1991-10-23

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was talking about the two major errors contained in the statement of the minister of immigration of October 4, 1991 regarding the refugee backlog clearance program.
The second error is that the backlog will not be completed within its original budget. The original budget as announced by the former minister when the program began was $100 million. Now it is $179 million and the minister pretends it is within budget.
The program for clearing the backlog is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is a cross between amnesty and administrative review pretending to be a program to ferret out bogus refugees. The program is neither on time nor on budget.
Refugee claimants whose lives have been on hold for as long as four years are now being told by this minister that they will have to wait an additional 15 months. Despite this, the minister said: "The program is meeting its objective to clear these claims in a fair and humanitarian manner".
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing fair or humanitarian about waiting up to five years to have one's claim heard.


DONOHUE MATANE
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now, and especially during Small
Business Week, workers at Donohue Matane and their socio-economic partners in the Gaspe have been vigorously pursuing efforts to start operations again at their ultra modern plant and obtain the paper machine they need to upgrade the value of their natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke personally to the Prime Minister, and I know he is giving this matter special attention.
I therefore wish to take this opportunity to again invite the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade to continue their efforts to find a potential investor who will help meet the expectations of workers at the Matane pulp mill.
Mr. Prime Minister, the people of the Gaspe are counting on your support.


DEPO-PROVERA
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, we are once again seeing the attempt to misuse the cancertreating drug depo-provera as a contraceptive.
The chief of the Baffin Regional Health Board in the Northwest Territories is quoted today as saying that depo-provera is being offered to northern Inuit women as a contraceptive despite having never been approved by the federal government for such use.
Indeed, the drug has been subject to an intense campaign by Canadian women and health groups to ensure that it is not used as a contraceptive because of well documented concerns about breast cancer, foetal abnormalities, and more than 20 side effects.
To his credit the former minister of health, Jake Epp, disallowed the use of the drug as a contraceptive because of concerns about the long-term safety of women. I call upon the current minister of health to review the drug approval process so that legal drugs cannot be misused and so that these Inuit women are not put at risk.


S. 0. 31   JUDO CLUB OF BOIS-DES-FILION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable performance of nine members of the Judo Club of Bois-des-Fi-lion, a municipality in my riding. Several days ago, they won seven medals, including two gold, at the International Judo Championship in Newark, New Jersey.
Both athletes and trainers have shown that with hard work and determination, and despite limited financial means, they were able to achieve the highest levels of excellence.
These young people are worthy representatives of the riding of Terrebonne, the town of Bois-des-Filion and this country, and we are all very proud of them. I urge them to keep up the good work, and I can assure them that we are all very proud of their performance and their success.
Once again, three cheers and congratulations! We are all very proud of you.


CANADA POST
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition signed by over 1,400 constituents concerning government initiatives to close or cut services at the postal outlets at Drake Pharmacy in Windsor Park in my constituency.
These cuts and closures have also been imposed on other facilities, for example, McCulluogh Drugs, Marion Grocery, and Metro Drugs. Over the years staff in the post offices in St. Boniface and Norwood have been reduced as well.
These cuts and closings are all in addition to the annoyance they have suffered with supermailboxes, astronomical increases in postal rates, including the GST on stamps and other services, inadequate postal service for certain regions of the constituency, for example River Park South and St. Vital.
This government is inconveniencing and really putting out all constituents, particularly business people, seniors, and handicapped residents.
When will this government have a fair, comprehensive and accessible postal service for all Canadians?


CO-OPERATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, 180 residents in the Abitibi area will meet at the Chateau d'Amos on November 1 and 2 to identify mechanisms that apply the co-operative principle and are most likely to meet the needs of the community. They will do so within the framework of a regional seminar held by the co-operative assembly.
The general theme of this assembly will be how to achieve quality development together. Regional members of the co-operative movement and their socio-economic partners will have discussions on two of three subjects on the agenda: community development using the co-operative formula; co-operative education; and inter-co-operation.
According to Mr. Ferland Miron, president of the Seminar's Organizing Committee and director of the Serres cooperatives de Guyenne, it was and is up to co-operators and their partners to work together to achieve quality development, because it is undeniably true that co-operatives can increase their contribution to the region's economic development and, by using their formula, promote development of individual potential.


ELIJAH SMITH
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to inform the House of the tragic death of one of the great leaders of the Yukon native community, Mr. Elijah Smith.
In 1973, it was Mr. Smith who travelled to Ottawa to begin Yukon land claims discussions. In Mr. Smith's hands was the document Together Today for our Children Tomorrow. It was a precedent setting paper and served as a model for future discussions between federal governments and aboriginal people.
October 23, 1991

Mr. Smith was a great man, one of those rare people who could unite others on the strength of his vision. His eloquence and activism on behalf of his people and his commitment to Canada and the democratic process were renown.
Mr. Smith so loved his country that he served in the Second World War and lost his Indian status as a result of doing so. But his love for his own people was no less. In the hope of bettering their lives, he founded the Yukon Native Brotherhood and was later instrumental in bringing together all of the aboriginal people in the Yukon.
With aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the Yukon, Mr. Smith has been a true leader. He will be truly missed.
I want to say to Mr. Smith's family, and I am sure I echo the sentiments of all members of this House, that a great leader has been lost to us but that his memory will go on.


SISTER CLAIRE HASS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Pembroke, Ontario, a large host of Canadians from all walks of life gathered in St. Columbkille's Cathedral to celebrate the gift of the heroic life and death of Sister Claire Hass who was murdered last week while performing her dedicated missionary work in the Bahamas.
Sister Claire grew up within the peaceful, hardworking, farm community of Admaston township in the county of Renfrew. She entered the Grey Sisters Community in Pembroke, Ontario, in 1947 and began a long career of religious service; nursing and teaching included.
Her missionary work took place in many parts of the world. The most important aspect about Sister Claire was the fact that she was representative of that era in Canadian history which saw many very dedicated, idealistic and realistic young people go from the farmlands and the streets of our wonderful nation to serve their Maker by helping those who could not help themselves.
Her "halls of fame" were the streets of the poor and helpless, her classroom was her castle, her loving care wherever she was needed was her hospital. She practised
her missionary work with conviction and purpose. Her life's work is an example for many Canadians to follow.
There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who knew her that Sister Claire Hass was welcomed into heaven with the words: "Well done thy good and faithful servant".
* s|c *


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, during Small Business Week, I would like to pay tribute to Canada's small businesses, especially those in the riding of Joliette which I have the honour to represent.
Small businesses are the engines of Canada's economy-no one can deny that. We realize they represent over 97 per cent of Canadian businesses and that their annual sales generate over $326 billion.
Joliette has many small businesses which, through hard work and determination, have managed to carve out a niche in a market that is becoming increasingly competitive, both nationally and internationally. Two examples are Les Ateliers d'usinage M.D.M. Inc. and Filochrome Inc., and there are many more.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's prosperity depends on the prosperity of small businesses. That is why since 1984, the federal government has been trying to create an economic climate that is favourable to small business growth and development.
5k * >k


CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on this important week of UN speculation, let us have the first reading of the conflict of interest code to Canadians according to Brian.
Before leaving office, public office holders should not allow themselves to be influenced in the pursuit of their official duties and responsibilities by plans or offers of outside employment. Public office holders shall disclose in writing all firm offers of outside employment that could place the public office holder in a position of conflict of interest.
Finally, where a public office holder does not comply with the measures he is subject to, such appropriate

October 23, 1991
Oral Questions
measures as may be determined by the designated authority, including, where applicable, discharge or termination of employment.
Mr. Speaker, what does this have to do with certain job opportunities in downtown Manhattan by the riverside?


CANADA SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Science announced the names of 3,200 new Canada scholars for 1991-92. Thirteen of these scholars are from the federal riding of Peterborough. 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 monetary rewards, it brings prestige, recognition and career opportunities to the recipients. The Canadian government has pledged $80 million to this scholarship program.
Today's Canada scholars are tomorrow's scientists and engineers. I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to both new and continuing Canada scholars. I wish them every success in meeting the challenge of being a Canada scholar.


QUEBEC'S REPUTATION
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, over the last 30 years, Quebecers have built a society based on respect for others. They are proud of it. Today, they are disappointed, and for a good reason. During the Oka crisis, people in English Canada and abroad took the opportunity to tarnish Quebec's image. Now, in the Great Whale issue, people are doing all they can to demolish Quebec's reputation. The most shameful part of this story, Mr. Speaker, is that those who sit in government and pretend to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa remain silent. Every time Quebec's reputation is threatened, they keep quiet. Is there connivance in all that, Mr. Speaker? I really wonder today!


SAGUENAY-ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 1990, the governments of Canada and Quebec concluded an agreement to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in the medium term. They thus laid the foundation for what promises to become such a major experiment in environmental protection that it will be among the most important ecological initiatives in the world.
All interested persons and groups in the community, especially Mr. Corbin, president of the marine park coalition, ask both governments to stop their bureaucratic quarreling and to involve the community in this important development for all of eastern Canada.
As the coalition points out, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is neither federal nor provincial but belongs to present and future generations. To attain the environmental objectives that led to creating this park, officials must stop their useless jurisdictional disputes and personal bickering and let Parks Canada share its expertise and financial resources with Quebec and our region.
Let us put an end to these ivory tower frustrations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister said that he was not seeking the position of United Nations Secretary General. Given that statement, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Has the government asked Yves Fortier, our ambassador to the United Nations, to withdraw the Prime Minister's name from the list of candidates for that position, or has Mr. Fortier been asked to become the chief organizer for the Prime Minister's election campaign in New York?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to withdraw from something that you were not a party to or a a part of and so the answer is no.
October 23, 1991


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took the Prime Minister at his word when he said that he was not-and I repeat-that he was not a candidate for the job in New York. I believed him. Now, 24 hours later, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot tell me why the name of the Prime Minister has not been withdrawn from this list. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he wants the job or he does not want the job.
I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister: What kind of instructions has the government given to Ambassador Fortier and the 1,200 Canadian diplomats abroad? Are they campaigning abroad, speaking for Canada or trying to find a golden parachute for the Prime Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: You are surprised.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the hon. Leader of the Opposition. First and foremost I think all Canadians should be honoured by the fact that the Prime Minister's name has been advanced for such a prestigious office.


Some hon. members:: Flear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Surely it is a reflection of the esteem and the regard with which he is held internationally, and surely it reflects the prominence and the importance of Canada in the leadership role and the activity it has been involved in since the United Nations started.
The fact of the matter is that the name was placed there by someone without the Prime Minister's consent. He has neither sought nor is seeking nor intends to seek such a position. As far as we are concerned, the matter is dead.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it would be very easy for the Prime Minister to do what Mr. Trudeau did in similar circumstances. He
Oral Questions
said he was not interested and he was not going to take the job.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question. One and a half million people in Canada are looking for jobs today. In Sault Ste. Marie, 20,000 people have joined together to save Algoma Steel. They are in the gallery today and they have presented a very good document to the government, and the government does not want to listen to them.
My question is very straightforward: When will the Prime Minister stop promoting himself for a job abroad and start promoting Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that question was designed to promote his old friend Mr. Trudeau as a candidate. Obviously everyone knows that he is available doing nothing, but the phone never rang; his name does not appear on the list.
In so far as the Leader of the Opposition's reference to Algoma, the Minister for International Trade, myself and other ministers have met with representatives of the Algoma district expressing their concern about the future of Algoma. The Minister for International Trade is handling this file and is working very closely with all parties. We hope that there can be a positive solution found to this very serious difficulty.
I remind the hon. member that this government has already ploughed about $200 million plus into that facility, so we do have an interest in it.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians have a right to know what the government's policy is with respect to the question of filling what will soon be vacant post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. Canada will have to decide whether Canada, among possibilities, is going to support the placement of the first woman Secretary-General of the United Nations, the first Secretary-General from the continent of Africa, or whether Canada is looking for a bailout, a parachute for an unpopular Prime Minister here at home.

October 23, 1991
Oral Questions
We ask the Deputy Prime Minister: What instructions has the Government of Canada given to our ambassador at the UN, Yves Fortier, and to our ambassadors around the world? Have they been instructed to support the candidacy of the Prime Minister, or have they been given other instructions?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: This is worse than Trudeau and Iran.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that Canada currently is not a member of the Security Council. The deliberations with respect to a replacement for the existing Secretary-General is a matter that is currently within the ambit of the Security Council.
At this stage, while it is deliberating, Canada does not have a direct influence or a direct say and will not until such time as the Security Council brings forth its recommendation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is not unreasonable for members of Parliament, indeed for the people of Canada, to ask the question whether or not the Prime Minister of this country has allowed his name to stand as a candidate for Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a straight answer. We have not had one.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Has the Prime Minister allowed his name to stand? We know it has not been withdrawn. Has Canada given instructions to our diplomatic personnel? It is not believable that we would show a benign interest in this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, he has not sought, is not seeking and will not seek the position.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What instructions have been given?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What instructions have been given? It does not require the consent of any individual for the name to be put forward for consideration.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And we have no comment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At the appropriate time Canada will comment, but at this particular time the deliberations are currently before the Security Council. What is so strange about that, Mr. Speaker?


THE CONSTITUTION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
I am sure that while there are many things the minister and I might disagree with we do agree on one thing, and that is that we want to see the unity of Canada preserved and enhanced. We want to see the confederation of this country improved.
I want to raise with the minister some very serious concerns. I understand, and I understand well the process, that the constitutional joint parliamentary committee is not the minister's responsibility as such, that it is separate.
However, I want to ask the minister a question because this is a very serious issue of process. There were other alternatives to a kind of process we might use for the Constitution. The minister and his government wanted to see a joint parliamentary committee. We agreed to participate.
I want to say to the minister that there are serious concerns within the committee about consultation, about organization and about notice being given in the various regions of this country so that people who want to participate can.
Because of the extraordinary importance of this issue, will the minister make inquiries to ensure that the committee is truly functioning in a non-partisan and an organized manner so that all Canadians can have their say?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, naturally, if the Leader of the New Democratic Party thinks that I should make inquiries, I will. I guess I will start with her and ask her to state directly what it is that concerns her. If there is a problem that she states directly, I will then try to deal with it.
October 23, 1991

I would hope that perhaps in the process she could indicate to me who are the three official members of the New Democratic Party serving on the committee.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, there are specific concerns if the minister would like me to raise them with him. There are concerns about the lack of notice for those members in provinces and territories who want to participate. We cannot have a participatory process if people do not know and cannot prepare for these. It is a very serious concern.
There are concerns about how contracts are being let in the committee, whether in fact those contracts are approved by the committee, and whether they are going through a proper process. There are concerns in the committee about whether in fact the committee is committed and the committee chair appointed by this government is committed-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the hon. member for Yukon will realize that in asking questions about what is taking place in a committee there are some narrow constraints under our rules.
The hon. member for Yukon is expressing some concerns that may more properly be the object of a question to perhaps a committee chairperson. I think the matters the hon. member is raising go beyond what the minister could in fact answer because he would then be answering for the committee itself.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I could phrase the question very succintly.
Will the minister ensure that Canadians have proper notice of the consultation process that is going to take place? Will he ensure that the committee itself is working in the non-partisan fashion in which he intended the committee to work?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do everything within my power to ensure that. It would be helpful, in the interests of maintaining the respect for that committee which I think all members of Parliament, with perhaps some exceptions want it to enjoy, if there are specific concerns the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has if she
Oral Questions
raised them with me directly, if they are mine to resolve, rather than waiting for Question Period in the House of Commons to do that.
She has my undertaking to do my best to maintain the effectiveness and the non-partisan nature of the committee.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the minister.
Again we share the minister's concern that this committee work fulfil the function it must do, if it is to have the confidence of the Canadian people.
One of the real concerns is that there have been a number of TV ads, information and 1-800 numbers at a fairly significant cost to the government. The committee is proposing to double the budget for advertising.
I want to ask the minister: What does he feel is an appropriate method of informing Canadians? Is it by doubling the budget of the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon, as I said earlier, may very well have questions that ought to be put to a committee chairperson.
I am constrained by the rules, as we all are, and I think that question goes beyond what can be put to the minister under the circumstances.


ALGOMA STEEL
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology-
Today the Community Action Team from Sault Ste. Marie met with the government to demand a commitment of support from the government to save thousands and thousands of jobs at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, because in eight days' time the court protection from foreclosure runs out for this company.
The plan to restructure this company involves a buyout by the employees which requires a special tax incentive.
I wonder why the Government of Canada is refusing to provide a special tax incentive to help these employees carry out a buyout program and save these thousands and thousands of jobs. Can the minister explain why they are refusing that?

October 23, 1991
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct one thing. I believe it was one of the previous speakers from the Liberal side who said that we did not care about this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Members of our caucus met with the group from Algoma yesterday and today and had quite full discussions with them. We have agreed on the areas where we do have a direct involvement. One of them is in relation to tax treatment on a buyout. Other areas would include training or early retirement for older employees.
These are matters that are under consideration in an active way. Members of my department have been meeting actively with people in the community, people from the company, Mr. Gaudry, the union and other interested parties, all with a view to putting together what is the most appropriate response to a very difficult situation.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the minister involves the restructuring of Algoma.
In the business plan that the company put forward it suggested that some $46.8 million would be required for industrial and employee adjustment programs, as well as a bridging pension program for older workers, to allow them to retire with some dignity.
I want to ask the minister, in going before the court next week, if the government prepared to give its commitment that it will provide that $46.8 million to assist these older employees who are facing the loss of their jobs and their livelihood.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response, there is a range of issues under consideration here. They are all linked. There are different responsibilities for the Dominion Foundries Company, Algoma itself, the banks, the union, the provincial government and the federal government. There is a wide range of responsibilities here.
As I indicated to my hon. friend in my previous answer, these proposals are all under consideration. As soon as there is a proposal to put forward that all are happy with
then that is when we will have some very clear answers for him.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the minister about major transfer payment cutbacks to the provinces and territories.
I would like to ask the minister about the reduction in growth of payments to the Northwest Territories by 9 per cent over the past six years.
How can the minister justify a reduction in transfer payments to the Northwest Territories by $110 million over five years when the majority of communities has a 50 per cent unemployment rate and the cost of living in some cases is 60 per cent higher than that of places like Edmonton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the equalization issue. As I indicated in the House yesterday, these adjustments do not come as a surprise to any of the administrations because it is part and parcel of the formula which is legislated.
These adjustments are made at least two times a year. Sometimes the adjustments are upward and sometimes they are downward. In this particular case there are some provinces, particularly in the Atlantic region, that will experience a reduction. Nova Scotia, for example, will experience an increase while Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be favoured with an increase as a result of this adjustment process.
That is part of a legislated program, and I am sure the hon. member would not want us to tamper with that on an ad hoc basis.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the minister's well camouflaged numbers do not deny the fact that a reduction in transfer dollars to the Northwest Territories means it is hopeless for northerners to have any economic security or even much needed infrastructure such as roads and airports.
In fact there is virtually no activity in the Beaufort Sea for oil and gas. There are crippling air costs because most of it is done by air travel. There are no mining incentives or tax deferral schemes.
October 23, 1991

My supplementary question to the minister would be: Will the minister undertake to ensure the newly elected Government of the Northwest Territories that his government will stop reducing opportunities for northerners by placing the burden of the federal deficit on the shoulders of northern Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while we have a serious fiscal problem, we certainly have not taken the issue of reducing the deficit solely on the backs of the provinces. For example, in 1984-84 transfers to the provinces totalled some $25.5 billion. In 1991-92 total transfers will equal $37 billion. That is a substantial increase.
In the area of equalization, in 1984-85 the transfers under equalization were $5.4 billion. This year it is $8.4 billion. EPF from $14.5 billion to $20,368 billion. The Canada Assistance Plan, in 1984-85 the transfers were $4 billion. In 1991-92 they are $6.3 billion.
It hardly suggests that there is a massive reduction in transfers to the provinces. I would interpret that as a massive increase in transfers to the provinces.


ALGOMA STEEL
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It concerns Algoma as well.
The community action team is in Ottawa today representing a cross section of the communities of Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. The minister is very aware of the facts surrounding this situation and he is also very aware of the requests we have made.
They are in the area of bridge pensions, older worker adjustment package, the necessary tax credits for employee buy-out and necessary funding for retraining.
It is the eleventh hour, and I ask the minister to provide specifics in which area the government will participate to give some reassurance to the delegation here today and to the communities of Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, members of our government and of our caucus have met with the community action team.
They had extensive meetings yesterday and today with them. They discussed the range of issues that my hon. friend has read out. As I indicated in my previous answer, these are complex issues that involve a number of players and the discussions that are under way right now involve what is the appropriate sharing of the burden of meeting the challenges of this very complex situation.
Those discussions are continuing. My department, the Department of Employment and Immigration and other departments are fully engaged in these discussions. I think it would be premature for me to indicate with any precision because it is very difficult to do so at this stage of the discussions when we do not have the final answers from all the players around the table.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour.
The minister is aware of the present difficulties that the Canadian steel industry is facing. In Sault Ste. Marie and in Wawa, the situation is critical. Employees have already made many sacrifices in order to save their company and allow their communities to survive.
I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to share some of the burden and whether the Older Workers Adjustment Program will be made more flexible for this company so that displaced older workers can be dealt with fairly.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and commend him for his concern.
As far as the labour department is concerned, the lay-offs that have taken place are being studied by a committee of the province of Ontario and the federal government.
A report will be made to the Department of Labour and to me. At that time the decision will be made.

