1991-06-06

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation that represented Canada at the twenty-fourth meeting of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, held in Paris, Calais, Lyon and the Alps from April 5 to April 15, 1991.


BILL C-202 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of legislative committee A on Bill C-202, an act respecting a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, without amendment.
I might say that this is the first committee I have ever sat on in which all the members were on one side of the table. The members of each party spoke strongly in favour of the bill, expressing their support for the concept and the idea.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag).
He said: As we have heard, this is a bill making it an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada to desecrate the flag.
I think all members of the House will remember that this legislation was chosen as a votable item by the elections and privileges committee during the last session of Parliament, but did not have the opportunity to proceed to debate and a vote because Parliament prorogued.
I must say that I have been very pleased with the tremendous support since this bill was introduced in the summer of 1990. There has been support from all across Canada. I have been on national television and radio talk shows. Some of the strongest endorsements came from the Royal Canadian Naval Association and the National Council of Veterans Association, representing 19 varied associations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, May 23, 1991, the following motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted:

June 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings

That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) and Order made Thursday, May 23, 1991, consideration of Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, be extended beyond June 7, 1991.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a number of petitions from constituents in my riding. These particular constituents reside in the communities of Lumby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous and Enderby.
These petitioners are calling upon the government to reconsider its decision to force the provinces to either increase funding for the RCMP, in many cases far greater than the municipalities can afford, or to decrease services and close detachments.
We recognize that a decision has been made recently in this regard.
These petitioners had signed these beforehand, but I think the petitioners are still relevant in presenting their case that RCMP services should be maintained at their current level, with the current levels of funding by the federal government.
On behalf of these petitioners, I present these to the House today.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by quite a number of my constituents in the riding of Timmins-Chapleau, and in particular in South Porcupine.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services. They also call on Parliament to reject the Conservative agenda to cut back and close these post offices.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition from people in the riding of Perth- Wellington-Waterloo, the communities of Stratford, Mitchell and Shakespeare.
The petitioners consider the Income Tax Act discriminatory against the people who choose to stay home and look after their children as compared to buying child care services.
They believe the credits and allowances make it more advantageous for people with families to live together in an unmarried rather than a married state. They believe the system is cumbersome.
The petitioners pray that the House will amend the Income Tax Act to make it fair and equitable for all family arrangements that are available.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition deals with the goods and services tax, the tax that was supposed to be so simple and so effective. It was supposed to be revenue neutral.
My constituents from the communities of Rainy River, Emo, and Fort Frances ask that this particular tax be rescinded. They humbly petition this place, this House of Parliament, to rescind the goods and services tax and find a simple, fair and efficient means to levy taxes in Canada.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which deals with the government's large tax increases and its belief that in order to get its house in order, it would discriminate against working men and women in this country by freezing their wages in the public sector, and by doing so, enabling itself to get out of the mess that it put itself in.
Again, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining in this country for Canadian workers.
June 6, 1991

Government Orders


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition today signed by the residents of Saskatchewan, some from my riding and some neighbouring my riding in the communities of Debden and Big River, rural Saskatoon and Shelbrooke.
The petitioners state that 12,000 Canadian members of our merchant navy served their country during the Second World War, 1,259 of whom died in combat.
The petitioners state that the United States and the United Kingdom have recognized that merchant seamen are veterans, and they state that approximately 3,500 Canadians served in dangerous waters during the last war and seek what they sought since the end of the war: equal recognition, entitlement and benefits, a position supported by the Royal Canadian Legion.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation that would confer veteran status to those who served in Canada's merchant navy during the Second World War.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Dingwall:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been some discussions among the three political parties. I am not seeking unanimous consent. I just wish to inform the House that there will be one speaker for the government, one speaker for the Official Opposition and, I believe, one speaker for the New Democratic Party.
Then, when that debate collapses, which we would presume would be prior to one o'clock, it would go on division. Thereafter at three o'clock we would proceed with the discussion of Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act, post-Question Period.
I believe the parliamentary secretary is aware of that, and I apprise my colleagues in the New Democratic Party as well.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that these are the discussions and that we on this side are certainly pleased to co-operate with that.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus, I just want to say that we concur with that decision.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-17 which amends Part III of the Criminal Code dealing with firearms and other weapons.
All Canadians are aware of the need for changes to Canada's gun control system. This government is committed to the reduction of crime, and effective gun control measures are an important part of Canada's criminal law. The time is right for this House to respond to the concerns of all Canadians. Four out of five Canadians support stronger gun control and with good reason. Most important, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the increase of firearms violence.
The ownership of firearms of all kinds is increasing and Canadian police forces are becoming increasingly concerned about the frequency with which they are being used in crimes of all kinds, ranging from domestic violence to armed robbery and even mass murder.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
There is some misunderstanding about the nature of the issue and the nature of firearms related violence or homicides with respect to urban and rural Canadians. In fact, public opinion polls show that the concern for stronger gun control is shared by Canadians who live in communities of less than 10,000 people as much as by Canadians who live in large urban centres.
In addition, according to the Canadian justice statistics, homicide rates caused by firearms are just as high per capita in small communities under 10,000 as in large communities. In fact, they are greater per capita in communities under 10,000 than in communities of greater than 500,000 and are only exceeded by communities from 100,000 to 250,000.
The concern for firearms related homicides and the concern to have effective and sensible gun control is a concern that is shared by Canadians all across this country in communities of all sizes in urban and rural areas.
The existing gun control law has not changed significantly since January 1, 1978 and changes are needed. This government is being asked to take strong and effective measures to control firearms. As the hon. members of this House are aware, on June 26, 1990, I introduced Bill C-80 which contained a number of new gun control proposals. This bill was studied by a special committee of members of this House which produced a report containing a total of 32 recommendations for changes in the legislation.
Many of these recommendations make a contribution to stronger controls and have been taken into account in revising the legislation. Bill C-17 is the government's response to the special committee report.
I am grateful for the hard work and support of the committee members, and I would like to thank them for their contribution to the new legislation.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-80 was to provide better protection for all Canadians against firearms violence, while avoiding undue or unnecessary interference in the activities of Canadians who use guns legally, responsibly, and safely.
The legislation now before this House contains a number of modifications to Bill C-80, but the fundamental purpose remains the same. I believe that the modifications that have been made contribute to the achievement of a safer, more balanced, and more effective gun control system.
The measures contained in this Bill will improve Canada's gun control system in many different ways. Taken together, they comprises a package that will help to ensure that those who should not have guns do not have guns.
They will take the wrong guns out of all hands, and all guns out of the wrong hands. They will result in better screening of gun buyers, and they will limit access to the most dangerous types of firearms. They will reduce the accidental misuse of guns. They will encourage the responsible ownership and use of guns by all Canadians. They will help to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them or who might use them for criminal purposes. And finally, they will increase deterrence for those who may use guns criminally or negligently.
I believe that these measures, with your strong support, will help alleviate the personal sense of fear and vulnerability that many people experience in today's society.

