1991-11-07

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 6, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof, be read a third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted on Tbesday, November 5, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi, on a point of order.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to table, in both official languages, a paper detailing expenditures totalling $70,195.41, incurred in the course of performing my
duties as the member of Parliament for Abitibi during the months of July, August and September, 1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to table his paper?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has refused unanimous consent.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is this on another point of order or on the same subject?


Guy St-Julien: Not on the same subject, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will listen to what the hon. member has to say.


Guy St-Julien: I consider this refusal as coming from the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. Thank you.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member told me this was another point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I am getting kind of sick and tired of this member trying to make the point that-


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not recognize the hon. member for Abitibi. He does not have the floor at this time, and I would appreciate it if he would stay in his seat. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I just want to say I am getting sick and tired of this member somehow saying that the New Democrats are opposing his request.
It is not right. It is the third day on which he has said it and I take offence. He ought not to be getting up on these bogus points of order.
November 7, 1991



HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of a report entitled Living Without Fear: Everyone's Goal, Every Woman's Right. It is the federal government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women War Against Women.



WILD ANIMAL AND PLANT PROTECTION ACT


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an act respecting the protection of certain species of wild animals and plants.


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden) moved:: That the first report of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Tliesday,
October 2, be concurred in.
Routine Proceedings
He said: Madam Speaker, I am proud to be able to rise today and speak in support of my motion for concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
On October 2, the hon. member for Crowfoot, the very capable chair of the committee, tabled the report in this House. In preparing to draft the report, the committee spent many hours hearing testimony from a broad range of witnesses.
I am very pleased to be able to report that members of the committee from all parties gave a sympathetic hearing to the witnesses representing former merchant mariners. When the time came to prepare our report and its recommendations there was a tremendous degree of all-party consensus and, Madam Speaker, no one knows better than you how rare and precious is a non-partisan moment among members of Parliament.
I would like in my remarks to address the realities that members of the committee came face to face with while studying the problems of our former merchant seamen. First I want to take a moment to remind the House of the committee's recommendations. The committee recommended that Canadian merchant mariners with one or more high seas, ocean-going assignments during wartime be fully recognized as veterans, and that veterans benefits be extended to them.
The committee also recommended that a book of remembrance, dedicated solely to merchant mariners who died in Canada's wars, be placed in the Peace Tower.
Finally, the committee recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs encourage the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada's war-time merchant mariners.
The committee suggested as well that Halifax would be a suitable site for such a monument.
As I have already said, the committee was unanimous in adopting these recommendations. We all agreed that the case of the merchant mariners was one that should have been addressed a long while ago, that it was crucial that Parliament act quickly because it is almost too late.

Routine Proceedings
With such non-partisan agreement, I feel more than comfortable in moving concurrence in the committee's report.
Let me go back in history to the end of the Second World War. Following World War II, the Government of Canada extended a total of 18 benefits to veterans of our Armed Forces. Of those 18, only four were granted unconditionally to merchant seamen. A further seven benefits were extended to them only under certain conditions.
For example, under the Veterans Land Act, the merchant mariner did obtain benefits under the Veterans Land Act if he was disabled. How are you going to farm if you are disabled? Over 12,000 merchant seamen served Canada in World War II. Only about 3,500 are still living, and the Department of Veterans Affairs says that in 1989-90, 221 merchant seamen recipients of the civilian war allowance died, more than one every two days.
There were 1,259 of them who died in combat, the highest casualty rate in the Second World War of any of our Armed Forces. Canadian seamen served with distinction on all oceans of the world during World War II; 1,259 of them died and nearly 200 were imprisoned.
The loss of merchant seamen lives during the battle of the Atlantic was the highest proportionately of any of the allied forces during that last great conflict.
Canadian seamen who served in dangerous waters during the last great war seek today what they have sought from the end of that war, equal recognition, entitlements and the benefits now received by their fellow veterans.
Last year for the first time, the Royal Canadian Legion agreed that World War II merchant seamen should be given veteran status. It is high time we extended veterans' benefits to Canadian merchant mariners who made at least one high seas trip during World War II.
I want to remind the House that 45 years have gone by. This question has been studied for nearly half a century.
During the war most categories of merchant seamen were paid much less than their counterparts in the Royal Canadian Navy, while the risks they faced were just as great if not greater. Members of our merchant navy could not leave the service. They were bound by military discipline and orders for the duration of the war.
Canada has still failed to repay its debt to some veterans of war against Fascism. It is shameful that for 45 years government after government of both the major parties have refused to recognize adequately the contribution these courageous Canadians made during those terrible years.
I find it therefore especially gratifying to see members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, members of Parliament from all three parties, coming together with such unanimity on the need to act now.
I should add that a similar committee in the other place also held hearings and heard witnesses. It too was unanimous that merchant mariners should be granted recognition as full veterans. After the war, merchant seamen were not provided with the same benefits given other Canadians. This is puzzling since merchant seamen had been awarded the same medals given to Royal Canadian Navy veterans. Both the United States and the United Kingdom recognized their merchant seamen as veterans. Since January 1988 U.S. merchant seamen are eligible for full benefits from their veterans administration. Of course, the Royal Canadian Legion has passed a resolution calling for the Parliament of Canada to recognize our merchant seamen as war veterans.
On this issue the ball is in government's and Parliament's court. During the battle of the Atlantic, Canada's merchant navy suffered the highest casualty rate of any allied force. On October 2, the standing committee on national defence made that very obvious.
The one recommendation made by the committee was that merchant mariners be granted war veterans status and be eligible for all war veterans benefits. The hon. minister, of course, has 150 days in which to respond to the report in question. As I have said, this is an issue that has been studied to death. I respectfully suggest that the minister does not need the full 150 days to respond to the committee's report.
I am informed that the minister has engaged a retired general to determine who should be given veteran status and what the cost would be of implementing the committee's recommendations. I want to caution the minister strongly that it would be foolish and destructive to again fail to consult with the merchant mariners themselves on this issue. At some point I hope the minister will present his positive recommendations regarding merchant mari-

ners to cabinet for approval of the action required to implement the committee's recommendations.
Of course, I do not quarrel with the government's responsibility to examine the fiscal implications of any public policy initiatives, however in considering the costs of the committee's recommendations, the government must not lose sight of the ethical obligation Canadians have to our World War II merchant mariners, who have never received the recognition and reward they earned during their wartime service.
There can be no price tag on doing the right thing. We, as a people, must not let the cost of these benefits cause us to deny them to those who have earned them.
Let us consider for a moment the budget practices of the Department of Veterans Affairs over the years. According to the public accounts of Canada, the department has allowed to lapse, in other words budgetary funds they did not spend, a total of $380.8 million of its appropriated funds since the fiscal year 1982-83. In other words, the department has underspent its budget by an average of $47.8 million over the last eight fiscal years. Again, these figures from public accounts show that under the Liberal government of the day, they underspent its veterans affairs budget by $22.9 million, by $56.1 million in 1983-84, by $70 million in 1984-85. Then the Conservatives gained power and they underspent the veterans affairs budget by $45.5 million in 1985-86, $33.6 million in 1986-87, $56.6 million in 1987-88, $56 million 1988-89, and $40.1 million 1989-90.
The money was always there, much more than enough to award our merchant mariners full veteran's status and full veterans' benefits retroactively.
The Royal Canadian Legion says it will cost about $10 million a year to implement the committee's recommendation. The Department of Veterans Affairs has said it will take $20 million. In either case the department has plenty of room in its budget right now to do justice by our merchant mariners.
As I have said so many times over the years, our merchant mariners were mistreated and ignored by a
Routine Proceedings
succession of Canadian governments and by the Canadian people and by the Canadian Parliament. The figures I have just cited show that in fact the money was always available and is available today to extend full benefits.
The House of Commons veterans affairs committee was unanimous in its support of our merchant mariners and has tabled an excellent report which offers very positive recommendations. I am only sorry that the report is silent on the fate of merchant seamen and the merchant fleet after World War II and into the fifties.
After the war came the final insult for Canadian merchant seamen. Those who survived the war and stayed in the fleet found their jobs sold out from under them and U.S. gangsters imported to destroy their union. The destruction of the merchant fleet and the importation of Hal Banks and his methods meant that many merchant seamen were deprived of their livelihood after gallantly serving their country at great personal risk.
This would have been a strong argument in favour of extending to merchant navy veterans the same vocational training benefits that were given to other veterans. I was one who got the benefits of vocational training after my discharge. It is too late now to do that for the merchant mariners.
There remains the question of retroactivity for some other benefits. Why not, for example, extend to merchant seamen retroactive disability benefits to eligible veterans? There are other benefits that merchant seamen were denied that could and should be at least partially restored. The clothing allowance that other veterans receive could be extended as well as some elements of the veterans' business and personal loan benefits.
Last week while speaking to my private member's bill on this subject I told the House last spring Gordon Olmstead came to Parliament looking for something denied him for almost half a century, recognition. The Second World War veteran and prisoner of war should have been entitled to the benefits offered to other veterans by a grateful nation. But Gordon Olmstead served with Canada's merchant marines and the federal government still refuses to acknowledge the contribu-

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
tions and sacrifices made by those who served in that fleet.
This spring Mr. Olmstead and other merchant marine veterans appeared as witnesses before the House of Commons standing committee. Their goal was to obtain legal recognition of their status as war veterans. During their testimony we heard again and again the statistics that I have already cited. To suggest for one moment that they were civilians not eligible for benefits from the armed forces is totally negated by the fact that they were under military command, control, and orders. In fact the Royal Canadian Navy on many ships provided a gun crew of three, four, five or six men. Many merchant seamen were trained on how to handle four-inch guns, 50-calibre machine guns, Bofors or pom-pom guns. They carried on the military part of defending their ships in their convoys. If that does not make them part of the armed forces, I do not know what would.
Our wartime minister called them the fourth arm of our armed forces. There are only about 3,500 of them left and some surviving spouses and maybe some surviving children. It is no wonder that Canada's Minister of Transport called them the fourth arm.
Sadly this sentiment was conveniently set aside when the war ended in 1945. When it was time to honour and reward our merchant seamen their service was ignored.
This is the least our nation, our Parliament and our government can do in order to show its gratitude and rectify a terribly sad wrong. Merchant seamen only received three or four of the 18 benefits without condition and their dead were not given the honours they had purchased at so dear a price.
I understand the appointing of a retired general to look into this matter and cost it. I am informed that merchant seamen have already been told that they are not going to get veteran status. Well I hope that is not true. It better not be true.
It is alleged by this general that there is too much opposition to it. Nobody can tell us where the opposition comes from. I do not know of a single Canadian opposed to this measure. I call on members from all parties in a non-partisan manner to call upon and require this government to do what the committee recommends and what the other place has recommended. It is a long overdue reward to our merchant seamen. We can do no less.
I hope we can get the sentiment of the House with a vote on my motion.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech and I really support his arguments. I think it is a national disgrace that Canadians who helped win World War II as merchant seamen are not being given veterans' pensions.
I have friends who were merchant seamen. They made a tremendous contribution and put their lives in jeopardy for Canada.
Therefore I think they should get the pensions and all parties should support this motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his comments and his support.
This is an issue on which there are no parties. I hope all members will take that into consideration.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I too share the views of my colleague for Calgary North and I compliment the member for Regina-Lumsden, who I have known for a number of years. I got to know him especially well on the transport committee where he certainly contributed in a most constructive way in that interesting area of federal jurisdiction.
I also want to compliment the defence committee and the chairman from Crowfoot who produced the report. Coming from Nova Scotia I have many constituents who were mariners and I have been a member a little longer than the member from Regina-Lumsden. My constituents have written letters for so long that you give the sort of standard formal reply. I must say it was a break in a dirty day when that defence committee report came down and I think unanimously to do this.
I know we want to move on and perhaps hopefully get this to a conclusion. We have seen the changes that have occurred not only all around the world but right here in Canada, some of the history that we are trying to redress and some of the amends for what happened in earlier days. For those days it was understandable but with the conscience today, we have made apologies. Of course I am thinking of the Japanese Canadians, where governments have finally moved to redress a blot on our history. I gather also the Prime Minister made an apology to the Ukrainian community for the First World War. I must say I come from a riding where the Acadians
November 7, 1991

were expelled in 1755. I know you have to draw the line somewhere.
I just wonder what the member who moved this motion feels. Of course this is a leading question because I think I know what his answer will be. Since we have tried to make amends with these other groups who are part of our heritage, does he not feel that there is even more of a reason why government should move on this situation which has so long festered for a group of Canadians who did serve. I know of many merchant mariners in my home town who did not wear a uniform but they served. They went to Murmansk. They were torpedoed. I know one who was torpedoed three times and lived. The first girlfriend I ever had was his daughter. I know the agony that they went through when he went down. He always bounced back but he got nothing. He is dead and it is a dying group so it is time to move.
Does the hon. member believe that because we have made amends for some of these blots in our history that it is time that the government made a financial amend to these people who served so well?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, Canada has made efforts to undo the wrongs to the Japanese Canadians and the Ukrainian Canadians which we all supported and agreed with. The Chinese Canadians still have not received a refund of the head tax that they had to pay when no other group of immigrants had to pay it. We support that, but if we can do that for these legitimate grievances and right old wrongs, surely Canadians who have been wronged are entitled to at least equal if not greater consideration than these other groups.
I hope that will be thought of by my hon. friends on all sides.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, it is all in the family so I guess there is no offence taken of course.
It is interesting to just comment on the problem of the failure of consecutive governments to fully recognize the contribution of the mariners who served during wartime in Canada's merchant service.
It is no less service than the fighting of Fascism during the Second World War by the merchant marines. I would like to add that in the 12 years I have been in the House
Routine Proceedings
of Commons, it is one of the most disappointing things that I can recall. I know many of the other members in this party and the others feel the same way, that recognition has been made with the benefits accredited to other veterans of that conflict. We must grant appropriate recognition to the service that was given, the loss of life, the injuries, the loss to their families and to themselves of five years of their life in service to their country, in service to democracy and the world.
The contribution made there is a forceful and powerful one. Failure of this House to provide recognition is one of the truly sad situations that neither the Liberal government nor this government has been able to see its way clear to provide that diminishing number of Canadians with the recognition that they so truly earned by complete sacrifice during that period of time. The sacrifice was as great as any of the other organized armed forces of this country. I wonder if the hon. member might be able to comment on it.
The other thing is the extent. It is interesting how politics tend to interfere with some of these things. I really wonder what the reason for not doing it is.
I know my colleague for years has fought also for another group of veterans that has been completely denied any recognition by this House, and that is of course the veterans of the Spanish civil war. To my knowledge there is only one legislature in this country, in British Columbia, that officially recognized the contribution of 1,200 Canadians who went to Spain just before the outbreak of the Second World War to fight Fascism. Had that conflict been resolved by support of the governments of the day, we may not have seen the Second World War.
I would add my voice to urge that this government see its way clear to providing veterans benefits and medals of recognition to Canada's wartime merchant service and that that occur as soon as possible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. Of course I agree with them. I want to say that Monday is Remembrance Day. What better way to remember and commemorate than with the government, the minister, the Prime Minister, or anybody, the chairman of our committee even, announcing today or tomorrow the intention of the government to grant full recognition as veterans to our merchant

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
mariners. Thus they would qualify for all the appropriate veterans' benefits.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I am glad I was in the House when this motion came forward today. I want to commend the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden for bringing this issue to the floor of the House.
Coming from Nova Scotia, more particularly representing a riding that is on the shores of Halifax harbour, I certainly understand the value of those individuals who served in Canada's merchant marine.
The one thing I have a great deal of difficulty with as a member of Parliament, because all the time we get into the cut and thrust of debate and partisanship, is that I do not know if there is anybody in this House who could possibly have any justification for disagreeing with the motion that has been put forward by my colleague from Regina-Lumsden.
Surely to goodness there are times where the issues are black and white and right and wrong. In my view this is clearly one of those issues that is that definitive. The individuals who served in Canada's merchant marine were a critical part of Canada's war effort. They worked on the fringe of it; they were in the middle of it. When those convoys assembled in Bedford Basin in Halifax harbour and went overseas they were literally sitting ducks. They knew that the job at hand was one that in many cases, and history will prove in nearly all cases, put them at greater risk than the men in uniform who were going over on Canada's supply ships or destroyers.
I was reading some articles on these merchant mariners. An article I read this morning talked about the supreme sacrifice that they made in order to ensure that the supply lines to Britain, to Europe and up to the Soviet Union were maintained and that food was getting through so that people did not starve to death behind the blockades of the Germans.
One in ten of those merchant mariners lost his life. That is 10 per cent. It is the highest loss of life of any branch of the Canadian Armed Forces in any conflict we have ever been involved with. What are they looking for? Let us be fair here. They are not looking for the moon. They want recognition of their service. They want to be treated as veterans out of uniform.
I just read another little piece here as the member for Regina-Lumsden was speaking. It said: "When the periscope would break the water because the Nazi submarines used to travel in packs of 10 or 12, the convoys would then speed up to try to get away from them because they were pretty deadly. When the convoys would speed away it was the vessels of the merchant marine which were usually slower that were left behind, literally sitting ducks." They were literally sitting ducks. One in ten of the men who served in Canada's merchant marine lost his life. It was one in ten. That is pretty startling.
What are they looking for today after years and years? They simply want some recognition. They want to be recognized as veterans. We have had the report of the standing committee on veterans affairs. It is conclusive and unanimous.
We have had in the other place a motion that was put forward by Senator Marshall which was ruled out of order because it was seen to be a money bill. It seems everybody in both places-forget the technicalities and niceties that we often immerse ourselves in because we do not want to make decisions-is clear that this is a wrong that we can right very easily.
We are not going to bust the bank. It is not going to cost the government billions of dollars. I am not trying to get partisan here, because every government wastes money, but I see that money was put into some ACOA projects in Nova Scotia that were absolutely ridiculous. You lost $14 million on the NFC diesel plant and you lost $11 million on this one and $10 million frittered away on that one. You see money found for particle accelerators in British Columbia, however useful that may be I do not know. You see money going for a comedy festival in Montreal.
I am not saying that they are not priorities of the government, but surely to goodness if I were an individual who served in the merchant marine and put my life on the line because I believed in the cause of the allied forces, but more particularly because I wanted to serve my country, I think I would find it pretty difficult to sit down at age 70 or 72 and try to figure out why I still love this country in that the country will not even give me the very minimum of recognizing me as a veteran and giving me full veterans' benefits including extended care.
November 7, 1991

The government has gone some distance. It has provided some benefits. Those benefits are not insignificant. Some of them are fairly major. I cannot for the life of me figure out why we just do not go that extra mile, do the right thing and recognize the service of Canada's merchant mariners.
They become less and less every year. My father is a veteran. He served with the Cape Breton Highlanders. Every year they have a reunion and every year my father is depressed after the reunion. Do you know why he is depressed? It is because every year in that one small unit there are five or six less than were there the previous year because they are dying. It is the age they are at.
We are not looking at 10,000 individuals. I think somebody has mentioned that the numbers are closer to 3,500. That is it. If the government wants to study this forever-the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden knows this-and if this thing keeps going, it will not have to make a decision because there will not be any of them left. They will be gone.
Surely to goodness, all members of this House can for once do the right thing and put a little bit of respect back in the jobs that we do here. This is something that we can all do. I would urge the minister not to study this thing any more. Let us rise above all that. It is not going to cost a lot of money. Governments have always found money for the right thing when it was obvious that the right thing was the way to go.
This is the right thing. I support the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I think all members of this House would support of motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. For once let us do something right. Let us pay back those people who risked their lives and whose colleagues on those vessels supplying food to Europe and to the Soviet Union gave the supreme sacrifice.
I hope that this is one of those rare occasions when this House rises above the partisanship and the nonsense that we engage in many times, does the right thing and supports this motion.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I do have a question for the member for Dartmouth. I do not disagree with a thing he has said. I
Routine Proceedings
think it is a very important designation and it is one that we should work to achieve in this House.
There is one question I do have for him which has to do with the designation of a veteran. Although in Canada we do not recognize the merchant seamen as veterans, we do have programs that they come under. Although not designated as veterans they are entitled to some of the programs to which veterans are entitled. In Britain, for example, they are recognized as veterans but not entitled to the same types of programs.
I was wondering if possibly the member for Dartmouth could comment on that.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague from New Brunswick into the debate and I appreciate his comments.
There is no question at all that the merchant mariners are entitled to some benefits. They receive a civilian war allowance equal in value to the war veterans allowance, however they are not eligible for long-term care. It is not a matter of comparison, it is a little different here. We were not under siege in Canada and these individuals were not conscripted to join the war effort. The people we are talking about in Canada's merchant marine could have stayed home in Halifax or in Saint John, New Brunswick or in other places and they could have plied the Canadian waters if that was what they wished to do. They would not have had to worry about putting their lives on the line in the war effort. They made a very conscious decision to support Canada's war effort.
From what I have read and from what I have been told by some of the merchant mariners who have approached my office to try to ascertain how much support would be in this House for the type of motion that the member for Regina-Lumsden brought, they are not looking for a lot, they are looking for very little. I have heard that some veterans are concerned and are saying we have to address all of the outstanding concerns they have before we go and give to somebody else.
This is not one of those cases in which if you give and if you do what is right with the merchant mariners, that of necessity, it is going to take away from what should be the government's commitment to those other individuals who served in uniform, those other veterans.

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
As I said earlier, we are not dealing with an expanding group. Because of the advances of time, and age takes its toll, we are dealing with a diminishing group of individuals here.
As far as what Great Britain does, I do not think we should look over there and say that if it gives less benefits therefore that is what we should do. I think there is a recognition in this country that the efforts that Canada put forward with the allied forces in the Second World War were fairly unique. I think that the contribution of the merchant mariners was very unique and they deserve nothing less than full recognition and full benefits as has been proposed.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add my comments to this debate.
At this time when the credibility of politicians is at its lowest, my colleague from Regina-Lumsden has been involved in this issue for years and years. I think we could address a long-standing grievance of the merchant marine seamen as well as improve the credibility of this House and politicians generally if we did the right thing and acknowledged the kind of grievance that a line of governments have perpetrated on those people.
As someone who was born after the war, I think we forget the kind of horrors that these people experienced, the kind of courage they had to have to do the work they did. As I go each year as the member for my riding to lay a wreath at the veterans' cenotaph in my riding, I think of not just the people in uniform but all the people who contributed to the war effort to ensure the kind of democracy that we enjoy in Canada.
I hope this motion from my colleague from Regina- Lumsden finally brings this to a happy conclusion and gives those merchant seamen the recognition and the remuneration they so richly deserve.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member from British Columbia for her comments. I think she is entirely right. There are certain things that we can do here. Sometimes when get on the floor of the House we automatically fall into positions that if the opposition puts a motion forward the
government members necessarily have to come forward and say it is bad. When the government comes forward with motions the opposition necessarily says that the government's motions are bad.
We are trying to reform this place. It is in desperate need of reform. We have to put some respect back into the institution and we have to earn that respect. This is one of those issues that would go a long way to earn respect of Canadians for what we do here.
We have gone through some other things. We have done some committee work. We are pre-studying and trying to give more leeway to backbench members. This is an ideal opportunity. I cannot think of a better opportunity since I have been elected. This is an ideal opportunity for all the members who are currently present in the House to forget what they are being told by their party whips and to do what they think is right and that is vote in favour of this motion. If we did that, maybe it would be the start of a new day and maybe there would be a little bit more civility and a little more good work come out of this place and maybe we can get a little more respect back for the jobs that we tiy to do for all Canadians.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I certainly appreciate what the last speaker said. I have a couple of questions that I would like to present to him. The member for Regina-Lumsden and I were just discussing the possible number of merchant seamen who would be involved. We also discussed the question of the criteria.
For example, on the west coast the CPR ships that plied the inland waters were all painted grey and blacked out and had anti-aircraft guns and so on. Some of their sister ships were used as troop ships throughout the world. The Princess MacQuinna was up the west coast of the island continually during those war years. This was a combat area. Taking it closer to the member's own riding, the Gulf of St. Lawrence was an area of enemy activity.
I guess the question is: Would he have suggestions as to the possible criteria that could be presented in order for these people to be recognized for their service during these war years? We recognize that many of them were threatened. The naval vessels had the speed and the mobility to escape attack, whereas the tankers and the


November 7, 1991
freighters were sitting ducks for the submarines and other types of attack.
Perhaps the member could make a contribution with suggestions on the criteria which may be used in selecting these veterans who would be eligible if this motion did pass. Would it be the number of times of strictly deep sea service or what did he have in mind?


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I do not claim to be the definitive expert on this. I do not think we should get into qualifications which would of necessity restrict unduly those individuals who truly did serve in the merchant marines but would not be able to get benefits. We all know that the records are very hard to verify.
I have had many cases of individuals coming into my office and the records of their service, when they are trying to get the civilian war pension, just are not there. It is not there because the records were not always well kept. You can be killed just as easily by a torpedo on your first excursion as you can on your tenth.
I think what we should do is try to be very lenient. We should try to broaden the definition as much as we can to include those individuals who truly did serve. I know that in the past for the purposes of war veterans allowances and things like that, when regulations tried to define who was a war veteran, they would say they had to serve on foreign soil and so on. In some cases Newfoundland may have been the foreign soil for Canada in 1942 or 1943.
Because we are not dealing with a lot of individuals and if we agree that this is to be done, we should very quickly sit down with those most affected, the minister and some of the senior officials and ensure that the process of qualification and inclusion is as broad as possible because those numbers are diminishing very quickly.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate that has flowed from a very interesting process. The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has set out that he thought it was a good example of co-operative work on a parliamentary committee and I believe that it is.
It is an issue that has been around for a long time, nearly 50 years now. Clearly it is there and it is not going to go away. It is high time that, through the committee
Routine Proceedings
system which I think has come from reform of this Parliament, that pressure be brought to bear to raise the issue to the surface and have it dealt with and set aside in a final form.
I suppose there is no other single reason for asking that our recommendations be concurred in than the simple one of it being the right thing to do. Anyone who takes a look at the merchant mariners and the service they have committed on behalf of Canada and Canadians will note the level of risk they undertook, the per cent of loss of life and the fact, as was mentioned earlier, that they were assigned by Order in Council to conduct their duties.
An assignment lasted for a period of two years. If they left ship, they were under military discipline and could not leave until their duty was completed and they accepted higher risks. All of these things would clearly lead one to the conclusion that these honourable men and women served their country in wartime, served it well and are due the recognition in a formal way that the country ought to bestow to them.
We know, because it has been mentioned, that some 70 ships of the Canadian merchant marine were lost. In addition to that, one member mentioned that 10 per cent of the lives of the merchant marines were lost in service. The comparative number is also important. It compares with about 4 per cent in all forces, or to compare it with the Royal Canadian Navy at the time, a 40 per cent higher loss of life took place in the merchant navy.
Therefore, when we couple all of that with the fact that one merchant navy ship could carry enough goods and supplies to take care of the needs of 250,000 fighting men and women in the European theatre, we recognize that the defence of freedom could not have taken place without the umbilical cord of the merchant navy. It could not have taken place without the merchant navy. All of our fighting men and women would have been lost in the battle of war without a supply of food, ammunition, metals and materials brought to them by those persons who were so ordered by the Government of Canada some 50 years ago and who did so under military assignment and direction. They went with poorly armed ships often with either no escort or very thin lines of escort service into the battle of the Atlantic.