October 23, 1991
Oral Questions ATLANTIC ECONOMY


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In September of this year, this cash starved federal government found hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in a doomed attempt to save two Tory premiers. Yet this week the Mulroney government stunned the Atlantic provinces with a cut of over $170 million in badly needed equalization payments.
Will the Minister of Finance stand up today and guarantee that federal funding to the Atlantic provinces will be maintained at a level sufficient to ensure that national standards can be maintained in the delivery of health care and social services by these four provincial governments, yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it will be maintained consistent with the legislation and the formula that has been established.
I only remind the hon. member that equalization payments to the provinces have risen from $5.4 billion in 1984-85 to $8.4 billion in 1991-92. That is a substantial increase.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
Yesterday, the minister's press secretary said that "figures show the Atlantic economies are performing better than the other provinces".
Let us look at the facts. In Newfoundland, unemployment is 70 per cent above the national average. In Prince Edward Island, the per capita income is 32 per cent below the national average and in Nova Scotia, bankruptcies are at the highest rate in the country.
I ask the minister to stand and tell the tens of thousands of unemployed in the Atlantic region who are facing a winter on welfare, the students who cannot afford to pursue secondary education, or the sick waiting for hospital beds, whether he stands by these arrogant and objectionable statements made by his own department.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to deny
the fact that there are serious economic difficulties that all Canadians are facing, and I certainly appreciate the hon. member's concern about that, at the same time I think there has to be clear recognition of the fact that the federal government recognizes that there are poorer provinces, and in an effort to equalize opportunities and equalize services, we provide equalization grants.
Just for the record so that the hon. member will understand, for 1991-92 the equalization on a per capita basis to the province of Newfoundland is $1,649 per person; for Prince Edward Island it is $1,531 per person; for Nova Scotia it is $1,050 per person; and for New Brunswick it is $1,201 on a per capita basis.
As I indicated the level of equalization grants to the provinces has increased by 60 per cent since we have been in office.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the past year the federal government has cut transfer payments to Atlantic Canada by $164 million. The government speaks of competitiveness but it slashes post-secondary education funding. Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, Mount St. Vincent University, to name three, have students, faculty and administrations that are bleeding from a thousand government inflicted wounds.
I ask the Minister of Finance today to tell us that he will restore established programs funding to its usual levels on a percentage basis, not just with his funny numbers game.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if I were to restore funding to the usual basis, it would go back to $5.4 billion. That would be the level that the hon. member would be referring to.
I repeat that total transfers to the provinces since we have come into office have increased from $25.6 billion to $37 billion in total transfers.
In terms of equalization, as I indicated earlier, the increase is from $5.4 billion to $8.4 billion, which is a 60 per cent increase.
It should be noted as well that today the Atlantic premiers in a press release said they decided not to ask Ottawa for more money to solve the financial crisis. They said they would concentrate on cutting costs and using
October 23, 1991

their resources more effectively. That is what we are all being asked to do.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: A supplementary for the same minister, who now confirms that even the premiers down there have given up on him. He must know that that bafflegab doesn't pay university tuition fees and it does not shorten the wait for those who need elective surgery.
When is he going to beat some sense into his colleagues and call a halt now to this terrible pulverizing of health services, of post-secondary education, in Newfoundland and all across this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, you cannot have it both ways. In 1988-89, under the same equalization formula that is governed by statute, the provinces enjoyed an increase of $1 billion as a result of this adjustment process. In 1989-90 they enjoyed an increase of $720 million as a result of the application of the legislated formula and both the economic and financial statistics that flow from Statistics Canada.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways. All we are doing is applying the legislation that is there which enshrines the formula and enshrines the way in which these calculations are to be made.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Atomic Energy Control Board released its research report on the impact of tritium releases into the environment by the Pickering nuclear generating station.
We were relieved to read that there was no prevalent relationship between infant deaths and/or birth defects in tritium releases, which clearly refutes a previous study by a Mr. David McArthur. My question for the minister of energy is as follows: Since- the study did indicate that there is a higher incidence of Down's syndrome among children in Pickering and Ajax than is prevalent throughout the province of Ontario, will the minister proceed to a follow-up study as recommended by the Johnson report and will he proceed to seek approval of the province of Ontario ministry of health so that that report can be conducted?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He raises a very important issue relating to the health report. I am pleased also with the manner in which the report has been done.
With regard to Down's syndrome, these conclusions are less clear. In fact there are similar levels of Down's syndrome in a country in Ontario quite far removed from any nuclear reactor, namely Leeds-Grenville.
Along with my colleague, the minister of health and welfare, I am asking the AECB to look at other possibilities whereby we could either verify these numbers more accurately, more closely, or whether there should be any further studies relating to Down's syndrome. I will take that up with the AECB.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same issue to the minister of energy.
I think the minister is overly relaxed about the fact that this study has found that there is an incidence of Down's syndrome 86 per cent higher than the provincial average in and around the Pickering plant. I would ask him to give assurances to the House at this time that there will be further studies, not only with respect to Pickering and the surrounding area but with respect to other nuclear facilities in the country where epidemiological studies need to be made, not only with respect to the kind that have been made in this report, but others.
It seems to me that that is a commitment that the government should make through the minister of energy or through the ministry of health, and will he make that commitment now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to mention to the hon. member is that he uses an 86 per cent figure and it is not in the report. It was in a press report. I think that when we are dealing with health figures, we should not raise alarms which are not justified.
I take his question seriously in respect to whether additional work should be done. We have looked in this report in terms of leukaemia. There were arguments a long time ago about leukaemia. We have highlighted the Down's syndrome issue. As I said to my hon. colleague before and I say to the member who just put the question

Oral Questions
that we will take a look at what other approaches we can use to try and verify other numbers that have been identified for any additional work. That undertaking has been given before and I give it gain.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister then would clearly reject the conclusion that AECB seems to come to in that information put out by its office of public information says that no further examination of possible links in this particular situation would seem warranted.
Would the minister reject this conclusion and make it absolutely clear to AECB that further studies in this regard are warranted and that the government will make sure that either AECB or, even better, some more independent body has the ability to do that kind of research?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member first of all should not downgrade the AECB. He has been anti-nuclear ever since he entered this House. Any time the AECB comes forward with a report and he thinks it helps his bias, he uses the AECB as a credible institution.
Then when the AECB comes forward with something else and he does not like it, then of course it is not credible. I say to the hon. member that I will follow the advice of the experts and not his biases.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the next few days the Canadian government will send a cabinet minister on a high level visit to China for the first time since the massacre at Tiananmen Square. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if this renewal of ministerial relations signifies that this government is no longer concerned with China's known abhorrent human rights record.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should not draw that
conclusion. I think she knows she should not draw that conclusion.
We have taken a very sensitive view on exactly what is happening in China. The Minister of Agriculture is visiting there on a mission to see whether there are ways that we can promote agricultural exports to China, China being one of our largest customers over many, many years. We have indicated consistently since Tiananmen Square our concern about human rights problems within China. We have made it very clear that as we have changed our approach marginally during this period to allow certain types of exchanges, that should not be interpreted in any way as condoning any of the human rights abuses that have occurred in China.


Beryl Gaffney: I have a supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I have just returned from China. I raised specific issues on human rights violations with top level Chinese officials. We know the situation is still appalling and yet they skirted my questions.
Will the minister raise with the Chinese government specifically the issue of the continuing suppression of basic human rights through the restraints on freedom of expression and the thousands still held in forced labour camps?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it might have been very useful if what the hon. member just expressed here on the floor of the House had been expressed directly to me so that we could have had a discussion on that particular issue. The point that must be made here is that while we as a country have expressed our views on human rights in a very forceful way and made it clear in the implementation of our policies, we also need to have a view on how we trade with these countries as well because there are many jobs in western Canada that are based on trade in agriculture, and China is one of our best friends.
I say to the Liberal Party that you cannot have it both ways. On the one side it is saying: "We must do more for the farmers. We must provide a greater degree of support to the farmers" and then on the other hand: "We can't support agricultural trade with China". You cannot have it both ways.
October 23, 1991


ARMED FORCES
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question through you can be directed to either the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of National Defence. The question arises out of a news release that comes from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, signed by the national president of that organization, wherein it says, among other things: "Effective April 1 of this year an Armed Forces colonel received a salary increase of more than $2,000 on a base salary of $74,000 or an increase of 3 per cent".
My question is twofold: First, is this statement factual? Second, if so, do we have a double standard where enlisted personnel receive a wage freeze in 1991 and officers do not?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure my friend that there is indeed no double standard. The Treasury Board directive of zero per cent wage policy applies to all ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces as it does to the Public Service, so that for this fiscal year colonels and generals will not receive pay increases, nor will they for this fiscal year be awarded either merit pay or bonuses.


EDUCATION
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Nationally speaking, 30 per cent of Canadian students do not finish high school, while in some regions this figure is 70 per cent. The Prime Minister keeps telling us that getting a good education is so important, and meanwhile his government is mercilessly slashing education and training budgets, which were cut by 7.6 per cent last year. My question is this: How can the government claim education is a priority, when it slashes the budget for this sector?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken out as my
Oral Questions
hon. friend has observed on a number of occasions about some of the challenges that we are facing in the over-all learning system for our country. He has pointed out that the amount of money that is spent per capita on education is the second highest in the industrialized world, second only after Sweden.
I think the challenge that we face is not how much, but how we spend. Yesterday I announced that we would be releasing the prosperity through competitiveness papers and the lifelong learning process papers next Tuesday whereby we will be asking Canadians to express their views. My colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I will be encouraging a broad nationwide consultation and discussion on these issues so that the questions the hon. member poses can be answered in the broadest possible way.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the same minister. The government has steadily cut education and training funds since it was first elected, according to a recent Statistics Canada study.
In my riding some school boards have complained about funding cuts of more than 50 per cent over the previous year for the START option, a principal component of the government's so-called stay in school initiative.
Why is the government's education strategy all show and no dough? Why the charade? Why does the government announce programs and then cut them shortly after?


Some hon. members:: Resign.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the only charade taking place is the Liberal member standing up and telling Canadians through this House that we have cut money and transfers to education.
I invite the hon. member to look at the numbers. He will find that they have not actually decreased, they have increased since 1984. If $11 billion a year of taxpayers' money for training and education in Canada is nothing for the member from Restigouche, it means a lot for Canadians elsewhere.

October 23, 1991
Tribute


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkiey Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The election of a new government in British Columbia is good news for the Fraser and Nechako Rivers. The new premier and his government are committed to a full and proper environmental assessment of Alcan's Kema-no project.
I would like to ask the minister if he will drop his government's appeal of the court ruling ordering the government to follow its own guidelines and join with the province in a joint, proper review of this project.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear to the hon. member that we have had a number of court rulings in this area over the last few months, and only in the last few months. I think there has been at least five or six major court rulings, including Great Whale in Quebec.
The Government of Canada decided to enter into appeals in some of these instances because what we are dealing with are very fundamental questions of law, in some cases constitutional law, that are deserving the attention of higher courts.
That being the case and referring specifically to Kemano, the Government of Canada has not refused to enter into its responsibilities in respect to its environmental assessment review process. Quite the contrary, we are now initiating the first step of the process as provided for by the ruling.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if that was correct, then the minister would ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw the appeal of the court ruling.
Given the minister's position, would he agree to meet at the earliest opportunity with the new minister of the environment of British Columbia to discuss how a proper joint review can be conducted?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would like to meet with the new minister of the environment for British Columbia as soon as possible, as soon as there is one. As far as I know, nobody has been named to that portfolio yet. Until somebody is
in that job, it is hard to meet with them. Unless the NDP are on to something I do not know about.
That being the case, let me point out with respect that in the case of Kemano, the Government of Canada lodged an appeal but did not ask for a stay of execution of the first ruling. That is a very important nuance in the way we approach this issue. We did not ask to stop the process. We want the higher courts in these instances to give us a ruling, some indication of where we are at with very fundamental questions of law and constitutional law. We are now applying the first part of the process of ERP and intend to proceed with that.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the galleiy of members of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE LATE HERMAN BATTEN
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the parliamentary secretary to the House leader opposite. I seek consent from the House to express condolences on behalf of all members of Parliament to the Herman Batten family.
Herman Batten was a member of Parliament from 1953 to 1968 and passed away last night at the age of 82. Herman Batten was my predecessor in the riding of Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. In fact his constituency at one point, as other members who have been here longer than I will recall, included all of western, northwestern and southwestern Newfoundland.
He was re-elected six times and served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. He will be remembered as the gentleman who was the chairman of the House of Commons flag committee and sought to maintain a modicum of order in what was a very emotional and divisive debate. Perhaps it reminds us somewhat of the debate that goes on in this countiy today. But he was able, through great patience, great sensitivity and great understanding to find consensus and
October 23, 1991

to produce, as chairman of the flag committee, a new flag for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, he was a member of Parliament when you could not fly back to Ottawa in a couple of hours. He was a member of Parliament when you had to visit most of rural Newfoundland by boat. He was one who was held near and dear by his constituents. He served with great distinction and great compassion. He shall be remembered in the Liberal Party. He shall be remembered I know in this Parliament and, in particular, he will be remembered with a great deal of warmth and fondness by the people of western Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues for this opportunity to express our appreciation for Herman Batten and our condolences to his family.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of members of the government to express to the Batten family and to the friends of Herman Batten our sorrow at hearing of his passing.
The hon. member who spoke just before me has mentioned many of the attributes and many of the contributions to our country of Mr. Batten and we know that the people Newfoundland were proud of him and proud of the work that he did.
I want to draw particular attention to his work as a committee chairman. That is a role that we in this House give a great deal of dignity and I, being a boy scout back in 1968, can remember some of the emotion that was generated with that particular debate.
Having served as a chairman in this House, I know that when you have a controversial issue, it is a great test of character to be able to go through an issue that is so difficult and so divisive and yet has to be addressed in terms of what is good for the country.
I want to conclude once again by saying that on behalf of members on this side of the House, we express to the family of Mr. Herman Batten and to his friends our sincere sorrow to hear of his passing.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I want to say how saddened we were when we heard of the passing of
Tribute
Herman Batten and our condolences go out to his family and his friends.
As others have indicated, he was known as a constituency man. He served the constituency well. He was a friend of everyone in the constituency. If my memory serves me, he was re-elected six times as a show of good faith by his constituents in the work he did on their behalf.
Also, those who knew him and those who read Hansard know of the role that he played in some very critical debates in the House of Commons. He was a man who was not afraid to speak up for his constituents and was not hesitant at all to speak on the critical issues of the day.
When we heard of the news of his passing we were very saddened and our thoughts and our condolences go out to his friends and his family.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and say a word on the passing of Mr. Herman Batten, the former member for the old riding of Humber-St. George's, a good chunk of which is now part of the riding of Burin-St. George's which I have the honour to represent here.
In so doing, I pay tribute to a great Canadian, to a compassionate Newfoundlander and to an absolutely marvellous human being. He is remembered fondly and often by his constituents, indeed his name came up in a conversation just a few days ago in my riding.
As Deputy Speaker of this House he represented the institution with great dignity and great purpose and we salute him for that. He will be remembered by those who heard him speak from this Chamber and elsewhere for he had a very rich baritone voice and a very impressive intellect to match.
His family and his friends, who are legion, can be consoled in the sure knowledge that he lived a good, full life and touched the lives of many for the better because of his great integrity and compassion.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, as one who knew Herman Batten personally in this House, I would like to say a word about him today.
In Newfoundland he was known as a schoolmaster. He sat in the chair of this House and brought great dignity to

October 23, 1991
Routine Proceedings
that position. He had that great, deep voice that automatically communicated the fact that he meant business.
Whenever you met him on the street you would see him wearing the good old black hat that was so prominent in those days and in previous days. He looked like an educator. He was a professional person in every way. He had the ability to handle very difficult problems with ease because he was cool, he had a candour and one could tell that he dealt with many problems before coming to this House and he handled them here extremely well.
I remember Herman Batten as a fine gentleman, a very effective parliamentarian, a man with coolness and dignity in this Chamber. He was missed very much after he left here because he did do such a great job in the Chair.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend our condolences to his family, and to say to his constituents who knew him so well in those days that they had great wisdom in selecting him as their member of the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege and do so with a little trepidation. I am glad the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke spoke because he and I were here when the Hon. Mr. Batten was here and was Deputy Speaker. I cast no reflection on the fine comments made about Mr. Batten the individual.
Madam Speaker, I really do think that in this House of Commons we have to start to get criteria about the eulogies to members who have come, and other distinguished Canadians who have passed away, having served Canada.
Monday, for instance, we had freelanced here on a point of privilege the death of an outstanding Canadian, 91 years old, a Mr. Nicholson. He used to be a member of this House of Commons. I almost rose then, as I should have done, because in my experience here for a few years I have never heard so many tributes. We have become the house of eulogies rather than the House of Commons. I have written a letter to the Speaker. This is no reflection at all on all those we referred to, but when I hear some of the words, Madam Speaker, about how they are all sorely missed, after 10, 15, 20 or 30 years I really question how members can say that who never were here when the member we are talking about served in this House. It thus discounts and dilutes the tributes that have to be made on those occasions that used to be
reserved for this period. But it should not be for every former comrade who has fallen by the wayside because of the natural reflection of time.
I really hope the Speaker takes this under consideration and can give some criteria to House leaders so that we all know. We did something the other day that I do not remember having done before. I may be out of tune, but certainly, Mr. Blackburn, when you go we will try to remember you.


An hon. member:: Who was it the other day?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We had the Supreme Court Justice, Madam Speaker, a very fine Canadian. But now do we do it for every Federal Court judge? Do we do it for the Chief Justice of the provinces?
I think there are many little matters in this regard. Instead of diluting the tributes that used to be on the floor of the House, we should have criteria to make them worth while for those we try to remember in the best way.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. He has been around this place for quite a few years and would be in a good position to make comments as to when a tribute should or should not be given to a former member of this House who has passed away.
The Chair will certainly take this into consideration. I think the committee as well could devise some types of rules which could be used. I thank the hon. member for his remarks.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment pertaining to the Porcupine caribou herd calving grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the state of Alaska.
The United States administration has recommended to Congress that certain lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened for petroleum exploration and development. This will affect the Porcupine caribou herd consisting of some 170,000 animals that live in the
October 23, 1991

Arctic, the management of which is shared both by United States and Canada.
Our committee is opposed to petroleum exploration and development in the refuge, and we make three specific recommendations urging the federal government to use all available means to convince the U.S. Congress and the administration not to pursue any developments in this area, endangering both the herd and the people whose very lives depend upon it.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TELESAT CANADA REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. McDermid moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed. Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


INSPECTOR OF PENITENTIARIES ACT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act respecting the office of Inspector General of Penitentiaries.


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


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, the short title of the bill is an act respecting the office of Inspector General of Penitentiaries.
The bill calls for the creation of the office of the Inspector General of Prisons or IGP who would be the inspector for all federal penitentiaries in Canada and
Routine Proceedings
who would make such inspections, examinations and inquiries as the inspector considers necessary.
The IGP would be an officer of the House of Commons and would be directly responsible to it in the same manner as is the Auditor General and unlike what is currently in the proposed Bill C-36 where the inspector would be responsible to the Solicitor General.


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


EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-318, an act to establish national standards across Canada for education provided by the provinces.


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


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for St. Boniface for seconding this bill. I want to thank him for his great assistance throughout this debate.
This is an attempt to bring national standards to some key areas of education. We do recognize that the constitutional right of the provinces would allow them to opt out if they choose to opt out and would allow them to participate if they choose to do so. The prime objective of this bill is to protect, promote and improve the quality of education in Canada in consultation with the provinces with national institutions, with teachers, with youth and student organizations, with the voluntary sector and with industry and the business community.
I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank Jeanette Arsenault and Michael Clegg for great help in preparing this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Harb moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.

October 23, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent for the following motion relating to the Standing Committee on House Management. I move:
That within its mandate related to broadcasting guidelines of committees as per Standing Order 119(2), the committee be authorized to travel to the legislative assemblies of Ontario and Quebec on October 28 to Toronto and on October 31 to Quebec City for 10 members to be accompanied by two staff members and the Director General of Parliamentary Operations.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by residents in Jasper and other communities in Alberta and British Columbia urging the Department of the Environment to keep the Jasper airstrip open.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition on behalf of probably more than 100 residents of Edmonton with respect to a great woman, Marie Sklodowska Curie, that she might be honoured for her scientific contributions to humanity. The signers of the petition believe
that the gift of the discovery of radium to heal the sick of the world deserves to be recognized in our country.
The petitioners call on Canada Post to honour Madam Curie by the issuing of a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth on November 7, 1992. It is my pleasure to tender the petition.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is from residents of Val-d'Or, Joutel, Vassan, Quebec City, Montreal North, Sainte-Catherine and Saint-Emond, who respectfully submit to Parliament that the Canada Labour Code must respect the principle set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore supposed to protect the rights of women; and that preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is a desirable and necessary option for women in the workplace. They call upon Parliament to recognize the need for including clauses in the Code concerning preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my second petition concerns firearms. It is from a group of petitioners who are residents of Ottawa, Gatineau and Gloucester. Whereas access to firearms is a critical factor in homicide, accidents and suicide; and whereas in Canada many kinds of weapons are readily available which are not needed for legitimate purposes such as hunting or competitive shooting, your petitioners ask Parliament to adopt legislation that will prohibit the possession of firearms by any person with a criminal record.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Barriere, Louis Creek, Kamloops and Darfield, British Columbia. They are concerned about a proposal to divert the North Thompson River at Valemount into the Columbia River channel, which will eventually move water from British Columbia to the San Diego, California area. That is part of the plan.
October 23, 1991

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
They are simply calling upon the Government of Canada not to permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted to the United States and to state categorically that our rivers are not for sale.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present this petition on another matter on behalf of a number of the residents of Kamloops, B.C. who are concerned about the apparent increasing level of lawlessness as a result of RCMP cutbacks.
They say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in many cases is simply unable to provide the policing service that it ought to and would like to because of the funding cuts. They are simply asking the Government of Canada to ensure that proper funding is kept in place to ensure proper RCMP police protection.

