations;

Routine Proceedings
That this House take note that a majority of Members have publicly stated their support for the full implementation of the Summit promises.
That this House take note that on the anniversary of the Summit, in over one hundred cities in Canada, Canadians have urged their leaders to take the necessary action to see to it that the promises of the Summit are kept.
That this House support the Declaration and Plan of Action of the Summit and that both be declared an integral part of Canadian international co-operation policy; and
That this House support the full and speedy implementation of the major global commitments agreed to in the Declaration and Plan of Action issued by the world leaders, including domestic international co-operation strategies for child survival and development; and
That this House support adequate financial resources being made available for these purposes, including a contribution to the additional resources required from donor countries based on Canada's historical 5 per cent share of global foreign aid; and
That this House request that the government encourage multilateral institutions to focus their efforts on the implementation of the Summit promises; and
That this House request that the Minister responsible for the Summit follow up be invited to report to Parliament once a year on the implementation of the World Summit Plan of Action and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the extent that the application of the Plan and the Convention, at the national, regional and international levels, requires action or a contribution on the part of Canada; and
As we know this was ratified just a few minutes ago here in the rotunda of the Parliament Buildings by the Prime Minister. It continues:
That this House encourage Parliamentarians around the world to ensure that each country provides its fair share of the additional resources required to see that the promises of the World Summit for Children become reality.

The hon. member for Rosedale asks the House for leave to move a motion. Under the circumstances, unanimous consent is required. Do we have the agreement of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of members of my own caucus who participated in endorsing this resolution to join with the hon. member for Rosedale and the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. We speak for all members of Parliament and we hope through all members we speak for all Canadians who dearly hope that the resolution we are putting forward today represents a major step forward in dealing with the problem of children.
When I was walking to the Hill this morning I saw a sign in a store window which said: "We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we are borrowing it from our children". I thought that was an appropriate way to put the meaning and spirit of this resolution. I must say with some regret that while we may be borrowing from our children we have not been very good in repaying our debts. We have not been particularly good stewards of that very important trust we have held.
I would like to say that there was a certain amount of tragic coincidence that at the same time the summit for children was being debated at the United Nations, the whole decision to go into the war in the gulf was also being debated just down the hall. Those were two parallel statements.
I apologize for the length of the motion. I would also like to say that the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who assisted the member for Winnipeg South Centre and myself in getting wide-scale support for this is not available today. I do know that the other two members would like to speak very briefly in support and in seconding this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: We have a prior situation here.
I only want to draw the attention of the House to the figures that were released today that the war itself cost something over $80 billion. Canada contributed $690 million of that. Yet at the same time when it comes to finding additional money to deal with the problem of glue sniffing on Indian reserves, to deal with the problem of inoculations for diphtheria around the world, we are not able to find those extra funds.
H^HH
December 11, 1991

It simply shows one important fact, that while children are important they are also powerless. They do not have the means to make the kind of pressure on governments to take decisions on their behalf. It is, therefore, a challenge for all of us to try to put some power into their hands. That is why the ratification of the covenant is so important, because it does set a brand new standard by which all governments will now be answerable for their commitments. It will set a new standard by which we will all be responsible for making that kind of requirement.
It would be my hope that perhaps as we go through the next few months in discussion on constitutional change, it might be worth considering whether the word children and our responsibilities to them should also be incorporated as part of our constitutional commitments.
I would just like to close with something which I think may be the most appropriate word. It comes not from me but from a child, a young woman who is in grade seven in St. Maiy's Academy in my riding. Last year when I sponsored an essay contest she sent in this essay which I think summarizes what the meaning of all this is. She says:
Dear World Leaders:
As I watch television and read the newspapers there is one thing that is always shown, children-not happy children being hugged but dead children, starving children, sick children or frightened children. Another subject that is always seen is some story about world leaders preparing for war, world leaders discussing pollution in the environment, blaming each other and coming up with very few solutions.
The leaders also seem to use the future of children as an excuse to do what they are doing. Well, listen to me, please. I am a child and 1 want you to really listen to me. I don't want you to talk to me about my rights. I want you to recognize that children did not choose to be bom. They did not choose their country of origin or their circumstances. They did not choose to be victims. I would like the world leaders to use their power, their resources and their intelligence to provide a caring and loving world for children. If everyone stopped being so busy worrying about who has the most money, the most natural resources and the biggest guns they would help everyone.
Let's all try to see who can have the least homeless, the least child abuse, the least illiteracy, the least pollution and the most compassion.
If you really believe that we are the future, if you really believe that we deserve basic human rights, then show us. Next time you stand before the cameras of the world and talk about how important we are as part of the future, show us. We want to believe you but please show us.
Routine Proceedings
I think the words of this 11-year-old summarize most adequately and most eloquently what we all have to do in this House as we sign this covenant on human rights.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add some brief comments on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
I would like first to thank the member for Rosedale for bringing forward this motion. I know he is passionately committed to the issue of children in both the Third World and in Canada who are suffering from deprivation, from hunger, from the effects of war and being left out of the processes that make the decisions which affect their lives. I would like also to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for his participation and my own colleague, the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, who I know was involved in the process of bringing this issue to the House.
I would also like to take the opportunity of commending the Prime Minister for his involvement in the UN convention where he played an instrumental role, and I think it is clear from his comments that he also passionately feels for the needs of children who are suffering in Canada.
We can all look to different ways of resolving that problem, the problems both of children in Canada and in the developing countries. But I think it is worth noting and it is important to note that the Prime Minister also is committed passionately to that issue.
I think now what we do is wait for the government's actions. As soon as the government brings forward measures which will indeed implement the terms of the UN declaration, increase Canada's contribution to the solution of the problems in developing countries and provide extra resources to deal with the chronic and terrible problem of child hunger in Canada, then we on this side of the House will be fully supportive and assist in the passage of those initiatives.
We look forward to those initiatives. I do not feel particularly confident that those initiatives will be forthcoming, but I hope so. I can assure the House of the full support of the New Democratic Party should they come forward.