Routine Proceedings
Once the Germans had captured a significant part of Europe, particularly the lowlands of Europe, then they made their targets the merchant ships of North America. The merchant ships became the German targets.
Clearly they were an essential part of the war effort. While I will have to use a sharp scalpel, it is important, I believe, to set aside what I think is perhaps a significant misconception being set out in the debate.
I believe to this point that for those persons in our country who may be listening to us they could not help but come to the conclusion that Canada has set aside all regard for the merchant mariner. I believe this report would ask the government to close the circle because in many ways a merchant mariner today receives many of the benefits that are received by veterans of Canada. They recognize that, veterans' groups recognize that. There is a gap that remains and that is what we are asking to be reviewed for a period of time and that at the conclusion of that time, that the government respond in a positive way.
For those who know, because of the studies we have conducted and the witnesses we have heard, the enormity of assistance that has been given to our country in its efforts to defend freedom by our merchant marines, would also come to the very strong conclusion that it would only be appropriate that in the Peace Tower of this building, though probably and appropriately in a separate book, there would be a book of remembrance for those who lost their lives through their efforts as merchant marines in the defence of Canada.
I cannot believe that there will be any debate that would argue otherwise.
We live in a country that has a history so rich, descriptive, amazing, and so wonderful. However, Canadians can be accused of nothing other than being overly bashful, too inward looking, and almost zealously looking to the United States as the nation with the national symbols, afraid to build our own.
In recognizing the role that Canada played in the war years and the importance of the merchant mariners in that effort, I think nothing could be more appropriate than placing where the activity was strongest, which perhaps would be the east coast since most of them left from the port of Halifax, a recognition, be it a small
museum or a cannon or something that signals our pride and our historical indebtedness to persons who manned the 70 ships that went to the bottom of oceans, to those who were injured or maimed and for those who were not but who came home to lesser conditions as veterans who so valiantly and diligently served their country on behalf of the defence of freedom.
I would concur with those who have said that it is interesting. I think it is more than interesting. I think it is appropriate that this debate is taking place close to Remembrance Day because in all of those words we have expressed over so many years, "Lest we Forget," and "We shall not forget," there has been a group forgotten too frequently. For the mariners who served in very poor working conditions, with very poor salaries, with extraordinary risk, it is only appropriate that the most thorough of examinations of the recommendations of the committee be undertaken.
It is my understanding that the department is in the process at the moment of reviewing the recommendations. I remain optimistic that they will respond and will do so positively.
Having said that, I want to remind the hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden that what his motion does is to ask for concurrence. In doing so he must ask for concurrence of the report, not for a part of the report or a section of the report but for the report. It is a part of the report to which the department has 150 days to respond.
Now we all know that we have had representatives from the Canadian Army, Navy and various other organizations before our committee and we have examined them. The department I understand is also into that process at this time. We have waited 50 years and I think that has been a sad blight on Canadian history. It is sometimes inappropriate to say if we have waited 50 years then let us just wait a short while longer. But I do believe this is a course for which we can see the end. I believe that recommendations are coming and are coming soon.
As to the question of giving veteran status to merchant mariners, one has to ask the question: Why would this be such an objection to some if the Royal Canadian Legion, members of other direct forces such as Army, Navy and Air Force, and other veterans groups will accept among their ranks merchant mariners as veterans. If they among themselves accept each other as colleagues and

partners who served for a national effort during wartime, then it is questionable as to the appropriateness for someone else, somewhere else to draw a line and to try and define a difference.
I do not know if we separate on this issue or not with the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden when he says that we must go forward and do the right thing regardless of money. I like that kind of thinking but not being a New Democrat I cannot follow through with it. I know it is always appropriate to do the right thing, but doing the ethical thing sometimes does require answering to the question of affordability because it has its own ethics to it. The money does not just get manufactured and come from some tube from nowhere to us. Affordability has to be, I believe, part of the consideration. I am not sure but I think maybe the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden would agree with that.
He will note that the recommendations were for an assignment, which is a specific word and has a connotation to it, for a trip in wartime and on the high seas. High sea does include the gulf on the west coast and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Those are both high sea assignments. I believe that it does separate some of the crossings of a cove by a fishing boat that might have been on one occasion duty bound in the war effort. It might have carried a gun and transplanted it somewhere else. There may have been a risk at the time, but if we were to enter into that kind of consideration, I believe in affordability very much. I see the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden nodding in agreement. I did not know if that was a difference that we had or not but I believe from his non-verbal response that it is not a difference and I am pleased that is the case.
Let me basically conclude with this. I see a concurrence in this as a concurrence for the full report including the 150 days. I think there should be no debate at all about a monument or a book of remembrance. I think we are duty bound to recognize the enormity of the commitment that the merchant mariners made in defending freedom and putting down the aggression that was taking place in a rapid way through Europe during
Routine Proceedings
the periods of two of our world wars, but most significantly, the second one.
They did so with tremendous human cost. At the conclusion of the war they did not have the same benefits that were given to other veterans. That gap has been closed significantly as time has gone on and I would like to erase any connotations that might have been left, that there is a complete separation between veterans and merchant mariners because that is not factual.
What this report basically asks is for a recognition of status and that the gap be closed. I am sure that all members of the House join in that noble objective and that we can get on with one more task of righting a historical wrong. It is too bad it had to come so late in our history.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the chairman as I said earlier and add in another intervention, that produced this report.
I want to ask a couple of questions without reviewing everything that has been said. I think time is moving on here. Hopefully in his response he will not also review everything that has been said.
I agree the merchant marine or the merchant seamen should get the benefits. This came from a question to another member, the member for Dartmouth.
As the report sets out so well there are several fundamental double standards in the entitlement and how you qualify for those benefits, let alone the status of the veteran and the merchant seaman being equal. I wish he could clarify that.
I really compliment the report. I must say I was a little disturbed. I could not see which way the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden was shaking his head when the hon. member for Crowfoot was coming into the question of parting ways and talking about affordability.
He talks about affordability and the 180 days which are under the rules. The hon. member knows just as well as I that the House is master of its own procedures. When I hear the affordability which is a relevant factor but also the 180 days for the government to respond, then I am

Routine Proceedings
afraid that this just may be putting the issue off for another year.
We all agree it has been delayed too long, and this is my question. As I understand it from the committee's report, if the United States, England and Australia have all moved on this issue to have equality between veterans and merchant seamen with their benefits, why is it taking us so long to move in that direction?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the difference that separates Canada from the United States, Australia and other places is perhaps on examination more semantical than real.
I think that a close examination would find that in the United States and in Australia, it is not in fact duplication. There is the recognition of veteran status and I think that tends to lead to the next conclusion that everything else is the same.
That is not my understanding. Nevertheless that does not deviate from the main objective which is that we close the gap that presently exists between merchant marines and veterans.
On the aspect of the 180 days, I am not sure. I think the hon. member is mixing up two numbers. The time the government has to respond to our report is 150 days.
But having said that, he may be making reference to the 180 days because he was talking about discrepancies between how the merchant marine person is treated and how an armed forces person is treated. A merchant marine person had to serve at sea for 180 days and anyone else in the forces did not even have to leave Canada to get full benefits.
What the recommendation of the committee says is that they needed to be engaged in one wartime high seas activity.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In dangerous waters.


Arnold John Malone: In dangerous waters-well, in high seas. I do not think those words were in but I will set that aside.
That is a significant recommendation made by the committee. It sets aside the 180 day requirement and makes it one of a single engagement in a high seas wartime activity.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my comments are more in the way of comments to the
hon. member for Crowfoot rather than a question. He may want to comment though when I am finished.
Speaker after speaker have risen this morning and in practically every case have inferred that there is a very simple solution to this problem. If there was a simple solution to the problem it would have been accomplished during the 50 years that have elapsed.
I want to draw attention to the hon. member for Crowfoot's comments about the report that our committee put out. The standing committee put out an extensive report and I would commend it to all members of the House. I am sure some members that have spoken so far have not read it yet, but I would commend first of all the reading of that report.
But the main thing I want to highlight is the fact that the ministry has 150 days to respond. Those who think there is a simple solution are suggesting that we go into adopting this motion at this point and not allow the ministry to fully analyse over the 150 day period the report that we have given to them. I think we owe the ministry that courtesy and the opportunity to try to analyse first of all the report and try to formulate the best solution to the problems that we have had enumerated here today. Finally I would like to respond to the comments that my hon. friend from Crowfoot made about funding.
I think it is very important for us to approach the solution in a very responsible way. I think it is extremely important for us to assure that the funds are designated, allocated and into place to match whatever solution has been put forward by our ministry officials.
I guess if there is a question it would be to ask the member if he cares to comment on any of my comments.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would very much like to comment. It is really a re-emphasis but I think it is a very important one, of something I said earlier in my speech. With respect to the 150 days that the committee granted to the department to respond to our report, that is a part of the report. It is my very strong belief that if this Parliament were to give concurrence to the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, that you give it not to a part of the report but to the report. That means that you have also asked for concurrence for the 150 days of examination. At that time we would expect that the government would come forward with a response and put something before Parliament, that we
November 7, 1991

could either speak to their response or speak to their proposal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Crowfoot for his remarks which were of a very positive nature.
I want to say to him that because there is a limit of 150 days does not mean the government has to take the whole 150 days, it could come in tomorrow if it wanted. The ball is in its court on that one and it, obviously, under the rules has the 150 days. I hope it does not take that long, but if it does, that is fine. That is its prerogative.
The matter of affordability has always cropped up, even when we were increasing benefits for the veterans of the Armed Forces. It took years. The matter of affordability was continually brought up. For the last 10 years, I have not looked back beyond 1981-82, but from then until now, the Department of Veterans Affairs has never spent its whole budget, the money it was authorized to spend.
I suspect the same thing is going to happen in the current fiscal year, that there will be some number of millions unspent. I appreciate the necessity of having budgets of that size, because something could occur that would cause a large and fast drain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think, for example of the spouses' pensions for widows of veterans. It is turning out that there is a larger number applying than was anticipated. That is going to cost more than expected. Therefore, I understand why there is unspent money in the budget, but it is going to be the case every year. B
Would the hon. member not agree that there is the area, without requiring any extra appropriations, already in the Department of Veterans Affairs where the benefits can be afforded.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I believe that it is impossible and irresponsible on any issue, on any subject, about anything, to not consider the question of affordability. That is what Parliament is. It grows from the concept of controlling the King's purse and it is everything that we are about here.
It is very easy to put an interpretation to the kinds of requests we are asking for. Some might say that means
Routine Proceedings
simply the crossing of a cove in a fishing boat to take that truck a piece of equipment or some supply and then this person or persons would then become a merchant mariner subject to all of the benefits.
I believe that Canadians would say that they were not being well served if we used public funds for such an effort.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I agree.


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden says he agrees. Therefore, when I used that example, extreme though it may be, somewhere in between that and the high seas activity requires a definition. In the one case there was an enormity of money that would be required that would go far beyond the government's capacity and certainly beyond the department's capacity to pay.
If the hon. member is correct in his analysis of what he told me, in a more appropriate definition there may very well be affordability. I believe what the department needs is this final process of putting together the criteria. It may well be that it should have been there before. However, the committee has done its work. Parliament is working the way that it ought to in this activity. Now let us have the 150 days. I believe and I am optimistic that there will be a positive result.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on this motion. As you know, I represent the riding of Portneuf which is right next to the St. Lawrence River, and where many mariners' families had several members serving in the merchant navy during World War II.
Canadians in general are under the impression that Canada was not in danger during that war, and that there were very few risks for those living in our country. Of course, no villages were bombed, nor did cities burn as was the case in all of Europe, including England.
On the other hand, people who lived along the St. Lawrence River, on the North Shore as well as the Gaspe peninsula, in fact all along the river, knew how high the risks were in Canada, even though villages were not bombed. These people knew that ships were torpedoed and sunk in the St. Lawrence River, particularly east of Tadoussac down to the Gaspe peninsula. Inside Forillon Park is Fort Gaspe, and Fort Prevel across from

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Gaspe protected the harbour of Gaspe, where merchant ships were organized in convoys to sail to England or elsewhere. People know the names of the 28 ships that were torpedoed, 23 of which sank in the St. Lawrence River. This happened here at home, in Canada. Everybody, including myself, believed that the seamen who had worked on board those merchant ships were recognized as veterans. So I was stunned to find out, here in Ottawa, in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs that the debate as to whether we should give that status to those seamen has been going on for 46 years.
There are doubts and disagreements which certainly have nothing to do with the performance of merchant seamen during the war. However the report of the committee on national defence and veterans affairs-


Alex Kindy: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. The hon. member for Calgary North-East on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, we don't seem to have a quorum.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The number of members is now sufficient. The hon. member for Portneuf.


Marc Ferland: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope the hon. member can listen to my speech.
As I was saying before the hon. member for Calgaiy Northeast interrupted, the report of the committee on national defence and veterans affairs contains a statement by the Hon. J.E. Michaud, Minister of Transport at the time, who said: "Merchant seamen virtually form the fourth arm of the fighting services, and despite their reticence to blazen abroad their heroic exploits, we feel that in fairness to them and to their next of kin the Canadian public should be told of their work."
At the end of World War II, Canadian soldiers were welcomed back to this country with the well know veterans charter. Not so our merchant seamen. Why? There are several explanations. First of all, in 1945, the government at the time was faced with the enormous task of taking care of over one million soldiers. New programs had to be implemented. Veterans' hospitals across the country were packed. It was a very busy time, during which the Canadian government faced unprecedented challenges.
Were the concerns of merchant seamen overlooked as a result? If they were, there was a lot to overlook, because 12,000 men served in the Canadian merchant navy and more than 1,100 were killed. Or perhaps it was assumed that since the crews of ships belonging to private shipping companies were civilians, not veterans, they were not entitled to veterans benefits. I imagine the authorities thought they did not have to take care of merchant seaman. After all, they had jobs waiting for them in the flourishing Canadian merchant fleet. The future looked good, but as we know now, Madam Speaker, disillusionment soon set in.
I don't know why the veterans charter did not apply to merchant seamen, but I know there was a very obvious problem that should have been resolved long before
1991.
Canada was not the only country whose treatment of merchant seamen differed from the way it treated veterans of its three forces. We know that Australia and the United States have recognized the rights of merchant seamen to certain benefits, but this is quite recent. And it was not the case for more than 40 years.
Perhaps it took all this time to destroy certain myths. It may be that during the war, members of the Armed Forces were envious of those who served in the merchant navy. They probably thought life in the merchant navy was easier. After all, weren't merchant seamen better paid? They did not have to bow to military discipline. They had a choice. In other words, it was assumed merchant seamen had more freedom than people in uniform who had to conform to the rules of the Royal Navy.

Routine Proceedings
We seem to forget that on many of these merchant ships served gunners who, while being recognized as service personnel, nevertheless obeyed the ship's captain on board. These gunners were recognized, but the civilian seamen were not.
The evidence heard by the House committee on national defence and veterans affairs as well as the sub-committee on veterans affairs indicate that we had misconceptions about life in the merchant navy. Discipline was rigourous and danger present. It took 46 years for the facts to be established. Why, do you figure, Mr. Gordon Olmstead from the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoners of War Association told the committee: "Lack of recognition across Canada is apparent too, unfortunately. On such occasions as annual veterans' parades, Remembrance Day services, battle of the Atlantic services, there is total omission of the merchant navy's vital role."
Madam Speaker, I suggest this is sad and regrettable. It could be a reflection of attitudes that have lingered since the end of World War II. I think that men like Mr. Olmstead-merchant seamen have a real champion in him-deserve a place in the sun as well as in any parade.
I know that they were well represented last year at the Remembrance Day services in Ottawa, and I am sure they will be this year again. But this is obviously a most difficult issue for many other deserving people and I know that the minister will take that into account.
We have turned a deaf ear to the queries of merchant seamen for too long. I am pleased that this government has a different attitude. It has always been prepared to hear them out. The minister has been inundated with suggestions these past few months, namely from the Senate sub-committee on veterans affairs. At the invitation of the minister, veterans' organizations have set up a special committee to examine this persistent problem and the House standing committee has tabled its report. Merchant seamen organizations made presentations.
I think that the standing committee also tabled a veiy thorough report that contains solid arguments. The minister will probably take some time to go through these documents properly. I also suppose that veterans affairs will have to evaluate the cost of these recommendations in relation to other priorities, and that is normal. For example, the merchant seamen ask that the eligibility criteria for the Veterans Independence Program be broadened. They are not the only ones; applications under this program are skyrocketing.
In 1981, the government gave the program a budget of $1 million. This year, we will spend $137 million for
88,000	beneficiaries in the program. Unfortunately, it is not available to all veterans, but many of them would also like to benefit from it.
As for increased spending, Madam Speaker, veterans affairs has developed an ambitious plan to increase the number of hospital beds for veterans in the future. We want a sufficient reserve of beds within five to ten years. We know what hospitals cost the provinces; we must not forget about those costs.
We therefore understand why veterans affairs is trying to obtain significant funding to meet vetarans' future needs, which I must say should include those of merchant seamen who receive disability benefits. British Columbia and New Brunswick have already signed joint agreements and other provinces across Canada are preparing to do the same thing.
I think that we must realize the broad range of benefits and programs available to veterans and their families and that these must constantly be adjusted.
Given everything I just said, which is good news for veterans, and I think my colleague will admit it, I still deplore the lack of information Canadians have about the sacrifice these people had to make to give you and me and all Canadians the standard of living we enjoy today.
I often wonder why the government-owned television and radio do not interview these merchant seamen in the week following November 11 or the weekend before. Why do we not see them on television? Why are we not given information about them?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marc Ferland: The National Film Board has piles of documentaries, but people do not know what Canadian troops did and the sacrifices they made. So how could they be aware of the sacrifices the merchant seamen made in the last war or even the Korean War and the 1914-18 war. The families of these people do not even know what their fathers and uncles went through and had to suffer. I think that is absurd.

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
I have the feeling that the military is something of a taboo subject. Since Canada was never bombed, we might think that we do not need to talk about it to our children. Well, come on! Perhaps our children should know the price that had to be paid for us to have the privilege of living in this country, Canada, and enjoying this standard of living.
I hope that some people in this country can produce radio and television programs so that this weekend and next week we can see films, documentaries and interviews with the men and women who served our country in those wars and can tell us what they suffered so that we will understand what price they had to pay to give us this kind of life. I hope that I have been heard.
I hope that my colleagues in this House will also do all they can when they meet our reporter friends around here to bend their ear and tell them that maybe this weekend and next week, they could do something, Madam Speaker, so that Canadians really understand the importance of the report that we tabled in this House.
In my opinion, the three recommendations-which is not a whole lot-are extremely important. The first one says that the Canadian merchant seamen who went to sea at least once in wartime be considered full fledged veterans and be allowed to enjoy all the benefits granted to veterans. Of course there is a price for that. But we found a way to correct the mistakes made against Canadians of Asian origin and Italian origin. Can we not do the same for Canadian citizens? I hope that all members of the House will apply the necessary pressure, as I will.
Of course, I cannot commit myself today to spending money before I know how much. Are we talking about $500 million, $20 million or $100 million? I believe my colleague will agree with us on that issue. We have to know what kind of money we are talking about. But, Madam Speaker, we must make every effort to give those seamen their due.
The second recommendation says that a remembrance book with the names of those merchant seamen who died during the wars in which Canada participated should be prepared and put in the Peace Tower. That is
obvious. It is not expensive and it should have been done years ago. I do not understand why it has not already been done.
Third, the Department of Veterans Affairs should promote the erection of a suitable monument to honour those who were in the Canadian merchant navy in wartime. The committee is of the opinion that this monument could be erected in the Halifax region. In fact, the suggestion to build the monument in the Halifax region was made by the merchant seamen, because most convoys that sailed to Europe or even Murmansk left from the Atlantic region, sometimes from the Gaspe peninsula, but usually from Halifax.
How much does a monument cost? What does it represent per Canadian? A quarter of a cent? How come this has not already been done? I am 49 years old and I have the privilege of living in a fantastic country. I always believed, until I started looking into this issue with my colleagues, that this had been done.
I can tell you that I am not particularly proud, as a younger Canadian, that the contribution and the sacrifices made by those people have not yet been recognized. After all, one merchant seaman in ten died. One in ten! Do you have any idea of how a merchant seaman felt when he was on a ship that was transporting ammunition and had to avoid a pack of six or seven U-boats? How do you think that seaman felt? He could not get off, because if he tried to escape, the police would go after him and take him to court, just like any other sailor serving in the Canadian navy. That seaman was subject to the same laws. He did not have a choice.
And what about those who worked on oil tankers? Once I saw a film that showed what it was like when an oil tanker was torpedoed. There were no survivors. There was literally a sea of fire. And I do not even talk about the ones who tried to save their comrades. I understand that my time is up, Madam Speaker, but I think the time has come, in 1991, to recognize the contribution of those people. And if that can reassure my colleague, I sincerely expect that by the end of February, the minister will have tabled in the House a bill that will provide exactly what he, I, all the committee members and, hopefully, all the members of this House and all Canadians want: that is to recognize the contribution of merchant seamen.
November 7, 1991


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my congratulations to the hon. member for Portneuf. He had extremely good ideas and a very forceful presentation that I am sure is supported by everyone in the House.
One of the comments that was made during the debate this morning was interesting.
There is the idea that these are very complicated things and take a great deal of time. By comparison, I would like to point out to the member, and I believe it was the member for Scarborough who mentioned this, for 12 years I have been working with a group of veterans labelled the "atomic veterans".
Since 1980 an individual by the name of A1 Draper has been trying to get pensions for a group of veterans that were involved in the nuclear defence force. All the members were veterans of the European conflict. Many of them were wounded and decorated.
They became involved in the nuclear defence force in Canada. They were exposed to radiation. Mr. Draper was paralysed for years. People died of cancer and a variety of ailments.
It is interesting. The government, when responding for consideration of their problems, said the radiation is not something that can be proven even though there is some strong evidence that the group was suffering seriously. It said: "It is too complicated. We cannot do it".
I remember Bennett Campbell, who was the Minister of Veterans Affairs, had been advised to seek an epide-meological study. He did. It cost $30,000-probably more than the benefits that would have accrued. It was an inclusive study that dragged on and on and on.
Finally, a member of the present government, or the previous Parliament, the Hon. George Hees, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, said: "This is nonsense. We have to immediately find a way of resolving this because these people are dying. Their families are suffering and they are failing to get the recognition".
He moved swiftly. He implemented a provision to provide that recognition. Alt was modest compared to what they were already getting but it gave recognition and protection to the surviving widows. To his eternal credit the Hon. George Hees moved swiftly and gave his
Routine Proceedings
word on behalf of the government that this would be in place immediately.
What I hear in this House today is that political will exists. There is no resistance on the government side or on the opposition side to this very worth-while project. I guess the next thing to happen is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the same way George Hees did with the atomic veterans, to stand up and say: "We accept the proposition and we will move swiftly to implement that".
There is not a government member who has stood up and said that they have an opinion that counters what I think is the will of the whole House.


Marc Ferland: I want to thank my hon. friend for his comments. I may add that I am firmly convinced that before the end of February, the minister will be in a position to table the government's response to the questions formulated by the committee. I also hope that all members of this House will be able to support the minister's efforts to see that justice is done.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Madam Speaker, according to the media, members of the merchant navy were unable to see the minister to explain or express their concerns about this question. But I heard that only yesterday the minister met with members of a number of associations connected with the merchant navy, that he listened to their concerns and was willing to encourage them in their efforts and perhaps help them where appropriate.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he heard about this meeting with the minister and whether he could inform the House about the minister's intentions?