Under the new proposals deterrence of firearms crime will be increased by raising the maximum sentences for some of the offences created by the gun control law. Witnesses who appeared before the Reimer committee, the special committee of the House of Commons, including police and customs officers, suggested that one major source of illegal firearms is illegal imports. To respond to this, the maximum sentences for importing, possessing or selling prohibited weapons will all increase from five to ten years.
Another major concern expressed by the police community has been the association of firearms with specific areas of criminal activity. In response to this, the legislation will also extend the use of prohibition orders to offences of drug trafficking as a bail condition and upon conviction.
To supplement this, the sentence for possessing any firearm while under a court prohibition order will also increase from five to ten years.
June 6, 1991

Canadians are very concerned about problems of violence against women and violence in domestic situations, and 1 share these concerns. All members of this House will realize that this is not just a gun control problem, but clearly firearms are a factor in many situations and the gun control law must recognize this. The presence of firearms in many homes raises grave concerns when domestic disputes occur. Too many of the domestic homicides that occur in Canada each year involve a firearm: easy access to a gun in a domestic dispute is an invitation to tragedy.
An important difference between gun control and other elements of Canada's criminal law and justice system is that gun control seeks to prevent as well as deter firearms incidents. Several elements of this bill will address concerns about domestic violence by helping the justice system to remove guns from potentially violent situations at the earliest possible time.
The present law provides for mandatory or discretionary firearms prohibition orders where there is a conviction for a violent offence. The new legislation will require the courts to consider firearms prohibition orders before conviction in some cases. When an accused person has been charged with an offence in which violence was used, threatened, or attempted, the court will be required to consider whether to make prohibition or other conditions a part of the bail order if the safety of any person might be jeopardized by not doing so.
A similar process will apply to peace bond applications which often arise during domestic disputes. This measure is intended to encourage the police and the courts to remove firearms from potentially violent situations before tragedy can occur. Where a person is convicted of a violent offence that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, a five-year firearms prohibition order is already mandatory. This legislation will increase the prohibition to 10 years, with a lifetime prohibition for any repeat offence. Where the sentence available is less than 10 years, the courts currently have the discretion to prohibit for up to five years; but there are concerns that prohibitions are underused.
Under the proposed amendments the court will retain this discretion but will be required by law to consider prohibition even where the matter is not raised by counsel.
Government Orders
Under the present law police may also make an application to a court where they have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing a person to keep a firearm or acquisition certificate would endanger the safety of any person. This provision is an important one for domestic violent situations and will be kept unchanged.
I will be asking my provincial counterparts to encourage police officers across Canada to use it wherever possible to remove firearms from dangerous situations before they can cause harm.
Taken in combination, I believe that these changes should substantially increase the use of firearms prohibitions as a means of removing firearms from potentially dangerous situations, many of them domestic disputes, both before and after a conviction for any offence.
I might add that certainly one of the concerns that has been raised by lawful and responsible firearms users in Canada is the notion that the law must be enforced adequately and must address the criminal and misuse of firearms. I think that message was very well received and I think that these additions to the legislation that came as a result of the consultation surrounding Bill C-80 strengthen it and really make a significant and helpful addition to the over all legislative framework.
For those who are concerned that the law is not enforced strictly enough with respect to firearms offences, two other approaches I wish to take, which are not inherent in the legislation are, first of all, to draft prosecutorial guidelines for my own prosecutors in the territories. I am the prosecutor for the criminal law only in the territories of Canada. I think the public would like to ensure that these offences are dealt with seriously and that Crown counsel does not plea bargain away such offences. I will provide my own guidelines for consultation with my provincial counterparts in September when we meet to encourage them to perhaps develop the same ones.
In addition, I have had discussions with the Director of the Canadian Judicial Centre about the possibility in the course of the judicial education programs provided to judges to provide some component that would sensitize members of our judiciary to the seriousness with which Canadians view offences related to firearms and their concern that these laws be carefully enforced. I have had