[ Translation)


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That this House recognize that it is the national forum for the consideration of issues and challenges facing all Canadians;
That this House recognizes that its Members were elected by the people of Canada to represent them in a manner which demands that individual Members respect one another and their democratic right to express differing opinions;
That Canadians have expressed alarm at the excessive partisanship and lack of decorum and civility too often in evidence in the House;
That this House recognize that disruptive behaviour and verbal interruptions, including abusive language, leads to a depreciated view of and respect for the institution of Parliament and its Members;
That the Members of this House share in the responsibility of eliminating the use of offensive language or gestures directed at other Members either during Question Period, debate or otherwise in the Chamber; and
That this House supports the Speaker's vigorous enforcement of Standing Order 16(2) and Standing Order 18; in particular those portions which require that when a Member is speaking no Member shall interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order and that no Member shall speak disrespectfully or use offensive words against either House or any Member thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion today had its genesis some months ago when the whole concern about the operation of the House, its effectiveness, efficiency and reputation became a matter of some public debate.
I have spoken on this issue for many months in the context of House reform and in seeking ways to improve the institution, make it more responsive and restore faith in it.
We had independent confirmation of the disrepute in which we were held in the Spicer report. It is interesting to recall that the Spicer report was a result of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. The issue before the forum was one of constitutional reform, one of the unity of this country. In pursuing its mandate the commission held public hearings literally everywhere in the country to ask people about their concerns about this

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
country. With a rather disturbing frequency people raised the question of Parliament and how it carries on.
I would like to quote an anecdote from a group in Ontario on page 97 of the Spicer report: "Just terrible the way they carry on in Parliament, like unruly children, bad tempered brats, no control, quarrelling between parties. Why don't they get together and use their better ideas". As I said, this was not an isolated anecdote incident and it was repeated in many parts of the country by many groups. In the report's conclusions, the commission states on page 136 of the report: "We join with forum participants in deploring the mindless, and sometimes disgraceful, behaviour of members of both Houses in bringing the parliamentary system into disrepute. We agree with the forum's participants who have pointed out constantly to the fact that our system is too partisan and far too adversarial. In particular, we would urge a careful review of Question Period and how it is organized with an eye on the more productive Question Periods in other parliamentary systems".
If we are to fulfil our responsibilities as members of Parliament, we have to take that observation and those recommendations seriously. We must act to change that view of ourselves and this Chamber. Canadians from coast to coast are identifying this Chamber and our behaviour in it as part of the fundamental constitutional problems of this country.
Let us make it clear that this is not in itself an adversarial debate. I do not intend to engage in finger pointing and I am prepared to admit that I am as adversarial as others in this House. I am sure that other parties have gone through the record as I have. I am sure there are quotes the House leader of the Liberal Party would not like to be reminded of. I have some quotes that the House leader of the New Democratic Party would not like to be reminded of, and I am sure there are quotes that I would rather not be reminded of.


Some hon. members:: Books.


Harvie Andre: I understand that. However, that does not change our responsibility as members of Parliament to address the concern which Canadians have stressed from coast to coast.
Some have suggested that the introduction of television in this House is the root of the problem. There is
some merit to that suggestion. Television is first and foremost an entertainment media. Television finds conflict, theatrics, fighting, and the adversarial aspects of politics irresistible. That is not a conspiracy. Television reporters are not somehow bad. It is simply a fact of life. Television brings this institution into the living rooms of virtually every home in this country. Television is here to stay; the technology is here to stay. We have to recognize that and conduct ourselves accordingly.
I think the media can help by understanding that and understanding their responsibility. I am reminded of two incidents which I think make the point. In one instance a member of this House stood up and made the accusation that a member opposite was lying. The Speaker quite properly asked that the remark be withdrawn and the member did. However that night the clip of the member standing up theatrically declaring somebody opposite a liar was used on television.
A member of my staff telephoned the producer of that program and said that this was rather unfair since withdrawal was tantamount to it not being said. Television is supposed to be electronic Hansard and by running something that was withdrawn it in essence gave a false impression of what was happening here. That type of occurrence tends to create that type of activity because we are all human and are in politics because we desire and need to be exposed to the public. If television is going to cover antics such as breaking the rules then the temptation to do that is overwhelming.
In fairness, I must say that CTV examined the tape, examined what happened and said it agreed that it should not have done that. It is now CTV's policy that it will not run clips of statements that have been withdrawn.
Just the other day in the House a member said "hypocrite", a word that is not to be used in this House, and he withdrew it. However some of the print media ran that line. It was withdrawn, it was supposed not to have been said, but it was run.
We also telephoned that particular institution and drew its attention to what it was doing when it treated what our rules say is invalid in here as valid criticism. The institution had encouraged it and it should not be done. In that case we did not get a commitment to change
October 23, 1991

policy but we did get an acknowledgement that there was a problem which needed to be addressed.
I repeat again that I do not suggest this is partisan, that one side is more sinful or sinless than the other. We are all partisans in an institution which we all respect. However sometimes in our partisan zeal we behave in ways which bring this institution into disrespect.
We have been speaking about the need for change for better behaviour, but I do not think we have demonstrated that desire through our behaviour and our words. We talk about the need to change but have not really demonstrated it as a body. There are rules in existence guiding decorum and offensive language, and I think it is time and appropriate to reassert the commitment of members of this House to these fundamental rules.
For instance, Standing Order 16(2) states specifically that when a member is speaking no member shall interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order. That Standing Order is honoured in the breach more than it is in practice. I venture to say it would be difficult to find a day in which someone on their feet, either asking a question or answering one in Question Period, is not being shouted at, heckled, and barracked from the opposite benches. That is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House.
If we do not believe those Standing Orders should be there perhaps we should take them out. However, I think we believe they should be there. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves to follow the Standing Orders and ask that they be enforced if we too often behave more like members of a mob than individual responsible members of Parliament.
Standing Order 18 says that no member shall speak disrespectfully or use offensive words against any other member. Of course we all know that is violated virtually every day in this institution, mainly in Question Period, but in debate as well.
They are pretty clear. We do not follow them. Maybe we should. The public out there is demanding that we do. Those are the Standing Orders. Beauchesne's, our procedural bible so to speak which lays out how we should engage in debate in Question Period, is again violated virtually on a daily basis. A rule respecting Oral Questions, citation 409, paragraph 7 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, says:
Government Orders
A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms
of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons
within the House or out of it.
In other words, we should not impute motives or cast aspersions upon persons in this House. We do it all the time. Lest that just refer to the questioner, it says in terms of reply to Oral Questions, page 120, citation 408, paragraph 2.
Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal
with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.
I hesitate to say that a lot of the answers provoke heckling, barracking and debate. And that is true as well.
Maybe we should ask ourselves if Beauchesne is obsolete and from a day gone by. Perhaps nowadays it is appropriate to heckle, barrack, provoke debate, impute motives and do all of those things that precedents in this book say are inappropriate.
If they are still appropriate today, let us agree and collectively do what we can to condition ourselves. We must ask our presiding officer to bring us back into control when our emotions or better judgment gets out of control. It is something we should seriously ask.
Shouting across the floor, barracking and constantly interrupting members is not necessary. It does not aid understanding. It does not improve the quality of life of Canadians and it is contrary to the rules. If we obeyed the rules a greater calm would prevail, the atmosphere would be more conducive to speaking and listening to responsible and fair debate.
We do not need to shout, yell and barrack insults in order to carry out our responsibilities to govern the country, to be held accountable and to raise issues of concern to our constituents. This is what this debate is all about. Name calling or slurs are not appropriate and neither are they acceptable. Theatrical outbursts and actions denigrate this Chamber and, by extension, the people we are here to represent.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Like storming the chair.


Harvie Andre: I am trying to keep this on the high road. The member for Halifax, speaking from her seat, talks about storming the chair.


Mr. Milliken:: I knew you did not do it, Harvie.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders


Harvie Andre: The member for Kingston and the Islands will be able to tell his colleague that he saw the clip and knows that did not occur. There is continuous repetition of that slur. She is not the only one, I can assure you, who has used that over the years.


Mr. Mills:: She did not refer to you.
Mr. Andre And there is the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood interrupting me from his seat as well. It is that sort of-


Dennis Joseph Mills: You are casting aspersions on her.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think the interjections opposite probably make my point better than I could.


An hon. member:: You are a phoney.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member withdraw. The hon. member is completely out of order. I would ask that he withdraw "you are a phoney", please.


An hon. member:: I humbly withdraw my remarks. The cheap shots-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want a further argument about it. It was very clear and I have no other course than to ask the hon. member to withdraw. The hon. member has withdrawn.
The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps it is not possible for us to put our partisanship aside, but I think we need to try. I again commend those of us in here who worry about these things to read some of the things that are said about this institution in the citizen's forum.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The government.


Harvie Andre: The House leader from the New Democratic Party is interrupting me.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the comments made by my hon. friend and colleague, surely while we are listening to his interesting comments we are allowed to muse aloud.
There is no intention to heckle. There is no intention to interrupt. It is just that when I hear some of his comments, for example when he referred to the Spicer commission's reports and commentary on behaviour
here, I was simply musing aloud. The Spicer commission had a lot to say about the Prime Minister as well.
I am not interrupting him. I am not causing difficulty. I am just musing aloud.
Surely to goodness we do not have to sit here in mute silence for every second of the day while we listen to someone like the government House leader speak.


Mr. Speaker:: If you are asking my opinion you are treading into dangerous ground indeed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should put in here, then, musing aloud is allowed. I do not know.
Seriously I have been here for 19 years and I know some would say that is too long. I will anticipate the remarks on the other side. It becomes less and less of an honour to describe one's occupation as a member of Parliament, given the kinds of comments that one reads and hears about in terms of this institution.
Again I am not finger pointing in terms of the problems being over there as opposed to over here or any such thing. I am simply making an observation which I believe behoves us all to recognize that the public does not hold this institution in great esteem.
I think it is time that we recognize that. I think it would be appropriate for the House collectively, for all of us on all sides, to say: "Yes, there is a problem here".
We can for our partisan advantages say who is more the problem than the other side and so on and so forth. If we choose to do that, perhaps we can do that outside. Perhaps we can do that by way of a press release or out in the scrums. In here we can treat each other with respect and with the commitment that we believe equally that whatever our differences and views we are sincere in our views and we are here because we want to serve this country.
We are not here for the purpose of demeaning those whose views are different from ours or those on opposite sides of the House. It is the service of the country that motivates us all. We must recognize that we need to address the reputation of this institution.
We ask our presiding officer to recognize that we are weak. We fail. We let our emotions get out of hand and we call on him to be superior to the rest of us; not let his emotions get out of hand but to keep us under control and identify us publicly when we misbehave. That is a pretty significant penalty for the folks back home to see
October 23, 1991

the Speaker identify the member for Calgary Centre or say the government House leader should not speak from his seat if he is not recognized. That is a significant penalty. But the Speaker cannot do it if we do not agree to it.
I am asking colleagues in this House to agree that we have a problem, that we are going to address it collectively, and that we are going to try to restore the reputation of this institution and make Canadians proud of us rather than embarrassed about us.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to designate tomorrow as an allotted day.


DECORUM IN CHAMBER
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Andre (p. 3871).
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to participate in this debate. I want to say a few things about how we got here today, for the record, so that Mr. Speaker will be fully aware of what has gone on and who has been informed about the substance of this particular motion.
I want to say to the government House leader that he is accurate in his intervention in that the subject matter itself has been discussed among House leaders, but certainly the motion itself has not been a subject matter for House leaders. This has been placed on the Order Paper and, I might underline, it is the right of the government House leader to do so.
Having said that, I have listened attentively to what the minister has said. I wish to quote the second paragraph of the motion. It states:
That this House recognizes that its Members were elected by the people of Canada to represent them in a manner which demands that individual Members respect one another and their democratic right to express differing opinions.
Government Orders
How true that is, but the House leader opposite goes on to quote as his authority the comments and the conclusions of the Spicer commission. I want to be careful here because I do not want to misquote him. I think he said "independent confirmation of the disrepute of parliamentarians" and the citation that he used was Mr. Spicer and the commission which travelled the country.
I know that the hon. member opposite selected a few pages which had references with regard to Question Period. I want to quote for the hon. member opposite some of the words of a friend of mine, of members of the New Democratic Party, of that side, and perhaps even a dear friend of the Minister of Employment and Immigration at one time. He is one of the commissioners who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the Spicer commission, Richard Cashin. Here is what he said. I think this is worth noting. As many members know, he was a former member of this House and served with some degree of distinction in the deliberations of this House.
I am quoting from page 141 of that text. It states:
From the outset there were those who expressed the hope that this process would do more than just solicit the views of Canadians. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons we were unable, as some commissioners would have liked, to deepen the dialogue.
He goes on:
Public opinion must be respected for its complexity and we must recognize that people's views on subjects change with the information they have and the thoroughness of the debate.
He further states:
The people who spoke to us expressed opinion on many matters. We have no way of knowing how their opinions on one matter were related to their opinions on other matters or what priority particular issues may have had in their thinking. Nor do we have any way of knowing how representative the opinions we hear may be of the opinions of all Canadians. This is because the process of participation was self-selective.
And I underline that. I put that on the record not to challenge the government House leader but to balance the views. The view that he is putting forward as I understand it-and I stand to be corrected-is that the operation of this House, and in particular Question Period, is despicable and is held in much disregard by Canadians. That is one view.
There is another view of a commissioner on the Spicer commission who says that the views which were put forward to the Spicer commission on many occasions were not challenged. There was no thoroughness of debate. There was no comprehensive dialogue going on

Government Orders
between those participants and those that were making the presentations.
I would ask, did the Spicer commission make a distinction between opposition MPs asking questions and ministers responding to those questions? I have read the Spicer commission report and I did not see any distinction on that.
Is it possible, I ask the Chair, that Canadians who have watched our deliberations may not like the length of the hon. member's hair, may not like the way the hon. member poses his question, may not like the way the hon. member phrases a couple of words? Or could it be possible that Canadians are not very happy with the responses on free trade? They may not be happy with the responses they have received on the GST, or the vagueness of the answer, or on Constitutional matters, regional development, CBC cutbacks, or proliferation of taxes. Make no mistake about it, Canadians out there today are angry. They are angry at Parliament, at provincial institutions, because the economy of this country is in such bad shape that they want their legislators in Ottawa to take concrete, positive action and to date they have not seen that. They have not seen that in the last number of months.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Absolutely. Right on.


David Charles Dingwall: I think that must be said. My colleague makes reference to the TV networks. I think this is a point I share with the hon. member opposite. If there is a withdrawal made by an hon. member, it would be inappropriate for TV networks to carry the exact intervention without having the withdrawal stated as well.
The hon. member talks about breaches of certain Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Implicit in his argument, and I am not suggesting he has said this, is that there have been numerous breaches of the Standing Orders. I disagree. I think there have been breaches of the Standing Orders, there is no question. In a Chamber of 300 persons or so, yes, you are going to get breaches of the Standing Orders. But I have full confidence that the Chair is our arbitrator, is impartial and will draw to the attention of members in the House when those rules have been broken. I think all hon. members on all sides of the House would want to concur with that.
The government House leader has said that this Chamber is quite a theatre and that from time to time people may use language or expressions which may make the front pages of newspapers or clips on television. I have to tell the hon. member, and I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, because not only are we debating the pith and substance of the motion before us, we are also debating the spirit of the motion.
It has to be said that when I was elected to represent my constituents, with youth unemployment in excess of 17 per cent, adult unemployment in excess of 25 per cent and upwards to 40 per cent in parts of my constituency- and I see other members here who have similar concerns on all sides of this House-I was not asked to come to Parliament to stand in my place and say to the Prime Minister: Mr. Prime Minister, you are such a wonderful person, what are you going to do for Canada today?
I was not elected to do that. I am sorry. People have difficulty with that and I think the people that have the greatest difficulty with that are members on the government benches.
I say that with great sincerity. If we transcend the boundaries of proper wording, conduct and behaviour, it is obviously left to the Chair to bring us back to order. However, let us not portray ourselves as individuals who come here, stand in our place with hand on heart and say in monotone voice: "Well, you know, what can you do for Canada today? That is just not the way it is. Each member is different".
Many members on our side of the House have great fluency in the English language. That is something I do not have. A number of members have great fluency in the French language. That is something I do not have. However, I am duly elected and am a representative of my people, as all of these members are. Mr. Speaker, as the arbitrator in this great Chamber, you must acknowledge that as a fact of life of the process of democracy and representative government.
The motion before us today is in response to certain recent happenings in this House. I have been a member of this House for well over 10 years and have seen previous occasions where tempers have flared, behaviour was unbecoming, words were exchanged, withdrawals
October 23, 1991

took place, et cetera. However, to suggest and imply that rules are being continuously broken every day, that no co-operation exists between opposition parties and that the government on various pieces of legislation is just not true.
Perhaps myself and the parliamentary secretary should be holding press conferences along with the House leader of New Democratic Party to tell them how we have co-operated on different measures. If you were listening to members opposite you would think that we co-operate on nothing, and that is not true. Mr. Speaker, you must know that and understand that notwithstanding the comments which may have been written in different newspapers and made by different individuals there is a fair amount of co-operation.
We as a party are not opposed to the thrust of this motion. There is a line of acceptable behaviour and in recent weeks it has been crossed by two government backbenchers, and there have been other incidents involving members from all political parties. We believe that we have to do something about it before the problem grows.
In light of these events in this Chamber we have to send a message to our electors that we are aware of the need for ameliorating our conduct and that we will act on it. No one disputes that we are expected to behave in a civil manner. Indeed our constituents expect it of us. However, they simultaneously expect us to defend their interest with passion and conviction.
If the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood comes into this House as a new member and stands on the floor of this House of Commons to make a case for a refugee or a small business person or an individual who is unemployed and does it with conviction, as he normally does, and with great flamboyance, so be it. No Speaker of this House should deny that member that particular right and no governing party should try to restrict a member in the expression of his or her views on that subject matter.
We would be remiss in our duty if we did not relay the fact that what goes on in this House is adversarial. It is an adversarial process. This is not a high school debate; it is an adversarial process. That is what we were sent here
Government Orders
for, and we in the opposition are expected to do our best in holding the government accountable.
I know the government House leader agrees with me on this because he made this very point on June 13,1980, and I quote from Hansard at page 2082:
Given the nature of this Chamber where we face each other two sword lengths apart, if members shout order at us we will respond in kind. We will shout order back. If they refuse to answer questions or if they abuse the Question Period you can expect that we will respond in kind. That would be only natural. If we were to do anything else we would be failing in our responsibility as an opposition to keep the government in check.
The government House leader was politically correct in 1980, and I suggest that stands today on October 23,
1991.	Although we have profound differences and struggle with each other in debate daily we should not cross the threshold to personal attacks. That is counterproductive to the work of this place. That is what makes Canadians unhappy and cynical with their elected officials.
That being said, we on this side of the House have a few questions and worries pertaining to the motion itself. The government wants the House to limit excessive partisanship. The question that then arises is: Who will define excessive partisanship? If the Chair is expected to it could result in the immediate loss of confidence in the Chair. The Chair would be in fact choosing a side or, as they say on the street, lining up with one of the parties.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the independence of the Chair. When a member of this Chamber wears the black robe of impartiality he or she is the only member of this House whose non-partisanship is required. The call on partisanship is not to be left to the Chair. As I have said that would leave the Chair open to accusations of partisanship itself.
I am concerned by another omission in this motion. That is the explicit wording of the deplored use of sexist and racial language. That is not only beyond the realm of heated debate turned personal but is the realm of uncivilized barbarism. The politics of hate is an enemy of this Chamber and all humanity and must be confronted and stopped.
Just because we are in this House does not make us immune to those traits of society which are unacceptable. First, we have to mend our own ways. Second, if we do cross that line between intense political struggle and

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
abusive behaviour I have complete confidence, as does my party, in the Chair's ability to enforce the rules of this Chamber accordingly.
Despite what the government House leader thought in 1980, he often complains of raw partisanship on the floor of the House. I for one prefer to be shooting words across the floor than bullets across a square. I would rather be wrestling in inflammatory debate than be beaten to the ground by a billy stick. I would rather be face to face in this Chamber with hon. members opposite than face to face with a tank.
No one said that democracy was easy. However, the struggles here in this House are infinitely preferable to the alternatives. We have a great institution in this country, many say a model for modem democracies. Canadians should be proud of their political traditions. We have to work to clean up our act so that we never have to contemplate those alternatives.
The system may not always work to perfection and it may not present a pretty picture, but as Sir Winston Churchill once observed: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others".
In conclusion, we as a party support the basic thrust of this motion. We believe sexism and racism should be specified. We believe our confidence in the ability of the present Speaker should be clearly expressed. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "offensive" and by substituting the following therefor:
-including sexist or racist language or gestures directed at other members, either during Question Period, debate or otherwise in the Chamber; and
That this House confirms its support for Standing Orders 16 and 18, and other Standing Orders and practices of this House regarding decorum and reaffirms its confidence in the Speaker's ability to enforce those rules and practices vigorously.