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He will realize I can hardly report on the meeting the minister had with the merchant seamen since I was not at the meeting myself. However, I can assure the hon. member that the minister is more than willing to consider the concerns of merchant seamen.
I can also inform the hon. member that the Canadian Legion and all other veterans' organizations across this country support the committee's report 100 per cent, and

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
they came here to tell us just that. The minister is very well informed on the situation.
I am sure the minister listened very attentively to what the merchant seamen had to say, and I am convinced they will obtain satisfaction.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Madam Speaker, I certainly congratulate the speaker from Portneuf on his very thoughtful and deliberate discussion of this matter which, I believe, affects all of us.
It was just a year ago that several members of this Parliament, the Governor General and two Canadian V.C. winners, Smokey Smith from British Columbia and Colonel Tilston from Ontario, were present in the cemetery at Yokohama in Japan. While we were there we had three different ceremonies and one was at a cemetery. Members of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and Royal Rifles of Montreal, who had been taken to Japan as forced labour, had died and were buried in that country, some in that cemetery.
We visited a second cemetery and the service we had was with the Canadian members of the Korean Brigade who had given their lives and who had been taken to Japan for medical care in this case and had died in that country.
The third ceremony held in conjunction with all the other Commonwealth countries was attended by the Prince and Princess of Wales and many, many veterans from other Commonwealth countries.
The thing that struck me about this whole ceremony was that even though Canadians were buried in that ceremony, at that time they were not recognized, and it was not until this year as a result of the efforts of members of this House that the Korean war medal was created and that those who served so well in that country became eligible for that award.
It seems to me a shame that many of these Korean vets have passed on without ever knowing that their country recognized them.
What we are dealing with here today is the fact that many of these merchant seamen who five or six years earlier had perhaps finished their service for then-country have not yet been recognized.
You would think that striking something like a Korean medal should not take 40 years. The member mentioned in his talk the fact that this had been going and had not been brought to a conclusion.
I would like to hear his comments that it would be much better for this country to recognize those merchant mariners who are still alive rather than trying to explain to their families, to their children and to their grandchildren how much we appreciated their service during the war. We should recognize the veterans themselves.
I would just like to hear the member comment on the length of time it has taken and to encourage the government to expedite this matter.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, all I can say is that I find it very difficult to understand why there was all this delay, just as I fail to understand why it took so long for us to recognize Canadians who served in Korea and to strike a medal for that purpose.
The only answer I was able to get was that for a long time, the Canadian forces were integrated either with the British army or with the UN forces and when medals were awarded, they were British medals. Ours is still a young country, and it was only recently that we started striking Canadian medals in recognition of military service. And I hope we will have one like the special medal that was struck for veterans of the Korean war, and high time, too. I also hope that Canada will recognize, with our own Canadian decorations, the efforts of those Canadians who gave their lives and are buried in foreign soil. They deserve our recognition, if only posthumously, and we should also recognize those who did survive. Many of those who survived were crippled for the rest of their lives. They have had to live with the suffering they endured in the course of guaranteeing our safety.
I agree with the hon. member. It is high time something was done. I don't want this debate to go on for another 40 years. I hope we finish this within the next few months, preferably as soon as possible.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines -Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I want to put on record some of my thoughts with regard to the members of the merchant marine.
November 7, 1991

Routine Proceedings
A few Parliaments ago I had the honour of serving with the Hon. Daniel MacDonald who was then the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This topic of recognizing our merchant marines as we do our other veterans in Canada came up.
The former speaker mentioned that it has taken a long time to come around to the position where we recognize the sacrifice and the contribution made by the merchant marines. I and those who have served in this House are as much to blame as anyone for having procrastinated for so long.
I see today that there is agreement on all sides of this House. I have not heard anyone rise to oppose the recognition of the members of the merchant marines as we do our veterans with full honours and with full rights,
I might add.
My voice is added today to those of members who have spoken in favour of this recognition. Like the others I regret that it has taken so long. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will advise the minister involved that there is concurrence in this House with the report before us.
To say that the merchant marines have made sacrifices on behalf of our country is truly sans dire. It goes without saying. Yet we have waited this long to grant them veterans' status. It just does not seem fair and it does not seem right.
I ask myself why, if merchant marines are eligible for medals, including other recognition such as prisoner of war allowances, that we in this House cannot grant them full recognition for what they have done? They can receive civilian war allowances equal in value to the War Veterans Allowances. However there is one thing they are not eligible for that should be corrected and it is the long-term care.
We know that merchant marines want access to the full range of programs offered to other status veterans. This is the very least we can do. They served for us on these merchant ships which for the most part were unarmed. They were able in one ship to carry enough food to feed almost a quarter of a million people for a full week. They made these hazardous crossings of the Atlantic numerous times and they did not even have guns to defend themselves. They were more or less at
the mercy of the U-boat packs which stalked them in the North Atlantic.
I ask myself why, if our allies, England, the United States and Australia have recognized the value of their merchant marines have we waited so long to recognize ours. Some of our veterans, for example, the Hong Kong veterans and the Dieppe prisoners were given extra recognition in the sense that we were able to get extra money and services for them. They deserved it because of the hurt and harm which they suffered at the hands of the enemy when they were taken prisoners of war.
In this House today, I see members who were on the veterans affairs committee when we had veterans from Hong Kong appear before us.
I cannot speak for them because they will take the floor in their own good time to tell of their experiences. I for one found it very difficult not to at least try to put myself in the shoes of these men who were taken prisoner and treated in such a shameful fashion.
They came to us, the government, for the services they needed because of what had been done to them on our behalf and because they were fighting for us during the war. I did not see how we could turn down their request. We did not turn down their request. We gave them what they wanted and what they needed at that time.
The only difference between the merchant marines and our other veterans, it seems to me, is that the merchant marines did not have uniforms on when they were fighting. They fought in the clothes that they wore day in and day out as they braved the hazards of the sea on our behalf. I do not think the uniform makes the man, but I can tell you that the man or the woman inside the uniform is what gives the honour and glory to the uniform which is worn.
Merchant ships in their effort to supply troops, found themselves in combat situations for which they were very ill equipped. I mention that in passing. Not only were they unarmed, but the U-boats that stalked and attacked them knew they were unarmed. I do not mean this as a pun but they were sitting ducks out in the water. Although they were carrying the majority of the supplies to our allies in England and elsewhere that were under siege, they themselves did not have the means to fight back.

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
It has been said here in this House many times that the conditions under which they had to live and fight were many times more deplorable than situations for our other veterans. That is not to say that the other veterans had not served well. It is to recognize that all our merchant marines were able to perform under not only the most hazardous conditions but under conditions which even our other veterans in many cases did not have to face.
We take a look at their losses and see that proportionately they suffered losses which were higher than others. Permit me to enter into the record some of the facts about the merchant marines.
When the Second World War broke out our merchant navy consisted of only 37 ships and 1,400 personnel. But by the end of the war the numbers had increased to over 180 ships and 12,000 personnel. For those who say they do not know who these 12,000 merchant marines were, I say it is very easy to find out who they were because there were logs not only on the ships but there were records kept. These people would be very simple to recognize.
During the course of the war more than 70-and I repeat that, more than 70-Canadian ships were lost and the merchant mariners suffered losses which were in excess of those of the other forces. The pro rata losses of the merchant navy for the period 1939 to 1945 exceeded those of the Royal Canadian Navy by 40 per cent. I say that was due to the fact that they could not defend themselves as the others could. The over-all death rate in the merchant marine was about 9.55 per cent, compared to 3.98 per cent for the three armed forces.
In addition to these casualties, 198 were taken prisoners of war and spent an average of four years in prisoner of war camps, a period which was in many instances much longer than for any of the other services.
In 1983 I again had the honour to represent Canada at Vimy on November 11, I guess almost eight years ago from the date on which I am speaking now. Many veterans came with us to Vimy and we toured not only the cemeteries but some of the battlefields where our Canadian forces were involved. It was mentioned to me at that time by a veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy that we should recognize what the merchant mariners had done for us. It sort of stuck in my mind that here we
were honouring the Canadian dead of two world wars and now not one of the delegation who was there was from the merchant marines.
One of the members who spoke previously said that he had visited a cemetery in Yokohama. I believe this is close to where many of our Canadian soldiers who were taken prisoner at Hong Kong were interned during the war. They were buried there.
It might be a revelation for you and other members in this House to know that the merchant marine was very much involved on D-Day, on June 6. We had supply ships which were not right at the forefront but close enough within shelling range that they took casualties. I can attest that behind Juno Beach where our Canadian troops landed we have a Canadian cemetery and in that Canadian cemetery are members of the merchant marines.
I find it ludicrous that after all of these years these men who served side by side with our other forces and are buried with them do not have the same recognition as the others do. It is high time that we in the House of Commons and hopefully the minister who is in charge will recognize the great contribution that they made.
The motto of Canada's merchant mariners was: "We deliver the goods", and they did deliver the goods. They delivered them to England which at the time was under siege. I guess it could be said that England truly was under siege from 1939 well into 1944 when the allied troops were able to attack the bastion fortress Europe.
Where do you think all the supplies came from? How do you think the supplies got to our fighting troops? How is it that our brave men and women who were involved in the onslaught against fortress Europe were able to push our enemies back into the heartland of Europe and then finally defeat them? Where do you think those supplies came from? I say to you that those supplies were carried by our merchant mariners, the unsung heroes of the Second World War.
It was mentioned earlier that it took us quite a bit of time to strike a medal for Korean veterans. That too adds, if not to our shame, at least to our lack of recognition of the brave men and women who went to the battlefields to represent us. I think that the merchant mariners have waited long enough. I believe their due,
November 7, 1991

their right is to be recognized as full-fledged veterans of our armed forces.
The committee, as is stated here, believes that the Government of Canada should follow these recommendations and so do I. Canadian merchant marines with one or more high seas ocean going assignments during wartime should be fully recognized as veterans. Veterans' benefits should be extended to them without any exception. A book of remembrance that we would have here in the Peace Tower in Canada, and that I encourage all members to visit, should be prepared and placed in the Peace Tower. It should be solely dedicated to merchant mariners who died in Canada's wars.
The Department of Veterans Affairs should encourage the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada's wartime merchant mariners. The committee suggested that Halifax would be a suitable area for the monument. From the information that I have about Halifax, the fact is that most of our supplies were shifted into Halifax and then transported to our friends and allies overseas.
Lest there be any question that members on all sides of this House are in agreement with this report and lest there be any doubt by the minister that we want action to be taken on behalf of the merchant mariners, I add my voice to those of my colleagues in my party as well as the members who have spoken from the NDP and the government to let it be known that our party categorically supports the inclusion of our merchant mariners as full-fledged veterans to be accorded all the honours and rights due to any and all veterans of the Canadian forces.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with care as I am sure that everyone who has spoken today has been listened to carefully. The matter that we are dealing with is a matter that is important to the history of Canada and to all Canadians. There has certainly been no question that the matter we are speaking about warrants very serious consideration, in fact warrants the conclusion at which the committee arrived.
I would like to ask a question with reference to the committee's work. The member acknowledged the standing committee for its work and I certainly agree with him entirely. However, given that the committee
Routine Proceedings
recommended a period of time normally provided for a response, 150 some days, does he not feel that the government should be afforded the same period to provide for this recognition in a fully appropriate and final manner which truly pays tribute to the service these men and women gave their country?


Gilbert Parent: It does not seem to me that 150 days, after waiting well over 40 years, will be the make or break point.
We are trying to make the point that all of us agree that it should be done. The hon. member asked me if 150 days would be reasonable. I would prefer that it be sooner. However if it takes 150 days to get everything straightened out, even after 40 years, then I am very much in favour of letting the government have those days, if at the end of 150 days the deed is done and done properly.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, there are two points I would like to make that I think are worth pursuing. One is that concurrence motions put forward by the opposition often do not yield the results desired.
Would the hon. member not agree that many issues surrounding veterans affairs have dragged on too long. There have been too many instances where government has proceeded in one direction, or in fact been silent, and then years down the road the omission is corrected and suddenly the right thing done. Many people pass away during that period of time and do not receive the recognition they deserve.
What is needed now is not a delay of 150 days but for the minister to peruse the debate, study the intent of the recommendations of the standing committee, and come forward in the House under Statements by Ministers and indicate that this government supports the proposition and will move forward as quickly as possible to implement those recommendations and provide the recognition earned at such cost and commitment to Canada.
The first point is that the minister has an obligation to the House, to the country, and to the merchant service to stand up and say that the government supports the concept and it will move as expeditiously as possible. In 150 days other priorities may rise and this issue will again be put on the back burner. That would be tragic.

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The second point is the issue of the Hong Kong veterans. The history of the involvement of Canadian forces at Hong Kong was a tragedy. A person I know who was there said that if there had been enough food and ammunition they would never have been taken. They fought with valour and in some respects were sacrificial lambs. They were held at North Point, in Sham Shui Po. They were hauled to Japan in the most inhumane conditions imaginable, treated as slave labour in the shipyards of Yokohama and the mines of Hokkaido.
In talking to the individual he said that the Japanese officer who handled Canadian soldiers, who were absolute slaves in the shipyards of Yokohama, had actually come from Kamloops. Undoubtedly his behaviour was reciprocal for the behaviour that had been visited on his family in Kamloops. It was an ironic twist of fate.
Certainly there was an element of prematurity in the Prime Minister's suggestion that Japanese recognition of the event was sufficient. There is still work to be done for the Hong Kong veterans to get the recognition and compensation due to them from the Japanese government for their absolutely inhumane treatment.
On the two scores it would be very productive for the Minister of Veterans Affairs to state the government's political will and its willingness to accommodate the recommendations of the committee in a timely manner as a signal so that we do not have to wait 150 days to know the intent of the government.
The second issue, you mentioned, and other members on the government side mentioned, is the tragic situation of the Hong Kong veterans. Maybe the committee can have another look at that particular chapter and determine what demands should be made on the Japanese government for fair compensation for this very tragic event in history.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I will deal with the two points raised by the hon. member. The first concerns the 150 day period. I have indicated to members opposite that I would of course be in favour of all the legislation being prepared and recognition given in a shorter period.
However it is understood at this point that 150 days would be the very maximum. There would have to be a commitment that this would be completed in 150 days, and sooner if possible. I believe I concur with the hon. member who has just spoken.
With regard to the Hong Kong veterans, like many people in this House, I too have studied as best I could what happened in Hong Kong. Our troops in some ways were ill-trained and ill-prepared to go in there. I believe it has to be said now that they were used virtually as sacrificial lambs. As a Canadian I find it very hard to accept that our young men were sent over there with the full knowledge that they were perhaps going to be getting the worst end of the deal when it came down to a battle for Hong Kong. Yet it was done.
The treatment they received at the hands of the Japanese is no less shameful than the decision to send them there in the first place. Some 45 years since the end of the Second World War, 46 years now, there has been some recognition by the Japanese government of the crimes, and I use the word purposefully, that the Japanese committed against our Canadians and the way they treated them as prisoners of war. I believe there should be compensation. There should be at least as much compensation from the Japanese for the way they treated Canadians as from us for the way we treated our Japanese Canadians who were here. We had no right to do that either.
It should be brought back to committee for discussion so that overtures can once again be made to the Japanese government to have it reconsider the fact that there should be compensation for the way our prisoners were treated at their hands.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and speak on this matter. Before I begin making comments about the legislation before us I must pay tribute to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. He is a regular member of our Standing Committee of National Defence and Veterans Affairs whenever there is anything being discussed about veterans.
We are always guaranteed that the minute there is anything on the agenda regarding veterans, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden is there. He is truly a champion for the merchant mariners.
Before I make other comments, I want to make it clear that this member is not the only champion, there are many champions. I must say that every member on the standing committee was fully in favour. It was a unani-

mous report that was submitted. Everyone feels very strongly about everything that is being said today.
I cannot remember participating in a debate in which all of us agreed so unanimously on the various aspects of the problems that have resulted in the last 50 years from inattention to this extremely important matter.
There is one other champion and that is the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think he is more involved in this matter and has paid more attention to this matter than many people realize. He is the first minister who has met with the merchant mariners and, I might add, as recently as yesterday.
We all want the same thing. Everybody in this House wants the same thing. I think where we may differ slightly is the manner by which we pursue it, the avenue which we decide to go down. That brings me back once again, and perhaps this will be the last time that we make reference to the 150 days, but I have to come back to the 150 days. I have good news for everybody in the House today. It is not 150 days from today, it is 150 days from the date that the our report was tabled in this House of Commons. I have a copy of the report here but it does not have the date on it so I cannot-


An hon. member:: October 2.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: October 2, all right. Forty days have gone by already. I just wanted to make that clear. Those 40 days have gone by very quickly. Before anybody knows it, the response from the minister's office and his officials will be back in this House. By then the minister's officials and the minister will have had time to analyse and formulate some excellent responses and action and hopefully allocate and designate the necessary funds ahead of time to proceed with whatever action the minister decides to take.
I think I can say that every member of this House has the utmost admiration for Canada's merchant seamen. It has been mentioned by members that so many times throughout those dreadful war years they were merely sitting ducks while the U-boats stalked the convoys. Their contribution to victory deserves to be recognized not just in words, but also through tangible compensation. They were civilians without whom the military could not have functioned.
Routine Proceedings
Much has been made about what our merchant mariners are not receiving. We have been hearing that all morning. I think it is only right that the Canadian public also learn about what our merchant mariners are receiving. It is certainly not chicken feed. This year alone merchant mariners and their dependents will be receiving something like $20 million worth of benefits and all of it is indexed and tax free.
It is illuminating to recall a statistic given by the member for Regina-Lumsden in his speech last Friday. He told the House that of the 12,000 merchant seamen who served their country in the Second World War about 3,500 are still living.
Veterans affairs indicates that over 3,000 claims from merchant seaman were processed just last year. This suggests that merchant seaman are getting very fair treatment from veterans affairs in many ways and that our present legislation is wide enough for the country to assist virtually all merchant seamen who come before veterans affairs with a claim for their benefits.
In contrast, it is worth noting that about one-third of all Canadian veterans are clients of veterans affairs.
I will talk a little about the programs that fuel this $20 million pay-out and will give a few examples of how individuals are benefiting. First, there is the allowance program which gives merchant mariners in financial difficulties income support and health care benefits.
Dependents are also eligible as are survivors of veterans.
The allowance program treats veterans and merchant seamen equally. I think it is important for us to emphasize that fact. It has done so since 1962.
This program involves not only money, but eligible merchant mariners can also receive health care benefits not covered by provincial programs. Eye glasses are covered, as are prescription drugs, dental care, hearing aids and chronic care in a community bed. The only benefit available to ex-military personnel and not to the civilian groups is access to a department or contract bid.
The allowance program is one of the reasons that Canada's programs and benefits are admired and envied by veterans in innumerable other countries. I point this out because we have heard how the United Kingdom regards its merchant mariners as veterans. That may be but the United Kingdom does not have an income

November 7, 1991
Routine Proceedings
support program for merchant mariners or veterans as we do here in Canada.
The Royal Canadian Legion said in its submission to our House Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs: "The name 'veteran' without access to the benefits is very cold comfort indeed". I would suggest that merchant mariners in the United Kingdom would be prepared to trade designations for benefits any day of the week.
Let me tell the House of a case in Vancouver which might give members an idea of how well this government cares for former members of the merchant marine.
A client, whom I shall not name to spare him any embarrassment, is receiving civilian war allowance and has been doing so for many years. The veterans affairs counsellor has a one-to-one relationship with his client and has ensured for these many years that his social and medical needs are monitored and taken care of.
This man has fallen into the category of "hard to house" principally because of alcohol problems. He has been rejected as a client by many agents in the Vancouver area and all around British Columbia.
Previous private residential placements, because of this man's hard to house status, have made a permanent solution hard to find. During the past month his counsellor was able to place him in the Veteran's Memorial Manor located in the downtown east side of Vancouver.
The Veteran's Memorial Manor is a success story in itself, and because it is called the Veteran's Memorial Manor most Canadians would naturally assume that only veterans are housed there, but this gentleman is a former merchant mariner. It is important that we understand his rights in this case are those of any other veteran.
In the outside world people such as this veterans affairs client are often barely able to function. They are rejected by society. Many helping institutions with the best intentions in the world find it impossible to deal with these clients because their problems with alcohol lead to behaviour which is simply not acceptable.
These are people who need the most help. In this gentleman's case, this veterans affairs counsellor has
been able to give him a clean, warm residence, help him manage his finances and provide him with a general safety net.
Veterans affairs has become this client's social court of last resort.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize to my hon. friend for interrupting him but it is getting close to one o'clock.
The unanimity of this House is obvious to all. I am wondering if the hon. member would be good enough to close out his remarks now and allow the motion to be carried on a voice vote so that the government has a sense of the House of Commons.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, I paid a tremendous number of accolades to my hon. friend over there whom I described as a champion, one of the many champions of the merchant mariners.
I respect what he is doing. I respect him for bringing this to the attention of the House. I think he can understand that all members of this House all day have been in unanimity of what we must do.
My accolades do not extend farther than that. I am afraid that I would like to continue with comments.
I said we would not come back to the 150 day period, now it is a 110 day period. I would still insist that it is extremely important to give the minister and his ministry the amount of time properly to respond, to analyse and formulate solutions in their own way. I think it is very unfair to the ministry to hand it a report like our standing committee did and offer 150 days to process it and come in with something that only partially addresses all of the things in that report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, again I raise the unanimity of the House to have this moved forward. I wonder if the speaker realizes that by continuing to speak he destroys the opportunity of the House to express its wish to implement these recommendations.

The second point is that it is not unfair. This is the purpose of these committees. This was the government's commitment to strengthen the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Speaker if she realizes what she is doing. This is what the hon. member has said. I do know the rules of this House. I have heard the hon. member for Regina- Lumsden. I am not to decide whether there is unanimity in this House. I gave the floor back to the person who had the floor and it was that person's decision as to whether this was being brought to a close. It was not the Speaker's decision.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens in Canada want to know where this government stands on the matter of quarterly income tax instalments. These tax instalments are an unfair burden on our senior citizens. Yet this government is sending out very confusing signals on this issue.
When I was successful in getting a debate on tax instalments on the floor of this House, several Tories indicated support for eliminating the instalments, but when they had the opportunity to vote, they voted no. Later however a newspaper report said the government would bring in a bill to get rid of the instalments.
What is going on? Why will the government not come clean? Why can it not support our seniors? These tax instalments have to go. It is time the government stood up for senior citizens in Canada.



BILL C-17

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago, by passing Bill C-17 on third reading, the members of this House expressed Canadians' firm intention to live in a non-violent society that respects the rights of its citizens.
The passing on third reading of a bill that restricts access to firearms illustrates today more than ever before a sense of Canadian pride as well as the expression of a social choice. This initiative, which has the support of the great majority of Canadians, also brought together all members of this House, and this is to the credit of the minister responsible, the hon. Minister of Justice, and the government.
I hope that our honourable senators will also respect the will of Canadians and ensure speedy passage for the bill.



ALEXANDER MACKENZIE BICENTENNIAL

Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in 1793 Alexander Mackenzie became the first white man to cross Canada by land. On the last leg of his journey to the Pacific he made contact with 30,000 people in the Bella Coola Indian territory. The Bella Coola civilization stretched back 10,000 years. Contact with Mackenzie and his followers resulted in the destruction of that civilization.
The Alexander Mackenzie Bicentennial provides Canadians with an opportunity to express recognition and respect for aboriginal culture as a rich and vibrant part of our nation's history. It also provides us with an opportunity to return to the Bella Coola Indians stolen artefacts which are now held by Canadian museums and private collectors.
Canada should build an interpretive museum in Bella Coola to commemorate the Bella Coola civilization and to house their returned artefacts.
Mr. Speaker, as an honorary patron of the Alexander Mackenzie Bicentennial you, Pierre Berton and Peter C.

Newman could visit Bella Coola and aid in this process of restitution and recognition of native culture.



CROATIA

Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, it is time to re-examine our policy toward Croatia. Our condemnation 12 days ago of the vicious and continuing attack on Dubrovnik, Pearl of the Adriatic, is welcome, but not enough.
Dubrovnik has no military significance, yet Yugoslav artillery, grenade and rocket attacks have targeted the music academy, the second oldest synagogue in Europe, and have put some of the world's art treasures at risk.
Martin Bell of the BBC described yesterday as Dubrovnik's worst day in its thousand-year history. Sixty thousand people are trapped in that city without food, water, electricity or communications.
From Vukovar to Samobor and along the Dalmatian coast, 5,000 Croatians are dead, 10,000 wounded and over a quarter million homeless. A 12-week siege has reduced Vukovar to rubble. There is no surrender, though not a building is standing.
I call on our government to re-examine whether Yugoslavia still exists, to impose sanctions on Serbia, demand withdrawal of the Yugoslav military from Croatia, and prepare for diplomatic recognition of Croatia.



MIDDLE EAST

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, history records few moments of more hope or optimism than the first round of Middle East peace talks in Madrid. Enemies from many perspectives looked into each other's eyes, the political process had started.
Co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviets, this effort represents a positive sign for Israel and its neighbours that after 43 years, a just, safe and secure peace may be on the horizon.
An important corridor to bilateral negotiations leading to the multilateral stage is in place where Canada could have an important role. For the people of Israel, for Palestinians and for men, women and children in the region, I send this message: Our hope and hearts are
with you and our desire for peace, like yours, is real and strong. No more wars. Let us all hope that you will be able to live as peaceful neighbours, respecting and celebrating your diversity with a peace that was so hard to imagine just a short time ago.
Please keep talking. Through trust, confidence-building measures and good will, you will find the way.



CANADA CAREER WEEK

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, this being Canada Career Week, I take this opportunity to invite all young Canadians, in particular those in my riding, to be fully aware of the importance of education. Many activities are held on the theme "Start to Finish", to make students aware of the relationship between education and employment. These activities cater in particular to those students who might be tempted to drop out of school.
By the year 2000, two thirds of all new jobs will require at least 12 years of schooling. Therefore, young Canadians must think and try to match their interests and talents with changes in the labour market. They must also realize the importance of education in tomorrow's careers. If Canada is to remain competitive internationally, young people must be willing to improve their skills throughout their life and to change occupations several times in their career.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: The New Brunswick business community is losing millions of dollars because of this government's inept goods and services tax. According to the report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, New Brunswick's price tag in 1991 is $268 million.
New Brunswick has paid over $100 million more than any other province in Canada. Small businesses create about 85 per cent of all new jobs in Atlantic Canada, and this is the sector being hammered by the GST. Onerous paperwork, red tape, delays in reimbursements, higher prices coupled with the enormous number of cross-bord-
November 7, 1991

er shoppers are strangling one of our greatest assets, our small business sector.
The CFIB's Peter O'Brien said it best, and I quote:
We feel that the saddling of the New Brunswick economy with $268 million in unproductive compliance costs is a ridiculous tragedy in the middle of a recession.
Last month New Brunswick learned that we are about to lose $100 million in transfer payments. Now we leam that we are contributing more than our share to this tax boondoggle. Enough is enough. Scrap the tax.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING

Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, when the Government of Canada implemented its Community Futures Program in Quebec in 1986, the direct supplying of in-house training was included. Nobody from the Government of Quebec objected to that. Remi Trudel, the PQ member for Rouyn-Noranda even said several months ago that the Community Futures Committee of Abitibi-Temiscamingue was the best available forum in the community.
I agree that occupational training should be exclusively a Quebec government responsibility. A new agreement must be negotiated in order to fully meet Quebec's objectives for a training policy. Quebec workers must not be held hostage because of the constitutional process.



STATUS OF WOMEN

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I rise today to comment on the response of the government to the report of the subcommittee on the Status of Women, entitled The War Against Women. The recommendations of the subcommittee were strong and direct in asking for direct action from the government. In response, the government has unfortunately given us fluff.
Within the recommendations there are one or two initiatives that are good, and I refer in particular to those relating to funding for projects for native women in violent situations. But, Mr. Speaker, the other recommendations are merely repetitions of government programs that are already outworn and offer nothing new.
In particular, I am distressed about the government willing only to offer support on training for judges.

The government must make it compulsory for federal judges to be trained on the issue of equality for women.

It is absolutely crucial, Mr. Speaker, that judges in this country be trained in the area of gender sensitization. We are very disappointed on this side of the House that the government has not taken this opportunity to implement this step and we can only say that we and the women of Canada wait for this to happen.



AGRICULTURE

Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, the recently announced sale of 600,000 tonnes of com to the Soviet Union is a major deal for the Ontario corn industry and good news for Ontario com growers. The sale is the result of a line of credit first announced by the Prime Minister at the G-7 summit and reconfirmed last week when the minister for grains and oilseeds visited the Soviet Union. Three hundred thousand tonnes of com are to be shipped before the end of 1991 and another 300,000 by the end of the first quarter of 1992. In addition, 50,000 tonnes of soya beans were included in the deal. This supply agreement should help raise com prices out of their current slump, while at the same time provide much needed food supplies to the Soviet Union.



WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, most members from all parties have signed a

November 7, 1991
declaration calling on the government to fully and quickly implement the promises made at the United Nations World Summit for Children in September 1990.
It had been agreed that this afternoon a motion of support for the promises of the world summit for children would be introduced. The motion was just one speaker from each party encouraging the support of the government's effort to implement these vital promises to our children and to the children of the world.
Now, that benign non-partisan motion has been ki-boshed by the minister of health, the minister for public relations and the minister of external affairs. The government's commitment to children's rights, both in Canada and throughout the developing world, must now be called into question.
The House hopes that these ministers will soon change their minds and support the motion agreed to by all New Democrats, most Liberals and a good portion of the Tories and Independents in this House.



TREMPLIN TRAVAIL

Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate an organization from my riding on receiving the Gerard Roussel award, given by the Federation des Caisses populaires to a non-profit organization involved in regional development.
Tremplin Travail was established in 1986 to help unemployed youths enter the labour market. Through various means, it has helped a few hundred young people find a job. Assistance is provided in areas such as personal communication, job search, acquiring the skills required for a specific job, exploratory internship and internships in firms as well as occupational health and safety courses.
Since it was established, Tremplin Travail has received over $3 million in financial assistance from Employment and Immigration Canada to give our youths a chance to enter the labour market.
This is a positive step this government has taken for our youths in these areas and I want to thank Tremplin
Travail from Amqui for its contribution to our basic employment skill training programs.



A LINE IN THE DIRT

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery we have several representatives of a grassroots farm organization called A Line in the Dirt from the Lucknow area of southwestern Ontario. They organized a rally of over a thousand farmers, almost on the spur of the moment, in early September to protest the cutbacks in government support programs during 1990 and the lack of action by the Government of Canada in relieving the farm financial crisis gripping the country this year.
The farm protest rally in Lucknow triggered other rallies in Ontario and across western Canada. After thousands of farmers had protest rallies this fall, the government finally announced in typical fashion only one half of the assistance, identified as a shortfall in farm income last year, and no one knows even today when this small amount will be provided to struggling farmers. They were told that they would be able to meet with a senior staff member of the Minister of Agriculture today, and now even that has been cancelled.
I call on the Minister of Agriculture to meet with these farmers and meet with them today.



REMEMBRANCE DAY

Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, Allan Fotheringham shot an arrow into the air and missed. In a press story published today under the title MPs should stuff their poppies Mr. Fotheringham said that it was vainglorious posturing for members of Parliament to wear poppies, and that it is a hypocrisy in their drama.
Mr. Speaker, Canada lost more than 100,000 brave men and women who defended the freedom of our country.
Canadians are thankful for the resolute commitment of our persons in uniform. We are proud of Canada and indebted to those who defended democracy and freedom.
November 7, 1991

It matters not whether one is a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Progressive Conservative. We will wear our poppies because it is the right thing to do. If wearing a poppy near the occasion of Remembrance Day is an act of hypocrisy for some members of the media, then please, Sir, may we have more hypocrisy.
Mr. Fotheringham must understand that wearing a poppy is not a reflection of a political perspective on an issue of defence, but rather is a dignified display of remembrance.
Allan Fotheringham was dead wrong. May he rest in peace.



INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise a government program, one so effective that it is copied by 30 countries.
Its name is IRAP, the Industrial Research Assistance Program. IRAP, through technology transfer to small and medium size enterprises, produces jobs at $6,000 a piece, a mere fraction of the cost in other programs. It is in trouble. Why? Because of funding cuts in a ruthless attempt by NRC management to fix what industry says does not need fixing: the way it delivers its product.
Its director was fired because because he supported IRAP's established mission. Its advisory committee was ignored and its chairman called an "imbecile" by NRC's president because he opposed the changes.
At NRC, there is widespread criticism of a brutal management style and a record of five charges of racial and age discrimination. This is unacceptable. It is time for a change.
If this government has a prosperity agenda, there is no better place to start than by getting NRC the funds it needs, and by giving it the kind of management it should have, and let IRAP do its job.



NATIONAL 4-H WEEK

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, 4-H youth is making a difference. November 4 to November 10 is the National 4-H Week, and I would like
Oral Questions
to salute all the members and the volunteer leaders who participate in this worth-while movement.
It is 4-H that places emphasis on personal development, community leadership and responsible citizenship. The result is confident, capable and committed young people who are ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.
National 4-H Week is an annual event created to celebrate the accomplishments of the past year and to honour the thousands of 4-H members and volunteer leaders across the country who contribute to the success of this program. In Alberta alone, there are 7,200 4-H members and 2,400 adult volunteer leaders.
I am sure I speak for all the members of this House when I say that this program is vital to the development of Canadian youth. This government will continue to support this type of youth activity because it fosters the attitude, enthusiasm and the energy needed to succeed in a competitive world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On the weekend in Manitoba, the Secretary of State said, in referring to section 91 of the new constitutional proposals, and I quote: "-this clause allows the federal government to do almost anything. It's a declaratory power we have never seen in the Constitution, and I don't know- It doesn't stand a chance."
Does the Secretary of State's colleague share this view? If not, why do we see this obvious contradiction within cabinet on the government's own constitutional proposals?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that these proposals have been advanced for discussion purposes.

November 7, 1991
Oral Questions
They are not the end of a process, they are the beginning of a process soliciting views, opinions and suggestions from all Canadians, particularly members of the House of Commons. That is precisely the way in which the hearing process is to be conducted.
I think the hon. member realizes that what is being proposed here is a way to strengthen the economic union, to create better co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy and to try to ensure that any legislative measures that would improve the efficiency of economic union would be brought forward.
It is not being perceived or undertaken in a manner that would be unilateral in nature. There is clearly a formula under which any measures that would serve to improve the efficiency of the economic union could be implemented and that, of course, would require the concurrence of the provinces.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the minister's comments, I would like to go back again to the question.
His colleague, the Secretary of State, who presumably was involved in the discussions that led to the constitutional proposal, very clearly stated on the weekend that section 91 would not pass. The minister heard his comments. This clause, according to the minister, would permit the federal government to do just about anything. It is a declaratory power that we have never seen in any constitution. It will not pass.
Is that the position of the government? If it is not the position of the government, why is there this tremendous contradiction between the policies expressed by the minister responsible for the Constitution and the policies expressed by his colleague who worked on the very document?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the statement that was made by the Secretary of State. I am sure the hon. member has read the document and I think she would concur that the only time that legislation that would be used to improve the economic union could be adopted and implemented would be under the existing amending formula, which would require the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. I do not see that as a unilateral power grab.
If the hon. member, or any other member for that matter, has any suggestions to improve the document, to
achieve what is the underlying goal objective, and that is to promote a stronger political union and to promote a stronger economic union, we will obviously entertain any such discussions and recommendations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still not answering the question. There is an incredible gap between the policy expressed by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and that expressed by his colleague, the Secretary of State, who worked on the document. How-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It isn't the government's policy!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The minister says it isn't the government's policy. How do you expect Canadians to support your constitutional proposals if you don't even have a consensus among your own ministers? That is what Canadians want to know. Why is there no consensus among the ministers themselves?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to assure the hon. member that this is not proposed as a unilateral power grab. It is proposed as a mechanism to improve the political unity of this country and to strengthen the economic union. That is what is proposed. That is the spirit of the proposals and it is to be done, not in a unilateral fashion, but in a fashion through co-operation and partnership and harmony. That is the goal and that is the objective of these documents.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians will wonder why it is necessary for the Deputy Prime Minister to give his explanation through the public forum of Question Period to the Secretary of State.
I want to ask him: How can the government expect Canadians to have confidence in its constitutional proposals, even as a basis for discussion, when some of the very ministers who helped write these proposals are sending out signals in their speeches and statements that they themselves have no confidence in their own proposals.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been known for a long time that there are deficiencies in the economic union and there are certainly deficiencies as it
November 7, 1991

relates to the barriers that inhibit the free movement of trade in goods and services and the mobility of people and capital. Those are some of the things that we expect to address through the course of these discussions.
In so far as improving the way in which we do business as an economic union, through greater harmonization, through the reduction of overlap and duplication and through bringing together greater co-ordination of policies so that we can be seen and we can function as an integrated economic union, because we are a union that is interdependent, surely that is a legitimate goal and policy objective. That is precisely what the document advances.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is it true, as reported today, that cabinet ministers are going to outline a new position on the economic union in a series of speeches? If so, why will not the government, instead, present these new proposals to a reconstituted joint committee? Is this the government's way of sending out a signal that it, too, has lost confidence in the leadership it has chosen for this committee?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the document speaks for itself. If the hon. member or any other hon. member wants to express a point of view or any Canadian wants to express a point of view as to how the proposals might be improved, how they might be changed in order to effect a stronger economic union and a stronger political union, obviously all of those suggestions are welcomed. That is precisely the way in which the proposals were developed and that is the way the proposals were presented. Now is the time for all Canadians to respond to it. If they have suggestions for improvements let them come forward.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
We have seen reports today that there were promises made to certain people in various provinces and, as well, reports that the economic union proposals are being rewritten. We have discussions going on throughout the country, but I want to ask the minister responsible, if there are new proposals coming forward or if there are
Oral Questions
new suggestions, is that material available now to members of the parliamentary committee and to members of this House?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the process that we are following is quite clear and it is as follows. The Government of Canada has made serious, considered propositions on constitutional renewal, including some proposals for an economic union. Those are now before the country and we have made it clear that we invite improvement. If there are better ways to do this, we look forward to receiving suggestions as to how they can be improved.
We expect that the next step in this process will be for the special joint committee to make recommendations on the economic union and on other matters. Those might be the same as in our propositions. They may well be an improvement upon them.
There will naturally be an engagement in public debate by ministers over the intervening weeks, but there is no intention on the part of the government to change the proposals. There may indeed be some arrangements made by the special joint committee to have a discussion on economic union proposals and some consensus may emerge then that might presage where the recommendations of the joint committee would end on the question of the economic union.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Today it was also reported that these new proposals for managing the economic union will be outlined in a speech by ministers. It is reported that the health minister and the Minister of National Defence had already promised the Conseil du patronat this would be done. On what authority are the ministers making this kind of promise?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it was announced publicly that the Government of Canada would encourage citizens, including the Conseil du patronat, to make improvements in our proposals on the economic union and other aspects of our proposals.

November 7, 1991
Oral Questions
I hope there will be active involvement by all Canadians with an interest in economic issues. And I believe we will be able to restore the effectiveness of our joint committee as a vehicle for improving these proposals.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is for the same minister on the question of process.
There have been many concerns about the parliamentary committee, as the minister is well aware, and he has made some comments himself about wanting to see that committee change and develop in a more organized fashion across the country.
I want to say that from the outset this party has said, and believes still, that this must be a non-partisan process. In saying that, I want to ask the minister: Will he consider some radical surgery for the parliamentary committee, make this a truly non-partisan process and make sure that we have a parliamentary committee made up of equal numbers of all federal parties of this House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to make and keep this a non-partisan process, and I will continue to do that.
I have had the advantage today of some discussions with several members of the House with regard to the means by which we can get on with the work of the special joint committee. There have been some organizational problems. There are some ways in which we can resolve those problems.
If there is something else we should be doing in addition to the special joint committee, I would be interested in suggestions to that effect. But I think what is important now is that having recognized that there is a problem of organization with the committee we should come together as a Parliament interested in the future of this country and find ways in which we can make that committee an effective means by which Canadians can improve the proposals for the renewal of our country that have been put forward.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the government has told us many times that it wants to dialogue and listen to Canadians, but when a group offers it conclusions that go against its own ideas, it turns a deaf ear. Unfortunately, the report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business presents the sad reality of what is happening in Canada. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is this government prepared to consider major changes to the GST system, which is an incredible burden for all small and medium-sized businesses?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has read the CFIB report that carefully. If she reads it carefully she will see there has been a number of very serious omissions. First of all, the costs of the GST are probably seriously exaggerated for reasons the Minister of National Revenue announced yesterday and made clear yesterday.
Also the positive aspects of the GST, the transitional credit, the one-year write-off of equipment and software, and a series of other measures the government has brought in to remove the manufacturers' sales tax and all of the expenses associated with that have not been deducted from the cost. Because of that the study is seriously flawed.
Where the CFIB is most useful is when it gives services to its members. I would call upon the CFIB to fight for harmonization of sales taxes across Canada. This is the most important contribution it can make and we urge it to resume the previous position it took.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House in a response to a question the minister of revenue said that the CFIB report was really a scam.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Who should one believe, the minister of revenue and his party at 14 per cent in the polls, or 25,362 small businesses across this country? Whose scam is in view?
November 7, 1991


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a very respected journalist by the name of Hugh Anderson in the Montreal Gazette today said that the $10 billion price tag put on GST by the small business group just simply does not add up.
Mr. Corcoran in The Globe and Mail said that the product was a preposterous statistical manipulation. We have Greg McDonald, a spokesman for the 3,000-member Canadian Manufacturers' Association who said: "We are not being told about a crushing cost burden but our members are generally relieved to be rid of the old federal sales tax".
Tim Reid, president of the 170,000-member Canadian Chamber of Commerce said the turf wars between federal and provincial politicians over sales taxes have to come to an end. I agree with that, and if we could get on with harmonization, that would be in the best interests of all Canadians, particularly the business community


JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a devastating statistic and a question for the Minister of Justice.
As of yesterday over 50,200 criminal charges had been thrown out of Ontario courts because of critical delays in bringing charges to trial. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the bottom is falling out of our criminal justice system. That number is 50,000 and growing.
What is the minister going to do about this abject failure in our criminal justice system?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, those decisions to dismiss cases or not proceed with them result from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Askov. It does reflect difficulties in the administration of justice in Ontario. As the hon. member also knows, that comes within the purview of the Government of Ontario.
A glance across the country will show that in fact it is not the same situation in all provinces. The way provinces deal with the administration of justice varies quite dramatically. My own province of British Columbia has a very different approach in a variety of key areas of the
Oral Questions
administration of justice that have prevented that kind of situation from arising.
I would suggest that the hon. member direct his concerns and his questions to the Attorney General of Ontario who bears the responsibility for that problem.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice seems to think this is not part of her responsibility.
One of the causes of the delay here is that this minister has consistently failed to fill judicial vacancies across the country. As an example, the Ontario Court (General Division) has had to carry on for months and months 10 to 15 judges short of its full complement.
The appointment of these judges was this minister's responsibility. When will she do her job and complete these appointments so that we can begin to get our criminal justice system back on track and working for Canadians?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there are I believe about six judicial vacancies in Ontario right now which I am proceeding to fill.
In fact, with all due respect, I cannot accept that appointment of federally appointed judges has anything to do with that particular delay. There is also a problem that the allocation of judicial resources, which is a question for the provinces, is done differently in Ontario than it is done in other provinces and the flexibility of that system which enables judges to go from one district to another to deal with varying workloads. It is not as flexible in Ontario as it could be elsewhere.
I am proceeding with all due haste to fill vacancies and will continue to do so. I would, with respect, reject the hon. member's interpretation of the causes for that backlog.


PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
From 1980 to 1989 Canadian controlled petroleum companies generated a modest $500 million net flow of funds into Canada in their combined current and capital

Oral Questions
accounts. By contrast, foreign controlled companies shipped out over $23 billion in the same period, almost twice the amount of Alberta's Heritage Savings Trust Fund.
My question for the finance minister is: In light of these figures, will the government abandon its announced plans to allow even greater foreign ownership and control in the Canadian petroleum industry? Will it acknowledge that Canadian control benefits Canada, that foreign control bleeds Canada?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is out of the country on government business. As the hon. member knows, he has openly encouraged a discussion about Canada's policies with respect to foreign ownership in the oil and gas industry and has taken no position.
There is no change in the government policy on foreign ownership. In fact the hon. member should know that since 1981 the level of control and share ownership in the oil and gas industry has increased in this nation.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has in fact stated his personal opinion that the final remaining impediments to complete foreign ownership should be removed. In other words, he is proposing to treat the symptoms with a further dose of the disease.
Can the minister not understand that foreign control in the oil industry is part of the problem and not the solution? Will this government not use its best efforts to aid the industry in securing Canadian investment dollars, starting perhaps with the remaining $1.9 billion which was collected by the government specifically for this purpose in the first place?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if the hon. member were to go home and consult his people, not only in Edmonton East but in the province of Alberta and throughout the oil patch, before he makes such a blanket statement as to suggest that foreign ownership is bad for the oil and gas industry.
To the contrary, foreign ownership has helped to create and drive the energy industry of western Canada. This government is willing to look at our current policies, as the minister has said, and to re-examine them from the perspective of Canada's best interest.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Recently the government tabled its prosperity plan. Not a single line deals with the environment and technological applications related to it. However, the Porter report recognized that it is the industry of the future; even the weak green plan mentions it. But when the time comes to begin the fundamental economic debate about the country, the government ignores it completely. My question is: Why?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely wrong to pretend that Canadians who are asked in the prosperity exercise to discuss basic issues to ensure the country's growth will want to ignore the environment. When the task force doing the consultation goes about its work, surely the hon. member, like many other Canadians, will want to participate and stress the importance to the country of considering environmental issues and the related industry for the country's growth. Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member, when he reads the document, to limit his interest to the questions that are raised there. The country's economic future is at stake and all questions are important.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government made it very clear in this document that it does not want to talk about the GST, that it does not want to talk about subjects it does not want to talk about, and it does not mention the environmental technologies once.
Recently the Japanese announced a fundamental transformation of their economy designed to make them world leaders in environmental technology. This is the next great frontier, yet in contrast to the Japanese the
November 7, 1991

Oral Questions
government's prosperity paper is nothing more than warmed over mush.
My question is: What demon exists within the Tory soul that prevents them from approaching our economy in a way that will enable Canadians to match the Japanese in the environmental and the economic revolution on which they are embarked?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member calls mush, but I do not think $150 million is mush.
We have just put $100 million into technology for solutions to stimulate environmental industries. We have just put $50 million into the universities for environmental sciences, ecosystem research, and we have a lot more in this plan as well. I do not call that mush.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
It is evident now that the stationing of search and rescue equipment in the Arctic is inadequate. Major Don Blair has said that having a helicopter at Alert would have meant that medical personnel would have been at the recent Hercules crash site sooner and possibly could have saved lives.
Will the minister give an undertaking that adequate search and rescue equipment, including helicopters and all-weather, all-terrain vehicles, will be stationed in the Arctic at strategic points so that the lives of those who fly in the area are as safe as possible.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the hon. member would agree with me that we have some of the most outstanding search and rescue technicians and personnel in the world, and the role they played last week was outstanding.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Collins: The question that the hon. member raises about location of search and rescue facilities is one which really requires a thorough understanding and discussion. It is not as simple as one might expect.
Stationing equipment in the Arctic would not necessarily be more effective, as we never know when or where an accident might occur, and we know the tremendous expanse of the Arctic. We have at the moment five search and rescue locations throughout Canada on 24-hour alert to service all of our needs.
However I would say to the hon. member that in discussions with the chief of defence staff I have asked him to review all of these matters, including some of the suggestions which have been made over the past week since the crash. I am sure these matters will be thoroughly investigated.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister. First of all, my question was about equipment and not the personnel for whom all of us have the highest regard in terms of competence and commitment. I am glad she agrees with me that investigation is needed.
In light of that and in light of the questions that have been raised, will the minister immediately launch a full inquiry into the whole issue of search and rescue in the Canadian Arctic, or would she make a formal request to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to conduct such an inquiry?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is a member of that committee and of course the committee is master of its own destiny. If my committee colleagues decide to undertake such discussions, I can assure them of the ministers', mine and the senior officials' support of any of their activities.
I would just want to caution my colleagues because I think there has been in the newspapers over the past few days some allegations or some speculation which is not accurate and is outdated. In fact the government in the recent defence policy has announced proposals for upgrading of equipment for search and rescue, some of which is already entrain.
I want to make sure that my hon. colleagues understand that we have not only the best people, but I think we have an excellent system and we have excellent equipment that those people use in search and rescue in Canada.

Oral Questions


CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
[Stage Direction]
November 7, 1991
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning a matter before the Canada Labour Relations Board hearings in Montreal between CN and CP and the seven locals that are part of their bargaining unit.
Was the chair of that panel accurately quoting from the transcript of the radio program where the Minister of Labour directed the board to find for one bargaining unit?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, my remarks are on the record and were in no way intended to show an interest of the government in this matter.
The matter is before the CLRB. I am convinced that the CLRB will make a proper decision.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the board, J. F. W. Weatherill, was quoting from a transcript of a radio program.
In his statement before the board he said that the minister's comments were profoundly disrespectful of the board, ignorant of its role, and deeply embarrassing to the board particularly since it has had this matter before it for 17 months and the federal government is the sole shareholder in CN Rail.
Was he correct in that assessment of it? If he was, will the minister resign?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any way whatsoever on remarks allegedly made by the chairman of the CLRB.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As he may know his government has filed a complaint at GATT against the U.S. duty on softwood lumber. In 1986, over five years ago, we strongly urged this government to take the softwood lumber issue to GATT. It refused and, as a result, we have had over five years of crippling job losses in that industry.
Why is the government five years late in taking the softwood lumber duty to the GATT? Why has it let Canadian forestry workers suffer under this crippling burden for over half a decade?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well the answer to his own question, and it is that we have made sure that we could keep the revenues here within Canada with the agreement. The MOU which we brought forward has been supported by the IWA. It has been supported by the NDP in British Columbia. It has been supported by most thoughtful Canadians. Plus we are confident of winning any dispute with the Americans. Thank heavens we have a dispute settlement mechanism we can take it before.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is a clear case: the government kept the revenue and the workers lost their jobs.
If this is a minister who is answering for this egregious insult against Canadians, I want to ask him the following question. For two years this government has been required to negotiate the subsidy arrangements with the United States under the FTA. The government has been totally negligent. It has not negotiated a word.
How can Canadians trust this government to negotiate a new agreement for North America when it has been so negligent and irresponsible in its responsibilities under the FTA?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member now supports the FTA and the subsection that calls for a discussion on subsidies. As a matter of fact, that discussion on subsidies is supposed to be concluded four years from the beginning of the agreement. I think it is proceeding apace.
The hon. member made a further charge. He said that governments had been taking this money on the levy for softwood lumber. I will tell him the government that took most of it and never spent one cent in the forest products industry. It was the Liberal Government of Ontario.
November 7, 1991

Oral Questions


MANPOWER TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In March 1991 the Quebec government refused to negotiate with the federal government an agreement on manpower training and adjustment programs. In the meantime, the federal government has put transitional provisions in place in Quebec in agreement with the Quebec minister Andre Bourbeau.
My question is this: is the minister prepared to sign an agreement tomorrow in Montreal with the Quebec minister of labour and manpower in order to fully meet the province's goals as regards the training policy, so that Quebec labour force would not be a hostage in the constitutional process?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, depending on how quickly Mr. Bourbeau and myself could come to an agreement, I guess it could be possible to sign something tomorrow but it is unlikely. On the other hand, we will pursue our discussions to ensure that federal initiatives support provincial goals and that the Quebec labour force benefits from these funds, that is for sure.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Every single education initiative of this government is in disarray- perhaps I should say that too is in disarray-whether it deals with funding, training, retraining, research and development or student assistance. What positive and specific measures does the government intend to take to overcome this failure and regain the confidence of Canadian students and other Canadians?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: I am not quite sure I heard the question well. However, I am pleased to see that the hon. member is aware that something needs to be done. We in government have done a lot in that area. And now we have an opportunity to look together into what could be done and to do even more.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
During the last 10 days or so I have spoken to many single parents who are within a few weeks or a few months of completing their post-secondary diplomas or degrees. Because of the change of rule in terms of length of support for student aid these particular students, very often women, single parents, are without financial assistance as I speak.
I know of a situation where a woman has almost completed her master's degree. She has no food for herself or her children.
When is the government going to come up with a concrete proposal to make sure that these people can in fact complete their studies, get good jobs and feed themselves and their families?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is away on government business today, but he has made the House aware that he has been examining very carefully the student loan program, a very vital program for our students. We all know the number of students in the program on an annual basis.
The government, through the Secretary of State, has concluded a very in-depth examination of the whole program across the country. I am sure in very short order, in the coming months, that the minister responsible will be bringing forward some important initiative in this area.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
I understand that VIA Rail would like to increase the number of passenger trains it operates in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor including an express service.
My question to the minister is: Will VIA Rail's proposal which could be implemented at no extra cost to the government receive approval as soon as possible and hopefully before the busy Christmas travel season?

November 7, 1991
Oral Questions


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, VIA Rail has been given a mandate by the government to operate within its reference level.
That being said, the VIA proposal concerning the corridor routes is indeed being reviewed. I will certainly undertake to get in touch with my hon. friend once a decision has been made.


RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is answering for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
At the communications and culture committee just the other day the chairman of the CRTC proclaimed that Radio Canada International is an excellent tool for marketing Canada abroad.
While other countries around the world have increased their budgets for international radio broadcasting, Canada's voice to the world has been silenced.
I would like to ask the minister whether he will recognize that without full funding RCI does not have the ability to effectively promote Canada to the rest of the world. Will he acknowledge that without a global Canadian presence through RCI our ability to compete in the international marketplace will in fact be severely hampered?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs but I am pleased to respond to that question.
The government found money to give to Radio Canada International to allow it to conduct its important work. We believe the work that it is doing in terms of taking the message around the world is something that is very useful indeed.
However, the constraints that exist on the government in other areas of government spending exist here as well. We believe the contribution that has been made by the government is an important one. We believe it is responsible at this time.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows that essentially three-quarters of our international programming has been cut. It is ironic that in Japan this is the celebrated year of Canada and at the same time RCI has cut the services to that country.
Instead of talking about international competitiveness as a country, will the minister and the government show to the rest of the world that Canada in fact wants to become a globally recognized force, reinstate RCI funding and give back Canada's voice to the world?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the federal government has found this money to give to Radio Canada International and to allow it to provide its service in seven languages including Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, English and French, indicates a commitment to taking our message to the world.
However, the government also has another responsibility, and that is to the taxpayers of Canada, to ensure that we show respect for the bottom line here in government.
Hon. members opposite can very easily each day get up in the House and demand that the government spend more money, but it is unfair to the taxpayers of Canada for them to demand that day after day without suggesting where it come from.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Yesterday the minister told us that the government would not be able to meet the March deadline for tabling its offers to the provinces. Yet yesterday as well, an organization of federalist business people in Quebec expressed concern about the slowness of the Castonguay-Dobbie Committee. That organization even suggested throwing away the proposals that were blocking the process. Will the government subscribe to this request of its federalist allies in Quebec?


Charles Joseph Clark: No,
Mr. Speaker.
November 7, 1991


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this eloquent and lyrical answer will certainly disappoint the federalist business people in Quebec since they are really becoming impatient. Yesterday their organization even asked the government to demand a preliminary report from the joint committee. Will the minister also say no to this request from his federalist allies in Quebec?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on a single question.


