1991-10-25

Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a motion in the House, and I want to ask unanimous consent for the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders and usual practices of this House, on Monday, October 28, 1991 at 12 p.m., the House shall proceed with the daily routine of business under heading Introduction of Government Bills and that a bill placed on the Order Paper on October 23, 1991 in the name of the Minister of Labour entitled an act to provide for the continuation of postal service be introduced, read a first time and deemed printed;
That immediately thereafter the House proceed under Government Orders with a debate at all stages of the said bill;
That the said bill be deemed completed later that same day;
That this order shall be rescinded if the Minister of Labour or government House leader rise from their seat at any time during daily proceedings on a point of order and advise the House that the employer and employees of the postal service have come to a mutual agreement.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in conversations with the Liberal critic and the Minister of Labour I think the Labour Minister knows that we will not agree to passage of all stages on Monday.
We have agreed, in order for the parties to get together today, Saturday and Sunday, that we would waive the usual notice and would allow the second reading debate to start on Monday. If the parties have not come to agreement or if we are in a situation where the parties come to us and say that they need more time to settle the dispute, we may again hold off the actual
commencement of this debate. But there is no way that we would agree to passage in all stages on Monday of a bill that we have not seen. That just cannot be done.
The reason we are allowing or are willing to allow that we would start second reading on Monday is that we do not want any of the parties to see the legislation. We want them to be spending their time, their efforts, their emotions, their thoughts on negotiating over this weekend. If either party saw the legislation, they may decide that that would be better for them than actually negotiating.
We are holding off looking at the legislation, but we are willing to commence second stage reading if the minister finds that it is necessary.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has reflected the consensus that was reached among the various parties. But just to be crystal clear, which I am sure the minister would want all members to be, we would concur with commencing the second reading of the bill in question on Monday.
However, if the parties are progressing with the various outstanding items and the parties so indicate to the minister and to the respective representatives of the party, I do not believe it would be necessary to proceed with the legislation on Monday.
In fact it would perhaps be inappropriate to proceed while negotiations are progressing. The minister should clearly understand that we would have to deny forthwith all stages of the bill on Monday but would be prepared to commence second reading on Monday if in fact the parties in the postal dispute indicate that there has been a breakdown and no possibility of resolving the dispute.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would like to table the following motion:

October 25, 1991
Business of the House

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and usual practices of this House, on Monday, October 28,1991 at 12 p.m., the House shall proceed with the daily routine of business under the heading Introduction of Government Bills and that a bill placed on the Order Paper on October 23, 1991 in the name of the Minister of Labour entitled an act to provide for the continuation of postal service be introduced, read a first time and deemed printed;
That immediately thereafter the House proceed under Government Orders with the debate at second reading of the said bill;
That this order shall be rescinded if the Minister of Labour or government House leader rises from their seat at any time during daily proceedings on a point of order and advises the House that the employer and employees of the postal service have come to a mutual agreement.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for this motion.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that particular motion is fully in line with the understanding we have with respect to the motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in order not to delay things, we agree with that particular wording. It is the understanding that we have.
Again we would urge the minister to review the situation on Sunday night and Monday morning, to talk to the two parties and, if it appears that the two parties are very close to an agreement, not to start the legislation Monday but perhaps Tuesday or later in the week if it is still necessary.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the Minister of Labour is in the House I am wondering if he might indicate, since it concerns the postal strike and that subject matter, whether he intends later this day on ministerial statements to provide Parliament and to provide the country as a whole with the contents of the report which I presume Mr. Justice Gold has filed with him.


An hon. member:: Ask your question.


David Charles Dingwall: This is not Question Period. We are talking about business of the House.
I wonder whether or not the minister would like to table that report. If there is no report, would the minister be prepared to indicate to the House what his conversations with Mr. Justice Gold were concerning the postal? Would he share that with members of Parliament?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like Question Period. I can tell the hon. House leader of the Opposition that I did not receive any written report from Mr. Justice Gold. He never discussed with me the contents of the negotiations or mediation between the parties.
However, last night I had long discussions with both Canada Post and the union on the outstanding issues in dispute. I do intend today to brief, on a confidential basis, the critics for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.
In the public interest and not to hurt the negotiations that are going on this weekend, I think that should be done and that is the only thing that should be done at this time, until the end of the weekend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has been very lenient, and I would appreciate the co-operation of the House Leader of the Official Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if you review the record I think you will see that we have been giving co-operation to a very serious matter which the minister has wished to proceed with. I want to thank the minister for his undertaking here today that in fact he will meet with representatives of my party, the New Democratic Party, to give them a full and comprehensive briefing in terms of the verbal report that he has received from Justice Gold as to why mediation services have broken down between the two parties.
October 25, 1991

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think that the title of the bill sort of explains what the bill is all about, so very briefly I will give an indication of what it is. As the title says, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991 will give effect to the 1990 proposals for a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill tabled in both Houses of Parliament on February 15, 1990.
The proposals are part of the miscellaneous statutes law amendment program that is an ongoing means of correcting anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in federal statutes and of repealing federal enactments that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
Those proposals were referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and the Solicitor General which reported on them on June 13, 1990. They were then referred to the Standing Committee of the Senate on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in June 1990 and the Senate committee reported on them in February 1991.
[Translation)
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments, now embodied in Bill C-35, are proposals that were approved unanimously by both the Senate Committee and the House Committee.
Perhaps I may advise hon. members that after second reading, I intend to ask unanimous consent for proceeding immediately with Committee of the Whole and third reading.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate on second reading of Bill C-35.
I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, since you have been the one who raised the issue of co-operation from opposition members of Parliament, that Bill C-35 was discussed at House leaders' meetings. We did not believe that we would be proceeding with it today. In fact it was indicated quite clearly that we would be proceeding with the motion with regard to conflict of interest.
However, the government has the right to change the agenda, which it has in this particular instance, and the minister quite rightly has alluded to the chronology of events surrounding the contents of Bill C-35.
The bill itself is a miscellaneous bill affecting a good number of statutes which I will read into the record momentarily. However, I wish to inform members that this is kind of an unusual procedure, unusual in the sense of previous occasions when a miscellaneous statute of this particular magnitude has come forward as it has in previous Parliaments and sessions. It has been customary that there would be a pre-study of the bill by members of Parliament so thereafter, when the minister would come into the House and ask to go to Committee of the Whole, leave would be granted. When he would ask to go on to report stage, third reading, to wrap the bill up, co-operation was always forthcoming.
That is the way it has operated in the past but that is not the way it is operating today.
We have indicated that we would not be able to proceed with this particular bill today, but nevertheless the government has decided to stick with its agenda and bring forward this particular bill.
The bill deals with numerous technical amendments to more than 90 statutes that cover-


An hon. member:: How many?


David Charles Dingwall: Ninety federal statutes that cover virtually every facet of the Government of Canada. That is a sizeable number of statutes.

Government Orders
The legislative committee must take care on this bill. However there is very little to be said at second reading except for some of the points that I wish to make. I think I have unlimited time. I do not know if I will go on for a day or two or three. I think it important that we place certain things on the record which are of some importance to those of us on this side.
We will probably want to have additional speakers as we progress into the committee stage. Then it comes back from the committee on the report stage and then we go into third reading. Probably before Christmas there will be an opportunity for us to meet in this House and make a final adjudication on Bill C-35.
This is a breach of the traditions of this House. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would want me as an individual and as an opposition House leader to stand in this place and attempt to support the important traditions of this House, which we believe to be very important.
There are a number of amendments. One of the amendments that I wish to draw to the attention of the House, and I am sure the minister opposite would want to concur if not necessarily with the amendment itself but perhaps with my remarks following this particular amendment.
Section 9, headed the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, says:
9.	The heading preceding section 21 of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
And then:
10.	Subsections 21(2) and (3) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2) The President shall, on or before September 15, 1993 and every five years thereafter, submit to the Minister a comprehensive report, in addition to the annual report of the Agency, providing an evaluation of all activities in which the Agency was involved and the impact those activities have had on regional disparity.
I am somewhat surprised when I hear the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Minister of Public Works from Central Nova, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration from the province of New Brunswick refer to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as being-as they say in news reports and in their public musings with small business and everyone elsethe panacea to correct the regional inequalities and disparities within the region.
I have to ask myself if it is such a positive vehicle for positive change why do you only want to tell us every five years? Why would you not want to tell us every year about the wonderful workings, the tremendous contribution of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency? Why? Why would you wait five years? Perhaps the minister cannot prepare a report on an annual basis. There is an annual report. I will read the bill again for your understanding, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you are as concerned as I am with the efficiency and effectiveness of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The bill says:
The President shall, on or before September 15, 1993 and every
five years thereafter, submit to the Minister a comprehensive report,
in addition to the annual report of the Agency.


An hon. member:: Maybe it is not as good as they have been telling us.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? One of my colleagues said: Perhaps the reason why they would not want to do it, say every second year or every third year, is that they do not have anything positive to report.
That would be very different. That is very different from what we are hearing from the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister of Public Works. I do not know who to believe.
I want to say that I am leaning very heavily toward the comments of my colleague who happens to reside in the great province of Prince Edward Island.
I am leaning. I might get there. I might have a conclusion which will be obvious to each and every one of us in the House.
Just the other day the 1991 annual report of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was released and it said: "During 1990 the economy of the Atlantic provinces hosted a surprisingly good performance, despite the recession". Wasn't that wonderful? I did not hear from the minister. I did not hear from the member for Central Nova.
I want to talk about the member for Central Nova, the Minister of Public Works, because he is a leading figure in Nova Scotia politics. He is a dear and close personal friend of the premier of Nova Scotia, the hon. Don
October 25, 1991

Cameron. They have done a phenomenal job in the province of Nova Scotia.
Unemployment in many regions of Nova Scotia is at an unprecedented high level. Youth unemployment is at an unprecedented high level. The Lingan mine in my own district is closing down. The port of Halifax and centres for women are closing down. Workers at Sydney Steel have no bridge programs in order to benefit them and their families who are suffering as a result of lay-offs. That has been a dismal performance by the hon. member for Central Nova. He ought to be ashamed of himself, for allowing this kind of gobbledegook about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency while sitting in the federal cabinet.
I say that because the member for Central Nova, the Minister of Public Works, was the former Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Imagine saying "a surprisingly good year" as if there were no problems in Atlantic Canada. Bankruptcies were revealed today and 56,000 Canadians have had to file for bankruptcy in this country. I am surprised, if we are doing so well with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, that the government would have to wait for five years to give a comprehensive report telling the people of Atlantic Canada what a great job it has been doing for Atlantic Canada.
In my view the ministers and officials at ACOA have glossed over the the disturbing economic statistics in the period covered by its own annual report which shows that high interest rates and the high dollar policy of this government are dragging down the regional economy. There are significant increases in bankruptcies, higher unemployment throughout the region, startling declines in growth in forestry related industries, and an over-all decline in investment expenditures. That is the reality.
I am trying to discuss the public relations of the Government of Canada which it tries to slip into Bill C-35. We are told in Atlantic Canada, as my colleague from Charlottetown would gladly attest and support, that this agency, the panacea for rectifying regional disparities in this country, is doing a phenomenal job. In the legislation, tucked in with 90 other federal statutes, it
Government Orders
says that the government is only going to give the people a comprehensive report every fifth year.
Perhaps there may be an election in that period of time which we on this side look forward to with great anticipation, as I am sure members opposite also look forward to it. This agency, which will now make a comprehensive report in accordance with this particular statute every five years, has had some very dismal failures. It has had some successes but to suggest and imply that this particular agency has fulfilled its stated legislative mandate is beyond comprehension and is not acceptable to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada.
This agency has been approached by numerous groups for funding only to find that the criteria has changed. Its agencies in many parts of the Atlantic region have been a dismal failure.
The hon. member opposite, who is in the Chamber today, may disagree with what I say. I can well understand that. The fact of the matter is that the four Atlantic premiers, including the Tory premier of the province of Nova Scotia who happens to be the dear friend of the minister from Central Nova, have all concluded that the effectiveness of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is certainly not what the ministers who sit on the benches opposite, representing Tory ridings in Atlantic Canada, have been telling the people in that region.
We have gross, and I underline the word gross, unemployment in Atlantic Canada. The fisheries industry is on its knees. Employees of the steel industry have had to resort to what many have termed civil disobedience to get any kind of attention whatsoever from the powers that be both at the provincial and federal level. The Atlantic premiers, one of them a Tory, have all commented on the ineffectiveness and the major shortcomings of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
When I read "every five years" and then hear the ministers say that it is the panacea, I say to myself: "That is double talk at its best. Perhaps some would even say hypocrisy at its best". I would not say that, but there are individuals in Atlantic Canada who would say that it is hypocrisy at its best.
This is a sham. What the Government of Canada is trying to do to those of us in the Atlantic region through Bill C-35 is a sham.

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
I have read the recent speech of the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency where he talked about the importance of tourism. Those of us who reside in the Atlantic region and those of us who represent constituencies in the Atlantic region know full well that tourism in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland is indeed an important aspect of our economy. I would hope that when the comprehensive report is tabled before Parliament on the fifth anniversary thereafter in 1993, it would clearly spell out what the GST and the proliferation of the Tory taxes have done for tourism in Atlantic Canada. Individual operators in Atlantic Canada, whether they operate a motel, a small restaurant or some other commercial enterprise, will clearly say that the proliferation of almost 32 Canadian taxes by the government opposite, along with the GST, has taken a terrible toll on those operators in Atlantic Canada.
Tourism is down significantly among private operators and private entrepreneurs in my own region in Atlantic Canada, according to the Cape Breton Tourism Association. Jobs are fewer, the investments are down and the infrastructure is down. There is a substantial gap in the Atlantic economy.
I underline the significance of what we are debating here today. It is very important that these things be brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker and to members of the House.
I have countless constituents, and I know of many others, in Atlantic Canada who have come forward to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to seek funding and assistance, only to be turned down for a variety of reasons because they do not fall within the criteria. The criteria have changed. I am sure that the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has said that the criteria have changed because we have done consultations and our constituents have asked for that. I think in part that is correct, but the fact of the matter is that ACOA, as the leading federal institution in Atlantic Canada for economic development, has not been fulfilling its mandate to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Tourism is one example. You cannot operate in isolation. You cannot have ACOA providing small sums of moneys to small businesses in that region of the country
on the one hand and then on the other hand the Minister of Finance, through the proliferation of taxes, draining Canadian citizens in that particular region. This makes it very unfavourable for Canadians to travel domestically to that region or indeed other regions of the country. I think of western Canada and in particular our neighbours to the south.
Now I understand. I understand why the government wants to give a comprehensive report only every fifth year. I understand, because what the minister says, what the ministers infer is very different from what is actually happening in Atlantic Canada. Is ACOA going to make a comment on transfer payments when they file in accordance with section 10 of Bill C-35? Is it going to comment in a comprehensive report in addition to the annual report of the agency, providing an evaluation of all activities in which the agency was involved and the impact those activities have had on regional disparity?
I will bet my bottom dollar that they are going to duck it. They are going to duck the issue. They do not want to stand up and talk about those programs of the Government of Canada and how the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency interfaces with those other agencies.
I will give another example. I talked about tourism. Let me talk about another one. Let me talk about unemployment insurance. This is a government that brought in Bill C-21. It told the people of Canada it was going to do all sorts of wonderful things. That has not materialized at all.
It told us in Atlantic Canada that the Government of Canada was moving out of the tripartite social contract that had been a fabric of Canada for a long time. The employee, the employer and the Government of Canada were all making contributions to the unemployment insurance fund which would be disbursed to individuals who through no fault of their own were either laid off or could not find meaningful employment.
The federal government has bowed out of that contract and has left the employees and the employers to themselves. We were promised in 1989 by the predecessor to the Minister of Finance that there would be no increases in the premiums for unemployment insurance. The fact is that the premiums went up 25 per cent. On January 1, 1992 they are going up another 5 per cent.
October 25, 1991

There are a good number of individuals out there who have commented. They now envisage that because of the job dislocation from the policies of this government and because of the high unemployment which will continue, other individuals will make applications for unemployment insurance. This will necessitate a further increase in premiums for the employer and the employee. It will further erode the confidence of small business in Atlantic Canada. It will cause further havoc to employees who are paying those premiums. The Minister of Finance could not give us a straight answer yesterday as to whether or not he would concur with an increase in the unemployment insurance premiums.
Will the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which interfaces with all of the other agencies of the Government of Canada, give its comprehensive report? Will it speak to the issue of small business in Atlantic Canada and what its programs have done to small business in Atlantic Canada with the proliferation of the 32 taxes and the increase in the premiums for unemployment insurance? They cannot take it any longer.
If you are a motel operator in Souris, Prince Edward Island, if you own a restaurant in Glace Bay, if you have something in Restigouche, New Brunswick or in Comer Brook, Newfoundland, then that is a commercial enterprise. When you are a small business you are living from month to month or, still worse, from week to week. A further increase in premiums will cause undue significant harm to those small businesses which are operating. We all know because we have small businesses that are operating on a shoe string in every community in the country.
But, no, clause 10 of this bill says ACOA will report only every fifth year with a comprehensive report. I have to agree with those individuals in Atlantic Canada who from what the minister is saying in Atlantic Canada and from what this particular bill says call this hypocrisy. It is not fair or appropriate in the circumstances.
That is a second issue with respect to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. If it is doing so well, why not ran to the finish line? Why not have the comprehensive report every second year to tell the people of Atlantic Canada what a fantastic job is being done?
Government Orders
Every year they are going to file an annual report. The annual report has some information in it. There is no question about that. The comprehensive report, as alluded to in this particular clause of Bill C-35, is of paramount importance to those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada.
I want to talk about another aspect of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the fact that it will be reporting every fifth year. Those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada understand that the role of the state cannot mean everything to everyone at any given time. We do understand that the state has a role to play. One of the things that we have argued vigorously and consistently is the fact that those of us in Atlantic Canada are without a significantly high quality public infrastructure to sustain the quality of life in Atlantic Canada and to urge economic opportunities in that region.
I take for example the province of New Brunswick. The province of New Brunswick has been making the request of the Government of Canada to participate in what we now know, and what we have known for a good number of years, is a renewed highway strengthening agreement. Roads, which are a basic tool of infrastructure, a basic tool of transportation, could be upgraded to meet the standards that we now understand to be important for 1991. But the Government of Canada and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency said: "Our mandate really does not cover that. You will have to do that through a special agreement between the province and the feds".
It has never come about. They have been asleep at the switch. ACOA's response is: "That is not our mandate. That is not part of our function. We cannot do that. We do not have the wherewithal. We do not have the monetary sums to expend on this type of program".
I have been asking the federal government in co-operation with the provincial government to extend what is best known as the Fleur-de-lis trail. It is a very picturesque route in Nova Scotia which my colleague from Montreal, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard who has visited with me on several occasions, has travelled on. Even he, although a colleague, had to admit that this was a very scenic route and there was an obligation certainly by the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada to provide money. I do not mean oodles and oodles of money, as the hon. member from Toronto would lead us to believe, but a sum of money

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
which would provide the basic necessities which other communities in the country have come to realize.
ACOA cannot fund it. It does not have any money. It has to go to cabinet. It is not tied into any federal-provincial agreement. It does not have it.
What did it do in Prince Edward Island? It took away VIA Rail. It took away the tracks. What kind of compensation did it give to the people of Prince Edward Island? Not a nickel.
It took away the tracks in Newfoundland. It provided some compensation, but not nearly enough in view of the fact that the province of Newfoundland is a picturesque province. It is almost as nice as Cape Breton. It is in second place. I know you would want to agree with that. It too needs the basic necessities of infrastructure in order that it has the proper transportation routes to move its products to market and that individuals have mobility within the communities. When I read that ACOA is only going to report every fifth year the hidden agenda becomes very obvious, that is that the success rate of ACOA has not been what the ministers have alluded to in the past. It is not likely to achieve that kind of success because there is no political will on the front benches to see it through.


An hon. member:: There is nobody on the front benches.


David Charles Dingwall: Precisely. My colleague from Toronto says there is nobody-I did not make reference to it, Mr. Speaker- on the front benches. I agree with him. They may be here, but they are not all there as I am sure the hon. member would want to agree.
ACOA could provide assistance to those of us in the Atlantic region. It could provide assistance to small business. It could interface with other agencies. However there is no political will. You cannot make something happen if you do not have the political will to do it. The minister for ACOA fought tooth and nail for many weeks to get a fisheries aid package for fishermen in Newfoundland. Fishermen said: "Too little, too late". That is what they said. The farmers in western Canada said that too.
I know the Secretary of State who is, being the reasonable gentleman that he is, on the wrong side of the House. We will allow that for the time being and change that very soon in 1992, and relieve him of his pain and suffering. The fact of the matter is that the minister who also occupies the portfolio of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was told very clearly by union representatives: "Too little, too late".
It goes on and on in the fisheries. Let us talk about the steel industry for a moment. There are 600 individuals in industrial Cape Breton who are presently on unemployment insurance due to run out very soon. As a result they will have to go on welfare to provide some dignity and some semblance of respect for their families and themselves.
The Government of Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have not been of any assistance in this regard. However in fairness to the federal government-and I want to be fair as I always am-it is the provincial government, Tweedledee, and the federal government, Tweedledum, who have not shown the initiative to put forward a package which would be of some assistance to those steel workers displaced at Sydney Steel. It is they who have fallen down. As my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys has said time and time again, the Government of Nova Scotia is acting in concert with the federal government to deny Canadians in his constituency and throughout industrial Cape Breton the economic opportunity to provide for their families.
What is even more ridiculous is that the feds are going to pay anyway. They are going to pay anyway. Why? Because the feds contribute 50 per cent of the welfare costs. We are going to pay them the other way so why can the government not be somewhat creative, somewhat innovative and provide a work program. Many programs are needed in industrial Cape Breton, picturesque as it is.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: I did not hear what the hon. member said, but I want to tell him that if he has suggestions to make on how we can do that I invite him to the steelworkers' union hall. I invite him to lead the charge for the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre and others. I will introduce him and he can announce to all the steel workers, all the people of industrial Cape Breton what a wonderful program and idea that he has to provide an economic opportunity for those individuals who have been displaced. I will give
October 25, 1991

him that opportunity. I want to thank the hon. member for that and we will duly forward him the appropriate letter in order to invite him to Cape Breton to make that kind of announcement.
He has a relative in Cape Breton. Aren't we lucky? I welcome the member back to the island of Cape Breton.
It goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are giving me a few moments. I could speak for days and I know that members on this side would want me to speak for days.