Mr. Speaker:: Continuing debate, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say at the outset as the amendment indicates that we too have full faith in the ability of the Speaker to manage the affairs of this House appropriately-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We want to congratulate you on your excellent work, Mr. Speaker.
I want to begin my remarks by saying that I have listened carefully to the government House leader's comments and certainly do not question his motive. I believe that his intentions regarding this motion were indeed honourable and that he means well.
I must say that he has absolutely and totally missed the boat. If the government House leader really believes that changing a rule or two in the House of Commons is somehow going to transform this place into a corporate board room where everything is done very businesslike and with a very clear agenda with little partisan debate, he is dreaming in Technicolor.
Can you imagine politics in the House of Commons?


An hon. member:: Talk about dull.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have partisanship in the House of Commons. The House is set up with the government on the right-hand side of the Speaker and the opposition parties on the left-hand side of the Speaker. It is set up in such a way that it is a confrontational situation. It is little wonder that the debate in here is often very aggressive and very focused on critical comments directed at the government. So it should be.
With all due respect, and without questioning the motive behind this motion, I think the government House leader simply has failed to understand what it is that frustrates Canadians about this place.
I must say that from time to time the behaviour could be improved. Sometimes the antics can be inappropriate. It is with some sadness and regret in my heart that I recall incidences in the last few days of racist and sexist remarks and rude and crude gestures made by certain members on a certain side of the House, which we were all disgusted with. We found them to be completely inappropriate and were disappointed that no action was taken by the respective leaders of the parties. I was very proud of the fact that when this was taking place our leader made it very clear that she felt that it was a responsibility of the leadership in the caucus whether it is the leader, the House leader, or the Whip to ensure that the appropriate behaviour takes place. When that appropriate behaviour is transgressed and members are found to be behaving inappropriately action must be taken.

It is clear what action should be taken. People can be removed of their positions and others. It was a sad day in this House when some of the rudest comments made by members were passed over in a rather casual way by the leadership of the caucus.
I think we missed an opportunity at that point to ensure that we take this place seriously and do not condone that type of behaviour. Unfortunately it was a missed opportunity.
There is no question that there is an element of frustration in this House from time to time and it is reflected in the country. My hon. colleague quoted from the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future or the Spicer commission, and I noticed that his comments were very selective.
I want to ask the government House leader to turn to page 131 where it says:
As a result many participants felt betrayed and bereft and are confused and angry. Part of this is due to their sense that traditional Canadian values are being usurped by anonymous market forces and that governments are doing nothing to deal with these. Governments are in part responsible for these fears which we believe come from misunderstandings that governments must clarify or continue to pay a heavy price for as will our country.
In other words what the people of Canada are saying is that this place is not responsive to their needs. When we found ourselves involved in a crisis such as the Desert Storm situation, there was no debate in the House of Commons reflecting the people of Canada as to the appropriate role that Canada should play. That was presumably made in secret by some group.
When the Oka crisis was upon us was there a debate in the House as the appropriate course of action? No. Again decisions were made on behalf of the country in secret. When it was decided to cut back on critical passenger rail service was there a debate in the House of Commons on the appropriateness of these measures? No. It was done in secret by the government.
I could go on and on identifying item after item why people of Canada have felt frustrated, why people of Canada have felt that this Parliament of theirs is irrelevant. There is not a better example than the goods and services tax. Here was a tax that was going to touch the
Government Orders
lives of every single Canadian from small children to elderly citizens virtually every day of their lives.
When other governments imposed taxes, they took action when they heard from the people of the country in terms of their concern and their outrage. They responded with some sensitivity.
The United Kingdom in its wisdom at one time decided to impose a poll tax. The reaction was what one would predict. It was an extremely heavy reaction against that initiative. The government listened and the House of Commons and the House of Lords debated the issue and the government decided to back off from that tax. It listened to the people.
In Japan they imposed their version of the goods and services tax. There was a strong outcry and they said it was a wrong move and they backed off in part from this goods and services tax.
Have we heard a shred of sensitivity from the government in terms of what this GST is doing to our country and to the people of Canada? Unfortunately no.
I suspect that is why the people of Canada are so frustrated. That is why they say their politicians have betrayed them. What they mean is that the Government of Canada has betrayed them, the members of the government have betrayed them.
We have seen in recent days, indeed in recent weeks, that when people have been given the opportunity to show what they think of their governments they have changed their governments dramatically. In Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, to give you the most recent examples, they changed those governments when they had an opportunity because they felt they had been unreceptive.
I do not think the government House leader understands the problem if he thinks that by enforcing a couple of Standing Orders it will somehow magically change this place. Again I say I do not question his motives, but I do not think he understands the problem.
The problem has been the inability of this government to respond to the needs of the people of Canada. It has imposed upon them a corporate agenda that they find alien and reject, yet the government shows no sensitivity to the errors of its ways.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
Another reason for the frustration in this House is the unprecedented use of closure or various forms of closure. The government has imposed forms of closure to muzzle members of Parliament and closed down debates at every stage of some bills, the GST and the free trade agreement being the most obvious.
In the annotated Standing Orders on page 22 they provide members of Parliament with a little history about the use of closure or the limiting of debate on issues. They say that one occurred in 1913 over the naval bill. Nothing much happened until 1956 during the pipeline debate. Again closure was used, but we have now seen closure as a regular event. Introduce a bill and, if it takes more than a day or two at a certain reading, the government just gives notice of closure. It has changed the Standing Orders to make it even easier and debate is then brought to an end. No wonder members of Parliament feel frustrated and at times perhaps lose their tempers.
I would now like to mention the committee system. Committees with the odd exception are almost a waste of time. Members of Parliament often work very hard, and time and time again the government simply ignores their recommendations and all the work that has been put into those committee meetings.
I want to say that if there is a behavioural problem in this House we have to accept responsibility. We do not have to blame you, Mr. Speaker, and that is what this motion does. This motion is sort of a subtle way of storming the chair. Granted we are not up there as we were-and I remember that day vividly-sitting right back there, Mr. Speaker. I remember the day and it was one of the saddest days of my life. Members roared up to the chair, banging and shaking their fists in the Speaker's face. I remember that day.
This in a way is another form of that. This motion says that you are not doing your job properly. I say that we do not accept that. We do not accept that.
If we are looking to place responsibility, whether it is an organization, a club, a firm or a business, the person at the helm sets a certain tone. If you have a good club, Mr. Speaker, you probably have a good club president; if you have a very effective firm, you probably have a good president of that firm; if you have some organization that is really doing its job well and accomplishing a great deal,
it is likely because of the certain tone that president or that chairperson sets.
Who is it that sets the tone in this House? It is the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister. It is the government House leader. He sets the tone. He is the one during Question Period who decides whether to respond to questions or not, and therein lies a great deal of frustration.
Yesterday during Question Period a member referred to the news media saying that our Prime Minister was being considered for Secretary-General of the United Nations. In good faith the question was put to him: "Have you agreed to let your name stand for that position?" Did he respond then to a serious question, a question that was on the minds presumably of every Canadian? No. He skated around the issue, a little bit of theatrics, a little bit of fun back and forth with the Leader of the Opposition about how hopeful he was for an election coming up, and so on.
People watching that exchange would be frustrated and would ask: "Why doesn't the Prime Minister answer the question?" There is an element of frustration out there that is unbelievable against our Prime Minister. Going back to the Spicer report, the government House leader did not read it all or at least he did not quote it all. The last page of the Spicer report, page 168, concludes with the views of Canadians on the Prime Minister's leadership. Virtually 100 per cent of the letters and the phone calls were negative toward him. The graph on this page is almost unbelievable. One hundred per cent of the respondents had little or no faith in the Prime Minister. Therein lies one of the reasons for the frustration felt across the country and in this House because we are the people who represent that frustration.
My friend, the government House leader, says we should all behave here like gentlemen and indeed we do mostly.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Excuse me.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Gentlepersons.


An hon. member:: Excuse me.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Gentlepeople. When I go back to Kamloops and talk to my constituents they say: "Nelson, go down to the House of Commons" and I cannot repeat what they suggest I should do. They are not suggesting that I simply stand up here and act in a very quiet way, trying to be positive and compliment the government on all of its

great initiatives and adding calmly to some suggestions. Oh, yes, they probably expect me to do that from time to time, but they suggest what I should do when I get down here and confront this Prime Minister and what I should do when I get into the House of Commons to raise issues of concern to the people of Kamloops. I could not do 98 per cent of the things they want me to do. That is how strongly they feel, how frustrated and how angry they feel, and it is reflected in this place.
I simply want to say as we address this motion that we can improve our behaviour and there are ways and means of doing that. I suggest that the most appropriate way is to take responsibility ourselves and expect ourselves to behave not necessarily in ways that are nonpartisan because this is a partisan environment. We should not personalize our debates. I agree with my friend, the government House leader, when he says that we can hold strong views but we ought not to personalize our criticisms. We all agree with that but, for goodness sakes, let us not act here as though this is the corporate board room. Let us not act as though we all agree that what is going on here in terms of the various agendas and the various legislation is appropriate. There are a great deal of items the government introduces that we think are absolutely wrong. We oppose them and propose what we feel are good alternatives.
Partisanship is a reality and it should be. After all, we are elected and represent different political parties with different ideologies, platforms and philosophies. It would be a sad day if we all came in here and simply agreed with everything that the Prime Minister brought forward as the terms of an agenda.
As I say, we have to take responsibility ourselves and expect members of Parliament not to use sexist language, not to use racist language, and not to participate in obscene gestures. If that actually ever occurs again the leaders of the various caucuses should take responsibility and deal with those individuals. That is the way to deal with this. We should not ask you to enforce a particular Standing Order because we feel you do already. You make a judgment call. You are elected to serve all members of the House from all sides and are not here as a mouthpiece for the government. We feel that you do the job extremely well. As a matter of fact I have yet to recall a single media report to the contrary. There have
Government Orders
always been very laudatory comments and statements made regarding the Speaker of this House.
I want simply to conclude by suggesting that with all due respect to my hon. colleague the government House leader I think he has missed the boat totally. He thinks that by suggesting that we change the rules a little somehow this is going to change deportment in this place. It reminds me of a school teacher suggesting that people wash their hands before they have their lunch. That is fine. It is probably a good idea, but you must want to do that and it must be part of your behaviour. You do not do it simply because your teacher tells you to.
In closing I want to acknowledge that while we support the amendment put forward by the Official Opposition I want to amend that.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words after the word "Chamber":
That the party leaders, House leaders and Whips be responsible for the comportment of their caucuses,
And by adding the following words following the word "vigorously":
That this House express its continued support and appreciation to the Speaker for his excellent guidance of this Chamber.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the subamendment tabled by the hon. member for Kamloops. First of all, I would like to join the hon. member and all members of this House in saying that we realize that the Chair has a difficult task but that we are absolutely confident that you, Mr. Speaker, in the performance of your duties, will rule fairly, and that you will strive to maintain the kind of order which I believe is essential in a House that functions properly. A Speaker must maintain order.
And now we have before us a motion about procedure which is, I would think, easy to understand and which is intended to set certain limits and impose certain rules and perhaps strenghten certain others, to make the House a more normal place and a place that from the public relations point of view is more acceptable to certain people. If we look at Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to define specific rules on offensive accusations and sexist or other com-

Government Orders
ments made by members here in this House, from time to time, something which I totally deplore.
From the procedural point of view, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for the Chair to put in place some kind of disciplinary system that would prevent members from using such unparliamentary and reprehensible language. I agree that the Whips, the House leaders and party leaders have an obligation to enforce parliamentary discipline among members of their caucus.
What I wanted to say to the hon. member for Kamloops is that we have a problem as far as deportment is concerned. It was Charles De Gaulle who said, as several members mentioned today, that we are elected by universal suffrage. My reason for wanting to quote Charles De Gaulle is not to use what he said as an excuse, but I think it is quite true. De Gaulle said that universal suffrage is not selective but reflective. This House is a reflection of the Canadian people. And Canadians don't like the behaviour of certain members and they don't like sexist or vulgar remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether instead of using Beauchesne's and the list of expressions deemed unparliamentary that is sometimes used by the Chair, we could perhaps have an almost immediate decision in cases where a member uses abusive language, in order to deal strictly and severely with members who use language that I would call "inappropriate".
I would have a question for the hon. member for Kamloops. I have been here for 19 years. Televising the proceedings of the House and committees shows that members sometimes behave in strange ways when the TV camera is turned on them while a controversial political question, perhaps charged with partisanship, is being discussed.
I would ask him whether he does not agree that television has had an effect, I would say a dramatic effect, on debates in the House. Television has brought about changes that in my opinion have caused the climate in the House to deteriorate. In many cases, we have become TV performers. Some members have a strong oratorical tradition and are good speakers-they can steal the show. Others, like me, are not steeped in that oral tradition.
I ask the hon. member for Kamloops whether he thinks that our experience with television in this House
should be repeated in the committees. Does he think that televising committee hearings will improve debate or will it just lead to more deplorable behaviour on the part of some members?
It is important, it is a current issue, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns our public image and I would not want us to begin or leave this debate today without paying particular attention to the possibility of televising committee debates.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.
Television has certainly changed people's impressions and reflections of this institution. I do not know if I necessarily agree with him that television has changed behaviour in this House. He has the benefit of having been in the House before television and after television. I have not had that opportunity. I have only been here since television was introduced into the House. I have taken the opportunity read a lot of the old Hansards. When you read the old Hansards, you certainly get the impression that this was not necessarily a quiet Chamber, that debate was pretty tough actually from time to time.
I am not certain, based on the evidence that I have seen by looking at Hansard, that there has been a change. What has changed is that what happens here, as the government House leader has indicated, is to a certain extent in the living rooms, dens and bedrooms of Canadian homes from coast to coast to coast. I think that is the reality. People are actually watching this as it takes place today, when years ago they may have read an excerpt in some newspaper or some periodical or journal. That is a reality.
People who have spent a lot of time in this Chamber know that 99 per cent of the time spent here is very business-like. The exchanges are veiy positive. They are very respectful of different points of views. From time to time they get a little rambunctious. That probably only takes place half of 1 per cent of time, if that. That is, of course, what often gets the television coverage on the news that evening or the next day, therefore, to a certain extent people get the wrong impression. Also, people listen in on the debates.
October 23, 1991

I think back to that period when a lot of cabinet ministers were being accused of doing things and some had to resign. Again, all the people who were watching were reminded time and time again, day after day, about the misbehaviour of the cabinet ministers and how they had either been dipping into funds, inappropriately or not, were being charged with this offence or that offence, et cetera. I believe that has been part of the change.
I agree with my hon. friend that television has certainly had an impact on people's perception of the House of Commons. I do not know that it has changed our behaviour. I am not certain that we even appreciate or know that the cameras are on us as we speak here most of the time. It is to be expanded to committees, which I support. There are a lot of excellent committees and work that they do that people ought to be aware of.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened not only to the previous speaker, but to the two speakers who preceded him. I want to interject from my Olympus of being around here for 17 years going off and on that if we take the motion at face value that the hon. House leader for the Conservative Party has put forth, I want to go on record with you, Mr. Speaker, and with all members of this House to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of what he is proposing here today.
I think it is about time that we did grapple with this very important issue. Every speaker who has stood in this House so far has said, yes, there is room for improvement. One of the speakers went so far as to say that television is an entertainment medium. I would go further.
Television has become the most powerful tool for communication that we have ever devised. I believe that television is a good thing for this House. Yes, perhaps it has shown the worst aspects of what we do in here, but it has potential. It does have the potential to show us at our very best.
When we debate in here, we are the highest court of the land. I cannot imagine for example a lawyer appearing before a judge and having the lawyer and judge shout back and forth at one another. I know this is not a court of law. I know we are not just a debating society. But we
Government Orders
are after all the spokespersons for all Canadians across this land. We must always remember that.
There is a basic difference between wit and boorishness. Yes, we should comment on what we have to say. Surely, we should attack each other's ideas. We should not be attacking each other.
Some of the speakers have said that they did not come here to be polite. I do not know if they used that word. They did come here and we have come here to be thoughtful spokespersons for the people whom we represent. We owe it to them, we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to this institution and we owe it to our country.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to participate in this debate. I want to begin by saying this. This is not a new subject for the House, but I think this is a new way of addressing it.
So often we get into this debate and this issue, but we do it in a way that puts us not so much by our nature but by the nature of the debate into a position of combating one another.
What I mean by that is when we normally talk about decorum or behaviour or attitudes or heckling or something that happens in this House of Commons, it is because we are responding to the issue of the moment. In other words, there is a point of order or a point of privilege because of language or behaviour or something that has happened in the institution and as a result we are here pro and con debating those issues. As a result of that, it is often done in a moment of passion rather than a moment of reasoned thought.
What I think is distinct is that what we are doing today is discussing an issue that is important to us as individual members, is important to the collective respect that this institution has and is important to the Canadian people.
I have been listening very carefully to the debate and the discussion that has gone on. I want to say two or three things. The first thing I want to say is I listened to the remarks of the New Democratic House leader. I have to say that I am disappointed in them. I am very disappointed in them in this sense. The hon. member as I listened to him, if I could digest his argument into my own words, stood up and said that the reason that we have vulgar language, racist language, sexist language or

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
other offensive language in this House is because of the government.
My constituents do not believe that. My constituents have disagreed with me and some of the positions that I have taken on regular occasions. They also have said to me on a regular basis: "It is all of us. It is all of you. You are like a bunch of children''. They may be angry with me over my position on an issue like the GST and they want to discuss it with me in the strongest possible terms, but they also understand and were very much offended by the kazoos and the hollering and the name calling that surrounded that debate.
In other words, they understand differences of opinion and respect that, but they do not expect nor do they respect name-calling and abusive and offensive language in our relationships and our debating with one another.
I am disappointed that this is the tack that the House leader for the New Democratic Party has chosen to take.
I want to touch momentarily on the remarks of the House leader of the Liberal Party. My hon. friend is a very effective debater. He makes his case well and presents his arguments in a very thoughtful, decisive and persuasive way. But there are two or three points I want to make about his remarks.
The first one is what he said concerning the third paragraph of the particular motion we are debating and I want to quote it into the record: "Canadians have expressed alarm at the excessive partisanship and lack of decorum and civility too often in evidence in the House".
His concern was that this motion is calling on the Speaker to determine what is an acceptable or non-acceptable level of partisanship. I want to disagree and say very categorically and clearly that that paragraph does not say that. It says it is a reminder to us as members of Parliament that Canadians have expressed alarm at our excessive partisanship. It does not call on the Speaker to determine acceptable or non-acceptable levels of partisanship. It says very clearly that we as members need to be conscious of our behaviour and to behave in such a way that is not excessive. I think the Canadian public is capable of deciding what is excessive and I think in fact they are doing that on a daily basis.
Second, I was listening very carefully to my friend's arguments. For a period in his remarks he seemed to imply to me, and I think to the people who are listening to the debate, that the absence of heckling, the absence of name-calling, the absence of aggressive or offensive language, is a monotone, is boredom. It is somehow namby-pamby.
That is not the case at all. The opposite of those very things that Canadians find offensive in this institution in our behaviour is very clear, well articulated, thoughtful debate. My friend from Welland Canal just said that very clearly in the words that he expressed to this House of Commons. People do not want us calling each other names because we disagree on an issue. They want us to debate the issue. They want us to as effectively and as clearly and as strongly as we can express the two sides of the issue.
I am sure as I listen to the House leader of the Liberal Party that he understands and in fact supports the need for all of us to examine our behaviour when we participate here in this House of Commons, but I wanted to make that distinction. I do not want it in any way left on the record, either directly or indirectly, that the opposite of heckling and abusive language is somehow namby-pamby behaviour. It is not. It is very distinct and it is very different.
Third, I want to say this. Looking at both the amendment and the subamendments that have been put forward on this particular motion, there seems to be a concern that the motion before us today is somehow in some way designed to be a reflection on the Speaker, or the Speaker's ability to maintain order and decorum in this House of Commons.
I think it is very important that I address that. The words that are in the motion are words that were chosen very carefully. If anyone looks carefully at the last paragraph, it says that this House supports the Speaker's vigorous enforcement of Standing Orders 16(2) and 18 particularly, and so on and so forth.
It is an expression of support for the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House as the Chair of this institution, as the chair of a committee, as the chair or leader of any kind of debate or issue, it is the
October 23, 1991

