1991-11-22

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting the acquisition, administration and disposition of real property by the Government of Canada, as reported (with amendment) from Legislative Committee F.
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to lead the debate on third reading of this bill.
Bill C-3 is the cornerstone for a new regime of real property management by the government. This new regime will improve services to the public. It will improve internal government efficiencies and it will bring real property conveyancing by the government into the modem era.
I would like to take a few moments to summarize some of the main features of this bill. First, Bill C-3 is designed to be the primary authority for real property
transactions by the federal government. The existing legislation in this area no longer creates a unified framework for real property transactions. Bill C-3 would consolidate the three main real property statutes into one act, with one framework and one set of rules.
Second, Bill C-3 would simplify and modernize real property management and conveyance practices by the government. The current statutes have been essentially unchanged for some time and do not allow the use of modem real property methods or practices. Even a transaction involving a small piece of property can take much longer to complete than would be normal in the private sector. Bill C-3 would improve this situation.
This bill would also permit the use of conveyancing practices commonly used within the private sector, thus making it easier to deal with the federal government. We will be able to carry out a real property transaction in a province in a way familiar to the people of that province. This will make transactions by the government not only more efficient but also simpler and more understandable by the public.
Bill C-3 has been designed so that it would not affect real property governed by special program legislation such as the National Parks Act or the Territorial Lands Act. Bill C-3 is a residual statute and its provisions would be overridden by specialized legislation.
Finally this bill would clarify the role of Treasury Board to manage more effectively real property conveyancing. It would verify the role of custodian departments to undertake real property transactions more effectively and it would finally clarify the role of the Department of Justice to ensure quality control in transactions. Real property managers in the government will be given more direct responsibility in real property transactions and will be held accountable for the results.
In conclusion, I believe this bill will lead to both increased efficiency in government operations and improved service to the public. I would like to thank members of the House for their co-operation on this bill and request that the bill be passed.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Mills:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a short question on this bill before my colleague begins to speak.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That would require consent of the House.
We feel that we hire good managers in the regions. There are rules in this bill whereby the departments are finally responsible for the land or property. They have to offer it first if it is not used for their own policy reasons to the provincial government, then to the municipal government, and eventually to the general public.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, this is a complex bill. It is a technical bill. I confess to the minister that I do not understand every aspect of it.
Rules are set. These are guidelines, but decisions are taken in the regions and the proper procedure of going for bids and so on and so forth is fully respected. Basically we are going, apart from some restrictions to give the first go at it to the other governments, with the best methods used in the private sector.

My concern about this bill is this. Who would ultimately have the final say on the disposition of property assets of the government. Does this bill basically put a more dominant position to the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board minister, or does it decentralize the disposition of lands and give the line departments that may have land as assets the individual capability to do these dispositions on their own?
If that is the case, my concern would be who or what mechanism is in place that would audit and make sure that in the disposition of Crown land or Crown assets the taxpayer is getting fair market value. For example, if I decide to sell a piece of real estate, and I am not sure of its value, I get three independent appraisals to make sure because I am not an expert in land that the real dollar value is there.
Could the minister please take a couple of minutes to explain that to me?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a very vital and a very central question to this bill.
In the past Treasury Board has played a very centralized role, and part of the problems we had in managing these areas throughout Canada was that everything had to go through Ottawa.
The purpose of the bill is indeed to decentralize it. Treasury Board maintains of course its over-all responsibility but sets the pattern according to which these transactions have to be executed and stipulates the methods that will be used to judge the results of the transaction and precisely the kinds of interrogation the hon. member had. Therefore this bill is a considerable improvement.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, after our short meeting in committee, we were readily convinced that changes were necessary in the way the federal government sells and disposes of property. When I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, I found that when letters patent had to be transferred, we had to wait months and months because of the research involved. It was very frustrating for people to have to wait so long, all because of a lot of what I would call red tape.
As my colleague from Toronto pointed out, this is a highly technical bill, and we certainly do not claim to know every aspect of this legislation. I spoke with the minister's senior officials who were very knowledgeable, but there is a limit to what one can explain and absorb.
It was explained to us that these changes had been made in several Commonwealth countries and that we had to take advantage of the latest developments in communications and information processing. I am sure the department was right to propose these changes, but I would like to point out that the Auditor General makes annual reports, and many people are concerned about the way the government is proceeding. Some people feel their rights have been violated. Here in Parliament our role is above all to ensure that everything is transparent. Not only must everything be transparent, it must be seen to be so.

On this particular part I would like to know the minister's opinion and if the officers of his department could look into it.

The final area of concern has to do with the lack of an effective oversight mechanism under the bill that would ensure all transactions involving a federal real property were in fact above reproach.
In this regard some have called for the establishment of a central depository where all instruments used by the federal government for property transfers and acquisitions would have to be deposited and would be open to the public. If a depository of this nature were established, information on property transactions would be readily available and would thus guard against the types of questionable deals that are still routinely uncovered by the Auditor General of Canada in his annual report to the House of Commons.
What I am asking the minister is: there must be a mechanism whereby we could avoid where humanly possible 99.9 per cent of the problems that could arise concerning the transparency of the operations. That essentially is the only criticism that I can make of the whole thing.
Like I said, it is a highly technical bill. We cannot pretend that we know every aspect. It is impossible.


An hon. member:: Explain transparency.


Mark Joseph Assad: Like my colleague mentions, can the minister explain how he sees the transparency of this bill as it is now? I am sure he would be open to a few suggestions from his department-they are veiy knowledgeable people-to assure everyone that all transactions would be literally, if humanly possible, above reproach.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The minister does not have to reply, since this is third reading, and usually there is no provision for questions and answers. However, if the House agrees and the minister wishes to answer the question, of course the Chair cannot object. The President of the Treasury Board.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member indeed raises a very valid question.
We have to take it for granted that we expect this process to be above board and not to lead one to believe that all kinds of deals can be made. It is going to be a very
Government Orders
open process. The hon. member knows what was explained in committee.
We are proceeding to organize a better report mechanism. There are thousands of small transactions to be taken on. Still the member raises a very valid question. One must have access to the information. It must be made available as readily as possible so that people can satisfy themselves that these transactions have been open. We will have directors of real federal property management who will set up these systems so that we will have the best possible available information in the quickest possible time.
The process changes we bring with this bill will make it much easier for members and for anybody else who needs access to have access to these transactions. They will be much more open. The process will be much more public and the rules will be well known. They will be regionally open so that should any problem arise at the regional level, instead of having to go through Ottawa which is very costly for many of our citizens, they will have access regionally and eventually nationally, of course, inasmuch as we can physically to it.
We have also explained that to get all of this we will work together. It may take some time to centralize it. We have to see the rapport qualite- prix. It is a very costly enterprise.
The principle is that these transactions are open, accessible and of course are dealt with at market value, apart from arrangements that are made with local municipal or provincial governments. Even then our policy is to get the real value. There are occasions, as we have experienced in committee, where for local regional development reasons, we may make another arrangements. That again is public.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise to put our party's position on this bill. I am doing so as much on behalf of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie who has been our spokesperson on this bill from the beginning as myself. He is unable to be here today but did not want to delay further disposition of this bill on that account and has asked me to speak to it.
I may say that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie particularly asked me to congratulate the minister and his officials, as well as the members of the committee, for some very effective work in coming up with solutions

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
to some of the problems that concerned him and concerned our party. We are very supportive of the open attitude that the minister has taken in this particular bill.
Originally we had some concerns about the discretion which the bill gave to the Governor in Council, to the cabinet. The government responded by accepting an amendment to section 4 that would have the effect of limiting, to some extent, the authority or direction of the Governor in Council to opt out of the provisions of the bill. That amendment was originally proposed by the member for Sault Ste. Marie and he is very happy that the government has accepted it.
In the committee, the minister and officials made a number of commitments that are also important to the effective operation of the bill and to the point that has already been discussed in debate. We are concerned that federal government property transactions should be completely open and above board and that the public should understand what is happening with respect to federal properties. Very specifically, as I understand it and the minister I hope can confirm for the record of Hansard, that Treasury Board will only recommend an Order in Council under clause 16(1) in two situations; first, if the transaction is possible under the regulations, but a minister feels the authorization of the Governor in Council is more appropriate or second, if the transaction is not covered by existing regulations. These points of policy by Treasury Board are very important and very useful and they assist us in giving the support which we do to this bill.
be available now so that the public will be aware of what federal lands there are.
I think the next step in the process, and again the minister has mentioned this, will be for the transactions themselves to be open so that the public can see that the dealing with federal government lands is entirely above board. We certainly acknowledge and support the efforts of the minister's department and Treasury Board to proceed effectively in this direction.
Having said that, I can then make the point that on the understanding of these commitments from the minister, our party is pleased to support this bill as a useful step forward in simplifying and making more modem federal land transactions.
Let me not finish without making one other point. It is a point which I made during second reading. I would encourage the minister to put this on his agenda for the next step in dealing with federal property. I know to some extent this is happening in any event with the inventory, but the point is this.
The federal government over the years has accumulated large parcels of property. In many cases the original purpose for the acquisition may have passed or the use of the property may have changed. There are new needs in our communities across Canada for land, particularly in urban centres. I am very conscious of my own constituency of Victoria, where there are a number of parcels of federal land which could serve very well in a new way: social housing and parks, for example.
The minister made a further commitment to a communication campaign to ensure that the public is aware of the accessibility and availability of a directory of federal real property. I understand it should be ready by the end of the year. This means that approximately 25,000 to
30,000	properties will be listed along with basic descriptive data, the location, use, size, responsible department or corporation and that the campaign will include the distribution of the directory to various federal offices across the country, so that the public can have access to it. The government is offering to provide the directory to all of the land registration offices in Canada for public access and as well, as has already been referred to by the minister, the finalizing of a central inquiry system to respond to requests from the public for information from the directory. This inventory of federal land will at least
Indeed, the Department of National Defence, as I referred at second reading, has a large parcel of land in an area called Rocky Point. It needs some of it but it is very hard for us in the area to imagine within its lifetime ever needing the rest of it. The department of course is going to say: "Oh yes, we may need this". It seems to me it is a function of Treasury Board to challenge the proposition that this land is needed and further, that there be built into this by Treasury Board some form of public consultation to identify this type of land.
The federal government generally, and particularly when it gets into the outer reaches of this country, in far-flung places like Victoria, the decision makers in Treasury Board are not as sensitive or aware of this. If there were some form of public process which would
November 22, 1991

permit Treasury Board to consult the public to identify possible land in an area that might be put to other uses, it would then permit perhaps even some form of public review which would require officials such as in this case, the Department of National Defence, almost publicly to defend or justify the use of their plans for the land. Then we may begin to move into much more efficient and effective use of government land.
Government land is an important heritage. It cannot be squandered quickly at some bright idea on a given day. With that caveat there are lands which can be used much more effectively than they have been. It would be very important that the government be prepared to do that.
There is one other caveat. There will be situations, and again I can think of one in my own constituency, where the federal government cannot use the land but other local public authorities can, for fundamentally the same purpose that the federal government may wish to use it. That may be an example where Treasury Board should not be insisting on full market value for land but should be prepared to acknowledge alternate public uses as something that the federal government is prepared to contribute to and would like to see some assistance in.
Therefore, with those extra comments I would repeat that our party is prepared and happy to support this bill. We congratulate the minister and all members of the committee for the work they have done on this. This bill is better for it. It is a good example of how this Parliament can work when it puts its mind to it.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very positive comments. I believe that this bill has, indeed, been improved by the work of both the Liberal opposition and the NDP and it has shown, as the hon. member has indicated, what this Parliament can do.
This is a very, very difficult, complex bill and with the permission of my colleagues I would like to thank the people of Treasury Board who have been working on this. This is a very difficult issue. They have been working at this for years and they have come up with
Government Orders
what I think is probably the best bill possible to manage real property in the public environment. I think they deserve to be complimented for this work.
As for the commitments which were made in committee, I am glad to confirm that these commitments are there and we will abide by them. As far as making better use of property, particularly in urban areas, we are working on that very actively. Indeed this is a responsibility. We have to make sure that the land which is owned by Canadians is put to the best possible use. I am glad to report that we are already working on major projects in the British Columbia area as well as in the Toronto area.
These local authorities are frequently faced with very heavy pressures and it is our duty to co-operate with them whenever we can. Through good management of our real property, we can do that.
I would like to thank all the members for their co-operation, the civil servants who have worked on this difficult bill and for the support they have given us.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I guess what I am doing is replying to the comment, if I have the procedure point at hand. I suppose I should permit the minister to have the last word but that comes very difficult to me and I will not do it.
First of all, I would just like to see if I can have the minister speak to one point. I wonder if we can have unanimous consent when I have finished for the minister to reply to a point which I should have put in the form of a question. I can now be quite specific about it.
The member missed an earlier dialogue, so we are playing a little loose here because we think we are going to finish this very quickly.
The question I had on my mind was this. Not only is there the kind of situation I referred to in general, of the federal government when it did not need its land, being prepared to transfer it to local authorities for less than market value. My suggestion is that it should be seen as a different case than the transfer to private uses and in that context that Treasury Board should be prepared to consider, in effect, a public contribution or take into account the public use in assessing the value.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
I wonder if the minister could indicate whether there has been any thought given to Crown corporations and, specifically, the post office in this respect. We know that across Canada a number of post office buildings are being disposed of by Canada Post. Is it the policy of Treasury Board to consider the disposition of these properties at lower than market value or even for $1 provided they remain in public use.
I would also like to pay particular tribute to the work of the member for Sault Ste. Marie who worked very hard on this bill and made a very positive contribution to it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to explain to the hon. member for York South-Weston that we are in a situation right now where things are totally reversed. The hon. minister was making comments after the intervention by the hon. member for Victoria. As we had House consent earlier and the hon. minister did answer questions after his speech, I think it would be only correct to allow the hon. minister to ask a question after the hon. member for Victoria spoke. There should be time for me to recognize the hon. member on a brief question which should be addressed to the hon. member for Victoria.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility as managers of this land for Canadians that we get the best possible value. Special cases can always be looked at. However, we generally work together with the authorities to achieve the best possible use, especially in urban areas. Our policy is always to get the best possible market values. However, there are occasions when other arrangements are made.
As for the government, whenever it wants to have access to new buildings it must pay the price. It has to manage that in a balanced way.
We examine each case as to its value and will tiy to be as helpful as possible given the very limited resources we have.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a general question about the disposition of publicly owned land or publicly owned assets.
We know that the provincial NDP government in Ontario has sold the public interest in the SkyDome. The taxpayers of Ontario had an interest in the SkyDome. It
was revealed this week that the proceeds of that particular sale would be used to reduce the deficit. In order to accommodate some fiscal responsibilities that the provincial New Democratic Party self-authored it is selling off public assets. The treasurer of the province of Ontario has indicated that it is appropriate to sell off assets-


An hon. member:: At one-seventh the value.


John V. Nunziata: -at one-seventh the value, as my friend from Broadview-Greenwood indicates, to deal with a short-term financial problem.
Does the hon. member for Victoria agree with his comrade, Bob Rae, in Ontario that the selling of publicly owned real estate is an appropriate way to deal with short-term fiscal responsibilities? Can he indicate whether this bill deals with where the money should go once public land is sold? Is there anything in here that would restrict where the money can go after a publicly owned asset is sold?
In my view it is wrong. It is penny wise and pound foolish to sell off real estate or assets to deal with some short-term financial problem. Once you sell it, and if you sell it at a loss as the provincial NDP government is doing with the SkyDome, it is gone forever. We all know that real estate only appreciates in the long run.
Does the member for Victoria agree generally with the concept of selling off the family assets to deal with a short-term financial problem?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for York South-Weston maintains his reputation for managing to interject into a non-partisan and useful discussion of a bill a veiy highly partisan point that arises in a different jurisdiction.
The member says this is not a tea party. I understand that and I understand the member trying to score a point in Ontario politics. Perhaps he would prefer to be a member in the opposition of the Ontario legislature than to be a member of the opposition here.
The Ontario government is trying to deal with the terrible mess left in Ontario by the Liberal government of Ontario. The Liberals left a huge, huge deficit and failed to deal with the festering sore of debt on the SkyDome. The Government of Ontario moved efficiently and effectively to deal with that. It has cut the losses.
November 22, 1991

It is a very good deal for the people of the province of Ontario, one I am sure they are grateful for.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, when I got up this morning and headed to the House I actually had no intention of speaking, although I was feeling pretty good because this is the first day of the last year of this government's tenure. It is the first day. It is the beginning of the last year. The people of Canada should be reminded that this is the last year of its mandate. The people of Canada will be happy to be reminded that if we on this side of the House get constructive alternatives together and start putting them forward in less than a year we will have the opportunity to restore some hope and some pride in this country.
Then in my office I read parts of Bill C-3, an act respecting the acquisition, administration and disposition of real property by the Government of Canada. I know that all of us were in support of this bill, but as I started to reflect on what is really going on in this bill I became concerned. I do agree that anything we can do to make the operations of the Government of Canada more efficient should be supported. I am in total agreement with that aspect of the bill.
There is another aspect of this bill which disturbs me immensely. It concerns me that in one year, with the support of this bill, it is possible that there will be no Crown land assets left. When we think of the history of this Conservative government and its philosophical approach, which has basically been one of retreating from governance and decentralizing the national thrust, we can see the danger that exists in this bill.
I think of my own city of Toronto and the way that this government has disposed of Harbourfront lands, has disposed of Terminal 3 at Pearson International, and of the disposition of the CBC lands. This is a bill that is going to make the developers of every region and every city of Canada ecstatic.
As a result of this bill if a line department has a Crown asset, a land asset, which does not meet that particular department's needs, at that time the department will have the ability to put that land basically out to tender. I understand that the minister was very specific. It could sell this land with three independent bids. That is fine, and that would be the end of it. That is not what
Government Orders
government is all about. We do not run this country by line departments. It may be that the railway lands of this country are no longer of any use to the railways.
As a result of the way this government has dismantled our national railway system the lands do not have the same value any more. That does not mean that those Crown lands could not have a value and a purpose in some other strategic plan or over-all objective to serve the people of Canada.
That is what concerns me. In the process of the government's dismantling and privatizing of our national postal service there may be a post office that may not serve any particular purpose for the post office so it says: "Let us sell it off".
We know that in the past those Crown assets could have been used for other over-all objectives. What concerns me about this bill is that when they decentralize and sell off these Crown lands the over-all national objectives are not being met either. There is not the analysis to determine whether these land objectives can really be served.
That is what bothers me about this aspect of the bill. I repeat: Who could oppose any initiative to make the Government of Canada more efficient? I am in total support of that aspect of the bill. I cannot believe that there will not be moments when line department objectives may not meet the over-all strategic objectives.
We could find that we sold off a piece of land and then 10 years from now we may say: "Why did we do that? We could have used it for parkland. We could have used it for public housing. We could have used it for some other use".