Some hon. members:: Keep it up, keep it up.


David Charles Dingwall: I want to say in the two minutes that I have before we proceed with Standing Order 31 that this is a terrible scam, a terrible scam. Think of the people, think of the human suffering, think of the despair, think of the denial of hope in that particular region of the country. Some members opposite may find it amusing. I do not find it amusing at all. My colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, my colleague from Charlottetown, and my colleagues from Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and other parts of Nova Scotia see the economic devastation that the policies of the government opposite have inflicted on Atlantic Canada every day that they travel in the Atlantic provinces.
I would hope that in due time we will have an opportunity to change some of those policies. Have no illusions. It will not be easy for any new government to change what this government has done in Atlantic Canada. We will provide the hope, we will provide the political will, and we will work with the business community in Atlantic Canada. We will work through the various agencies in Atlantic Canada. We will interface with the appropriate provincial, municipal and federal departments to put together a plan to provide economic opportunities in that region of the country.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will give me an opportunity when we come back at twelve o'clock to continue on with the short remaining remarks that I have. I know that you will want to see this bill debated quite vigorously on second reading, when it goes to committee and when it comes back to the House on report stage and third reading.
I wish to reserve my time for twelve o'clock if that is the guidance that I get from the Chair at this time. Is my time completed?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I may remind the Leader of the Opposition that the first two members to speak are allowed a maximum of 40 minutes, and his
time has therefore expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I know we just have a minute or two before we start statements so I would like to give notice, through you to the government, regarding the request we had from the minister concerning debating Bill C-35, this omnibus bill, that we cannot give unanimous agreement to go into Committee of the Whole on this bill today. It is 120 pages of proposed amendments. I will be pointing out a number of questions that I think should be raised and I do not think Parliament should move so quickly on a bill that is so detailed without a closer examination in committee. We will be making those points in debate after Question Period today.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
Translation]

Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow in Rouyn-Noranda is the opening night of the Tenth International Film Festival in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. On its tenth birthday, the festival will screen more than 82 films from 20 countries and showcase an impressive array of actors and actresses.

October 25, 1991
Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, ten years ago few people thought that what initially was quite an adventurous proposition would, over the years, become an event of such impressive scope and quality.
Congratulations to an outstanding team headed by Mr. Jacques Matte and to the people of Abitibi-Temiscamin-gue, who have constantly supported and promoted the festival. Film buffs-make it a date in Rouyn-Noranda from October 26 to October 31!


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced almost $40 million in aid to fisheries in Atlantic Canada. However, the minister forgot something important in the package.
He forgot Prince Edward Island. All of Atlantic Canada except P.E.I. received aid because of the disaster in the fishery. Fishermen on Prince Edward Island also need help. Many groundfishermen I know are in severe trouble and may lose their boats.
Prince Edward Islanders are part of Canada and deserve a fair share of the government's assistance. This is just another example of how this government is ignoring Prince Edward Island.
According to figures provided by the government, P.E.I. has received less than $150,000 from the $584 million aid package announced last year.
I suggest that the minister look at the map and realize that P.E.I. is part of this nation and its fishery needs aid.


TAXATION
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, taxes in Canada are too high in order to encourage consumer spending and business investment. They ought to come down.
This is one of the reasons I wanted to come to this place, to try to influence policies that would lead to lower taxes but there is more than trying to foster a tax revolt inside and outside of Parliament.
The greater goal is to eliminate the reason why we have high taxes, and that is Canada's debt. If it did not exist, taxes could be lowered by $40 billion a year without affecting spending on government programs.
A newspaper report today paints me as a frustrated backbench MP demanding lower taxes, and this is not true. I demand a lower deficit, a reduced debt and then in the long term, lower taxes. To adopt any other position would be irresponsible.



Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, many members will know that the Income Tax Act contains a number of flagrant and abusive discriminations that I want to draw to the attention of the House.
If a mother or father stays home to raise a child as opposed to one who goes out to work, there are income tax deductions for that person who goes out to work.
With respect to married and unmarried couples, the unmarried couples get more deductions than the married couples. I am not seeking to lower the deductions for those who enjoy them. Clearly, that would be unfair as well.
What I am seeking, however, is fairness and some equity with respect to these two cases and any other cases where there are abuses.


FORESTRY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, as previously announced by the Minister of Forestry, today marks the closing deadline for letters of intent to be filed by prospective applicants for participation in Canada's model forest program.
This competition to select and establish a network of between six and nine model forests across the country will conclude with final proposals due on December 20 and final selection decisions by the government on or before June 1, 1992.
I am very pleased to confirm that intent has formally been declared for the Nashwaak Valley area of New Brunswick to become one of Canada's model forests, and certainly the watershed of the Nashwaak River does
October 25, 1991

reflect the broad diversity of values to be found in the typical forests of eastern Canada.
It is an area not only rich in most species of hardwood and softwood trees, but is also abundant in wildlife, fish and water resources.
As well, this valley is totally accessible and fully utilized by citizens of New Brunswick for recreational purposes. Not the least of its qualifications for model forestry status is a wide variety of forest land ownership which exists there ranging from large industrial to small private woodlots, all within the application of the New Brunswick Crown Lands and Forest Act which arguably remains the foremost forest management legislation in Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, just 300 kilometres south of the B.C-Washington border lies the soiled heart of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a legacy of the cold war which has become one of the most contaminated spots on the face of the earth. The release in 1986 of classified military documents has revealed decades of intentional and accidental release of airborne radioactive contamination which travelled throughout the Pacific northwest, including Canada.
Growing evidence of thyroid disease and elevated levels of thyroid and other cancers among populations exposed to the releases of radioactive 1-131 has prompted two U.S. studies. Here in Canada, B.C. medical authorities and the Canadian Medical Association have urged the Mulroney government to join these studies to determine the level of risk to Canadians. The government's response has been appalling. Without any epidemiological data to support it, the government simply contends that there is no cause for concern.
It is easy to conclude there is no problem when you do not even bother to look. Residents of southern B.C. and Alberta deserve to know whether or not they have been put at risk.


CANADA SCHOLARS
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: The minister for science announced the names of 3,200 New Canada Scholars for 1991-92. Twelve of these scholars are from the federal riding of Cambridge.
These 3,200 New Canada Scholars are joining the ranks of more than 4,000 established Canada Scholars who are already pursuing studies in mathematics, engineering and natural sciences.
Canada scholarships are worth $2,000 annually and can be renewed up to three times for a total value of $8,000 to each student. A Canada scholarship holds more than its monetary rewards, it brings prestige, recognition and career opportunities to the recipients.
The Canadian government has pledged $80 million to this program. Today's Canada Scholars are tomorrow's scientists and engineers.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations both to the new and continuing Canada Scholars. I wish them every success in meeting the challenge of being a Canada Scholar.


NEWFOUNDLAND ECONOMY
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I want to register in this House the serious economic conditions of many of my constituents in the riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
Despite the provincial and federal aid packages, which unquestionably have been helpful, there are still many whose earnings are less than $100 a week, well submerged below the poverty level, those whose dignity has been shattered and whose hopes for the future have all but been dashed.
I call on this government to reassess its Atlantic catch failure package with the goal of providing better subsistence for those Newfoundlanders whose fortunes have flagged in these extraordinarily tough economic times.

October 25, 1991


EMPLOYMENT CENTRE IN JONQUIERE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Madam
Speaker, today I have a special message for the people of Jonquiere.
Tuesday, a number of people went to the Employment Centre to apply for jobs at the Jonquiere Tax Centre. At eight o'clock in the morning there was a long line of people in front of the Employment Centre, and some people did not have a chance to submit their application.
They were critical of the process, so I asked the authorities at the Employment Centre and the Jonquiere Tax Centre to reassess their procedures when offering employment.
Transparence and equity are important, and we will do what is necessary to take appropriate corrective action, in the best interests of all concerned.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a disturbing issue concerning the delivery of sewer and water services to Canada's Indian reserves.
Many of us know that most reserves have high unemployment rates, as high as 85 and 90 per cent and many are dependent, unfortunately, on welfare.
Their native children commit suicide at seven times the national rate and many young native men and women stand a better chance of going to jail than university.
Members may not know that many native communities do not in this day and age enjoy the kinds of things others take for granted, running water, hot showers, flush toilets, washing machines. Without these necessities the economic health and environmental problems on reserves will continue.
Despite recent agreements that are resulting in water and sewage systems being installed in native communities, native people are still being asked to pay for the hookup of these systems.
This may seem very reasonable in most situations, but in communities with 85 and 90 per cent unemployment, this is a fiscal impossibility. I call upon the government to provide-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, John Ross Taylor, the leader of the Western Guard Party was ordered by the Human Rights Commission to disconnect the telephone answering machine which was used to spread hatred against various ethnic and racial minorities. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and Mr. Taylor's one-year conviction was upheld. It is difficult to understand why the Human Rights Commission waited for over seven months to proceed with the process to have Mr. Taylor incarcerated.
The Human Rights Commission often times complains that it does not have the teeth to fight the promotion of hatred. Here it had the teeth and waited too long to use them.


WHITE RIBBON AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY WEEK
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker,
I rise today to ask members of the House to join in recognition next week of White Ribbon Against Pornography Week.
The national group Citizens for Decency has set aside the week of October 27 to November 3 in order to raise public awareness of the damage caused by pornography.
We as legislators have always known we have special responsibilities, particularly to make war against those who would take advantage of children, the creation of and sale of pornography. The children particularly must never be used to enhance profit margins for unscrupulous wholesalers of pornographic material.
I have forwarded to each member and senator a white lapel ribbon so that they may show their support during this campaign next week. It is impossible to quantify the harm done to young minds from pornography, but our
October 25, 1991

collective wisdom must steer us toward protecting particularly our youth from its effects.
I urge all members to show their support by wearing their ribbon next week.


CHATHAM, ONTARIO
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to commend the city of Chatham, Ontario as it tackles its economic future head on.
The Task Force on the Local Economy was set up under the able leadership of Mr. William Case. This is a city that is not going to take the recession lying down.
Chatham's auto industry and agriculture have been hit hard by the made-in-Canada recession. Many factories were closed with jobs lost forever.
They will work with the area business and labour groups and the city's Economic Development Commission to look ahead, to help our city compete now and in the future.
In the upcoming weeks, the committee will be seeking opinions of local people as an action plan is produced. They will be taking up the slack from the federal government that has abandoned its duties.
I wholeheartedly support their efforts as the city of Chatham plans for the future with confidence. Let us roll up our sleeves and get to work for the betterment of all.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, Canada's shipbuilding industry has been devastated by recent economic conditions and is in its worse slump since World War II.
We must now create an investment climate which permits us to capture a greater share of Canadian and world markets for specialized vessels. We must work to meet a greater share of our domestic requirements for vessels used in defence, coastal trade, search and rescue patrol and the offshore fishery.
Was this a quote from a union or from a shipbuilding company or from the NDP? No, it was a quote from the Conservative Party of Canada which said: "A top priority of a Progressive Conservative government will be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry". That was its campaign promise in 1984, and what has happened since? Shipyard after shipyard from coast to coast to coast has been closed by this government. It has not done anything to help the industry survive.
Other marine countries around the world assist, either through financing or through subsidies, to allow the private sector to be able to afford to buy ships built in their own country.
I call upon this government to recognize the reality of the world that it too has to assist.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, as we enter the fourth quarter of 1991, the Canadian economy is showing signs of rallying from the effects of the recession. Part of the reason for this recovery can be attributed to the free trade agreement with the United States.
Despite the high Canadian dollar, firms are taking advantage of reduction in tariffs under the free trade agreement to tap the lucrative American market.
In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, many companies are finding the U.S. as a place to expand markets and increase revenues.
A few years ago, the Sarnia division of Esso Chemical was selling 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the polyethylene made there to the U.S. This year, reports indicate sales have increased to 40 per cent.
In 1989, Shell Canada was not exporting any polypropylene to the U.S. in 1991; 10 to 15 per cent of that production is now going to the U.S. market.
The surge in the American market is also responsible in part for a recent $12 million expansion at Esso Chemical.
As evidenced in these examples, this opening up of the American market to Canadian companies is aiding our competitive position-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Time is expired. The hon. member for Hillsborough.

October 25, 1991
Oral Questions


SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, the month of October has been declared Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Month. SIDS is the leading single cause of death in Canada for babies between one week and one year of age.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has taken the lives of an estimated 12,000 infants in Canada since 1973. Twelve thousand children are dead and have left behind grieving parents and frustrated doctors and nurses with no answer as to why these apparently healthy babies have died without warning.
The Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths will be holding its annual National Babies Breath Conference in Atlantic Canada for the first time in 10 years. This conference will be held in Charlottetown and will provide volunteer SIDS parents and professionals alike with practice and assistance for their work with grieving families. Together we can work to find the answer and stop future deaths.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. This morning, I spoke to Constantin Haddad, the son of a Canadian woman who was taken hostage in Lebanon in 1985. Her son first contacted the Canadian government in November 1985, and since that time he has received no written reply from the government about this Canadian hostage who is still in Lebanon. Why does the government refuse to do anything to help a Canadian hostage in Lebanon?
[English \


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member that if she had given the government notice of this question we would have been able to get the information, get the details and give her a full answer.
With the information that she has provided, I will seek out the information for her and get back to her as soon as I can. Without that notice, I do not think it is fair for her to expect that ministers would have all that information in the tops of their heads.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would expect that the senior ministers of the government would be apprised of a Canadian woman whose family believes she is being held hostage in Lebanon when the Canadian government was originally contacted in writing about this issue on November 8, 1985.
The Department of External Affairs is veiy aware of this issue. I want to ask the government again: Why is it when Henriette Haddad, a Canadian woman, was taken hostage on September 26, 1985, that the Canadian government has not even answered her son's letters asking for its help in this case?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I am not the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs were here, and if my friend is correct in what she says, then the Secretary of State for External Affairs would know about this information and would be able to provide a response.
I am unable to do so without the notice which normally is given on something as detailed as that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the notice has been given by the Haddad family. This woman's 87-year-old husband is sitting in a Montreal nursing home waiting for news of his wife. Her son has been in direct contact with the Department of External Affairs pleading for their help. Indirectly they have told him that they have not acted in this case because this woman holds dual citizenship.
Given the minister's apparent ignorance about the file today, will the government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister may want to answer. I think the hon. member has been told on two different occasions now that the minister does not have the answer to the question. I do not think that talking about the ignorance is helping in any way.
The hon. minister.
October 25, 1991


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I accept the concern that the hon. member has expressed on behalf of the family. I am sympathetic with the concern that the family is expressing.
To take cheap political advantage by the way the hon. member is posing questions is not appropriate in a situation like this if the hon. member truly believes in the case that she is presenting.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology said that he had no new economic initiatives to propose because, and I quote: "There is not a clear consensus or clear understanding as to what should be done." This is nonsense. Canadians know what the economic problems are and even the government's own adviser, Professor Porter, was highly critical of this government's economic management.
Why does the government have to go on dithering? Why can it not act? There is a clear consensus and understanding about its failures in science and technology, research and development, training and a lot of other areas.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, rather than trying to make political points on the issues at hand, I would think that the hon. member, if he would read what Professor Porter said, would agree with some of the conclusions that he has come to and would be trying to help us, as a government, as a country, come to a consensus on the directions we should go.
What Professor Porter is saying is that the old ways of the past, an economy based solely on resources, is not the way to go, that we have to move in an economy that is based more on research and development, more on training and technology. He says that companies have to be continually upgrading, continually making themselves as individual companies more competitive and to suggest, as some members opposite have, that it is only
Oral Questions
because of the Canadian dollar, it is only because of the free trade agreement that we are in the position that we are today, according to Professor Porter is missing the boat.
What we are looking for here is some economy-wide changes, and this is what we are proposing in the initiative that we will be announcing next Tuesday. I would encourage the hon. member to look upon this initiative as a positive initiative, seeking out a consensus to build a national action plan to address these problems.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, for three years we have been telling this government-and Canadians have as well-that science and technology, research and development training are major problems and this government has been cutting back in these areas. It could reverse them today.
Professor Porter said yesterday that de Havilland is a success story and a key part of Canada's economic future. Will the minister change his mind and will he end the uncertainty about de Havilland's future? Will he commit to ensuring its ongoing future today? Will he also respond to the question I asked him last Tuesday in the House: What steps has he taken to ensure that the $1 billion that Canadians have invested in the STOL wing technology will not be stolen from Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Madam Speaker, I cannot let some of the elements of the preamble to the hon. member's question go unanswered.
We are not cutting back on science and technology. We have been increasing science and technology. We have in place the most generous research and development tax regime of any of the major industrialized countries. We are not cutting back on training. We are increasing the amount of training. We started basically from scratch in 1984. We have $2.25 billion now devoted to training and upgrading of skills of Canadians. The hon. member does himself a disservice to repeat these untrue allegations.
The second point the hon. member asked about was uncertainty regarding de Havilland. As I have indicated, we are working closely with de Havilland, with Boeing, with A and A people in order to try to come to an agreement on this. Obviously it involves the province of Ontario. We are not the only player on it, so we alone are not able to eliminate that uncertainty. But we are

October 25, 1991
Oral Questions
working toward doing that and the hon. member I think is well aware of the efforts we are making to do that.
With regard to the STOL technology-


Some hon. members:: Oh, come on now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we get three questions from the hon. member and hon. members opposite do not want to have the answers. I am trying to provide answers to the hon. member.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today marks the end of Small Business Week in Canada and for the 947 small businesses that went into bankruptcy last month, it means the end of their business.
The $1 million man, Michael Porter, from the United States who did a study recently on Canada's competitiveness clearly pointed out that it is this government's economic policies that show a lack of vision for the future of Canada.
Bankruptcies, a drastic decline in consumer spending, the GST, all have dealt a body blow to small business in this country. When is the Minister of Finance prepared to bring in a plan to deal with the very serious situation of 3 million people who cannot find a job and for these small businesses that are directly going into decline.
The backbone of our country, small businesses, deserve better from this government.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think it is encouraging to note that there has been an easing in business bankruptcies.
That is a reflection of the lower interest rates and the turnaround in the economy that is occurring. I am pleased to note that yesterday, the prime bank rate went down 8.75 per cent and that is certainly one of the lowest in many, many years. I think all members would applaud that.
That is clearly a very important element as the hon. member would agree in any small business enterprise, and interest rates are very, very key.
The other indicators such as the increase in housing starts, the increase in our merchandise trade balance, the drop in unemployment figures that have occurred in the month of September are an indication that there is a turnaround. We have to get the fundamentals right, and I think the hon. member agrees with that.
We have had to bring inflation down and the inflationary expectations down. That is occurring. We said when that would happen, there would be some reduction in interest rates. That is occurring, and we have the stage set for a durable, sustainable recovery with price stability.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that bankruptcies are 38 per cent higher than they were last September when we were officially in a recession.
I think it is pretty hard to tell that to the small businesses that are suffering.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, if the minister doesn't want to listen to what this side of the House is telling him, I suggest he listen to his own members. The message is simple: The government's tax policy is breaking the middle class. He can also listen to provincial Premiers like Robert Bouras-sa, who says people are paying too much tax, with disastrous results.
Will the government relieve the tax burden on the middle class by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the government's record in maintaining strong growth for individual families has been excellent since we have been in office.
Real average family income grew at a rate of 2 per cent per year in the period 1984-89. That is a rate of growth that is comparable to the 1960s and 1970s. To suggest that there has been a depression in personal income is not in accordance with the facts.
The facts clearly do not bear that out. Of course we are concerned about the tax burden, but the hon. member will agree that we do have a serious debt problem. We have a serious deficit problem.
October 25, 1991

It is interesting to note that her colleagues who will assume the premiership of the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan have indicated the importance of bringing forth a balanced budget.
That is exactly what we are attempting to do and I would hope that we would have the co-operation of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary, the minister knows that what we need in this country is fair taxation. The middle class and individuals have paid an increasingly high amount of the tax burden. The minister is aware of that.
When the minister suggests that things are getting better, I suggest he talk to those 3 million people who cannot find a job in this country, the one in six children who live in poverty, the 100,000 homeless and the
500,000	who use food banks.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My question for the minister is now that he has worked jointly with large corporate Canada, will he give a voice to those millions of Canadians who are the victims of this government's idea of competitiveness?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, this is rather interesting. The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways.
When there was a labour disruption on the west coast, her party voted against the resumption of work so that farmers could sell and ship their grain to support the small business enterprise in western Canada and, indeed, throughout all of Canada.
There was a disruption in Thunder Bay. They constantly harp about the fact that there is a decline in the amount of shipments going through Thunder Bay, yet they voted against going back to work and restoring normal grain handling operations.
She cannot have it both ways. She cannot pick and choose. She is either with small business and for small business, or against it. Half the time she is for it and half the time she is against it.
Oral Questions


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
New bankruptcy figures for September are in and they continue to climb. Forty-six thousand average, individual Canadians have had to declare bankruptcy. Over 10,000 Canadian businesses, many of them small businesses, have gone under, leaving over $4 billion in debt.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. If this government's economic policies are so great, why have bankruptcies increased in the last 12 months alone by over 65 per cent in this country? Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have been in a recession for the better part of a year. There has been a turnaround in the second quarter and we expect that to continue, albeit at a modest rate of growth.
What is encouraging is that there is an easing in the level of business bankruptcies and that is an indication of the fact that there is strength re-emerging in the economy.
I ask the hon. member to consider the fact that the merchandise trade balance is up, housing starts are up to
181,000	on an annualized basis and unemployment rates are coming down. The indicators to which the hon. member refers, such as the bankruptcies, have a certain amount of lag time. I would ask him to take that into consideration.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
Only a Tory minister could call a 65 per cent increase in consumer and business bankruptcies in Canada good news for those who have gone bankrupt.
According to Statistics Canada, prices charged to Canadian consumers have actually gone down over the last year and it is the government's own tax policies that are actually fueling inflation and driving prices up.
Why is it that the average, middle-class Canadians, who constitute 25 per cent of all taxpayers, end up paying over 50 per cent of all taxes? Why is it that the government continues to pursue economic policies that drive average Canadians and small businesses over the brink of bankruptcy? Why does it refuse to bring in a fair tax policy and why do they not do it now?

Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member should make up his mind. Yesterday he stood up in the House advocating the expenditure of more money, more transfers to provinces. Where will he get the money from if he does not get it from the taxation of Canadians?
You cannot have it both ways. This hon. member talks a great line about sending more money to the provinces in terms of EPF and transfer payments, yet he wants to talk about lower taxes. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to spend more money, you have to tax someone or you are going to have to drive up the deficit. What does the hon. member want, higher taxes or a higher deficit?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for my friend, the Minister of Finance, who yesterday in answering questions from the member for Hamilton East, did what was known as the Alberta two-step and refused to answer as to whether or not there would be a 14 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums coming this January 1.
I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would clearly state for the purposes of small business and employees across this country that he will stick by the word of his predecessor and have no further increases in the premiums for unemployment insurance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my answer today is the same answer I gave in the House yesterday.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on page 30 of the 1989 budget papers, his predecessor states, and I quote: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of unemployment insurance in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums".
I ask the Minister of Finance again, will he give an assurance that he will stick to the decision and the comments made by his predecessor, as the Minister of Finance, and there will be no increases in the unemployment insurance premiums as indicated in that statement? Yes or no.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I repeat, the answer that I give in the House today is exactly the same answer that I gave in the House yesterday. If the hon. member wants to quote the former Minister of Finance he can quote the budget of February 1991 when he said, and I quote: "Rates will be adjusted in such a manner to ensure the financial integrity of the account".
That is what the Minister of Finance said in the budget of 1991 and that certainly applies, Madam Speaker.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, the Porter study said something that most of us have been saying for quite a long time, and that is that regional economic development should be based on local strengths.
My question is for whomever is speaking on behalf of the minister responsible for ACOA, which has had a number of large projects under RCMP investigation over the past year. Now it stands to lose another $4 million in another patronage-ridden deal. This is the result of High Tech Woodworkers which went bankrupt after three months of operation and now has been sold for $1.2 million.
My question is as follows: Is it not about time that this government started building on local economic strengths to produce permanent jobs rather than local patronage to produce bankruptcies?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member sounds very clever in making that statement. Surely, if he was correct in his facts his conclusion would certainly be correct as well.
There have been a number of risks taken in trying to develop Atlantic Canada, which is the purpose for which ACOA was created. Its success rate is pretty high nevertheless. The rate of failures is about 5 per cent out of 100. There were a number of failures in the Cape Breton area, all of which was acknowledged. There was a report done in connection with the situation by Mr. Anthony Brait. The agency has been re-evaluated since then and a report done by the Moncton economist,

whose name escapes me for the moment. You all know the name that I am seeking. We are following the recommendations of those reports and in Cape Breton in particular we want to concentrate more on smaller enterprises and on ideas and suggestions that come from within the region, rather than from without.
So, mistakes have been made and-Oh, give me a chance, I haven't been here for three or four days.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It certainly shows.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister may be able to jog his memory while we listen to the supplementary.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
The Porter report also criticizes the government for its research and development policy. Now we hear that the government is about to kill Canada's participation in the international fusion project.
My question is this: Given the great potential of this project to produce long-term environmentally sustainable energy, and given that Canada could be a likely site to receive $1.5 billion in benefits by virtue of the establishment here of the thermonuclear plant, does cutting this $13 million really make sense, I ask you, when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on TRIUMF-KEAON and hundreds of millions of dollars on a space project that will not produce nearly the benefits that this could potentially produce for Canada and the world?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member asked the question, and especially for his interest in fusion and the nuclear industry and his strong support for that industry.
I am pleased that the party has had a change of view since the questions were received yesterday. I simply say to the hon. member that the Minister of State for Research and Development and Treasury Board are looking at this project and Canadian involvement in it. I
Oral Questions
thank him for his support and I am glad also that he is going to make these representations to his party and his leader.


CANADA POST
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, the president of Canada Post was appointed by Privy Council Order 435, of which I have a copy, in 1986, for five years up to this year, at a salary "within the range $165,000 to $205,000". That expired on February 17 of this year and in March of this year, a month later, the Privy Council listed his new salary range from $248,000 to $310,000, not counting his bonus.
Does the minister not find this a little difficult to digest, awarding a 50 per cent salary increase to the president of Canada Post so quickly, so quietly, and telling the rest of Canadians to accept zero per cent and tighten their belts?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, when Don Lander took over as president of Canada Post the taxpayers of Canada were contributing by way of subsidy hundreds of millions of dollars, $500 million a year.
In the last two years under Don Lander's presidency, Canada Post has returned to the taxpayers, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, almost $200 million by way of dividends.
I understand that the hon. member does not think that a man with that kind of accomplishment should get paid as much as some third string second baseman, but frankly the taxpayers of Canada have got terrific value for the money we have paid Don Lander in salary. We as trustees of the taxpayers of Canada should be applauding him and wishing that the other leaders in our economy were as productive as him.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, this government has closed post offices, replaced postmasters and postmistresses with outdoor boxes that freeze up in the winter time and in the interest of profit has destroyed our postal service in many ways.

October 25, 1991
Oral Questions
Will this government return our postal service to its original purpose, to deliver the mail quickly and fairly to all Canadians, and will the minister now roll back Mr. Lander's salary to at least a measly quarter of a million dollars a year and tell him that he is not going to get his Christmas bonus this year for being a good boy last year?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is saying we should go back to the past when taxpayers dipped into their pockets to subsidize the post office $500 million to $600 million. We are still paying interest on those subsidies we had to borrow the money for in the past. I certainly would not recommend we return to the bad old past in that context.
The international postal union says that Canada Post is the most efficient postal system in the world. Surveys by independent market survey companies of the changes the post office has implemented in terms of new outlets in comer grocery stores and so on show a 90 per cent approval rating.
No, we are not going to go back to the past. Come on, George, join the present and the future.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, the Tory government gave the president of Canada Post a salary increase of $131,250. Meanwhile, Huguette Perrier, a 65 year old widow, who has delivered mail in Dalkeith, Ontario in my riding for nine years, was fired to save Canada Post $1,500 a year. Is that justice?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of all sides of the House, in 1981 the member for Papineau introduced a bill creating a Crown corporation and we all agreed in this House that the corporation should run like a business and should operate at arm's length from the government. It was unanimously agreed. In terms of remuneration of senior officials in Crown corporations and agencies, we have an outside group that advises us on what is appropriate given the marketplace and the salary
levels. That group, as a matter of fact, was set up by the Liberal government.
Is the hon. member suggesting we go back to the bad old days where all of these decisions as to who is delivering mail here are done on a partisan basis and are done by the politicians, or should be accept the judgment of this House in 1981 to let the post office operate at arms length, and should we not be applauding the fact that it is now the most efficient post office in the world.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, if I were this government I would not talk about nominating people on a partisan basis.
This has to do with fairness again. How can a government give the head shogun of Canada post a $131,250 salary increase and fire someone who delivers the mail in my riding, a widow, to save $1,500? Is that not at least wrong in the eyes of the minister or is there no sense of fairness at all left with this government?


Harvie Andre: As I tried to explain to the hon. member this government, in following the instructions of this House, does not get involved in the individual decisions of the post office as to how to deploy its staff, which businesses to open, and so on. That was the instruction from the House. We are following those instructions.
The hon. member is suggesting, presumably, that these decisions as to who is hired or fired are made by politicians. People would call that a patronage-based system. I do not think that is appropriate.
The question of the service to people and the management of the post office has been examined and assessed by independent pollsters. We have the track record. I think it is absurd for anybody to look at that record and suggest we go back to the bad old days when taxpayers had to dip into their jeans to subsidize an inefficient operation. We should be applauding-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are getting into debate.


YUGOSLAVIA
Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, yesterday the federal Yugoslav army continued to wantonly shell the Croatian city of Dubrovnik. In response to a question in this House, the Minister for International
October 25, 1991

Trade indicated the government would raise this issue yesterday or today at the UNESCO conference in Paris.
My question to the minister is this: Can he please update us on any action that the government took yesterday or today, and are we any closer to securing international sanctions or peacekeeping or condemnation of the Yugoslav army?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, we did raise the matter at UNESCO. UNESCO did pass a resolution, I understand unanimously, calling for all parties to observe the Convention on the World's Heritage and also demanded that the military forces withdraw from Dubrovnik immediately.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, farmers in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan recently held large rallies to demonstrate their opposition to the government's agricultural programs and policies. Those farmers, including 7,500 in Regina last night, have said very loudly and clearly that there are deficiencies with the GRIP and NISA programs and that funds available under the so-called third line of defence must be increased.
In light of this protest, is the government prepared to acknowledge the farmers' growing plight? Will the government take steps to correct the obvious deficiencies in GRIP and NISA? Will the government increase the funds available under the third line of defence?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, GRIP is a tripartite arrangement that involves the provinces, the federal government and the producers. I want to remind the hon. member that payments are being made under both the NISA program and GRIP.
As a matter of fact and to put it on the record, Madam Speaker, some $548 million was to be paid by September 15 in the form of the emergency assistance which was announced this spring. There is roughly $1.5 billion to be paid between now and the end of the year under the interim payments under the GRIP program, plus the
Oral Questions
$800 million that will be paid out as soon as possible over this year and next year. That totals something in the order of $3.4 billion. If you subtract the producers' premiums of $536 million, there will be something in the order of $2.8 billion flowing to the agricultural community between now and the end of June. While they do not have that money in hand at the present time, these funds are being processed and/or being mailed.
I am sure that will be very helpful in farmers meeting their debt obligations and planning for the future.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: supplementary, Madam Speaker. Seven thousand, five hundred farmers in Regina last night were very much aware of the money that the government has provided and they have said it is not enough.
I hope the government is listening to those 7,500 plus hundreds of thousands of others out there.
The calls for a deficiency payment have been voiced since spring. The money has been needed for months, yet it appears that the government's intention for the third line of defence payout will not come until some time in 1992.
Given that the money is needed immediately, is the government prepared to advance those funds now to meet the needs expressed so strongly last night in Regina?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the spring we announced an emergency program of something in the order of $600 million. This $800 million deficiency payment is in addition to that and in addition to the payments that will be made out under the NISA and GRIP programs.
I remind the hon. member that between now and spring seeding, there will be something in the order of $2.8 billion or $2.9 billion net flowing to the farmers of Canada.
The hon. member suggests that is not enough. I think that $2.8 billion is a heck of a lot of money. In addition, we note that yesterday's Statistic Canada forecast indicates that farm income will be up by 10 per cent. We are expecting that there will be a further advance of credit to the Soviet Union which will probably result in an additional $400 million to $500 million worth of grain

October 25, 1991
Oral Questions
sales, a good portion of that which will be shipped in this calendar year. So there will be cash flow and there will be deliveries made.
The money is either in the process of being mailed or in the process of being calculated. I ask the hon. member to tell his producers that money is on the way. As far as the $700 million or $800 million that was announced, we will provide it as soon as we possibly can.


TAXATION
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago, the government announced that in January 1992, businesses would no longer be able to deduct the provincial payroll tax from their federal income tax. This is crazy! And all because the government has a difference of opinion with a number of provincial governments. Madam Speaker, this is an incredible act of discrimination against Quebec businesses that create jobs. Why the cut throat approach?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is simply to stop the erosion of the federal tax base and the hon. member I am sure would appreciate that.
There are ongoing discussions with the province of Quebec. The hon. member should realize that if this were allowed to continue right across the board, the federal tax base would be totally eroded. We want to try to work this thing out as amicably as we possibly can. Discussions are currently under way to ensure that this can be resolved in a satisfactory manner.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the minister responsible for Montreal. This tax clearly discriminates against Quebec, which will pay half the $7 million it will raise. This tax will bankrupt businesses and throw people out of work.
The minister says he defends Montreal, so why did he accept a tax that will further increase unemployment in a city where the unemployment rate is already over 13 per cent? How many more Angus plants will have to close before he understands?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, the hon. member who is a very successful businessman should understand that when the federal government decides to help a city like Montreal by providing subsidies-Petromont was given a subsidy of $55 million-obviously, as the Minister of Finance just said, it must be able to raise the money first. That is what we intend to do, and with the revenue we collect, we will be in an even better position to help Montreal.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. As has already been stated and as the minister knows, over
7,000	farmers gathered in Regina yesterday. They expressed on their own behalf and on behalf of thousands of others the concerns of Canadian farmers.
The recently announced assistance will partially address the drastic shortfall in their incomes. My question is when are the farmers going to receive the recently announced $800 million in assistance? They are told it is next spring. I want to remind the House and the minister that their bins may be full, but their bank accounts are empty and their bills are due. The farmers know when all of the other moneys are coming forward as he has stated just a few minutes ago. When can they expect the money that has been announced lately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, between $2.8 billion and $2.9 billion will be flowing through to the agricultural community between now and spring seeding. Moneys are flowing right now. I was just advised that cheques are in the mail to the farmers of Manitoba, which is the interim payments under the GRIP program. There are payments going out under the NISA program and as soon as we can get a decision from the third line of defence committee as to what is the
October 25, 1991

most appropriate way of distributing the $800 million, we will be in a position to start putting that in place. All I can say to the hon. member is that we will try to get the money flowing as quickly as we possibly can, provided we can find it, and as the hon. member knows, that is still a very difficult task. However, we understand the urgency and the plight out there and I know it is shared by the hon. member. We are going to do it as quickly as we can.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Deputy Prime Minister as well. As he knows, there are many ways we can assist the agrifood industry.
One year ago, the pesticide review committee submitted its report. No action has been taken to implement the recommendations of that report. Every time we ask, we are told "soon", "be patient", "it is coming", "it will be here shortly". Another year has gone by and the positive effects that can have for the industry should and could have taken place last year.
I ask the minister: when will the recommendations of that report be put into place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the pesticide review committee was a very delicate initiative that had to balance both the concerns of the environmentalists and the environmental situation as well as agriculture and other elements. I think the committee did an excellent job in doing the study and coming forth with some very specific recommendations. It certainly is the intention of the government to implement those recommendations. I am not sure of the reason for the delay, but I will undertake to make those representations to the Minister of Agriculture on his return and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for International Trade. The U.S. government has started its investigation into whether Canadian provinces unfairly subsidize the softwood lumber industry.
Oral Questions
Since the U.S. has announced its retaliatory measures, a number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters are suffering, specifically from Saskatoon.
My question to the minister is this: In a recent letter he wrote to me, he states that the federal government will make every effort to ensure that Canadian lumber interests are protected. I would like the minister to tell the House what the specifics of the efforts are from the government in this regard.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, what I was referring to in that letter was in regard to the conduct of our defence on the countervail action.
We will be working closely with the provinces, with the industry and with people in the United States who are also in support of our position on the softwood issue, to ensure that the strongest possible defence is put forward to counter the allegations by the United States.
I have also indicated to hon. members that if there are individual instances where they feel there are problems at the border in relation to the export of softwood lumber, I would appreciate it if they would bring those specifics to my attention so we can deal with them in a very precise way.


RETAIL INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Retailers have suffered a $15 billion drop in retail sales in August. This is clearly reflected in the latest bankruptcy figures which show an increase nationally of 38 per cent for the month of September and a devastating increase of 62 per cent in Atlantic Canada.
What is this government going to do to inject some confidence into the retail sector?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the September figures clearly show a little different trend.

Routine Proceedings
The August figures to which the hon. member has referred showed a rather substantive decline in automobile sales. That really affected the old retail sales figures.
If she will look at the September figures, she will note that automobile sales have increased by some 11 per cent. While sales have not recovered completely, it does not paint as dismal a picture in September as it did in August. In some respects the August figures have been overtaken by those in September where there has been an increase in automobile retail sales in the order of 11 per cent.
I should say as well that another good indicator is that housing resales are continuing to climb. Housing starts have shown a 19 per cent increase in the third quarter over the second quarter, which I believe is a reflection of the reduction in interest rates. Housing starts are in the order of 181,000 on an annualized basis.
Those are the indicators that I think are very important. I should say that the reduction in interest rates reduces the monthly payment for a person holding a $100,000 mortgage by about $300. That is going to be extra cash in the hands of consumers which they will be able to spend and I think that will revitalize the retail sector.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we can see, short questions do not always bring short answers.


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to put on the record something that I have had an opportunity to clarify with you.
I raised a question in the House with respect to a Canadian hostage. When I said that the minister was ignorant of the file in English as well as in French, ignorance does not necessarily connote a negative feeling. Rather, what I was about to say was: given that he was ignorant of the contents of the file, would he be prepared to make a statement in the House at a future date?
I realize the nuances in the word ignorant can sometimes be negative. It was not my intention to be negative. I basically said, because he did not know about the file,
could he make a statement when he apprises himself? That was my intent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Industry, Science, Technology and Minister for International Trade will be immediately looking into the matter that the hon. member raised.
I am sure, if he does not get back to her today, he will certainly get back to her early in the week. It is his intention to inquire immediately and, if the hon. member is around, I am sure that he will be in contact with her.


COMMENTS OF MINISTER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether members on the government side want to reflect upon the fact that the minister of energy, in his reply, indicated that he was unable to distinguish between nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and hydrogen technology and did not know which of them is radio emitted.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 23 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
12TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the selection of votable items among Private Members' Business.
October 25, 1991

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
13TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Order 114.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Madam Speaker, I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: That seven members and two staffers from the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Europe from October 30 to November 9, 1991 to complete a study on high speed trains.


Mr. Lapierre:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I intend to withhold my consent. Considering the frivolous nature of this request, since the Government of Canada has just been authorized to do a feasibility study of the project, I fail to see why hon. members should go on a tour of Europe, while the merits and the potential feasibility of this project are being examined. Consequently, I object to this as a frivolous expenditure.
Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if the Bloc Quebecois chooses to prevent this committee from proceeding on that travel then I have no choice but to accept that at this point.
Motion negatived


PETITIONS
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in this House today petitions signed by over 1,400 constituents. They are deploring the fact that more postal outlet services have been both cut and closed.
They point out that not only will it disadvantage all constituents from the surrounding area, but business people, seniors and the handicapped in particular.
I should point out that this is another blow to this community and to the constituency because Metro Drugs, McCullough Drugs, Marion Grocery, and a number of other outlets have suffered similar reductions. This is unacceptable.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure, under Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by residents of the community of Longworth in my riding, as well as Prince George.
They call upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services, and to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from a number of my constituents primarily from the town of Sidney which is at the lower end of Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
They are very concerned with the amount of government cutbacks to the RCMP services throughout Canada, particularly about the loss of $4.1 million for the British Columbia division. This reduction has resulted in the closure of detachments in smaller communities. They are quite fearful that the reduction will extend to

October 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
the town of Sidney where there is a force that has a good reputation, as it does throughout Canada.
I submit this petition and ask the government to reconsider any cutbacks to the RCMP.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 114 and 115.


Mr. Rideout: What is the expected date of completion of the Department of
Transport's study of funding improvements on the TtansCanada
highway?
Hon Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport): Transport Canada is not conducting a study of funding improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway. The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety commissioned the Transportation Association of Canada (formerly the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada) to conduct a National Highway Policy study which would:
-Establish future needs and define standards for the Canadian primary highway system.
-Establish benefits and costs of meeting these needs.
-Establish funding alternatives for meeting these costs with a view towards recommending adoption of this policy by their governments.
The Transportation Association of Canada has produced Steering Committee Reports on the first three phases of the study and briefed the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Transportation on the findings. The Phase IV part of the study has been extended and the Minister of Transport will be briefed on its findings in early spring 1992.