role of the chair. We support that. We encourage that, and that is what we are trying to do in this motion.
The really operative parts of the motion, the most important elements that we have in front of us here today are the parts that say to us as members of Parliament: pay attention. What are we doing?
It is saying that Canadians have expressed alarm at our excessive behaviour. It says that this House recognizes disruptive behaviour and verbal interruptions including abusive language lead to a depreciated or a deprecated view and respect for the institution of Parliament and its members. In other words, the whole thrust of this motion is calling on us as individuals to reflect on our behaviour, on our language and on our attitudes.
I want to say this. I remember an experience I had when I was first elected in 1980. There is family at home, Ralph and Billie Good. Ralph and Billie have been like second parents to me. I have known them since the time of the cradle. I spent as much time at their kitchen table as I think I did my own parents. I grew up with them. Their son Ian is my best friend. We have been that way since we were born.
Something happened that I thought was very significant and I have never forgotten it. Shortly after I was elected in February 1980, in fact the first Saturday thereafter, Wendy and I went out to their place for dinner and the usual game of Rummoli. I say usual because we often did that on Saturday nights. That was something that Wendy and I did with Ralph and Billie. It was a time of fun. We had a great time together. We were friends, and we enjoyed that experience.
The first Saturday after I was elected, I had not even come down to Ottawa. I had not been sworn in yet. Albert Cooper was still Albert Cooper, a small town boy from Grimshaw. There was no change, but I went out to Ralph and Billie's that night and you know, Billy started bringing out the good china. She started putting the good china on the table. I said: "Whoa stop, Billie. I am still Albert. I have not changed. That date of February 18 has not made me any different. Please put the china away. I want what we have been eating on for the last five or ten years."
I tell you that story because I think it paints a picture of what Canadians expect and want of us. My friends Ralph and Billie, who have known me all these years,
Government Orders
just because I had become elected to the House of Commons suddenly put me in a different category. It was not a category I was comfortable with. It was not a category that I wanted to be put in, but suddenly Ralph and Billie recognized that there was something different about me. There was something special about the job I had now obtained and what they wanted to do was to put me on a little bit of a pedestal.
My point is this. When we are called to the House of Commons to debate some very difficult issues, we are not called here to be street fighters. We are not called to be a bunch of children in a playground who get our way by bullying, pushing, shoving, screaming and calling people names. That is not what they want of us.
What Ralph and Billie want of me is to act in a way that brings dignity to myself, but reflects well on my friendship and relationship to them. They want to be proud of me. That does not mean I come in here and just let everything go on around me. They want me to fight hard for the Peace River riding, for my constituency. They want me to be aggressive, but they do not want me to be abusive in my language or to call someone a name just because I disagree with them.
What they want is for me to clearly and as best I can articulate the concerns of my constituency, but not in a way that destroys the dignity or in any way demeans my political opponents. They too have been elected as my friend has just said to the highest court in the land.
We are faced with a very serious reality in this country. There has been several references made to the Spicer commission. The Spicer commission was a lightening rod for a lot of feelings and attitudes in this country. It wasn't only the Spicer commission, I think every member of this House knows that when we go home to our ridings we are told regularly that people are sick and tired of us being childish. They are not sick and tired of us debating issues in an aggressive way, but they are sick and tired of our childish behaviour. They want us to clean it up.
My argument before this House is that we have to clean it up. We are living in a time when there is very much a diminishing of respect for the House of Commons and for those of us who are members of it. And yes, it is at times very much pointed at us as individuals but very often it is pointed at us as a collective group.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
Canadians think that the problems we face in this country today are serious problems. They know they are serious because it affects them every day. When we come in here and diminish debate by turning it into an exercise of name calling, what we are really saying is: "I can't substantively put forward your position, so therefore what I am going to do is I am going to beat down the person who disagrees with me by calling him names". It is the kind of thing we did as children in playgrounds. Do you remember the expression: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me? The trouble is that we tend to forget that lesson. We come in here and exercise the same behaviour.
I do not believe this is a partisan question. I do not believe there is a distinction between government minister or backbencher or members of the opposition. We are all guilty of this behaviour at one time or another. I had better say this though, Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions. There are people who have managed through very long careers in this place to maintain their dignity and to not stoop to name calling. I am not one of them. I have been here 12 years and I have on several occasions lost my temper and called people names, said things that I have later regretted. But the truth is that it did nothing for the institution, it did nothing for the debate, it did nothing for me personally and it certainly did nothing for my constituents. But what it did do was to cheapen myself in terms of my own perception and certainly in the eyes of my colleagues.
The Canadian public are now saying to us that they want us to clean it up, they want us to come up out of that level of debate and come on to a higher plain, and they are demanding it because of a number of things. First, the problems we face in the country today are serious. They feel it. They know they are serious. Second, because of the television cameras, my people see what I do today. They do not read about it in the paper two or three weeks later. They know now what I have done and so they judge me instantly. As a result of that instant judgment they want an instant improvement in my behaviour.
There is a new reality. I do not think it is as a result of television cameras, but it is as a result of that new technology. People now have much more access to us as individuals and us as an institution than they had 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Today we arrive in their living rooms on a
daily basis. It isn't what they can read, it's what they can actually see. It is not somebody describing our behaviour, it is them watching our behaviour. As a result of that, they do not blame it on anybody else but they put the blame where it belongs, which is right at my feet, and they are saying to us: Clean it up.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left. I did not notice when I started, but now I see that I have about two minutes. The motion before us is an important motion. It is not because the words are absolutely perfect. It is not because of how we end up deciding it. It is because it allows us as individuals to do two things. First, to examine our own behaviour, that is individually as well as collectively.
Second, it affords us an opportunity to say to the Canadian people who are watching the debate, who are interested in the subject and interested in this institution, that we as people involved and elected, as my friend says, to the highest court in the land, are listening to them. We are taking them seriously.
I think it is a very important debate. I think it is a very healthy debate. As I have said, it calls on all of us to come out of that lower plane of debate to rise to the occasion, to be articulate, to put forward our arguments as best we are capable, to make our colleagues, our family and our constituents proud of us. It is not because we manage to make it on the national news tonight by calling someone a name, but because we reflected a kind of dignity that sits well in this House and makes Canadians want to aspire to be members of Parliament.
My time is up. I do want to say this. The motion before us is important. I would encourage all members of the House to support it, not only in our votes because that is secondary, but much more in terms of our behaviour. We need to demonstrate to Canadians that I have dignity or I have respect for the dignity, the ability of my friends across the aisle. That is what my constituents want to hear from me. They want me to disagree with them, but they also want me to send a message to them that says that the people who are in this House are the people who have been picked by Canadians because they can represent their concerns in the finest traditions of this institution.

I appreciate the time I have had to participate in the debate. It is important and I look forward to the comments of other colleagues.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under comments and questions. I appreciate this is a very difficult debate and we do not want it to get out of hand. I have great personal respect for the member who has just spoken. He and I and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North all need from time to time to be put on a pedestal, given that we share certain stature. I also know him to be a fine person.
Yet, I have to say that the direction of his comments or arguments, along with the government's line of attack or line of defence in this thing, I find, and I say this with the greatest respect, personally and truly offensive because I get no sense of understanding about the nature of the offence that was committed in this House with racist and sexist comments. That is the first point.
Second, there is no sense of collective responsibility on the part of either the Conservative Party or the government for its responsibilities here.
Let me say this first. All parties, all individuals have elements of racism and sexism within us. No party has the corner on virtue. What is a test from time to time is how we collectively respond when racism or sexism comes forth. I would like to think that we as a party have tried to deal with it in various ways, but I do not hear the government accepting responsibility for its response or reaction when these things occur.
There has been no reaction by the government to the individuals, what we have seen or the public has seen, to sexist or racist comments. In fact, they are defended, not in their particular, but the individuals are defended and are still in the same place. We see no initiatives coming from the Conservative Party or the government as government for dealing with these matters or any sense of understanding about the offence that has been committed. That takes me to the second part of my comment.
The member has equated racist and sexist remarks with name calling.
Name calling against an individual is to be deplored. We all share the understanding of the need to bring that under control in this and the member's arguments that that needs to be brought under control. However, racist or sexist remarks go far beyond bringing an individual
Government Orders
into disrepute or damaging or wounding an individual or, in that sense, demeaning the whole institution by tactics of that kind. Racist and sexist comments bring a whole group in our community into disrepute and they bring groups in our community which are vulnerable into disrepute.
We see and know the impact of that vulnerability daily in the hurt that it does. So this institution, as Parliament, must respond far more effectively than it has to racist and sexist comments because we are supposed to be, as the member pointed out, the highest court in this land. If we do not get our act together, if we are not seen to deal swiftly and effectively with racist and sexist comments, if in fact the government fails to understand it and equates it with personal insults, fails to understand the damage and hurt it does throughout this whole land, then we are failing collectively as Parliament.
The government, by taking the response that it has to this, fails as government. That is not a partisan remark because, as I said at the outset, no party has a monopoly on either virtue or on sexism or racism, but it is how you respond. This government has brought itself down, I say, in the eyes of the people of Canada by its failure to respond to the remarks that have been made in this House.
I would ask the member if he would just simply at least accept, on behalf of the government, some responsibility for acting and indicate that he understands the distinction between racism and sexism on the one hand and mere name calling on the other, disreputable as that may be.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for, as I see it, two questions that I want to try and respond to.
The first question is the equation of sexist and racist comments with name calling. I am not sure that I can address that in the way that I want to. I am not sure I can express myself well enough to get across what I want to say.
I understand the hon. member's argument that there is a distinction between name calling and sexist and racist comments. I understand that. Another category is reflections on a person's faith. Those kinds of comments that lump people into groups and somehow demean those groups, I understand that. I guess my problem is, and it leads into the second question that he raised, and that is what about the government disciplining a couple of

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
members, or what about the leadership of his party disciplining a member in their party and so on.
It really boils down, I think, to this, and that has been a difficult question for me. It is not one that I was able to, in my own mind, resolve quickly. We can handle this whole issue, as I see it, in largely two ways. There are various splinters of that, but I think there are two ways.
The first way is that we can define some hard and fast rules and then enforce them. The problem with that is that you then get into all sorts of legalities and all sorts of definitions. I am not sure that that works. I expressed to someone from his party just the other day when we had a discussion about this that we could go to a rule that would say that if somebody uses sexist, racist, you could list the Charter of Rights, any of those comments, and if we were to then say that that individual should be removed as a ministerial parliamentary secretary, a critic for an opposition party, what would of course happen because of the nature of this institution is everyone would be sitting around with their little hit squads waiting, and as soon as they had an opportunity they would jump. We would have had the case of yesterday of a member saying someone is a hypocrite, us demanding his resignation as critic of that party. It might work, but the danger is that it puts a legalistic solution that can never be complete and encompassing and replaces it with something that I think is more difficult but is actually in the long term the better, and that is the question of attitude. If we as individuals in this House respect one another with the dignity and an acceptance of their quality as individuals, if we can rise to the spirit of that, then we solve our problem
I think that is what personally I want to do and that is I think we as a House need to look at.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. I must tell you that first of all I have a tremendous respect for his words today. I have found over the three years that I have been in the House that his actions are consistent with his words. When I listen to him, I take everything that he says with sincerity.
I want to ask the hon. member a question. It is more along a communications line. Does he not think that part of the problem that we are having in this House stems
from a frustration factor that we on this side of the House experience? When we get up each day on behalf of those in our society who are disadvantaged, and who expect us to ask specific questions, tough questions of the government in order to make the government accountable, and quite often because of the power of proper packaging, a government member-and I am not referring to the hon. member-or a minister on the front bench can stand up and give an answer to a very specific question which is nowhere close to the question being asked. What we have in this House is a government whose communication skills are superior, their packaging skills are sharp.
Quite often I have seen this government, day in and day out, manipulate the national media, buying their answers which were nowhere related to the question. I am not excusing our reaction when it becomes overly frustrated on specific questions that we ask on behalf of the disadvantaged in our country, whether they be unemployed or a business on the verge of going under. I am not questioning, we should never ever lose it. I lost it today in frustration, and I am sorry I lost it. The NDP member referred to collective responsibility. I believe that this government quite often uses the power of proper packaging as a diversion to answering specific questions that we as opposition members put forward. I would like the hon. member to address that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It would have to be a very short reply I would hope because you are over your time now, as far as questions and comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can get consent to answer the question, because I think it is a very thoughtful one.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: I will be brief. First of all in terms of the government's superior communication skills, I am very flattered by that. I would argue that the results we are seeing today bring into question that assertion. I wish we were as good as the hon. member says we are.
The hon. member raises a very good point. I want to answer it in a slightly different angle than he presented it. The hon. member raised the issue of a question by an opposition member and an evasive answer from a minister causing anger and frustration. Of course that is true. We can reverse that. We can turn it inside out depending
October 23, 1991

on what our role or action is in the House at the moment.
Frustration and anger very much contribute to our behaviour in this House. That is why the whole question of decorum becomes so important as things begin to escalate, and we have all seen it. We start off with a good discussion and maybe a very good question and an evasive answer, or vice versa. Something starts to happen. The dynamics begin. Then we see the anger start to build and build and build. Pretty soon somebody is saying something they very much regret.
I have two points. First, if we start to treat each other with dignity and respect, which is what the Canadian people want us to do, we will diminish that. Second, anger, frustration and all those emotions that we feel do not justify us behaving in a way that is beneath the dignity Canadian people expect of us. I think that is what we have to get at.
There is no excuse. I could stand up and say some very abusive things because I am angry. That does not make it right. That is the fundamental question each of us has to look at.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is another gentleman who wants to ask a question, the hon. member for Oshawa. If it is a short, brief question, I will allow it.
I do not want any anger in this House today. I hope that the hon. member will be brief and the hon. deputy House leader will be able to resolve the problem.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I will make it a quick one because I appreciate the member and the sincerity with which he has made his statement today.
Can he explain to me why two members in the last two weeks have said something in here that we all think was wrong and none of us could do anything about it?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that we have had a long-standing tradition in this House that when a member rises in his or her place and apologizes and withdraws his or her remarks we accept the word of the hon. member. That has been the case for a long time. Nobody is saying that offensive behaviour is acceptable to the institution. I do not think any of us believe that. We all want to rise above that. We have a long tradition
Government Orders
and it is one that requires of us some discipline and some self-censure.
When someone in the House does something we collectively consider offensive we have some very subtle ways of sending signals concerning what we think of that behaviour. Traditionally that is the way we have resolved it in the House.
We are having a debate today and I am sure the hon. member will participate. He may have some other solutions. That is the tradition we have lived by and the one we have practised thus far in our institution.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick. How would this present motion solve the problem of the use of such language? Will it help prevent the use of such language?


Albert Glen Cooper: No, it will not. What it will do, and it is already doing it, is draw our attention individually and collectively the seriousness of the problem. Only we can solve it. That is what I think we have to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will now get back to debate with 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday morning, when I read the notice of the motion that we are discussing this afternoon, I was shocked that the government moved such a motion. That morning, I told our House leader that it was incredible that the government considered presenting such a motion.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to understand why the government presented such a motion, even today, even after the speech by the minister and his parliamentary secretary this afternoon.

This motion is unable, as the parliamentary secretary has just said, to deal with the problem of offensive language in this House. It simply draws attention to it. It urges the Speaker to enforce the Standing Orders of this place but is not an amendment to the Standing Orders. It does not place any additional power in the Chair. It does

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
not propose any changes to the rules to make such conduct less likely.
I regret that the government has chosen to introduce a motion like this instead of dealing with the issue in a substantive way, for example, first raising it in the committee of which the parliamentary secretary is the chairman, the House management committee, and members on that committee coming up with some ideas as to how this issue might have been dealt with in a better way.
I must say that as a relatively new member in this place, having been here only three years, I was rather surprised that it was the government House leader who put this motion forward because I think it is fair to say, and I think members on all sides would agree, that he has been a very partisan and very aggressive member of this House. I agree, and I want it on the record, that he did not storm the chair. He invited me to his office to see the tape of that incident, and I was satisfied that it was he that was sitting in his seat at the time of the chair storming incident. Since my name is now constantly referred to as a witness to this event, I want to put it on the record that I agree he did not storm the chair in the famous alleged incident.
Having said that, he has been a very vigorous debater in this House over the years and has developed a certain reputation as such. To hear him mouthing the platitudes he did today about decorum in this House was quite amazing and I was somewhat astounded.


An hon. member:: And losing it at the same time.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member is heckling. I want to make it clear that I enjoy heckling and I regard it as very much a part of parliamentary debate. All too often we are told that, as we have heard this afternoon from the parliamentary secretary and the government House leader, heckling somehow is evil. In every case that the word heckling was used by the parliamentary secretary, and I did not check the government House leader on this, he also talked about either name calling or offensive language. That is what he said. He said we do not want heckling and name calling or we do not want heckling and offensive language. There is a big difference between heckling and either name calling or offensive language.
There is no place in this House for name calling or offensive language. I quite agree with him. However,
there is ample place in this House for heckling. Indeed it is a legitimate part of parliamentary debate and has been so as long as this institution has existed, that is for well over 900 years.
If we as parliamentarians are trying to protect ourselves from the sharp barbs and questions that come out of heckling in this Chamber then we are doing a disservice to ourselves and to our country. It forces us to realize that sometimes what we are saying is nonsense and sometimes it is not true. I am using parliamentary words to describe those statements. I am not allowed to use words that some people use on the streets of this country to describe some of the speeches in this place.
I know that some of my constituents use stronger language with me on the telephone and occasionally in a letter use words-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Speaking about your speeches?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No. They are usually describing other hon. members' speeches, not my own. However, the words are there and I hear them on my telephone or in discussion. They are on the list of words in Beauchesne's that I cannot use in this place. I respect that, and I think most members respect that and try to use words like "nonsense" instead of others that might come to mind. Members will not use the word "lying" with respect to another but will suggest that perhaps the member is not telling the entire truth or is a stranger to the truth or use some other expression which may mean something similar but not the same thing.
Language in parliamentary debate and parlance is restricted by rules, many of which are very old. Some of the expressions that are prohibited are ones that no longer cause offence when they are used, but because they are on the list they cannot be used. There are others that are not on the list that could be.
We had today the example of the Speaker ruling out of order and asking one of my colleagues to withdraw a word which has previously been ruled to be parliamentary, not unparliamentary. Yet it was causing disorder in the House and the Speaker took steps and ruled it unparliamentary. Perhaps it will appear in the list of unparliamentary expressions in the next edition of Beauchesne's. I do not know.
Not too long ago I had the Speaker rule the expression windbag unparliamentary based on an 1879 precedent. There are words that ought not be used. I do not want to

dwell on the question of words. What I want to do is deal with the principle.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary. I agree with the government House leader that offensive language of any kind has no place in this House. I agree that name calling, particularly of an offensive kind, particularly racist or sexist, is completely out of place. Indeed the incidents we witnessed in the last few weeks were completely unnecessary and most distasteful. I am sorry they happened, as I am sure is every other member of this House. They tend to bring the House into disrepute. They tend to cause Parliament to be regarded very badly by our fellow citizens. I regret that it happened.
What is the purpose of this motion other than to condemn that kind of conduct which I think all members condemn? Is the government proposing something new here today, or is it just having a debate for the purpose of purging ourselves after the recent incidents? I have not been able to figure out the motive because in the speeches of the parliamentary secretary and the government House leader there was no reference to the previous incidents except in questions. I am not sure why they raised it.
I would like to turn to Standing Order 16(2) which the motion says we support. The motion reads in part:
-supports the Speaker's vigorous enforcement of Standing Order
16(2) and Standing Order 18;
Just for the members of the public who may not be familiar with what Standing Order 16(2) says I will read it:
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.
On its face Standing Order 16(2) prohibits heckling. It has never been interpreted that way, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. I know that on occasion, Sir, you had to interrupt me in the course of one of my speeches because the heckling was so loud you could not hear my speech. You heard no objection from me about the heckling. I frankly was enjoying myself and it did not bother me that members were heckling me.
Indeed three weeks ago I was making a speech and the din was very loud. It was difficult for me to be heard. It
Government Orders
was in Committee of the Whole. To say that I was offended or upset by the heckling would be incorrect. I was not. I do not think that the Canadian public was outraged. I certainly got no letters expressing shock or outrage from members of the public at the fact that I was being loudly heckled during the course of those remarks.
Standing Order 18 states:
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.
On occasion we have risen in this House to object to words being used by members concerning the other place or remarks made about His Excellency the Governor General. Those have been relatively rare. I must say that the remarks have occurred on both sides of the House.
I can remember when there was a Liberal majority in the other place the government House leader using very strong language to describe the conduct of the members of the other place. I objected on occasion to some of that language. I can recall that once there was a Conservative majority in the other place, after it was stacked for the GST bill, there were objections to some of the language used by members on this side of the House in describing the conduct of the other place because it was considered that the language might be disrespectful.
It was not rude or offensive. It described in colourful terms what was going on in the other place. I do not think that it was in any sense name calling, nor was it offensive language, but it was held to be contrary to Standing Order 18 because it was disrespectful.
I do not think there is any argument in any part of the House. I am surprised that the government has moved this motion to suggest that somehow these Standing Orders have not been enforced. They are enforced.
I suggest that what we need to do is make sure that the name calling and offensive language are excised as far as possible from our vocabularies.
I discussed this issue on a television interview in my riding shortly after the two incidents occurred in this House. I told one of my constituents that the members