December 11, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to speak. The Bloc Quebecois also gives its consent, out of generosity and for the children of the world, not because of the way we are treated in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
75TH ANNIVERSARY
['On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, directed to my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.\nStanding Order 39(5) states:\nA Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.\nDecember 11, 1991', 'Government Orders']
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent on behalf of all parties in this House, I move:
That this House take note that the 1991-92 season marks the
75th anniversary of the National Hockey League; and
That this House take note of the longstanding role of hockey in
Canada's culture, heritage and pride; and
That this House, in the 125th year of our country's existence,
recognize January 1992 as National Hockey League month in
Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Again it is a matter of consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not have consent to proceed.


2,500TH ANNIVERSARY


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will find unanimous consent for this motion. I move:
That the House of Commons of Canada convey its congratulations to the parliament, government and people of Greece, and the municipal government and people of Athens on the occasion of the 2,500th anniversary of the establishment of democracy in the city of Athens; and
That the hon. Speaker convey the text of this motion to the President of the Hellenic National Assembly.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, do we have the agreement of the House?


François Gérin: I would like you to advise me on procedure, Mr. Speaker. By giving our consent to have this or any other motion presented, do we have the right to speak on that motion later?


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary has been asking for consent. He is asking only to waive notice of the motion.

If that is waived, the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead is fully entitled to participate in the debate on the substance of the motion.
The first question is: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances with the games that the Bloc wants to continue to play to disrupt this House, I want to withdraw my motion and not in any way embarrass the people of Athens or Greece.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the comments made by the deputy leader of the opposition. It is not a question of blocking. My colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead asked the Speaker for some information and you gave it to us. We are not out to block that motion. It is simply a matter of finding out whether we can comment on a motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rules is certainly not perfect but is a single member able to withdraw a motion once it has been put? Does it not require unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion itself has not been proposed yet. All that is happening now is whether there is consent for the hon. parliamentary secretary to propose the motion.
Other hon. members have asked the question. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer have raised the point of what the procedure is.

What is the procedure in the circumstances? I gave my response, and I assume hon. members are satisfied.
Furthermore, we now have a situation where the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer made a statement in which he, together with several other members, supported the motion.

Under the circumstances perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary would want to put the motion again but I am questioning the hon. parliamentary secretary's handling.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I do not want to have this situation brought before the House in such a way as it may cause a debate that I think may call a number of the concerns of members into some sort of game playing situation.
I think it is pretty clear to the House what the Bloc Quebecois is trying to do and I do not want to play its game.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not want to proceed and as a consequence that is the end of the issue, at least for today.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Routine Proceedings
residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are asking the government to ensure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police receives adequate funding at a time when its mandate needs to be fulfilled more than ever before and there may be some question of reduction in federal support.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot refer to the actual size of this petition but from the area of greater Kamloops there are literally thousands of names on this petition opposing the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that the tax is actually destroying the local economy and is one of the major factors in the increase in bankruptcies over the last little while. They are simply asking the government to please come to its senses and withdraw this nasty tax.


Mr. McDermid:: Did you ask them what they wanted it replaced with?


Nelson Andrew Riis: They want it replaced with a minimum corporate tax and they also wanted an inheritance tax for people who inherit millions of dollars, a wealth tax. They would have to pay some taxes on that.
There are others such as closing some of the major corporate loopholes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from central British Columbia opposing the announced decision of a Vancouver firm in a joint venture with a California firm.
They plan to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, British Columbia in an effort to divert some of the water into the San Diego, California area. The petitioners are simply asking the Canadian government to state that it will not allow this to proceed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in this petition people in my riding of Davenport and several neighbouring ridings are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to revise the Narcotics Control Act so that assets and cash seized as a result of a conviction are shared fairly and equitably with local police forces and community organizations in their continuous efforts to reduce drug abuse.