Question No. 115-Mr. Vanclief
With respect to combat action seen by Canadian Army units in
Greece and elsewhere in Europe during the Second World War, (a)
which units were posted to Greece during wartime (b) which of those units seeing action in Greece received combat support from units of the Greek Resistance (c) are those members of the Greek Resistance who assisted Canadian combat units currently receiving financial assistance from the government (d) are members of Resistance forces from other Axis countries currently receiving financial assistance from the government?
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): I am informed by the Department of National Defense and Veterans Affairs as follows:
a)	No Canadian Army units were posted to Greece during the Second World War.
b)	Not applicable.
c)	Since 1930, with the inception of the WVA Act, Allied Veterans have been eligible for War Veterans Allowance.
War Veterans Allowance is a form of social assistance available to veterans and their dependants who are in financial need. To qualify, a person must have the required war service and also meet age, health and income requirements. The purpose of this program is to ensure that, in recognition of war service, qualified individuals are provided with a regular monthly income to meet basic needs.
In 1985, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favour of recognizing members of the Greek Resistance as members of the forces of His Majesty's allies or powers associated with His Majesty. Based on the Federal Court's ruling the War Veterans Allowance Board formally recognized members of the Greek Resistance as Allied Veterans.
d)	To date there are 3 persons who served with the Italian Resistance movement during World War II receiving Veterans Affairs Canada benefits.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 105.
October 25, 1991

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.

*


Mr. Duhamel: Since September 4, 1984, in the federal government (a) how many people have been hired for contract positions (b) what percentage is found in each of (i) visible minorities (ii) women (iii) aboriginal peoples (iv) disabled?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: There are no positions in the federal government that are classified or identified as contract positions and there is no comprehensive repository of government contracts awarded to individuals or to firms for the services of individuals. When contracting for goods and services valued at more than $200,000.00, departments must abide by the requirements of the Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity administered by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. However, no details on representation are held by the federal government.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentaiy secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have
Government Orders
effect, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, just before Question Period I had an opportunity to start putting a few comments on the record about Bill C-35, and I would like to continue now with them.
As you know, Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with in the House today is a bill with quite a title that I think Canadians would be interested in:
An act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
The legislation, which is being brought before us today, is a mouthful for us to consider. These are essentially a number of changes to government legislation that are, in the government's hopes anyway, deemed non-controversial and that should not have any debate.
I did say, at the opening of my comments, that when the minister who introduced the bill first spoke he said that he was hoping to get unanimous consent in the House to move as quickly as possible today into Committee of the Whole to consider this bill. I said at that time, and I repeat it now, that our party cannot give that unanimous consent.
I think that is an important point to make. A bill of some 120 pages that amends a large number of statutes should be given an opportunity for a closer examination in committee. That is only appropriate.
We are quite prepared at this stage of the debate to move along quickly. But it is only proper that this Parliament, when considering a bill like this, has a closer examination of the bill in committee to see just what is in there.
Certainly, when this House receives a report from the legislative committee, we will be more than prepared to give the legislation its consideration and its early passage.
Why do I say that we have to do this, Madam Speaker?
I have not been a member of Parliament for a very long time but I have had an opportunity over the past to see what other governments have done, including this government, when we are presented with these omnibus bills. When you start going through these bills you have a number of questions. As a member of Parliament I do

Government Orders
not think that I would be serving my constituents or my country if I did not look closely at this legislation to ensure that we did not pass a stinker.
We have had that in British Columbia. The Social Credit government had quite a tradition. At the end of the session, when the legislature would be rising shortly and there is an eagerness to pass legislation, along would come an omnibus bill. Only later do we find out exactly what a particular bill did, what it eliminated or destroyed or changed. I think it is important for us to give close examination but we are also prepared to give a fairly quick one.
I would just like to point out a couple of parts of this bill that give reason for this examination in committee before we pass it through this House. For example, on page 12a of the bill there is an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which my interpretation would lead me to believe that we are reducing the authority and control that the government and the minister may have regarding toxic substances. That is an example where we certainly need the background material and comments from the government.
As well on page 13 there are questions of exporting and importing toxic substances. The question is whether this is a reduction in the authority of the government to take a look at the export or import of these dangerous products.
Another one, on page 15a, concerns amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. My interpretation of the interpretation is that the regulations the government would lay out in licences, and I quote: "-need not be prescribed by regulation". It is certainly my view that we have to follow due process and ensure that when the Government of Canada does issue a licence the minister does not just write something on a napkin and say: "It is okay and off you go". There is a process that we follow, the Order in Council process and gazetting, which is important for us to consider.
There is one part of the bill that is a positive change, which I think we could support. It is the addition of a clause which says: "This amendment which would add the underlined words would permit the drafting of legislation using feminine pronouns". All too often it is "he" will do this and "he" will do that. I think it might be a refreshing change for the government across the way if
"she" were to do this or "she" were to do that. Of course it would refer to a minister generally, male or female. That is a positive change which we should have in this legislation.
Another one is a new amendment on page 37a. This is an amendment to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act:
This amendment will ensure that adjudicators can summon and
enforce the attendance of witnesses.
Without seeing the rest of that act the question I have concerns legal representation. Often people ask that lawyers represent them. Does this deal with that section at all?
As well, on page 42a under the Statistics Act there would appear to be an amendment that will allow Statistics Canada to start sharing information with other departments, municipalities, or other corporations. The amendments here lay out how that is to be done. My concern is how the public is to know if Statistics Canada starts sharing a lot of information with Visa or MasterCard or goodness knows any other mailing list that people might be on.
My point is that I do not think it is a proper procedure for this House to be asked to go into Committee of the Whole immediately when we know that given the pressure of time we will be asked to pass this legislation without giving it the consideration and thought that is needed.
That is why we will be refusing the consent of the government to rush this through. I think there is reason enough to send it to committee, not to spend a lot of time in committee, but reason enough to give it some thought in committee so that when it is reported back to the House we will hear from all members of the House on that committee whether this bill on the whole is worth supporting. We will then know if there are some concerns about this legislation which require amendments, and we can then allow the rest of the bill to pass.
To wrap up, we are prepared to move this bill quickly into committee. That is where it has to go as far as we are concerned, but we are not going to give it the old legislative rush. We will certainly welcome comments from the government in due course. Then the legislation and some of the good points I have mentioned can be
October 25, 1991

passed, and concerns about parts of the bill can be addressed.


Mr. Hudon:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. After what I just heard, I think it would be advisable, before the House votes on second reading, to ask the unanimous consent of the House for referral of Bill C-35 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I did not correctly understand the request of the parliamentary secretary. The reference is to a legislative committee and not a standing committee. There has not been any discussion among House leaders with regard to a standing committee. Therefore I would like to defer any decision on that at this time. Perhaps we can have further discussions later in the day and thereby accommodate the hon. member. But there is no consent, Madam Speaker.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have just checked and found that there were consultations and we did agree to it going to a standing committee. However, I respect the concern of the House leader for the Official Opposition that perhaps we need to revisit it quickly and then, hopefully before the completion of the debate, make a final determination.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As all hon. members know we would need unanimous consent, so we will put the motion as presented by the hon. member aside for the time being.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I rise to add my comments to this proposed legislation and to help rush it through the House. In another motion here today I believe we are talking about the decorum and the way we do things in this institution.
I believe, as our House leader, the House leader of the New Democratic Party and other members of the other party have said, that we cannot bring this type of legislation in at the last minute and rush it through without more scrutiny. The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond mentioned items he found dealing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This agency will, among other things, now only have to make a
Routine Proceedings
detailed report every five years. This idea of reporting every five years leads me to wonder what is wrong with this regional development program. This program is supposed to be the program to assist Atlantic Canada out of the financial doldrums it has been in for so long a time.
We have had many federal agencies in Atlantic Canada in the last 75 years. This we were told would be the one that would answer our great economic problems. I find it problematic that after the number of years it has been in existence it is now only going to give detailed public reports every five years.
This leads me to wonder if this great organization is having more problems than we know about. This is just one thing that has been found in this omnibus bill as it proceeds through the House. I believe there are many others. We see the Federal Court Act. We see the Canada Pension Plan. Other items deal with the Financial Administration Act. Maybe there are areas in the bill which we should scrutinize much more closely rather than rush it through the House in one day's debate.
I believe that these omnibus bills should not be brought here and Parliament asked without notice to rush them through. There are some 90 acts within this piece of legislation. That is a lot of detail for members of Parliament to go over and decide whether they can agree with it or not.
We on this side of the House do not believe that we should do that at this time. In all sincerity I say that we are looking later in the day to make this place a better one in which to serve. I am all for that. I said that the other day.
We cannot bring bills like this to the House on Friday morning and wonder if we can get them through.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
further discussions, and I think you would find that the House is prepared to give unanimous consent to the following motion:
That seven members and two staffers from the Standing Committee
on Transport be authorized to travel to Europe from October 30 to
November 9 to complete a study on high speed trains.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, since the mover of the motion has made such an eloquent intervention on this particular matter, and in view of the fact that there have been consultations for extended periods of time and that there have been revisions of that particular proposal, I would like to give the consent of our party to this particular motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I would like to signify the consent of the government side to the hon. member's motion for travel.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I would also like to elaborate on the comments by my colleague, the House leader for the Liberal Party, and compliment the three House leaders for their diligence in reviewing the submission and making sure that it worked.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Bill C-35?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 3871), the amendment of Mr. Dingwall (p. 3878) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 3881).
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise and speak on this motion in the House today. I would like to begin by going back to the beginning of the debate on Wednesday when the hon. government House leader rose and presented his motion. As I was listening to him, in the initial part of his speech I was moved by his words and I thought that this was going to be a pretty productive debate.
We hear from our own families and friends that we did not need to pay Mr. Spicer $27 million to hear that people across Canada, generally speaking, are absolutely frustrated and incensed at the way we sometimes behave in this House in terms of our actions and the insults we hurl at one another.
I sat there listening to the government House leader and all of a sudden, lo and behold, an incident came up and I lost it. I sort of blurted out something at the government House leader which I certainly was not pleased with. I reflected later in the day on why it is that we seem constantly to get into this use of language and finger pointing at one another to such an extent that we behave in front of national audiences in a way that we certainly would not behave if we were in a corporate boardroom, if we were in a classroom, if we were at a
October 25, 1991

function, or probably even a family argument. When we have family dinners I am sure we all get in to arguments now and again where we get pretty hot and pretty incensed at one another. Yet, even in those situations we do not lose it the way we lose it in this place, and here we are doing it in front of a national audience, in front of Canadians coast to coast. In fact it is not only in front of Canadians. I understand that Question Period in the House of Commons is used quite frequently in political science courses in most American universities right now. They are absolutely amazed at the way we have this free-wheeling debate with one another. They are stunned at the language and the actions that we use.
So I asked myself: Why is it that when you come here with the best intentions, when you say "listen, I am not going to get involved in the cut and thrust of what has been going on in this place" and you try to do your best to put forward constructive alternatives to government policy, you still sort of lose it? I have been reflecting on this point for a while, and I think that very few Canadians really understand what goes on in this place when we are debating.
The television camera is very selective in the way it handles the question and answer period or the debating period. It does not have a wide angle lens. It does not see the whole dynamic of the House. Also the camera does not pick up the situation where if all of a sudden you ask a specific question of the government on a specific issue and the government, the front bench, the ministers of the Crown, stand up and give an answer which has absolutely nothing to do with the question that was asked. We are here representing our constituents. We are in a situation today where many of our constituents are in deep economic pain. We have almost 2 million people unemployed. We have people losing their homes. Bankruptcies are at a record high level. When we as members of Parliament on both sides of the House go back to our constituencies, we are presented with the problems that our constituents are facing.
They demand that we put forward ideas and recommendations when we return to the House of Commons. They ask us to say to the government: "Listen, we have people unemployed. The reason they are unemployed is that there is a lack of capital in the market. Banks are shutting down their lending practices. We have high interest rates. We have a high dollar. The immigration department seems to be moving slowly". Whatever the reason, our constituents expect us to come back here and make the government accountable for its actions.
Government Orders
We can stand up in this House day in and day out and be presented with answers which are not specific. Sometimes the government will answer in a way which is almost like number gymnastics. It will take a question and twist it in a way that the question we put just does not make sense or is not logical. This engenders frustration. It engenders a frustration in the opposition parties that triggers this language reaction or this decorum reaction.
I have only been here for three years. Initially I was pretty frustrated and disgusted with the decorum of this House, but I am beginning to understand fully why people can lose it in here. When one is part of an institution which tends to exist in almost a remote state from the grassroots of the people one can become insensitive. One can project, not by design but by inadvertence, an attitude which seems to be uncaring to the people of Canada. It seems to be lacking in action. This is what frustrates the spirit of this country more than anything.
Day in and day out I hear from my constituents: "What goes on up there in Ottawa? Does anything ever get done? Is there no way that you can move this government to act? What does it take?"
Mr. Speaker, do you know that most Canadians today have given up on the institution of government? Not just government at the national level but all governments. They have given up on government because they feel that their words are falling on deaf ears. When we as members, as recipients of that frustration, hear that frustration being expressed to us, we would be absolute fools if we did not come up here and try to pass on that frustration to the government.
We need action on tax reform. We need action on trying to put people back to work. When day in and day out we are stonewalled, it engenders feelings of frustration on this side of the House. I think that this motion on decorum and language in the House is totally misleading. It is misleading because it is not addressing the fundamental problem in this House.
The fundamental problem in this House is one where the issues are not being addressed in a specific and substantive way. What is our fallback position as members of the opposition? If the hon. government House leader were truly trying to be effective as to how to reform this House, then he would have put forward something that would have caused a break-up of the bureaucracy that not only runs this town but now tends to be running this very House which is the ultimate representative of all the people.

Government Orders
Again I want to put forward some constructive ideas to the government. I think that this government is probably one of the best manipulators of the government communications systems that I have ever seen. It is an expert in the power of proper packaging. It is so expert that I believe it actually fools a lot of the national media on many occasions.
This is something that I am really concerned about. I am concerned about the fact that the government itself, day in and day out, plays gymnastics with figures. This is what leads to the frustration which ultimately causes a breakdown in the language and decorum of this place. I am not standing here condoning it, but what I am saying is if we are truly going to have some kind of substantive reform in the way this nation's board room is going to function, then we have to get back to basics.
Here is where we should begin. If we are presenting specific questions on issues which all sides of the House know are of national concern, then it would seem to me that the government could go a long way toward reducing some of the frustration in this House by being a bit more specific in its responses, by being a bit more substantive.
We are at a position in this country where the economy, the mood and the spirit is so fragile that people want all of us, on all sides of this House right now, to do things that galvanize the will of this country, to do things that pull it together. I think that we could probably begin that process with the government, in the tone of its approach, maybe assuming some more of the collective responsibility.
I wanted to refer to the member from the New Democratic Party the other day who spoke on this very motion. He said that he felt that the government was basically putting forward this motion in a way that language and decorum needed to be changed. There seemed to be a suggestion that there was more of a problem on this side of the House rather than the government side. I would suggest to the government that it is partly its responsibility for reform, decorum and language clean-up here. When we participated in debate here, we should not be standing up with papers prepared for us by bureaucrats and officials and throwing statistics back and forth. I think we have to get beyond that and get into the spirit and listen to the frustration and the pain that our constituents are talking about.
This is sort of a motion of self-analysis today on all sides of the House. No one is claiming that they have any book on how to behave in this place. I think that we can all express our point of view as to why we become frustrated. Naturally the government can say to us: "You know that we are in a box in terms of expenditure control here. You know that we are not the only country in the world that is having difficulty". That is fair.
In the process of debate I would suggest that if the government is truly sincere in asking for radical change to decorum and to language then maybe it should participate in the process by being a little more substantive and creative in putting forth its answers on policy. Maybe it should also be a little bit more receptive to accepting ideas and policy from members of the opposition.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, a little later I want to speak on this motion in a very non-partisan way. I would hope that that is the kind of attitude we would have. However, I would like to ask a question of the member for Broadview-Greenwood. He seems to be talking about the government a great deal and its kinds of answers.
I was taken the other day with a speech made by the member for Crowfoot who has been here a long time and who has a lot of concern, as does the member who just spoke. He said it did not seem like the rules of the House were being carried out to any great extent. A lot of these long preambles in Question Period and the innuendoes that come out of them may be part and parcel of this too. I am not taking anything away from the kinds of answers given.
I would be interested in what the member would think about putting questions into a more precise and concise form without long preambles containing innuendo that tends to elicit this pack mentality that seems to develop around this place. I would be interested in his comments on that particular point.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member for Sarnia-Lambton correctly he is suggesting that the preambles are too long, or is he suggesting that in the preambles there tends to be a bit of a shot taken before we get to the substance of the question?
I think that is a fair point, but it goes back to my point. I think we have a mood of confrontation and frustration here and the nation is actually a mirror of the frustration. We are emissaries of the mood of the nation. That mood is very low, very frustrated, very up tight, because there is perceived to be-I put my emphasis on the word "perceived"-a government that is not listening and not
October 25, 1991

caring. As a result we reach that level of emotion which leads to those cheap shots. I think the member has a good point. I think we do from time to time take cheap shots that probably should not be taken.
However we are taking these shots because our frustration level has reached a certain point. It is a two-way street. I guess my point basically is that need to get a sense from the government. I have never sat on the government side but I have worked for the government side before. There are times when a government can be perceived as being arrogant and uncaring and can be seen as not listening to the people, especially during a period of deep economic crisis. It is that perception which causes people to dig in their heels and become emotional and frustrated.
I take the member's point as constructive. It is certainly not a partisan point. I think that we have to work on cleaning up our act as all members do.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in Britain that Whips never talk in the House of Commons about anything of substance. Over here we do not do that to quite the same extent. Certainly opposition Whips speak with great frequency. However it is not very often in the last three years that I have been government Whip that I have had a chance to speak in the Chamber. I did not intend to speak on this debate.
I had a little insomnia two nights ago and watched replays of the House of Commons. I heard most of the speech from the House leader of the Liberal Party and all of the speech of the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
In that close to one hour I experienced anger and ultimately disappointment listening to those speeches on a topic that is so essential to the reputation of the institution, so essential to the belief of a population in its own democracy. Is democracy a good form of government? The answer is yes. It is the best form of government until you lose faith in the institution itself. Maybe
Government Orders
you have a word, maybe you have a process. When you lose faith in the institution you are really in trouble.
I do not think that any of us who serve in this Chamber and work at the job of going back to our ridings and doing all the other things can feel very sanguine today about the attitudes that Canadians have toward the Chamber itself.
The anger I felt in listening to those two speeches the other night was a result of the degree of partisanship in each. I have not listened to my own House leader and I have not listened to the parliamentary secretary. I was busy and did not hear those speeches.
I would be really surprised if either one of them made a speech without partisanship on this topic. If there was ever a topic on which we should be truly non-partisan in this Chamber it is this. This is a motion, well crafted or badly crafted, that deals with the essence of the possibility that the people of Canada can believe in the institution. If you do not believe in the institution then a whole series of good decisions are less likely to work because people will not have faith in them.
I took my pin off. I came here in 1979.1 was raised in a community that experienced a lot of difficulty, a lot of poverty and things, and all of a sudden I was here. This place is a very important place and you feel proud. They give you a pin. It is for security reasons but it is also a symbol. It has a number on it. I am the only human being in the whole world who has that pin with that number. I had not been here two years and I took it off because I was so upset about the nature of this institution and the way it works.
I am one of the people who had a lot of hope in 1985, some five years after that, that with the reforms the roles of members of Parliament would be better and the whole place would be better. It is in many ways. I remember the days when committees never met. There was absolutely no opportunity to make an amendment. No matter how good your idea was and no matter how many witnesses, amendments were not made.
Since 1985 we made 174 amendments on the environmental bill. We made 39 on the gun control bill the other day. Canadians participate, they come. Members care, members listen, stay up late at night, argue about