NATIONAL UNITY
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you say "a single question". Perhaps I should say a single question in two parts, depending on the first answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that ingenuity will not get him past my ruling. A single question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you very much for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. Frankly it does fit in almost with some of the earlier questions from the deputy leader of the opposition. My question is very serious and it is for the Deputy Prime Minister and/or for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
After the two good speeches of the Prime Minister in Toronto and Montreal talking about whether one could be a part-time Canadian or a full-time Canadian, could the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare please explain to this simple Canadian how the federal spokesperson in Quebec, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, could say as he said in an interview, which frankly I thought the opposition was going to ask about days ago, to Denise Bombar-
Oral Questions
dier on her Radio-Canada program the following in terms of his commitment to Canada. She said:
But, Mr. Bouchard, you will finally have to make a choice.
He said:
Absolutely, just so long as 1 am not forced to make a choice before other Quebecers. Why should I absolutely have to make a choice today when it is said that Quebec will maybe make a choice in the fall of 1992? Then, when the time has come for me as a Quebecer to make a choice, without hesitation, Madam, I will make it.
My question is a serious one. We are lobbing grenades at the constitutional committee because of its fooling around. How can we have federal leadership on this fundamental issue when the federal spokesperson in Quebec is so lukewarm on federalism?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member concerned has had occasion in his political life to make some choices, one of which was to go where he wants to be today. I think I said what I am repeating: for all Canadians and for Quebecers in particular, a constitutional review process is under way and, like all Quebecers and Canadians, I am part of that process. I am one of those who developed the constitutional proposals, which I fully support in the offer we are making to Canadians and Quebecers. In this process, these offers will be considered and Canadians and Quebecers will have to make a choice. I do not ask the hon. member exactly what choice he will make. I just tell him this: As a Canadian and as a Quebecer, I will make the choice that I have to make when I decide to make it!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this very important subject. Does the minister understand the difference between being a federal minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.
It is my obligation now to give a ruling on a matter that was raised several days ago.

November 7, 1991
Privilege
[Translation\


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, October 30, 1991, by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. This matter relates to the expenses incurred by members of the House who were not members of that committee accompanying the Special Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's Proposals for a Renewed Canada to Prince Edward Island and Toronto. In this particular instance, the committee decided to pay the expenses of these members.
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter and I would also like to express my appreciation to those members who intervened, namely the hon. government House leader and the hon. members for Winnipeg Transcona, Shefford, and Ottawa-Vanier. Their comments have been very helpful to the Chair in reviewing this incident.

In his intervention the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead argued that his role as a member in the House and in committee should not be dictated or appear to be dictated or influenced by the arbitrary rulings of the steering committee. In his opinion the action of the special joint committee in effect set up two classes of members in the House: on the one hand, the committee members and those members who were not members of the committee but who could follow the proceedings of the committee outside Ottawa and have their expenses paid for by the committee and, on the other hand, members who were not members of the committee and would have to seek the approval of its steering committee to have their expenses reimbursed if they wish to travel with the committee.

The hon. member questioned the legitimacy of the expenses incurred by the special joint committee in
paying the expenses of members of the House accompanying the committee but who were not members of the committee. These points were supported most ably by the hon. member for Shefford.

In his comments the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona quite rightly pointed out that in ruling after ruling I and other Speakers have determined that these kinds of interventions are matters which are properly dealt with by the committee itself. He also stated that the committee had made arrangements in order to do its job properly and in the context of its own authority and that the matter should not properly be before the House since the committee is its own master in this respect.

As noted at the time, I listened with some concern to the statement made by the hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and agreed to take the matter under advisement.
Particularly troubling to the Chair was the suggestion that all members of this House were not being afforded equal treatment in this affair. This situation arose out of a problem with the membership of the committee which was first drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on September 25, 1991. In its ruling of September 27, 1991, the Chair found merit in the case made by the hon. member and directed that steps be taken to correct the situation.
On October 30, 1991, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on House Management was concurred in by the House and the full membership of the committee was established.

In the meantime however the special joint committee pursuant to its order of reference of June 19, 1991, proceeded with its work and in so doing made the administrative arrangements it deemed appropriate to carry out its mandate.
Having reviewed the matter, I must now reaffirm my initial view that this is a complaint over an administrative matter recommended by the steering committee and approved by the committee and should not have been submitted to the Chair.
November 7, 1991



As I noted in rulings on June 16, 1988, and December 18, 1989, we have a longstanding tradition in the House and there are many judgments to this effect, that unless something truly extraordinary should occur in committee, the committee is master of its own destiny. According to our traditions and practices, the Chair does not intervene with the proceedings of a committee unless a problem has been reported by the committee to the House or in extremely unusual circumstances.
The special joint committee has acted within the boundaries granted to it by its order of reference and hon. members can raise with the committee complaints they may have about the soundness of its administrative arrangements.
Finally, while reiterating our practice that committees are masters of their own procedure, I would remind all members that committees have the responsibility to conduct their affairs to ensure that complaints such as this do not arise, and that such matters, unless they relate to extreme situations where a Speaker would be required to intervene, should not take up the time of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the government House leader and my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre has a few as well concerning government business.
My first question is can the minister indicate the business for the remainder of today and Friday, as well as Monday, November 18, and Tuesday, November 19.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to complete second reading of Bill C-31 on extradition this afternoon and by tomorrow afternoon to have completed third reading of Bill C-12, the Young Offenders Act.
Business of the House
In terms of coming back on the 18th it would be my intention to call for second reading of Bill C-39, the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, followed by second reading of Bill C-38, the bill to privatize Telesat Canada. After that we will begin and complete report stage and third reading of the financial institution reform package which is four bills, C-4, trust and loans companies, C-19 the Bank Act, C-28 the insurance act, and C-34 dealing with co-operatives and caisses populates.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on my second question I will have my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre put some details to the government House leader. As he is aware we forwarded him a letter on November 6 concerning the situation in Yugoslavia with regard to having a parliamentary debate and the hon. member opposite has been very co-operative in terms of trying to establish a time in which to have this particular debate.
I am wondering if he would entertain a brief question on this subject matter from my colleague the member for Winnipeg-South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to tag along on his point of order to the government House leader.
The House leader is aware of the circumstances. We have attempted to find an appropriate date with the minister of external affairs when we could bring a general resolution and I think that all parties would like to join in.
Unfortunately the minister has had to go overseas for a very extended period. I am wondering if the House leader would entertain working in conjunction with the office and be in contact with the Secretary of State for External Affairs to arrange a debate on Yugoslavia immediately upon our return.
The House leader knows of the circumstances and the concern of Canadians. There has been very limited opportunity. I have tried a couple of times to get an emergency debate but have not been successful. I wonder if the House leader could entertain this seriously and perhaps get back to us on Monday or Tuesday when we return. He might alter his line-up and give us a chance for a major debate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to respond positively to that request. As the House leader of the Liberal Party has indicated we have been having

Business of the House
discussions at the House leader's level on this. I am not at all adverse to it and indeed I think it would be a good thing for this House. Let me say that I have taken the view of the House leaders and want to repeat here on the floor of the House of Commons that sometimes we have debates on bills which are unnecessarily protracted. I am quite willing to use that regular House time for subject matters of our choosing which are perhaps more appropriate if in fact we were able to deal with the legislation another way.
Specifically to the member's request, I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see if we can schedule a special debate on the situation in Yugoslavia immediately upon our return.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. It is just by way of supplementary to the House leader. First I appreciate his willingness to undertake to organize that on our return.
There is another matter that is related. There was an effort made again on behalf of the three parties to bring forward a joint resolution dealing with the question of childrens' rights. In fact it was to be presented today.
It is my understanding from the letter I received from the member for Rosedale that two ministers of the cabinet want that resolution to be deferred for over a month. That would prevent an expression of view from this Parliament. I would ask the House leader if he would look into it again to see if there could be an opportunity, not for a major debate, but just for presentation of that resolution when we come back.


Harvie Andre: I am not up to speed on that but I will look into the matter and my general disposition is not to resist it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader in terms of negotiating and arranging further business. We all appreciate that the Standing Orders from time to time refer to a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister. We know that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader normally assists us in our negotiations. I assume that the parliamentary secretary always reflects the government's intention on legislation. Yet early today I noticed that the parliamentary secretary actually voted against the government House leader. Is this indicative of what is to
come, or will we continue with our negotiations with the parliamentary secretary?


Harvie Andre: It is regrettable that at a time when there appeared to be a little more willingness to deal here on a non-partisan basis and look for a co-operative House, the House leader for the New Democratic Party could not miss this chance for a cheap shot.
He knows, having dealt with my parliamentary secretary, that he is absolutely honourable, absolutely truthful. What he says to him personally he will repeat outside and nothing different. He knows he can trust him. I have complete confidence in him and I also know the rules. The rules are that you cannot reflect on a vote of a member of Parliament and I hope the hon. member will read that rule. Perhaps he would like to stand up and apologize to my parliamentary secretary for reflecting on his vote.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what concerned me was the following. We negotiate presumably-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is apologizing? I will recognize the hon. leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Is the hon. member for Kamloops rising to apologize?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to get it clear from my hon. friend what it is he is seeking an apology for. I am prepared to do that if I have broken some tradition but I am suggesting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well yes, you should not reflect on how a member voted. That is a rule in the House and that is something I think the hon. member should withdraw.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am prepared to withdraw that I referred to the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader voted against the government. If that is an offence of the House I am prepared to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. the government House leader.


Harvie Andre: You know, that is not the point. The rules of our House state explicitly that it is out of order to reflect on how a member voted. That is precisely what the House leader of the New Democratic Party has done on two occasions. He has been asked by the Chair to
November 7, 1991

withdraw and he has not shown the decency and respect for our traditions to withdraw. The chance for a cheap shot seems to be irresistible and it is regrettable, I repeat, regrettable for the Etouse leader of the New Democratic Party to continue to act in this way. We are all here being asked by the people of Canada to work together and not let our partisan instincts get ahead of our responsibility to the people of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are aware of the traditions of the House of Commons. The traditions of the House of Commons would indicate that those who represent ministers support government legislation. That was the only point I was trying to make that if you look through the precedents, if you look back in history-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I also had some admirable characteristics that I wanted to share with members of the House with regard to the parliamentary secretary in terms of his integrity and his honour and of course his height and other things as well.
I do want to pose a question to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs through the government House leader.
In view of the undertakings which have been given by the hon. minister to the House in terms of the regrouping of the committee, has the minister entertained the prospect of coming back to the House or having the respective chairs of that committee come back to the House to make statements?
Will he clarify some of the actions that may have gone on, or try to renew the mandate of that particular committee so that all members would then be able to have a better appreciation as to where the committee on constitutional renewal will be going in the weeks and months ahead? I am not asking for specifics of the committee itself but for any clarification coming from the minister responsible.
Business of the House


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to consider that. However, the substance of any report I might make might more properly belong to the special joint committee. What I am hoping to do is meet with the co-chairs of that committee tomorrow as well as other members of the steering committee.
If there are questions to be put to me in Question Period, I will be here but I do not think it is appropriate for me to assume that as minister I can speak on behalf of a special joint committee.


David Charles Dingwall: I do not want to get mixed up in words, but I am not asking the minister to speak on behalf of the committee.
It is very clear that the minister is responsible for the appointment of the two chairs. Since he has undertaken to meet with the respective chairs of that joint committee, which is very important to the unity of the country, I thought he might want to avail himself of the opportunity of sharing instructions he may give to those two chairs.
I know it is at arm's length, but he might avail himself of that opportunity to share with members of Parliament the instruction he has given his two appointees for the purposes of embellishing and improving upon the actions and behaviour of that committee in the weeks and months ahead.


Charles Joseph Clark: Without getting into the authorities of appointment of members of the committee, certainly I am prepared to report to the House, more likely by way of response to questions or in some other way the House may decide would be preferable, once there have been some conclusions reached.
What I can report now is that I have had some quite constructive conversations with representatives of the three parties whose members serve on the special joint committee. We have not reached a conclusion yet, but I would hope that there will be a determination on the part of members from the three parties in this House to find a way in which Canadians can be guaranteed an opportunity to participate in the improvement of the constitutional proposals we have put forward and be able

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
to do that in the context of the special joint committee this House of Commons and the other place established.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the exchange I had previously with the government House leader who suggested that I had somehow followed the wrong procedure.
I want to draw his attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 479:
A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination
of the House,
I was not doing that. I was referring to the vote of a particular member. If he knows the rule book so well, perhaps he could identify the source in terms of either the tradition or the Standing Order I had contravened.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that it is regrettable that the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party, during the period when we generally try and exchange information for the benefit of informing each other as to the plans of the government so people can plan their schedules and so on, stands up and takes a cheap shot at my parliamentary secretary.
I stand by my accusation of that being a cheap shot and wish the hon. member had the decency to cease that kind of behaviour.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the member should have the courtesy to withdraw that accusation. He is suggesting a cheap shot. I am suggesting that I followed the rules of the House. I followed the traditions of the House as presented in citation 479.


An hon. member:: You had ulterior motives.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have no ulterior motives.


An hon. member:: Now you are pushing it and that is what is out of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is out of order. I am asking the government House leader to explain what Standing Order he suggests I have contravened. I know the Standing Orders. I am not aware that I have contravened a Standing Order. I have suggested that he does not understand because Beauchesne itself makes it very clear that one cannot reflect against the determination of the House.
We all know that. I was referring to the voting pattern of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader as going against the government, which I think is inappropriate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, be now read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, we have presentation of petitions after motions. You did not quote that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid that the Standing Order said three o'clock, and so we cannot go back to petitions. I regret it.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for second reading Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act respecting appeals.
As members will know, Canadians are very concerned about our extradition laws. Several recent high profile cases have raised a concern in their minds that Canada, a country with an international reputation for safety and absence of crime, may be becoming a haven for criminals fleeing charges or punishment in other countries.
The source of much of this concern lies in the procedures currently available for appealing the decision of a judge in an extradition hearing and for reviewing the decision of the minister whether to surrender the fugitive to the foreign state.
The existing procedures, which I will outline in a moment, allow numerous appeals from both of these decisions, all of which can reach the Supreme Court of Canada on more than one occasion.
In addition, our international reputation has suffered among states with which we have agreed, through extradition treaties, to return wanted persons. The theories that those fleeing from justice in other countries
November 7, 1991

will attempt to enter Canada chiefly because our extradition laws are so complex that they can expect years of safe haven for the proceedings of their removal unfold.
Canadians will not permit their country to become a haven for fugitives. It is equally important however that our extradition laws be fair. Those charged with offences elsewhere should have an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence brought forward by the requesting state.
It must not be forgotten that extradition applies not only to the return of foreigners, but also Canadian citizens to foreign lands where legal systems, language and culture may differ.
Further, we must ensure that Canada does not involve itself in the surrender of those who have fled other countries because of persecution on the grounds of race, religion or political belief or who, for whatever reason, will not be treated fairly on return.
We must also be confident that the person will be treated fairly and humanely upon his or her return. The judiciary ensures that there is solid foundation for the charges, and the minister ensures that the person surrendered will be treated fairly in the foreign state.
This bill strikes the proper balance between prompt return of wanted persons and protection for the person sought.

Under the present law, a state with which we have concluded an extradition treaty can ask Canada to turn over to it an accused person or offender of that state who is in Canada.
That person is then arrested and a legal investigation is conducted on the basis of the charge or on the reasons to believe that the person fled after being sentenced for an infraction committed on the territory of the requesting state.
During that investigation, a judge of a superior court or a provincial or territorial county court examines the evidence put forward and decides whether or not to detain the person sought until he or she is sent back to the requesting state.
If the accused person or offender is ordered to await extradition, he can request a writ of habeas corpus
Government Orders
challenging the decision of the extradition judge. At this stage, he can exercise all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and bring the matter to court. The decision of the judge who ruled on the habeas corpus can be appealed to the provincial or territorial court of appeal and this court's decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada with the latter's permission.
If the extradition judge does not order the person to be turned over to requesting state, it can appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada with the latter's permission.

Once this part of the procedure is completed, the minister considers any submissions made by the person sought with respect to humanitarian grounds, questions of fairness and such issues as whether the person would be facing the death penalty in the foreign state.
When the minister considers that the person should be extradited, a surrender warrant will be issued by the minister. The minister's decision with respect to surrender can also be judicially reviewed. That decision can in turn be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and with leave of the court to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This system is obviously enormously complex, results in long delays and requires a great deal of costly court time. The person's remedies far exceed those available to a person charged with a criminal offence under Canadian law.
In developing a more streamlined appeal and review system I have been guided by the following principles. First, the appeal and review process of extradition matters should resemble as nearly as possible the remedies available to those charged with criminal offences in Canada. Second, the person whose extradition is sought should enjoy the protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Third, to the extent possible, duplication of proceedings should be avoided.
The appeal and review process should be expedient but permit a fair hearing. The division of functions between the judiciary and the minister must be clearly respected. Our international obligations to our extradition treaty partners to return offenders must also be respected.

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
Taking these principles into account, Bill C-31 adopts the following approach.

Applications for extradition will always be brought to superior courts or provincial or territorial county courts.
Nevertheless, the extradition judge can now know the recourse under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that may apply to the duties he is required to perform in applying this law.
Under the present law, charter issues may only be raised before the judge, usually on the same court as the extradition judge who received the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the extradition request.
This results in needless duplication of administering evidence and wastes the courts' time. This change would allow charter-based arguments concerning applications to be considered at a later stage of the proceedings, without having to go before a different judge.
Charter-based arguments relating to the minister's extradition decision can be considered when the minister's decision is reviewed.

The bill allows the fugitive or the requesting state to appeal the decision of the extradition judge directly to the provincial or territorial court of appeal on grounds similar to those available to parties to criminal proceedings under the Criminal Code of Canada. The court of appeal is obliged under the bill to schedule the appeal hearing at an early date. In most cases, the minister will be obliged to make a decision whether to surrender the fugitive within 90 days of the committal of the fugitive at the extradition hearing.
Where there is an appeal by the fugitive from the committal the court of appeal can defer the appeal proceedings until the minister has made a decision on surrender. In cases where the legal issues are particularly complex, the minister can postpone the decision on surrender until the court of appeal has made its decision. However, in most cases the minister will make the decision on surrender before any appeal concerning the extradition judge's committal order is heard by the court of appeal.
Since the bill provides that judicial reviews from the minister are to go to the provincial and territorial courts of appeal, appeals from the extradition judge and judicial reviews from the minister's decision will usually be heard together. This will ensure that appeals and reviews will be conducted as expeditiously as possible since all issues will be dealt with together before a single court. Further, it will ensure that in extradition matters there will usually be only one subsequent avenue of recourse, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in order to speed up the process, the bill provides time limits.
The person sought can apply to the minister as soon as the extradition process begins and has up to 30 days following the detention order to do so; the minister can always consider these applications outside the time limit, if necessary.
The person sought or the requesting state must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the decision.
The minister too must act within certain time limits.
As was said, normally the minister will decide whether to turn the person over within 90 days of the detention order.
There is an exception to the 90-day deadline in cases where the person sought has appealed the detention order and the minister wishes to wait for the appeal court's decision before ruling on the matter, given the complexity of the points of law that it raises.
In such cases, the minister can make his or her decision within 45 days of the appeal court's ruling.

The other exception is where the minister has received submissions from the fugitive with respect to surrender. As has been seen in some recent cases, these submissions can be lengthy and detailed. They may require the minister to conduct inquiries into the legal system or political climate in the requesting state or seek assurances from the requesting state with respect to the treatment of the fugitive upon return.
As such, the bill allows the minister to extend the 90-day period for one additional period of 60 days where necessary to act on the fugitive's submissions.

	
November 7, 1991

The bill contains a time limit within which a fugitive must be surrendered and a means of enforcing the time limit by which the minister is bound. Where the minister has not made a decision within the applicable time period the fugitive may apply for a writ of habeas corpus and is entitled to be released if the minister cannot show sufficient cause for the delay.
The same is true if the fugitive has not been removed from the country within the period of 45 days after the minister has made a surrender order, or after the completion of appeals from such an order.
In total the bill will remove the necessity for three steps: habeas corpus review, review by the Federal Court trial division, and Federal Court of Appeal.
Appeals from the extradition hearing and review of the minister's decision will be combined before the provincial court of appeal. Canada will be able to deal with extradition requests more promptly while at the same time offering protection to those sought by foreign countries. Our commitments to our extradition treaty partners can be honoured better. Most important, the signal will be sent to offenders abroad that they can no longer shield themselves from answering charges or serving a sentence by taking advantage of outdated Canadian extradition laws.
We have all seen the concern of Canadians over the past few years about the process of extradition as it related to the cases of Joseph Kindler and Charles Ng. There is absolute incomprehension on the part of many Canadians about why it would take so long, more than six years of due process, for the legal system of Canada to make a decision, yes or no, as to whether it was fair to extradite these individuals.
The complex appeal process meant that the first court to hear the question could not deal with the charter issues. Therefore charter issues had to be raised in the second court, and a full range of appeals made to the Supreme Court of Canada. Then the minister makes a decision, then the minister's decision is open to appeal to the Federal Court trial division, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. This is an enormously complex set of due process.
In the case of Charles Ng, when the second round of appeals started, the appeal of my predecessor's decision
Government Orders
to the Federal Court, I immediately referred the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada where the Kindler case was being examined in order to expedite the consideration of those cases. However clearly that recourse is not available to ministers in all cases. What we need is substantive structural change in our law.
I am putting before the House in Bill C-31 a simplification which does not remove any of the rights of the fugitive. It is up-to-date, modem legislation taking into account the need to hear charter arguments in the court of first instance, taking into account the need of ministers to respond quickly and to make decisions by imposing time limits on them, taking into account the efficiency of hearing appeals from a minister's decision and from an extradition judge in the same process in the court of appeal where appropriate.
All of these will help to reassure Canadians that this country will not become a haven for fugitives from foreign countries because of the laxity or inefficiency of our law. It will also ensure that people will not be able to evade justice in other countries because of long, extended delays of due process here which make it almost impossible to pursue prosecutions in the requesting country because of the aging of evidence, the death of witnesses and the inability of prosecutors to keep a case alive.
This is very important legislation that all Canadians will be able to relate to directly. Therefore I move:
That Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act be referred
to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fewer than five members having risen the motion is deemed adopted pursuant to Standing Order 73(3)(b).


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a a point of order on two matters.
I gather the procedure now is that we debate it like a second reading debate.
Second, I wonder if the minister would give me consent to put a short question to her just to clarify something.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I need the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. members:: No.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is no. I am sorry.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about the extradition law. I am sure that people are glued to their TV sets to hear all of the exciting discussion about extradition. It is kind of a dry subject but it does have very serious ramifications for our communities and the safety of Canadians in general. For that reason alone it is a pleasure to speak.
This has been a week of justice and law and order issues. The tragedy about what is taking place with all of this legislation, including extradition but also corrections reform, the mental disorder legislation, young offenders and gun control is that we have a situation where the government is reacting rather than providing leadership. It is reacting to things that have occurred outside when it should have already anticipated them and done something.
The mental disorder legislation is a clear example of one law which the government knew for three or four years was deficient and had to be corrected. It knew that it had problems with the young offenders legislation but that has been slow in coming forward. Again it knew there were problems with this legislation, it knew what it was dealing with in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. We are seeing a reactive government rather than a government providing leadership.
Everything is done in phases. We do not take a holistic point of view with regard to crime prevention or even a holistic view as far as specific pieces of legislation are concerned. In this particular bill we are dealing with a phase. We are also dealing with phases in parole reform because we are looking at sentencing. We still have to look at the detention provisions for young offenders. The mental disorder legislation requires that we wait for three years until hospital orders are dealt with and we see how those are going to work.
It occurs over and over. All we are doing is phasing things rather than dealing with the whole bill or with the whole issue. I am afraid that most Canadians would really like to see us phase out this government and get on with some leadership.


An hon. member:: Right on. Get rid of them.


George Saunders Rideout: My colleague confirms that insightful comment of mine.
As I said before, extradition is a dry topic. The old law has been in existence since 1877. In most cases, extradition is a treaty between nations. The intent of extradition is to secure the return of Canadian fugitives and rid the country of its foreign criminals. Gerard La Forest, before he was on the Supreme Court of Canada, made that comment in one of his treatises on extradition.
Our law is outmoded. It is old legislation. The treaties in a lot of cases are old. It is a veiy complicated procedure. The minister already outlined the back and forth movements through the different appeal procedures which have to occur. We know that it does not work. We have seen that this type of appeal approach plays into the hands of the fugitive who is in our country and at the same time provides no benefit to our citizens.
In fact it creates a very heavy cost. If you accept that it costs about $70,000 a year to keep somebody incarcerated, in the Ng case we have had this fugitive from the United States in our country for six years. It probably cost us upwards of $500,000 for that one person, and that does not even include the costs for lawyers, appeals and judges.
In the maritimes lawyers are very inexpensive but Ontario solicitors are very expensive. That adds even further cost to an already expensive procedure.


Mr. Horner:: You get what you pay for.