Routine Proceedings
This petition is submitted by the deeply felt desire to come to grips with the question of drug abuse and the way it is ruining the lives of our youth.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of residents of southeastern Ontario, perhaps more than just from my own riding.
It is petitioning the government to dig in on the issue of article XI of GATT, not only keep it but to strengthen it.
The fascinating thing about this petition is that it is signed by hardware merchants, insurance salesmen, farm implement dealers and grain distributor dealers who are all affected if we do not have stability in the agricultural industry. We do not have it out west right now. We would like to keep some stability in the agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that under the new rules we only have so many minutes to present petitions. In any event, speeches are not supposed to be made. I know that hon. members would want to co-operate with their colleagues and not take up too much time in the presentation of petitions.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present this petition to the House, that the undersigned residents of Canada, in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers, request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba. In their petition the undersigned residents of Canada avail themselves of their ancient undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners and ask that the House provide a remedy for that.
In their petition they point out that the community around Empire Drugs consists of many seniors and lower income families relying heavily on the near-by services, including the complete range of services provided by the
local pharmacy. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to do all it can within its mandate to gain reconsideration of the decision of Canada Post Corporation to discontinue postal services at this location.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents and residents of the riding of Ottawa-Vanier dealing with the gasoline prices that are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario.
The petitioners say that such price disparity discriminates against the Ottawa area consumers, and to that effect they would like to call upon Parliament to urge the federal government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is primarily taken up by one individual in my community of Sault Ste. Marie, Jennifer Smart. The petition addresses the discriminatory practice as put into effect by this government against adoptive parents.
The operative clause is: "The government has failed to treat equally adoptive families who are a minority group in Canadian society and who are often unable to voice their concerns and fight for their rights due to concerns regarding confidentiality and discrimination toward their families". This is signed by 150 interested adoptive parents in my community.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, the second petition was passed to me by the member for Victoria and it gives me great honour and privilege to present it.
This petition addresses the frustration and helplessness that all Canadians feel with the events in Croatia and especially the actions of the Yugoslavian army which must be condemned.
The least we must do, and thousands of Ontarians are suggesting this, is recognize Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation as 94 per cent of the people in Croatia have stated.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition from residents in my riding and others across the Toronto region requesting that the minister of immigration issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of persons who have been determined to be convention refugees and allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.
If this policy were in effect, families like that of Lilliana Petrescu, a Romanian refugee who claimed refugee status in October of 1987 and who has a three and a half year old son who has never seen his father and a daughter who is 15 years old now in Romania and a husband, could have been reunited in July 1991 when she finally got refugee status. It could be another two years.
During this holiday season let us remember these families that are suffering-


Mr. Speaker:: I am awfully sorry. The matter is terribly important but members cannot make speeches or the rest of the House is not going to be heard.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. One contains the names of numerous petitioners from various parts of my riding who call upon the Government of Canada to give genuine support to the people of Ukraine by officially recognizing Ukraine's independence and establishing full diplomatic relations with the government and people of Ukraine immediately, following a positive confirmation vote in the referendum on December 1.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The second petition is from petitioners from across Canada but mainly in southern Ontario, calling on the government to support the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture which passed a motion asking that the third line of defence payment be provided to give cash assistance on an emergency basis so as to provide the same net level of support on an acreage basis that would have been provided under the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account had they been in effect for the last crop year.
Routine Proceedings CROATIA


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 2,200 residents of my riding of Okanagan Centre.
The petition reads that whereas Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990; whereas 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence; whereas communism fuelled the Yugoslav army backed Serbian terrorists as it continues its brutal attack on thousands of unarmed Croatian civilians, women and children; whereas Croatians like all other people are entitled to freedom democracy and the right to self-determination; and whereas Canada has an international reputation as a moral authority and as such can initiate the democratic process without compromising world peace, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the initiative of officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 245 petitioners who ask the Canadian government to condemn the actions of the Yugoslav army in Croatia and to recognize Croatia as an independent nation.
I hope it is going to happen soon, as I support them.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents from Nepean, Ottawa and Kanata. These people are calling on the government to take action in order to end the disparity when it comes to gasoline prices in the Ottawa region.
They believe they are unfairly treated in this region.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a similar petition signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa Valley, particularly Petawawa, Mackey and Pembroke. These petitioners complain about high prices in the Ottawa region, and I can say that the same would apply for the Kingston region, or it did until very recently when prices took a plunge in my own riding. I am delighted since it shows the injustice of the prices in this area. The petition urges the government to bring an end to this injustice by introducing some legislation that will stop pernicious price gouging.

Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
December 11, 1991
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 159 and 188.


Mr. Harvard: What was the total cost of the military participation in the gulf war?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: $690 million, spread over two fiscal years (1990/91 and 1991/92).


Mr. Tbrner (Halton-Peel): For the period of November 5, 1991 to December 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?