Government Orders
amendments and make them. They do it collectively across party lines.
The degree to which we work together on behalf of Canadians is one of the best kept secrets in this whole country. We do, all of us know that. Time after time after time we work together on an investigation or on a piece of legislation in committees. We work together well because people come here with talent. They are selected from their communities because they have talent and they have commitment. Then they come here.
The institution itself is viewed negatively. If you have a collection of people like that with concerns like that, ideological differences sure but really decent human beings who care and who are cared about, how can you bring them into a collective and have a negative perception of the place?
Ultimately we have had the negative perception in part because of the potency of television and the decision many years ago, before any of us came, to put television in the House. In many ways we have a rotten journalistic process in this country. It is a rotten, rotten, rotten journalistic process that depends on advertisers' dollars in large measure which believes that news must be encapsulated as a mini-drama with a hero and a villain in every situation.
The most discrepant view gets attention with the most common well vetted view. They get equal time. There is a perception over time of leaders in our society. They are high profile political leaders, but also doctors, dentists, clergymen, policemen and boy scout leaders. They are all being denigrated because the media give prominence to aberrent behaviour by a member of a class and do their thing which is create a mini-drama with a hero and a villain.
This Chamber itself is something that collectively we could do something about. Collectively we could change the reputation of it. I saw no hope for that at three o'clock in the morning watching the replay of just two of the speeches by two of the leaders in the Chamber.
I want to attack the New Democratic Party thesis. One basic message of the House leader of the Liberal Party was that this is an adversarial place. I say yes. I agree. I hope it never changes. This is the place for the free exchange of ideas. This is the place to argue. This is the place ultimately to vote.
Where else in society do we have adversarial situations? We happen to be in the middle of the World Series. We are headed toward the Grey Cup. The whole athletic team world is an adversarial world.
I have a little picture in my mind: "Ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to bring you this year's Grey Cup. We have a little surprise for you. Today we are going to make the coach and the management of each of the teams responsible for the rules. We are not going to have any referees during the whole Grey Cup, and aren't you excited? How well do you think it will work?"
That is where I began as a young man. I was heavily into athletics and I ended up as a referee. I refereed national championships in basketball and other sports. You could never be a referee without the concurrence of the players, the coaches and management. They give you that authority. They give you the rule book. If you are fair and consistent and clear on what those rules are and the enforcement of those rules, they give you their support even in very emotional moments. They give you the power to punish. For example, a technical foul in basketball or an ejection for a fist fight in a football game. Think about how little referees are sometimes and how big football players are and how many football players there are. If they wanted to crush that referee with their fists it would be boom, done, gone.
This place gives that authority to the Chair. It is pretty well accepted practice that we do not comment on the behaviour of the occupant of the chair because we have respect for the Chair as a symbol.
However we easily slide into something else. The House leader for the New Democratic Party said to the Speaker at the commencement of his speech the other day: "We want to congratulate you on your excellent work, Mr. Speaker". The Chair did not cut him off. I do not think anybody noticed. That was a comment in this Chamber to an individual about that individual on the quality of the work.
In this Chamber that is debatable. There is an obligation to debate it if you open the door. You should not comment on the occupant of the chair and whether he or she does a good job or a bad job because the minute you do it is debatable. You cannot be on one side. It is an adversarial place.
October 25, 1991

Laced throughout that House leader's speech are comments like: "This motion is sort of a subtle way of storming the Chair" and "this motion says you are not doing your job properly". We do not accept that. It is against the rules. Those comments themselves are against the rules. The Chair did not stop him. That is a microcosm of a larger problem.
Is it really official New Democratic Party policy followed by elected members in this Chamber that we do not want rules and we do not want a referee, that each party shall discipline its own members? I do not want to be partisan, but I raised a point of order on more than one occasion about two members who voted twice. It is clearly on the record; it is on the tapes. One apologized to the House ultimately. The other never has and there was no discipline.
I remember the day a member of the New Democratic Party walked across the floor of the Chamber with a fish and plunked it down on a desk. There were other sorts of advertising gimmicks here and there. There was no discipline. There was no discipline from the referee and no discipline from the party is to invite escalation.
In Croatia there have been all kinds of cease-fires between the Serbs and the Croatians but there is no referee, nobody with the power or the authority to enforce it. Even if you have the power and the authority but do not use it you invite escalation. There were two recent incidents, a comment on sexism and one on racism. Read the record. The member who invited the comment on sexism appears in Hansard. What does Hansard say? It says: "An hon. member". It does not identify the person. The comment is simply: "That is not true". They yelled: "That is not true". No action from the referee.
In a basketball game that is like an elbow in the chops. If the basketball referee does not penalize the elbow in the chops, you are going to get a blow to the kidney on the next foray down to the other end. By nature that is adversarial. Our job is the refereeing of society. That is what the Chamber does. It passes laws that govern business. It says yes, it is adversarial, but under these limits. We pass pollution laws that say do not go beyond this limit. We pass the Criminal Code. We are in the business of setting limits in the expectation that limits will be enforced.
Government Orders
I was so mad at the House leader of the New Democratic Party on October 11, 1990 because a statement he made in this Chamber was legally actionable outside this Chamber for a class of people called Conservatives. The Chair took no action. The statement was completed from start to finish. I was not even in town. I raised it and I was asked to back off and solve it behind closed doors. It sits there to this day as part of our records. I brought it in today. The statement is on page 14036 of Hansard.
I will give you a couple of examples which talk about Conservatives: "Conservatives want to be above the law". This is just a short statement in our Hansard. These are just a few lines of it: "They want to be tipped off to any RCMP criminal investigations into their parliamentary affairs". This refers to Conservatives and Conservatives only in this Chamber."A few weeks later her colleagues are looking for special laws for Tory MPs. Tories are willing to break all conventions, abuse closure, stack the Senate, and now they want to give themselves special legal privileges. No wonder Canadians have such contempt for this government".
If there is no referee to stop this kind of calumny then it invites retaliation and the institution suffers. There is no greater law. We did a filibuster back in 1980 and I was in my office till three and four o'clock in the morning. I read most of those books on that table in about a 15-day period of time. As a fairly new member I was looking for ways to raise questions of order and privilege in this Chamber to filibuster, to stop the constitutional proposal which made my province full of fifth- class citizens. I felt very deeply about it. Never once did I break a rule of this place, unless it was accidental, not once. The rules allow for obstruction. The rules allow for many things done with decency and responsibility.
That statement on October 11, 1990 was an indecent statement. There are only two basic rules in this place that need to be enforced, and the institution benefits. One is respect and the other is relevance.
When is the last time the rule of relevance was enforced in this Chamber? What relevance simply means is that we set aside time to deal with the topic. Miscellaneous changes to bills or decorum in the House is the topic now. The next one might be an income tax issue. But, if everybody spoke to the topic, debates would be quicker, neater and somebody tuning in could actually listen to a debate on the issue: what is right and what is wrong. If we conducted all of our debates and all of our behaviour with respect for each other as human being

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
who care, human beings with talent, human beings who try, then the institution of democracy would benefit.
But we cannot ask the referee to referee unless we say: "In your refereeing we are asking you to enforce the rules not today, not tomorrow, but every day and every tomorrow and in every circumstance''. If it is a bad rule collectively we will change the rule. If the enforcement is in the escalation of violence, such as in Croatia and Serbia, then the institution loses all of its credibility. This Chamber has seen a massive escalation of violence, verbal violence. There is no greater transgression on the collective privileges of this Chamber than the notion of contempt. The most contemptuous group of people in this country about this institution are journalists. They are incorrect on so many occasions.
We do not have the courage collectively to haul them before the bar and say: "Stop being contemptuous". It is hard to convince them of this. We cannot allow contempt for this institution to occur in this Chamber, and particularly by leaders in this Chamber, and not call it to account. The contempt for this institution and for the people in it has to stop here first. Then we have an opportunity, by our example, to call others to be accountable for the terrible things they say about the people in this institution and about the institution itself which have no basis in fact and reality.
The lead comes from allowing those comments to be made most often in this Chamber before they pass outside. That is something that we can stop collectively if we have the will to stop it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the chief government Whip. I want to suggest that perhaps he has actually violated a few rules himself in his remarks, particularly in terms of impugning the motives of some of my colleagues.
I want to ask him a question dealing with an amendment made by my House leader and seconded by myself.
It is directly in terms of his responsibilities as the Whip of the Conservative caucus. In part the amendment says:
"The party leaders, House leaders and Whips be responsible for
the comportment of their caucuses;"
I understand that the government House leader has rejected that. I want to know whether the government Whip feels that Whips should not have the responsibility for the decorum of their members while in the House; that the House leader should not have responsibility for the decorum; that the party leaders, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the third party, should not have responsibility for the decorum of their members.
My leader has made it very clear that if any of my caucus use racist or sexist remarks in this House she will be the one to punish them. As we know, there is nothing in the rules that clearly defines that sexist remarks or racist remarks are against the rules of this House. They should be, but they are not.
The member went on about how we need a referee. Where the rules are not clear, and there is an opportunity for House leaders, Whips and party leaders to enforce discipline, is it not our responsibility to do that? Would the member therefore comment on that particular amendment put forward by my colleague?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the question was raised. I have risen before. I have had complaints about my behaviour raised in this Chamber by members of my own caucus. I responded and do respond in terms of responsibility. I am an officer of the House as the Whip of a party and I have a responsibility to uphold the authority of the Chair. I have absolutely no difficulty with that, absolutely none. I can be quite firm on that.
If one of my members gets punched in the teeth they have a responsibility to defend themselves. If the Chair will intervene, great. If the Chair does not intervene then we have the beginning of a war. Today in Question Period the member for Hamilton East used the word "ignorant" in dealing with a member of the cabinet. We could have had intervention by the referee who would say: "That is an elbow. Stop it". If one lets it go then one is going to get something in response.
October 25, 1991

That is simply the way an adversarial process works. The member opposite does not believe and has said on many occasions in many speeches that business polices itself. It is the whole party platform that there should be rules and there should be referees out there who enforce the rules. That is where it comes from.
I just threw two or three things on the table about keeping the commitment he talks about. It is lousy. There has been no discipline within his own party for the kinds of behaviour that come easily to mind. If that changes, that is great. It has to be through the Chamber itself and through its rules. If we read the rule book Standing Order 10 says:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide
questions of order.
We have an obligation to support and encourage the Chair to do just that. That is our responsibility as House officers. That is what I have no trouble with. If the NDP believes that order should be replaced and we should eliminate a referee, eliminate a Speaker, and say that under House orders House officers called leaders and Whips and so on shall do such and such, then let us debate it.
Quite frankly there is not an adversarial relationship in the world where that principle works. Part of what you have as a responsibility when you are involved in a team, in a group, is the morale of the group, the strategy of the group and so on. Yes, one takes advantage of rules. One runs up to the edges of rules. One cannot be responsible for that. One goes to a meeting every morning that does exactly that. It is wrong to say that people must be disciplined if they step over the edge a little bit. That discipline comes from the Chair. The rule book says it. It is true in a court of law.
Can you imagine a lawsuit with two lawyers disciplining themselves about what is relevant and what is not? No, that is why there is a judge in the middle who says no to this and no to that and yes to this and yes to that. The adversarial relationship tries to get the main advantage for the client. That is the nature of this place. Collectively we have to say to the Chair that we want our rules enforced and we as House officers will back you up all the way. If we do not do that the institution suffers.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government Whip was on to a couple of key points that I share. One was the point that he made that there are hours and hours of work that go
Government Orders
on in this place, in committee and offices that the people of Canada never hear about. They only see the 30-second clip. From time to time there is almost a contest that goes on in this place as to how I can get a 30-second clip instead of trying to advance a particular cause or a particular policy initiative. Therefore I share the member's point on that observation.
He also made another observation that I thought was interesting. He introduced the fact that maybe there should be some accountability with the media as well. We have this exercise after Question Period that I am sure most Canadians are not even aware of. Members run outside and they troll up and down outside this Chamber hoping that some journalist will come along and they can get a clip for the media, for national television.
I saw today a colleague of mine from Scarborough was brutalized, a man who has worked most of his life on human rights issues and has done it in a very progressive way. He was working on a policy paper where the media actually took words that did not exist in the paper. He referred to things like concentration camps and words and language that my hon. colleague I know did not use because I spoke to him, and now, all of a sudden, the member's three years of hard work is gone out the window because the media is allowed to sort of take and twist things and sort of put them in a certain way.
The member has been around here a long time. Does he have any sort of creative ways or thoughts as to how we can sort of make that national gallery a little bit more focused on the substance of issues that are being debated rather than some of the tactical activity that goes on in here?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, simply and briefly. I have had a question of privilege in my mind. I used it partially off and on for over 10 years. That series of books about our rules and our precedents says clearly that biased information which brings the institution into disrepute can indeed be a contempt of Parliament and is punishable by Parliament. Cut off his head and put him before a firing squad.
The power exists. We are the highest court in the land. There has to be a will. There has to be a certitude in our minds that the institution is more important than any one of us. We have to take the obligation and the

Government Orders
responsibility for the protection of the reputation of the institution seriously.
It is all there. Go through it a little bit. You could rise on a bunch of headlines in newspapers today and make the case and you can make it persuasively. Then it follows: committee investigation and then punishment. There is a rhythm there. Contempt of this institution is viewed by the law to be a crime that sort of takes us in the direction of treason. We just do not do it. We do not seem to have the courage to do it.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I have an opportunity to get up and speak to the government motion today.
I want to say at the outset that I have no intention of calling for the heads of anybody or for anybody to be put before a firing squad. I think that is taking things to ridiculous and very violent extremes, even in this debate.
The motion that has been put before us is one to deal with decorum and civility in the House of Commons. It appears to me that this motion only attempts to reaffirm what is already supposed to happen in this place. Surely the majority of us, as members of Parliament, already know about a basic level of decorum and a basic standard of decent behaviour. It seems incredible to me that the government even brings this motion forward for debate.
What we have seen in the House of Commons in the last month in fact has been comments made in this place that have nothing at all to do with decorum, but have instead to do with racist and sexist attitudes. It seems to me that this motion that the government has put forward simply fails to address those two very critical issues that we have all seen in the media in every area of this country, and that is sexist comments and racist comments.
I believe that the government motion totally misses the point.
Racism and sexism permeate our society and Canadians, by the number of letters that I have received over the two most recent examples in the House of Commons, and the number of phone calls that I have
received, are just not going to accept this at all any more. They are fed up with those kinds of attitudes.
It is not surprising that those attitudes are still surrounding us. Some of these attitudes in society are overt as they were in the race riots that we saw in Nova Scotia recently in the high school there. Some of these attitudes are subtle and the person to whom it is directed only finds out by accident that they have been denied a job or housing based on their race. There was an instance of a case of a visible minority woman who tried to rent an apartment and was told that the apartment was filled. Shortly thereafter a white person entered and asked about the apartment and was given that apartment to rent.
Some of us have grown up with these attitudes around us here in Canada. A very competent woman administrator was told to her face that she would not get the job she was applying for because they were looking for a man. This particular woman does not herself support equality issues. She does not see the connection between what happened to her in that individual circumstance and what happens to women in the Public Service.
There is a female engineer who was told by her male colleague that she was not an engineer, that she was just a stupid woman. Another woman's boss told her that if he were her husband, he would beat her black and blue. A woman with a degree in naval architecture who had operated her own electronics shop was asked during a job interview if power or hand tools scared her, was she afraid to get dirty.
These are all examples that come from our own federal Public Service. Negative attitudes toward women and visible minorities and other disadvantaged groups do have a direct economic impact on these whole groups of people.
I received from a woman in Nova Scotia who wrote to me saying that she was tired of seeing me up on my feet in this place, always whining, always complaining about what happens to women in our society. She said to me she did not know if I was married or not, but if I was married what I really needed was a good kick in the butt from my husband. Those attitudes are still our there in society. It shocked me. I was surprised-I am surprised I continue to be shocked-but they are still out there in society. There are serious problems in Canadian society: race riots in Halifax, shootings of black youth, violence against women in every community in this country from
October 25, 1991

Government Orders
the north to the south, from Victoria, British Columbia to St. John's, Newfoundland. Women are assaulted in their homes and on the streets simply because they are women.
Members of Parliament often reflect the attitudes that they have grown up with, the attitudes that are out there in society, but the difference is that members of Parliament here in this place have control over the lives of 26 million Canadians and more than half of those Canadians are women. They are people of every racial, ethnic, and religious group.
The member of Parliament who hurled a racist slur is the parliamentary secretary for employment and immigration. He has to make decisions concerning immigration policy, employment equity and job training programs. As a matter of fact, the Employment Equity Act is coming back to this House soon for review. I would submit that his input is not needed in that debate at all.
The member of Parliament who called a female member of Parliament here a slut is the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board which is now handling the labour negotiations with the Public Service. One of the major issues, in fact the major issue there, is the issue of pay equity for women. I would submit that his input would be the wrong input to that debate.
There is a lot of heckling, a lot of name calling. I have heard the other members talk about it in this place. I agree with many of the members who have said that is to be expected in a parliamentary democracy. After all, we come here holding very passionate views on matters of substance in our society. We hold different political views. Yes, we are partisan. I am not ashamed to be partisan. I am proud of the views that I represent here and by having debate in this House of Commons, that is how we avoid the fighting on the streets, if you like. This is the place for that kind of debate. There are people here who come from very different perspectives and very different outlooks.
Many of us feel passionately about the issue of equality, as I do. Others come from a different perspective. In my three years here I have only once complained about a remark that was hurled against me here in the House of Commons. That was the time when a direct sexist comment was directed at me.
The point that I want to make and the point that the government Whip seems to misunderstand or failed to recognize is that when one member in this House is hurled a direct sexist insult, it is not just me as a woman member of Parliament who is offended and insulted by that remark.
It is a whole class in society. It is all women in Canadian society. After all, we are not a minority. Let me remind this House that women are the majority in Canada. We are not a minority, but when those sexist comments are hurled at me, it is casting that kind of disgust, that old attitude that women do not belong in this place and do not belong in certain places in society across the bounds to all women in Canada.
That is the difference and that is what the government side does not seem to understand in this debate. When my leader, the hon. member for Yukon, raised the issue with the Prime Minister, he talked about the insults that he has received. Yes, sometimes things have been said to the Prime Minister that are inappropriate, but they are not racist and they are not sexist.
When the Prime Minister talked about the fish, I want the Prime Minister to understand that there is no such thing as fishism, but there is racism and there is sexism that is here in this place. It is everywhere in Canadian society.
Why should I as an individual woman in the House put up with all the regular kind of heckling and name calling which happens, plus the extra sexist kinds of name calling? I should not have to. Why should I as a woman believe that this government and its members really care about women's equality when it has refused to punish or discipline the members who have denigrated women as a group?
Sexist and racist names do not tell you what a member thinks of another member. They tell you what that member thinks of a gender or a racial group of people. The government has refused to acknowledge that point. Actually, it refuses to see it or perhaps it just does not get it. To be charitable, perhaps they just cannot get it.
The motion before us simply asks the Speaker to enforce what are two existing Standing Orders. Standing Order 16(2) states:

Government Orders
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.
I fail to see how this Standing Order can really be enforced short of perhaps asking the pages here in the House of Commons to stand by members' desks and whack the desk or wrap their knuckles if they are starting to stand.
However, there are no individual penalties for the interrupters. The interruptions continue. Standing Order 18 reads:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
These Standing Orders, although updated from time to time, come to us from a long tradition, from days in which this House was made up entirely of men and from traditions in the British House of Commons where also the traditions were established by men. The Standing Orders do not deal at all with racism or sexism in the House.
It is not just the matter of language. It is the attitudes that produce that kind of use of language. It is no comfort to me that now members will simply perhaps not hurl these insults. I want them to see women and minorities as real, full human beings deserving of equality and respect. That is the bottom line.
We have an association here now of women parliamentarians, a non-partisan association, where women in this House and women from the other place meet from time to time. That association has discussed what has has happened in the House. We have discussed a number of issues, but we have discussed most recently the two incidents that I think have brought this motion forward by the government.
That association is now drafting a proposal for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the House that will ask for specific changes to the Standing Orders. These changes would permit a Speaker to remove a member from the precincts of this place, levy a fine, or withhold pay in cases of racist and sexist behaviour.
Let me say as a parent that when my children have from time to time displayed attitudes or behaviour
unacceptable to our family or in society there were consequences for their behaviour. That is how they learn. I think that is a policy that is used in schools across this country. It is a policy that is used by a coach of a minor sports team. If players on his or her team act inappropriately or display inappropriate attitudes they are sent to the showers.
It seems to me that here in this place there are no consequences for sexist or racist behaviour. They are what we need to see.
I am hoping that when this comes forward it will be taken very seriously. As I said it has the support of women from the government side, the Official Opposition and from my party as well, and there has been a great deal of discussion about it.
We all come to this place from various experiences. There are members who were teachers, social workers, lawyers, homemakers and doctors. We all bring a variety of experiences to the House of Commons. Some members of Parliament I suppose you would call professional politicians. They have been here for a long, long time. We come to this House with different experiences and from all regions of the country. I believe that does add a great deal of knowledge and a variety of different perspectives to the work that we do here.
However when many of us were elected we really did not know what we were going to be getting into. Many of us had no experience at all with the legislative process. I know there are many members in this House of Commons who have had no experience with equality issues. We make laws here; that is our job. We are supposed to represent our constituents. Let us all remember that over one-half of all our constituents are female. Let us remember that we live in an ethnically and racially diverse land with many different religions, many different languages and many different cultures.
We pass laws here that deal with immigration, with employment equity. What kind of attitude do the comments that we heard a couple of weeks ago bring to that debate and that discussion? These are not issues to be passed over just like any other insult. That is the difference between the government motion on decorum and what should happen with racist and sexist comments.
We are not talking about offending a single member in the House of Commons. We are talking about offending a whole group of people in society. Nowhere in the
October 25, 1991

Standing Orders is there a mention of what to do about offending an entire group in our society.
We need to have more than just motions about decorum. Fancy words are not going to solve the problem of sexist and racist attitudes. I ask the Prime Minister to set an example by removing the two offending members from their sensitive and lucrative positions. A parliamentary secretary position is seen by Canadians to be a reward for good service to the government and an inclusion into the government hierarchy. He has failed to answer that letter and has failed to take that kind of action.
The leader of my party has said publicly in this House that she would remove any of our caucus members from their duties if they were to shout sexist or racist comments.
I hope that government members will look carefully at the amendments that have been raised by the Official Opposition and the amendments that have been brought forward by the New Democratic Party. I sincerely urge them to support those amendments. If those amendments become part of this motion then it will have real meaning to the Canadian people. As it is, it is meaningless. It does not address the issue that Canadians are asking us to address in this place. Sure, they say Question Period is theatrical. Sometimes it is pretty theatrical, but a lot that happens here in the House or in committees is very substantive and members do work together co-operatively. I do not want this place to be seen as the laughing stock of Canada or seen as having the lowest level of leadership and behaviour in our society. That is what Canadians are saying right now after these most recent examples of racist and sexist slurs. They think that we are beneath contempt on those kinds of things. We must take this issue seriously. We must deal with it in the short term. In the long term we have to work to change the attitudes that produce sexist and racist behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the time. I want to thank the members here for their attention and urge them again to support the amendments to this motion so that it will have real meaning.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for New
Government Orders
Westminster-Burnaby. I have listened attentively to her dissertation and know she speaks passionately on the equality issue. I have observed that since she began here time here in 1988. I know she believes very fervently in that. Does she not think that if all of us on both sides of the House were to pay closer attention to the rules already in the rule book House it would lead to a greater sense of decorum in the House of Commons?
It is a two-edged sword. With the adversarial role there are many times when the barbs and heckling go on, most often in good nature. She and I have exchanged good natured heckling with each other over the months. Would she not agree that closer observance of the rules, as we already have them, would go a long way to improving the decorum in the House of Commons?