An hon. member:: For burying this government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I do not know if we would waste good Crown land on burying this government.
There are dangers with this bill. The dangers are that this bill is in the hands of a government that loves to decentralize, does not believe in national programs and does not believe in an over-all national objective.
I give a warning to the government and the minister who I know is an efficient operator. He should realize that he has to ensure that before the Treasury Board

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
office allows property to go there should be some kind of mechanism.
If a line department wants to sell a piece of land it should go through a process to examine other objectives of other departments. In other words, it should be similar to the way one would waive a hockey player from the NHL to the minors. Teams have to make sure that no one else in the same league has use for that particular hockey player. It should be the same thing with Crown lands.
We should not allow this, whether by the post office or Public Works. Public Works traditionally is asked by line departments: "Listen, whether I am in the environment ministry or in Transport Canada, go out and acquire a piece of land for me or build a building for me". When the object of the particular line department is no longer met, rather than just disposing of it right away we should not only check to see if there is some other short-term use, but also if there is any potential long-term use. I think that we have to put in some kind of a mechanism that could inhibit some of the possible abuses that may occur.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, with your permission I would like to put the same question to my colleague that I put to my friend from the New Democratic Party. It is with regard to the concept of selling off the family jewels. In this case federally owned Crown assets are being used to plug some loophole or some problem regarding the deficit or the government's fiscal responsibility.
I do not believe that is an appropriate way of dealing with the disposition of federally owned assets. In other words you do not sell off federally owned assets in order to assist when you have a deficit in a particular year. We know that the treasurer of the province of Ontario has indicated that selling off assets in order to reduce the deficit is an appropriate thing to do. Reducing the deficit is a one-time phenomenon. You reduce it once and that is it; you are into the next fiscal year.
The question to my hard working friend from Broadview-Greenwood is: Would he agree with the treasurer of Ontario's philosophy in terms of the disposition of publicly owned land?


Dennis Joseph Mills: I thank my colleague from York South- Weston for his question.
I have absolutely no argument with the private sector which is out to try to get the best deal it can for its shareholders and to meet its own objectives. I guess we have to give the SkyDome consortium full marks for its negotiating skill with the NDP treasurer of the province of Ontario.
I cannot believe the Toronto newspapers have not given this more coverage. If this was the Conservative government doing this deal there would have been story after story, day after day. I cannot quite figure it out. Because the NDP is doing it, it seems that most of the journalists are staying away from it.
However the people of Canada should know the facts. The facts of the matter are that the land upon which the SkyDome stadium sits was basically the national government's contribution to the domed stadium through CN. Today most experts would say that contribution was in the neighbourhood of $100 million. On top of that we have an asset that cost the taxpayers of Ontario $550 million. That would make our domed stadium worth approximately $650 million.
What the NDP treasurer of the province of Ontario did was take this public service facility and sell it to the private sector for $100 million in cash and a debenture of $200 million which is deferred for 20 years. That is it and it is not even interest bearing. Where is the benefit for the province of Ontario's treasury?
It looks good on paper because a piece of paper has been shuffled from the province of Ontario's treasury books and put into another column. But the province of Ontario has basically given away its ability to have any influence or any exercise in the management of that piece of property. I say to my colleague from York South-Weston that the problem in that deal is not with the private sector operators. God bless them. They took the treasurer of the province of Ontario to the cleaners.
The problem is that the domed stadium was an instrument to provide tourism jobs for people who come to our baseball games, our football games, our tennis tournaments, our trade shows and everything else that we bring to Toronto.
If the private sector is allowed to push up the price of hot dogs in an unregulated fashion and push up the price of beer because it no longer has the province in there considering the tourism objective then all of a sudden the policy objective of that domed stadium goes right out
November 22, 1991

the window because the business of business is to make money. My former leader said this repeatedly.
The business of government is to look after the people at large. The NDP made a serious mistake in giving away its ability to use that domed stadium as a public service policy instrument. If journalists ever take a close look at that deal they will find it is the biggest sham since this country's railway was built.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, listening to this debate on federal legislation and hearing my colleagues in the Liberal Party attempting to rewrite history is more than I can stomach.
It is one thing to play a little politics in this House. It has been known to happen. It is another thing to play a little partisan politics. That is known to have happened. But to play fast and loose with the facts is more than I can handle on an empty stomach on this occasion.


An hon. member:: Your stomach is never empty.


David Barrett: It certainly is after I have listened to you people. It is a threat to my digestive system and future meals.
It was a Tory government under Premier Davis that launched the stadium. It was an absolutely dumb deal, d-u-m-b. The financing from the very beginning was a scam by the private sector that walked away with an incredible deal right from the start. We agree on that. It was the Conservatives who got scammed in the first place. Shame on them.
Far be it for me to raise that on this nice quiet morning. After they made a dumb deal, and on a stomach emptied by the last speech, it was compounded by the Liberals who did not tell the truth about their financial situation going into the election in Ontario.
My only complaint is that Bob Rae was too charitable being the Christian that he is. He should have called in the accountants to check the books. He would have discovered that the people of Ontario had been lied to about the deficit and about the budget overruns and about what was happening with the stadium.
Government Orders
Who am I to raise all of this publicly? It is not my intention to embarrass-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


David Barrett: Oh, so now the member has a point of order.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I do not ever want to claim that I have the parliamentary expertise of the hon. member from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, but I am not sure that one can call people liars. I think we better check that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been wondering for the last little while about the relevancy of debate at this time in considering the bill. At first it started very innocently. I see the hon. member for York South- Weston not even looking at me. I would let it go, but I think we should be careful and keep it as much as possible relevant to the bill which is in front of the House. Because there was a lot of noise around me I could not hear the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. If he did say things that were unparliamentary, I am sure he will do the honourable thing.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I did not name a person.
I said the government lied and political parties lied. That is purely parliamentary. If I name a specific person, that is unparliamentary.
If my colleague wants a lesson on procedure for free, I will give him 15 minutes outside. One can say that a government lied and a political party lied.
Madam Speaker, since you have suggested relevance, I will be relevant. I will confine my remarks to what the Liberal members were allowed to say without any interruption. Far be it for me to suggest that the Liberal members strayed, but if that is what they suggested they were doing, that is what I am allowed to do too.
Let me finish my remarks by suggesting that had the Government of Ontario not unloaded the SkyDome, the taxpayers, as they might be under this bill, forced to pay tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in interest charges right out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Ontario. At least they have stopped the haemorrhaging.
Why did the Liberal government not tell the truth about the deal? Why are the Liberals trying to rewrite history in this Chamber? Why do they not go down to Queen's Park and make the same speeches? They would

November 22, 1991
be too embarrassed to. The facts are overwhelming. They left a mess and they are trying to play politics here with the mess they left. I say, with all respect, shame on them. They should not tiy to rewrite history in this place. It is bad enough what they did down there.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired.
It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, November has been proclaimed as Diabetes Awareness Month by the Canadian Diabetic Association.
Over one million Canadians have diabetes which is a major cause of significant health problems and can lead to premature death. Diabetes treatment cost Canada's health care system $2.5 billion annually. While the onset of diabetes can at times be dramatic very frequently its presence is subtle.
The federal government plays an important role through the Department of National Health and Welfare which provides a sustaining grant to the Canadian Diabetes Association, supports the operation of the Canadian Diabetes Advisory Board, funds special initiatives in regard to diabetes among Canada's indigenous people and supports other diabetes research.
It is my pleasure to salute the efforts of the volunteers and the staff of the Canadian Diabetes Association during Diabetes Awareness Month.


STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, on Monday an important precedent was set in
this House which reflected the continued improvement of parliamentary control over government regulations.
In early 1986, following the recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and the McGrath committee, Parliament introduced a disallowance procedure to our Standing Orders.
This procedure enabled the joint committee and the House of Commons to order the revocation of any offending regulation enacted by the executive branch of government.
On October 10 we tabled the unanimously adopted second report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations which contained a resolution calling for the revocation of the agricultural exhibition loans order regulations.
On Monday this resolution became the first order ever of its kind in the House of Commons. All of those concerned with the effectiveness of Parliament will be grateful for this and continued appropriate applications of this procedure, and we now await compliance by the Governor in Council.


VICTORIA CROSS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, as you know the Victoria Cross is the highest honour which can be awarded to Canadians and to others within the Commonwealth for heroism during wartime. Of the 93 Canadians who have been honoured with this distinction, 13 have been received by Manitobans.
In fact the name of a street in Winnipeg was changed to that of Valour Road after three of its residents were so honoured during World War I.
On behalf of the many residents of Brandon-Souris with whom I have spoken on this issue, I would ask the responsible officials not to alter in any way the significance of this award.
Although the Victoria Cross is not a Canadian award as such, members past and present of the Canadian Armed Forces strongly favour its retention as the highest honour for which a Canadian in wartime could be eligible.
I am pleased to be able to add my own voice to that of these constituents on this most significant issue.
November 22, 1991


CANADIAN POLISH CONGRESS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Polish Congress, an umbrella organization representing some 240 Polish Canadian organizations across Canada, is here in Ottawa today to give its response to shaping Canada's future together.
The Canadian Polish Congress, among many excellent suggestions, recommends that the preamble to the Constitution should note that all segments of Canada and every individual, apart from guaranteed rights and privileges, also have some obligations toward the state and the Canadian community.
A stronger emphasis should be placed on the need for a commitment to Canada on the part of every citizen, irrespective of where he or she resides. It is obvious that this commitment is lacking in some parts of our population.
Too many Canadians are asking not what they can do for their country but rather what their country can do for them. The prevalent attitude seems to be to get more for less and to look after number one.
Canadians of Polish descent believe that the time has come to address the other side of the individual rights and freedoms and equally the individual duties and responsibilities.


ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, this government believes that we can address economic issues while improving the environment. Bill C-41, the Energy Efficiency Act, illustrates this government's commitment to sustainable development because it recognizes the importance of future alternate energy resources.
These are ethanol and ethanol enriched gas. Ethanol added to gasoline will improve octane levels while reducing the use of harmful additives such as MMT and benzene.
The production of ethanol has important economic benefits. It would have the effect of boosting slumping grain prices, providing Canadian farmers with millions of dollars in revenue to bolster the farm economy.
I call on the government to consider all avenues possible to promote the use of ethanol enriched gasoline. It is good for the farm economy. It is good for the environment and it is good for Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, when the government implemented the goods and services tax, it took steps to ensure that goods purchased by Indian bands and delivered for use on the reservations would be exempt. In doing so, the government noted that goods delivered by mail would qualify as exempt as long as the post office was on the reserve.
However there are few post offices on reserves in Canada. Therefore bands purchasing goods like books for use in a band operated school, goods which are shipped by mail to a post office off the reserve, must pay the GST on these goods which otherwise the government says are exempt. This is wrong.
I have brought this to the attention of the Minister of Finance on an earlier occasion and he acknowledged the implementation process is inconsistent, but he refuses to correct that inconsistency.
I think we would be better off without the GST, but as long we have it and as long as this government is exempting goods purchased by and delivered to Indian bands, I call on it to be consistent and exempt-


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


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, investment in Canada should be treated both fairly and equally without regard for the sector in which an investment is made. Regrettably investment in the oil and gas industry is still subject to restrictions by Investment Canada.
These restrictions make no sense for Canada. Restrictions result in lower total investment in the industry, less economic activity and less security of energy supply for Canada.

November 22, 1991
We already control those petroleum resources in the ground because most are owned by the Crown and all development is controlled by regulation. How much more control do we need?
Let us get rid of this last vestige of the National Energy Program-type of thinking and let us get on with building a vibrant and competitive energy sector.
I and colleagues from Alberta call on cabinet to remove all restrictions to investment in the energy sector as soon as possible.


POVERTY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, the National Council on Welfare, in its most recent report, Welfare Incomes 1990, reports that the incomes of 1.9 million Canadians on assistance across the country now fall well below the poverty line. Specifically many welfare recipients have actually seen their benefits decrease in value over the last several years due to the absence of automatic cost of living increases in basic rates. This drags these payments to abysmally low levels.
In Nova Scotia, for example, total income for a single parent with one child is barely over $11,000 and for a couple with two children, barely over $14,000. Those of a disabled person and a single employable person are $8,164 and $5,982 respectively.
These figures are woefully inadequate given the fact that the income of a single parent with one child totals only 66 per cent of that defined as the poverty level annual income.
For a government that speaks of competitiveness, the record belies belief. Poor children are often hungry-


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


FARLEY MOWAT
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very serious issue which I would like the Speaker to take into immediate consideration.
Last night in Toronto, at an awards ceremony held by the Council of Canadians, author Farley Mowat made some deeply disturbing remarks. Mr. Mowat called the Prime Minister a traitor. Mr. Mowat then urged Canadians to take up arms against the current lawfully elected Government of Canada.
I consider these remarks to be in contempt of Parliament, Madam Speaker. I am standing in my place asking you if you will rule on this matter and instruct hon. members what action should be taken against a public figure who has publicly advocated armed insurrection against Parliament.


EASTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I call upon the government to bring in a particular program for regional development in eastern Ontario.
This part of the province of Ontario and this part of Canada is the one remaining part in the entire nation that does not have a particular regional development program. Many jobs have been lost: 265,000 across Ontario have been lost, and we in eastern Ontario have contributed a great deal to that figure.
The added increase in UIC premiums is a burden on business and on those that are still employed. As unemployment insurance runs out for many people they go on the social net. That means an added burden on municipalities and an increase in municipal taxes because this government has shoved its responsibility to lower levels of government.
The chairman of the finance committee indicated after the last election that eastern Ontario would be punished for voting Liberal. It seems today that he knew what he was talking about at that time.
All we are asking for is a sense of decency in the democratic process, a sense of fairness in-


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


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, recently while in Vancouver, the Minister for International Trade scolded Canadian manufacturers.
"Clearly too few firms are doing most of our trade", he said. Funny he should mention that, because as he spoke a flatbed trailer heading toward the U.S. carried some of Canada's top exports these days, Canadian jobs. Under the trailer's canvass lay tooling equipment from B.C.'s now defunct copper manufacturing plant along with 180 Canadian jobs.
Alabama based Wolverine Industries has a monopoly of the Canadian market and it is now closing its B.C. plant to save money, all with the blessing of Canada's competition watchdog.
According to the feds, Wolverine no longer has a monopoly because free trade has opened the door to American competition. Wolverine builds a Canadian monopoly, then closes up Canadian plants and poisons the well so Canadians cannot compete in their own market, all of this encouraged by a government which falls all over itself to please Uncle Sam.
Welcome to the wonderful world of free trade.


SOMATIC CHEMICALLY INDUCED DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of extreme urgency to the residents of the Fraser Valley.
Over 200 people in the Abbotsford-Chilliwack area have been given preliminary examinations and have shown symptoms of the enviro-disease.
Termed by Abbotsford Dr. Richard Sweeting as Somatic Chemically Induced Dysfunction Syndrome or SCIDS, this environment disease is alleged to be the cause of weight loss, headaches, extreme muscular weakness and severe flash pains in joints.
People are wondering what is causing this disease and allegations of chemicals leeching into the Abbotsford acquifer are causing great concern.
I am sure the Department of National Health and Welfare and Environment Canada will want to take
immediate action to address the growing concerns of Fraser Valley residents. I encourage both ministers to make sure their departments are actively involved in identifying what is this problem.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to the people of Ottawa-Car-leton, including my constituents, that this Tory government brings only bad economic news.
Today we learn that the changes brought to unemployment insurance by this government have added $2.6 million to Ottawa-Carleton's welfare tab for 1991. We will have a total of 23,000 general welfare assistance cases this year in this area, a staggering increase from last year of 17,200.
There is no relief in sight from the Tory government for the unemployed. Even the finance minister admitted yesterday that unemployment will remain higher than forecast throughout the year and next year also. The pace of economic recovery is weak.
Shame on this government for shifting the cost of its failed policy on to other levels of government. Shame on this government for trying to fool Canadians by this clumsy attempt at deception.
Canadians will remember come the next election that this Tory government has cost them their jobs, their houses, their pride and their dignity.


CARDIO PULMONARY RESUSCITATION
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, in conjunction with St. John's Ambulance, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Royal Life Saving Society of Canada and the Canadian Ski Patrol System are promoting November as CPR Awareness Month.
The goal of this annual event is to raise awareness among Canadians of the benefits of heart healthy living and the life potential of the training for cardio pulmonary resuscitation.
CPR training provides skills and knowledge for immediate action after a heart attack or other emergencies such as choking, drowning, electrocution and drug over-

November 22, 1991
Oral Questions
dose. The course emphasizes three basic steps: immediate action, join the rescuers and tell someone.
Each year some 45,000 Canadians die of heart attacks. Everyone can help reduce that number by taking time to learn the basics of CPR because you could save a life.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, if it is true that it is always darkest before the dawn, then Jim Taylor is giving Canadians an urgent wake-up call. Mr. Taylor, who is a constituent of mine, is the driving force behind the My Country Includes Quebec Association.
Mr. Taylor has rented 15 billboards nation-wide to promote his "My Country Includes Quebec" slogan and is commencing a tour through Quebec and the maritimes to Newfoundland.
If Canadians put half as much effort into keeping our country united, we could all feel secure in knowing our future is assured. He is demonstrating the tolerance and respect that all of us need to show for those who speak the other official language. He wants us to share his vision of a Canada stronger than the sum of its parts, a Canada that includes Quebec now and forever.

Good luck, Mr. Taylor, congratulations and the very best!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance was confronted with the cynical observation in some press reports that he was contemplating tax cuts before the next election. He refused to deny that he was contemplating just such a move.
Now is the time when the economy could use some stimulus. Now is the time when people are running out of money and running out of hope.
Will the minister provide tax relief for Canadians now rather than later on when he could use it just as some kind of cynical election ploy?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think that contemplation was in the mind of the member alone.
He raised that question in committee yesterday. He knows very well the fiscal challenges that we face and he has been a very strong advocate and supporter of fiscal consolidation.
Is he now suggesting that we increase the deficit?


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I know that in 1988 before the last election when the deficit was very high the government opposite found room for tax cuts even when the economy was growing at
5	per cent.