Albert Glen Cooper: (a) & (b)	Questions answered during the period of
November 5, 1991 to December 4, 1991:
Question No. Approximate Question No. Approximate
	Cost		Cost
29	$ 145	130	$ 4255	110	131	10874	85	132	4580	2,100	139	330104	87	140	30109	436	141	310112	180	153	25117	210	157	38128	30	161	38129	59	-	-


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-7 in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface.
P-7-Mr. Duhamel-September 16, 1991
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents relating to the RCMP investigation of the TIEM Canada franchise firm.


Albert Glen Cooper: The information that is being requested was obtained and prepared by the RCMP in the course of a lawful investigation pertaining to the detection, prevention or suppression of crime. The release of this information would have the effect of disclosing investigative techniques and of revealing the identity of a confidential source of information or revealing information that was prepared in the course of an investigation.
Therefore, in accordance with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Access to Information Act, the RCMP is not in a position to disclose any of the records of TIEM Canada in its possession. Therefore, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Some hon. members:: Transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, directed to my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Standing Order 39(5) states:
A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.
December 11, 1991

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, I seek some direction from you or perhaps my hon. friend. Some of the questions on the list, including some of my own and many others, date back to May and June of this year. In other words, far beyond the 45 days the Standing Order requires for responding. These are not tricky questions.
For example, one asks: "For each fiscal year since 1984 what has been the total hospital expenses incurred by each deputy minister?" That is just a matter of punching a key on a computer and receiving that answer.
I have a solution. If my hon. friend finds that he cannot answer all of these questions tomorrow, which probably will be difficult and I respect that, would he consider that the responses could be tabled with the Clerk as they become available during the adjournment as opposed to simply sitting idle until the early part of February?
['The hon. member should know that under the new Standing Orders the Whips can come in at any time. I would hope that she would check with her House leader.\nIt being 5.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I agree with him that a number of these questions are long overdue. I want to tell him and other members of this House that I am pushing as hard as I can. My desire was that I would be able to answer all of the questions prior to the House rising tomorrow.
Should I fail to do so, I would like to take the hon. member's representation in hand, because it sounds like a very reasonable solution to me. I would certainly want to ponder on it and get back to him tomorrow, if that is all right with the hon. member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. It is worth the study. Perhaps we could make further clarification tomorrow if he can proceed along these lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we get to Orders of the Day I want to advise the House that in view of the fact that we are adjourning tomorrow there will be the usual hospitality by the Speaker for all hon. members. This is traditionally held across the hall. After today, I was wondering whether we should have three or four different rooms for it.
I insist on maintaining tradition and I would invite all hon. members to join with me from four o'clock on, if we are adjourned by then.



[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee E.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker. I am now giving the ruling on certain motions in amendment. There are seven motions in amendment in report stage to Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, will not be selected because it is identical to Motion No. 2.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, will not be selected pursuant to Standing Order 76(5), in that it was moved, debated and negatived in committee.
Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, are out of order. These two motions go beyond the scope of the bill in that they introduce a new element which was not envisaged at second reading.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
I refer hon. members to citation 698(1) of Beau-chesne's sixth edition on page 207.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, will be debated and voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
For the convenience of the House I will recapitulate. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will not be selected. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 5A will be debated and voted on separately.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we expected a lot more debating time on this than we have this afternoon. I have not conferred with any of the parties on this idea, because I just thought of it now, to be quite honest. We are debating three amendment in total.
I wonder if we could get unanimous consent of the House to debate them all together rather than separately. We will vote on them separately, of course. If we could get unanimous consent it would make it much easier for everyone concerned.
We may find that debate on one amendment takes too long and we will not get to the other two.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the proposal makes sense. Some of us indeed would like to participate in this debate and no one should be allowed to speak more than once on the combined debates of the three motions before the House.
If that is acceptable, I think on this side, having spoken to some of my colleagues-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Louis Plamondon: Unfortunately we have no researcher to do the research we need on this bill, and since we lack the necessary information we cannot give our consent.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out lines 5 to 7 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2), the Minister, on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, may";
(b)	by adding immediately after line 13 at page 3 the following:
"(1.1) The Minister shall not sell or otherwise dispose of shares transferred to the Minister by section 4 unless the buyer of such shares undertakes in writing
(a)	to buy, at the same price as the price paid by the buyer for shares sold by the Minister, that proportion of
(i)	such number of shares of Tfelesat as are offered for sale by minority shareholders of Tfelesat one year after the day the shares of Tfelesat are offered for sale by the Minister that
(ii)	the number of shares bought by the buyer is of
(iii)	the total number of shares offered for sale by the Minister, and
(b)	to pay the purchase price of shares of minority shareholders of Tfelesat referred to in paragraph (a) not later than six months after the day such shares are offered for sale.
(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), "minority shareholder of Tfelesat" means any shareholder of Tfelesat, except the Minister and members of Tfelecom Canada, who holds less than three per cent of the shares of Tfelesat."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally get the debate rolling here. I am very disappointed in the attitude of the hon. member for Richelieu who has declined to facilitate debate among other members.
In any event, now that we have to deal with this one proposed amendment, I want to be very practical about this and indicate that there are two other amendments the House will want to debate in the next 45 minutes or so.
This particular amendment, Motion No. 1, addresses the situation of the minority shareholders of Telesat. During the committee hearings and the discussions that went on outside committee concerning this bill it was brought to the attention of members, and discussed publicly, that there are a number of minority shareholders in Tfelesat who are being locked in as a result of the way this bill has been constructed by the government.
December 11, 1991