Dawn Black: Of course I believe in individual responsibility. I believe that we were elected here. We have the endorsement of our constituents. I think they expect us to show a basic level of decorum. I said that in my comments. I do not think any of us should need lessons on that. We come here as adults. We should be able to behave in a respectful way and meet the decorum standards he spoke of.
My point is that racism and sexism are not a matter of decorum. They are attitudes that insult a whole segment of our society. When I was called a fishwife in this place, which is the only time that I have got up to ask another member to withdraw, it was not just an insult to me but an insult and denigration of all women in our society. That is the point that I am trying to make. Decorum is fine. How could anyone be against decorum? We would all like to behave. We all already believe in it.
We must deal with the racist and sexist attitudes that I know the hon. member agrees exist here. We must do something to change that.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. At the close of her remarks I thought she said something that was very valuable. She said that many times in the House and many times in committee work a lot of positive things happen.
Of course we have Hansard. This is the Hansard for October. There are many comments in it. The member unfortunately just highlights two, though she is correct in saying that even two is far too many. It is important that we emphasize the many positive things that happen here,

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
the many times behind the curtains and in committees positive, constructive comments are made.
Sometimes I think we do it to ourselves by having a debate and only talking about the negatives. I cannot imagine any company with 295 employees that would not have a couple of bad apples that everyone might be ashamed and embarrassed of. Yet there are many here who come in on a Monday, do their committee work, go home on a Thursday, and when they get back to their riding their constituents say: "We do not hear from you".
Many of us come here with no rules given to us. I came and I did not know the rules but I thought I would behave like a gentleman and other people would behave like ladies. Obviously I am a little bit naive.
I guess that is the point I would like to make to the member. We are quite right in pointing out that we do have warts, but I think it is also equally important to let the citizens of the country know that most of the time this is a place of professionalism and that most of the time all of us are proud to be part of that institution. I would just like her to comment on that.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments and his question.
Yes, a lot of positive things do happen in the House of Commons. You never take off your partisan cloak entirely but when discussing issues that you want to make progress on, that perhaps do not have the highly partisan nature that a lot of the debate has here, there can be co-operation. For example, I introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons. I then worked to get the support of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Liberal critic. We worked together to get the support of other members of the House of Commons, and that bill went through. It has now gone through the Senate and is only awaiting Royal Assent at this point. We do work together at times and we should highlight that perhaps more often.
Unfortunately our friends in the media do not see that kind of work as newsworthy or headline grabbing as the other things that do hit the news.
The member mentioned that I highlighted two recent incidents that have hit the media in a big way. I could give him and the Chair many more incidents that have happened in this place, in committee and other places in the House of Commons. I did not want to do that. I did not want to raise the level of debate on those two issues, but believe me there are many more incidents that I could document.
You mentioned corporations earlier. Many corporations are now moving toward establishing a policy on personal harassment, establishing a policy on sexual harassment, a policy that is well written, publicized heavily throughout the corporation to its employees and management people, with a complaint mechanism and a human rights officer to whom those complaints can be taken. Perhaps that is the direction that this House should move in.
When I am insulted on a sexist basis around here I have a lot more equality, because I am a member of Parliament, than many of the female employees in the House of Commons working for members of Parliament. We should all be looking at this in broad terms to see how we can show leadership to Canadians on these issues.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the opportunity to speak to this motion.
This motion, as put forward by the government, makes no exclusions. It is a motion that equally affects all of us in this House. I think it is important that we reflect upon that. It asks us to show respect for one another. It asks us also to do that in the mood of respecting the differences we have and the different regions and the different constituencies we all represent in this House of Commons. I think that is important because we will stand and debate and we will have differences of opinion. We on this side do not want the opposition to be muzzled. We want ideas and approaches to be put forward. We all must do it in a matter than is somewhat different than the way this place has been operating.
Members have been mentioned today and members have made comments in this House. Good, hard working, diligent, intelligent members of Parliament have said things and made certain allegations that I do not
October 25, 1991

condone. They have said them and do not condone them themselves. I am sure that when they go home their spouses do not condone them. That is of very, very great concern.
What causes this sort of thing? I attempt to reflect upon it because I sometimes have problems being in the House when that sort of thing happens and it troubles me a great deal.
Why does that sort of thing happen? Canadians have also picked this up. The motion says that Canadians have expressed alarm at the excessive partisanship and the lack of decorum and civility that too often is evident in this House. They have great concern about that.
Where does this mostly come from? A lot of this rolls out from Question Period. That is what people are watching. As best I can figure out is that a pack mentality develops on all sides. No way would these individuals walk up to another individual and say these things to them personally.
I had a situation not too long ago where a group of picketers were outside my office. When I went to speak to them, there were some very, very vicious comments made from the back of the group. What I would do in each case was stop talking and walk very directly through the crowd to the person who made the remark. In every case, without exception, they smiled and certainly had a very different personal attitude about the situation when that sort of thing happened.
Therefore, it was the pack that did it. It was the group that allowed them to start talking in that manner. That, of course, is what develops it appears on all sides with the people in the House from time to time.
Canadians certainly have a lot of certain. They say that they should have respectable representation from their members of Parliament. This comes from what they see at times on TV and what they see on the TV clip from Question Period is a very negative situation. TV is a major media for our constituents. It is there for them to be afforded the opportunity to see what is happening in the House of Commons. But they get very perturbed and very disturbed at what they are seeing of this sort of action in here. They said that very straightforwardly. Also they would be very concerned if that medium was taken away. They like it.
Government Orders
Maybe at times they are watching just to see if we are going to change our act. Is this place going to clean up its act and stop this sort of thing that is going on here?
That is really it. At times, as was noted earlier by other colleagues in the House, acting starts to roll out. I mean we are sensitive to the acting to the situation. I guess that is part of the political make-up, but again I say I think our constituents are asking us to clean up that act.
As we know, we get into emotional situations. We go to the movie. We know it is not for real and we get caught up in it in a big way of having tears and all sorts of things. That of course is what happens there.
Of course, as we know, the citizens forum in its report said that Parliament is a charade of political gamesmanship. "It is just terrible the way they carry on in Parliament like unruly children." I am quoting from the report. "Bad-tempered brats, no control, quarrelling between parties. Why do they not get together and use their ideas better?"
We are getting it from all quarters. We are getting it from our constituents, our friends, our families, that this place needs to be changed. There have been ideas put forward by some here either in their presentation or in amendments made that this all can be done by leadership and discipline. I think that certainly there has to be leadership. In addition to that if we are going to discipline, we are going to discipline somebody after the fact, after something has been done. Might it not be better that we do it in this House by a tighter set of rules or by the enforcement of the rules of the House so there is not an eliciting of this sort of mentality that develops. I think that is the kind of thing that we should be looking at.
Greater discipline is fine, certainly party leadership discipline. I am worried. We do not want the situation to carry on where the comment from a person will roll out of their mouth and cause them some problem because of what happens here.
I heard my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood earlier saying he got caught up and ended up doing it himself. He was sitting there the other day and something rolled out. In a debate that is going on that is certainly not sexist or anything of that nature, something may tend to agitate the person who is speaking. That was

Government Orders
unnecessary and I am saying to myself "Why did my mouth open up?"
I think again it is that pack mentality, that emotion, that kind of thing that goes on.
I see the member across the way shaking her head at most of what I say. I am very sorry. I am very concerned about this and I feel very personal about it. If she does not agree with anything I am saying I hope she will stand up and say that. But, again, that is the kind of thing that happens. Here I am standing speaking in the House, speaking I think with some sort of feeling and interest, and I do not know if that sort of thing would happen if one on one we were talking to one another. This place seems to do that. I mean you do not talk to somebody and they sit or stand there all the time shaking their head no at you one on one. That does not happen. But why does it have to happen here?
I have concern that maybe there are a number of changes that we should go through. As we know we have looked at television in the House, and what that has caused, watching the House at work. A major report that was put out in December 1989 said that television has undoubtedly had a dramatic effect on the proceedings in the House. The general decorum of members, their dress, as well as their behaviour have all been affected and in the opinion of most observers has improved by the introduction of television. It has also been argued, though, that television has contributed to some less than positive developments. The most common complaint is that television has led to the over-emphasis on Question Period. Individual members tend to play to the cameras and they grandstand in hopes of getting a 15-second clip on the evening news. This was talked to a bit earlier.
It says there are problems but it is the responsibility of the members of Parliament to correct this. This report goes on and recommends that it would pan this situation here, to my right, where we have members standing back and talking. It would take a broader view and it would show Canadians what all is going on in the House of Commons. The actions and the funny expressions and those things that tend to agitate would be on national TV and then the constituents at home would say "I saw you doing something that was offensive" or "I saw this group
all standing at the back behind the curtains having a meeting and making a lot of noise, and I saw you there". I think that sort of thing then would come home. We are all then partly responsible for this situation, where it is not just TV focused on the Speaker.
Another thing seems to come forward from my constituents and others. We have had testimony in the House management committee of people saying it is not what is seen, it is just what is heard, I mean this rumbling and this noise that goes on that they cannot see. That concerns people.
They want to see and they do not like what they see, but they keep going back to see it. Also they are concerned about what they cannot see and hear that is going on here.
The House management committee of course is looking at TV, not only for committees. Maybe the TV coverage kind of Hansard type of reporting that goes on in here should be changed, and that may help. A little bit earlier the member for Broadview-Greenwood talked about these long preambles that tend to get into innuendo and tend to agitate. I guess what he was saying is that in a way we are having a little trouble disciplining ourselves. We get over-zealous. Maybe the Chair and the kind of rules that we have here will then help us all do that sort of thing. That is maybe a way that we have to go at this thing.
These are the areas that I think need to be examined. I think all of us should get together to do it. If we do not, we are going to tear this place apart and we are going to have this ever more negative attitude put upon all of us. Certainly we have got to do some very fundamental things and we all have got to get to work in doing it together so that it does happen. Maybe if we get the partisanship out of it, and I think we are all trying hard to do that, we can then decide whether the rules should be changed. If rules are there should we then have the Chair be more disciplined in enforcing those rules? Maybe we need some help. It was certainly indicated to me by a member opposite that sometimes we all need some help. In the heat of the moment, the pack mentality that develops. It probably means that we need some help from the Chair. I would hope that we will all work together at that sort of thing developing and I think that certainly we can do that.
October 25, 1991

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the House today on something that is of very, very great concern to me. It is of very great concern to the government, as was noted in the proposals of Shaping Canada's Future Together where it says: "therefore the Government of Canada, in co-operation with all parties in the House of Commons, will explore ways and means to strengthen the representational and legislative capacities of individual members of Parliament".
Also it says it will do that so that we will move toward a less adversarial and less negative attitude, perception and/or reality in this House. It is an important part of the proposals put forward in this very important document.
I think all of us want to do it. Let us all get together in a collective, non-partisan and intelligent way to make this the right kind of place to show our constituents that we are doing the right kind of job for them.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to a couple of comments by the hon. member.
It is sad. I do not think he understands what the Canadian public is saying. I do not think the women of this country have phoned his office as much as they phoned ours after a comment like this.
The question of decorum in the House was introduced after a meeting between the status of women minister and the status of women critics about sexist comments and slurs against women.
No one was referring to a pack mentality. No one was referring to the fact that there is a negative situation. People are perturbed, upset, annoyed and alarmed when listening to sexist comments in this House. Pretty well every single member of Parliament today got up and talked about decorum.
How many of them talked purely about sexist comments? If we have to keep referring you back to saying you do not understand, please listen to what the women in this House are saying. Listen to what the women in Canada are saying or there is no use and no sense in discussing or passing this motion. We have to keep reminding you that what you are saying has nothing to do with the subject we should be discussing today.
Government Orders
I wonder if the citizens' forum and rally groups would have called it a charade. The forum said that we were acting like unruly children. What if it had heard the comments from certain members on the government side of this House? I do not believe it is just emotions that we get caught up in during Question Period.
I have another word for those two members of Parliament. It has nothing to do with being caught up in emotion, believe me. Most of the women in Canada feel the same way. I would just like to ask if you think that we are right as women in this House of Commons when we say that you have to learn to understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about partisan bickering. We are not talking about teasing one another across the hall. We are talking about a serious issue that concerns every single woman in this country. Could I have the member's comments?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond because certainly I thought I was noting those grave concerns. I certainly did.
I have my notes here that I looked down at while talking. I talked about sexism and racism. I am very concerned about that. I have four women: three daughters and my wife. We have lots of chats about this. Certainly I have a lot of feeling for that sort of thing.
If you were on the street talking to somebody and they asked you a question, they would stay there, look you in the eye and wait for the response. This place does this sort of thing.
I really have a problem with that. Certainly what I was trying to say is that the kind of sexist remarks that were made are somehow caused. I am not trying to offer any excuses. A lot of things are said, some of them are not racist or sexist but there are other things said which are certainly not as serious. What could be more serious than that?
However they are agitating and tend to embroil us in casting aspersions back and forth. People probably say to themselves after they get home: "Why did I do that, why did I do that?" Hopefully you know that I have very serious concerns and I agree with you.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that I made my point clearly to the member earlier when I was talking about

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
our preambles. I said that we may from time to time take a shot which might cast a bit of an aspersion on the government in general. I was trying to suggest that the reason I believe we tend to do that is because so often when we ask a straight question we do not get a straight answer. Does the hon. member not think that if we the government tended to give a a straight answer when we ask these questions that could possibly be the rebirth of some kind of basic trust in this place?
This process has to have an initiative on the government side first. In other words you are the people with the power. Your front bench, your cabinet really controls the agenda of this country, this House, committees, et cetera. Very few people realize that with respect to the backbenches of the government. I realize it is tough for a backbencher in the government to have input into the power structure of a government.
Would the hon. member not think it would be good advice for the backbenches of the government side to give some kind of counsel or advice to the cabinet of Canada to be a little bit more focused and a little bit more straight when it is being asked questions in this House.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I hear where the member is coming from, rather than saying what might be done or what might not be done. Canadians do not want us just to talk about it; they actually want to see it.
What we could suggest is that when the hon. member next has the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary and if I am here to take it, he could put the question without a lengthy preamble and with no innuendo and I would him a straight, factual, concise answer. We could demonstrate to the rest of the House how to do this.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to have unanimous consent of the House to divide my time into two 10-minute periods.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Walker: That reflects the spirit of co-operation that we are all showing in this debate. Perhaps it is an indication of how the members participating in this debate feel about the way this House has been run. If I could just speak from my recent experience of becoming a member of the House, having come in with the class of 1988. My expectations of the House have not lived up to the reality. I spent years before I arrived in the House teaching at the University of Winnipeg subjects such as Parliament and constitutions and interest groups. Now I am living the reality of what I have been teaching.
One of the concerns political scientists have when they write their text books and teach students is that the reality of an institution must match its symbolism. When things get out of sync and the symbolism of an institution does not match what is really happening then people begin to lose trust in that institution.
For example, if you go back in history the monarch began to lose power because the advisors wanted to rule things themselves. Then people said if it is the advisers let us elect them and Parliament evolved and so forth.
Right now we have a situation where Canadians do not really believe that Parliament makes them powerful. They believe that Parliament in fact is destroying their country and that when they turn on the TV it reflects this. Our behaviour reflects the destruction of an institution that is valued and not the creation of a dream that is important to them.
There is not one of us who has not at some time taken a cheap shot at someone else standing up in the House, whether it is heard or not heard. There has not been one of us who has not been frustrated by a minister's answer. There is not a minister who has not stood up and said: "I cannot believe the question you are asking".
I think we all have to realize that is the way this House has performed. Partly it is the responsibility of TV because TV brought the reality that this House is different from the way they imagined to the people of Canada.
In the old days when they sent people like my predecessor, Stanley Knowles-the long time member of the House of Commons who sits at the table every day-off by train there were certain expectations they imagined him to perform. The media reported those
October 25, 1991

expectations and that the relationship was healthy. With television people say that this House does not represent them. It does not represent them because if you look at it from a political science point of view the real functions of government do not take place here. They take place in minister's offices, they take place in committees, and they take place in press conferences. What is left here is a shell. The shell does not represent anything but the shadow of its old self.
Very few great debates take place here. Very few votes that are not predictable take place here. Very few revealing questions are asked here. When the reality is shifted elsewhere people on television are left with just the shell of Parliament's former self.
Therefore we have to begin as colleagues to see our way through this. How do we reorganize the House of Commons so that people see us working in a way that is responsible and reflects their desire to have a government functioning on their behalf? Perhaps we should begin to shift the coverage on television to the committees.
All of us have sat on good committees. For example, I think of the work of a committee that I sat on when I first became a member, Standing Committee on Disabled Persons and International Human Rights Committee. That was a fine example of a committee working in a non-partisan or multi-party fashion in which motions were discussed beforehand. All the time I sat on it there was not one vote. Everyone agreed beforehand on what to do. There was a spirit of collegiality. Whenever any member did make a partisan comment he or she usually got a little note from an interest group saying: "We prefer that you don't make those comments about your colleagues. We prefer that you work together. The life of disabled people is too difficult to hear partisan remarks being made about what is going on".
It was a lesson to me to try to find ways to work with colleagues. I stand in the House as someone who is concerned that we must begin, and this motion is a beginning. I hope that the government side takes seriously the amendments presented on racism and sexism because it is time we upgraded ourselves and begin to learn a little bit more about how language used in a previous generation is very offensive to people.
Government Orders
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, who just spoke a few minutes ago, and I represent the younger side of the House. This really is a generational thing. The people who grew up with one way of doing things have to learn that there is a nation out there that is much different. The composition of the House does not reflect the nation and in some respects the values of the nation.
We have to learn how to treat each other. Other people have mentioned that there is no other organization that gets into serious meetings in which the members divvy themselves up and say: "All right, here we have a budget of $140 billion. Here we have a deficit". What corporation would then take its top 300 people and say: "All right, you sit on this side and you sit on that side and let's fight about how we are going to solve this problem?"
No one out there believes that is how to create a country. No one in here should believe that is the way to create a country. There is natural conflict. We want different things.
There are five parties represented here who have distinctly different notions of a country. We go to the people every three or four years and put those different ideas in front of them. We ask them for their consideration. We spend money, we advertise, and we try to convince people. When we come back to the House, those visions have to be blended with the reality that we have been asked by Canadians to work together and that there is a difference in this country about what to do or else we would not have different parties. There is a consensus that they want something done in common. I think we should all take that lesson. There is not one of us who does not go home on weekends and have people look us in the eye and ask what is this all about.
I can tell you that I was never embarrassed to be an academic, although academics are usually considered to be pretty flaky people. The comments made to me were done with at least a little bit of awe that I somehow got there by some rhyme or reason that should be respected. I used to think that in some respects being an academic was not exactly the highest status thing to be, but I can tell you, compared to being a member of Parliament, being an academic is a piece of cake. It is because the lack of respect that permeates, not only with the average viewer seeing us, but I think, interesting enough with the interest groups. One of the big changes in Canadian politics is the fact that interest groups think it is quite

Government Orders
appropriate to call members of Parliament pigs. They think that just because they disagree with us, they have a right to say whatever they want. That also contributes to the debate.
Those people who seek to reform us on the outside should remember that there are people on all sides of this House who have the good will of a country at heart, who are willing to compete but are also willing co-operate, are willing to put forward a new face and are willing to try to reform their institutions. In return, we need people to support us.
In the motion, the government talks about decorum. I think we have to take this through on a daily basis, begin to work through the committee system and work through our caucuses to add decorum to the House. Old habits are said to die slowly, but the institutions of Canada are also very much at stake. When the functioning of this House begins to resemble the country and begins to function as a reflection of the country's interest, people regain faith that when they send us to Ottawa that we are doing something worth-while. When they see us on the weekend they will be proud of us. When it comes to an election, they will know the bitter fights are done in a context of the good will of the country.
In that spirit, I think the government should be thanked for putting this on the table. The opposition parties should be thanked for putting forward some very worth-while amendments. The House should seek to work together by supporting this motion.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address this particular question in the House and I shall refer to it as appropriate decorum, which means, as I define it, use of sensitive language and certainly not inappropriate gestures when one is using body language to communicate a particular point.
I called some people today once I knew I would be able to address the question. I was able to reach nine individuals, constituents of mine, and asked them how they felt about this. The first reaction was: "Thank goodness it is happening. It is about time". There was a
feeling that this is something that should have occurred sometime ago.
I said: "What would you advise me to do in order to attempt to advance this debate and these questions?" They said: "Clean it up. There is no excuse for this kind of silliness, this kind of insensitivity, this kind of abusiveness". They said: "There must absolutely be less bickering. There needs to be more civility. Thank goodness you have made a beginning". They thought of it as a beginning only because we could clean it up here inside, but it must go beyond. It must go to the committee work, it must go in our relationships with each other as we have to deal with each other on some very important questions.
When I asked these individuals whom I contacted, men and women: "What is it that offends you the most?", they referred to the sexist language, the racist comments and the very abusive gestures.
I want to go on record to indicate in the strongest possible terms that I condemn all types of sexist language, all types of racial expressions and all insensitive gestures because what do they do, they simply bring out the worst in people, the worst in men and women as opposed to the best. It permits us to debase ourselves. It does not call upon us to give that which is best of every human being. It needs to be condemned, not only in this House, but wherever it happens.
Why does it happen? Clearly, on some occasions people do lose their tempers and they forget what it is they ought to do, how they ought to react. Also it is an expression of anger and it is their only way to express that anger. Also in some cases, it is very bad manners. In some instances as well, it is not only bad manners, it is certainly a reflection upon the way they were raised, the way they were educated, they way in which they were socialized and the fact that they have not kept up with the times, that they are still back there, while we should be up here looking forward.