Since the minister said that the recession would be worse than he expected, how does the government expect the provinces and municipalities to help Canadians who are now unemployed and who will soon run out of unemployment insurance benefits, since the federal government is cutting funds to which the provinces are entitled?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that in 1988 the implementation of tax reform was taking place. That had the effect of reducing personal and corporate income tax.
With respect to the second part of his question, the hon. member knows very well that the transfers to the provinces are continuing. It has been one of the highest growths of the program expenditures in the whole area of government spending. As a matter of fact, fiscal transfers have increased on an annualized basis of about
6	per cent per year.
We have had to restrict that increase because we have disciplined ourselves as a federal government to contain program expenditures to around 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent and we are asking everyone else to live within that target, within that particular formula. We are not asking the provinces or municipalities or anyone else to have

any more discipline imposed upon them than we are imposing upon ourselves.
The hon. member knows very well that the challenges of fiscal consolidation are very real. The Chamber of Commerce suggested yesterday that we have to do a better job of fiscal consolidation than we have done in the past.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, the issue here is who is going to deal with the human consequences of the recession that we have been experiencing in this country.
Yesterday the social services commissioner for Otta-wa-Carleton said, "The federal government has ordained that this is the way it will be. It is a way of them saving money but it costs us money. We have no alternative but to continue to carry this". Other levels of government are not willing to simply abandon the poor and unemployed at a time when they are hurting, when they are running out of cash, when they are running out of unemployment benefits. Why is the federal government willing to give up on these people and cause them to give up on hope for tomorrow?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member may want to explain to the House whether in fact he is in favour of the kind of fiscal stimulus that has been employed by the Government of Ontario, which sees its deficit for this year tripled and the over-all combined deficits over the next four years rising to $37 billion. Is that what he wants the federal government to do? I think that would be an illogical course.
The unemployment rate is clearly higher than we would like to see. But let me remind the hon. member that 101,000 new jobs have been created since February. We expect that there will be an increase of about 300,000 jobs over the next year, and that means an increase of
400,000	jobs over the course of the next year. We expect the unemployment rate to average out at about 10.2 per cent in 1992, dropping to 10 per cent by the end of the year. The budget forecast was 9.8 per cent at the end of the year. The strong growth in employment itself will be offset by a growing population and a healthier economy, which will attract more people into the labour force. So the hon. member should recognize that it is not all gloom and doom. There are some positive features there.
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Canadians are asking him to stop the flim-flam and admit that the government's policies will not create enough jobs to fill the needs of Canadian workers. If that were the case, the unemployment rate would not be going up.
Yesterday he said that business is experiencing "a strong squeeze on profit margins" as a result of, among other things, "a strengthening Canadian dollar".
I want to ask the minister, now that he has admitted that his high dollar policy is squeezing the profits of Canadian companies and destroying business confidence, will he confirm that he is finally taking steps to reverse that policy and get the economy moving?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is but one factor, the issue of productivity and competitiveness. The hon. member would know that between 1985 and 1990 the unit cost of production as a result of employment rose by 28 per cent in Canada while it stayed at a zero rate of increase in the United States. So that has hurt the competitive position. The value of the Canadian dollar is but one factor.
I remind the hon. member that the decline in interest rates has had a very positive effect upon small business and it is reducing its cost of business by about 20 per cent in terms of interest rate costs as compared to last year.
If we can continue to curtail the inflationary pressures and keep inflation down, we will keep interest rates down, and that is the secret to sustained economic growth and price stability.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I understand that the gap between our interest rates and American rates is still higher than usual and therefore damaging our competitiveness.
Yesterday, Tom Courchene, director of the School of Policy Studies of Queen's University, said to a conference that the high Canadian dollar has resulted in "a hollowing out of the Canadian manufacturing sector".
So I ask the minister, why does the government want to continue this hollowing out, this destruction, of our manufacturing sector? Why will he not listen to Dr.

November 22, 1991
Oral Questions
Courchene, a political supporter of his government, and take immediate steps to bring the dollar down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I read the same article and Dr. Courchene said that Ontario has been the author of its own demise.
Speaking about the manufacturing sector, Courchene added: "Ontario spent the fiscal windfall from 1983 to 1989's economic boom and literally forced the Bank of Canada to ratchet up interest rates in pursuit of price stability. Ontario's proposed $37 billion in deficits over the next four years undermines Ottawa's fiscal restraint and may jeopardize the Bank of Canada's inflation targets, which will also jeopardize the interest rates in this country."
Madam Speaker, when the hon. member wants to quote Dr. Courchene he should quote him fully.


CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance also and deal with a particular group of Canadians who have experienced severe problems as a result of this government's economic policies.
The minister will know that two years ago this House unanimously agreed to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. The government has no guidelines to achieve the elimination of this national disgrace, even though Canada's poverty rate is second only to the United States among developed nations. The Prime Minister has agreed with the United Nations that children should have first call on the resources of this country.
As the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, he must take responsibility for the cap on CAP, cuts to health and post-secondary education and the deindexation of family benefits, and so on, all programs which have hurt children. Can Canadian children take this to mean that the Minister of Finance does not agree with the Prime Minister that children should have the first call on Canada's national resources?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member observed that Canada's record in this area was second in the world, and I think that that should not go unnoticed.
The income and unemployment support to families, particularly in respect of children, amounts to about $7.5 billion annually. I indicated in the House just the other day that we have doubled the child care expense deduction for pre-school children; created a special initiatives fund and implemented a new supplement to the child tax credit; the child tax credit was increased by almost 50 per cent starting in 1986; launched initiatives to counter family violence. All of these things are clear indications of the government's support and particularly its priority in dealing with the problems that face children.
We consider our children very important to this society but, more importantly, for the future of our generations to come.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the record for Canada shows that Canada is the second worst nation for child poverty. Only the United States has a worse child poverty record than Canada has. That is the record, Madam Speaker, that this government has to answer to.
In committee meeting after committee meeting, poverty support groups and child advocacy organizations have asked a very simple question: Does this government hate children? Because that is what their policies show to those organizations that experience poverty first hand.
What does this minister have to say to those Canadians who understand poverty and who say that this government hates children?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a categorically false allegation, Madam Speaker.
The hon. member takes issue with the fact that I contend, and justifiably so, that this government has taken very positive action with respect to children. That has been recognized by the United Nations. The United Nations has classified Canada, based on a human devel-
November 22, 1991

opment index, as the second best country in the world in which to live. That is based on things such as how we care for our children, how we educate ourselves, how we deal with the environment, how we treat the sick, the aged, and the disabled. All of those things are taken into consideration. Canada stands second only to Japan in that area and we should all be proud of it.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we still have a million children living in poverty in this country and perhaps the minister could explain that.

If we consider recent statements by ministers, it is obvious this government has no inkling of the poverty of Canadians and of the children of this nation. Three times, food banks in Montreal asked the Prime Minister to come and visit them, and three times he refused. I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues once more: Will they promise to visit food banks and shelters for the homeless to see for themselves the kind of impact their fiscal policies are having?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I indicated that $7.5 billion has been spent by the federal government on these kinds of programs.
I also indicated in the House on previous occasions that with respect to transfers to provinces, which include support for welfare programs, for health and for education, have risen from a figure of $25.6 billion in 1984-85 to a figure of $38.1 billion in 1992-93. Madam Speaker, that is a $12.5 billion increase over that period and we have done that at a time when we were under very, very strong fiscal pressures.
The hon. member says well, what about inflation. I ask the hon. member: who does he want to tax and at what amount, to provide this additional assistance. It is one thing to stand up in the House and ask for the expenditure of money. It is another thing to say where he will get the money and how he will tax it and who he is going to tax to improve this. If he could give us that kind of information then I would be pleased to take it into consideration.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Just over a year ago, on October 12, 1990, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
We have induced a slowdown. Mr. Wilson said as much in his
budget of February. Look at the budget. It is clear as spring water.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted that the budget forecasts were all wrong and unemployment will be much higher this winter than predicted.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So it is very clear. I feel sorry for the Minister of Finance who has to get up evety day to defend the indefensible, the budget of his predecessor.
We would like the minister to bring in his own policies and we will give him the benefit of the doubt. He might be better than his predecessor because that would not be too difficult.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the state of the Canadian economy has to be put in context with what is going on around the world. The hon. member knows that Canada is part of the global community and that it is a participating partner in the global economy.
The hon. member will know, I am sure, that the world economic growth for 1990 was 2 per cent. For 1991 it is 1 per cent, the lowest it has been since 1981-82. All around us are countries which are experiencing grave difficulties. The United States is projecting growth of 2.5 per cent in 1992. Germany is projecting growth of 1.5 per cent in 1992. France is having difficulties; it is projecting growth at 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent. Italy is projecting growth at 2 per cent. The United Kingdom is projecting growth at 1.5 per cent.
Madam Speaker, the Canadian situation has to be viewed within that context. I think from the standpoint of comparison, we are doing reasonably well compared to other industrialized countries in the world.

Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In October 1990, the Prime Minister candidly admitted that it was as clear as anything that the recession-he referred to it as a slowdown-had been induced by the government. It was the first time in Canadian history that a government admitted to causing a recession. The Minister of Finance himself admitted yesterday that his predecessor's budget forecasts were all totally inadequate. We feel sorry for the new Finance Minister who is trying to defend a program that was a total disaster, but we nevertheless want to ask him when he will table a new economic plan, to give new hope to Canadians who are becoming increasingly desperate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that it was necessary to wring out inflation and inflationary pressures that occurred in 1989. He knows that very well. To have been delinquent in that task would have put Canada in a situation which was similar to that which we were in in 1981-82 where we saw inflation rise to 13 and 14 per cent with interest rates to 21 and 22 per cent. We wanted to avoid that.
Every international organization that studies economics around the world-the OECD noted that the fiscal actions and announced inflation reduction targets together with continued efforts on structural reforms will leave Canada well placed to maintain its tradition role as one of the most prosperous and fastest growing economies in the OECD area.
The OECD expects the Canadian economy to expand
3.5	per cent in 1992. The IMF, because of the actions we took on the fiscal and monetary front, has indicated that we will have a growth rate of 3.8 per cent in 1992. The Conference Board of Canada also says because of the actions we have taken, we will see a growth rate of 4.3 per cent in 1992.
You must get the fundamentals right before you can have sustained growth and price stability.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well. As a result of the government's massive cuts in unemployment insurance two years ago, the heavy burden of helping Canada's unemployed has now been shifted to the provinces and municipalities which are consequently overwhelmed with excessive debt and high taxes.
In Ontario the proportion of people on welfare who are able to work but cannot find a job has risen to 63 per cent from 14 per cent in 1988.
How can the government preach national unity on the one hand and then shaft the provinces with the other?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the provisions of Bill C-21, which the opposition took issue with, has been a very important component in dealing with this particular issue. There have been increases provided for job training and skills upgrading. The Minister of Employment and Immigration just the other day announced an increase in expenditures from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion.
The gloom and doom that is coming from the other side should not be taken overly seriously because there will be job creation occurring in the 1992-


Mr. Nault:: What about the chamber?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the chamber? The chamber took issue, Madam Speaker, with the level of debt in this country, not with the issue of spending more money and increasing the debt. That is what the Chamber of Commerce took issue with.
I indicated that we expect about 400,000 jobs to be created during the course of this year and next year. Under normal conditions that would reduce the unemployment rate by about 2 percentage points. But because the employment group is growing, because there will be additional economic activity and more people entering the labour force, the actual rate will go up.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is the government's policy has shifted the burden to the provinces and the
November 22, 1991

municipalities. In Ottawa alone this year their additional cost is $2.6 million.

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, more than 600,000 people are now on welfare, and more than 300,000 are unemployed, which means nearly one million Quebecers. Considering this deplorable situation, how can the government say that its policies are effective? Effective for whom? Isn't it time for the government to change this outrageous policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I indicated to another hon. member that transfers to the provinces since we came into office up until last year grew at the rate of 6 per cent on an annualized basis. That has been one of the fastest growing programs in the Government of Canada.
We have not been able to sustain that level so it has had to be constrained somewhat, but the transfers to the provinces continue to grow. Equalization grows on a demand basis. The CAP transfers to the have-not provinces grows on a demand basis and the over-all growth is well in excess of 3 per cent. We are trying to discipline ourselves to contain program expenditures so we can meet the objectives of the Chamber of Commerce of Canada. We are trying to contain those expenditures.
If the hon. member has any suggestions on how we should spend more money, perhaps he can give us some suggestions as to where we will get the money from.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs boasts of progress in the government's new native agenda and particularly in the area of specific claims. Yet seven months after his specific claims commission was announced and five months after it was set up by Order in Council, none of the commissioners has been appointed but the chairman and not one single aboriginal specific claim has been heard or dealt with by the commission.
Oral Questions
Will the minister explain why no commissioners have been appointed and why no claims have been settled in spite of his repeated boasts of progress in this area.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple, but I would like to indicate that since the announcement by the Prime Minister in May of this year, the government has committed $355 million toward the settlement of specific claims in the next five years. A number of those claims have been completed and I have personally participated in the announcements of those completed claims.
We named the Specific Claims Commissioner, Mr. Harry LaForme, in the month of July and we have been consulting with leadership within the First Nations, particularly the Assembly of First Nations, about the finalization of the aboriginal members of that commission.
As the hon. member knows, it is very important to seek the input and advice of First Nations before these decisions are finalized. For that reason, I will be meeting the national chief of the AFN this afternoon.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is also important to listen to the AFN and its consultants and to take its advice when it is offered. It is not only the AFN, but the commission chairman who has been criticizing the minister and his government, not only for the delay in appointing commissioners, but also in the prescriptions that have been made to the commission. In fact, far from reforming the government's outdated specific claims policy, the minister has enshrined it in law in the Order in Council setting up the specific claims commission.
The minister said in a letter to commission chairman Harry LaForme that changes in specific claims policy would have await the royal commission. Is this not exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised when he set up the royal commission in the first place?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I think it is most unfair that the hon. member selects a sentence out of a letter and takes it totally out of context. What the letter said is that should we not make progress with the joint working committee of representatives of the chiefs and government officials on changes to the specific

November 22, 1991
Oral Questions
claims policy, then it might be possible or necessary to refer such questions to the royal commission.
The fact is that there is a proposal to have policy changes evolve by a joint working group of chiefs. Meanwhile, we would expect the specific claims commission chaired by a prominent Canadian aboriginal to provide advice to government, not being constrained or restrained by specific criteria, on which we would base decisions with respect to specific claims.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. There has been an opposition charge in the House of Commons that the Department of Veterans Affairs for several years has allowed millions of dollars of its budget to go unspent.
The view has been expressed that the demands of merchant mariners could easily be financed out of this surplus. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of which I am a member has recently tabled its report supporting many of these demands.
Further, it cannot be denied that the merchant seamen made tremendous sacrifices during Canada's war effort which deserves both our recognition and gratitude.
Will the minister comment on the possibility of financing these demands out of the unspent portions of the departmental budget?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been around here a long time and really understands that budget-making is a very imprecise science. When we try to make up those budgets a month or months ahead of time we have to estimate the level of demand for those services and the programs that we provide for our veterans.
I must tell him of course that we try to build in amounts and dollars for unforeseen circumstances and increased demand for services. In this case, sometimes there are moneys left over which have been budgeted for specific purposes.
Every department has, in some of its programs, lapsed funds. I might say that does not give us the right to spend those dollars in the way that the minister would like to spend them or indeed the government might spend them. There must be a legislative base for that and, in this case of course, there is no legislative base for providing those programs, at this time at least, that the merchant mariners want.
However, I can assure the hon. member that the government is taking it very, very seriously. We very much appreciate what they have done for their country and we will help them in the future, I hope.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Accusations of racial bias are still commonplace at the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare. While the minister of multiculturalism is talking about racial harmony, serious problems are occurring inside another department.
Will the minister of health commit today to a serious investigation of these allegations? Will he promise to severely discipline any senior officials who have been found to systematically discriminate? I am not talking about harassment in response to Tuesday's question, I am talking about discrimination.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government does not condone discrimination and there are ways and means within that particular department, Health and Welfare, to deal with those issues. I understand that is what is being done.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. About 10 per cent of the scientific staff at the Health Protection Branch are visible minorities, but fewer than 1 per cent are in management positions. Would the minister not agree that the best way to fight
November 22, 1991

racism in his own department is to put a few of the many scientists among our visible minorities in management positions?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, tremendous progress has been made in all departments in this respect, including the Department of National Health and Welfare. However, I admit there is room for improvement.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, whose announcement yesterday has left many farmers disappointed and confused.
Farmers will have to wait even longer for their aid package. The minister said that about half the money will be found in savings from the short gulf war.
Why could that money not have been found earlier? That war ended nine months ago. The money sat there. The government dithered while farmers suffered. I think that this minister owes Canadian farmers an explanation.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, first of all, the member's memory or his timing is out. As he is fully aware, the gulf war has continued for a considerable period of time, even to this point today as Canadian servicemen and women are serving in that area.
I would put a question to the hon. member, as reporters put to his colleague from the Liberal Party yesterday: Is he prepared to suggest that the government should have raised taxes to find the additional money that he believes farmers should have today?
We have tried to be fiscally responsible and put forward half, 55 per cent approximately, of the dollars that we have today, and will put forward the balance before seeding next year.
Oral Questions
I can assure the hon. member that no one has suggested to me that we should have raised taxes to provide that money.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
While the government takes its sweet time with the farm aid package, there might be another way of helping farmers. The world wheat price might be strengthening. Wheat prices went up to $3.67 a bushel U.S. on the Chicago Board of Trade this week. That is more than $4 Canadian a bushel. That is more than twice the initial price offered by the government.
I would like to know from this minister whether he would consider increasing the initial wheat price payment.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The
hon. member should be very wary of quoting the Chicago Board of Trade prices and equating them to what the Canadian Wheat Board is acquiring at this time.
He could also look at some other market areas, particularly the Rotterdam quotes on a daily basis. There is no doubt that the price of grain has strengthened. One of the reasons it strengthened is the Prime Minister's announcement of the $500 million credit to the Soviet Union to allow it to make a purchase of some four million tonnes which will be delivered before the end of February which again will put dollars in farmers' pockets.
You know, Madam Speaker, as every other member in this House knows that the Canadian Wheat Board advises the government as to what the initial price should be. We have, in the past, made interim adjustments and when that advice comes from the board for interim adjustment, it will be acted upon very rapidly.
Hon. members should also be aware that when the government set on the advice of the Wheat Board initial prices which were higher than the market, the government continued to support those prices. That led to a deficit in the wheat pool of the Canadian Wheat Board which the government supports.
That means there has been an additional support system not for income but because of international trade war that took place.

Oral Questions LUMBER INDUSTRY


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, annual exports of more than $1 billion worth of lumber to Europe from British Columbia, the maritimes and Quebec are threatened by a European Community ban and green lumber imports from Canada.
Canadian trade officials expected to have the ban lifted, but failed in their recent appeal. Another opportunity to present Canada's case arises when the Europeans review the issue on December 16.
I would like to ask the minister of forests if he can tell this House what steps the government will be taking to assure a ruling in Canada's favour in December.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I have travelled in Europe recently to discuss this issue and many others with my counterparts there, and with Commissioner McSharry of the European Commission.
We have been assured that this issue will be dealt with on a priority basis. Naturally, we are disappointed that the decision, which is a plant health issue in Europe, has been delayed for a month, but we have engaged in a joint study with the European Community to discover ways in which this nasty bug could be eradicated and normality restored.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, given the success of Canada on this point, I am not sure if we need to have the minister travelling in Europe any more to present Canada's case.
In any case, Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is this. Given the government's failure on softwood lumber, on plywood standards, shakes and shingles and now this issue, can the minister tell the government that it has to realize that it cannot play in the major league of trade if it continues to strike out every time it gets up to bat?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, of course, is wrong when he says that we strike out every time we engage in a trade conflict.
Our international market share has increased. It has broadened. It is dynamic. It is in Asia. Our own province is shipping more product to Asia now than we do to the United States, so the hon. member is quite wrong.
I did travel in Europe and make no apologies for that. Of course I was not accompanied by a squadron of CF-18 fighters. We made our case in the strongest possible terms and we hope to have it respected.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Yesterday the federal government admitted that its 1988 election promise to clean up the St. Lawrence River in time for the next election was an empty promise. Now we are told, Madam Speaker, that 1995 is the target. What concrete actions, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment, is the government taking to give Canadians reason to believe that the new target of 1995 will be met?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Madam Speaker, the St. Lawrence action plan is a very ambitious plan to clean up the St. Lawrence as a result of working with the Great Lakes action plan and working with industries. What we are targeting are those industrial plants that are along the St. Lawrence. We have a priority action of cleaning up 90 per cent of what is coming there from those industries. We have given an update in order that people of Canada can be well aware of how our planning is making progress. Of course the pulp and paper regulations that will be coming down soon will be assisting in this respect. Two companies in particular are being looked at. There are investigations going on both by the province of Quebec and by the Government of Canada on Tioxide Canada Incorporated.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, four years ago the Minister of the Environment promised that his government would review, consolidate and strengthen legislation in respect to water. We have not even seen the bill to prevent water export, let alone a comprehensive bill to protect Canada's water.
November 22, 1991



Madam Speaker, could the minister tell the House when this four-year old promise will be kept?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, the export water policy that the Government of Canada has pursued is in place. There was a bill brought forth prior to the 1988 election concerning legislating water export. That is being worked on at the present time in order that we may bring that forth in the form of legislation.
I might add, Madam Speaker, that in relation to the various industries that are at the St. Lawrence, we are planning a green plan enforcement package very soon and that will be very beneficial in terms of the St. Lawrence action clean-up.