There are quite a few minority shareholders. This particular amendment addresses the circumstances of those minority shareholders who have less than 3 per cent of the outstanding shares.
The reason I feel their situation should be addressed is because since the inception of Telesat the government has been the honest broker shareholder and has been the dominant shareholder. These minority shareholders have continued along relatively quietly with the government basically controlling the shareholder interest and the over-all direction of the board of directors and of Telesat.
While the government is now divesting itself and disposing of its shares it is basically saying: "I am all right, Jack, you minority shareholders, we are going to continue the freeze on your ability to dispose of your shares at this time while we fish around for the best price. You guys have got to all wait until we have sold our public shareholdings".
That has been seen by some of these minority shareholders to be unfair.
This particular amendment addresses that issue and insists that the ultimate purchaser in the open bidding process acquire the shares of the minority shareholders who wish to sell out at the same time.
It is the best we can do. We are not going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I am hopeful the government will accept this amendment. I do not think there are a lot of minority shareholders within the shareholder agreement of Telecom, which is an umbrella group within the shareholder group.
Since the hon. member for Richelieu and his colleagues have, in a manner which is quite discourteous and disrespectful of what the House is trying to accomplish this afternoon, refused to go along with the suggestion of my colleague across the floor, the minister, I want to make a brief mention of two other related elements. They involve the other amendments, Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 5A. Motion No. 3 deals with the issue of what the government will do with the proceeds of this sale. In the press release that informed the public of what it would do the government said: "The net proceeds from the sale of the government's shares will go to the debt servicing and reduction account".
Government Orders
Fair enough. That is what the government has told us in a couple of budgets. In this bill the government has finessed that position and now says that it will only transfer to the debt reduction fund the proceeds of this sale in excess of the book value. The book value is approximately $40 million. We estimate the value of the government's equity at about $140 million. Just speaking in round numbers, I see that the minister is saying that price is a little high and will disappoint us with the sale price.
Speaking purely hypothetically, if the value of the government's shares were $40 million and if the value of the equity were $140 million, the government is saying that it will only transfer to the debt reduction fund the $100 million. It will keep the $40 million in its pocket.
This has been discussed. I have heard accounting explanations. I have given up trying to figure out what the accountants are saying. I believe it is just so much mumbo-jumbo. It is a shell game. When all is said and done if we follow the procedures set out in this bill, the government is still going to have $40 million in its pocket. I want to see, my colleagues want to see, and members of the House want to see the government follow through on its commitment to take all of the sale proceeds, the whole net sale proceeds from the sale of this corporation and apply them to the debt reduction fund.
I will close and give an opportunity to other members to discuss this motion and the other related motions.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these particular amendments. I want to reflect my concern as my colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River already has. I had mentioned earlier that certain members of this House wanted to forestall, frustrate and confound the proceedings. They have essentially attempted to throw a monkey wrench in the works. I think it is unfortunate in light of the importance of this bill that they have attempted to do so.
The first amendment moved by my Liberal colleague has some good points, although it would generally precipitate a lowering of the price of the shares that may be offered for the purchase of Telesat.

December 11, 1991
Government Orders
The bidder will essentially have to look at the possibility of actually buying more shares than the 53 per cent share block that has been offered. I think his case makes eminent sense when you look at it in terms of fair play.
The fact is that the minority shareholders do not have the opportunity to disperse their share ownership: they are essentially locked into it. I think that this particular provision would provide that opportunity for them should they wish to exercise that right.
Really, the government should not be playing by any special rules in the liquidation of the shares. I think out of a sense of fair play to the other shareholders in this particular venture that this particular amendment should be supported.
The second amendment seems to have been duplicated by my Liberal colleague and myself. I was of the understanding that he was not proceeding with this but seeing both of them in there essentially reinforces the importance of this particular amendment.
Essentially the money that will be recovered from the sale of the shares of Telesat will not all be used under the current legislation to reduce the outstanding federal debt that is owed by the Crown.
We have placed this amendment in hopes that we can convince the government to utilize completely the moneys that will be returned through the sale of these assets and to place these moneys into the debt servicing reduction fund in order to help buy down the heavy federal deficit that we face.
Canadians contributed some $30 million to Telesat initially. That $30 million, if you looked at it in today's terms, would be about $120 million. As well, the taxpayers of Canada, through the government, have lent Telesat some $40 million in the early 1970s to get the company up and running.
After all of this support to Telesat the time has come, according to this government, to sell off these assets. We are saying that is fine if that is the decision that is taken, f this bill in fact does pass, then let us utilize those assets rather than maintain the original assets and place those assets into consolidated revenues.
Let us use that money to buy down the federal debt which I think the public in Canada would favour. It wants to see the deficit reduced. Liquidation of these assets as we have suggested through this amendment would better be accommodated by using all of the revenues that are returned to the Crown to help buy down the federal debt.
I just want to move briefly on to the third amendment. We have to recognize the foresight of my colleague for Mount Royal in placing this amendment before us. She has picked up on a real flaw in the legislation.
Any future sale of Telesat is to be approved by the CRTC, but the government's sale of Telesat which this particular legislation pertains to, is not going to be under the scrutiny of the CRTC, at least in the initial phases.
This amendment, I think, will correct that weakness in the legislation. It would ensure that the CRTC would in fact examine the sale of Telesat and the government's liquidation of its interest in Telesat to ensure that it really was in the interest of the public.
While this amendment might slow down the sale of Telesat, I think the public interest would indeed be served by having a full examination of the ramifications of this particular sale through the oversight of the CRTC to ensure that the interests of Canada and the interests of Canada's telecommunications industry are in fact fully recognized.
In that regard, may I just summarize by saying that the three amendments before the House at this time are good amendments. They are amendments that will move a considerable way in strengthening this piece of legislation before us today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on yet another privatization initiative of this government. Telesat Canada happens to be in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. I want to speak on the amendment put by my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. This is an amendment which I feel would be appropriate at this time since the purpose of the bill, as I read it and as we understand it, would not protect the minority shareholders who would be locked in till the majority shareholder has been satisfied. I find that difficult because we all know that