George Saunders Rideout: There is no question you get what you pay for. That is why it takes six years to get rid of somebody like Ng with Ontario solicitors.
The Ng case and the Kindler case are two cases which we really should take a look at because they were abuses of the system.
Charles Ng was wanted in California on 12 counts of murder and he also faced sexual assault and torture charges. He fled to Calgary in 1985 and was convicted for an armed robbery. It has taken us from 1985 until now to see him returned to California. Some will say that he should not even have been sent back because of the death penalty and the issues associated with that.
November 7, 1991

In my view, and I think the view of most Canadians, he was a fugitive in our country who should have been returned to his country to face the judicial system there.
We must have some concerns with countries where penalties associated with the crimes are so serious that we wonder whether there is in fact justice in those countries. That is the type of situation where we may want to consider not sending back fugitives who are in our country. Obviously the United States has a justice system which pursues justice. In the United States there is fairness and equality as best it can be delivered by any justice system.
In that case and the Kindler case with the number of appeals to courts and appeals to provinces and then to the Supreme Court of Canada, I do not believe their rights have been violated. That is exactly what the United States said.
Again I quote Mr. Justice La Forest when he wrote for the majority: "This court has held that extradition must be refused if surrender would place the fugitive in a position that is so unacceptable as to shock the conscience of Canadians. But I do not think that the surrender of fugitives who may ultimately face the death penalty abroad would, in all cases, shock the conscience of Canadians". I would certainly agree with that position. It was a wise decision on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada.
We are maybe going to see the process speeded up when this legislation is done. We are going to see this again in the Bembenek case, back and forth, appeals and more appeals.
We agree with the government's approach that we must streamline the system. We must make it more efficient.
We are going to support this bill going to committee. We are going to seek the advice of counsels who deal with this particular law and seek the counsel of all who have come in contact with it so that they can advise us as to whether there are more efficient ways to streamline this particular legislation. It still is a situation where you have in effect two lines that ultimately end up at the Supreme Court of Canada. In our view there may be methods arrived at by the justice committee under the
Government Orders
able leadership of the hon. member for Mississauga West. He has provided a lot of recommendations to the minister on extradition but has had no success in convincing the minister of the wisdom that came from that committee.
This particular legislation does not fully deal with all of the recommendations that came out of the justice committee report. There is still the two-track judicial executive process. There are still ongoing negotiations between Canada and the United States. We are still going to have to proceed with more negotiations, more treaties. The minister in earlier comments has indicated that there are still 30 other areas within this whole ambit of extradition that have to be dealt with and that this bill only deals with one aspect. These areas include evidentiary provisions, the minister's discretion and non-treaty extradition and judicial authority, to name just a few.
There is a lot of work to be done. This government is only dealing with one aspect of it and not really proceeding in a holistic manner. This is a situation where we can provide security and safety for our residents, and also not put this country through the very extensive costs associated with keeping fugitives in our system and running up and down through our court system for six years.
The abuses of our system cannot be allowed to continue. I know that you are concerned about that, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are concerned about it. For that reason we are supportive of the legislation going forward.
We are also concerned that Canada could become a safe haven for criminals fleeing any other jurisdiction and particularly the United States, because that is where a lot of cases have emanated from.
There is no question that we here on this side of the House do not want to see Canada become a safe haven for criminals fleeing any jurisdiction. That is exactly what Ng did. He knew or felt that he could safely come to Canada and because of our existing system it would be a safe place to hide, but also if he was caught it would be a good system to abuse so that he would not have to go back to California and face the music he would have to face. As a result, he had a free lunch in our country for six years. That is what we are opposed to.
Let us proceed with this legislation, let us get the advice and we will deal with it. We recognize it is a

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
piecemeal legislation only dealing with certain aspects. We are urging the government to examine crime prevention, safety in our communities, and that whole issue, and to deal with it all as one major issue. Instead we are forced because the government sets the agenda to look at band-aid solutions and half hearted legislation. It is all over the waterfront as far as what is needed in our communities.
We must deal with the basic issue of safety and protection in our communities. This legislation really will not do that much to help because there is so much more that needs to be done. In any event it is legislation which we will support as far as going to committee. I am pleased that it is going to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General where there is a degree of expertise.
We have already made recommendations in the area of extradition and so the expertise that is available will be brought to bear on this particular legislation. I am sure that we will see it improved before it comes back to the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as justice critic for the New Democratic Party to speak on this legislation. We have called for this for a long time.
The Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that you could. There is the Ng case and the Leonard Peltier case-remember that case, Mr. Speaker-which was about a decade ago now. Mr. Peltier is still in jail in the United States. He is a native leader of the American Indian movement from the United States who was extradited.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Mr. All-mand, who is the former Solicitor General said that Mr. Peltier was extradited on false evidence. He was extradited on fabricated affidavits that were thrown out quickly by Canadian authorities. I think we extradited Mr. Peltier wrongly from Canada. That is believed now.
We have the Ng case on the one hand and the Peltier case on the other hand. One is too slow and the other is too quick, where we made a mistake. I think we have to have a fair procedure so we do not make any mistakes.
The other thing we have to do is be less hypocritical, if I may say so, and more honest in these particular cases. We have to have a single standard and not a double standard. Let me give you this example.
Peter Worthington, the noted journalist and the fellow who ran for this Parliament unsuccessfully, is now taking up the case of Lawrencia Bembenek, Bambi. You have Charles Ng on the one hand who is an accused mass murderer and let me put it this way, he is not in. any sense of the word an attractive personality.
We support the bill in principle but we are concerned that it is somewhat of a knee jerk reaction. Let me explain why. We have to find a balance in terms of extradition.
If you look at the Charles Ng case, which my friend who last spoke just mentioned, the accused mass murderer from California was in jail in Canada and exhausted the appeals procedure in Canada.
You have Ng on the one hand who people like Mr. Worthington and backbenchers in the Conservative Party over there would just deal with in a minute. On the other hand, you have Bambi. Bambi happens to be in certain ways of describing it, an attractive individual although-


An hon. member:: What has that got to do with it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You wonder what it has to do with it. There seems to be a double standard about it.
Without understanding all the intricacies of the law on extradition, people understood that was too long. Charles Ng was in the province of Alberta in jail. That seemed too long for a decision as to whether or not he should be extradited. There was a special reason why it was wrong. They were testing the case in the Supreme Court of Canada and the principle of whether you could extradite someone back to another country that had the death penalty when we do not have the death penalty in Canada.
Suddenly, the Bambi case has a lot to know, so maybe we are moving too fast in that sort of case. That is a case in which a woman was convicted in the United States of a murder. She came to Canada and is fighting extradition in Canada.
I have no comment on the case at all except to say there is a bit of a double standard here between the way people were writing about Ng and the way they are writing about Bambi.

What we have to do as MPs is write laws that work for everyone on extradition. That is why it is a very difficult subject.
I want to say first of all that one of the problems is the tone that the government has used on extradition, the tone that some of the backbenchers and the government party have used. I believe they are using the fallacy that Canada is about to become a haven for criminals from other countries because of our allegedly lax extradition laws.
This is simply not true. Also as was pointed out by some of the judges in the Kindler and Ng cases in the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no evidence of the existence or the threat of a flood of criminal fugitives pouring over our borders. Where is the evidence? In fact the number of requests received by Canada has remained consistently below 100 in the past five years. We got a breakdown from the Department of Justice from their annual report of the cases. I think the House would be interested in this.
In the period 1985 to 1986 the requests received from the United States for extradition were 69, from other countries, 14. You add them up, 69 and 14. We surrendered 23 people.
In 1986 to 1987 requests received from the United States were 47 and from other countries, 16. We surrendered 21.
In 1987 to 1988 there were 71 requests from the United States and 14 from other countries.
In 1988 to 1989 there were 64 requests from the United States and 12 from other countries. We surrendered 45.
In 1989 to 1990 there were 55 requests from the U.S. and 7 from other countries and we surrendered 39.
I managed to get the statistics for this year up to date,
1990-1991. We received 55 requests from the United States and 11 from other countries. We surrendered 55 people.
We are talking about 66 people to date.
This hardly makes Canada a haven for fugitives that are in our jails that are just there waiting to be extradited. I did add them up. This is not a big number. The member says add them up.
Government Orders
What is important is that the present time-consuming procedures be streamlined. That is why we agree with the bill. They should be streamlined. But we have to maintain at the same time procedural and substantive fairness and justice for the fugitive. I draw again the reference to the Peltier case where we extradited the fellow too quickly and wrongly.
The second problem we have here, and the previous speaker pointed this out although I do not think the minister pointed it out, is that the extradition treaties that we have with many countries are out of date. They date from the colonial period and contain archaic language.
Did you know that computer crime is not in most of the extradition treaties because they come from the 19th century when there were no computers. That is a big area. You can get into computer viruses and some of the thefts that occur as a result of computer crime. Consider that. It is not in the treaty and most of our treaties are old. There are a couple of modem treaties that have been affected. Let me just explain this for the members. In the old treaties they listed the crime, procuring an abortion for example. There were some wild old crimes that are no longer crimes in Canada. The new modem treaties just say a crime with over one year, for example, imprisonment. It is a very flexible list of crimes then.
We do not have modern treaties with very many countries and that definitely is a problem.
There is also a case now before the Supreme Court of Canada where the court will have to deal with the question of whether it is necessary that a defence be named in both treaties before it becomes extraditable.
Another possible amendment that the Minister of Justice could look at in dealing with this whole matter of extradition would be to undertake that the death penalty would not be carried out if the fugitive were extradited. We do not apply the death penalty in Canada and we may want to talk about that with other countries.
I am afraid we are going to have cases not like Charles Ng which was such an obvious case but we will have other cases where we pass a quick law with quick extradition where we could have real injustice. Good law is not made by one case. You need a number of cases and you need to see the balance that is there.

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
Another question is the proposal that the fugitive only have 30 days to make submissions to the Minister of Justice after the decision is made that they are in fact extraditable and we may want to extend that.
One of the problems noted by Mr. Bob Anderson, who is appearing for the Canadian Bar Association, is that the Court of Appeal normally does not hear direct evidence. This would limit the ability of the fugitive to present a full defence as can be done at present.
In an interview in the French press, Mr. Anderson said:

The new procedure will be shorter, but lawyer Robert Anderson was nevertheless afraid it might cause a number of complications, because the Court of Appeal will in some respects have to take the place of the Federal Court and the Superior Court. He is particularly concerned that one could appeal directly to the provincial Court of Appeal on all matters-extradition, incarceration and the ministers' decision-without first going through another court.

So Mr. Anderson is drawing attention to a problem with the present government proposals and perhaps we could hear the Canadian Bar Association in the committee.
I want to say just a little bit more about the notion that computer crime is not an extradictable offence between Canada and most of the countries with which we have extradition treaties.
I mentioned that there is some old law in there where you could extradite someone who was charged with procuring a miscarriage and so on and there are a lot of old parts of law.
In the limited time I have left let me just deal with some of the new treaties and explain them Mr. Speaker. Recently, Canada has begun signing treaties with such countries as India and the Netherlands, which get around the problem of not having named the crime on a list. They do this by making extradictable any crime which is punishable by more than one year in prison. This covers both computer crime sections but there are dozens of other treaties which will have to be replaced before the question is comprehensively covered.
The extradition treaty with the United States is a special case. The existing treaty was ratified in 1976 but
there is an updated version that has been ratified in Canada. This is the question I was going to put to the minister, before the government rather rudely nixed that question. I was not trying to exploit a minister of the House, I was going to ask a legitimate question. The question was: What is the state of the new extradition treaty with the United States? It is absolutely fundamental to this debate.
I believe that the American Senate is apparently holding up approval at their end and I stand to be corrected by any government member who will deal with this. This has caused a problem in the case of a Quebec truck driver, Richard Bilodeau. He was charged with manslaughter in the highway deaths of two New Hampshire state troopers and their prisoner. He was in jail in New Hampshire on a $500,000 bail and there was some controversy over whether the existing extradition treaty would enable the Americans to get Bilodeau back if he was allowed to return to Canada. So the judge did not want to give him bail, and poor Mr. Bilodeau had to sit in jail for a long time. Finally he did get released.
Initially the judge held that the Extradition Act and treaty would enable Bilodeau to avoid returning to the United States. Finally bail was set for this man. This is an unacceptable situation. You cannot put Canadians in this position. We have to clear up these treaties with the United States.
Although these new treaties will eliminate the anomaly of computer crimes not being extradictable offences, there does not seem to be any rush by the government to replace the ancient treaties now in place with most industrial countries. This leaves great scope for mischief, especially given the amount of damage which can be done to data banks using either the virus which affects computer systems through software or by direct tampering through illegal entry.
Anyway I do not have to run through these cases of computer hackers doing damage. All I want to do is point out that there is a real danger that valuable Canadian data could be tampered with or stolen or destroyed by some other country and under the state of our law and our treaties, we could do nothing about it. We could not extradite the person from there and they could not extradite the person from Canada.


I think this is a serious matter and needs to be looked at. Piracy on the Great Lakes is an extraditable offence, computer crime is not. I find that incredible. This bill is doing nothing to deal with that.
Let me just sum up our position on the bill again. Before I end my speech I want to set out for the government, if I might, some possible witnesses for the committee. I mentioned Mr. Anderson from the Canadian Bar Association. I would also suggest that we want to speak to Amnesty International which was involved in the events surrounding the Charles Ng extradition.
There are some allegations that we may have broken international law by the very quick reaction after the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Mr. Ng was out of there in about two seconds flat. We want to hear some of that evidence. We might attempt to bring in groups like Victims of Violence, and also groups like Amnesty International.
The lawyer for Bambi Bembenek, Frank Morocco, whom I went to high school with in Toronto, could also be brought in to talk about the dangers of having a procedure which would whisk fugitives out of the country before the full facts of the case can be brought forward.
Another potential witness could be the lawyer for Mr. McVey and the case that I mentioned in the Supreme Court of Canada. We might also want to hear from Mr. Jardine, the crown counsel from Vancouver and perhaps Mr. David Gibbons, defence counsel, in the Inderjit Singh Reyat case. That was the man convicted of I believe it was manslaughter in the Air India matter, the bombing at Narita airport in Japan. There was a long fight on extradition on that case. I would like to hear some of the experience there.
This is not an open and shut matter. It is an area of many sides and many issues. Finally, I would like to hear Mr. Donald McLeod, the counsel for Charles Ng, who fought the extradition procedure I guess to the end.
The minister has summarized what the bill does. It does cut the number of steps. It used to go from an extradition hearing to a writ of habeas corpus, to an appeal to the relevant provincial court of appeal, appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and then back to
Routine Proceedings
appeal the minister's decision to the Federal Court and then to appeal the Federal Court's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That was clearly too long. My friend from Peterborough whom I see over there brought in a private member's bill that was the opposite. It was too short and probably violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Has the government found the right balance? I hope so. The new legislation will have an extradition hearing. You will have an appeal to the relevant provincial court of appeal and then an appeal to the Supreme Court. The fourth and fifth steps are an appeal of the minister's decision to the provincial court of appeal and appeal that to the Supreme Court of Canada. That can be done concurrently.
We have a procedure that has very much speeded up the process. I hope it strikes the right balance. We will see that in committee. We have got to find somewhere between Ng on the one hand and Peltier on the other, between the way we approach Ng and other cases as we approach the Bambi case. We have got to try to deal with it rationally and we have to get a system that is fair.
We have to keep in mind that we still are talking about a relatively small amount of cases. People are not flooding into Canada to take advantage of weak extradition laws.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Don Valley East.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan Redway (Don Valley East):: Very briefly, with the unanimous consent of the House, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the committee on aboriginal affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive reply within 150 days.

November 7, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table his report?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I heard the speakers who have entered this debate thus far and I would like to address a few questions to my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam. He seems to be quite taken with this computer crime and I am sure that we can put our minds together so that we get after these computer criminals. I would hope that would be addressed in the other sections they are going to be dealing with in their committee.
I came across a quote that I would like the hon. member to comment on, if he would. It is a quote from Mr. Justice Gerard La Forest. He says:
There can be no doubt that the appellant's right to liberty and security of the person is very seriously affected because he may face the death penalty following his return to the country he is going back to. The real question is whether surrender under these conditions violates the principles of fundamental justice.
I would like him to address himself to that part, and also:
The Supreme Court has held that extradition must be refused if surrender would place the fugitive in a position that is so unacceptable as to shock the conscience. But I do not think the surrender of fugitives who may ultimately face the death penalty abroad would in all cases shock the conscience of Canadians.
I would like him to give us his thoughts, if he would because I, for one, respect his thoughts very much in this
House and I would like him to comment on what Mr. Justice La Forest has to say about the "conscience of Canadians". Are we a nation such that it takes more than normal circumstances to shock us? Should we be returning these people at the earliest possible moment, especially in cases like the Ng case?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, it is a good question. What I was trying to do in my speech was to say we must be careful how we react. Sometimes one case can make bad law when we have got to look at it. I gave the example of the Ng case, in which it seemed obvious to the common sense of Canadians that this thing took too long. I think that is pretty obvious.
One of the reasons it took too long, I can say to the hon. member, is because the court was sorting out the very important legal issue of whether it should extradite someone back to a state that has the death penalty. That is one of the reasons it took too long. I will not comment on the court, it made its decision. It is the Supreme Court of Canada, and we live by that decision. The court ruled that you could send someone back to a state that has the death penalty. That is the law of Canada. I accept that.
What I was saying was we have to be careful. You look at the Ng case and you think we have got to get them out of here quickly, it is too long, and so on. It looks so obvious, but then you look back on our history and you look at the Peltier case and now as we get farther away from it, we look back and say that maybe we made a mistake there. We were so fast and we accepted affidavits that were not right. Now maybe we had better just be careful. If you just did it with the Peltier case you may have a whole different view of extradition.
I said also to look at the same commentators who at one moment, and I mentioned one journalist, want to get this Ng out of here fast and then suddenly Bambi comes along who is kind of a different figure and they say "wait a minute now we had better take our time and we had better look at this and we had better have lots of appeals, and why do we not let her out on bail, and why do we not do this?" I would not want to prejudice the case but I hope it works out justly, if I could put it that way.
That is what I am saying. I am saying just be careful which way you move. I cannot comment on what the judge said.

I respect the judge, and I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. It was a 4 to 3 ruling. Some judges differ.
The reason I mention computer crime was that I was trying to illustrate that there are two problems, not only the law but the issue of extradition treaties. We have some pretty old treaties through which you could get extradited for piracy on the Great Lakes, but you do not get extradited for computer crimes.
I think that is a bit strange and that is why I was mentioning it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mount Royal, The Economy; the hon. member for Saint-Henri- Westmount, Food Banks; the hon. member for Halifax, Women's Programs; the hon. member for Chambly, Canadian Security Intelligence Service.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, two American fugitives were quietly whisked away to the United States on Thursday, September 27, 1991 within hours of the Supreme Court ruling that said they could be extradited even though they may face the death penalty. In a sharply divided 4-3 decision, the highest court in the land cleared the way to send Charles Ng to California where prosecutors want to charge him in at least a dozen sex/torture killings.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Joseph Kindler could be extradited to Pennsylvania where he has already been convicted of murdering a fellow criminal with a baseball bat. Last minute talk of appeals to the United Nations human rights committee that might have delayed extradition were rendered moot by the swift action of not only the justice minister for Canada, but of the federal justice authorities.
Within 30 minutes of the mid-morning release of the decision, a shackled and handcuffed Ng was handed over to a U.S. sheriff and flown from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan to Sacramento, California on an RCMP jet. Kindler left the country at 3 p.m. the day of the decision.
Ng later arrived at McLellan Air Force Base near Sacramento amid tight security. He was taken by a state
Government Orders
corrections department car to nearby Fulsom prison. Ng was to be kept separated from other inmates, a prison spokesman said. Ng was arraigned on September 27 in San Andreas, a small town in the Sierra Nevada about 240 kilometres east of San Francisco and 40 kilometres from the hideaway that he allegedly used to kill and torture his victims.
Ng's lawyer was outraged when he learned his client had been hustled on to a plane without being given an opportunity to contact him. Don MacLeod, Ng's lawyer, said at a news conference in Calgary: "To be perfectly honest with you, I am absolutely ashamed of my government and outraged at its conduct".
In interviews with the justice minister, she made no apologies for the speedy action. She went on to say: "There is a very strong sense of urgency to allow justice to take its course in the United States. Both men have been fighting extradition since 1985".
In the case of Mr. Ng, the case has not gone to trial. Witnesses are getting older, and witnesses are dying. I believe it was essential to act as quickly as possible after a careful review of the Supreme Court decision.
I compliment the minister on her quick decision to hand Ng over to U.S. authorities. I would also like to express my appreciation to the 185,000 people from across Canada who wrote in urging for speedy extradition of both of these people, Ng and Kindler.
I might also say that when it went through the justice committee, of which I am proud to say I was a member at that time, it gave a majority report. It was not only a majority report, it was a unanimous report from the justice committee that we proceed with extradition legislation. They presented the report to the minister at the time, who is the present Minister of Justice.
An investigation was launched by the former justice minister and he announced that to the United States when he attended a conference of legal persons in Washington. That body reported to the minister and I am pleased to say we had quick action.
As for the former speaker's statement that this bill before the House is all right and includes things that he would like to see, but it is not quite as fast a process as I was looking for, I suggest that he check my bill against the bill that is before the House. The reality of the situation is that the bill before the House today by the

Government Orders
justice minister and the Government of Canada is a speedier process than even my bill was.
To make this as easily understood as possible we have taken the legislation that we would like to enact and completely eliminated the two track system. Rather than going through a provincial court and then a Federal Court with all of the appeals following, we only go through the provincial court. We have taken the habeas corpus and put it into the hearing simultaneously with the provincial hearings. Also any conflicts the bill might have with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example, are dealt with now in that one track system through the provincial courts rather than Federal Court. There is no opportunity for anyone being extradited to move from the minister's signature for extradition to the Federal Court.
If this bill passes it will happen with one extradition hearing, one Superior Court appeal in the provincial courts and then possibly, if the Supreme Court deems it necessaiy on request, a third hearing before the Supreme Court. That is a guaranteed two hearings and a possible Supreme Court of Canada hearing. That speeds it up considerably compared to the former process where there were seven guaranteed hearings in the cases of Ng and Kindler. Those two cases followed the two track system.
I was pleased to see that the member of the NDP, who presented his view, is leaning toward passing this as quickly as we can because he feels that there need to be changes made. However I disagree with his logic that my bill would have given the fugitive fewer chances or more chances or whatever he intended to mean. That was not the fact because what he said is clearly contradicted by the facts.
The lawyer for Ng said he had filed a complaint with the UN human rights committee which had agreed to investigate Ng's case. He was told the committee asked Canadian authorities to hold off extradition until the investigation was complete. Our minister said she welcomed the views of the UN committee but felt extraditing the two was the proper course. Justice department officials do not believe the government would be legally bound by any UN ruling.
Officials at Amnesty International were holding a news conference appealing to the government to take
time to consider the ruling when they learned that Ng was already gone. Roger Clark, secretary general of the Canadian chapter of Amnesty International, said: "It seems to me that shows inappropriate and unseemly haste. I regret that the Canadian government has moved with such speed to support the possible execution of an individual".
Gary Rosenfeldt, founder of the lobby group Victims of Violence, headquartered in Ottawa welcomed the decision to send Ng and Kindler back to the United States. He said: "I really think that for the last number of years Canada has become a real haven for criminals". I would take his judgment of the haven that we have become ahead of the judgment, with respect, of my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party.
I would also like to point out with regard to Canada being a safe haven for criminals from the United States, the RCMP have information to indicate that when Ng was in prison in the United States he researched what was the best country in the world to escape to to avoid the death penalty. That would indicate to me that he chose Canada because it was the best. It probably means that we are the most lenient.
The same process occurred with Joseph Kindler. He escaped from the American prison where he was on death row using a set of bed sheets. I cannot quite figure out how he got out a window on death row, but that is the story that appeared in the media. He certainly got out of the prison. He escaped as quickly as he could to Canada, to safe haven, because his research showed that we have the most liberal laws in the world.
If that is not enough evidence I have letters from both the governor of the state and the Attorney General of the United States saying that we will turn Canada into a haven. Why would anyone not want to come to Canada under the best of circumstances and under the worst of circumstances?
If you were sentenced to be executed the best thing you could do would be to come to Canada and spend the rest of your days locked up in a prison cell rather than be executed. There is all kinds of documentation. Whether it is 2, 4 or 16 people who want to come to Canada does not make any difference to me. If one wants to come to Canada because our laws are the most liberal laws in the
November 7, 1991

world then we have to take a look at our laws to see if they really are the most liberal.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You will have an opportunity to ask questions in just a few minutes.
Lawyers for both men had argued that the death penalty violates fundamental justice and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They wanted to force the justice minister to seek guarantees from California and Pennsylvania that they would not impose capital punishment if the two were returned.
Under the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty the federal justice minister can ask American authorities for such a guarantee. However none of the ministers who have held the justice portfolio over the last six years has made that request.
The court ruled it is not unconstitutional to return Ng and Kindler to a country that has a justice system similar to Canada's, with legal safeguards for the rights of the accused. However in a strongly worded dissent Justice Peter Cory called capital punishment: "The ultimate desecration of human dignity".
Ng, a Hong Kong native and one time U.S. marine, is wanted to face 18 charges, including 12 of murder, in connection with a series of kidnappings, torture and murders in northern California.
He avoided trial by fleeing to Calgary where he was arrested and convicted for shooting a store security guard in the hand during a bungled shoplifting attempt.
Kindler was convicted of beating an acquaintance to death with a baseball bat to keep the man from testifying against him in a burglary case in Philadelphia. The jury recommended the death penalty but Kindler escaped from jail before the sentence could be imposed and fled to Montreal where he was later arrested.
There have been no executions in Canada since 1962. Parliament formally abolished the death penalty in Canada in 1976 and rejected a move to restore it in 1987. Canada still has capital punishment for acts of treason. No death sentences have been carried out in Pennsylvania or California for acts of treason in more than two decades. I do not know how long it has been since we
Government Orders
executed anyone for acts of treason in Canada. I tried to research that but I could not find any.
If it resumed executing prisoners, Pennsylvania would do it by lethal injection. California formerly executed prisoners by gas.
When all was said and done the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was: "Must Canada insist that a different free and democratic society, whose judicial system we otherwise accord equal status and trust as our own, fundamentally alter its view of what a fit sentence is for a certain crime?"
The root of the disagreement was the death penalty. In Canada the democratically elected representatives of the people decided not to allow capital punishment, while in California the democratically elected representatives of their people have decided to allow it. The lawyers arguing on behalf of Ng suggested that Canada should have imposed its will on California and that failure to do so constituted cruel and unusual punishment for Ng.
Canada's Minister of Justice refused to go along with this idea, citing six different basic premises for that decision in October 1989. The first was that constitutional safeguards within the United States' criminal and justice system to ensure standards of fairness are at least equal to our own. The second was a recognition that the request for no death penalty assurances are not sought routinely and the facts of the Ng case did not so require it.
The third was a rejection of the time on death row, if convicted, as being cruel and unusual punishment.
The fourth was a rejection of the method of execution in California as being cruel and unusual punishment.
The fifth was a rejection of the fact that Canada does not have the death penalty as dictating that we cannot extradite a fugitive to a country that does.
The sixth was if it was generally anticipated that by fleeing to Canada a person accused of capital murder could escape exposure to the death penalty it is foreseeable that Canada would become a safe haven for such criminals. In my view such a prospect is simply unacceptable.
Here are the two opinions. Opinion A on this issue is uphold the minister's decision and return Ng with no, assurances of no death penalty sought. The message from this decision is straightforward. If a person commits capital murder in the United States and then comes to