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, in this morning's Gazette, we read that the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs suggested that a federal referendum might be useful if one of the provinces held its own plebiscite on a matter that did not reflect the views of the entire country.
My question to the minister is this: It is clear that Bill 150 and the Quebec referendum on sovereignty would not reflect the views of the entire country. Would the minister agree that he tipped his hand and made it abundantly clear that a federal referendum would be a frontal attack on Bill 150 and, above all, a denial of Quebec's right to self-determination?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that if a referendum is held at the national level, it will be held to protect the interests of Canada as a whole and to allow Canadians to express their views on the basic issues in our country.
What we are talking about here, Madam Speaker, is a commitment by our government to table in Parliament a bill that would allow the federal government to hold a referendum.
Oral Questions
I have made it clear many times that such a referendum, if it is held, would not impose on any province an opinion or position that is not shared by that province. I think that is clear, and in fact it is elementaiy.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs knows his history, and he knows that the same comments were heard in this House in 1942. Does he not see a parallel between his referendum initiative and the federal betrayal of April 27, 1942, when this Parliament passed the plebiscite legislation that imposed conscription on Quebecers against their will? Would he not agree that we have reached a similar crossroads? Doesn't it bother him to become an accomplice of the Leader of the Opposition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think this shows the opposition the hon. member is losing confidence, when he feels he has to use scare tactics here in the House. This is not history but a distortion of history, and we want to avoid any distortion of what the future holds for Canadians.
I think the best way to protect Canadians is to work together, but the best way to keep Canada together is to recognize the right of Quebecers and Canadians to make their own choices and to be told the truth and not misinformed.


SMUGGLING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
An internal report of the RCMP informs us that smuggling into Canada, particularly at Akwesasne, will reach $500 million this year.
When will the government start taking this issue seriously? What does it intend to do to end this terrible practice which causes so much damage to my constituents and several others?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's concern about the issue of cigarette smuggling. The RCMP and customs

Oral Questions
officials have increased their monitoring of the situation and will continue to do so in every effort to stop cigarette smuggling.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, there are presently 17 RCMP officers patrolling the whole area, all of whom are temporary people. Seldom do we see anyone there for more than one or two weeks before being transferred elsewhere.

I would therefore ask the minister to take this matter seriously. Five hundred million dollars in taxes have been lost. There have been fights in Akwesasne, there have been murders and the rest. When will the government start taking smuggling seriously in this country? It is a very serious problem, not just for my riding, but for the entire country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the RCMP, customs officials and the government take the situation at Akwesasne seriously and are taking all steps to eliminate cigarette smuggling.
Obviously it still exists to a certain extent. We are doing everything we can to eliminate it.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. This week all members of Parliament were among those unfortunate enough to receive a disgusting anti-Semitic and racist analysis of Canadian history in their offices. The book called Stop Apologizing is a lengthy diatribe against Canadians who were not born white or raised Protestant.
I know that the minister is concerned, as we all are, about increasing racism in the country. Will she, in her role as Attorney General, review the document which all of us have received in our office to determine its possible infringement of the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code and then undertake to lay any appropriate charges?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I have not seen
the document to which the hon. member refers. Perhaps there is a copy in my office. However, I share his concern if it is in violation of the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code.
Charges laid under the Criminal Code are laid by the provincial attorneys general, except in the territories. However, I would be very happy to review the document and call it to the attention of my provincial colleagues for their review and possible action.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to ask a question of the minister. The issue that was raised by the House leader for the New Democratic Party is indeed a veiy serious issue.
I looked at this publication last night and must say that I have never received a more offensive publication in my office through the mail in my life. There are allegations and insinuations in it against every race, every religion and every colour but white. It is absolutely offensive.
I ask the minister to review this matter today and take every appropriate action to ensure that this type of hate literature has no place in the mails or in any office in Canada.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to refer the hon. member's comments to the Minister of National Revenue in case there is an element with respect to customs and excise and importation.
I would say to the hon. member what I said to the House leader of the New Democratic Party. If he wishes to communicate directly with the Attorney General of Ontario or with his own province that is the fastest way to draw attention to this. I am happy to review it, but I do not have the authority under the Criminal Code to lay charges under the Criminal Code.


Some hon. members:: What about the post office?


A. Kim Campbell: There is a chorus of suggestions with respect to the post office for which I am veiy grateful. The minister responsible for Canada Post is in the House. I believe this would be a question also to be dealt with by the minister responsible for customs and excise. I am happy to take that comment under advisement and refer it to the appropriate ministers.

With respect to the Criminal Code, charges would be laid by the provincial attorneys general. I am happy to draw the matter to their attention. The hon. member and all members of this House are free to do so as well. I would encourage them to do so since they have had the benefit of looking at the material, and I have not.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the government side had one question today during Question Period. This is a recurring theme in Question Period. We are not given our right as members of this House to ask questions.
Madam Speaker, I think if you examine the questions that I have asked in this House since I have been here you will find that they have been as tough as any questions from the opposition side.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte does not want to question the right of the Speaker to recognize or not recognize people. The hon. member will sit down, please.
I would also tell the hon. member that on three different occasions during Question Period I did look to recognize him and he was not in his seat.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on the matter which has been raised by my colleague. If he wishes to discuss it with the government House leader perhaps there would be unanimous consent in the House in order to accommodate the hon. member to raise his question and thereby to have other members from this side and I would presume from the NDP.
Perhaps we could extend Question Period today to about 12.20 in order to accommodate those members who have such pressing questions they wish to put to ministers of the Crown.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I know in your usual fashion you are seeking a resolution to what may be a problem. I do not think it is a problem. I know that in our own
Point of Order
caucus we had a number of people who were on our list who had pressing questions today.
I want to join with my colleague and say that we would be more than willing today, and perhaps virtually almost any day, to extend Question Period for 20 minutes to allow a number of individuals on all sides of the House to have a chance to ask more questions.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the game of extending Question Period. I think that perhaps we should sometimes, but I really do think the Speaker's duty and responsibility is to recognize all in this House as equals.
After the lead questions are asked and the answers given in some form or other, thereafter there is an incumbent duty of members to stand so that the Speaker has a chance to find out who is trying to get the attention of the Chair. We should not get into the pattern that I am afraid we have fallen into. This is when other occupants of the chair-not you, Madam Speaker-seem to look at a piece of paper, and I would not want to suggest that there were names on it, and only those names are recognized.
This is a far cry from the way Question Period should be. Quite frankly the thing is as dull as dishwater in so many cases. When you get a good question and someone has a proper supplementary sometimes there is not flexibility on the part of the Chair to recognize that supplementary. That is when Question Period in this House used to live with a little more vibrance than it does today.
Most of the ministers have already gone, and I understand that is the usual ploy at this particular time on a point of order. But in future Question Periods this crazy list should get out of the way of the Speaker's eye after you have the lead so that there is a little more to and fro both from the government side and from the opposition side. That will bring some sense to this procedure.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to get involved in this interesting debate. The issue of Question Period and general behaviour in the House and how we conduct business and so

November 22, 1991
Point of Order
on has been a matter of some discussion. We have been discussing at the House leaders' level.
There are some things about Question Period that we need to look into. We should certainly look at the question of whether it is appropriate to have Question Period fully scripted by the opposition and without, on the counterpart, having the question of notice as they do in the United Kingdom.
Virtually every minister who is not out of the city is sitting here waiting and not knowing whether there is going to be a question or not. There is an enormous amount of preparation that goes into it. I wonder if that is an appropriate use of the taxpayers' resources that it carry on.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: There is the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood heckling from his seat again after saying he does not do that and that he behaves well.
Maybe that is something we should be looking at. The solution to the problem according to the opposition is just to have a longer Question Period. Admittedly that is the most entertaining time of the day and about the only time we see a lot of people in the House. I wonder if that is the best way to serve the taxpayers of this country who are paying our salaries. Are we here to entertain? Are we here to inform? Are we here to keep the government in check through questions?


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: There is the member for Broadview- Greenwood heckling again from his seat. He is constantly heckling.
I think this is something that as House leaders we should discuss. As far as I am concerned everything is on the table.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, you indicated that I was not in my seat. We have three names on the so-called list to which the member from Nova Scotia referred. I was number three on that list. In fact number two on the list did not have a chance to ask his question. We had 30 questions in this House today. On this side of the House we had one single question.
It has nothing to do with me being in my seat. It has a whole lot to do with how many questions we on this side of the House are allowed to ask. In all due fairness, we did not have that opportunity today and I object to that strongly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can show the hon. member the list as I have it. On the government side it was the number two person who was recognized. At one point he was the only one who rose.
I think I have answered this. I do agree and realize that today there was only one question from the government side. Some days there are three and some days there are two. It all depends. The Speaker does whatever is possible. It depends on the length of the questions and on the length of the answers. There are 45 minutes. I think in 45 minutes when 28 or 29 questions are put we have divided the time fairly adequately.
I am sorry the hon. member could not put to the minister the very important and interesting question that I am sure he had today. Hopefully it will be done during the next Question Period. It is very difficult for the person in the chair to decide or to choose. It has been very difficult in the last little while.
We have had a motion before the House on decorum. It asked all kinds of things of the person who was occupying the chair. It sometimes appears from the floor of the House to be very easy to make all the right decisions. I can assure you that all occupants of the chair are doing their best to be fair and to be just.
There are problems with Question Period and I will be the first one to admit that fact. All chair occupants would welcome guidance from hon. members. There is a House management committee, and I think the conduct of hon. members during Question Period could be a subject that is well within its mandate to discuss. That committee may wish to discuss it again and get together and make a formal request. I am sure the Speaker and myself would be delighted to talk with them and come to a better understanding. It is very difficult after every single Question Period to have one member or another saying: "I did not have my chance to speak".
While we were discussing the motion yesterday a member rose and said that if a question is put and a supplemental does not seem necessary the Speaker should recognize somebody else. That is something I did a couple of weeks ago and a person from the hon.

member's party rose on a point of privilege because she was not given a supplemental. What is the Speaker to do?
I enjoy being at the service of the House and I do try to do my best. I am not a robot and I am not a perfect person. I am just a member of Parliament like all of you.
I do thank all those in House for their collaboration and understanding. I can assure them that I will continue to do my best to be a good servant of the house.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I just wish to reaffirm our support of the Chair and of its decisions both today and on prior occasions.
I believe it to be quite important for future deliberations that the suggestion by my hon. friend opposite be given serious consideration. The hon. member stated that he was third on a list that was given to the Speaker. The Speaker did not get to him because the second person on the list did not get reached. There is still a way for hon. members who do have questions to be able to put them. If there was a disposition in the House, unanimous consent could extend the length of Question Period in order to accommodate that particular member.
I want to concur with the comments of the government House leader that the substantive aspects of Question Period ought to be reviewed in some form. We all know that the management committee has a subcommittee that is looking at some of those aspects. However I do not want it to be implied in any way, Madam Speaker, through you or from members opposite that the fundamentals and traditions of Question Period would be markedly changed in any way by those discussions that would be taking place in the subcommittee.
In conclusion I would say that I understand the difficulties the Chair has in recognizing members that wish to be recognized in Question Period. That is why we have tried to facilitate the Chair in providing a list from this side. I think it is only reasonable when you have 300 members of Parliament who are in the House at any given point in time that wish to be recognized for any particular thing. It is somewhat new to find out that the government now has a list that it submits on a regular basis. We were under the clear belief and understanding that Question Period was probably one of the most primary tools available to opposition parties and opposi-
Point of Order
tion members in order to make the government accountable for its particular actions.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I say to you and to members of the House that perhaps the hon. members opposite ought to be cognizant of the fact that there are numerous times-


An hon. member:: More and more.


David Charles Dingwall: -notwithstanding that-


An hon. member:: Let us reply.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am trying to make a point here which I believe is quite important. The hon. member-


An hon. member:: It is not really the point that comes out of your mouth.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Please. The hon. House leader.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I will conclude with this. Hon. members opposite, and I refer to one who is a very able, very sincere colleague in this House, Guy Saint-Julien, has been up over 500 times in Question Period and on Standing Order 31 since 1988. So I do not accept the-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. Liberal House leader for his help. I know that I will be able to count on his support.
I will listen the last time to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, who has been seeking the floor.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I take seriously what you mentioned in terms of doing your best. We all attempt to do your best in this House. That is probably the frustration that I and many others experience from time to time, and you as well, that we do attempt to do our best.
I have a suggestion, Madam Speaker, for what it is worth. You alluded to some opposition members being concerned because they were not allowed a supplementary. I believe that the supplementary question is where the abuse within the system takes place. According to Beauchesne, there should not be a prelude to a supple-

November 22, 1991
Point of Order
mentary. That is where the problem begins. If a supplementary question was confined to the definition of what a supplementary should be within the rules of this House, a great deal of time would be saved. Another five or six members, whether that side or this side of the House could ask questions, and it would save a great deal of pain and suffering.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. He may want to bring his suggestion to the house management committee. I am sure they will study it before they make their recommendation to the Speaker.


Mr. Ouellet:: On a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, one at a time, please, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East has the floor.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, if I might make one point, and I too recognize the dilemma that the Speaker finds herself in.
Has the Speaker ever considered trying to keep track informally of the amount of time that the questions are taking? Perhaps she could consider the amount of time that is taken up rather than trying to make sure that x number from each team get up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That also is a very good suggestion. I will tell the hon. member that some of that has been done but it is also a very good suggestion for the House management committee.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the previous Liberal government never gave the Chair a list of persons to be recognized during Question Period.
This practice of submitting a list comes from the Whip and the government House leader. It started before you became Speaker. A previous Speaker started the practice of accepting from the Conservative government a list of backbenchers who should be recognized by the Chair.
This practice did not exist before. Madam Speaker, this practice does not exist in the Parliament in London.
The Chair has always maintained full discretion as to those who may ask questions during Oral Question Period.
I must say that of course I sympathize with the hon. member who claims that he was third on his party's list that was submitted to the Chair before Oral Question Period. I submit to you that this practice is not in the rules or parliamentary tradition and does not exist in the Parliament in London. I think that is one problem that government backbenchers have. They fully realize that there is some discrimination among them, because the member for Abitibi is always on the list and other members do not get on it as often as he does.
So I ask the Chair to review this practice which has been in effect since the Conservative government took power, whereby a representative of the House leader or of the Whip submits a list of names of those who the government thinks should be recognized by the Chair. This government practice should be abandoned.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Papineau and he has made some very interesting observations and comments.
I think the time has now come where the Speaker should not entertain lists. The Speaker should make his own decision as to who rises when the time comes by looking at the members, knowing their history and their interest in subjects that are being debated. I think that is a power that the Chair has and the Chair should exercise.
I personally, and I am sure we on this side, would gladly support the Chair in eliminating lists.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of esteem and respect for the chairman of the management committee, but I think he is going a bit too fast. What was just suggested, Madam Speaker, you who guide the destinies of this House with immense tact and great skill, should not lead you to conclude that this matter should forthwith be submitted to the Chair for consideration and a speedy ruling. The debate must go on. In fact, we are discussing the matter in the management committee. Only yesterday, my three party colleagues and myself were discuss-
November 22, 1991

ing those issues, under the very skilful chairmanship of the hon. member.

I am one of those who believes that the S.O. 31s should not be put through certain disciplines, but before we jump the gun it is a very important matter. Some may disagree. I have my own views and they are very strong. I do not like the system too much and it is very well know. That is why we are discussing it at the management committee.
I assure you, Madam Speaker, that under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Peace River, we shall go back to that as early as next Tuesday and next Thursday in the management committee. Therefore I would not like you to rule at this time because you are full of wisdom and you will want to take that under reflection.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have been trying to get up for about 25 minutes on this same point of order. I am glad I was recognized.
The suggestion by the parliamentary secretary sounds like it could be reasonable to many people but there are many problems with it. Since it was raised in the House, I would like to address it.
First of all, if everybody got up every day, nobody would know what the priorities are within a caucus. There is also a danger that the issues that are important on that day, whether it is a lay-off in a mine in northern Manitoba or whether it is something with regard to a government action that day, would never be addressed in Question Period. We may provide fairness, but we may not be relevant to the issues that matter to Canadians at that particular time. That would be the situation.
We all have a process within our caucuses to decide that if there is high unemployment or high interest rates that those are the issues on which we want to focus.
In addition, the government House said that it might be a good idea if we gave notice so that the relevant minister might be here. Madam Speaker, as you know I was on the list and I was not recognized. I could get upset
Routine Proceedings
that a Liberal took my spot, but I am not raising that as my specific.
What I would like to say is that the issue I wanted to raise results from a picket line that is occurring in Vancouver today because the government is trying to ship grain through Seattle. I could not possibly have given the government advance notice. There is no way.
I received notice of this particular picket line just prior to Question Period. It is an issue of some importance today and obviously, it is an issue that our caucus believed should have been raised today in the House of Commons. Giving notice for this question to be asked next Thursday or Friday would have done no good whatsoever.
I believe there has to be a system in place that enables people to raise the issues that are important at that given time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank all hon. members who got involved in this long point of order or question of privilege, or whatever it was, when it all started.
I want to assure the House that I will continue to do my best. More than likely I will at times not find the right way to satisfy each and every one of the 293 members in this House, but I will continue to do my best. I also know that when there is a full moon something like this comes along.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1991-92
[Stage Direction]
A message from his Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, was presented by the Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Deputy Speaker to the House.

Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1992, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to
the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:

November 22, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Since the breakdown of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the various committees is detailed and the list is a long one, I would ask the consent of the House for the list to be printed in Hansard at this point, without being read.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 6b, 10b, 15b and L20b.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes 5b, 15b, 20b, 30b and 50b.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes 10b, 15b, L21b, 25b and 95b.
Secretary of State, Votes 5b and 30b. lb the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship Secretary of State, Vote 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Industry, Science and Technology, Vote 100b.
Privy Council, Votes lb and 35b.
Public Works, Vote L16b.
Supply and Services, Votes lb and 5b.
lb the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 5b, L15b and 35b.
To the Standing Committee on Environment
Environment, Votes lb, 5b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade
External Affairs, Votes 10b, lib, 20b, 30b and 35b.
Finance, Vote 25b.
To the Standing Committee on Finance Finance, Votes 2b and 16b.
National Revenue, Vote 15b.
Privy Council, Vote 25b.
To the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans, Votes lb and 10b.
Forestry, Votes lb, 5b and 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons
Justice, Vote 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General
Justice, Votes lb, 5b and 45b.
Solicitor General, Vote 20b.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes lb, 10b, 15b, 20b and 25b.
Labour, Votes 10b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 15b and 20b.
To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women
Employment and Immigration Vote 40b.
National Health and Welfare, Votes 10b and 15b.
lb the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development
Indians Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 30b and 50b.
Industry, Science and Ifcchnology, Vote 40b.
lb the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes lb, 10b and 26b.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, in response to a request
November 22, 1991

from the House leader of the New Democratic Party, I would like to table the documents that were referred to by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during last Tuesday's Question Period, as requested by the NDP House leader.
I hope the NDP House leader reads them and learns.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Edna Anderson: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the 86th Interparliamentary Conference in Santiago, Chile, October 7 to October 12, 1991.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport which examined Bill C-5, reported with amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate members of all three parties on the nonpartisan manner in which they considered this bill.


MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a conflict of interest commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Andre (for the Prime Minister) 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.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia who are concerned with what seems to be the increasing level of lawlessness in Canadian communities and are simply making a case for more support for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another topic, again on behalf of residents of a number of interior British Columbia communities, the petitioners point out their very serious concern for the announced intention of a British Columbia company working with a California company to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, B.C. in an effort to divert water to sell in San Diego, California.
The petitioners are obviously, and I support them enthusiastically, asking the Canadian government to state that it will not permit the transfer of our freshwater rivers into the United States.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great honour to introduce today in the House a petition signed by many of my constituents who are calling on the government to step up its effort in dealing with refugee cases in exercising compassion.
Many of these refugees and their families are suffering from personal and economic hardships. Their futures are undecided as they await the slow refugee processing.
I submit this petition as the first of a series of many petitions to be submitted in this House later on.

November 22, 1991
Routine Proceedings PORT OF CHURCHILL


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of many communities in Saskatchewan: Gladmar, Lake Alma, Buyea, Tribune, Outlook, Climax, Bracken, Orkney, Dinsmore, Beechy, Wiseton, Stony Beach, Moose Jaw, Regina, Alida, Storthoaks, Northgate and Oxbow; and in the province of Manitoba: Dauphin, Churchill, Warrenton, Snow Lake and Winnipeg.
The petition relates to the port of Churchill and calls for the federal government to ensure that at least 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the port of Churchill, pointing out that with the increasing potential for eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the expanding markets there, that grains and other products should be shipped through Canada's only inland seaport.
It is ironic that on the day when the Canadian government is trying to ship grain to Seattle and is contemplating shipping grain through the Mississippi system that our own ports in Canada are not being utilized.
I call upon the Government of Canada and the Wheat Board to recognize finally that they should be creating jobs in Canada and utilizing the potential of this country.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of the constituents of Elk Island who support the efforts of a group called 'Kids First".
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to ensure that child related benefits and deductions for child care are fair and equitable to all family structures based on financial need and irrespective of child care choice.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition from approximately 200 people in my riding. I must state in advance that I do not agree with the proposals in this
petition, though I do have an obligation on behalf of these constituents to present the petition.
The petition says that wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withhold approval of RU-486 and to prevent the marketing and testing of this drug to induce abortions.


Robert Evans Skelly: I also have a petition from a number of people in the central interior of British Columbia calling upon the government to refuse the right of Multinational Resources to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount and divert that water to San Diego, California.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States of America and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions from folks in my constituency, particularly the communities of Sorrento, Tappen, Vernon and Canoe.
These petitioners are concerned about the announced intention by Multinational Resources to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount and divert that water into the California market.
The petitioners are further concerned that under the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement the export of bulk water from Canada to the U.S. would enshrine our obligation to maintain such exports even in the event of domestic shortages. They are urging the government to have a very serious look at this issue and to state very emphatically that we will not permit the diversion and export of major water sources in Canada.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I have a number of other petitions. They are signed by residents from throughout the province of British Columbia and urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to enter the long distance telephone market in Canada.
The petitioners are urging the minister to consult with affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's major urban centres in our more isolated northern communities who would be most affected by
November 22, 1991

increases in local rates should such an application proceed.
I submit these petitions on behalf of those citizens in those communities.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, Question No. 130 will be answered today.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): With respect to the government's restraint measures for pay for 1991-92, has the 3 per cent salary allotment reserve account been removed from department budgets and, if so, (a) how will annual salary increments be met (b) how will increases in contracts be met (c) will departments be allowed to (i) transfer funds from other operation budgets (ii) offset salary costs from the capital vote (d) will offsets be allowed against contributions or grants and, if not, how will the salary costs be met?


Gilles Loiselle: The February 26, 1991 budget of the Minister of Finance directed that departmental appropriations proposed in the 1991-92 Main Estimates be reduced by $500 million and indicated no funds were available in 1991-92 to provide a salary increase for public servants. Accordingly the Treasury Board ministers directed that each department's share of the $500 million, including the Salary Adjustment Reserve Allotment (SARA), be placed in "frozen" allotments against which no expenditures may be charged. Although these amounts have not been removed from departmental appropriations, the budget of each department has effectively been reduced by the total of any frozen allotments.
In respect of annual salary increments, all departments are provided an annual adjustment to their budgets based on an equal six tenths of one per cent of the forecast total of salaries and wages (not including allowances) to provide for these costs. This amount is a
Routine Proceedings
general average for the entire Public Service and takes into account that some employees are at the maximum rates of pay for their occupational group while others are moving through the range. This amount is included in the available salaries and wages budget and has not been frozen. Salary increments are exempt from the Public Sector Compensation Act.
The wage restraint legislation recently passed by Parliament has directed that all contracts with an expiry date after February 26, 1991 be extended for one year at a rate of zero per cent; therefore cost increases related to contracts expiring during 1991-92 will be limited to a few small occupational categories with all associated costs borne by the departments involved from within existing appropriations excluding frozen allotments.
If a department requires additional salary funds, it may request the Treasury Board to approve a transfer of funds from other expenditure allotments within the same vote-including funds originally budgeted for capital expenditures and/or grants and contributions; or in the event of available funds in other departmental votes, for example, the capital or grants and contributions votes, it may request Parliament to approve through the Supplementary Estimates process the transfer of funds from either of these votes to supplement its salary allotment. The Treasury Board policy in this respect is to ensure that such transfers will result in more efficient and effective programs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the member indicate whether Question No. 138 has been responded to and, if so, when it was responded to?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am just checking through the list. I must indicate to the member that the question has not been answered. We are still waiting for information from 13 departments at this point. We have collected from the others.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
We will do all in our power to complete that to ensure that question regarding press gallery members and their contracts is completed.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, may I have some direction. I understand the rules require that questions on the Order Paper be answered within 45 days.
Can the member indicate what the ramifications of that rule are? Is it a hard and fast rule, or can we expect that the government will answer questions when it is supposed to, and that is within 45 days?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the government does try to meet the deadline of 45 days on all occasions. We are occasionally not successful, particularly when we are dealing with such a situation where the hon. member has asked us to survey all departments and agencies. He will know that is a considerable task because there are several departments and considerably more agencies.
One of the options available to the member is to transfer the question for debate. We would happily co-operate with him if he chose to do that. Otherwise I can assure him that I will continue to try to get those answers.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-3, an act respecting the acquisition, administration and disposition of real property by the Government of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I want to address a very specific aspect of the
proposed legislation. The area I want to address is what I would call post-disposition disclosure.
Before I am done here I think I am going to get angry again. I am going to get angry because in my view, and I have only been in this House three years, this particular section of this bill is probably the single greatest step away from accountability that I have ever seen.
I want to say to the taxpayers, the shareholders of Canada, beware.
This particular bill governs the procedure by which the government manages and disposes of Canada's real estate assets. There are a lot of those assets maintained for many different reasons, ranging from our national parks to our federal office buildings to land that has been acquired for future use by the federal government for military purposes. There are many uses and all of them, with very few exceptions, are good and far-sighted. What really comes into dispute, from time to time, is the management of those assets.
When our government disposes of these real estate assets it usually goes through a process of decision making inside the Public Service to decide whether the assets should be sold. Ultimately a decision is made. If the decision is to sell it can be sold by different means: public auction, bids can be received, or it can be listed for sale in various manners. However the goal is to coax out a fair market price for the real estate.
I do not have any general problems with the conceptual process. My focus is on the post-sale disclosure, that is the way the public finds out how the disposition took place and where the proceeds went.
I want to bring to the House's attention two separate instances when assets of this government were disposed of and the government refused, refused and refused to tell the taxpayers and Parliament exactly how the assets were disposed of. I want to refer to them specifically. The first one is in relation to the sale of the de Havilland shares to Boeing Corporation. Those shares were disposed of by use of an order by the Governor in Council, and for those who may be reading the debate or watching it, the Governor in Council is basically the collection of cabinet ministers by which the government puts into effect decisions of the government under statute and under regulation.
November 22, 1991

In the de Havilland sale, a statutory instrument, a form of regulation, was used. Under the terms of that regulation the shares were sold to Boeing and the proceeds taken in.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that over the last few months this government has refused to show Parliament what the statutory instrument was. That was a statutory instrument passed under a statute that says: "the government may sell or dispose by regulation". This government passed a regulation, a law of Canada, and has refused to show the law to Parliament. I cannot believe it. As I stand here, I cannot fathom how a government would refuse-how a Governor in Council would refuse-to show Parliament a law that was enacted under a law of Parliament. Yet that is precisely what has happened.
The joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations has requested that statutory instrument and the government has refused on the grounds that the statutory instrument was a cabinet order and contains confidences of cabinet.
I say to this House that if we cannot see one of our laws, we are in very serious trouble in this country.
That process is happening separate in a committee and that committee will want to see that statutory instrument.
There is a second case and it involves the payment by the government under what is called a remission order, the payment to a taxpayer of taxes which were collected and in relation to which the government feels that the taxes should be reimbursed to the taxpayer.
This particular remission order was called the Stelco remission order. Prior to the Stelco remission order involving payment back to the taxpayer of several million dollars, there were three other steel companies that had received remissions. With reference to that same committee of this Parliament, the minister of revenue has been asked for the details of the remission order, how much and to whom? This is the government paying back government money to a taxpayer. We have asked, and do you know what the government has said, Madam Speaker? "You cannot see it; you may not see how we have spent your money, reimbursed it to the taxpayer."
Government Orders
In relation to clause 16(1) of this bill, the operative section, the government is authorized to dispose of these assets. It simply says: "notwithstanding any regulation made under this act, notwithstanding any other law that may have been enacted, the Governor in Council may, in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council"-that is basically the Prime Minister and his ministers-"shall determine or considers advisable, dispose of, sell, purchase, lease".
That authorization will presumably not happen by means of a regulation or a statutory instrument. It is going to happen because somebody writes it down on a piece of paper. I have already pointed out to this House that we cannot even see the statutory instruments that disposed of previous assets. If that is the case now, how are we on behalf of our constituents going to be able to see the piece of paper that is not even a statutory instrument?
How are we going to be able to see the terms of sale and what we have done with the proceeds from the sale of these assets?
With its subclause 16(1) the government is doing a complete and utter end run around on the accountability to Parliament. That is just totally unacceptable in this country. I thought we had procedures for accountability. This new section removes even the statutory or legal instruments that one could re-address and scrutinize.
The government does not even want to pass them. In subclause 16(2) the government is back on the old track of authorizing these sales, leases, dispositions, et cetera, by way of a regulation and by way of a statutory instrument.
I am saying to Canadians if they do not have a statutory instrument and if all they have is a wish list written down in cabinet among the ministers and the Prime Minister then we will never get to see it. Those documents are cabinet confidences which remain sealed for approximately 25 years. That is wilfully covering up what the government is doing with the sale of these assets and the disposition of the proceeds. That is totally unacceptable.
I pointed out these two instances involving the Stelco remission order and the de Havilland sale. Both are being addressed and I want to tell the House what we have had to do on this committee.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
In a research discussion paper involving the statute prepared by the Library of Parliament it acknowledges that the Treasury Board chairman, a minister in this House, has said to the committee that looked at this bill: "Do not worry because you can use the Access to Information Act". It is that wonderful statute that permits us to gain access to government information. I know that statute is being successfully used all across government. I do not want to underestimate the effectiveness of that statute in many areas. But there are problems.
I want to point out that counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, as a result of the way the Public Service replied to our committee in relation to getting information about the Stelco remission order, decided to make a request under the Access to Information Act.
Here we have a committee of Parliament seeking out the information that it must have to do its job and using a statute that was created for the general public. It was not created for parliamentarians nor for committees of Parliament. We thought we would try it. The public servant involved said: "We are sorry we cannot tell you to whom we paid the money and how much it was". That is what the Access to Information Act yielded to this Parliament: zero.
It is a sham when this minister tells a committee of this House: "Do not worry. You will get your information under the Access to Information Act". If the minister really knew what was happening he would be embarrassed. He is either trying to fool us or he has been fooled himself. I like to think that he really does not know.
I hope he will know and I hope he will take into consideration the remarks that I and other colleagues have made in relation to that. The Access to Information Act will not work. If he thinks it does I would like to debate that. I am sure many other parliamentarians would also like to debate the subject.
If he is so confident perhaps he ought to be prepared to amend the Access to Information Act to link subclause 16(1) in this bill that says that the Governor in Council can do whatever it wants on a piece of paper
without a statutory instrument, without a regulation, without passing a law. Subclause 16(1) would be addressable by all Canadians under the Access to Information Act.
I remind the House of the de Havilland share sale order and the remission order involving Stelco and the others. There are members from both sides of the House who are working on this. We are not giving up and we will do everything we can to force the government to account. When I address the issue in this bill about post-sale accountability I am trying to tell this House that I am angry because the government is not delivering. It is posturing. Cover up is the wrong term to use. There is non-disclosure. There is secrecy and the taxpayer is being shafted in the process because the taxpayer cannot call the government to account. The taxpayer does not know what is happening. These events could be happening in the classic back room. They are certainly happening behind closed cabinet doors.
I had to take note in this House earlier today when the government House leader skated right over the whole concept of Question Period as a vehicle or a mechanism for calling the government to account. It is a vehicle that has been used well by the opposition and a vehicle that can be used by its own members on the backbench. He forgot about that. That is a vehicle for calling the government and the ministers who sometimes have to sit in the House for 45 minutes and not be asked a question. But that process of bringing the Governor in Council, the cabinet, into the House and placing it there for questions from members who represent all Canadians is the process of accountability. It is all we have in this House during the day's proceedings.
I want to signal to the government that subclause 16(1) is a travesty. It is a vehicle that will not serve Parliament and the parliamentary function and it will not serve Canadians. We will not support it and I will do everything that I can as a member to make sure it is not passed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I want to ask my hon. colleague a question. It relates back to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who asked before Question Period what the relationship is between the sale of the domed stadium by the provincial NDP
November 22, 1991

government in the province of Ontario and Bill C-3 respecting the disposition of Crown lands and Crown assets. The hon. member believed that we were bringing in that sale for strictly partisan reasons.
I want to remind my friend from the New Democratic Party, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, that the sale of the SkyDome in Toronto is very much a part of what we are talking about in this bill today. The land on which the domed stadium in Toronto was built was Crown land. The federal government's contribution to the domed stadium in Toronto was through the Crown corporation CN. It was CN that made the contribution of those lands to the project.
I have heard estimates ranging from $50 million to $150 million in terms of the value of those Crown lands.
We have a situation in the province of Ontario where it can be debated. The press do not want to touch it. It is a mystery. I do not know why they do not want to touch it. I am not knocking the private sector that scooped this deal from the province of Ontario. It shows that they are pretty good operators. The problem is that a domed stadium is not just there for the Toronto Blue Jays or Argonauts. It is a tourism instrument that creates a lot of jobs in hotels and motels and in all the spin-offs from the tourism industry. When the Crown had access and participation in that Crown project we were able to have influence on the price of a baseball ticket or a hot dog or a beer. When it is put solely in the hands of the private sector we lose our ability to have influence on using this instrument for the purpose of the public at large.
We have a bill today that accelerates in an efficient way the selling off or the disposition of Crown lands. This makes me nervous. These are megadeals by and large. They should be given a proper analysis and a strategic long-range overview approach. We could be kicking ourselves in the butt five years from now and the taxpayers will never forgive us.
My colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River knows well the Harbourfront deals, the En Route deals and all the other deals that are related to the selling off of Crown assets. My question to him is: Does he not think that with only a year left in this government's mandate this bill poses some real dangers? Does he not think that
Government Orders
the few remaining Crown assets may be discarded or disposed of in a manner where proper long-term study may not be able to happen?


Derek Vincent Lee: I want to thank my friend and colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for that question and an opportunity to clarify.
The SkyDome issue is a good example. It is not a federal property. It is the property of a provincial government. Harbourfront certainly was a property of the federal government. It is a good example of the problem we may face if subclause 16(1) is passed. I pointed out earlier the difference between subclauses 16(1) and 16(2). Subclause 16(2) says the government may sell and dispose of these things by regulation whereas subclause 16(1) says it may simply do it. It is because of the reference to a regulation in subclause 16(2) that we have in this House a hook to find out about what happened.
I do not know exactly the process by which the SkyDome was sold off in Toronto. Let us say for discussion purposes it was a federal property. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if the government used subclause 16(1) of this bill then after the sale it would say: "We cannot tell you all of the aspects of this financial transaction for two reason. The first is cabinet confidentiality. This deal was discussed around the table in cabinet and we have the right to confidentiality. Sorry, we cannot talk to you about this".
The second reason that is often used is what is called commercial confidentiality. When it sells it, it says: "The purchasers have asked the government not to disclose certain things because it would put the purchaser at a disadvantage vis-a-vis competitors". I do not buy any of that. When this government takes our assets and public property and sells it and takes in the money then our taxpayers have to know what happened. They have to know every aspect of that deal. There must be what we call transparency and accountability. As I pointed out earlier subclause 16(1) takes us back 500 years to where the king did whatever he wanted. We just walked away from everything that Parliament was supposed to be. I am disappointed to see it there. I am devastated that it is there. I cannot believe that it has come this far.