there is an important minority in that company who are employees. One per cent of the shares of Telesat are held by 877 employees. Of these 672 are located at the head office and the remainder in regional offices.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the minority shareholders and indeed to protect the employees who have shares in this company. Five hundred of those 877 employees are some of the best mathematicians in the world.


Mr. Baker:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Some of them are the best physicists in the world. These are people who are hardworking and who have proven to the world their ability to compete with anybody in the world. I am pretty proud that in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier Telesat Canada is something of which we can boast because indeed it was the first to put a commercial communications satellite up there. It was an example for all the world. It was a respected and I would dare say exceptional endeavour on the part of these people.
They also put the second one up. We all know they had some problems opening the antenna but they have corrected that and it is now operative. We are indeed very much behind this group of scientists who are presently making the telecommunications and communications network of the world something of great importance to Canada.
I will not have time to get to that amendment but I want to address the question of the location of Telesat. The bill that we have before us does not give protection to the employees in terms of giving them an ironclad guarantee that Telesat will remain in the national capital region. It only addresses the question as one of possibly negotiating or maybe making it a condition of sale to the eventual buyer. I want to quote from the government's own press release. I hear the minister making noises over there. The government's press release states:
Bidders for the government's Telesat shares will need to state their
intentions concerning the maintenance of Telesat headquarters and
operations in the National Capital Region.
Why will this government not provide an ironclad guarantee to the 672 employees at Telesat's head office here in Ottawa that their jobs will remain in Ottawa?
Government Orders
Why will it not incorporate this simple requirement into the legislation? It did not do it.
Perhaps we should not be surprised because it does not care for Public Service employees very much over there. It slashed them when it could and cut their salaries whenever possible. It even provoked them to go out on strike not very long ago, one of the hardest strikes we have had. This government has no employee-employer relations of any kind. We are just asking it to be sensitive to two things: first, that the families of these employees will have some kind of stability and, second, that their investment as minority shareholders will be protected. One per cent of all the shares held by Telesat are owned by their own employees.
I do not want to take any more time but I just ask the government to be understanding of the difficulties that people have in their careers and to be understanding of the fact that we have to make it a requirement that at least the head office of Telesat remains in the national capital region. I am very proud of the fact that they are in my riding. It happens to be something which we care for. I say to the government that it should take seriously this amendment before us, Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River that says minority shareholders should be protected also.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member for Ottawa- Vanier. Over the years the member for Ottawa-Vanier and some other members on this side of the House have taken great pride in the fact, as the hon. member said, that we have some 500 scientists, mostly mathematicians, who work at mission control in Gloucester close to Ottawa. They put up, as the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier said, the first commercial communications satellite in the world. It was not the United States. It was not France. It was not Germany. It was not Britain. It was Canada in 1970.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I have conversed on many occasions as Telesat Canada put up its second one, its third one, its fourth one. To make reference to the minority shareholders, as he did, is the least the Government of Canada can do.