I would also like to make an important distinction that does not seem to have been made today, and I am referring to the difference between inappropriate language and gestures and what I would call a certain commitment and passion about what we feel or want to say, which is called partisanship. I can be partisan-I am aware of that and I think I am from time to time-but I
October 25, 1991

don't have to use inappropriate language or gestures in the process. There is a distinction to be made. I think the impression has been given, because we have not been vigilant enough, that there was a connection between the two. Well, these are two things that can and must be separated. We must separate them. We have no choice.
Partisanship can be used-when I am in a position to do so, of course-to shed a more favourable light on my party and to try and promote its values, programs and objectives. It can also be used to emphasize, from time to time, what other parties are doing wrong, or to demonstrate the superiority of my own political group. However, there is a major distinction between partisanship and language and gestures that are distasteful.
Mr. Speaker, the question arises why we are considering this particular motion now: I have been in the House for nearly three years, and during that time I have noticed gestures and heard terms and phrases that have been censured since time immemorial. It is mainly because of two recent incidents: the sexist and outrageous language used by one government member, and the racist term used by another government member, and all this in the past month. And I am sure that my own constituents and those of my colleagues are very upset.
When these incidents occurred, I received some telephone calls here in Ottawa, from people who told me: What is going to happen to those people because of what they did? If I am not mistaken, nothing did happen. They were probably censured by their colleagues. Something was said about it here in the House, and they were reprimanded. But did they lose their jobs? Were they expelled from the House for a number of days or weeks or months? No! And now people are wondering why. They want to know how to show their disapproval of this kind of behaviour.

When the member for Halifax was addressing this question, I asked: "Why do you think this is happening right now?" She hesitated for a moment and then she finally said: "I hate to say it, but I think sexist language often reflects the deep anger that people hold toward women and that they do not understand why". I re-
Government Orders
fleeted upon that and I suspect there is a great deal of truth in what was said.
When she responded to why there were racist slurs or expressions toward another individual, her explanation was very, very similar. I would like to be able to reject that, but I cannot do so in good conscience. I know that in some instances that is not the case, but I fear that in too many instances that is in fact so.
I also asked the member for Halifax what could be done to counteract this.
Of course, there were a number of measures not only proposed by her but by others. For example, we need to in fact deal with it rapidly, sternly, and we need to develop an attitude that this kind of behaviour is totally, totally unacceptable.
The people who do that will be reprimanded severely not only by their party but by the House itself. We need to educate people. We need to point out what errors are made. We need to be patient at times, but we also need to be very firm when such occasions demand it.
The one question that I asked her, she admitted to me later on, my hon. colleague from Halifax, why was this behaviour defended by members of that same party. I could not understand that. I remember being a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards constitutional committee where a member of government, I do not know what it is that caught that particular member that day, unleashed a tirade against a particular political leader. Immediately, without hesitation, the co-chair reprimanded that individual and dissociated himself from those remarks.
The same could have been done here. You do not defend that kind of inappropriate behaviour. Why does this behaviour happen primarily in the House? We see each other in the corridors. We laugh, we tease, we cajole. Why, why? There is no doubt that it is the 15 second clip that we are looking for.
What an example for youth. I am the father of three daughters who ask me: Why do I bother working in this place if I am going to be treated like that, treat others like that or perhaps be in a position where I am seen to be exhibiting that kind of behaviour. They are amazed.

Government Orders
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood mentioned a particularly important point. We sometimes reflect the mood of the people out there who are angry because of the high unemployment, the uncertainty of the future, the constitutional instability, the loss of jobs and the grief that they are suffering because they do not know whether or not the country will continue.
I think we need to exhibit that, but at the same time there are appropriate ways to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked more time to explore certain aspects, but I realize my 10 minutes are up. Thank you.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to sit here in the House and listen to my colleague from Winnipeg in his comments on the motion put forward before us here today.
I think his viewpoints were probably very closely reflected to mine and the action and the appropriateness of this House and how we should all hopefully respond to any comments that are so directed either to us or we are directing against someone.
I would like to ask this member if there was something that we could do immediately, if there is something that we could do today in this House, what would be the first thing that he would do?


Ron J. Duhamel: I thank my colleague for her question.
If I were granted one wish today, I would say that the moment that there is inappropriate language, insensitive gestures, sexist and racial slurs that are used, that the whole House stand and condemn that member and that member not return to the House until we are satisfied with that type of behaviour would not recur.
I would also mount an educational program to sensitize people to what is happening. Sometimes there is a lack of sensitivity and understanding that prevents people from behaving appropriately. I think we need to take that in our own hands. We need to deal with it for the young people of the nation and for all Canadians at times.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on an outstanding speech.
I would like a further explanation in his quotation of "there is anger in the people". Would he be so kind as to expound on that phrase that he used.
Mr. Duhamel Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. Thank you for the question.
The distinction I wanted to make is that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood I think had made an extremely insightful point, that we are reflecting this anger, this frustration, this grief that has been suffered by Canadians. My point was that I think it is appropriate and necessary and that is what we are here for, to represent what we feel and what we hear out there. We have to do it in an appropriate kind of way. When I mentioned this anger I gave a few examples: the loss of jobs, high unemployment, the big bonuses. That is an affront to people. They get angry. They get angry that people receive bonuses, sometimes several times the size of ordinary salaries. Talking about the strikes and the violence that people see makes them very uncomfortable. The excessive taxation gets them so angry because they do not see themselves going forward, but going backward.
Reductions of services. We have talked about VIA Rail and CN. We talked about the postal services again today and someone receiving a bonus in excess of $100,000 and postal service is being cut in my constituency as well as in others.
We talk about the double standard in pensions. I mentioned that double standard in pensions, our own pensions and others. We talked about taxation, insensitive, contradictory and unfair taxation. If I was to raise my child at home and someone else were to go out and work and get receipted day care, they would get income tax deductions. Married and unmarried couples with the same circumstances are taxed differently.
All of that gets people angry and frustrated. They see no hope for the future. We are having serious difficulties in the country; the fishermen without fish in the Atlantic provinces, western Canadians unable to sell their product and bankruptcies in Ontario. I could go on, but I think I have given an indication of how I feel and what I think is making people angry and very frustrated and disappointed with the whole process.
October 25, 1991


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we are talking in this House today about a bill which was provoked by comments made in this House by two members.
In the past there have been comments, terrible, offensive, that have been made by other members. It is too bad that a bill was provoked and has to be brought forward to deal with this type of issue.
I wonder whether through legislation dealing with the rules of conduct in this House we can really deal with the underlying causes of what is happening.
I am going to be very personal. A lot of discrimination is based on just sheer ignorance. A lot of this ignorance is generational. It was only 45 years ago that we had signs in Toronto saying: "No Jews or dogs allowed in parks". It was only in the 1950s that the Supreme Court of the United States said that blacks could ride on buses.
In the United States we still do not have an equal rights amendment. In Canada today we get very upset when people bring different customs to Canada from foreign lands. Be they simple customs of dress based on religion, people get upset because they cannot cope with these differences.
The history of our country has been one of discrimination; discrimination against our aboriginal peoples when we came here,, many fights and bitterness based on language, religion. We have not come a long way in learning to understand one another.
In a world that is becoming increasingly smaller, where we are closer through communications, through transport and travel, to people of diverse backgrounds, we have not yet learned that the diversity or the differences are not a source of challenge or confrontation, but can be a source or richness through our intellectual, cultural and to our spiritual beings.
Discrimination against women, is nothing new to our culture. In other cultures we have seen examples of it which are rampant. In some other cultures there is far less discrimination, less equality. In some there is more.
In my own personal case, I believe that was a certain generation of Canadians who grew up with the belief that a woman's place was in the home, and that was probably her only place, that she did not have to be
Government Orders
involved in important decisions, involved in financed, involved in earning a living, involved in voting, involved in politics. You see part of the hangover of that today. There are so few women actually in this House of Commons. We are getting better. We are improving. We are working at it. We are trying to introduce positive measures to ensure that women are truly fully equal partners in the Canadian scene.
In terms of incomes, women are still at about 61 or 62 per cent of their male counterparts in Canada.
We have an awfully long way to go. We should look at our record and how we have treated so many people who are different from us, different from the male white majority. We are no longer the majority, which is probably good. We have to look at the record of discrimination, and I say it is not based on malevolence, it is based totally on ignorance.
I know that the younger generations that have come along have had a better opportunity by going to school, for example, where you are in an engineering class and maybe 50 per cent of the class is women. Now, that is a positive experience, and it is a learning experience for any male, and it is a better experience than when they went through engineering and there was not one woman in the class. I am not that old, but I went through a class where there was only one woman in our class at law school. That has changed dramatically.
Things are getting better. I guess the point I am trying to make is that no matter what we legislate here, it is not going to do much. Maybe it will be a small portion of educating ourselves, the 295 people selected by Canadians to represent their wishes in the highest court of the land. I mean, isn't it a shame that we have had to come to this, that we have had to admit that ignorance abides so much among us that we have to pass laws saying "Thou shall not be sexist, thou shall not be racist, thou shall not discriminate". My God, that is part of what we should all be about.
To me to have to admit that we are bringing in laws to deal with what should be the fundamental essence of being a human being in Canada, that has to be legislated or has to codified, is a sad day. I hope that through the efforts that are being made, maybe we as representatives of the people can be more conscious of just how ignorant we have been and how badly we as a body have served

October 25, 1991
Government Orders
Canadians that we would allow these attitudes to be coming forth from this highest chamber.
Maybe one can explain it on the basis that older people were brought up differently, that the ethos was different when they were raised in Canada, that they were raised under different times when the role of women was different; when race was not an issue that people could bring forth in the way it has been, when race was even in law a basis for discriminating against certain members of our society. Those times have changed. The laws have changed. We have a charter of rights. I can say we have a charter of rights in Canada and therefore we do not need this type of law. They have a charter of rights in the United States. It took them over a century to recognize that blacks are people, even under that bill of rights. It is no panacea.
In a time when the economy is shrinking and people are becoming fearful, less confident of their own futures, with more people fighting for a smaller pie, people are genuinely worried about where we are going and their own futures in Canada. Maybe it is natural that people will tiy to step on the backs of other people or other groups in order to feel more secure themselves. This is a human reaction that takes place in many cases. We know it is not the solution because we know none of us can get ahead by stepping on the backs of anyone else.
We have to work harder in these tough times. When people see the cause for their own uncertainty, when they see that and perceive it to be lying with other people who may be getting ahead of them, people are going to tend to become less magnanimous in their view about the role of other people. This is, of course, what we must fight against.
Unless we are prepared to recognize the true and full worth on an equal basis of every person in our society, our diverse society, there is no discrimination based on sex, language, religion, country of origin, creed, unless we are prepared to recognize the full potential of every one of these people, we are not going to climb out of the problems that we face. Economically unless every one of these individuals is a full player, with full opportunity in our economy, we are not going to be competitive on a global basis. We do not want peons and servants. We want co-workers and partners if we are going to get ahead.
Getting back to what we have heard in this House that has provoked this legislation, the two individuals who made the comments either immediately realized themselves that they were wrong, or maybe they were told by their leaders that they were wrong and they apologized. That was the only action taken.
Maybe apologies are sufficient. Maybe the shame that these individuals brought upon themselves, not for the harm they did to two people on this side of the House, but for the harm they brought to all parliamentarians, and the shame they put us all in because we belong to a body. Would it even be perceived that this type of action was either funny or humorous or acceptable.
We are all diminished by what has happened. I would hope that we could all use this as an opportunity to renew our own sense of what it is to be a human being, to be a human being in a country which in law respects equality, but which so often in practice has fallen far short of that mark. I think it is an opportunity to look at those who may be different than the majority of us in this House who ask why there are not more of the others here. Are their voices being represented adequately here? Are we doing everything possible, in our own hearts and souls, to recognize the true worth of those in Canada who are different from the majority of us here in this House?
Maybe our record is not at the top of the list of Amnesty International in terms of worst performance, but we have a tradition much longer than other countries. We have had an economy. We have had the infusion of people from so many countries who left their own countries because of various values that we do not see expressed in full measure here in Canada. They did not have equality of opportunity because of religion, politics and sex. They came to the new world.
In many ways our nation benefited from the abuses of other countries because we got people who had the guts to leave the old ways and to find new equalities and opportunities in our country. But we have fallen far short.
Perhaps, more important than anything else, this bill can serve as a reminder to us that we have not achieved the objectives that we have placed in our laws, to which we have all paid lip service but which have not been there in our hearts.
October 25, 1991


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague intently. I think all of us appreciate the comments that he has made and the view of his country that that reflects. I think it is a view of the country and a concern about some things that are happening in this country that many Canadians share.
He would be aware, however, that no matter how salutary this motion is it has precious little to do with the events to which he referred. As a matter of fact, perhaps the most significant aspect about this resolution is that it pays no attention whatever to the sexist remarks and the racist remarks to which he referred.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that when the Prime Minister responded to our leader in respect to the imposition of particular sanctions for sexist or racist remarks, one got a clear indication that the Prime Minister did not seem to understand the significant difference between general bad behaviour and individual insults and what was represented by the sexist remarks and racist remarks to which we are now referring.
Insults are directed at individuals and individuals are hurt. Those are not appropriate to the decorum of the House. But I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree with me that it is tragic that the difference between individual insults and class oriented insults or group insults or deprecatory remarks is much more substantial in their significance to this House because this House represents Canada. We have now come to accept Canada as a diverse nation made up of different groups of men and women of different colours, different national origins, different sexual orientation and different languages. When any of those groups are insulted in this place, we are insulting the very fabric of this nation. It does damage to the symbolism of this House and its substantive function in this nation.
I wonder if my colleague agrees with that analysis. I also wonder whether my colleague agrees with the analysis that is applicable to the general issue of the tenure of this place and its alleged lack of decorum. When I came into this House, in that spot over there, and stood up for the first time to ask a question I was in awe. I had been chosen in a nation which had shown that it had become a very different nation by choosing me.
Government Orders
This nation told me that by being elected by my constituents I could come here and change things and influence what the government has done and would do. I have come here for seven years, day after day. I have seen that there is no real impact on what this government does. When I perceive and have to explain to my constituents that I have no more power than they have to change this government, is it any wonder that the frustration loose in the land should be reflected here?
I wonder if my hon. colleague in respect to that analysis agrees with me that one way of improving the decorum of this place is to make it a far more democratic institution than it has been since this government has been in office.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: My hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, from Windsor-St. Clair has expressed a number of very important ideas. It would be very nice if when 80 per cent of Canadians, or more, spoke out against the GST that this House could have in some way reflected that view of Canadians.
It would have been very nice if when most Canadians disapproved of the economic policies of this government, which created a made-in-Canada recession, we could have reversed those policies so that we did not have the needless job losses and the hurt to individuals, a hurt which was reflected in the frustration we members feel.
My friend talks about two types of wrongs in this House. Wrongs against individual members go with the job. We are going to be insulted at times even by members of our own families. As members, we expect to be insulted from across the floor. Maybe insult is not the right word. We expect to have strong disagreements. I hope it would be on that basis, not on the basis of personality.
My good friend is quite right when he says that insults against groups are not insults against individuals in this House. There are insults against key core components and groups of Canadians. You cannot tell me what a Canadian is without mentioning first of all that we are a tremendously diverse, different group of people. There is no necessarily common thread when you look at language, sex, religion, culture, background, ethnic origin. Every one of us is a minority.
Probably the most significantly Canadian group are Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are different as well.

October 25, 1991
Private Members' Business
The hon. member was the subject of an insult, not against him personally, I agree. It was an insult, a racist comment that struck many Canadians through him, not just those who are black but Canadians of every colour. I would hope that Canadians who are white would feel it was a slap as well at them. After all we are a multi-coloured, multi-racial country.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the serious possibility that a miscarriage of justice has resulted in the murder conviction of David Milgaard and order a new trial in the case.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 1969 it was minus 42 degrees in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan that morning. That morning, very early, Gail Miller, a 20-year old nursing assistant, got up and got ready for work. She left her rooming house at about 7 a.m. Her bus stop was about a block and a half away. Between her home and her bus stop she was attacked, set upon, stabbed repeatedly in the back and the chest, and was sexually assaulted. She died tragically within 30 minutes of leaving her home. Her body was found about an hour later, just before dawn on that very cold and chilly Saskatoon winter morning.
The body was found in a snowy back alley between her rooming house and the bus stop. That same morning, three young people-and I will call them in the terms of the late sixties, three young hippies, basically teenagers-came from Regina. Their names were Nicol John, Ron Wilson and David Milgaard. Milgaard was 16 years old at the time.
The three young people came by car overnight from Regina. They arrived in Saskatoon in the early morning hours. They were looking for the home of Albert Shorty
Cadrain. Albert Cadrain was also a teenager. They subsequently found the home of Cadrain. They picked up Cadrain and they left Saskatoon with him later that day, about noon, on the way to Edmonton.
Later the Crown charged David Milgaard, one of those young people, with murder. In 1991 Milgaard is one of Canada's longest serving prisoners. He spent most of what was really the most vital part of his life in prison. The key witnesses against Milgaard were Nicol John and Ron Wilson, the two people in the car. I think everybody would agree that they gave inconsistent testimony in the beginning, in the middle of this story, at the end of the story, and even today. But I will get back to that.
Their evidence at the time of the trial was that the three arrived in Saskatoon around 6.30 a.m. on N Avenue or O Avenue. That is in Saskatoon. They noticed a young woman in a black coat and they asked for directions. They continued to drive to the end of the block. They tried to turn but the car got stuck. Canadians in the west know what it is like on those cold winter mornings and evenings where cars can often get stuck. The car got stuck and the two boys got out to push the car, unsuccessfully. They could not get it out so they went off in different directions for help.
Wilson was away from the car for about five minutes. He returned, he said, to find Nicol John, the young woman, hysterical. Milgaard was away for about 10 minutes;. The car became unstuck. They got the car moving and they drove to the Traveleer Hotel in Saskatoon where David Milgaard got out of the car, went into the hotel and asked for directions. The motel manager, one Rasmussen, said that Milgaard was perfectly normal except that he was wearing only socks on his feet, no boots. He was polite, did not seem to have any blood or wetness on his clothes, and he thanked the motel manager for giving him, Milgaard, a map.
The three youths then set out for the Cadrain home. They got stuck again and a couple called the Danchuks helped them, called a tow truck, and invited the kids into their home. At this time Milgaard was polite and his clothes were not wet according to the Danchuks, who are independent witnesses.
Finally the young people arrived in the Cadrain home one and a half blocks away from where the body of Gail Miller was found. Wilson, Cadrain, Nicol John and David Milgaard, four teenagers, got in the car and left
October 25, 1991

for Edmonton-in the language of the 1960s-"in search of dope, in search of drugs".
One month later Cadrain was picked up on another matter and jailed for vagrancy. When questioned about Milgaard he said that he saw blood on Milgaard's clothes on the day in question.
Wilson and John were interviewed. Wilson was in jail for theft and told that he was a suspect. After a lot of pressure he finally said that he saw blood on Milgaard's clothing and that Milgaard had a paring knife in the car.
Nicol John was in jail. At first she said nothing. Then finally she made a statement to the police on May 24, 1969. She was in jail for the whole night. At the end of that evening she finally told police that Milgaard had left the car, tried to snatch the purse from the woman, and stabbed the woman who was in front of the car.
There was forensic evidence in the case. I will not get into all the forensic evidence. It is a little long and it gets very detailed. It deals with blood samples, pubic hair and semen samples.
I will deal with it in a moment, as it was set out in a new paper on the Milgaard case just recently released in the past few weeks by Neil Boyd, Professor of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, and Kim Rossmo, a graduate student at that same university. They point out that the forensic evidence could go either way. In fact the forensic doctor says that if he had to give the evidence again that evidence would point not to the guilt but to the innocence of Milgaard.
The Crown's case had problems. The Crown's case went to a jury and after 11 hours the jury convicted Milgaard of murder.
I just want to deal with some of the problems we now have with the case. As Professor Boyd says in his paper: "But some important questions emerged from the trial transcript and defence counsel noted at trial the timing that would make this crime possible is extremely tight. Within no more than 10 minutes of having stabbed and raped Gail Miller, David Milgaard is seen by hotel manager Rasmussen over a mile from the site of the murder, relaxed, polite and wearing only socks on his feet. Within no more than 30 minutes of having killed
Private Members' Business
Gail Miller, David Milgaard is seen by Walter and Melissa Danchuk. He is said to be chatty and polite".
There are further problems with the case. A decade after the case there have been some recent changes.
The first one is with respect to Albert Cadrain, Shorty Cadrain, who said he saw blood on Milgaard's clothing. In fact, as Mr. Cadrain's brother Dennis had said recently: "Albert was picked up by the police, questioned 15 to 20 times. There was constant pressure, threats and bullying and he developed stomach ulcers and became very paranoid. He was committed to the psychiatric ward at University Hospital in Saskatoon, approximately a year after the trial". His brother further said that Cadrain is: "prone to exaggeration". He suffered from schizophrenia before the murder and afterward.
More importantly the main witness, Mr. Wilson, has recanted his evidence. On page 23 of the Boyd report Ron Wilson says that his evidence was wrong, that he did not see what he told the police he saw. Professor Boyd says at page 23, and I quote:
The minister's conclusion that Ron Wilson's recantation is simply not credible is difficult to support. Wilson's reasons for lying now are not easy defined. He risks a perjury charge related to his statements at trial, and there is no evidence or suspicion that he has received any financial benefit from his recantation. He seems, rather, to have suffered both personally and financially since his statement to the investigator, Paul Henderson.
The case has received a great deal of public interest, especially because of the fact that 10 years later we have suddenly realized that in the same area of Saskatoon there was a serial rapist loose right on the scene. His name was Larry Fisher and he was involved in-and I have the sexual assaults here in Saskatoon-seven assaults, including North Battleford and Winnipeg assaults. In fact, according to Professor Boyd, the psychological and graphic profile of the sex offenders in these cases fits one Larry Fisher who is serving time in jail now and not David Milgaard.
I want to summarize Professor Boyd's conclusion:
There is virtually no case against David Milgaard. Only Albert Cadrain still believes that he saw blood on David Milgaard. Albert Cadrain also believes that David Milgaard will try to kill him if he gets out of jail. Ron Wilson now says that he lied at the trial, and Nicol John doesn't want to speak about the case. The forensic evidence tends to exclude David Milgaard.