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
Canada and is caught and ordered extradited they will be sent back to face justice in their own jurisdiction. Canada will not be a safe haven for U.S. killers.
Opinion B on this issue is refuse to extradite unless California agrees to waive the death penalty.
Both district attorneys involved in the Ng case and the Joseph Kindler case, both heard by the Supreme Court at the same time, on February 21, 1991, stated in different ways but equally unequivocally, as Paul Cummings, the assistant district attorney for San Francisco said: "Canada is becoming a safe haven for killers from the United States".
Similarly assistant district attorney Richard DeBene-detto remarked in relation to the Kindler case that: "If they know they can go somewhere and possibly avoid the death penalty they are not going to hesitate". The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Ng case will have profound effects on the domestic security of this country for years to come.
If the latter choice had been taken we automatically and realistically would have become a haven for fugitive killers seeking to avoid justice in the United States of America. To make it worse, if the United States had then refused to comply with our conditions not only would we be such a haven but we would already have our first beneficiaries of this policy in our midst, Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler.
I took a little time-am I already at 20 minutes? It must have been the interventions. One more minute, then.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would have no objections if the hon. member wishes to continue, provided he does not abuse it. I would like to hear him out. He has presented bills on this case.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I really appreciate the help from the opposition in finishing my case.
I took some time and I sent this around to all colleagues in the House of Commons. It is my centrefold. It deals with the 4 to 3 vote when the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the two American fugitives could be extradited to face possible death sentences. I went to the core of the 100 or 200 pages that we received from the Supreme Court-if we paid $5 per package-on the decisions and the lead-up to the decisions that they made in the Ng and Kindler cases. I want members to listen to this because this might motivate me to do something about capital punishment. In section 12 of the charter it says that:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The death penalty deprives the prisoners of all vestiges of human dignity. If Kindler or Ng committed murder in Canada the provision of section 12 in the charter would prevent capital punishment.
I did not write that. It came from the Supreme Court of Canada, section 12. How did the Supreme Court rule on section 12? I will read that into the record. This is the majority view of the Supreme Court:
Much has been said and written in this country on the death penalty and there is no clear consensus in this country that capital punishment is morally abhorrent and absolutely unacceptable. Tb this day capital punishment continues to apply to certain military offences. Polls continue to show a considerable support among Canadians for the return of the death penalty for certain offences. Returning the fugitive to face capital punishment would not shock the Canadian consciences.
We are talking about a majority position of Canadians and I am talking about what could very well be a majority consensus in this House of Commons. I think there is room to consider as a private member's initiative, a bill for capital punishment for acts of terrorism causing loss of innocent life, whether it is the Air India accident or some other such accident. I think that kind of homicide offence is repugnant to the Canadian people and I would strongly urge members to give serious consideration to that.
My final point is that I want to make abundantly clear what the minister is asking this House to approve and I have reason to believe that this House is going to approve it. It is a long way from being perfect. There are some amendments that are going to be considered. I have some amendments myself that I would like considered but here is what the bill does.
We have one extradition hearing. Charter issues will be dealt with in that Superior Court appeal. That means that the minister has a deadline to submit her signature
November 7, 1991

intent to extradition which would be reviewed at that one appeal. That is it.
This House of Commons, we as members of Parliament, has taken the seven-year option away and have put in a six-month option on the extradition. It could be three months. So you have an extradition hearing including charter issues. You have an appeal of committal of extradition, judicial review and surrender order of the Minister of Justice heard at the same time. That is it.
If the person being extradited after that short period of time wishes an appeal, he can have leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; not guaranteed but leave to appeal. That ends it.
It would be a great accomplishment for the justice committee, for members of this House, if we could move with all haste to get it into committee. Let us look at the amendments that the NDP, the Liberals or the Official Opposition and the government would like to consider. I hope we can get it out of the House today. I hope it will move on to committee and be back here for third reading when we come back from our holiday.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a comment and a question, Mr. Speaker.
I was very interested to hear the hon. member sort of pulling himself up by his bootstraps. He takes some comments from the Supreme Court of Canada and suddenly we are into a new law on capital punishment. The hon. member must do yoga. He must be very good at yoga, doing these sort of back bends, not to mention the centre fold. I think it is a long way from the decision of the Supreme Court to a new law on capital punishment.
I gather the member is supporting the government bill. Correct me if I am wrong but his private member's bill I believe had a shorter procedure than the government bill. Perhaps he can comment.
Second, he seemed to me to be talking in the past. We have had the Ng decision. The court said that it is not a defence for escaped murderers who are picked up in Canada to say: Don't extradite us because there is capital punishment back where we came from, namely certain states in the United States. That has been settled, has it not?
Government Orders
I wonder what the member was really getting at. Finally my last question as I have pointed out is: What about these facts? He is talking about the existence or threat of a flood of criminal fugitives pouring over the border. I pointed out that the number of requests received by Canada has remained consistently below 100 in the past five years.
That seems to me hardly a flow of people. These are all extradition cases, not just murder cases. The evidence is overwhelming. There ain't any flow.
What is the member talking about, especially after the Ng case? If we are talking about murders, there is no capital punishment in just about every European nation and in most nations of the world now. Where is the big danger?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Starting with his last question first, I have not quite sorted out his second question in my mind as to exactly what it was.
His last question dealt with the flood of criminals from the United States into Canada to avoid justice in the United States. No one refutes that except the NDP. One hundred people come to Canada and the normal percentage of those offences are violent crimes. We are dealing with two at the same time that have been in our courts for five to seven years. Those I would consider violent crimes. They are from the United States and we have been talking about them for six years.
There have been other cases. There have been some that could have stayed here but were out before it came to their attention that they had the possibility of multiple appeals.
If the Attorney General of the United States or the governor of all the states that have capital punishment feel that we would create a flood here and the Supreme Court ruled we had to keep them, it would create a flood. If that is not exactly flood proportions in the minds of the NDP now, I am saying: think what it would be like after if the Supreme Court ruled that anyone committing a violent crime of homicide in the United States who got across the border to Canada was able to ask for political asylum. I think it would create a flood and so does everyone else I talk to.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say quickly that I appreciate the comments brought forward by the hon. member for Peterborough. I

November 7, 1991
Government Orders
wonder if he would be willing to withdraw his remarks about next week being a holiday.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the riding to work with my constituents is a holiday compared to working in this House with the opposition.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I should join in the general frivolity of the discussion but it is a serious matter.
Bill C-31 is designed to bring changes as has been pointed out in our Extradition Act. Many of us on both sides of the House must reflect on our own effort or lack of effort on this issue over the years to correct the flaws in the present extradition law.
It is very long overdue. As I will conclude at the end of my speech it hardly deals with the problem in all of its many aspects. The government has waited far too long to move decisively on this issue. The cost of that inaction is high first of all in material terms. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent on unnecessary lengthy, highly publicized extradition cases instead of on research and development, education or other desirable things.
More important, the cost is expressed in human suffering of the victims' families in the case of Mr. Ng for example, the loss of widespread public trust in our system of justice, and the principle that a just punishment cannot be measured or recovered.
Canadian extradition law has come under a firestorm of controversy during the past several years. People are asking seriously if Canada has become a haven for dangerous criminals fleeing persecution in their own countries.
A New York Times article reported last year that there have been almost 260,000 murders across the U.S. since 1976. If even a tiny percentage of alleged American murderers began to flee to Canada, the cost and other consequences to Canadians would be enormous.
The lengthy appeals process in our extradition system of course was the heart of the problem because a series of orchestrated appeals both burdened our legal system and harboured foreign fugitives for years.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of accused mass murderer Charles Ng, recently returned to California. Ng and an alleged accomplice, Leonard Lane, are suspected of having been involved in 25 violent criminal acts and 12 brutal homicides in northern California during 1985.
When the police in California apprehended Lane after a robbery attempt, he committed suicide. Mr. Ng however eluded capture and made his way to Calgary. He was spotted shoplifting in Calgary, shot at a security guard and served a four and a half year sentence in a Saskatchewan penitentiary. U.S. authorities soon initiated extradition proceedings.
In the judicial part of the process our Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled, Madam Justice Marguerite Tressler, that Ng could be found guilty on 19 of the 25 counts of violent crimes and the 12 homicides and was to be delivered to jail awaiting extradition to the U.S. authorities. His lawyer appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal and approximately four years after Ng was arrested the three judges upheld the lower court decision. Quite recently, as members know, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Ng's appeal of that appellate decision in Alberta.
All of Ng's appeals have been based on article VI of the 1976 extradition treaty between Canada and the U.S. which states: "When the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting state and the laws of the requesting state do not permit such punishment for that offence, extradition may be refused unless the requesting state provides such assurances as the requesting state"-only lawyers could have drafted this-"considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed or, if imposed, shall not be executed". I am being candid.
The key is the term "may be refused" because the Minister of Justice decides which way to exercise the discretion. In 1989 Rudy Blanusa, accused of murdering two people in California, was extradited by former Justice Minister Lewis who opted not to seek the assurance that Blanusa would not face death.
By the way I might interest my friend from the New Democratic Party in the following case. In the 1970s a woman in Alberta was accused of being involved in a murder. Her co-accused was convicted. She left Alberta and went to California. She was finally picked up in Los Angeles. Do you know how long it took? As I understand it they picked up the accused, put her on the plane in Los


November 7, 1991

Angeles, flew her to Vancouver, and the RCMP picked her up when she got off the plane. I think the whole process took about three days. It has taken six years for us to uninvite Mr. Ng from our country.
There were also indications, as the member for Peterborough pointed out, that Charles Ng researched extradition laws in foreign countries including Canada. He came to Canada, specifically it would appear, because he knew the length and complexity of the Canadian extradition system and that he would face the death penalty in California.
I salute the member who just spoke for his concern about this issue and his consistent concern about this issue over the years. I will even quote him: "Fugitives such as Charles Ng or Joseph Kindler have more judicial options and opportunities available to them than does a Canadian citizen who is accused of committing a crime here in Canada".
Another glaring inconsistency in our system is an experience recounted to me of a judge who was appointed to a superior court in one of our provinces in Canada. That judge was denied a computer word processor to have in his office. Charles Ng had a computer word processor in his cell in Prince Albert paid for, one would assume, by the Canadian taxpayer. In other words, Canadian judges, at least in one province, cannot get word processor computers but people accused of 25 violent crimes in California can, at the taxpayers' expense.
In 1989, had it been the law, the proposed reform by the member for Peterborough and other MPs and I would not have prevented people accused of crimes from fleeing to Canada, but at least it would have reduced the number of manoeuvres of which they could avail themselves.
Under the proposed bill before us, the extradition hearing would still be presided over by a superior court judge or county court judge who would decide whether the fugitive should be committed to prison in view of the extradition. The next step would be the ability to appeal a decision to the appeal court of the province.
Those would be the only hearings available. It would eliminate the application for a writ of habeas corpus to the superior court and the ability to appeal the decision
Government Orders
of the appellate division to the Supreme Court of Canada.
After two court appearances the case would go automatically to the Minister of Justice. This would cut down significantly on the time frame for extradition but still protect the rights of the accused person.
Section 24 of the Extradition Act would also be examined. It states: "A fugitive who has been accused of an offence with Canadian jurisdiction, not being the offence for which the fugitive surrendered or who undergoing sentence upon conviction in Canada, shall not be surrendered until after having been discharged either by acquittal, by expiration of sentence, or otherwise." That would mean that the Minister of Justice would have the discretion to surrender incarcerated felons or allow them to serve their time. A decision would be made on a case by case basis.
Members of the Victims of Violence Society of Edmonton, now based in Ottawa, have estimated that it cost taxpayers over $1.5 million to keep Charles Ng in comfort in Canada. It was also stated by the member for Peterborough earlier that his office had received over
70,000	letters and 100,000 signatures on petitions from Canadians asking for the speedy extradition of Mr. Ng.
My own office has received more than 6,000 petition signatures. In short, the public outcry is enormous. In conclusion, the system in place must be streamlined so that Canada does not become or remain a haven for criminals from other countries and that criminals from other countries do not continuously burden our system and drain local economies.
A more streamlined system, founded on the same basic human rights principle but appended by the ideal of swifter justice, is required. Justice delayed is justice denied in these cases as in most cases. The changes proposed in Bill C-31 will probably come too late to help at least some of the families in the cases of Charles Ng, who was until recently able to delay his inevitable fate.
The case should bolster our resolve to make sure that no other criminal victimizes our country as well.
I have a comment to make with respect to the contents of the bill. As somebody said on the other side, it is far from perfect. It does not address most of the 30 items being considered by the Department of Justice in its comprehensive review of the law and process of extradi-

Private Members' Business
tion. The bill would basically leave intact the two-track judicial executive nature of extradition in Canada-


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but we are just about to enter into Private Members' Business and so I wanted to put before the House an opportunity.
I know this bill has significant support on all sides of the House and I am wondering if the House and the members would be willing to come back at six o'clock and continue debate on this issue so that we could complete second reading today.


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


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made good progress today. We have had this bill introduced and I think in the nature of things it is not unusual for a bill to take more than a day in this House at second reading, especially an important one like this. We have not even been debating it all day. We only started the bill this afternoon.
I think that the request of the hon. parliamentary secretary, having agreed to sit two nights already this week, is a little much and the House need not continue to sit this evening for this purpose.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important piece of legislation. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to not see the clock to allow the debate to be completed tonight. If that is not going to happen, perhaps we could at least have an undertaking that when we return to business tomorrow that we could pass this expeditiously first thing in the morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have seven minutes left in his debate and 10 minutes questions and comments when the bill comes up again.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North) moved: that Bill C-269, an act to amend the Copyright Act (fair use), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the House might grant me consent to table a report on Bill C-28 which I have available here at this time. I would just table it, if I could be granted that consent.


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


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid there is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Don Valley North.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, once again I am presenting my bill, Bill C-269, to Parliament. At this time I am aware that progress has been made on this issue. On the last occasion that this bill was considered it was referred to the standing committee on communications and was never subsequently considered by that committee which to me was a very disappointing matter on an issue which is so important to so many people across Canada.
The issue of copyright is one that has a very significant history and has been the subject of a tremendous amount of debate.
In 1985 after the consideration of phase I of the copyright legislation the minister of communications and culture, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, promised that there would be a phase II to the copyright legislation. Subsequently, we have had consultative committees that have been established with users and creators on those committees that made recommendations for certain exemptions for education, libraries and the disabled. These reports have sat on the shelf awaiting implementation by the government.
November 7, 1991

That committee report back in 1985 made those recommendations. We have had another committee report. There has been a tremendous amount of lobbying on this issue in the community. I myself have been involved in it since at least 1985 as a teacher in the city of North York and a media studies teacher and a member of the Association for Media Literacy. The copyright legislation was extremely important to us because basically being a media studies teacher is impossible with the existing legislation if one wishes to obey the law. Media studies teachers along with many other educators throughout Canada and many other users have virtually been breaking the law since this particular bill was introduced. Many of us were breaking the law before, but at least it was a little more liberal.
Phase I very clearly has given the authority over copyright to the owners of copyright exclusively.
There is no balance to the legislation. It does not recognize the legitimate rights of users. It does not reflect our society. It does not reflect the electronic age we now have and the types of communications necessary in this society. Many of us in Parliament continue to break this law. In the householders that we pass out there are often pictures and newspaper articles and we did not get the authority from the owners of these copyrights. If we did I am sure we would be spending an awful lot of time on rather useless correspondence.
Right now this particular bill has a long list of supporters. There are quite a number of individuals who support it but at present the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada supports it as well as the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, the Canadian School Trustees Association, the Association for the Study of Canadian Radio and TV, Carleton University Instructional Media Services, Canadian Society of Copyright Consumers, the Alberta Whitecourt School District, the Protestant Regional School Board of Western Quebec, the Dundalk and Proton Community Schools in Ontario, the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing, the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board, the Eitz Chaim Schools in Toronto, the Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation District 13, North York, the Board of Education for the City of Etobicoke, North York Public Library Board, the Board of Jewish Educa-
Private Members' Business
tion, Seemars Engineering, CCH Canadian Limited, and the list goes on and on.
Clearly there are some contentious parts to the bill and some of these people would like to see certain amendments but they would like to see the bill considered and given implementation.
The Association of Universities and Colleges and the Canadian School Trustees Association were involved in forming this bill and I would like to describe it a bit.
It excludes any work that is the repertoire of a collective. It does not apply to works which are the property of a collective and which are available for a contract. It refers to all those works that are not currently available easily for people in educational institutions. It would allow the fair use for a limited number of purposes such as teaching, review, legislative or judicial proceedings, research, criticism, comment or media summary.
These are non-profit uses that are frequent in society. If one just thinks of the courts for a moment, frequently they have to look at documents. Under the existing legislation which has no exemptions and no limitations, other than the single one of the fair dealing which allows for individual, private study, there is no legal way in which any kind of legal work can be presented.
We have seen members stand up in the House with documents. If you are publicly displaying it, it is an illegal act at present. Therefore, it is simply impossible to obey the existing legislation.
This act is modelled basically on the American system. In the American system the factors which are considered and which are in this bill as well for determining whether a copyrighted work is being fairly used include the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is for non-profit purposes, the nature of the work, in a case in which only part of the work is reproduced, the amount and substantiality of the part used in relation to the whole work and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work.
It does allow a legal defence when you use a copyrighted work. It allows you to use it reasonably. It also allows organizations that own copyright to enter into negotiations in order to determine what is a fair use. It operates quite reasonably in the United States. Many Canadian teachers have resorted to contacting American

November 7, 1991
Private Members' Business
publishers and owners of copyright in order to access American materials, since it almost impossible to do it up here.
We have had a number of examples of teachers who belong to the Association of Media Literacy being able to contact magazines and television stations to get the right to use their material fairly. In Canada they cannot get that right. They might be able to get the right for a particular show, but they have to go through a long chain of people in order to get that particular right.
I tried that once and it took me eight different telephone contacts. All the way along the line people said: "Go ahead and do it. We don't care". However, because I was doing it for a particular project that was going to be circulated among teachers, I wanted to find out and I proceeded to do it. I finally got to the very end of the line and got permission. I was told how to do it and to send a letter. Unfortunately what happened was that the program I wanted to use was bumped from the television schedule and technically I could not have done it.
It is just ridiculous, the current procedure that one would have to go through in order to use material legally.
I asked some of the organizations involved with this issue what comments they would like to make on it at this point in time. The Association of Universities and Colleges says it wants phase II as soon as possible. It believes that my bill is a good interim piece of legislation while waiting for the government to introduce something, but it is concerned that even if phase II were announced there would not be enough time before an election for it to become law. I think that would be incredibly embarrassing to this government with a great number of people, given the commitments that have been made by the government in the past. Basically the association says that it thinks this bill would ensure at least a defence for people and fair access.
The director of Instructional Media Studies at Carle-ton University says: "It is important for Canadians to be able to study and to evaluate the media. There is a need to research the media and to display the findings. A department such as Mass Communications in Women's Studies needs to study specifics such as the portrayal of women in the media. Current copyright law restricts media study, making it difficult to teach the dissemination of it". Things such as taking a slide of a magazine article and putting it up on an overhead are illegal. It makes it very difficult to be referring to little pictures in a classroom.
The Canadian Association of Research Libraries says that it needs further amendments to the Copyright Act to ensure that Canadian students, researchers and scholars are not at a disadvantage when compared to their peers internationally. The inter-library loan network cannot work efficiently without certain exemptions as many publications are no longer available.
The Association for the Study of Canadian Radio and Television says that research is impossible under the current law. Copies of the whole work cannot be made for private study. Educators and researchers are forced to use American material because it is readily available for free, especially at the university level.
For example, the CBC has only four people working its sales department for education and does not have the time to work on copyright clearance, nor do the professors or researchers who need to use the material. The CBC has nothing available with clearance which is appropriate for university use, again sending users to the U.S. for material. They are not unwilling to pay reasonable royalties. In the U.S. Canadian works are available at less than half the cost they are in Canada. The current law is there to be broken, not complied with, as it is impossible to work under.
The Vancouver Community College Library Services' director says that in order for inter-library loan services to operate efficiently exemptions are necessary. Libraries already pay a higher subscription rate for journals which one would expect to cover use by more than one person. Inter-library services should be able to provide a copy of a work no longer available or rare to another library. They should be able to use material taped from the television for a limited time, 45 days, as is allowed in the U.S. They think that the classroom should not be considered a public performance arena. Educators should be allowed to do their jobs with fair access to Canadian material.
Right now costs are too high. They have found that most journals are willing to grant permission to copy for educational use when asked and without royalties, but this is a very time consuming process. By limiting access to information the Copyright Act only serves to put

Canadians at a disadvantage in the areas of research and education.
I am not against collectives. In fact my bill is designed to work with collectives. However, I am really disturbed about CANCOPY, the collective that is currently operating in Canada in the area of published print material. I think it has to operate in an ethical fashion and not by threats and intimidation. We have reports from UBC, Vancouver that in fact that is what it is getting.
The Association of Universities and Colleges has recommended to all its members that they not sign agreements with CANCOPY until it has decided what is an appropriate agreement, and it is getting threats from CANCOPY that it will be sued.
I think there should be guidelines to follow when establishing a collective. For example, I think its membership should be public. We have been trying to find out who are the members of CANCOPY and all we can get is a list of who are not the members. We know that a lot of people are not members. For example, the Canadian government is not a member. CANCOPY is going around claiming to have the copyright for all published material in Canada with these exceptions, as well as internationally with these exceptions that are listed here. In Canada the exceptions are: the Canadian Law Book, Nelson Canada, the Thompson group, Clarence Boon and Gladys Downes.
There are an awful lot of other people in Canada who publish material. Certainly if we start thinking about government publications, Canadian scientific journals, newspapers and magazines other than the Thompson chain, all children's authors and all textbooks, clearly it is outrageous to think that these authors have all been approached and all know that CANCOPY is purporting to sell their copyright to various bodies.
The Ontario government has in fact an agreement now with CANCOPY at a cost of $2 million which applies to boards of education in Ontario. It does not apply to the colleges and the universities, to the libraries or to the many other public agencies. It only applies to the boards of education.
Private Members' Business
In looking at the agreement I think it is extremely limited. First of all, as I said before this is just published print material. It allows one to copy a poem. It allows one to copy up to 10 per cent of the work and it allows, for example, one to copy a short story out of a textbook. I have found that a lot of what I was doing as a media studies teacher was certainly not that. There were lots of excellent Canadian textbooks with poetry and so on in the English curriculum, but in many other ways the kind of stuff one wants to copy is often in The Globe and Mail and on television. There are many other sources of material.
Another question is: What is CANCOPY going to do with the $2 million, because there is no proved mechanism now to distribute that money? We do not know who is going to get the money and we do not know who the membership is. There are an awful lot of people out there who I think would be rather surprised to think that their copyright has been given to CANCOPY.
Indeed we have a situation here which is chaotic and which is hurting various activities in the education field and the library field across Canada in a very visible way. I think all we have to do is go into a library and look at the line-ups at the copying machines of students who have to make one copy from one book they are supposed to be studying that is in the library.
When I went to an American university, Harvard, it would pass us out the copies. We had access to the material we needed to study. Now we have students standing in long line-ups. That is just one small example.
Teachers are intimidated. They are not using materials. They are using found materials that they themselves have developed, student materials and American material. I think there is a real ongoing inhibition on learning.
I have met with the new minister. I am pleased that he seems to be taking a greater interest in this topic and will shortly be bringing it to cabinet. He has promised to have legislation by the spring. I am hopeful that that legislation will accommodate many of my concerns and those of people in general, but I am very concerned about the timeframe.

Private Members' Business
Clearly we could be well into an election before this is fully considered by the House. I would like to express great concern about that because it is unfair. The government made a commitment to users and that commitment should be fulfilled.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I would like to congratulate the member for Don Valley North. She has done us a great service. It is a very good step forward.
There are certain parts of the bill that I think need to be examined a little more closely. The member can be very sure that she will see the support of myself and my party to move this forward in the committee so that we can examine some of the issues that she has brought to light and some of the ongoing issues which are the end result of a minister of that day. The then minister from Kingston and the Islands, in such a rush to put a crown on her head and be the first to have amended copyright law, did not really care about or pay much attention to the serious flaws in the first section of copyright. She subsequently has not fulfilled her promise nor have the subsequent ministers fulfilled their promise to bring in the second phase of copyright.
It was a bill that needed to be amended. It was a 1924 bill. It needed to be updated. This government did an update in 1988 with Bill C-60. If I could just say to my hon. colleague, it probably was one of the big nightmares of my life. I could also tell my colleague that there was a lack of interest by all members from the government side of the House. They did not attend the close to four months' worth of hearings and advised me that there was nothing in that bill to worry about. They said that there was no need for consultation and that all the answers were in that bill. When we finally started to unfold and look at this tangled web, to use another expression, we discovered so many flaws, so many errors that I cannot remember the number of amendments that were brought forward to the first phase.
The second phase which is the whole key to copyright, fairness and balance, never came to see the light of day. There is a fundamental belief by all fair Canadians who recognize that intellectual matter belongs to the creator. Whether it is a person in the artistic field, a writer, a
composer, a choreographer, a dancer or someone drawing the plans for a building, an architectural design, they have the right to the creative endeavour and to be paid for it.
Educators have never argued that right. What educators have said from their perspective is that they have a very serious responsibility, that is the future of our young people, the future of our country and the future as they train and educate.
I was fascinated to learn about the member's responsibilities as media teacher. Of course there has been tremendous technological change. There has been tremendous movement forward with respect to how one learns and the medium through which one learns today. If we recognize the hundreds and hundreds of hours in which children sit in front of a television set and how they absorb and learn as compared with how many hours they spend in school, that alone, in and of and by itself makes for the recognition that they need to have access on a spontaneous use basis to many of the creative and researched articles that are done on News Magazine, on The Journal and on certain of our Canadian documentaries. I well understand the frustration of all educators out there that are in contradiction of the law and that essentially teach law and order. They teach moral precepts in terms of comportment, behaviour, honesty and integrity. Yet the teaching profession is forced to misuse and go against the grain.
On the other hand as well, while this bill was providing for stopping the haemorrhage, the piracy of intellectual property, it did not look at the other side of the coin. It did not examine the need for use and the mechanisms of fair use.
One of my concerns about her bill is the term fair use. That is an Americanization of the approach that we want to have here in Canada. There is a fair balance that we have to find. I would hope that she would be open to examining that and the kind of change that would have to be made to her bill, which is fundamentally sound with a few little changes here and there.
If we talk about the copyright being an issue of balance-if you use it you pay for it, except in certain conditions and under certain constraints-I think that the creators would be happy as would the educators and the researchers.