Government Orders
In any event, I hope that has answered the question and I hope the caution light is on. Please do not pass subclause 16(1) of this bill.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on this bill. I want to thank my colleague for his very nice presentation of our party position vis-a-vis this bill.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced in order to repeal the Public Land Grant Act and to amend the Public Works Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Surplus Crown Assets Act, so as to consolidate existing generic real property legislation into one act. I think by itself this is something which is extremely important and a point well taken.
Another purpose of the bill is to simplify and modernize real property management in conveyance practices by the government.
A third aspect of the bill would not affect real property governed by special programs legislation. Examples of this are: the National Parks Act, the Indian Act and the Territorial Lands Act. The bill would also permit the use of conveyancing practices commonly used within the private sector, those making it easier to deal with the federal government.
All these objectives are good ones. These supposedly are the main reasons the government has moved on this bill.
Like any legislation of course it is extremely important to look at both sides of the issue. We have to look at the strength as well as the weakness in the legislation. To be objective, there are certain strengths in the legislation. It would consolidate under a single enactment all of the statutory authority for land management. It will define more clearly land management and it would reduce quite a bit the red tape in the system. What the bill does not do is specify the complete procedure of real property transaction.
Rather than repeating what my colleague was speaking about I will give some real life examples in my riding of Ottawa Centre.
Just a block away from the House of Commons we have a mall called the Sparks Street Mall which has three different partners. There is the city of Ottawa
which owns part and parcel of that mall. There is the federal government which owns approximately 40 per cent of the mall in terms of real estate. The balance of the properties are owned by the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, you perhaps would be very disappointed to know that the overwhelming majority of those properties owned by the federal government are sitting empty. They have been sitting empty now for over two years. Many of those properties are in big need of a tenant and also in big need of maintenance.
I do not want to talk about the maintenance aspect of it. I want to talk about the tenant aspect of it. The federal government failed in a sense to manage its property on the Sparks Street Mall properly. As a result of its mismanagement not only has it caused my city to lose valuable tax dollars in revenues through business taxes, but also it negatively affected other businesses on the street. Therefore we have a mall with approximately 30 per cent of the businesses sitting empty. That is one example of the mishandling or the mismanagement of real property owned by the federal government.
What the government should do in a situation like this is either hand it over to the board of management of that particular mall so it can properly, efficiently and aggressively look for tenants to occupy those buildings.
It is not feasible at the present time because the federal government is asking for a lot of things from the private sector. As a result it is becoming fairly difficult for a tenant to occupy those properties.
Another example of government lack of action is found across from Parliament Hill. We have approximately 150 acres of land on Lebreton Flats which has been sitting idle and empty now for approximately 25 years. In the winter the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, an organization that represents 11 different municipalities in our region, uses it to dump snow. In the summer a part of the flats is used for campers, balloonists and people who might want to take a walk or others who might want to walk their dogs.
The federal government through its agency the National Capital Commission has discussed the issue of consultation with the city of Ottawa and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The NCC has had consultation with members of the private sector. It appears to have come to grips with the issue and seems
November 22, 1991

Government Orders
to be moving ahead. But there seems to be a failure in holdings, and in parallel with that you would look at your terms of the process.	requirements, and you match the two together.
Here we have a very valuable piece of property. There are claims that there is some sort of contamination on or underneath that property. There is a tremendous effect on the surrounding environment. There have been calls by members of the community for the government to undertake some sort of environmental review assessment. The government is quite slow in its action and as a result it is causing quite a bit of alarm in the community and a lot of frustration.
Just looking at those two examples it seems to me the government has been slow in its action. I will mention another example. We have millions of square feet of office space in our city which are empty. Many of those offices are owned and operated by the federal government.
This is a time when the departments of the federal government are looking for space. But it seems that the first thing we do is look at the market and run out to rent the first available piece of real estate in terms of office space. We move in without really taking the time and energy to look at what we have as a federal government in terms of office space.
As a result we have empty buildings owned by the federal government while we are using taxpayers' money to go out and rent other offices at market value. That is good and bad. It is good in the sense that we are injecting money into the community. I should be very grateful for that.
It is bad when we look at it in the sense that we have hundreds of empty offices out there that are owned by the federal government. Here, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about proper real estate management, one would ask; why would the government not have some sort of a data bank in every region and all across the country, so that we would know exactly how many square feet we have in terms of office space, in terms of commercial space, in terms of residential space and in terms of land? From the data base you could determine your needs, not your needs two months from now or two years from now, but analyze the needs over five years, 10 years, 25 years, and for that matter even over 50 years. You are then properly managing your assets in terms of real estate
That is what I would call proper real estate management, proper land management, efficient management.
We have to streamline our system, Mr. Speaker. I mean, this is fine, this is a first step. But I did not see anywhere in the bill where it really does specifically address this whole question of government needs and government requirements over the long term.
I was the critic for public works and I was extremely impressed by the quality of administrators, the quality of public servants in our government. We have the finest public servants anywhere in the world. But over the past number of years we have been tying them down to their chairs, tying them down with bureaucratic red tape and not giving them the freedom to present our government and our House with a good idea that could be used in the best interest of Canadians.
I would go on and outline some other terrible things that have been happening in land management and real estate management, but I would like to contain my comments to the issues very close to my heart and to my city. That is why I have given the example of the Sparks Street Mall, with all of those empty buildings sitting there, not being put on the block so a tenant could move in and rent them. I also gave the example of the LeBreton Flats where the government has not yet moved on an environmental review assessment so they can proceed with some sort of a balanced development. I wonder how many other examples there are elsewhere across the country that would fit this particular description.
To sell or not to sell is, of course, a hypothetical question. I think that if the government has a piece of property that is of value to the interests of Canadians, that piece of property should remain in the hands of the federal government with an option, with the opportunity and the possibility of profit in the future. Because if a home today is worth $100,000, tomorrow it is going to be worth $105,000 or the year after it might be worth $110,000. So there is no loss in terms of the government interest but the government interests have gained as we go further into the next decade.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
So we should not really be in a huriy to say "I don't need this so I am going to sell it off"; we should look first at our objectives as a country. What are they? In the first place, (a) why did we make the purchase; (b) what can we do with the property now; and (c) what can we do with the property in the future?
I have to give a lot of credit to our administrators and our public servants. They have been terrific in that every time there is a piece of property that has been determined to be of no use to the federal government they have approached the provincial government, they have approached the municipality in question, and then they have moved on to other agencies-whether that was charitable organizations or non-profit organizations- and if nobody showed an interest in it, it would then go on the selling block.
Those are good things that are happening, but there is an need to overhaul our system in terms of our land management and real estate management, to compare what we need versus what is available. This bill does not deal with that at all.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Ottawa Centre for his remarks on this bill.
I have a very specific question to put to him. We know that this government has this itch to sell just about everything that is part of the national government's inventory. Does he believe and does he share the view that this bill is basically going to put the Crown assets on a fast track in terms of the government's ability to further dispose of same?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood on his excellent question.
Yes indeed this will speed up the process. There is no question about it. It will free the hands of the government to quickly start selling our assets in the Crown corporations.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of terrible things are happening in our society right now. We are frightening the people in our society with this question of the deficit. As a result of that, every time our government wants to do something terribly bad, it uses the deficit to ease the pain and the minds of the people.
Look at the situation that our society has gone through over the past few years. Look at VIA Rail, for instance, Mr. Speaker. Look at CBC. I do not want to go very far. Look at Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada is a fine organization. It is a magnificent operation. It is doing extremely well.
An agency is out there to fulfil a mandate, an objective and to play a role in the society that we live in. It was put on the selling block. As a result, people in my area here are faced with paying some of the highest prices for gasoline anywhere in Ontario. That is anywhere in Ontario.
The agency was put in place in order to balance both the interests of the consumer and the interests of government together. The government has put it out for sale sacrificing the interests of Canadians for the sake of collecting a few dollars to put toward the deficit.
Is that fairness? Just yesterday, the government was going through the sale of Telesat Canada. That is a magnificent corporation. It is a model corporation where we have a perfect example of a partnership between the public sector and the private sector. It is one of the finest institutions anywhere in the world. The government in the name of deficit reduction is putting it on the auction block. That is terrible.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood raises this question. This is exactly what he has in mind. He wants me to burst out with my frustration over what the government has done with some of our finest institutions. It is a terrible thing for us to do. As a government and as a society, we have started selling the furniture in order to pay the rent.
The way we can deal with all of the questions such as deficit and deficit reduction is through investment in our youth and our children. It is through investment in combating illiteracy, through investment in education, through improvement in productivity, putting money toward training and retraining of our workforce, putting an infrastructure in place. It is not in selling everything that this country stands for.
What a shameful thing. I want to apologize for getting a little out of hand on this issue but I get frustrated every time I see this government moving with all those terrible, terrible decisions to sell institutions that we pride ourselves in as a society. It is one of the finest countries in the world. It is one of the most compassionate countries

in the world yet we are selling the furniture in order to pay the rent.
I am afraid-the hon. member is giving me the look-that the next thing we are going to see on the selling block is the House of Commons. We will privatize it, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member was dead on in his question.


An hon. member:: Investment.


Mac Harb: Of course. He has a defence for everything. There is a defence for everything. The hon. member is trying to defend the government action.
In 1969, there was the Telesat Act. I am going to give this example again, because it really irked me.
In 1969 when the Telesat Canada Act was introduced, the main purpose of the act at the time was for the federal government to enter into a partnership with the private sector so more money could be injected into research and development. That is what the objective was, Mr. Speaker.
Now, 30 years later, we are still in the same situation. There has not been a lot of improvement in the area of research and development on the part of the private sector, so the mandate of the federal government has not been met. That being the case, why do we turn around and sell Telesat? Why, why?
Mr. Speaker, you will notice it is quiet on the other side of the House, absolutely quiet.


An hon. member:: Don't worry, Mac, they have one year left, one year at the most.


Mac Harb: The hon. member says one year. I cannot wait. I cannot wait. But the damage has been so great that I am just beginning to wonder where we start. Where do we start? Everything we stand for as a country is being questioned in the name of deficit reduction.
Everything that is going to be sold as a result of the enactment of Bill C-3 will be justified by any minister who is selling something by pointing out that the proceeds will go to the deficit reduction fund. It is a fund that will not kick in until 1996.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on Bill C-3, but I have been listening to my colleagues in the Liberal Party speak on
Government Orders
this bill and I became concerned about its provisions. It is not a bill that I was responsible for or paid much attention to until today. I am moved by some of the very persuasive arguments made by my friend from Broadview-Greenwood and other colleagues on this side of the House.
Much to my regret, I note that members of the Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party seem to be involved in some type of-and I use the term loosely-conspiracy to have this bill pushed through the House without much debate or consideration.
This bill is entitled an act respecting the acquisition, administration and disposition of real property by the Government of Canada. We have been told that this is a technical bill, that there is not much in terms of substance to the bill and to a large extent that is true. It involves a lot of technical provisions dealing with the disposition of Crown assets and, in particular, real property.
I was reading a summary of the bill from the Library of Parliament and it sums up the purpose of the bill as follows:
Bill C-3 seeks to modernize and streamline the law governing most transactions involving federal real property. To this end it would bring together under a single statute the general authority for the sale, purchase, leasing and licensing of all manner of federally owned property.
That is a commendable goal, to try to streamline into a single scheme the sale and disposition of all Crown lands and assets. There are certain exceptions of course. Under this particular piece of legislation, there are certain lands and properties that do not fall within the ambit of Bill C-3, in particular properties that are governed under the National Parks Act, the Indian Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. Any properties governed by those pieces of legislation will not be caught by the provisions of Bill C-3.
One of the major omissions of this particular piece of legislation is, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, a central depository, a place where any member of the public or any member of Parliament or any group or organization can go to determine what has happened to a particular parcel of land, to obtain information about a particular transaction involving a Crown asset or real property.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
If this law is passed as is, if the Senate in its wisdom decides not to amend this legislation, then it will be somewhat difficult for someone to obtain the complete details of any sale of federally owned land, for example. That is a major omission in this bill. There is no central depository to provide readily accessible information on the federal government's property transactions.
I would like to refer to clause 4. It reads as follows:
Subject to any other Act, no sale, lease or other disposition of
federal real property shall be made and no licence shall be given in
respect of federal real property except in accordance with this Act or
on the authority or direction of the Governor in Council.
In other words, all federal government property has to be disposed under the provisions of Bill C-3 unless there is another piece of legislation. I referred earlier to several examples: the Indian Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, et cetera. If those bills do not deal with the disposition of land then this bill will.
The bill defines real property in clause 2. It says:
"real property" means land whether within or outside Canada,-
Therefore a property owned outside Canada, for example our embassies abroad or other official residences abroad, comes within the mandate of this particular bill.
-including mines and minerals, and buildings, structures, improvements and other fixtures on, above or below the surface of the land, and includes an interest therein.
We are not only talking about the sale of land but also about leases. We are also talking about property, defined in a liberal sense. It includes any structures, improvements or other fixtures on, above or below the surface of the land.
We then turn to clause 16 to find out what this all means. Clause 16 is entitled Powers of Governor in Council. We know that the Governor in Council is the cabinet. The Prime Minister and ministers of the Crown together are known as the cabinet.
Clause 16 provides the power that will be given to the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Crown in dealing with the disposition of federally owned land.
Subclause 16 (1) refers to the cabinet and reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any regulations made under subsection (2), the
Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury
Board -
And the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. It continues:
-in accordance with such terms and subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Governor in Council considers advisable,
The bill goes on to list about a dozen or more different powers that the cabinet would have. The main power or the main jurisdiction is in paragraph (a). The cabinet may:
-authorize the sale, lease or other disposition of any federal real property for which sale, lease or disposition there is no provision in or under any other Act;
What does that mean?


Derek Vincent Lee: A back room deal.


John V. Nunziata: My friend from Scarborough talks about a back room deal. That is exactly what this bill would allow. Let me give an example.
If the government in its wisdom-and there is some question as to the amount of wisdom this government has these days because of its philosophy to sell, sell, sell government assets, in effect to sell out the country-decided to sell Pearson International Airport in Toronto to the private sector, to developers, could it?
We have to determine first whether Bill C-3 would apply to such a sale. If we look at what acts of Parliament are excluded from this particular legislation, the National Parks Act does not govern Pearson International Airport, the Indian Act does not govern Pearson International Airport, the Territorial Lands Act does not, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act does not, and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act does not. Presumably then Bill C-3 would apply if passed into law.
Bill C-3, clause 16, says that the cabinet may authorize the sale, lease or other disposition of any federal real property for which sale, lease or disposition there is no provision in or under any other act. Therefore the cabinet would have the go-ahead, the green light, to consummate a back room deal with whomever it pleased. There would be no debate in the Parliament of Canada over the disposition or sale of Pearson International Airport or any other airport in Canada or any other real
November 22, 1991

property owned by the Government of Canada governed by this act.
Is that what we want to do? Is that what we want to give to the federal cabinet, whether it be this cabinet or the new cabinet that will be sworn in once a Liberal government is elected? Do we want to give a cabinet the authority to sell off assets without reference to the House of Commons?
I submit not. That would lead to secret back room deals. There would not even be a central depository where the documents relating to the sale would have to be deposited or filed so that Canadians could see the nature of the contract or see through some of these potential back room deals.
The ramifications of Bill C-3 are far-reaching. As I indicated when I began speaking I did not intend to speak on Bill C-3. However I became concerned earlier today when I saw the minister stand up and applaud the NDP and the NDP stand up and applaud the minister. When the NDP and the government are in bed together one knows that something is amiss. Then I understood why the NDP might be supporting Bill C-3. It was an NDP government in the province of Ontario that sold off the SkyDome, is in the process of literally giving the SkyDome away in order to plug a few holes that it has in its fiscal and financial situation.
As my colleague from Ottawa indicated, you do not sell the furniture to pay the rent. That is what Bobby Rae and the rest of his comrades at Queen's Park are up to today. They are selling off the furniture to pay for the horrendous deficit that the province of Ontario finds itself in because of the ill-conceived policies of Bob Rae and his band of socialists at Queen's Park.
We can understand why the NDP wants to support Bill C-3 and does not want to make too much of a fuss over it. That is because Bill C-3 would give to the federal cabinet the same type of authority that Bob Rae has at Queen's Park to sell off assets or enter into cosy deals with developers or major corporations without any reference or authority from the legislative body, that is the House of Commons.
It seems to me that in the circumstances we ought not delegate or legislate away authority that this House has regarding the disposition of federal assets. The way this
Government Orders
bill is worded would leave complete discretion in the hands of the cabinet. As I indicated, it could be any cabinet, present or future. It is not something that I believe this government ought to do.
I see I have the support of my House leader from Nova Scotia on the point. I am pleased. I understand that he may be speaking to this bill as well concerning how this bill will affect his constituents in Cape Breton. I know that his constituents would be as concerned as my constituents with respect to this legislation.
Let me conclude by saying how concerned I am about this bill, the fact that it has progressed so far. I would hope that the Senate will carefully scrutinize the provisions of this bill to ensure that it is in keeping with the public interest. The public interest, I would submit, would require that this House continue to have authority over the disposition of major real assets that belong to the people of Canada.
We are not talking about and I am not speaking of surplus land that is minor in nature, where you might have a few lots here or a few lots there that some particular ministry of the Crown deems to be surplus. I am talking about major assets such as-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Downsview air force base.


John V. Nunziata: -the Downsview air force base, the Pickering lands, for example. A number of my colleagues and I were speaking just a few moments ago about the disposition of the Pickering lands. At the present time the powers that be have deemed it unnecessary for a second major airport be built in metropolitan Toronto. Under this bill the cabinet could just sell off that land without any reference or debate in this House. There is no over-all mechanism or central depository that would determine whether down the road that land might be of use to the federal government for some other purpose.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me simply ask that the Senate carefully scrutinize this bill to ensure that the public interest is dealt with in a fair and reasonable fashion.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from York-South Weston. I note that the minister is here listening to comment and debate on his bill. I want to make a constructive comment here to address what I and

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
others on this side, and maybe some members on that side of the House, believe is a very significant defect in this bill in relation to clause 16(1). The minister knows that the government is on weak ground on that clause. It has been commented on before. If he has read the commentary from the Library of Parliament, if he has followed the committee, I think he senses the issue that we are getting into.
I want to ask my colleague if he thought it would be useful-the minister is hearing this as well-to amend clause 16(1). There is no regulation or statutory instrument reference. If any sales or dispositions occur, the authorization might be on the back of a telephone message slip, on a piece of paper. Presumably it is in writing or in a cabinet minute, but in any event an authorization is given with no statutory instrument or regulation. If clause 16(1) could be amended to provide, for example, that any authorization which takes place under clause 16(1) would take place by way of a statutory instrument and be deemed to be referred to either the public accounts committee or the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations of this House, that would provide a mechanism by which Parliament could structurally ex poste facto oversee the kinds of transactions, which could be backroom deals, envisaged and for which the groundwork is laid by clause 16(1).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent suggestion. Any provision or mechanism that will allow for public scrutiny, that will allow members of Parliament and others to look at or to examine in a public way the disposition of federal land or federal property is helpful.
My colleague makes a suggestion that would allow for the disposition of a certain piece of property or the lease of a certain building to be referred to a committee so that a committee could consider, debate and discuss the matter. Anything that would provide for that I would support.
I would also like to see a central depository where there would be a registry office of all federally owned land. Any proposed sale would have to be entered into this depository and all contracts and papers involving a particular sale or lease of a piece of federally owned land would be filed at this particular location so that members
of the public would have access in order to examine them.
I like my friend's suggestion that the section be amended to permit committee consideration and overview.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from York South-Weston. The Public Service of Canada administers these Crown assets, whether they be airports, post offices or Department of National Defence institutions and properties. We are in no way, shape or form questioning their judgment or their administrative abilities of these Crown assets.
However, if the political will of the government of the country decides that its public policy is one of dismantling, then it is the responsibility of the Public Service to follow its instruction.
I wonder if it might not be a useful exercise if we on this side of the House suggest to the public servants from	Hj
coast to coast to coast, that manage and administer our	Hj
Crown assets, to go through some kind of a review and	Hj
see what possible mid-term or short-term use, not only Hj for their own department but for other departmental	Hj
uses, could be made of Crown lands. That way, rather	Hj
than the expeditious sale of these lands, which this bill is	Hj
going to provide for, it might be brought to the attention	Hj
of this House some of the long range vision of the public Hj servants that arc in the field in every part of this country.	Hj
In other words, we sit here in this House and wc	Hj
sometimes do not fully comprehend or understand the	Hj
long-term potential of a Crown land or a Crown asset Hj whereas the public servant, because he is there might see Hj the potential because he is part of that marketplace.	Hj
Therefore, he or she may be victim of a directive of the	Hj
national government and may not have recourse to Hj present ideas to us for their long-term potential.	Hj
I would just like to have my colleague from York	Hj
South-Weston react to that.	H


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my H colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for asking that Hj question. It is an excellent question.
The point he is making is that if a particular depart- H ment or ministry deems a particular piece of land to be surplus, does that necessarily mean that it is surplus to H the needs of all ministries and all departments?	Hj

November 22, 1991

I have reviewed this bill and I do not see any mechanism that would require the government to canvass the entire federal government. Perhaps the minister can cite the section in the bill.
The minister indicates that there is something in the bill that would require that, as a matter of law for that to happen before land is sold or disposed of.
A quick reading of the bill tells me there is not such a provision. Therefore a particular piece of property may be deemed surplus by Canada Post. Yet, Public Works or the Ministry of the Solicitor General might have some use for that particular parcel of land.
We might find ourselves in a position in which one arm of the government is doing something that could adversely affect another arm of government. I would hope that if there is something in the bill it is highlighted so that people are aware of it and that departments of the Crown know of it.
I appreciate the question from my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague.
One of my greatest concerns about this bill is the long-term conditions that may exist in this countiy. There are billions and billions of dollars worth of Crown land and Crown assets in the province of Quebec.
I would like to know what ramifications a bill might have in relation to properties whose lower value, because of the tough economic period in the province of Quebec with the national unity debate, may be an attraction to shrewd buyers. That essentially removes the federal presence from the province of Quebec.
Quite often, we know from the past in western Canada, it has been the federal presence through all departments that has held this country together. I am very nervous about this bill and its ramifications vis-a-vis Crown lands in the province of Quebec.
I certainly hope that there is no sub-agenda here concerning that province.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my friend again asks a fairly serious question about what impact this bill will have if a certain option is followed in the province of Quebec.
Government Orders
I do not know whether an inventory has been done. I do not know whether, in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario or any province in this country, an inventory exists of all federally owned property.
We are not talking about legal jurisdiction here. We are not talking about land that may be within the boundaries of the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec or any other province in the country. We are talking about the owners, the legal title holders of certain property in different provinces.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It could give it to the province.