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
of this House are not paragons of virtue. None of us is in a position to throw stones.
The hon. member looks shocked. Perhaps he is and considers that I am. I do not know. I think it is fair to say that we are not paragons of virtue. As I said to this television interviewer in my view we represent the people who elect us here. We are part of those people. We are all the same.
Before our election we were citizens as they are. After the election we have become members of Parliament, but we are still citizens as they are. We have all their foibles and all their weaknesses, and we are at one with the people we represent in a host of ways that we cannot measure here.
One of the ways we can measure it is in our conduct and our behaviour. I suggest that we do behave very much as a group of any 300 Canadians would behave if they came into a room and started having a lively discussion about matters on which they have profound disagreement.
We have tried through our rules and practices to raise the level of the debate so that the language is perhaps different from what is used in the street. The fact of calling another hon. member by the name of his or her riding instead of by name, for example, tends to force us to avoid personal references in the way that another group might if it were brought together for this purpose.
That aside, we are ordinary Canadians. However, the standard and expectation is different because we are on television in this House and elected to serve in this place. We are expected to behave in a better way and it is a fair expectation.
I do not deny that it is a fair expectation and that is why when there are breaches of the rules, where there is name calling and offensive language, we run into difficulty. We are criticized and the place is brought into disrepute.
I agree with that criticism. It is a fair criticism and it is one that we have to answer for. To the extent that this debate may encourage us to raise our standards in this House, that is fine.
I want to turn to those standards because it has been suggested that this is a new phenomenon, that somehow things have changed in the last few weeks, the last year,
the last three or four or five years. I do not know how long the government House leader has had these feelings, but obviously he did not feel pushed or moved enough to bring in such a motion in the last seven years that he has been in government. I am rather surprised that it has suddenly come on him today that we have to have this discussion.
As I say I do not know exactly why it was prompted, unless it is in response to these incidents.
What was the situation 20 or 30 years ago? I used to come and sit in the gallery when I was a teenager and watch the debates in this House. I can remember Mr. Diefenbaker was Leader of the Opposition at the time. In fact, he was Prime Minister when I was first here and Mr. Pearson was Leader of the Opposition.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I did it too.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I remember then that the debates were exceedingly lively in this Chamber. To suggest that somehow today they have changed is simply not the case.
I can recall Question Period when members used to bang their desks. The din was often so loud you could not hear anything but desk banging. You could not possibly hear a member trying to speak above the roar.
Many members lifted the wooden tops on their desks and banged them up and down rather than just pound them with their hands and I am sure you remember this, Mr. Speaker. The noise was fantastic. There was hooting and hollering and yelling.
To say that today it is noisier or different from then I suggest is simply not true. I think that the Chamber is relatively quiet in this day and age. I think it has changed a bit. I think it has changed for the better in that respect.
Also to suggest that somehow the language in debate was different I do not think is fair. I think the language at that time was very lively. I think the exchanges were very powerful. We did not hear criticism of Parliament back then. Indeed the public speaks about those days as the "good old days of Parliament" when we had real debaters like Mr. Diefenbaker. He was regarded as a great debater, and he was a great debater. He was a powerful speaker. He could keep the House in fits of laughter.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Or fits of rage.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: "Or fits of rage", as the hon. member for Halifax suggests, and it is true.
October 23, 1991

I remember when Mr. Pickersgill was a member of this House. His speeches were a brilliant example of how to use heckling to full advantage. He would stand up with absolutely no message he wanted to impart and wait for heckles from the other side in order to make up his speech and run on the heckles. He had a great time. He made wonderful speeches that were endlessly entertaining and extremely useful, cogent contributions to the debates going on at the time. He was an excellent speaker.
The hon. member for Essex East as he then was, Mr. Paul Martin Senior, was another example of a great debater who could make a mountain out of a molehill. He could create arguments out of mere nothings and make the whole thing sound as though it was a learned discourse that would well suit any professorial lecture.
I appreciate the compliments of my hon. friends. In looking at this issue from any modem perspective, we have to consider that conduct in today's House of Commons has not changed. There may be a slip here and there from one day to another, but there are also improvements and perhaps those are not noted either. While there is always room for change I welcome the government's initiative from that perspective and agree that members of Parliament have to conduct themselves with decorum. The obligation is to refrain I submit from excesses of any kind but particularly of offensive, sexist, racist language or nasty name calling.
I also recognize that members can make a mistake and say the wrong thing. I think the fact that we are able to stand up, withdraw, apologize and forgive one another is a very important part of this Chamber. If we were to carry the grudge and not recognize that people say things when they should not-and we all do it at one time or another-it would be a vindictive and nasty place.
It is tough enough now when we have our disagreements about how we conduct public policy and how we run this country, but we will make it a lot tougher if we decide that we have to fight each other because someone has made a mistake. We have to be willing as the public would be willing if they were here, to forget and forgive when the time comes.
While I respect the intent of the motion, I am surprised that it is here. I hope that the government will look favourably on the amendment that has been moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-
Government Orders
East Richmond for the reasons explained in his very capable speech. I look forward to following speeches in this debate and possibly speaking again on the main motion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member for Kingston and the Islands correctly, he is trying to make a point which I think was overlooked and deliberately so. Perhaps in the government motion we have before us there is a distinction to be made between different kinds of language. All of them in their own way contribute to what is perceived as the decorum problem in the House of Commons but not all of them are morally equal. A distinction is to be made between heckling done in good humour or a kind of informal argument which is going on off the record. This looks bad on TV partly because of the way we televise the House of Commons.
It may be a matter of personal insult which ought not to be practised but which is nevertheless a matter between individual members which can be dealt with in the traditional way of withdrawal and apology, etc. We can then get into what the government describes as abusive language.
The problem is that the government seems to think that all these things are abusive and wants to submerge within the over-all concept of abusive language what has really been the catalyst for this debate and for the concern that has been expressed in the last few weeks. That is the use of racist and sexist terms. I am glad to see that the amendments from both the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party try to address that.
In our judgment, and I want the member to comment on this, this is something which we ultimately cannot expect the House to deal with solely through the office of the Speaker. We need to be able to have accountability on the part of party leadership and caucus leadership for the behaviour of members in this regard, particularly when it comes to the use of racist and sexist language.
I would agree that this is not always easy to define. Certainly there is a difference between that kind of language which is offensive to entire groups of people, whether they be women, visible minorities or whatever, and language which is offensive to one person. This can be dealt with in that interpersonal level of withdrawal, apology, and forgiveness which the hon. member rightly

Government Orders
points out is a very necessary element of living in the House of Commons.
If the good news of the gospel is the forgiveness of sins, certainly the House of Commons is a place which depends entirely on the forgiveness of sins for its day-to-day life. If we could not begin each day anew in some degree or another, indeed hourly, then we would not be able to function at all.
I invite the member to elaborate perhaps just a bit on what the government is up to in the sense of trying to submerge a larger issue which only its members have been found guilty of, so to speak, in a way of talking about the problem that assumes that we are all equal when it comes to this kind of abusive language. I would submit that we are not.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member being a minister of the gospel is far better than I talking about the benefit of sin or the forgiveness of sin. I would not presume to match his eloquence on that particular subject.
However, his comments are very well taken. I regret one thing he said, and I was very careful to avoid this in my remarks, and that was the fact that the sexist and racist comments appear to come from just one side of the House. In the last few weeks that may be true, but I suspect that if one looks at the long haul this is not something unique to one side. I do not want to throw any stones in that regard and I do not think he does either. It really does not help the debate on that issue if we do that.
I agree with him that there is an attempt to draw the public's attention to the importance of this breach of our etiquette, our rules. I think it is a significant breach and one that perhaps needs to be dealt with in some other way. That is why I said at the opening of my remarks that I wished the government House leader had sent this matter to a committee instead and suggested that it be looked at. Frankly I think that is what should be done.
I know the Speaker has a committee that is looking at it and which I presume will come up with some kind of a report as a result of its discussions. This is an informal arrangement, but it could come to the committee on
House management and be dealt with there to come up with a recommendation for a rule change.
I think I was stressing the importance throughout of the need for temperance in our dealings one with the other. While I am interested in his idea that parties have to take responsibility for the conduct of their members, I have concerns about that. I think in most cases members have to take that responsibility themselves. We as individuals have to discipline ourselves. It is not up to me to sit in my seat and wait for my House leader to turn around and tell me that I have to withdraw remarks. I think I should know when I have made a mistake and withdraw or do what is necessary to apologize to a member whom I may have offended by something I said.
I am not sure that I like the idea of shifting the responsibility to party leadership, because what does it do for independent members, for example, of this House? Does it mean that they have no restraints? I think that the restraints should be equal on every member regardless of his or her position in this House. I think the restraints ought to be imposed by the Speaker on the member or by the collective discipline of the House not by individual parties.
I do not feel that the standards should be different across the House. The standard should be the same for each one of us, and the obligation should be the same for each one.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member opposite from Kingston and the Islands.
I was glad toward the end of his dissertation he finally acknowledged the very facts of what is in the motion before us. We are talking about civility, the decorum of the House, abusive language, verbal interruptions, offensive language and gestures. I agree with him that good natured heckling is beneficial. I think it is beneficial for all of us, and I am glad that he brought that point out.
I think what the motion is trying to get at is that we as individuals-he has alluded to this-have to take responsibility for our own actions here. There have been times when I have not been proud of the actions of many of my good friends here on both sides of the House. I suspect
October 23, 1991

sometimes that yours truly has got carried away as well sometimes.
I would like to ask the hon. member opposite whether or not he thinks there could be some changes made to the methods of televising the House of Commons. Originally it started out as an electronic Hansard, so it is very confined as to the rules and regulations that are given to the camera operator. It is very confined that it must only show either the Speaker or to whom the Speaker has given the floor.
Would there be a greater understanding by the Canadian public of what is happening if we were to alter those rules so that there was more fully televised coverage of what goes on here in the House?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this question. I was a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections during the last session of this Parliament and the committee made recommendations to this House for improving the broadcasting of debates of this House.

I regret that that report was not accepted. The report proposed various changes, over the shoulder shots for questioners so that the minister who the question was going to could be seen. It proposed wider angle shots of the House so that the public could see who was sitting where and might see the heckling take place. It proposed wider shots showing where the person speaking was standing in the House in relation to the other persons who were sitting in the Chamber.
All those recommendations were very sensible and I regret, as I say, that they were not adopted. I am not sure that the changes in television would alter the behaviour or demeanour of the House particularly one way or the other. It might improve it slightly, I do not know. I think it would be quite neutral, but I do feel that it would at least allow the public to realize that the heckling is an integral part of the debate and sometimes extremely worth while.
I see the hon. Minister of Supply and Services here. He loves heckling, and I enjoy his comments.
If the public could see that he was here and shouting things at me at various times, I do not think they would be offended. What the public must find very difficult is not being able to hear the comments that members make
Government Orders
when a member is speaking because of our television system, not realizing that other comments are being made except to assume that perhaps they are unkind, nasty or name calling. They are not.
In my experience, name calling is exceedingly rare. I do not recall ever having been called an offensive name except a windbag. I have to admit I was not terribly offended. It was unparliamentary, I did not mind the hon. member calling me a windbag. As the hon. member said, it was a compliment.


An hon. member:: It was an understatement.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I think name calling is a rare event in this Chamber as all hon. members know, and I think it is unfortunate that when it does happen, it attracts such attention and makes it appear as though this is going on all the time. It is not. In my experience, it is exceedingly rare.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Associate Minister of National Defence.


Mary Collins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, although I thought you might refer to me as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women for the benefit of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can do that, too: Also the Minister for the Status of Women.


Mary Collins: Really in this debate I am talking as a member of Parliament because I think this is the kind of debate where we are really talking all together about an issue that is important. I think it is important to have this debate.
Unlike my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, I guess I have been more concerned about this issue in the just over seven years since I have been a member of this House. There have been many, many times when I have sat on the back bench and cringed at the display of behaviour or language which I have seen in this House, and in many ways sort of felt powerless to do anything about it. Quite honestly, I felt very frustrated. So, I am glad we are having this debate. It is the first time that I am aware of in my seven years that we have even talked about the issue. A number of us have talked about it from all parties at different times and I think it is healthy for us as members of Parliament and for the public to be

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
aware that we are concerned about our own behaviour and that we are looking at ways to improve the credibility of this House, and therefore would hope as individuals as well.
Today I want to talk a little bit about why I really think it is important to have this debate, and why it is important to have in this Chamber behaviour that is really representative of the best we can do. Also, I would comment on the issue of sexist language and why, as a woman-and I think other colleagues may share this- sexist language is so offensive to us. I have found in discussions with not only colleagues but sometimes other people don't really understand that. Obviously it cannot be a full discussion of this issue today but there will be other opportunities, but I just want to make a few comments in that area.
The resolution, broad as it is, and I know there are some amendments that we can discuss as well on it, really reflects on the ability of all the members of this House to perform the role that I think Canadians expect of us. We all know that our country is at a crossroads and the decisions that we will be making, whether on constitutional affairs or a wide variety of issues, will determine our future as a nation. Surely the choices that Canadians make about business issues, about the economy, about our education issues, our social values, will all have an enormous impact on our prosperity. The conduct and the attitudes of Canadians in an era of considerable upheaval and concern will set a stamp upon our ability to be able to continue to promote the kind of caring and compassionate society that I think we all take such pride in.
In my mind if ever in our recent history Canadians need leadership and need examples to follow and need models of responsibility and decency in the face of the very daunting challenges that we have before us, I think that time is now.
Ill-chosen words or provocative gestures, invectives or slurs or racist or sexist remarks are just going to muddy the whole area of thought and communication. These are times when very complex issues must be analysed in detail, and I would hope in a fair and rational approach. Canadians must be able to consider all options. These are times for clear thoughts to be expressed with civility and decorum and opposing positions obviously on those issues which exist must be voiced consistent with our
democratic principles, but presented without bar room antics or invectives.
This House was created as a House to bring Canadians together. It has evolved in order to help Canadians express their aspirations and enable citizens to determine the course of events of their future. When our constituents elect us, no matter what party we represent, they entrust us with enormous responsibilities. They empower us to make choices on their behalf. In doing this they have set upon us a duty to conduct ourselves and our affairs in a way that would make our citizens proud of the high ideals that lie behind our democratic institutions, that are the very heart of our democracies. In may ways I feel that when we come here as elected persons representing Canadians, we do in some ways give up perhaps some of our freedoms because we have to behave in ways I think will ensure that Canadians can be proud of us. That applies not only in the House but in other instances as well.
This House has to represent solutions for the challenges that face us as Canadians and as members of Parliament. It should not be part of the problem. Unfortunately we have had instances in recent days where I think this House has indeed contributed to the problems that we face in society, and have not been part of the solutions.
Indeed we all know that Canadians have grown quite cynical about their elected representatives and often I find people will say that it is not you. They are not going to say it to your face but they will say it behind your back. There is this sense that somehow as a group we really do not seem to have the confidence of the public. At a time when I think that we have a very important duty to set a standard of service to the nation, Canadians all too often feel that this House is nothing but a forum for bickering and it is not very productive. That is the impression that they get. That is often conveyed to me when I go home.
At a time when Canadians are looking for leadership and vision, all too often they turn on their television sets to the parliamentary channel and they get something that relates more to invective or hostility. We have to be careful that we do not get so caught up in our lives here and we are used to it all. However, for the ordinary Canadian who turns on the parliamentary channel they are coming from a very different kind of perspective and we have to relate to their values, their way of thinking about us.
October 23, 1991

I know that all members of this House feel very passionately about the future of this country, about their own views. I think all members of this House are capable of great vision and compassionate understanding. I certainly have seen it at committee hearings. I have seen it in many of the meetings, the public hearings, I have been involved in, and in meetings I have had with colleagues in all parts of the House. There has been a lot of camaraderie and respect which often is not conveyed to the public who do not see those kinds of meetings and that kind of effort that often crosses party lines.
Therefore members of this House have to be adept in the use of language to express their hopes and their aspirations. By definition members of Parliament are supposed to be accomplished communicators. You have to be to some degree to even get to this place. We have all shared the experience of debating on the hustings and having to present our views and having to defend our views. That is part of our tradition. We have all had to stretch our ability with language to its limits in order to communicate our ideals and our visions to our constituents.
We should all be very familiar with appropriately chosen language which we use to rally people around us, our ideas, to invoke the complexity of our situations and to galvanize vision into action. Language sends very powerful signals. It also sends subtle signals and very often the subtleties or the nuance or the connotation are the most powerful tools of language.
The members I think on both sides of this House have an abiding respect for this institution and a great deal of personal experience with the power of language. Nowhere should it be more evident that the use of language in this House must be part of the solution of our ability to provide leadership. We cannot let it be part of the problem.
The problem has been, as we have seen, and we could speak of the problem from many different levels, some subtle, some overt, but as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and as a female member of this House, I am acutely aware of the subtle messages that our every-day language conveys. I know that often we have no intention of transmitting these messages but they are conveyed unwittingly. Nevertheless they are conveyed. We still often use sex-specific words for
Government Orders
generic purposes using a term like "mankind" rather than "humanity". We often use a double standard when using words to describe situations that are substantially similar.
I have certainly heard a male colleague described as forthright while a woman colleague might be aggressive. There is a connotation that women are supposed to behave and are labelled differently when they express their views in similar ways. I am sure my colleague from across the House would agree with that.
When you use that kind of language it divides, it excludes and sends signals that may not be consciously noticed but nevertheless plays in the back of our minds and affects our attitudes.
I know that most members of this House are aware of the subtleties of gender based language and are doing what they can to apply words that unite and include rather than divide and exclude. After all, over half of our constituents are women. As elected members we owe it to ourselves as well as to our electorate to apply language that does not subtly or subconsciously exclude over one-half of our population.
The resolution before us does not just respond to the subtleties of language. In fact, if that was all we had to deal with, I do not think we would be having this debate. There are other issues that are far from being resolved.
It is when we use words that degrade. I guess I speak in this context of women and I feel particularly strongly about words that degrade women. We send signals that it is all right to degrade women. When we call a woman a name that we would never allow anyone to use to describe someone dear to us, we condone the very attitudes which, if you take the whole spectrum, ultimately leads to violence. We do not know what all those links are but we know there is a spectrum and it includes at one end the use of sexist language. It also implies that we condone attitudes that delegate women to unequal positions in our society. Surely that is not what this House is all about.
The debates in this House in the past few months have on occasion descended into the worst kind of gutter language. I have used that phrase to describe it to the media. It is language that does more than exclude and

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
divide, it is language that tries to smash and destroy the respectability of the members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, some members of this House have been working together and talking about steps that we might take to make changes. The debate is obviously one part of that today but also some of the women members of this House have met together with the Speaker to discuss gender related issues on the Hill and specifically in this House. I hope that we are going to be able to continue that work.
I know that Mr. Speaker has been veiy helpful. He has taken a lead in this area as he has in the establishment of sexual harassment policies which have been developed for employees under his jurisdiction. I think that is very important as well.
I think those kinds of steps are good. There do need to be some changes. Earlier this day at the Association of Women Parliamentarians we discussed this issue. We brought forward some ideas that are still embryonic at this stage, discussing how the rules of this House might be changed to ensure that the penalties for the use of offensive language-we were talking specifically of sexist or racist language-might be changed.
There were real penalties, penalties that might, for example, include exclusion from the House, not just naming and going out the door but having the privileges for a period of time taken away, including even potentially a fine, the withdrawal of payment for that period of time. People would know we take these things seriously. We hope that we can, not just today but thereafter, look at this situation and see how we might be better able to send out the signals. It is preventive.
We want to prevent that kind of situation from occurring, and I think these measures are important. They indicate that we all share a responsibility for making this House a model for equality and decency in which Canadians can turn with pride.
I think in the issue of language and decorum, television was mentioned earlier. It is an important change. My hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands said that it was no different years ago. Maybe it was not but quite honestly I do not think that is good enough.
Many years ago when I worked for the Government of Ontario, I used to go into the Legislative Assembly to watch the debates. I would go in at night. I would be appalled by the behaviour and the language that went on in that Legislative Assembly during those years. There were not many women, of course, at that time at all.
I do not think we should just say that it has always been done this way, we can just carry on. In my mind with a new generation of politicians, with more women, with more people reflecting the mixed ethnic background of our country we have to come to grips with these issues. We have to convey to the Canadian public that we will establish high standards of leadership in this House.
Some people have asked how do we describe offensive language? I thought it might be helpful if I use one example. Interestingly enough the example from the Canadian Forces of our personal harassment policy provides a definition which I think in some respects might be applied to language too. It talks about personal harassment being unsolicited behaviour by an individual that is directed at or is offensive to another individual, that is based on personal characteristics, including for example race, religion, sex, physical characteristics or mannerisms and that a reasonable person ought to have known would be unwelcome.
All of us in this Chamber like to think of ourselves as reasonable persons. I hope that we will take this issue very seriously, that we will make the changes in our own rules, in our own behaviour so that we can provide an example for the Canadian public, that can provide decorum and conduct, that we can be models to the young people of this country and provide the leadership that will ensure that Canada can be proud of its Parliament and its parliamentary representation and that we can move on to the other issues which are so important to us of having a united, a caring, a prosperous Canada which we all wish for our future.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I entirely approve of what the minister said about disciplinary measures. Expelling a member from the House for using the word "slut" or similar terms
October 23, 1991

Government Orders
doesn't really change his life. I think that real disciplinary action, such as taking away all his rights and privileges for several days, would make him think. If your pocketbook is hit, it always makes you think twice, so I think this would be a very good idea.
In fact, the Association of Women Parliamentarians of Canada intends to go ahead with the resolution we intend to submit very shortly, and the gist of it, Mr. Speaker, is that you should have more authority. When something like this happens, you should have the authority to make a decision immediately and not have to wait until the member rises in the House and says "Yes, I withdraw". You should be able to decide then and there that this person has violated the Standing Orders of the House, that this individual should be expelled from the House and that the member's privileges should be taken away.
As the House leader mentioned at the beginning of this debate, to withdraw is not enough. Words are withdrawn, but that same evening they are aired on television. It really doesn't make sense, the way the system works now, and we need something else.
Mr. Speaker, I agree it is important to discuss this motion, but it is really incredible that it has come to this, that we have to discuss this kind of motion in Parliament today. In fact, I think it is demeaning.
When I first became a member of this House, I had been practising law for 13 years, and when people were asked who they trusted most in society, in Quebec, we came third. Judges came first, then doctors and then lawyers and notaries. Now I am here, I come last, and I feel insulted because one of the reasons is this matter of unparliamentary language. Of course, it isn't the only reason why we are discredited. Journalists often report what they see, and it isn't always nice. I don't think it is just our behaviour in the House but a number of other factors as well.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. I will not be able to finish what I wanted to say, but I do think that we must change the Standing Orders of the House to allow you to implicate members directly, in other words, to impose your own disciplinary measures.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister who is responsible for the status of women and I appreciate very much many of the comments she made. I think that it is important to acknowledge that there are many times in the House of Commons when members, for a short period of time perhaps, take off their partisan cloaks or partisan hats and do work together. We have done that on issues of concern to women, issues of concern to individual women and issues of concern to women as a whole. We have done that through all parties represented in the House of Commons. That is always a very positive step and it does happen in the House of Commons.
It is important that we reiterate the difference between a lack of decorum, which is what this motion addresses, and racism, sexism, homophobic kinds of responses that we have all heard in the House of Commons. There is a difference. Racism and sexism attack a whole segment of our society, not simply me when a sexist remark is hurled to me in this House. It gives an indication of a member of Parliament's attitude towards all women in society and that is what must be recognized when we are discussing this.
The minister and I are both mothers, we are both parents, and I think we both recognize that when you are raising children, whether it is in your own home, whether you are a teacher in a classroom, whether you are a coach of a minor league sports team, that you impart to children the message that there are consequences for inappropriate behaviour. There must be consequences for inappropriate behaviour. What we have witnessed in the last few weeks is the fact that there have not been those consequences for behaviour that the vast majority of Canadians find offensive.
I want to ask the hon. minister if she will be working within her caucus to get support for the amendments that have been put forward to this government resolution and will she herself be supporting those amendments.