October 25, 1991
Private Members' Business
The case has been written about recently. I leave this for the House and the minister. The Toronto Star said in an editorial on August 11, 1991 entitled "Will justice prevail in Milgaard's case": "Nor can Justice Minister Campbell ignore the disturbing signs that Saskatoon police officers quickly decided that Milgaard committed the crime and then rejected any evidence that didn't fit in with their theory".
In the August 16, 1991 Saskatoon Star Phoenix there was an editorial saying that there should be a review of the case. In The Toronto Star on August 22, 1991 there was an article headed "Troubling parallels in Marshall-Milgaard cases". It says:
In the Marshall case Nova Scotia police used Pratico's new statement against Marshall to get supporting testimony from 14-year old Maynard Chant, saying that he had seen Marshall commit the murder. Chant's about-face was like that of John and Wilson in the Milgaard case. They originally gave statements removing Milgaard from the scene of the crime, then eventually conformed to Cadrain's version of the truth. Wilson has since sworn a statement to say "I was manipulated into lying against him (Milgaard). I was 17 years old and very frightened because I felt that the police were trying to pin the murder on me".
In each case, in the Marshall case and in the Milgaard case, young witnesses changed their key testimony from that of the trial.
The Winnipeg Free Press has been writing about this case as well. I will quote from a commentary in The Globe and Mail on Friday, October 11 where Peter McWilliams, a noted lawyer, writes: "It is time to let David Milgaard go". He points to the factual evidence that was not there at the trial which shows that the serial rapist who was afoot was at least as good a suspect, if not a better one, than Milgaard. The defence did not have that evidence and could not introduce it at the time of the trial. Mr. McWilliams also mentions that: "The Crown used the statement of Nicol John to cross-examine Nicol John". She never gave that evidence in trial but the jury knew while she was on drugs she seemed to see something happen in front of the car, a stabbing.
I want to conclude by saying that if you can accept any one of the following, you can find David Milgaard innocent. If you accept Mr. Wilson's testimony then I believe a jury would find David Milgaard innocent. If you accept the independent witnesses' testimony about the fact that there was no blood on Milgaard and the
demeanour of Milgaard, you could in fact find David Milgaard innocent.
The forensic evidence which played an important role in the trials if anything excludes Milgaard. It does not include Milgaard. Indeed this view is now agreed to by the expert who said he would testify differently at the trial if it were held today.
Fourth, you can find David Milgaard innocent if you accept the clear evidence suggesting Larry Fisher, the serial rapist, was a far better suspect than Milgaard and that Milgaard never had access to the evidence to link Fisher to the crime.
There was evidence that the material link to Fisher was found near the crime. There was evidence that Fisher lived near the victim. There was evidence that Fisher acted strangely when confronted by his wife that morning of the rape.
There is similar factual evidence with other confirmed rapes. We could compare the kind of character that Fisher was and compare him to David Milgaard who was a 16-year old hippie kid who had no previous record of violence, as far as I know. You can find David Milgaard innocent if you accept that Albert Cadrain showed evidence of schizophrenia before and after the trial. His evidence that he saw blood on the shirt but not on the sweater of Milgaard is simply not credible.
Finally there is no direct physical evidence that David Milgaard was on the scene of the crime. The evidence putting him there is filled with contradiction. It was a result of young witnesses who progressively changed their story. I am not blaming the police. There was pressure on the police to solve the case.
Clearly they were young, unreliable and vulnerable. This thing builds momentum because the police do not want to go back and say: "Maybe a mistake was made".
What are the options? My background is as a Crown Attorney in British Columbia for the city of Vancouver and as a defence council. I appreciate this evidence and I am deeply worried that this great justice system that I think we have may have done an injustice here. That is why the minister has a number of options.
The first option is to order a new trial. I realize it will not be easy but it is a possibility. Second, she could refer this to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal for review. The problem is Mr. Milgaard's original defence lawyer is on that court. Third, she could refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada for review or she could grant David
October 25, 1991

Milgaard a free pardon which would make him clear of all guilt.
I know I have to conclude. I want to say one other thing before I conclude and I hope the House will give me time to just wind up. It is very important that in the Boyd report Professor Boyd mentions what was recommended by the Marshall commission.
Let me just quote: "In 1989, a royal commission on the Donald Marshall prosecution concluded that section 6(9)(e)," that is a review power by the minister should be replaced by an independent review mechanism. "We recommend that this review body have investigative power so it may complete and have full access to any and all documents, material required in any particular case and to have powers so witnesses can be compelled to provide information."
We cannot have the same people who prosecuted do an investigation to determine the possibility of a miscarriage of justice because it goes against their own interests. That is what the royal commission was saying in the Marshall inquiry. The Milgaard case is a perfect example.
This apparent miscarriage of justice has taken the best years of life away from David Milgaard. I believe it is time for the minister to rise above the bureaucratic inertia and show some real courage and show what can be great about our system. In Britain, the accused Irish group was subsequently given a new trial and the charge was dismissed. People said that was a great mistake, that the IRA people were railroaded into guilt when they were in fact innocent and it was a great tragedy of the British system. To me, it was the great genius of the system. The system had enough guts and enough courage and enough justice to go back and say: "We made a mistake".
I say to this House there is the evidence that I can see. I invite the minister to put the McIntyre report before the public and any other evidence she has. But the evidence looks to me, and I think to the the members of this House, that a miscarriage of justice has been done here. This man is still serving time. Surely the minister
Private Members' Business
should refer it for a new trial or take a new look at this case. I urge her and plead with her to do that.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam and his motion before the House this Friday afternoon. I can tell this House it is very much colder in in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, at this very moment. While we are basking in some 18 degrees of warmth here in the nation's capital, it is quite cold at home with quite a bit of snow on the ground.
I would like to also tell this House that for many days, weeks, months and years David Milgaard has been incarcerated at the Stony Mountain Penitentiary in my constituency, not 15 miles from where I live. I suspect he would be watching with interest this particular debate in the House of Commons presented by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
This is indeed a very serious motion. It deals with a person, a human being, his life, his past, his 21 years, I believe, in prison as a result of a conviction of murder. I can also say that I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Milgaard personally almost a year and a half ago when his case was being brought into some prominence and being discussed by not only lawyers, but being reviewed by his family members. I know members of this House know and have talked to Mr. Milgaard's mother. She personally called me yesterday. Among the members of Mr. Milgaard's family is a great deal of hope that our Department of Justice, our Minister of Justice and, as a result of even a visit with our Prime Minister, this case would be reviewed.
Unlike my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, I do not have a lawyer's legal background. I am not going to state the case as my colleague just has, as if he were instructing the jury, this House being the jury and all those listening to the House of Commons. I cannot say how they should view this case as a final summation. I cannot, like my colleague, say everything I have heard is absolutely 100 per cent correct. I certainly was not there. I can only go by the different things I have heard from individuals.
After 21 years, he still proclaims his innocence after being in a penitentiary and different jails in this country, notwithstanding what that must do to the human spirit, mind and soul. In fact, one does have to wonder, and I

Private Members' Business
think all of us in this House will agree, that that alone would make any one of us consider whether there was, as suggested, a miscarriage of justice. I wrote the Minister of Justice beginning back on April 4, 1990. Later, there were two subsequent letters. There has been an unprecedented amount of media coverage of this particular case. Many of us, including my colleague from Winnipeg, have been quoted on statements we made with respect to the Milgaard case. We have been quoted because we have taken an interest. We are elected members of Parliament and we have to represent all Canadians, albeit the ones in Stony Mountain do not have a right to vote. I deem that still as an area that I represent. Upon any request I have for a meeting, whether it is with penitentiary management, the guard union or the prisoners' union, I have made myself available to them.
I do not know that I can draw the same conclusions, but I will say one thing with respect to this case. There appears to have been so much additional evidence since the original trial, so many more people coming forward providing a new slant toward this case, that I genuinely support the member's motion that the minister review this. The people of Canada should be provided with additional evidence that either it warrants a new trial or that the most intellectual people and people in positions of power, meaning perhaps former Supreme Court Justices who have all the evidence before them, can recommend that this particular issue of David Milgaard be revisited.
What the outcome of that would be I cannot say. Clearly we have another case which now warrants a new review by the minister as was put forward in this motion. If the answer to that by the minister is no, then I would hope that at the very least the evidence of why the case could not come back to trial would also be given. In other words, I do not think the public of Canada can accept just a plain no in respect to the Milgaard situation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have as much time as my colleague who moved this motion, but I sincerely believe that there is no one in the human race who is without fault, who has not made mistakes, whether it is us as members of Parliament, whether it is those who are presently serving and have served time for their sins and misdeeds to society. There are those who may pass judgment, such as lawyers, judges, people who have
sworn testimony who may have made errors, or misled, and caused what is now considered by some to be a total miscarriage of justice. I alone, like many in this House, would not want to be sitting in that position.
Our Minister of Justice probably finds herself dealing with one of the most difficult decisions of her political career as a minister. I trust that she is viewing this particular exercise in the House as one of very important consideration in her judgment and that she will seek the best of council in reviewing this case. I would very much want to let everyone know that I support the motion by my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy I was able to alter my plans to be here today to participate in this most important debate.
A man's freedom is on the line. Moreover David Milgaard's life is on the line. That is, what is left of it.
Our justice system has snatched away more than 20 years of life from David Milgaard. Those are years from the prime of his life and they cannot be given back to him but a wrong can be corrected. Our justice system can recognize its mistakes. Give David Milgaard his freedom. Let him go. He has suffered enough. The system has had its pound of flesh. Are his jailers so callous and so brutal that nothing short of death itself or a grovelling confession to a murder he did not commit will satisfy them?
In the short time available to me I want to explain why David Milgaard should be set free and should be granted a hearing so that the courts may re-decide this case. I am confident that if he can gain a new trial the Crown will fail to sustain its original conviction.
This was a botched case from the very first day. It was botched by nearly everyone who came in contact with it in those fateful days of the late 1960s. There were no heroes back then, not in this case. There was the over-zealous Saskatoon police under pressure to nab someone, anyone, after a series of brutal crimes in the city of Saskatoon. There was a questionable defence strategy which failed to tie the Gail Miller murder to other similar vicious assaults in Saskatoon around the very same time.
October 25, 1991

The Crown got a conviction all right. It got it on what is now discredited forensic evidence and on testimony from shabby, unreliable witnesses who claimed they were coerced by police. Even the judge may not have instructed the jury well enough.
What about the forensic evidence? Four days after nurse Gail Miller was stabbed more than a dozen times and left to die in snow on a cold Saskatoon morning in 1969 semen was found near the murder scene. Analysis showed it came from what is called a type a secretor. There is strong evidence that David Milgaard is a non-secretor. The jury was told that the sample of semen found was contaminated by blood, David Mil-gaard's blood. That was the Crown's theory.
Forensic experts have since seriously questioned that theory. It is now believed that the jury was not properly instructed on how to interpret the forensic evidence. There is an interpretation of the evidence that in effect says David Milgaard was not the murderer, but the jury was not told that.
What about the Crown witnesses? What a lovely bunch of coconuts. Professor Neil Boyd of Simon Fraser University and his associate D. Kim Rossmo, a Ph.D candidate at Simon Fraser, have written an excellent report on the Milgaard case. They say this about the friends of Milgaard who testified against him: "Ron Wilson, a witness who has since recanted, sketches a picture of disenfranchized street youth in 1969 on the fringes of the fledgling hippie culture and on the edge of a criminal lifestyle. They were all involved in using illegal drugs".
Ron Wilson was questioned by police for two months. Fie did not have to testify against Milgaard but as Boyd and Rossmo put it: "Implicating Milgaard was the easiest way to remove himself from a persistently stressful situation".
In an interview last year Wilson is quoted as saying: "I just wanted to get the hell out of there and whatever happened happened". The rest of the witnesses were no better.
Nicol John, in a statement to police, said: "Milgaard tried to snatch the purse from a woman and then stabbed her repeatedly". She said: "The knife was in his right hand". Milgaard is left-handed.
Private Members' Business
At the trial itself Nicol John changed her story and said she could not remember anything about Milgaard stabbing the women. There are other problems with John's statements.
There was another Crown witness, Albert Cadrain, who may have experienced paranoia while under intense police pressure.
Commenting on this experience with police Cadrain said last year: "They asked me the same questions repeatedly. This went on for months. They put me through hell and mental torture".
Two other witnesses made damaging statements against David Milgaard. Craig Melnick and George Lapchuk testified in a Regina motel room about three months after the murder that Milgaard re-enacted the murder and quoted Milgaard as saying he stabbed the woman 14 times. How reliable is that testimony? The court was told that Milgaard and some of the others had taken LSD earlier that evening. LSD is a mind-altering drug.
There is more to this bizarre and very tragic case. Around the time the murder occurred that morning in Saskatoon, perhaps only minutes after the stabbing, Milgaard, Ron Wilson and Nicol John showed up at a Saskatoon motel. Robert Rasmussen was the manager. Did he notice anything unusual about Milgaard, who allegedly committed a brutal murder just minutes earlier? The answer is no. Rasmussen testified that he noticed nothing unusual about Milgaard or his clothes. He said Milgaard was polite.
Minutes after leaving the motel the three teenagers got their car stuck in the snow. They were assisted by a couple by the name of Danchuk who invited the trio into their home to warm up. Was anything unusual noticed about Milgaard, who spent one hour with the Danchuks? The Boyd-Rossmo report says: "No witness observed that David Milgaard's clothing was ripped, a likely outcome of a struggle in a snowbank".
Walter Danchuk said Milgaard was polite and soft spoken and that he had been doing most of the talking for the group. He had been talking about selling magazines and about trying to find their friend, Albert Cadrain.
Not only does the Crown's case lie in tatters but there is evidence that another man, Larry Fisher, was the real killer of Gail Miller. Larry Fisher is a brutal, savage serial rapist. In the fall of 1968, just months before the January 31, 1969 murder of Gail Miller, Larry Fisher carried out three vicious rapes in Saskatoon. In the year

Private Members' Business
following the Miller murder, in 1970, he committed [Translation]
three more vicious assaults in Winnipeg. He was arrested
and given a 13-year sentence. He was released in 1980	.
and soon after attacked and nearly killed a woman in Mrs- NlC0,e Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to North Battleford. He is back in prison.	Minister of Communications): Mr. Speaker, a decision to
exercise the executive's power to order a new trial in a case where the courts have already handed down a Why is he a suspect? He was committing his serious decision must be considered very carefully. We must crimes around the time of the Miller murder. He rode bear in mind the independent role of the courts. It is up the 20th Street bus to work in Saskatoon. So did Gail to them to decide whether the accused is innocent or Miller. Certainly Miller's murder appears more likely to guilty. In a trial before judge and jury, jury members are have been committed by a man like Fisher than by responsible for reaching a verdict based on the facts, Milgaard who had no history of violence or sex offences, while the judge determines how the law is to be applied.
The speculation about Fisher of course does not clear Milgaard by itself, but it is one more shadow of doubt over his murder conviction. There is a lot more to this incredible story but I cannot recount it here.
Will our justice system come crashing down if David Milgaard is freed and cleared of his conviction? No. Would it mean the system is riddled with lousy judges and lawyers? No. What it does mean is that we recognize human beings for what they are. They are not perfect. Our institutions are not perfect. Each and every one of them, including our justice system, can and does make mistakes.
Do we have the courage to admit our mistakes? Do we have the courage to admit that we have possibly incarcerated an innocent man for more than 20 years? I hope so. I certainly hope so for David Milgaard's sake.
In closing, I hope the government is listening, especially the Minister of Justice. I chose not to discuss her handling of the case today because the country already knows just how bad it is. It is never too late. There is still time for justice. There is still time for David Milgaard. Canadians are asking the Minister of Justice to heed the words of this motion and do what is right.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, those from Manitoba. I would like to cite them: Lloyd Axworthy, Ron Duhamel of St. Boniface, Ray Pagtakhan of Winnipeg North and David Walker of Winnipeg North Centre. They have all lent their support in this very worthy cause.
To ensure this tradition is observed, ministers of Justice refuse to substitute their own opinion for those of jury members or judges. However, in cases where, on the basis of new facts that come to light after the court's decision, there is reason to believe there has been a fundamental miscarriage of justice, the Minister of Justice has subsequently made the appropriate decision, in other words, referred the case back to the courts.
It is important to understand where the prerogative of pardon fits into the criminal justice system and to use it the way it was meant to be used. Section 690 of the Criminal Code says the Minister of Justice may order a new trial or refer the case to the Court of Appeal. That is an extension of the Crown's prerogative of pardon which is reflected in our legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this recourse is available only when all legal recourse has been exhausted. In the David Milgaard case, an impartial jury declared him guilty, an independent Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected in 1971.
Consequently, the applications to the Minister of Justice are outside the judicial process. However, the judicial review process provided under section 690 may, when it is desirable to do so, allow a new examination by the courts. That was the procedure followed in the Donald Marshall case, and more recently in the Wilson Nepoose case.
By passing section 690, Parliament has conferred on the Minister of Justice the authority to accept or reject such requests. This responsibility is exercised without any partisan or political considerations, in the broadest sense of the word.

When exercising this important responsibility, the minister must carefully examine each individual request. Decisions cannot be made lightly, and a thorough understanding of all the facts is essential The minister's decision must be based on a thorough analysis of all aspects of the case, in accordance with recognized legal standards.
For instance, when David Milgaard filed his first appeal, experts were called in to examine questions of a scientific nature and to give their opinion. Facts obtained from every possible source, including the lawyer's briefs, were carefully analyzed to determine whether there could have been a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Mr. Speaker, the reports given by the media in this case overlooked a number of important points in connection with the first appeal. The Minister of Justice, however, analyzed them before making her decision. She cannot comment on the case in this House or in the media because she is prohibited from doing so by law.
One thing the minister considers frustrating in this matter is the tendency of some commentators in the media to report only part of the evidence in the Milgaard case and not to take account of how it fits into the total picture. Indeed, it is important to look at the case as a whole, from beginning to end, and that is exactly what several of the minister's senior legal advisers are now doing. It is just such partial and incomplete views of the affair that have given rise to misinterpretations and raised questions from some members of the House, which presuppose a certain view of the matter.
The minister considered the first request objectively, in accordance with the established legal standards, and will give the same consideration to any subsequent request, as she did with every case submitted to her in the past.
The Minister of Justice has the responsibility to ensure that justice is done. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will fulfil this responsibility with the necessary objectivity, care and compassion.
Private Members' Business


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said there was insufficient evidence. Perhaps she could put this evidence before this House. She cannot just come out and say: "There is no evidence." We, in the opposition as well as other members and also the government member who spoke before me, want to know where is this evidence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair does not take a position in this kind of debate. It is a question of opinion. Speakers have had every opportunity to express their points of view and the Chair listens carefully to the points of view expressed on all sides. If other members wish to speak, they can rise and do so.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, no other members having indicated they wanted to speak, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the question put. We could put it on a voice vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member raises a point of order. This motion is not a votable item under the Standing Orders. Therefore I cannot grant the request made by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.

There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 3.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.47 p.m.