December 11, 1991
Government Orders
As the hon. member noted when the Anik-E II satellite was put into outer space and did not work, there was a $300 million debt created of which $260 million was insured.
Mission control for that satellite is close by here in the riding of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. In the middle of the night they met at mission control. They had received permission from the insurance company to take that satellite and put it into a spin in outer space to try to open that one antenna to try to save $300 million.
In the meantime the federal cabinet had met in session on a request from the company which said it was in dire straits. It owed $300 million. It was about to lose. The federal cabinet met and passed a very interesting Order in Council.
It was an order for the CRTC to take into account the risky business of putting up satellites, the incredible cost involved, the fact that the company was about to lose $60 million. It was a $300 million venture and only $240 million was insured. The federal cabinet made an order to the CRTC to re-examine the cost structure of Telesat and to put it on a firm financial footing because of these debts and the ups and downs in the satellite business.
As the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier just pointed out, at two o'clock in the morning some of the world's most respected physicists and mathematicians here in Canada met and spun that satellite. It was a risky operation, as the hon. member and I have discussed on many occasions, because it could have meant the destruction of the entire process. They were successful in opening that extra antenna. It became a success story.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier might agree with me that the employees should get together and take other measures, perhaps in the only manner that the Government of Canada can understand. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how or why the cabinet gave the order to the CRTC?
Do you know who helped in that proposal? There were four lobbyists hired. This is registered with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. No one should ever say: "No, there is no hope of getting the cabinet to overrule a decision of the CRTC". It is there and it is on the record.
One of the lobbyists is a former employee of the present minister of external affairs. Another lobbyist is a former employee of a person who is now a senator who used to be the minister of trade. Then, if that were not enough to clinch it, it then hired the former president of the Tory Party of Canada, a very respected and capable man by the name William Jarvis. If that were not enough to overturn the CRTC, if that were not enough to clinch it for it, it hired another person by the name Bill Fox.
If you want to get something in Canada then you certainly must hire the right people. The directors of the company claimed that these people were hired just to prepare a response to the Government of Canada and to prepare the case. The member for Ottawa-Vanier and myself spoke about the fact that the submission to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was to arrange meetings with elected officials.
In closing,' let us say that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is absolutely correct. The most important shareholders, the one per cent shareholders, are the employees of the company. They are the ones who made the $180 million profit for that company two years ago and another $180 million this year. They are the ones who showed $22 million clean net profit this past year on behalf of the company. These were the people who put the first commercial communications satellite into outer space. They were the ones who have put the most powerful commercial communications satellite in the world in outer space. These are the people who should be congratulated and these are the people who should be protected under this legislation.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that was most enjoyable. I must admit I enjoy my friend from Gander-TVvillingate when he gets up and talks so authoritatively about a number of subjects here in the House of Commons.
I want first of all to start by thanking my colleagues from Scarborough-Rouge River and Okanagan-Shu-swap for the work that they have put in on this bill because they have done a tremendous job and have facilitated the passage of the bill to date. We do thank them very much for that.
December 11, 1991

The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier alluded to public employees. First of all, the employees of Telesat are not public employees. Telesat is not a Crown corporation. Telesat is a private corporation with some government ownership in it. Let us understand that he misunderstands the situation. They are not public employees. They are employees of Telesat which is a private company. That makes it a little different.
Second, the amendment proposed is there to protect the minority shareholders. Let me remind the House, if I might, that the only two groups this affects are the employees of Telesat, 1.5 per cent, and Ontario Northland Transportation Communications which holds two-tenths of 1 per cent. Those are the only two groups that it protects.
When we talk about the employee share ownership, they already have now in place-it does not change with this bill or anything else-buy-back rights under the employee share ownership plan. They do not need the protection. They have the protection now.
This amendment is redundant and we are going to oppose it for those reasons. Those shareholders are protected.
We brought in the share ownership program for employees in January 1990. It has been well accepted. I forget the percentage, but it is a fairly large percentage. Well over 60 per cent of the employees hold shares in Telesat. The hon. member from Vanier and the member from Gander are absolutely right about the employees. They have pride in their company. I think that is shown by their participation in the share ownership program.
The second motion that was brought forward about taking the entire proceeds and putting them into the deficit reduction fund causes some problems for the government and for the accounting procedures. There is $30 million on our books. Other countries with Crown corporations do not have them on their books for any amount of money whatsoever. In Canada, the account procedure does. When money is expended on behalf of a corporation or a Crown corporation it goes on our books. On our books for Telesat is $30 million which was originally invested by the government to acquire the Telesat shares. According to the accounting rules all costs of earning revenues including the original cost of
Government Orders
the investment must be subtracted from the net proceeds of the sale.
In other words, the taxpayers of Canada have forwarded $30 million to this company. They are getting the $30 million back. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund. By the way, all the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund and then is accounted to this account. The $30 million comes off the books. It is no longer on the books as a debt of the Government of Canada. Therefore we are saving a considerable amount of money for the people.
That money has to go to write off the $30 million debt that is on our books at the present time. The balance will go into the debt servicing and reduction account and will be available for deficit reduction.
I might also point out that the moment this particular bill comes into play, the Canada Business Corporations Act kicks in and all the protections contained in there pertain to the shareholders of the company.
The final amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Mount Royal would have the effect of making the sale of the government's Telesat shares subject to prior approval of the CRTC.
Under Bill C-38 which we are debating the prior approval of the CRTC will be required before any person can acquire control of Telesat. The only exception is when this minister takes the shares of the Minister of Finance and CN and the subsequent sale is to a third party.
I might point out, however, that sale must be approved under the Competition Act of this country. We are advising all those who are interested in making bids to go to the competition bureau and get pre-clearance before they put in their bids. We think that will save them a tremendous amount of time and will save us a tremendous amount of time also.
We are going to oppose the three motions for very legitimate reasons. They were presented for very legitimate reasons, but we think the concerns of hon. members have been answered and are covered in the legislation as proposed and also in the Canada Business Corporations Act.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 29 to
34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"amount of the net proceeds of the sale of any shares pursuant to subsection (1), other than net proceeds paid pursuant to subsection (2), shall be credited".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will just call for the question at this point.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on this bill. I would point out that the reason we are in such a hurry to pass all these bills is the Liberal party here, with 600 guests. It must cost a fortune. I am not sure where it all comes from, I do not know who is paying for it, since the party was supposed to have a very large debt.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating an amendment which is proposed by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.
The hon. member complained earlier that they have no research department and therefore could not debate
the bill properly. I might tell the House that we offered them a complete briefing at the department, all the briefing material, and to answer any of their questions at that time. Not one of them took up the offer.
All they are doing today is deliberately delaying the proper procedures in this House. That is all they are doing today. I would ask the hon. member in all fairness-and none of us are impugning motives on any other political party-to bring some common sense to the House of Commons, not to be so foolish, and to carry on with the work of this House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind my colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead that there is a rule of relevance in the House and if he wants to comment on Motion No. 2 before us I would be interested in hearing him. However, if he wants to talk about the celebrations on the Hill tonight, let him tell us right away.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier is quite right. He is a very sensible man. But I cannot pass up the opportunity to tell you that what the minister just said is totally false. I never, ever received an offer for any briefing from his department. On the contrary, they think that they know the sacred truth and that they do not have to talk with pro-sovereignty Quebecers who represent a large majority of the population. They never contacted us.
He referred to a research budget. I will tell you that the House of Commons has always refused, through the government, to recognize the Bloc Quebecois as a party, so we have to be treated as independent members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is such a thing as the rule of relevance. I would hope that the hon. member would speak to Motion No. 2. If he does not, I will recognize another member.
I will give him one more chance either to speak on the motion or I will recognize another member.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I thought that we were discussing the point of order that had been raised and I was waiting for your decision.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Derek Vincent Lee: Motion No. 5A.
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 26
and 27 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor
"and (2)."