Mary Collins: I have not seen the wording of the amendments so far but I will certainly look at them. I agree with you, I would like to see something that will

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
add greater definition about the consequences, whether it is offensive or abusive language, sexist, racist, behaviour or gestures. I think we have to look at the whole range of those activities.
If that necessitates changing the rules of the House, because obviously there has to be something that applies to all members whether they belong to a party or are independent, I think it has to be done that way. Each one of us, through our own caucuses deals with our situation, so we have to reflect on that within our caucuses as well.
It has never been clear, up to now it has been very fuzzy. As we said, the tradition was that you could just get up and apologize, and everybody thought that that was okay. Well, we are saying now that that is not okay, that is not good enough, because of the very messages that is sending out. I think that is the wrong message, that sometimes great parliamentary traditions need to be changed to recognize the new reality that we live in.
I am not sure if we have all the answers right now, but that is something that we need to work on. I do not see it as a partisan issue, I think it is an issue that, hopefully, all members can work on.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I think in the past few days Canadians have seen that there is a sickness called prejudice living in the halls of this institution and in the hearts of some members. I believe that most of the time it is kept well hidden, but more and more often it escapes, sullying the reputations of this institution as well as all of ourselves.
When one female member of Parliament is ridiculed because of her gender, this is ridicule against all women in this country. When one male member of Parliament is ridiculed because of his colour-he happens to be black-all visible minorities are maligned in this country. As the only other visible minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, I really feel vulnerable.
As I am speaking I must add that I have an accent when speaking English. I wonder if one day others may be tempted to ridicule me because of my accent.
Before the temptation occurs I would like to assure all members that I have no accent in my heart.
Mr. Speaker, I was to pose the same questions as the previous member. Would she support the amendments introduced by my House leader and the House leader of
the New Democratic Party? Of course I realize that she did not have the opportunity to hear the proposed amendments, that was not her fault at all.
Therefore I would like to read the amendments because we can test the principles of an answer in answering questions if the question is posed and the answer is given at the moment. When a question is posed at two o'clock in the morning and you give an answer then you know it is an answer emanating from your heart.
Therefore I would like to read the essence of the amendment. It refers to "including sexist or racist language or gestures directed at other members either during Question Period, debate or otherwise in the Chamber". That is one fundamental essence of that amendment. Part of the New Democratic Party's amendment states that "the party leaders and House leaders will be responsible for the deportment of their caucuses".
Is the minister today prepared to tell the House, having heard the substance of those amendments, whether she believes in them and would support these amendments in a spirit of non-partisanship, as she claims? Having made a decision today will she bring that message to her cabinet and convince cabinet as well? That will be the real test of sincerity and the real test of non-partisanship.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as I understand this motion it is a free vote and we are here as members of Parliament. The amendment that would specifically refer to sexist or racist language would be a good idea. The member might want to consider adding physical characteristics. The member mentioned that sometimes people are ridiculed here because of a physical characteristic or manner of speech and I find that extremely offensive. By ridiculing a person all other people like them will feel that same pain, and that seems very inappropriate. So there might be a few other examples that we might want to add.
Obviously our caucuses have to deal with this and I think that is a given. I would like to see-and I am not sure if it is possible to add to the motion at this point or if it is just going to be something we will discuss later on-that the rules of this House be studied and whatever wording created to address more appropriate responses
October 23, 1991

by the Speaker to these kinds of inappropriate behaviours.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks I want to compliment my colleagues: the hon. Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and the hon. member for Saint-Hubert. I am going to be speaking a little later about the Association of Women Parliamentarians and the sense of warmth we may all be feeling as women members of Parliament today after a particularly successful meeting.
As the seconder of the Liberal amendment I would like to absolutely assure you and the Speaker of the House and the other members who occupy that chair of my full confidence in each one of you, of my respect and admiration for the Speaker of the House, and of my knowledge that some of the behaviour that we have been subjected to in the last little while is not condoned by any one of you. Mr. Speaker, you do take every measure possible to combat and order such behaviour outside this Chamber. I also fully support the New Democratic Party's amendment, particularly its reaffirmation of our support for those who hold the Chair in this House.
When I listened to the remarks of the member for Kingston and the Islands it brought back a memoiy for me when he talked about coming to this Chamber as a child. As he and I are relatively the same age we may even have been here on the same day. I remember I came as a 10-year old when Mr. Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister. Unfortunately there were no Liberal MPs in the province of Nova Scotia so my mother and I were forced to go to friends in the Conservative Party to get tickets.
I remember sitting in that gallery and watching the House and being utterly fascinated, as only a 10-year old could be, and then being a little bit-no, a lot-appalled when I saw members on both sides of the House asleep. I recall one, and I do not remember which side of the House he was on, who even had a newspaper over his face and you could hear his snores in the gallery.
That has been arrested, not to say suppressed, by the advent of television in the House of Commons and we are glad of that. That kind of behaviour is not one that any one of us would appreciate or condone, but it is not
Government Orders
nearly as offensive as that with which we have put up with in the last couple of months.
When I came to this House three years ago next month I remember saying in jest to some of my colleagues: "I feel as if I am locked up in a somewhat unruly boys' school". I meant it at the time, half in jest, wholly in earnest. Now the real downside of being locked up in a boys' school is coming to the fore and it is no longer a joke.
I support very strongly the words of the member for Kamloops who talked about this House setting the tone, in a way, for all Canadians, particularly with regard to the treatment of women, visible minorities, the physically challenged and so on. In other words, the treatment of all of us to all of us and in particular the treatment of those who deserve our best treatment.
There is a tradition in this House. We have heard about that tradition. We heard about it most eloquently from the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Winnipeg Transcona. When the minister, my colleague from New Westminister-Burnaby and my colleague from Saint-Hubert spoke we all agreed on one point. This tradition may have seen, at least in some part, its final days. It may be time to change this tradition to reflect what is happening in the 1990s and what we must have in the 20th century. It is sad in a sense. It is sad that we cannot maintain the British parliamentary tradition of apology and withdrawal and we will all forget it like gentlemen.
Contrary to the member for Kamloops I am not a gentleman and I am not sure I can always behave like a gentleman. I do however want to try to behave like a member of Parliament.
I am angry. I am more angry today than I have been for a long time. It has been a build up of anger over the last several months. It is not just me. Women across this country are angry. People of colour across this country are angry. They are not angry about the day-to-day interruptions. They are not angry about the normal "heckling" in this House. They are angry about sexist and racist language. They are angry about personal attacks and obscene gestures. Those kinds of behaviour are simply unacceptable. They have no place in this House and every one of us in this House knows it.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
I am sorry. It is insufficient after having heard a sexist slur, a racist slur, or a personal attack to say an apology and a withdrawal and all is forgotten. It is not forgotten. It has festered with every one of us in this House. I suspect it has particularly festered with those of us who have over our careers had to deal with such remarks.
These comments go beyond the concept of adversarial debate. Believe me, and I imagine everyone does believe me, when I say I relish adversarial debate.
My colleague from Kingston and the Islands before talked about how he liked to be heckled. Me too. I enjoy it. In the normal course of debate I am disappointed if no one heckles me. I realize that if I was heckled today it would be pretty awful, given the subject matter because this is a very serious topic.
For example my very good friend, for whom I have great respect and admiration, the member for St. John's East, when we happen to show up in the Chamber on the same duty day we enjoy heckling each other. Over the past three years we have had some memorable, interesting and I hope fairly erudite exchanges. I can also say that neither I nor the member for St. John's East would have any problem with those exchanges being read from the pulpit of any religious institution in this land. There might be some things in the content of what I say that might bother certain religious institutions but there would be nothing in the form. This is something we all have to remember.
When we deal with the question of racism and sexism, when we deal with the problem of personal attacks, each one of us knows how much that diminishes us in the eyes of the public. Make no mistake about it, the person diminished the most is the attacker. It does not diminish the victim. Indeed it probably creates an atmosphere of sympathy for the victim. What it does in diminishing the attacker is say: "This is the kind of person who gets elected to the House of Commons".
It is not. This kind of behaviour, this kind of language comes from a very small minority. I cannot emphasize too much the fact that we have in the next little while a window of opportunity in this Chamber. That window of opportunity is for us to show, to lead as an example on a non-partisan basis, for the world at large to see that we take this extremely seriously and will in some form in the very near future come up with recommendations to show how seriously we take this.
The hon. minister mentioned the work of several other committees. One is the informal group advising the Speaker of the House on which she sits, as do I and several other members including the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. It is a fairly broad question we are looking at concerning behaviour and the treatment of women generally on the Hill. We are dealing with a number of things that we are concerned with through the good offices of the Speaker of the House.
I want to talk about this a little. Today we had a meeting of the Association of Women Parliamentarians of Canada. It is a group that for a long time a number of women in this House had worked to get off the ground. I refer particularly to the member for Vancouver East who had tried for quite a while with not a great deal of success. I want to compliment in particular the member for Saint-Hubert, who had some assistance from myself and the minister and the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. This organization came together last year. It has met. It is difficult for all of us. The women of Parliament lead very busy lives as everyone else knows, but we have managed to come together on a number of occasions and we have managed to find common ground. But today marked a watershed because the women of all four parties met, discussed this issue, and there was such a sense of mutual support, such a sense of purpose, and such a sense that we as a group must come forward to the rest of you, our male colleagues, and say the time has come to make some changes.
We talk about the tradition and, yes, traditions are to be revered and to be honoured when they are good traditions, when they are traditions whose life is still germane to both the life of this place and the life of the country.
But, some of the traditions are white male, patriarchal traditions which not only have little to do with the women who sit in this Chamber, but frankly they drive us crazy. Equally frankly, Mr. Speaker, they drive the women of the country crazy. And I think, Mr. Speaker, it is because they are crazy, and it is time to get rid of traditions whose time has passed. It is time to say that we take this seriously. It is time to say this will not be accepted in the Parliament of Canada. I accept and agree most strongly that the leader of each party and the individual caucuses have a role to play. I have no qualms

about that and no qualms about knowing that my leader and my caucus, as I am sure the others, will support this, do support this, and do what is right.
But, Mr. Speaker, because of the confidence that each one of us has in you and your confreres who maintain the order and decorum in this Chamber, it is important that the rules of the Chamber reflect reality, reflect the new realities of both this Chamber and this country. Consequently I know that when we bring forward the changes that we are looking at that we will get support.
In the meantime I support most strongly, and I hope the rest of you will as well, the amendments put forward by the hon. opposition House leader, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Kamloops.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. The time has come to act. Let us show the people of Canada that they have elected mature, caring, and compassionate people who also reflect the views of all their constituents.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Halifax for the comments she made here today. Certainly we all know that she takes a very active part in what she has just spoken about and I commend her for that.
I want to say that I believe this is a very healthy debate taking place in this House. Some people seem to think it should not have happened. Well, I tend to believe that it had to happen. I think that we have come to a situation that something had to give and whether it was the constitutional committees going cross the country, or whatever it was, it brought home to me that something is wrong here. Something is wrong in this great institution and I believe we have to make amendments and adjustments to that.
I know that over the last 20 years great advances have been made by women, by minorities, and things seem to be going along relatively well.
Somewhere along the line in recent times that seemed to come to a stop. There are groups and individuals who
Government Orders
are saying things and doing things to make it less possible for these people to continue to become equal members of society. I think this is wrong.
I for one am not the greatest person watching out for what I say. I think my colleague from Halifax would be the first to recognize that, but I honestly believe that there is room for everybody in this House.
I am certainly one who agrees that things have to change and must change. I am not just talking about the sexist and racist language or gestures within this House, but I believe that other things have to change. We are the people in Canada who are setting an example for the rest of the country.
My God, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot do it, who can? Who do we expect to come to this great institution? As the member for Kingston and the Islands said: "It is 900 years old''. I agree with him. As my colleague from Halifax has said: "I agree that heckling is part of life and public speaking". We go into our constituencies at election times. We go to halls with all of the other members from all the other parties and if you do not get heckled, then you are not in it. I agree this has to be.
When we see the sexist and racist language in this House, I am appalled by it. I say to my colleague from Halifax and I ask her this question. It is a fairly straightforward question. Why do you think these things are happening at this time in our life?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough for his question.
I am a bit reticent because I do have a definite belief and a definite reason, but I also do not want to impute reason in people who are not here to defend themselves. I have said it before so I might as well say it here and put it on the record.
I believe that these comments are based in hate. I believe they are based in fear, in ignorance and I think that we see by history that when disadvantaged groups start to achieve a certain measure of representation and equality, some people who are particularly afraid of a loss of power react in a vicious manner. Unfortunately, I think that is the case.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I just want to raise one point. I appreciate my colleague's speech very much and I agree with her talking about traditions.
Often traditions are used to keep people in their place. I think it is going to be often heard that: "Oh, you cannot change. That is always the way it has been done". I guess as women at the leading edge, we do not accept that. We say that there has got to be a better way of doing things.
At our meeting earlier today at the Association of Women Parliamentarians, I thought it was also interesting that we had a representative of the Senate there. Perhaps we are not supposed to talk about the other place, but they indicated an interest in undertaking similar kinds of reforms. I also heard that from some male colleagues in the Senate. Perhaps the discussion we are having here will have application there as well.
There is another issue that we have talked about informally, and I just want to raise it here as well. How do we help people, our colleagues, become aware of what is offensive, whether sexist, racist or all kinds of language. Does she think it would be hopeful? I do not think you can do a dictionary. I do not think that is the approach. Is there information or some way that we can be sure that colleagues do in fact understand, that they do not get tripped up.
Sometimes there is a difference between the French and the English language of how words can be interpreted. I find there is often a generational gap. Some words that I think are offensive or sexist, much younger women do not have the same feelings about them. I am just wondering if my colleague would have some suggestions of how we get right down to the brass tacks, what we are going to do and can do.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for her questions.
I think there are a couple of things.
In my position as critic for the Status of Women, which I have frequently said, I am not just your critic, Madam Minister, but I am also the critic for these things within my own caucus and I suspect my colleague from the New Democratic Party would agree with me that we have a sort of dual responsibility. One of the things, an is said in an old Nova Scotia phrase, is that you are going to catch
more flies with honey in certain circumstances than you are with vinegar. You have to in getting these things across use a certain modicum of wit and you have to use a carrot and a stick approach.
I do not mean to sound patronizing to my male colleagues because many, many of them on all sides of the House are supportive and terrific and we would not survive in this unruly boy's school without them, but I do think that there needs to be, first of all, the absolute 100 per cent support of the caucus leadership. Second, I think that the recognition of the problem is the biggest thing we have here to deal with. Everyone who is an offender or who is a possible offender has to know what it is we are talking about, because some of them do not. They do not understand. It is not penetrating their consciousness.
A realization, a sensitization perhaps to the issues is what is necessary. How to do that, because I would not want my male colleagues in my own caucus or in any of the other caucuses to think that the women were suddenly going to herd them into a room and lecture them and rap them on the knuckles, although we might if we have to, but we have to bring this to the floor so that they understand as we understand.
We talk a great deal about language in this House in the sense of communication and the duality of this country and the importance of both languages, but there is another importance here that I think we have missed and that is that sometimes the language of men and women, be it French or be it English, is sometimes incomprehensible between one gender and the other. I think learning to bridge those gaps are what we have to do.


Ron J. Duhamel: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for Halifax for her presentation.
I recognize this as an important topic. I am delighted it is being discussed. I recognize its importance as well. I am one of those who is tiying to understand even better than I do.
As you well know, there have been a number of incidents. During the last month there have been two particular incidents that have been in fact embarrassing to the House and many of our constituents have called us. I am referring specifically to the incidents the member for Hamilton East a well as the member for Windsor-St. Clair.
October 23, 1991

I spoke out against both incidents as quickly as I could and I was surprised at how little visibility they got in spite of my attempt to explain what had happened and to in fact condemn what had happened and certainly not in a partisan way.
Basically I had three questions for my colleague. The first one is why did this happen? The member has already attempted to address that, in fact she has been rather insightful and helpful. How and what might we do in order to try to counteract some of those difficulties? There again, the member has addressed that as well.
The third point though, and very briefly, is that I was really quite surprised that some members defended that behaviour. I do not say that unkindly or in a partisan-like kind of way. I just could not believe what I heard. Why in the world would one defend that kind of behaviour when clearly virtually everyone believes that it was despicable and wrong and mean-spirited?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax on a very short reply to that, but I would like to recognize the hon. member for Malpeque. I think she has a question for the hon. member.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief.
I think the answer is that when something like this happens people become defensive and understandably so. It is normal to be defensive in an indefensible position. A number of people, because this is a partisan place, because we are used to being partisan and, as I said, many of us relish in being partisan, I think seriously the people who perhaps reacted in an unacceptable manner by saying that a remark was provoked or by saying that so and so deserved it or so and so did this or so and so did that, were reacting because of the partisanship that I do not deny exists and that I think has to exist. I do not make as harsh a judgment against those people. I was angry at some of those responses. As I say I have been carrying this anger for a while, but I think it is because we all in a sense had our behaviour patterns and our nerves flicked raw by what happened. We are all so upset about it that some reactions were not the reactions that we would want. That is my belief. There could be
Government Orders
another answer, but I think that is mine and I hope it is the right one.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to compliment the hon. member for Halifax on her very thoughtful speech here this afternoon and I want to go on record as supporting the amendments that have been put forth.
Since 1988 when I was elected I know that many of my constituents have spoken to me about the decorum in the House, the type of behaviour that they see on television. That of course includes the sexist, racist and rude comments that they see from time to time.
I certainly agree with them. To me it seems that this type of behaviour shows a total lack of respect for other members. I think being elected to this House to represent Canadians is a real privilege and I think this type of behaviour is below the dignity of this Chamber.
We have had a lot of publicity about recent developments in the House and I think it is certainly a new low of behaviour in the House of Commons at least since I was elected in November 1988.
I want to say that I am pleased we are discussing the issue today. I think it is an important and serious issue. It is one that we need to come to grips with and have to come to grips with if this Chamber is to get the respect of Canadians back again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put those comments on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is nothing further the hon. member would like to say. On debate, the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that it is ironic that we would be having such a civil debate about the use of uncivil language in the House of Commons.
I have been here now for some 17 years. I recall when I sat in a seat somewhere near where the hon. member for Winnipeg North is sitting now. I remember the first occasion when I was not sure that I was going to be able to say what I was thinking and being rather frightened by it. I want you to know how frightened I am at this moment and it is because I might say what I am thinking.