John V. Nunziata: Yes. My friend says that under this particular bill the federal government, in order to further certain political goals, might decide to hand over or to transfer certain federally owned lands to a provincial government.
I would hope that somewhere there is some central inventory of all property owned in each of the individual provinces. I think that our legislators, whether in Quebec City, at Queen's Park or in any other provincial capital, will certainly be surprised to see the extent of federally owned property in each of the individual provinces.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment for the Liberal member from Toronto who cannot seem to get over the fact that the Liberals lost the provincial election there last year. The people of Ontario spoke very loud and clear in that election to indicate that they were tired of the mismanagement of the province and of the kinds of deals that led to the deficit the SkyDome ran up. In a democracy like Canada the people have said they want New Democrats to clean up a Liberal deficit in Ontario, a Conservative deficit-


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order. I am sure every member in the House right now subscribes to the rule of relevance. I cannot imagine, for the life of me, where that particular issue came from. I would simply ask members, as I am sure the Speaker would, to try to be relevant.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: I am sorry to indicate now that the time has expired for the questions and comments.

Government Orders


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak on this particular bill. However, I am glad I was here in the House and had the opportunity to listen to our Liberal colleague from York South-Weston and the comments he made with regard to the disposal of real properties.
To be blunt, I was quite offended by the comments the member made about the decisions made by the provincial government of Ontario about the sale of SkyDome. That comment is very pertinent in terms of the bill before us.
The New Democratic government of Ontario has disposed of the assets of SkyDome because it is trying to clean up a financial mess it inherited as a result of the financial administration of the previous Liberal government in Ontario.
I want to make it very clear that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are supporting this legislation and supporting the government on this particular bill because it makes sense. We are prepared to support the government whenever it does make sense. This particular piece of legislation is pragmatic and will be effective.
The Liberals are opposing this piece of legislation. They are criticizing it. I say to them that any person running a small business would agree with my sentiments that rather than laying off workers or imposing wage restraints on workers, if the revenue of a company has decreased because of tough economic times, perhaps one of the most practical things to do is sell off, to disperse the assets of real properties the company owns. It does make sense, provided that the capitalization of those real properties can be recovered and those assets reinvested in the Crown.
This kind of initiative does not make sense all the time, and there have been many such cases in the past. For example, the sale of the Expo 86 lands by the Social Credit government in British Columbia did not make sense because those lands were sold at a net loss to the province of British Columbia. My provincial New Democratic colleagues, in opposition at the time, did oppose that. The sale of those assets were essentially a giveaway. That did not make sense. That was a net loss to the taxpayers of British Columbia.
We have to examine it on an issue by issue basis. This particular piece of legislation does give the government an opportunity to review those real properties it is in possession of, examine the disposal of those assets and the recovery of the capitalization of those assets to enable to it to reduce the very real debt load that this country is carrying right now.
I would much rather reduce property expenditures than cut back on wages or jobs in the federal Public Service. We know that we face a very serious deficit problem, and I think the government's suggestion in this particular legislation is a practical way of tackling the problem head on.
I am not afraid to say that I agree with the government. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation that should be supported. Quite frankly it amazes me that the Liberal opposition is so willing to take any expedient political position which suits its own political needs. It is simply not paying attention to the pragmatic aspects of the bill before us.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my question for the New Democratic Party member is this. We said earlier today that the efficiency of this bill is good. I said that after the minister spoke this morning and I repeat myself to the New Democratic Party member. It will be recorded in Hansard. I also said to the minister this morning that I have concerns which bother me about this bill because it tends to decentralize.
I did use the example of the domed stadium in Toronto not because the provincial Liberals lost the last election. I know that seems impossible for you to believe, Mr. Speaker, but the facts are the facts.
Is it right with a $700 million asset-where the Crown by the way was a minor partner because the land that the dome is built on is Crown land, national Crown land through CN-that we take that public policy instrument and move it into the private sector where we have no control on the pricing? Once the sale goes through there is nothing to stop the tickets from going from $20 to $40. There is nothing to stop the cost of a coke from going from $2.50 to $5.50.
In the short term, sure, this looks like a sweet deal because we are worried about the balance sheet in the province of Ontario. I submit we should be worried about the balance sheet. But they are not thinking long term. This has effects in terms of the food service and hospitality industry in the province of Ontario because
November 22, 1991

that dome is an instrument that attracts visitors from abroad. It attracts trade fairs. It is a very simple thing.
I cannot believe the New Democratic Party now is taking such a strong capitalist position. I am not against capitalism, but what I am concerned about is that the business of business is earnings per share. It is natural for those people who will now own the dome to make sure that they make a good respectable return on investment.
In governments the business of governments is to try to use those public policy instruments to maintain and preserve and promote jobs not only in the mid term, short term but the long term.
In this case the city of Toronto put $30 million into this, the province did in fact put over $30 million into it, the Government of Canada, through its land contribution put I believe at least $100 million into that. Then they turn around and sell it for $100 million and give away that ability to serve the greater community. I do not understand their logic.
Believe me, this is not a partisan thing. I just think it is bad business for the Government of Canada to take a taxpayers' asset worth $700 million and move it to the private sector for $100 million. It is no secret to anyone in this House. All of those people who bought that domed stadium are friends of mine. I salute them for getting such a good deal.
I am not here to argue for the gang or the group or the entrepreneurs who scooped that domed stadium. I am here to debate public policy. I did not plan on speaking on this bill today.
I want to ask the hon. member something. What is going to happen, God forbid everyone in this country, if a pequiste government ever got into the province of Quebec after the next election. With a bill like this, they could do land deals left, right and centre and our federal presence in the province of Quebec could virtually be destroyed. Is that the kind of thing that is going to galvanize and pull this country together? I do not think so.
With respect to my colleague from the New Democratic Party, my debate and concern about the disposal of Crown assets, I am not having this debate today because I am a Liberal and Bob Rae is NDP and this is the Conservative Party. I just fundamentally disagree with selling off Crown assets cheaply just because we are
Government Orders
having a tough time. There are other ways of creating wealth in this country. We all know that there was no direct infusion of cash to the treasury of the national government in the last five or six deals this government has done. In fact, if you want to take it in simplistic business terms, if you have an asset that is on the books for $700 million and you go to someone who wants to buy in in terms of loaning you money, it is better to have the $700 million asset there because that at least will allow you to develop some leverage in terms of getting people who want to buy our Government of Canada bonds, or whatever, in terms of allowing us to function as a national government. But when you take a $700 million asset off the books, you lose your leverage in terms of the wealth of the balance sheet of the entire country. It is a myth that this thing addresses the deficit. It is a myth. Excuse me for getting so excited, but it is mythology that these things work at reducing the deficit of this country.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, these are tough economic times, and during tough economic times governments have to make tough decisions. That is exactly the decision that the Bob Rae government has taken.
I want to say that the domed stadium-because I am answering the member's question-was an economic Trojan horse for the previous Liberal administration. The fact is that tough decisions have to be made. You have to decide whether you are going to reduce your real property assets, if you are going to reduce federal or provincial civil service jobs, or if you are going to increase the debt.
We know that taxpayers across this country, whether we are talking Ontario or British Columbia, are suffering from tax exhaustion. They cannot afford to have more taxes. So those kinds of tough decisions have to be made.
I want to reiterate again, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial Government of Ontario has been saddled with a real economic problem, largely because of major job losses as a result of the spin-off of the free trade agreement and the loss of markets and manufacturers to the south. Tough decisions have to be made.
On the other hand, this particular piece of legislation does provide a vehicle through which, in this case the federal government, can begin to tackle some of those debt problems. That is why we have said when a policy makes sense, as this policy does-and God knows, many times their policies don't make sense, but this one

Government Orders
does-we in the New Democratic Party are prepared to support the government. And we are supporting the government on this piece of legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A short question, Madam Speaker, just a very short one?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member had the floor in the last one. The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, there is a minute and a half left in the period for questions or comments.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a very short question to the member for Okanagan-Shuswap.
If a transaction were to occur under section 16(1), a transaction which apparently will take place only by means of a cabinet minute, can he tell the House how he, as a member of Parliament, will be able to find out, ex post facto, afterward, the proceeds of sale, and to whom the property was sold and all of the terms of the deal? How will he find that out if he has not met with cabinet confidentiality-that is one reason he is going to meet, because the government doesn't release cabinet documents-and the commercial confidentiality exemption in the Access to Information Act? How is he going to find out for his constituents the terms of that sale?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I said that this was a good piece of legislation; I did not say that it was perfect. The member fully recognizes that.
I agree with the member's concerns. At second reading, we are debating the principle of this legislation. I fully support the member's comments. The members of the NDP will be making a number of amendments when this bill reaches the stage where amendments can be made.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill be concurred in.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the direction of the Chair in how we are proceeding with Bill C-35.
Because it was brought to my attention, I have given notice of my concerns to the parliamentary secretary as well as to the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader. It pertains to Part III of Bill C-35. What this particular bill does is make technical amendments to more that 90 statutes that cover every facet of government activity. Part III of the act, bills introduced but not yet assented to, refers to Bill C-3 which we have just dealt with. It also refers to Bill C-4. Bill C-4 has yet to be assented to. It is before the committee. It is deemed to come for debate on Monday of next week. We have amendments to Bill C-18 which is before the financial committee. We have Bill C-19, which is on another federal statute which will be coming before the House on Monday and Tbesday of next week. We have Bill C-22 and Bill C-26. Bill C-22 is in a committee of this House and Bill C-26 has yet to be called for second reading.
This particular bill is asking for amendments to these particular statutes which are now in different stages before other committees of this House. I would ask the Chair for direction and guidance. I do not think we can
November 22, 1991

proceed with the bill when statutes yet to be assented to are before other legislative arms of this Chamber. Therefore I would suggest that if the Chair were to rule that I am correct in my assumption and in my intervention, I do not want to see the delay of the House, but I would suggest to the hon. member that we could proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-35 if in fact there was unanimous consent to delete Part III of this bill, which is before respective standing committees and the necessary amendments they are seeking can then be consummated and put forward at that time.
I know that the parliamentary secretary is seized by this particular issue and he will say: "This has gone before a standing committee and it has approved it", et cetera. I believe that procedurally we would be incorrect to proceed at this time.
My suggestion to members of this House is that if we are proceeding incorrectly what we ought to do to facilitate debate on other aspects of Bill C-35 is give unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-35, thereby deleting Part III of this particular statute.
I would ask the Chair for some guidance. This particular grievous error has just come to my attention in the last number of minutes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition. He certainly has at least a potential point when he raises the dilemma we face considering report and third reading stage. Clearly, as my friend as pointed out, Part III refers to a number of bills that are in various stages of process in the system, not necessarily all completed.
Those who have studied Bills C-3, C-4, C-18, C-19 and C-22, in particular, will realize that the amendments we are looking at are very straightforward, but they go beyond the normal provisions within that legislation. Therefore I do not think they would actually be in order to go through the normal amendment process.
I like the general argument of my hon. friend. However, when we look at the specifics of this legislation, and those of us who are here today have studied these in some detail, in many cases they do go beyond the
Government Orders
provisions of the bills referred to: Bill C-3, the real property bill; Bill C-4, the Bank Act; and so on.
I do not think we could actually follow the suggestion that my hon. friend provides in reality. I have another proposal that would allow us to continue with report stage and third reading of Bill C-35. Madam Speaker, rather than seek a ruling from you at this point, or a judgment or some direction, we agree on consent among ourselves.
While the point made by my hon. friend has some merit, my proposal is that we would agree to proceed with the understanding that this does seem to be going against the rules in many respects. However we agree that the legislation, Bill C-35, will not be proclaimed. In other words, it can go through the various stages but it will not be proclaimed until all of these bills have been dealt with by Parliament. That would ensure that, at least in the final analysis, before this bill is proclaimed and becomes law, Bills C-3, C-4, C-18, C-19, C-22 and C-26 would have passed through Parliament.
That is a way to get around this dilemma which will allow us to proceed in good faith, yet acknowledge the good argument my friend put forward. We would agree to proceed by consent, regardless.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have been listening with a lot of interest. I am not usually in the House to make procedural arguments. As one who is not fully familiar with all of the rules of the House I recognize the concern that this is addressing bills that have not yet been completed, that these bills are in various stages of being processed through the House.
I do wonder why this question was not raised during second reading, when it would have been more appropriate. It has passed through the standing committee where members from all parties not only reviewed this but went through the questioning process as members of Parliament on the same question, although the process may not have dealt with the procedural aspects.
It was the opinion of the standing committee that Part III should proceed to the House unchanged. It is my understanding concerning the impact on the real world out there that this legislation makes only technical changes.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
I think all would agree that whether this is passed today or we are able to make changes to the original bill there will really be no difference in terms of the impact on the real world.
The normal process, as I understand with this type of bill, is that we do want to achieve consensus. I have heard both arguments on how to proceed.
It is my understanding that if we unanimously choose to proceed or it is in order to proceed as recommended by the House leader of the New Democratic Party the government would oppose not proclaiming until all other bills have in fact passed.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not doubt the member's sincerity about co-operation and consensus among political parties.
It is a bit of a red herring to suggest that because something has been passed at a committee stage and there is an error it is not incumbent upon those of us in this Chamber to bring that error to the attention of the House and then seek the guidance of the Chair to correct that particular error.
I am certain that the hon. member opposite realizes that members on the committee have done as thorough a job as they could under the circumstances in which the legislation is presented to them.
I am not attempting to delay the debate of the subject matter of Bill C-35 because I intend to be the speaker for my party and I have a number of concerns that I wish to put forward. However, I do seek the guidance of the Chair about whether I am correct or incorrect procedurally.
I would then be in a position to give my consent and my party's consent to proceed, depending on the decision. Madam Speaker, if you ruled against me we would proceed as normal. If not, we could make some other arrangements to proceed with the substantive debate on Bill C-35 at third reading.
I would be prepared to commence the debate on third reading while I await any decision that the Chair might want to render on this particular matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the very positive gesture put forward by my friend.
I would like to say on behalf of the New Democrats in the House that it is important that we proceed with this
non-controversial yet very important bill. I choose to have a different view than my hon. friend.
Having read the bill and studied it at some length I do not consider it to be terribly controversial. I may have missed something but I do not think so. There are parts that are obviously critical and important but I have not found anything controversial in it yet.
However, that is not the point. The suggestion of my hon. friend is a good one. There are ways and means of proceeding with the debate today and of working out a mechanism between the parties so that we can see it completed rather than stop the debate while we await a decision.
I would concur that we begin the debate. If there are problems deemed appropriate for consideration I suggest we do that now to see if we cannot complete this debate before the end of the day.


Mr. Dionne:: Madam Speaker, a point of order. We have just heard the proposition made by the House leader of the NDP. I still have some serious reservations about whether or not we can proceed with the bill when other bills are contingent upon it that are going to be authorized after the fact.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank all hon. members who participated in trying to help the Chair in this very difficult matter.
If I go back to the first point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, I do not feel that I can take out Part III from the bill and put the bill to the House. This would certainly not be correct. I do not know whether I could make that decision right now anyway.
I am quite prepared, if our hon. members wish by unanimous consent, to have the report stage concurred in. We can start third reading without agreeing to third reading. If there is unanimous consent that the bill would not be put to a vote today I am quite prepared to go with the report stage and start third reading. With the help of the officers at the Table we can try and sort out the very obvious problem which the hon. Liberal House leader brought to the attention of the House and of the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, a spirit of co-operation has existed in this House since I have been here as opposition House leader with my colleague from the
November 22, 1991

New Democratic Party. I would be more than happy to concur with your suggestion. I would agree with that since I will have an opportunity to speak on third reading today as I am sure other members will also. Depending on the decision of the Chair the debate will not be concluded today. It could be held over until Monday. That is a very reasonable suggestion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. What I suggest is that the report be concurred in. We will start third reading and if and when there are no more members asking for the floor on third reading we will allow the debate to be suspended to a later date without putting the question to the House.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: So the question was that Bill C-35 be concurred in at the report stage.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