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.
The first vote is on Motion No. 2. Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5A.


Some hon. members:: Yea.
++YEAS
Members


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please nay.
Angus	Belair
Dingwall	Gauthier
Gerin	Heap
Karpoff	Kindy
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lee
Mac William	Milliken
Plamondon	Riis
Rocheleau	Stupich
Thylor	Vexme-18
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Belsher
Blais	Bosley
Cooper	Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret	Fee
Fretz	Hawkes
Hudon	Jacques
Larrivee	Mayer
McCreath	McDermid
Moore	Robitaille
St-Julien	Tetreault
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbinifcre)	Wilson (Swift Current-! -Ass iniboia)-24



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to mention that if the bell had rung the full time set out in the Standing Orders I could have been here to vote and I would have voted with the govemement.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I too, if I had known there was only going to be a short bell, would have been here and I would have voted with the government.
Angus
Dingwall
Gauthier
Lee
Milliken
Stupich
Young (Acadie-Bathurst) -13
Members
Belair
Gagliano
Heap
Mac William
Riis
Taylor


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would ust say that this week in my office here on the Hill I received a letter from the government's chief Whip saying that for future votes the Whips would not enter the House until members had taken their seats and the aisles were clear. But now we

saw a most unusual rush of members everywhere in the aisle, thus doing the opposite of what the government itself asked us. I do not think that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under the Standing Orders both Whips can come in at any time.
Government Orders

Members
Althouse	Angus
Belair	Dingwall
Gagliano	Gauthier
Heap	Lee
MacWilliam	Milliken
Mitchell	Riis
Stupich Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-15	Taylor


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent to place the following motion without debate or amendment. I move:
That eight members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to eastern and western Europe within the context of its current study on the role of the Canadian Forces in a changing world at any time between January 26, 1992 and February 16,1992 for a period not exceeding a total of 15 days inclusive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
Members
Anderson
Belsher
Bosley
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Ferland
Gerin
Hawkes
Hudon
Kindy
Larrivee
Atkinson
Blais
Cooper
Darling
Fee
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-fles-de-la-Madeleine)
Hockin
Jacques
Koury
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Mayer
McDermid
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Venne
McCreath
Moore
Robitaille
St-Julien
Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)-39


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to express my concern. This afternoon I was at the meeting of the multicultural committee with five or six witnesses who had come some distance. We stopped the committee and I rushed over here to vote. As I got in the door everything was over.
I really must object that my rights have been infringed because of two-minute bells. I certainly hope the House will look into this.

December 11, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member should know that under the new Standing Orders the Whips can come in at any time. I would hope that she would check with her House leader.
It being 5.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 12,1991