October 23, 1991
Government Orders
This institution is in terrible disrespect and it has earned it. It has earned it not because the rules do not provide for members and how they ought to conduct themselves within the Chamber. Any member who thinks that somehow this is not one of the top issues on the minds of their constituents has not been off of this 15 acres called Parliament Hill in 20 years. Everywhere in the country people are angry at how this place is conducted from within.
What is so unfortunate about that is the other obvious fact from those of us who work here that for most of the time this place works very well. It works well in our debates for most of the time; it works well in committees and in our caucuses and in our specialized committee meetings. What does not work, what is not working and what is marinating this place in the poisonous atmosphere is the environment of Question Period.
We are having a lot of discussion in this particular debate today about sexist language and racist language. I submit to you that I do not think it is a coincidence that the examples held up took place in Question Period or right after. That one 45-minute period of the day has to be reviewed. Those books on the Table have to be opened more frequently. This Chamber has to start to pay attention to such things as the question of jurisdiction, of what ministers do you ask a question to and to make note that a question cannot be argumentative. It is in Beauchesne and Erskine May now.
I simply put to any member of the House: Name the day, name the member when you have not heard an argumentative question and compare this with other parliaments around the world. This is probably the most argumentative question place. Another rule that is in the books of this House is that a question is not to have a preamble. Often you have to hunt for the question in long preambles.
If I can go on to what I think is the most important one, it is against the rules today to impute motives. Yet ever so often, including in today's Question Period, the imputation of motives is there. That, Sir, poisons this place. It poisons this environment. It leads to results we do not want. It is Question Period where we need to focus a large part of our request for change so that the
whole place can start to develop a sense of civility and respect for one another.
Like many other members I became glued to the television set on the Thanksgiving weekend past. It is about the third time in my life that I can remember when I was so fascinated by an event on television that I spent so much time watching. The other time was the Nixon hearings and more recently the situation in the gulf. This time it dealt with the ratification of Clarence Thomas, U.S. candidate to the Supreme Court of the United States. Without any capacity to judge who was right or wrong, Clarence Thomas or Rita Hill, of all of the messages and there are many, all worthy of developing speeches about racism and sexism and so on, the one that came out so absolutely clear was the utter destructive damage of the innuendo. One of those people is not telling the truth. No other fact can be drawn from that.
We are set up two sword lengths apart, established in a combative kind of a forum. The architectural design of the House does not lead to group decisions toward proper policy making as we are set up to be combative one with another. Innuendoes fly back and forth for 45 minutes that are destructive to people and destructive to this institution.
I am one who contends that the mood that is in Canada today, the negative mood that is so far below what this country so blessed with education, resources and opportunity deserves is there because most Canadians see this place as the mirror of themselves.
This is Canada. This Peace Tower is a symbol of Canada. The House of Commons is a symbol of Canada. When it conducts itself in ways unacceptable to all, then clearly Canadians are demeaned and belittled when their chief national institution is behaving in such a way.
We have to train ourselves to debate issues and not people. I believe we must do a much better job of re-examining the present rules we have for Question Period and make sure that they are obeyed. When it comes to the question of minorities, I guess I have only a few small examples of what it is like to be in that situation. The most dramatic example was either in 1960 or 1961 when I had the lifetime privilege of being in a forum in the Cow Palace in San Francisco with 22,000 persons, almost all of whom were black. Salted among
October 23, 1991

that group were just a very few white persons to listen to an address by Martin Luther King.
I remember so clearly one part of Martin Luther King's speech when he said: "The white people ask us to wait just a little longer. We have already waited for 200 years, how much longer should we have to wait?" The whole audience rose and cheered. I was a bit like a non-Catholic in the Catholic church. I did not know whether to genuflect, sit down or stand. I did not know whether to cheer or not, I was white. I could not sit there because that would be smug.
All of a sudden I was in this dichotomy of a minority and not knowing what to do with one's sense of behaviour. Therefore most of that night I was in a three quarter crouch halfway up and halfway down trying to compromise. In my heart of hearts, I felt the cause that was being spoken for and was so supportive of the views being expressed by Mr. King.
I do not subscribe to that little adage that says: "There is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us, that there is no need for any of us to complain about the rest of us". The truth of the matter is that this place must by the demand of Canadians revisit itself and then go and wash.
I submit that while there has been a focus today on the issues of sexist language and racial language, this House must demand that we return to those days of 15 years ago when Question Periods imposed that there would be no long preambles. It imposed that there would be no innuendo. It imposed that there would be no imputation of motives because when that takes place the environment is poisoned. The whole air of what we are about is destroyed and then we get into the personal attacks. Of course no one can excuse that and of course no one ought to be able to somehow rise and justify that it came out of the mood of the moment.
The tap root of this is that it is the mood of the moment that is causing us not to discipline ourselves.
I say that this is a matter for which I think we can go some significant distance in trying to bring about the kind of respect this institution so justly deserves and that Canadians expect. I assert that if we do not give them
Government Orders
what they are looking for, they will keep changing their members of Parliament over and over again until they get what they want. Canadians will not accept a House of Commons that behaves the way this one is at the present time and has for the last few years.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment on the member's statement. I did not realize it before now but I guess Crowfoot must be a very left wing kind of place because the member and I agree totally on the matter.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment to indicate how I enjoyed the member's debate just delivered. It was a splendid speech. I am reminded of the editorial in a medical newsletter many, many years ago: "More reappraisal, less agonizing".


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion we have today I have to say that it is a motion with all the virtues and nobody can-

Mr. Speaker, no one could vote against such a motion, but I wonder if we will solve the problem. If the Government House Leader really wants to solve the problem of discipline and decorum facing us in this House, I wonder whether there would be another way to go about it. Does the hon. member who just spoke really believe that after a day of debate, which we have not yet finished, we can solve this problem? Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity some other day to speak on this motion. With my experience as whip, I would have something to say. With a day or two-I don't know how much time we will take to debate this motion-we can make great speeches, but what will it solve? By talking to one another- Just making a short speech to have us observe some decorum again would be too easy, Mr. Speaker.
You are indicating to me that it is seven o'clock. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we will just have to carry it on. It is seven o'clock.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 49)
[Stage Direction]
++YEAS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 10,1991, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act so that taxpayers whose income may fluctuate from one year to the next would be able to average their income over five years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the order adopted on Thursday, October 10, 1991, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on Private Member's Motion M-81.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]

And the division bells having rung:
Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a vote on a private member's motion. We have started to develop the habit of voting by rows on either side of the House on both the positive and the negative side of the motion.
I think it would be appropriate if we were to do that, to stand in that fashion rather than in the fashion in which we stand on government legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement that the division be taken by rows?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is at this point that I should like to remind hon. members that the voting will begin with those members who are in favour of the motion in the rows to my right, to rise by row. Then would those members in rows to my left rise.
Later I will ask those members who are opposed to the motion in the rows to my right to rise and end with those members opposed to the motion in the rows to my left.
Members
Althouse	Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Baker
Barrett	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blaikie
Breaugh	Brewin
Callbeck	Catterall
Clancy	de Jong
Dingwall	Duhamel
Edmonston	Finestone
Fisher	Foster
Gagliano	Gardiner
Grey (Beaver River)	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hunter	Johnson
Kaplan	Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacWilliam	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Mitges	Murphy
Nystrom	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parker
Phinney	Proud
Ricard	Rideout
Riis	Robinson
Saint-Julien	Shields
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich	Taylor
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Vanclief
Waddell	Walker
Whittaker	Wood-66
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjorason
Blais
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cook
Cote
Della Noce Dobbie Duplessis Epp
Felt ham Fontaine Friesen
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Horner
Hughes
James
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Mayer
McDermid
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Charest
Collins
Corbett
Darling
Desjardins
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Hawkes
Holtmann
Hudon
Jacques
Joncas
Kempling
Langlois
Layton
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Manley
McCreath
McLean
October 23, 1991

Merrithew
Nicholson
Plourde
Pronovost
Reimer
Robitaille
Schneider
Soetens
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Van De Walle
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Winegard -100
Nault
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt Vezina Vincent Wilbee -Assiniboia)


PAIRED -MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
DeBiois	Greene
Marleau	Stewart
Wappel	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that there have been some consultations across the floor of the House and I believe you will find unanimous consent to deal very expeditiously with all three readings of a Private Member's bill which has proceeded through the Senate, Bill S-3, an act to amend the the act of incorporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada.
I would seek permission to briefly speak to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN CANADA
Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill S-3, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is part of the understanding in the House that I will speak briefly on the bill and I am in a position to do so because the bill has proceeded through the Senate, was sent by the Senate to a commit-
Private Members' Business
tee, was spoken to by representatives of the church who have devoutly sought the amendments which are before the Chamber, which have complied with all of the requirements for amendment both internal to the proceedings of the church and corresponding with the requirements of this Parliament for the amending of legislation.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Christian denomination well-known across Canada. It has been present in Canada for well over 100 years and was incorporated by an act of this Parliament. So amendments to its charter to bring it in keeping with modern times, in this case, to provide for a board of directors and to provide an expeditious procedure for establishing by-laws for regulating the affairs of the church are properly before us.
I would like only to add, on a personal note, the tremendous satisfaction that I feel in acting as a sponsor for this bill, an honour which I share with a former colleague in the other place, the late Senator David Croll, who was the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
I have, therefore, the honour to present this bill and I thank my colleagues for agreeing to an expeditious procedure which is, however, justified in the light of the consideration by the Senate.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

David Charles Dingwall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should extend
certain provisions and benefits of the Older Workers Adjustment
Program to include those many Canadians employed in the
construction industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to this private members' motion which has particular effects in the constituency I represent in this House, Cape Breton- East Richmond.

October 23, 1991
Private Members' Business
For quite some time, individuals involved in the construction industry have been calling for the active assistance and participation of the Government of Canada in order to become part and parcel of what is known in Canada as the Program for Older Workers Adjustment.
I wish to indicate to the House what the Older Workers Adjustment Program is all about and briefly to give a chronology of the things that have happened since 1984 and to submit my arguments in summation as to why I believe the Government of Canada in concert with the province of Nova Scotia should consummate an agreement on this important matter.
The Program for Older Workers Adjustment was designed to help long service older workers across the country who have no prospects for re-employment following major, permanent lay-offs. The program acknowledges the lengthy contribution of these men and women to the development of our country.
It should be noted that this is a federal-provincial partnership. The federal government is an active participant and not a mere bystander in this particular program. Its effective date was to take place with regard to lay-offs occurring on or after January 1,1988, as being eligible for consideration.
The requirements for the older worker in order for him or her to be eligible for the program is that they must be between the ages of 55 and 64 and have been in the labour force for 15 out of the last 20 years with a minimum of 750 hours worked annually, have no alternative job opportunities, no prospects for re-employment through job training or mobility, are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants resident in Canada.
The construction association in Cape Breton, known as the Building Trades Council represents an umbrella group of the construction industry trade unions which numbers about 14 in total. For the record, I would like to share those with you: International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Labourers' International Union of Operating Engineers; International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing Steamfitting
and Pipefitting Industiy of the United States and Canada; Sheet Metal Workers' International Association; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers; International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; Millwrights and Machine Erectors; International Union of Elevator Constructors; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. Those are the 14 unions that come under the umbrella of the Building Trades Council.
I have had the pleasure in my term as a member of Parliament to interact with numerous individuals involved in the labour movement. However, it has been a fortunate experience for me to be able to deal with the Building Trades Council because of its presidents, Mr. Ed McNeil, Dan MacDonald and other individuals who have been associated with it over the years.
In 1984 the Conservative government was duly elected in the federal election and shortly thereafter in 1985 in a statement made by the Minister of Finance a sum of money was set aside, approximately $200 million, for a program for older workers' adjustment. Shortly thereafter this organization, in concert with myself, made representations to the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia to make construction workers across the country part and parcel of this particular program. In particular I was advocating that those construction workers on the island of Cape Breton and in those particular unions become part and parcel of this plan.
Between 1985 and 1989 I have raised this issue repeatedly on the floor of the House of Commons, as my colleagues will attest to. I have asked the minister numerous questions. He has been forthcoming and said that there would be some dialogue and some negotiations between the two levels of government to see whether or not something could be consummated.
In 1990, just over a year ago, the Government of Nova Scotia indicated to the Building Trades Council that now, after almost five years of hard representations, it was coming to the view that perhaps it might be able to provide some assistance and agree to undertake with the

federal government a program for older workers' adjustment in that province.
On October 11, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of State for Transport said: "We are not able to amend the current program for older workers immediately. Hopefully there may be some other measures that can be taken for construction workers in Cape Breton". That is where it died. Nothing concrete has been done by government representatives since it was first introduced in 1985.
Is there a need? In my district and in the adjoining districts there are approximately 4,500 individuals who are involved in the construction trades industry. Upwards of 85 per cent of those men and some women are unemployed with no prospect of retraining for meaningful jobs and no prospect for any type of employment in that particular province.
Think about it. You are 54 or 55 years of age, you have worked as a bricklayer, you have worked as a carpenter, you have worked as a labourer for 25 to 35 years, and you try to seek meaningful employment when the economy is at its knees and while 84 per cent of your colleagues are unemployed. What do you do? The hard reality is that there are no employment alternatives on the island of Cape Breton. There are no meaningful prospects of retraining for other employment. There are a good 500 to 600 individuals of those 4,500 who would be readily available and eligible for a program for older workers, yet the governments seem intent on not proceeding with that particular initiative.
There is a human face to this tragedy, a real human face. Lawyers like to talk about the Constitution and they like to talk about the provisions of discrimination, but there is no group in our society who are more discriminated against than the older worker. If you are 54 years of age and are a labourer or a bricklayer your prospects for meaningful employment with a company are basically nil, if the truth be known.
The building trades in my district put forward a number of questions to their membership. They asked whether these older workers can obtain enough work to qualify for a worth-while pension through their respective unions. The answer is no.
Can they keep up with the fast pace in the construction industry today as an older worker? The answer is no. Can
Private Members' Business
they plan some easy times in the twilight of their lives? No. Can they qualify for the program for older workers adjustment? No. Can they retrain and have opportunities for other work? No.
Can they develop a "nobody wants me, nobody cares about me" attitude? Yes. Can they become reclusive? Yes. Can they develop physical and mental problems? Yes. Can they become suicidal? Yes. Can they increase medical costs to governments, both provincially and federally? Yes. Can their life-span be shortened? Yes. Can their cherished families be disrupted? Yes.
I know many of these individuals and they are good, solid, decent, dignified citizens who in their older years want to have the advantage of having a source of income in order to provide for their families and their loved ones, to live with a measure of dignity in terms of paying their mortgage and providing the necessities of life and the amenities you and I take for granted on a regular basis.
These are not crackpot individuals, incarcerated in jails, who have abused children or other individuals. They are the individuals who are involved in minor hockey and baseball. They are the ones who go out and raise money for the Cancer Society. They are the ones who volunteer their time at fire departments. They are the men and women who add meaning to the lives of others by visiting the sick and the elderly in hospitals. They are what I would call top quality Canadians and what they ask of their governments, both federal and provincial, is to be allowed to have a sense of dignity.
The provincial government took five years and the prospect of a provincial election to understand the seriousness of their request only to have the door slammed by the Minister of Labour in Ottawa. In fairness to the Minister of Labour he made himself available to meet with the Construction Building Trades Union and it representatives, but he slammed the door on them with the facetious, specious argument that construction workers cannot be included in the program for older workers' adjustment across the country because it would be too expensive.
The Government of Nova Scotia said clearly in a letter to the Minister of Labour that if it could not be done under the existing program it would amend the program under the terms of the legislation in order to have these

Private Members' Business
individuals qualify. The Government of Canada slammed the door the third time.
I am not asking for $600 million to fund a project in a sensitive political area of this country. I am not seeking to bankroll a Crown corporation. What I am seeking on behalf of these men and these women in my district and through the island of Cape Breton is a sense of dignity for them and their families.
If the president of Petro-Canada, if the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation or the CBC or VIA Rail can get a fat-sized bonus, upwards to $80,000 in some instances, why can't you afford to pay $1,500 to $1,700 a month for a man or a woman who has contributed 30 years of their productive life to a community?
What is the problem? The problem as I see it is one of political will, of acknowledging, of supporting those men who have made a significant contribution. They are not lawyers, they are not doctors, they are not business people. But they are good solid citizens. Is it not high time that the Parliament of Canada acknowledged that?
Instead, what do we have? We have what I believe is an uncaring government. We have the likes of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would love to debate that minister on the rock in Cape Breton, or in his own constituency. He had the unmitigated gall to stand in the House earlier today and on previous days in the House of Commons and make reference to Bill C-21. These construction workers in Cape Breton were told by the Government of Canada "Go talk to Dingwall, go talk to MacLellan, go talk to LeBlanc, and, if we get Bill C-21 through there is probably $100 million or so to provide a cushy pension for you".
Bill C-21 went through, with my opposition Mr. Speaker, but there are no pensions, there is no program for older workers or adjustment for the construction worker in Cape Breton.
What a mean-spirited argument to put forward to people who are in desperate need.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is somewhat limited, but I have to say to you and to members of this House that these are the kinds of issues that make Canadians very angry, when they see the President of Canada Post
closing post offices and getting a bonus, terminating VIA Rail and getting a bonus, laying off people and getting a bonus. You work for 30 or 35 years of your life in a particular trade, contribute to your community, going to your church, contributing to your church, paying your taxes in order to educate your children, and what do you have? You have the parliamentary secretary over there talking about bingo. That is what he is talking about, bingo.
There is nothing wrong with bingo, Mr. Speaker, nothing wrong at all. That is the kind of attitude that those Canadians are confronted with by this government, and it is not fair. It is not fair. Is it any wonder the country is angry and mad, when those kinds of things can go on, when a bricklayer who may live in Glace Bay or a labourer who lives in Reserve or a painter who may live in Sydney, Nova Scotia, can not get the benefits of a program which was put down by the Government of Canada to assist those who are in real economic need.
I want to tell you again, Mr. Speaker, that it is not fair. It is not fair to those men, to their families or to the industry itself. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary would reflect on the desire to fulfil the need in his remarks and say to those individuals that "I will seriously review with the federal minister to open the door again and with the provincial minister in the province of Nova Scotia to open the door there in order to provide a pool of money and benefits for those who are involved in the construction industry".
Let us remember, 85 per cent of those individuals in the construction industry in that part of Nova Scotia are unemployed. Five hundred to 600 could avail themselves of that program today. The provincial government is on record as supporting them and wants to be a participant. It would even go so far as to amend the understanding between the federal and provincial governments in order to include them.
They are men and women who have contributed greatly to our society. There is no hope of retraining for other jobs because there are no other jobs. The need has clearly been demonstrated. If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, talk to your friends in the Upper House. The former premier of the province of Nova Scotia, a Toiy premier, has even alluded to and concurred in the fact there is a real need there.
October 23, 1991

I ask the parliamentary secretary in good faith with great sincerity on behalf of those individuals, will he not now do the honourable thing and open the door, proceed with negotiations and consummate an agreement which will be effective in delivering a program for older workers adjustment to the construction workers in my district, in the island of Cape Breton and elsewhere in other provinces where they may want to be negotiated.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the motion from the member from Nova Scotia. It proposes that the government extend certain provisions and benefits of the program for older workers adjustment to include Canadians employed in the construction industry.
I should mention from the outset that this program does treat the construction industry like all others.
The argument or debate that was carried forward by the previous speaker was a very emotional one. I am sure it is one that caught the attention of all the people back home and I guess that was what it was meant for. This is an emotional topic. There is not one of us in this House who would not want to see any particular program extended to take in all considerations, all groups of people.
The POWA, the adjustment program that we are speaking about, was brought in by this government, not the other side of the House. We brought it in because we recognize the problem. There is not a riding in this country that has not been affected by the lay-off of older workers. My riding is the same as yours, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you it is almost punishing for a member of Parliament to witness that in their own riding. Many of these workers cannot be retrained. They are beyond the point of being retrained.
As the member mentioned, you can see the disappearance of their livelihood, the disappearance of their whole life. We do not want to see that happen. We want to see this program continue.
The fact is that it is working very well. Can it work better? Obviously it can. At the end of the day it requires dollars to make this program work. The member mentioned the $200 million that was put into the program originally and it was put in by this government. It is a
Private Members' Business
federal-provincial program. I think the member should have mentioned the percentages and how it plays out in terms of dollars. The federal government contributes 70 per cent of the cost of that program, and we do work in co-operation with the provinces, no question about it. If there is an individual need in a particular province and they want to bring it to our attention, we are more than willing to look at it and to work with them co-operatively to solve the problem.
I want to go through the criteria for the individuals who are on that program. I think it points out very, very clearly that we are sensitive to that problem as a government. To be eligible for benefits, workers from a designated lay-off, and it is very important that I use that term-Mr. Speaker, if I could have your attention for a minute. When the gentleman across the aisle spoke every one of us over here had the respect to listen. We did not shout, we did not try to scream him down, and I would expect the same courtesy to focus on the speakers on this side of the House.
The key words are "designated lay-off". With a designated lay-off for the workers to qualify they must be between the ages of 55 and 64 at the time of the lay-off. They must have worked a minimum of 750 hours per year for 15 years of the preceding 20 years. In addition, candidates must be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants and they must have no alternative job opportunities.
One of the things that is confusing the member opposite is the fact that he mentions construction workers. He is speaking about 4,000 to 4,500 construction workers. The real problem is unemployment itself. Now, he can blame the government for that and I guess we have got to take our share of responsibility. But out of that 4,500 workers-if you could give me just a minute.
Could I get unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to continue?


Mr. James:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is unanimous consent to carry on the full hour to 25 after? There are a number of speakers who want to speak.


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


Some hon. members:: No.

October 23, 1991
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 24,1991