An hon. member:: Now.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


Dave Worthy: Madam Speaker, as all the members in this House have requested unanimously that I be brief I will promise the Chair and the House that I will do so.
Bill C-35 deals with the proposals introduced in 1990 under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. These proposals were originally tabled in this House and in the other place February 15, 1990. Since then the proposals were studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General as well as by a committee in the other place.
The amendments that we see here to this bill are made possible by the miscellaneous statute law amendment program which was introduced in 1975. The program was established to permit minor technical amendments to federal statutes to be made without having to wait for more substantive amendments to be considered and prepared.
Government Orders
It is of interest that in the 16 years since 1975 we have used this process for six different sets of proposals.
The bill that is in front of us today contains the proposals that were unanimously approved of by both committees last year. Since the introduction of the current bill this year in the new session, Bill C-35, it has been studied and approved by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
The standing committee was satisfied during its study that this bill contains only the proposals that were earlier considered by it and approved by it. As we heard in the procedural debate that preceded this third reading, the committee did pay particular attention to Part III of the bill because that part of the bill had not been included in the 1990 proposals and also because it deals with bills that have not been processed to date.
The committee members were satisfied that Part III of this act was consequential on proposals that it had already approved. It was included only because of the introduction of other bills since the committee's consideration of the 1990 proposals in order to deal with the possible conflicts between this bill and some of the other bills before this House.
Because of the fact that the standing committee has approved it, it does introduce many housekeeping changes that are important to the departments of government and how they operate and are important to people in this House. It is the normal operation under this section that the various parties of the House do co-operate in agreeing that these are all in order and properly constituted. I would recommend that the members of the House concur in third reading.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to say a number of things about the bill itself. Before doing that I just wish to put on the record that there has been a fair amount of co-operation on this particular bill. The hon. member really has not alluded to that but I think he has touched on it. I just want to clarify for the the record that there has been a fair amount of co-operation in committee and elsewhere with regard to facilitating this particular bill. The Minister of Justice who tabled the bill for first reading on October 4,1991, talks about correcting certain errors and certain matters contained in various federal statutes.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
We have unanimously agreed here today that we are not going to be voting on Bill C-35. We are going to suspend later this day when there are no more who are speaking and wait for a ruling from the Chair. But let us not kid ourselves. The parliamentary secretary knows and I know that this particular statute, Bill C-35, affects more than 90 federal statutes of the Government of Canada. I believe each is affected in a minor way but collectively in a very substantive way. It affects the activities of the Government of Canada on how it interfaces with its own agencies as well as the agencies of the government in the various provincial capitals across this country. I will name a few beginning with Public Works. Every Canadian will know and will understand that the Government of Canada does have lands in each and every province and territory of this country.
There are amendments to various federal statutes contained in the bill which would affect both directly and indirectly that particular federal department.
The Canadian Railways Act, the shipping conferences exemptions, railway safety, public harbours and ports, national transportation, Canada Ports Corporation, motor vehicle transport, Department of Agriculture, farm debt review, Canadian Dairy Commission, Prairie Grains Advance Payments, narcotics control, the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, access to information, Civil Service Commission, the Financial Administration Act of the Government of Canada allow federal ministers, under clause 99, to give direction to a Crown corporation in his or her particular jurisdiction.
There are a number of points that I would like to make with regard to the bill. If I may, I would like to point out a few of them so that the members of the House will understand my concern. I think I would be less than candid if I said: "Well, you know, these will bring down the government and will add further havoc to the Canadian economy." That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that procedurally there are a number of concerns that I think have to be raised both in terms of the substance and the consequential effects.
going to take place. Canada Ports Corporation will have the administration, management and control of all such property and works within the boundaries of that harbour or within 20 kilometres thereof. That is certainly a substantive change from what it was previously, because the administration, management and control of the harbours was for the harbours. They are now extending that control by some 20 kilometres.
The old act read: "The administration of all such property and works within the limits of that harbour as are administered by the corporation shall be deemed to have been transferred to the local Ports Corporation." Not only are we going to see that control given away as such, but we have extended it by 20 kilometres. I would think, as someone who has practised law, that there are probably some very cogent reasons as to why that was being done but again it is certainly something of note and some concern to those of us who sit in the opposition.
The transfer to the corporation or a local port corporation may in fact be the appropriate thing to do in certain circumstances, but one has to question whether or not the over-all principle ought to be applied on each and every occasion. We raise that as a matter of concern for members of this House who may have a certain set of circumstances where the local port authority would be the most appropriate, but now this act deems that that will happen to all the various ports that are administered by Canada Ports Corporation.
Another point which I believe is deserving of mention and concern is with regard to page 13, amendments to section 37, state that "where the minister receives a notice of the proposed export of a toxic substance", the minister must publish the name or specifications of the toxic substance. Previously, the minister concerned with this particular statute, and I believe it was the Minister of the Environment, under section 37 of the Canada Environmental Protection Act the minister received a notice of the proposed export or import of a toxic substance or hazardous waste. That has now been changed and I suggest it is a substantive change. The new clause reads:

I would like to speak on the Canada Ports Corporation Act. This particular bill sets out before us what is now
Where the Minister receives a notice of the proposed export of a toxic substance under this section 42-
November 22, 1991

It does not talk about import. It merely talks about exporting whereas the old statute talked about the exporting and the importing of toxic substances or hazardous waste.
It is interesting to note that in other sections of the new bill it refers to the export and import of a hazardous waste under section 43, but for that clause 37(2) it only talks about the export of toxic waste and not the import of toxic waste.
Again I bring that to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, who I am sure when reading the full contents of the bill tonight and which the House leader of the New Democratic Party has read each and every sentence of, he might want to reflect upon my comments and see whether or not it could be changed accordingly.
Madam Speaker, I have to be very candid. I have not studied this statute from cover to cover. These are some of the things I have found to be somewhat glaring and want to bring to your attention. I am sure the Speaker would want me to do that.
Under the Immigration Act, I wish to point out that again there is a change. The relevant portions of section
46.01	states that a person who claims to be a convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by a refugee division if the case of the claimant who is the subject of an inquiry caused pursuant to section 23(4)(a) if the claimant came to Canada from a country other than a country of the claimant's nationality.
Well, they have changed that. They now say "persons of which the claimant is a member would be given a lawful authority to be in".
For those of us who are not concerned with the technicalities of certain legislation it may not mean all that much to us. For those who are administering the act, I suggest that is a departure of some magnitude that I believe is worthy of our examination and review.
There are a number of other things I have seen that could perhaps be better drafted or that I would suggest might be better drafted but I am not going to bore the Chamber with my interpretations of how these technical amendments ought to be written.
Government Orders
If there is unanimous consent, I might want to proceed if I was asked to in a friendly way.
Let me just bring one more item to your attention. In the maritimes where I come from there is a word that I do not know if it is used in Ontario or Quebec called "sneaky". I am not suggesting that the government is sneaky. These are technical amendments and I do not think the Prime Minister, when he was in Paris, London and Brussels and all over the world has been reading. There is a little section in here that refers to the Labour Adjustments Benefits Act, section 92.
When I was flipping through this, I thought to myself, there was an election in 1988, almost three years ago and I thought I heard somebody promise during the election campaign that there would be adjustment policies for Canadian workers wherever they may reside in this great country. That was promised not once, not twice, by every member who sits in the federal cabinet and everyone who supported the free trade agreement as put forward by the government. What does this amendment say? Does it provide that they are going to set up a new fund? It does not do that. It says:
92. Subsection 29(2) of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2) Subsections 94(13) to (21) of the Unemployment Insurance Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of the administration and enforcement of this Act.


An hon. member:: Sneaky.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I do not want to use that word but I have to tell you that people outside this Chamber are saying it. That is what they are saying, that the government once again is being sneaky.
I do not want to recount for members who are in the Chamber today or for those who may be viewing on television, and I am sure that they are probably not large numbers, but less than four years ago this government opposite campaigned on major labour adjustment programs for Canadians. We have seen in this country, in the province of Ontario alone, thousands of jobs which have gone down the drain as a result of the policies of this government as they relate to trade in the free trade agreement.

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
We have yet to see one new program put in place after promise, after promise, after promise made by the right hon. Prime Minister in a nationalized television debate of the three leaders that they would be come a reality if the free trade agreement was consummated.
What has happened? The trade deal, notwithstanding the combined opposition of the opposition parties, led by the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who was the leader of our party at the time and the fact that over 60 per cent of Canadians opposed the free trade deal, the government pushed it through with its parliamentary majority-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Oh, please, you are stretching it here.


David Charles Dingwall: -parliamentary majority, Madam Speaker, and we have yet to see a realization of the promise. That is utterly shameful or as some would say in Calgary-


John V. Nunziata: Sneaky.


David Charles Dingwall: As some would say in Atlantic Canada.


An hon. member:: Sneaky.


David Charles Dingwall: As some would say in Quebec.


Shirley Maheu: Sneaky.


David Charles Dingwall: As some would say in Ontario.


Some hon. members:: Sneaky.


David Charles Dingwall: You see, Madam Speaker, that is what we have got here, a little: "Let's put it in Bill C-35. Let's hide it", just like a sneak attack the kids talk about when they are playing their Nintendo games.


John V. Nunziata: That's a big Mac attack.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It's a Mac attack.


David Charles Dingwall: She wants to talk about the Mac attack. We will get to that in a minute because there is another section of the bill.
Madam Speaker, we as Canadians have been given a bill of goods by the party opposite. Ontario has suffered substantially as a result of no labour adjustment policies.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That's Peterson.


David Charles Dingwall: Time after time after time people in Ontario have suffered. The hon. member opposite says: "What about the former premier of Ontario, Mr. David Peterson. What did he do?"
I will tell you what he did, Madam Speaker. The federal government did not provide leadership in providing adjustment programs for Canadians that have been displaced. Mr. Peterson and the government of the day did not provide leadership for that province and the people decided. They said: "Good-bye, Mr. Peterson". That is what they said and they are going to say the same thing to the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member opposite. They have provided no leadership, no programs with regard to adjustment policies and the same thing will happen to the hon. member. Canadians will give them the boot as well. That is what will happen.
Madam Speaker, if I may go on, there are other little sneaky things that one might refer to in Bill C-35.1 have just pointed out one. On an earlier occasion, Madam Speaker, I brought to the attention of those in this House the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Ah, the hon. member is interested, as I am sure the hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs is interested. It will now provide every five years a comprehensive report on the activities of ACOA.
The hon. members opposite have made my case. They have made my case, Madam Speaker. The hon. members know that any Crown agency must file an annual report with the Government of Canada. But if it were so wonderful an agency, and if it was such a panacea of economic development that they wished to refer to, why would they wait for the fifth year to give a comprehensive report on the activities of ACOA? I ask you: is it? Aha, that is exactly what it is, sneaky in its worst form. Why doesn't the hon. minister join in the debate instead of sitting in his place and chirping from the government benches. Why does he not enter the debate?
I know why he does not want to enter the debate. He is utterly ashamed of his own performance and the performance of his government with regard to the economic activities in Atlantic Canada. He and his government have been dismal failures in Atlantic Canada and I would hope the hon. minister would afford himself the opportunity to stand in his place and defend some of the
November 22, 1991

Government Orders
actions, the ill-conceived whims of the federal government in terms of what it has done concerning the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
I bring to the attention of the Chair that this minister is grossly negligent in the fact that he supports the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency when his own president, an appointment made by Order in Council, said clearly and unequivocally that the user fees which are being charged by the Department of Transport at airports in Atlantic Canada are causing undue havoc to tourism in Atlantic Canada.
Oh, oh, the hon. member says this is not relevant. Sneaky, it is sneaky, Madam Speaker. That is why the minister has joined with his colleagues to put it in the bill. The sneak attack again, on a Friday afternoon. That is what they wanted to do, Madam Speaker. But, no, no-


An hon. member:: We weren't bom yesterday.


David Charles Dingwall: That's right. I want to tell the hon. minister opposite that if he does not think that is relevant, the president, Mr. Peter Lesaux, of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency said in a speech delivered to tourism operators in Atlantic Canada that federal government policy of increasing user fees at our airports in Atlantic Canada and in our ports has caused and will cause great difficulties and hardship for our tourism industry. That is not relevant?
I understand why it is not relevant, Madam Speaker; because the minister opposite just does not care. That is the fact.
There are a number of other items. Under section 113 of Bill C-35 amendments are made to the Patent Act. The old act read, and I quote from subsection 34(e):
An applicant shall on the specification of his invention particularly
indicate and distinctly claim the part, improvement or combination
which he claims is his or her invention.
It is very important in terms of intellectual property, the arguments which would flow from that in terms of the rewards that people give to individuals who go out and are creative, inventive, and what-have-you-and for patent protection. That is why it was in there.
Clause 113 of this bill says that subsection 34(1), which I have referred to, of the Patent Act is amended by adding the word "and", and at the end of (c) thereof, by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d) thereof, in essence repealing paragraph (e).
No longer will an applicant be forced to specify his or her invention, particularly indicating and distinctly claiming the part, improvement or combination which he or she claims as his or her intention.
I wonder who that protects. I wonder who this little benefit has been given to. Is it the generic drug companies which traditionally in this country have been able to help keep drug prices down to a reasonable level as reported in every federal-provincial document ever in this country. They have been the ones who have kept the prices down so that average Canadians, male and female across this country, can afford prescription drugs.
Madam Speaker, I ask: Who is this amendment under Bill C-35 appealing to? Is it the generic drug industry? Is it the employees of the generic drug industry? I do not think so.
I am not saying it is inherently wrong, but I think we should be clear as to whom and to what the government is attempting to do by Bill C-35. I am somewhat disappointed.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has left the Chamber and probably for very good reason. I do not comment on him leaving the House, but I do say that for ministers of the Crown to suggest and to imply that we, in the opposition, in reviewing Bill C-35 which affects upward of 90 federal statutes that somehow were not relevant, that somehow we ought not to be involved in this debate and that we ought to rubber stamp it is totally irresponsible.
I think it characterizes for me and for my colleagues on this side of the House the stage of mentality of the members on the government side.
It has been seven years. It has been seven long, arduous years for many Canadians. To tell you quite frankly, we know, we see, we hear and we watch the actions and the omission of actions of members opposite. We have come to the conclusion that it is not merely a game of incompetence by the other side or misman-

November 22, 1991
Government Orders
agement of the Canadian economy. They are tired, Madam Speaker. They are worn out. They have come to the stage in their political careers where they do not care any more.
Amendments on user fees, amendments to Canada Ports Corporation, consequential or technical, let it go. We do not really care. We do not have the political will. We do not really understand, but "give me the keys to the car because I want to be a minister". That is what they are saying to themselves. Havoc for a few more months. If they were really concerned, they would have substantive arguments to rebut my assertions.
The minister did not do that. He did not rebut any of my assertions. He could not give me a good reason as to why Bill C-35 is being put forward today in terms of this amendment on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, as well as the other amendments which are tied up in this particular bill.
We have reached the conclusion that this government is tired. It is worn out, and it should do the honourable thing. I am not saying this, Madam Speaker. If they want to have an election, I would be forced to run and I would run.


An hon. member:: Would you win?


David Charles Dingwall: I would have a chance.


An hon. member:: Do the Tories have a chance in your riding?


David Charles Dingwall: Absolutely not.
The honourable thing is to admit when you are wrong, to correct your mistake and to move on, but this government? Under no circumstances. It knows it all. We saw it on the GST. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians said: "We do not want it", and they proceeded. The free trade agreement. Opposition party after opposition party, our colleagues in the Senate, the upper house, Canadians from coast to coast, in excess of 60 per cent opposed it, what did the government say: "No, we are going to do it anyway."


Mary Catherine Clancy: And look what happened.


David Charles Dingwall: And look what happened. No wonder the country is in such havoc and in such a cranky mood.
The parliamentary secretary will probably want to enter the debate and I would be happy if he would debate. I would be happy if any of the members opposite would debate substantive things which are important to Canadians, but the fact of the matter is, not only are the Conservatives incompetent, not only have they mismanaged the economy, not only are they sloppy in terms of Bill C-35 and how it is introduced, they just do not care.
If you live in Nova Scotia, if you live in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, any part of the maritimes or western Canada it is evident and very clear that the government does not care about what is going on in the Canadian economy. It does not really care. What it does care about is patronage. We see it everywhere with this government.


An hon. member:: Is this relevant?


David Charles Dingwall: It is relevant to the government because I cannot understand why the government opposite would leave a deputy minister in his or her place after making the statements that the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has made. Either one is not telling the truth. It is either the deputy minister or it is the government that is not telling the truth.
The parliamentary secretary says: "Oh", like I am supposed to be scared and run under the table and hide, but that is the truth. I did not make it up. The president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has said that, not I. So I invite my colleagues opposite to question me and debate us on the substantive issues which are facing the country today.
I think Bill C-35, notwithstanding some of the items which are contained in it, are in fact technically correct, have good, consequential effects, but there are many what I have deemed to be sneaky little attacks, sneaky little points, sneaky little measures by a big, sneaky and stinky government.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I could not let this sequence of Friday afternoon jousting go by without addressing-


An hon. member:: Are you on debate?


Derek Vincent Lee: On debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I apologize to the hon. member.
November 22, 1991



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
That a special joint committee of the House and Senate be appointed and empowered to undertake a comprehensive review of the subject matter of Bill C-43, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a conflict of interests commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
That the committee may, in fulfilling its mandate, review the conflict of interest approaches used in other jurisdictions and any other matter related thereto,
That the Standing Committee on House Management appoint the membership, for the House, of the special joint committee and present its report, which shall be deemed concurred in, upon presentation of it to the House of Commons, no later than five sitting days after the adoption of the motion;
That the said special joint committee be composed of 14 members of the House of Commons, and 5 members of the Senate;
That the said special joint committee have all powers of a standing committee of the House Commons pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1), 120 and 121;
That changes in membership of the said special joint committee be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the clerk of the committee;
That the special joint committee be permitted to request adequate support from the government for drafting its final report in the form of a bill or report Bill C-43 with or without amendments or in the form of principles that could be embodied in the legislation; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, 5 senators to act on the proposed special joint committee.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I think there is agreement on our side with the particular motion. Just so that I am crystal clear in my thinking process on a Friday afternoon, the hon.
Government Orders
member said 14 members of the House of Commons. I presume that will be made up of four members from the Official Opposition, two members from the New Democratic Party and eight members from the Conservative Party. As for the members from the Senate, I understand three would be from the Progressive Conservatives and two from the Liberals. Is that correct?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can confirm, even though it is not within my capacity to effect the hon. member's ability to think crystal-clear, that the numbers would be eight from the Conservatives, four from the Liberals, and two from the NDP, and three from the Conservatives and two from the Liberals in the Senate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge to both my hon. colleagues how much we appreciate the willingness to negotiate the size and numbers associated with the committee. This will allow the New Democrats to have two participating members on this critical joint committee. I simply want to acknowledge our appreciation to my two pals.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of brief remarks on the subject of Bill C-35, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act.
There are two aspects of what has happened with this bill that I would like to bring to the House's attention. The first one has already been referred to by my colleague, our opposition House leader. That is the apparent propensity of individuals in the government administration to push the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act concept to its limit. In other words, from time to time we find individual departments, with the acquiescence or assistance of the Ministry of Justice, trying to slip on by-and I do not think that is really a fair word. It is not really slipping it on by but getting as much amendment punch into this statute as you can possibly squeeze in. We want to keep in mind that the purpose of this statute is to enable technical minor amendments to be made to statutes when it should be apparent to all that these kinds of amendments should be made.
One example is the minor discrepancies between English and French translations in the various statutes. Every year there are a number of those that come to the attention of Parliament, either through court litigation or from citizens.
It is incumbent upon the House and the committee structure that reviews the statute, and the justice department functionaries that oversee the production of the statute every year, to ensure that the spirit of the statute, miscellaneous amendments of a technical and minor nature, is maintained and that public servants are not tempted to abuse the non-partisan aspect of that act.
The second concerns the fact that earlier this year the government modified the Standing Orders to reduce the size of committees.
I know from my work on the justice committee that all of the work that committee has been doing, including review of this Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, affects the ability of that committee to do this type of work properly. It has been doing this kind of work for many years although this goes back to 1975 when the mechanism was put in place. There are only seven or eight members on that committee now. It is a little short of manpower to do its standing committee work. This is the statute work that is referred to it from the House and some of the legislative work that occasionally comes to it.
I make this point so that in the event the size of committees comes up for discussion in future as a debating point-and in particular with reference to the justice committee-the change in the Standing Orders has probably impaired that committee's ability to deal well with this particular Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991.
Having said that, I think it is a veiy useful statute and one that is usually dealt with on a non-partisan basis. It provides a good, quick and effective service to the taxpayers in terms of making quick changes to our legislation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just been having conversations with the House leader for the Liberal Party and it is my understanding that there was an understanding earlier today that we would not complete this debate because of the necessity to wait for the Speaker's ruling.
I guess in that circumstance, Madam Speaker, may I call it 4 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 4 p.m. this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. Monday, November 25, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 25,1991