One of the most moving briefs came from the Canadian Institute of the Blind about the young women and men who need to have enlarged print, who need to have it now, who need to be able to use it so that they can keep up with their other colleagues. There is nothing wrong with these young people. They have all the intellectual attributes of anyone else. The deficiency, if you may call it that, or the handicap is that of being partially sighted.
There are many ways in which one can help the partially sighted. Among them is projection of a daily newspaper text on to a screen and the production of an enlarged script for them that they are able to read. No, that is against the law. That is totally unacceptable.
I would think that the hon. member's bill should move quickly into committee so that we can look at many of these areas.
I do not know if the member is aware of one of the facts that really annoyed me. The Minister of Communications received a letter early in July and he has received a subsequent follow-up letter sent September 2 which included all the groups that the hon. member alluded to: libraries, school boards, universities, CEGEPs, CNIB. They wrote the minister and asked for a meeting.
The hon. member brought to our attention, and rightly so, that the consultant committees were set up. It was a great coup when the creators sat down with the users and with the Department of Communications and drafted a list of those things which could be considered exemptions, those things which could be considered available for spontaneous use because they are timely, they are today. The accident did not happen yesterday. The Berlin wall did not fall then. It fell now. The Middle East peace talks are taking place now, not when the collective negotiated the list and the repertoire. It became pretty obvious that there were things that needed to be changed.
That consultative group got together. It came up with some sound proposals. The members found a common meeting ground. As they have not been able to get together and phase II has not been introduced, they wanted to meet with the minister to bring him up to date about where they were at, as he is a new minister. They also wanted to advise him that because the second phase is so long in forthcoming what they negotiated is now no
Private Members' Business
longer totally useful because of changing technology. They wanted to share with the minister what new changes need to be made to the list which he presently had or his staff had on hand. Still there is no answer from the minister.
That is totally unacceptable. I am not blaming the minister. I am blaming the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy should know that. The hon. member who is going to respond on behalf of the minister should be aware of this and bring it to his attention. She is a very hard working parliamentary secretary and I know she will diligently bring this to his attention.
It would be very interesting to find out in this committee what CANCOPY is doing. We are in the midst of status of the artist legislation in which we are supposedly responding to the needs of individual artists, which we are not; where we are supposedly responding to a variety of concerns.
We should be calling these groups before us. Let us hear what the writers, the film makers, and the TV people have to say. Let us get down to the bottom of CANCOPY, in or out, fair or unfair. Let us know what can be done for the universities and the libraries and our students in particular especially with illiteracy, the school drop-out rate and the need for a good manpower training program. Why is it not being done?
Thank you very much for presenting the bill. We support it.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member on an initiative that is really long overdue.
I have some concerns about the bill. However, certainly in terms of its over-all intent, we are very much in support of it. It is an initiative that has been needed for some time. The government has recognized the need to bring this in and we support it in its efforts. We would certainly like to see this bill move quickly to committee where I feel it could be strengthened somewhat and made into legislation that would provide effective support for those particular communities, such as the education community and the research community, that right now are often unknowingly in violation of copyright laws.

November 7, 1991
Private Members' Business
I come from a research and academic background. I was also an educator. I can remember when I was doing my graduate work some time ago. Graduate research involves copying large volumes of material for your own use in order to produce the thesis you may be working on. It is the nature of that kind of academic research that it has to involve that kind of activity.
Graduate students for years have been knowingly or unknowingly breaking copyright legislation. Universities have been. I would submit that every member's office in this House of Parliament in fact breaks copyright legislation in its day-to-day activities.
It is one of those areas in the whole field of communications where the the pace of technological change has outstripped our policy framework to manage that change.
A simple example would be as follows. A news article, a story, or a piece of literary work could easily be photocopied in an office in British Columbia. That photocopy can then be fed into a fax machine and transported electronically through satellite linkage and fibre optic linkage to an office here in Ottawa. That office can pick up the message either through another fax machine or through a fax modem built into a computer and print out that message. That is basically in violation of a copyright even though they are using legitimate means to communicate a message.
We have a really difficult situation here that requires changes to be made. The over-all intentions of the bill are good. In particular, reflecting back to the educational field, I think our educators need the widest range of choices available to communicate effectively with and teach our students of today.
Bill C-60, which was phase I of copyright reform, was passed back in June 1988. At that time the Minister of Communications indicated that educational exemptions and phase II of the copyright reform would not be long in coming. There was assurance given to this House at that time that the second round of amendments would in fact be introduced in the fall of that year. That was three years ago now. Successive ministers of communications have insisted that this phase II reform is just around the
comer. However that comer has been a long time coming.
Not only has this necessary reform been delayed too long, but certainly the policy direction of this government has remained very unclear. A year ago October the then Minister of Communications indicated in an unofficial speech that there was a change in policy. Instead of including exemptions proposed by two committees on phase II legislation, a new system was proposed by the then minister. Under that system all uses, including educational uses of copyrighted materials, would be subject to payment. Needless to say the outcry from the educational community was extreme and legitimate. It had been promised one thing and were now essentially being told another.
There have been mixed signals from the government in regard to phase II of copyright reform. That has caused the issue to become very confused, very agitated and very complex for educators, creators and people involved in non-profit academic research.
I would just like to give a couple examples of what people are up against without even really knowing it. It startles me as a former educator who taught in the sciences. I guess I broke copyright rules every day. I hope with that admission that the copyright cops do not come looking for me because I think it is indeed very common.
A poem written out in full on the blackboard for discussion in a class is a violation of copyright. A news program taped by a teacher, perhaps for an elementary class for discussion, is a violation of copyright. A rented film shown to a class is again a violation. Most educators are probably unaware of the fact that almost on a daily basis they are almost forced to break this law through their professional conduct.
Obviously the law is not working very well. It needs to be changed. This amending legislation does to some degree recognize the difficulty in making those changes.
Over the past little while my office has received a number of letters from educators right across Canada that are really concerned. They simply cannot contact every copyright holder. If there is an article they want to use for their class next day how are they going to write to the copyright holder and ask to use the material. It is simply impossible to function that way.
November 7, 1991

Educators have a right to know whether their actions contravene the copyright act. I think students, particularly those in post-secondary education, also have a right to know. They also have a right to be provided with the widest access to the information they need to pursue their education.
There are problems with the bill. I recognize that but I fully support its merits. In recognition of that we want to move this bill into committee stage so that we can listen to expert testimony from witnesses before the committee and then make the kinds of necessary amendments needed to make this legislation really work.
In the final analysis we have to ensure that there are built-in safeguards, provisions, and protections to ensure that educators and those involved in non-profit or educational academic research are given the freedom that is necessary to allow them to pursue their professional goals.
We concur in principle with the bill. Let us send it to committee and let us get good legislation out of this.


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a very outdated law: the current Canadian copyright law was proclaimed in 1924, and until two years ago was never substantially revised. This is a 68-year-old law that used such terms as "perforated rolls" and "mechanical contrivances". In the intervening years, we have seen the introduction of radio, television, photocopiers, audio and videotape recorders, computers, satellites and a variety of information storage and retrieval devices.
On the one hand, new technologies have greatly encouraged the creation and dissemination of Canadian creative works; they have helped in the actual production of such works and generated new methods and new markets for the exploitation of copyrighted works, thereby increasing the potential for financial compensation for rights holders.
On the other hand, while these technologies have helped disseminate the works of Canadian creators, they have allowed the use of such works without permission. Consequently, a host of complex legal problems have arisen, many of which require legislative solutions. We
Private Members' Business
began addressing these problems in 1988 when the 1924 Copyright Act was partially amended by Bill C-60 and the Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
The 1988 amendments made nine specific changes to the Copyright Act.
We increased criminal fines from a mere maximum of $200 to $1 million.
We gave explicit protection to computer programs; and enhanced moral rights to protect the reputation of the creator.
We enshrined a right of public presentation for artistic works; clarified the interface between copyright and industrial design.
We gave protection to choreography whether or not it has a story line; and we abolished compulsory licenses for the making of sound recordings, allowing for negotiated royalty fees within the marketplace.
Bill C-60 also encouraged the formation of collectives that represent the interests of copyright holders. Based on a concept which has worked well in the music industry for over 50 years, these collectives can be formed in all areas of copyright to negotiate licenses with the users of copyright materials.
Collectives provide users with quick and easy access to copyright materials. If the collectives and users are unable to agree on a fair royalty rate, either party may ask the Copyright Board to set the rate. As such, the amendments to the Copyright Act also broadened the mandate of the Copyright Board.
The changes I just mentioned were the beginning of the amendment process to an antiquated law. These amendments demonstrate a strong commitment by the government to proceed with further copyright revision to deal with other important issues. The amendments have also been welcomed and applauded by both the creator and user communities.
Bill C-269, before us today, deals with a copyright issue which requires careful attention. The government shares the hon. member's concerns and appreciates her efforts in attempting to find a solution to the complex area of the use of copyright materials for educational purposes. The issue here, however, is not whether to address the subject of exceptions but rather to determine the most appropriate method.

November 7, 1991
Private Members' Business
Bill C-269 presents one method of handling exceptions to the copyright law. The bill deals with "fair use", which would provide certain exceptions in the Copyright Act so that dealing with the copyright owner becomes unnecessary if a use is considered "fair" according to criteria set out in the law.
Viewed as a whole, Bill C-269 attempts to provide access to various users of copyright materials where such access is not available on a blanket license basis; that is, where a license is not available through a collective. However, ther are a number of problems inherent in the bill as well as external factors which require careful analysis and consideration.
Bill C-269 provides exceptions for schools and libraries, as well as other users. The bill is a significant departure from the concept of fair dealing contained in the current Canadian Copyright Act. Bill C-269's proposal is substantial. In some respects, it appears to be broader than the position reached during the dialogue which began several years ago between the government and creators and users, such as librarians and teachers. The government is using these discussions not simply as a reference point, but as an integral part of the current revisions governing exceptions that we will be proposing in the very near future. These discussions are crucial and must be taken into account in a comprehensive way in any amendments to the Copyright Act.
Copyright revision has always been a complex, controversial matter. One of the reasons for this is the balance that must be achieved between creators and users. But the provisions for exceptions are especially delicate; they are one of the clearest representations of that crucial need for balance. Given this need, the government made special efforts early on to ensure that both creators and users participated in the policy-making process for exceptions for libraries and educators.
In 1987-1988, two consultative committees were formed by the Department of Communications to discuss educational and library exceptions in the Copyright Act. In the beginning, creators and users came to the negotiating table at polar ends. Users wanted broad exceptions to allow them free access to works required for teaching and research and for library patrons. Creators were strongly opposed to such broad exceptions, since they perceived them as undermining the principle
of copyright and too greatly reducing royalties. After much debate over several years, which I understand was very lively at times, the two sides finally found some common ground.
The consultative committees agreed that specific exceptions for libraries and schools be set out in the law, as opposed to an exception of the idea of fair dealing. That way, schools and libraries would not be faced with the ambiguity of determining whether a certain activity would be considered fair dealing by the courts. Instead the exceptions would clearly outline the exact types of activities which would be freely permitted within the scope of the copyright law.
As I indicated earlier, the discussions which took place within these consultative committees will be used as the basis for the drafting of the educational and library exceptions in the next phase of amendments to the copyright act. The provisions we will be proposing are anticipated by creators and by the education and library communities. In addition, the council of ministers of education of Canada support these provisions.
I applaud and share my colleague's concern regarding the urgency and the importance of providing exceptions for educators and other users. The government's new amendments to the Copyright Act will be introduced in very short measure. I am confident that my colleague will find this to be a comprehensive package which strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of creators to fair compensation and the rights of users to have adequate access to copyrighted materials.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to applaud my colleague's initiative, a very interesting initiative indeed, and to thank my other colleagues for their very constructive comments. It was the hon. member for Don Valley North, if I am not mistaken.

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe this same member has a private member's motion and a petition on another important topic, family reunification. I think she should be commended for that. People already in this country are often separated for years from their spouses, children and other close relatives. I am delighted that she has taken this particular initiative as well. It is a serious problem that needs attention.
November 7, 1991

Let me address this one specifically. This member is providing leadership for her government and it is sadly needed not only in this area but in a number of others. I rose in the House of Commons today on a question and indicated that the government had in fact undertaken a number of initiatives which unfortunately had not gone very well in the area of education. I pointed out for example, the transfer of funds to colleges and universities; funds for training and retraining, research and development. I added as I recall, student aid.
I could have added copyright and I say that in this sense. When I talk to educational organizations across this country, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Association of Universities and Community Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of School Trustees and ask what their three major problems are I venture that copyright would be mentioned every single time.
This is a serious problem. It is a priority and I am delighted it is being dealt with. I hope that we can in fact proceed.
The question we have to ask is: Why has there been no action to date? What is the problem? It is a serious problem. People have identified it as such. It has been around for a long time. All kinds of organizations, people who talk to politicians and others have asked that it be dealt with. What is wrong?
I hate to say this, but it falls somewhat in line with the government's behaviour on a number of other dossiers. They are unable to solve a number of problems and this is one that needs to be resolved. We must not wait month after month, year after year before dealing with this. It is not necessarily easy, but we have some fundamental principles that we know are operative.
There is the creator of the work that must be rewarded. I believe that everyone wants that to happen. There is the learner that needs to use the material, as well as the teacher and the researcher. We know that has to occur. We also know that there are at times minimal uses that are very important in terms of preparing materials for teaching or research projects or what have you.
Private Members' Business
Therefore we have these fundamental principles in place. We know there must be a fair reward for the creator and fair use for those who need limited amounts of that creation in order to make a point in colleges, universities, schools and elsewhere.
The foundation is there. Who is affected by all of this?
I said it was a priority. It is a priority not only because it has been around for a long time. People are frustrated. They want a decision and they are feeling very awkward in terms of what is actually happening in classrooms today. My colleagues have mentioned that.
The students in colleges, universities, high schools, elementary schools and in certain instances, the teachers and professors also need some guidelines on copyrights as do researchers and research libraries. Some people have special handicaps or certain disabilities, if you wish, in terms of learning. Because there are limited amounts of material and because they have special needs, we need to deal with it and be able to help them as well.

What should we do now while we are debating this bill? I think it does give us some basis, some direction, some guidance, if you will.
I think it is time to hear from all sides, from people who want to talk to us about this bill, to listen to them carefully, as we are presently doing, and to take their suggestions, comments and insights into account in order to proceed.
I must repeat-and I want to be very honest about this because I think that a number of people do not see the dilemma-that there is a major problem. I talked about the students, the teachers, the researchers, the library workers and other people who are frustrated and do not know what to do. It is up to us to take this opportunity to proceed. So let us not let this chance go by.

Having said that, I believe this is a meaningful contribution. We have the basis for discussion and should now proceed and invite people to address the question so that we can improve upon the various sections that do need improvement.
I do not want to prolong my address. I simply want to propose that this subject matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

November 7, 1991
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Cole:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to understand what the member is proposing here.
He has suggested that the subject matter of this particular piece of legislation be referred to a standing committee. My concern with that is that standing committees are masters of their own destiny. Are we obliging the standing committee to look into this particular piece of legislation or are we obliging them to look into the whole matter of the Copyright Act? If we are doing that, are we not infringing upon the work and effort and independence, if you like, of the standing committee? I would like that clarified.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, clearly the committee can makes it own decision but I wonder if, in light of the support for this bill, there is in the House unanimous consent to give it second reading and refer it to a legislative committee.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I suggest that the order for second reading be withdrawn and the subject matter of the bill be referred to a standing committee. I am wondering if that is acceptable. It would mean that the committee can pick it up and study it in the normal course. Obviously there are many things referred to the committee. The committee is in control of its own agenda and is able to make up its mind as to what it wishes to study and in what depth, but it is a way of pursuing the subject further in light of the government's unwillingness to allow second reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow it to go to a committee?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been moved by Ms. Greene that Bill C-269, an act to amend the Copyright Act (fair use), be now read a second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, that is not the agreement. The agreement was that the order for second reading be withdrawn and the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Order discharged, bill withdrawn and subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, on September 19 of this year I asked the Prime Minister about the state of the economy and what he was prepared to do in light of the fact that we were in an absolutely stalled position in terms of the economy.
The results of the recession were having a very serious impact on my riding, and Montreal in particular, and certainly across the country. In answer to the questions that I posed on the economy, the statistics and on what the potential future was for the families, the seniors and for youth in my riding and the hope that they would have a job and have something to look forward to in terms of improving the quality of their lives, the Deputy Prime Minister promptly, in a sense, criticized the Statistics Canada study which said that less than 1 per cent improvement in the family incomes was the experience of the decade of the 80s.
He went on to laud his government's economic policies which have been one of high dollar-the highest since 1976-high interest rates and the wrong tax at the wrong time with the GST which created the recession, the results of which were shown in the Statistics Canada study.
I then asked a second question of the Prime Minister suggesting that the exaggerations, the lack of understanding, the lack of clarity, the lack of content and the lack of forthrightness in the response of the Deputy Prime Minister were unbecoming of the country and the nation at this time when there were great anxieties concerning a destabilized economy and a destabilized, very cynical public.
The Prime Minister said: "Never mind about the
600,000	Quebecers who are out of work", and he went on to laud the drug bill and the implications for new drugs
November 7, 1991

research and "never mind the whole business about generics."
The facts are that in my riding alone we need 463 units a year. The government has only built 300 units of social housing and we have 4,000 low income households in Cote de Neiges that pay more than 30 per cent of their income in rent and we need these new housing units.
The other fact is that one person in four knows poverty. Six hundred thousand are without work. We are the unemployment capital of Canada. Thirty-two per cent of the residents live below the poverty line, seven communities have more than 40 per cent poor, 374 centres distribute food at food banks and 80 do not even have enough food to distribute, 29 per cent of people under age 18 and 32 per cent of those over 65 live in poverty, 15,000 people are without homes, 4,000 of them sleep on the streets in Montreal, and a large number are the youth without work, without hope, and without any education.
That is where our big problem lies.
I want to draw attention to the fact that in Montreal alone 25,000 households now depend on food banks every single month, an increase of 23 per cent since last year. It is the fastest growing industry in Montreal.
My question was: "Mr. Prime Minister, what are you going to do in the face of these facts?" The answer was: "Increase the ability of drug producers to produce more drugs".


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mount Royal maintains that this government's policies are to blame for the fact that family incomes did not increase during the eighties and that Canadians have been hard hit by unemployment. Let me set the record straight.
When my government came to power in 1984, the economy was just recovering from a world-wide recession, aggravated by the poor administration of the previous government. That is the situation we inherited, and we were successful in doing something about it. In fact, we completely turned the situation around. Our economic policies helped to stop the drop in average
Adjournment Debate
family income which occurred between 1980 and 1984 under the previous government. Our policies also brought about real growth in family income for the first time since 1980.
In fact, between 1984 and 1989, there has been real growth in family income at the rate of 2 per cent per annum, which compares very favourably with the growth Canada experienced during the seventies. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to hon. members that according to the study by Statistics Canada, the gap between rich and poor widened during the first three years of the eighties. In 1984, however, there was a general upturn which continued until the end of the decade.
Mr. Speaker, this government believes that jobs are the best income security for Canadians. I may point out that economic policies implemented since 1984 have created 1.6 million new jobs.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to a call for help from food banks in Montreal by promising to organize a round table conference on poverty. I was referring to a recent study by Moisson Montreal which revealed that more than 25,000 households in Montreal now depend on food banks every month, an increase of 23 per cent since last year.
When the study was released, Sid Stevens, director of Sun Youth, the biggest food bank in Montreal, said that food banks were no longer able to meet the demand.

When Sun Youth opened its food bank in 1981, it was supposed to be a temporary service to help the poor during the recession. Mr. Stevens now says that food banks have become a necessity, a way of life, and now give out more than 4,000 food baskets a month.
Reverend William McCarthy, executive director of Montreal's Old Brewery Mission, said: "I have never seen it this bad in 30 years". The same message was conveyed by the director of Montreal Harvest, John Pasquini: "The demand for food is outweighing the supply. Governments have to make the plight of the poor an urgent priority".

Adjournment Debate

I have also been in touch lately with Le garde-manger pour tous, another food bank in my riding which mostly serves southwest Montreal. Those in charge said they also lacked the resources to respond to increased demand.
Mr. Speaker, Le garde-manger pour tous, Sun Youth, Moisson Montreal and The Old Brewery Mission are all saying the same thing: they can no longer meet the demand. They are asking all three levels of government to set aside their jurisdictional quarrels and consider how this problem can be solved.
Unfortunately there has been no response so far, and it seems the Prime Minister has not had time to visit Sun Youth. In fact, Mr. Stevens invited the Prime Minister to visit Sun Youth over a year ago.

Ele wanted the Prime Minister to see for himself how Sun Youth operates. Mr. Stevens added in a letter to the Prime Minister: "During recessions, the requests put on us for aid escalate to the point where we are unable to meet the demand. This is a time when we Canadians, politicians, corporate leaders and those of us involved in providing these charitable services must come together to overcome the problem our lesser fortunate compatriots are faced with".
To this invitation, the Prime Minister's office replied: "It is impossible to include this event in the Prime Minister's heavy agenda".
In May 1991 Mr. Stevens again wrote to the Prime Minister inviting him to visit Sun Youth. In September in another letter, Mr. Stevens informed the Prime Minister during the postal strike Sun Youth had over 1,000 seniors in one day lining up at the food bank asking for support. It was a record number.
When I raised this question with the Prime Minister, he said that he found the suggestion interesting, that he would look at it and that he would report back to me.
Sun Youth is still waiting for an answer, and so are the
53,000	Montrealers who now use food banks every month. I urge the Prime Minister to accept Mr. Stevens
invitation, and to accept the invitation that has been extended by the Sun Youth organization.
I hope that he will visit Sun Youth before Christmas. [Translation]


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that many poor hungry Canadians depend on food banks. The people in charge of those banks see the misery and even despair of individuals who have to rely on that type of emergency assistance. In addition, they always have to try to obtain enough gifts of food.
I congratulate them on their work and their dedication to the needy. We face a complex multidimensional problem for which there are no easy answers. In many ways, this phenomenon reflects some deep changes in society.
We must face these changes, but we must also recognize that there are no one-dimensional solutions. We must try to deal with social and demographic changes. Given the available financial resources, we must try to preserve our social programs as much as possible. In particular, we must help Canadians acquire new job skills so that they can adapt to the demands of an ever-changing market.
We must therefore work on finding solutions to economic and social problems while striving to ensure that all Canadians can live in dignity, with suitable food and adequate housing.
To solve the human and social problems confronting us, we must put the country's finances in order and that is why the government is determined to reduce the deficit. We cannot go on indefinitely allowing a national debt as big as ours-$15,000 for every man, woman and child-to continue to grow.


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, my question on June 17 was: Will the minister assure the women of Canada that there will be no further substantive cuts both to funding for women's programs and to funding for women's groups. Will he restore funding to pre-1988 levels and index such funding?

November 7, 1991



May I remind the minister that women make up more than half the population of Canada-52 per cent. In a democratic society, the needs and concerns of more than half the population must be taken into consideration.
Women are not a special interest group. We should enjoy complete access to funding, funding I might add that is not uncertain, funding that is not insecure or precarious and funding that does not teeter on the brink of the government's own idea of what the fiscal imperatives are.
While I commend the government for the step forward it is taking in the direction of understanding such things as violence against women-and by the step forward, I mean only the appointment of the Canadian panel on Violence Against Women-I find such a commitment whose price tag is $10 million and a commitment, as I say that I appreciate, at odds with its unwillingness to fund other programs for women. This is not something that can be dealt with on a single initiative. It is something that must be dealt with on numerous initiatives.
Just today we received Living Without Fear, the response of the government to the report of the subcommittee on the status of women entitled "The War Against Women". This is effectively what I am talking about. In this report there are many pretty words, but there is very little for the women of Canada to hang their hopes on. We read such words as support vis-a-vis such words as funding.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is the word funding that we need to hear. It is the word funding that means everything to the women's groups that are hanging by a thread out there in every province and territory in this country.
These groups and the persons who work for them, most often on a volunteer basis or on wages that put them squarely in the category of the working poor, are a primary source of information for the members of the Canadian panel on violence against women. It seems to me unfair that they should suffer, that they should have to take low salaries and poor conditions because of their commitment to an ideal that the government talks about being committed to as well.
Adjournment Debate
That is why it is so crucial that these groups know that funding will not be cut off, not in next year's budget or the budget after that. It is also crucial that the funding be indexed. These women work in conditions, as I have already stated, that are not of the best. They need to know that their programming and their very futures which are so crucial to women in crisis in their communities will carry on. They need to know that the government's commitment or alleged commitment to true equality between the sexes extends to them, the soldiers in the front lines of the battle.
Consequently I urge the government to let the women of Canada know just what its real commitment is to this urgent issue. It is time to close the credibility gap and the hypocrisy and let us know just what exactly is going on with funding.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax is asking the government not to cut women's programs in the Secretary of State this year. Well, her wishes have been answered, there were no cuts in the budget for this year.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, like all members in this House, is very sensitive to women's issues. We meet quite often with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and I think I can say that, despite the fact that we do not always see eye to eye, we maintain an excellent working relationship with the committee, which we wish to continue.
The Secretary of State, along with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, have demonstrated their commitment to stopping family violence. We have committed $6.6 million over four years to that end. We have targeted underprivileged women, women in remote areas and also native women who face the same kind of problems. We also created a new committee of men and women whose mandate is to look at family violence. I will conclude by saying to the hon. member, who has a keen interest in women's issues, that governments should not be the only ones to act, women themselves should get involved and should fund national committees whose role would be to help our sisters get out of their plight.

Adjournment Debate


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago, I had a question for the Solicitor General, but in his absence it was answered by the Minister of Justice. The question referred to a constituent of mine who worked for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service-CSIS, our own secret service. I raised with the minister the problem of my constituent who was contaminated by bacteria or substances during a search of debris or residues of the fire at the Soviet consulate in January 1987.
Since he was a resident of Saint-Bruno, he came to my office and said: "Listen, I asked CSIS for compensation, and I asked them what the contaminant was. Was it a bacteria or some kind of product that the Soviet Union put on its papers or on objects that burned in the fire?" He never got an answer, and he was fired.
I know there is a case before the courts involving this agent of our secret service, but this does not prevent the government from being fair to a person who did an honest day's work for the government and simply wants to know what is wrong and whether he can get compensation, since he can't work as a result of the respiratory infection and problems he now has as a result of this search.
There are other questions, Mr. Speaker, but the main one is: Who authorized this search? Was it a spontaneous fire or did we set the fire?
Finally, I am not asking these questions because I am a great big paranoid Quebecer, but the fact is, we in Quebec are used to seeing our bams burnt and our membership cards stolen. So I would like some specific answers to these questions from the minister.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want my hon. colleague to know that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did bring to the attention of the Solicitor General the question he raised in this House on October 11.
My colleague acknowledged, when he first asked this question, that he knew the issue was before the courts. As everyone knows, when legal proceedings are ongoing, the Solicitor General cannot interfere or make any statements that might cause prejudice.
My colleague referred to the health status of his constituent. I just want to tell him the government and CSIS are well aware of their responsibilities and they know they have to ensure the health and security of all their employees, not just those ones, but all of their employees. They take their responsibilities very seriously and will continue to do so. When it was created, the service applied Treasury Board policies and guidelines on occupational health and safety. Since March 1986, CSIS had complied with the provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code which governs issues of occupational health and safety. It also has an official mandate and has concluded a memorandum of understanding on this matter with its unionized and non-unionized employees. Some funds have been earmarked for the safety requirements of buildings and projects.
As for my colleague's comments, which some media have also made regarding CSIS's activities, government policy is not to comment on any CSIS operations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 8, 1991