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
a very positive response to that. It is a broadly based initiative to try and ensure that the misuse of firearms is the major focus of our criminal activity.

Madam Speaker, the proposed legislation also contains a number of improvements to the screening system for those who request permission to acquire firearms. The firearms acquisition certificate system is at the heart of Canadian gun control.
By controlling the acquisition certificate, we insure that anyone who wants to obtain a gun must first be screened. Members will recall that this certificate is necessary to acquire a gun in any fashion, whether by purchase, gift, or loan.
The system only requires that those who want to keep a FAC be re-screened every five years to be sure that they are still suitable.
The screening system is a key element of our gun control proposals, and the legislation I have placed before this House contains many proposed changes to it. It will require all applicants to furnish two personal references who can assist those conducting the screening check. It will require a minimum 28 day waiting period during which that check will be carried out.
To prevent use by unauthorized persons, it will require the new FAC document to include a photograh of the holder. Finally, it will require FAC applicants to pass a firearms safety course or test.

Many concerns have been raised about the safety training requirement, especially on behalf of those Canadians for whom such a requirement might present an unnecessary or undue hardship. The new proposals will authorize local firearms officers who accept an FAC application to certify competence and knowledge without a formal test.
Regulations will be enacted to guide this discretion and to ensure that the exception is applied fairly and consistently. I anticipate that it may be used where the applicant can provide some other evidence of competence or where he or she is not able to complete a formal written examination.
It is difficult in this enormous country of ours with enormous regional variations to legislate fairly for all Canadians. We have to recognize that we have many Canadians who live in very remote areas. We have many Canadians who, unfortunately, are not literate and it is important to ensure that the standard is met but at the same time that the implementation is sufficiently flexible so as not to exclude Canadians who would otherwise be able to establish their competence.
A national safety education program is now being developed in consultation with my advisory council and provincial authorities. This provision will be proclaimed in force as soon as it can be implemented.
Concerns have also been raised about the possible liability of those who act as references. It has been suggested that the possibility of being held responsible for the applicant's use of firearms would effectively deter most potential references. It has also been suggested that the fear of liability might deter references from being candid about the applicant's suitability.
To address this problem, the law will make clear that a reference cannot be held civilly or criminally liable unless there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead the police, either by providing false information or deliberately failing to reveal significant information when it is requested.
I want to make it absolutely clear that references are only expected to assist the authorities to ensure that only those who do not represent a danger to the safety of themselves or anyone else are given access to firearms. Provided this basic standard is met, there will be no liability of any kind.
Concerns have also been raised that young people have access to firearms with too few restrictions. The new legislation will require FAC applicants between 16 and 18 years of age to obtain parental consent.

In many areas of Canada, the use of firearms by young persons is an important, and even an essential part of daily life. The law must provide for this, but it must also be sure that young persons are subject to appropriate supervision and controls.
In addition to requiring parental consent for a FAC application, the amendments will also give parents the option of consenting to a minors' permit up to age 18.
June 6, 1991

The minors' permit allows limited access to young people, and may have special conditions placed on it for supervision.

The fee charged for an acquisition certificate is currently $10. This is far below the cost of the screening process. The level is fixed by the statute and has not been changed since the last amendments were made in 1978. The new legislation will make it possible to set the fee by regulation which will allow for periodic adjustments to reflect changes in the cost of running the screening system.
There is no intention to use high fees to deter legitimate gun owners, but the taxpayers have been heavily subsidizing the current system. This government is committed to the principle of cost recovery and the firearms community agrees with us. Most of those who appeared on behalf of firearms groups before the special committee on gun control indicated that they believe that firearms owners should pay reasonable screening costs.

Madam Speaker, it has been suggested that the focus of Canada's gun control system be changed from screening FAC applicants to registering all firearms.
The present system requires a screening check before a person can acquire a gun of any kind. Those firearms that represent a greater risk are designated as restricted weapons, and these must be registered. The owners are recorded by the RCMP, and transfers must be reported.
The combination of these two systems allows us to focus the additional resources needed to register and track firearms on those types of guns associated with additional risk. Mandatory registration of all firearms would place much greater demands on the existing system.
It would require trained police officers to spend more time reviewing gun registrations, and less time screening the people who will possess the guns they are registered.
Registering firearms would tell us how many legal guns there are in Canada, Madam Speaker, but it would have little effect on their use in crime, or on the number of deaths and injuries caused by suicides and accidents each year.
Government Orders
In a time of fiscal restraint, this government prefers to concentrate the available gun control resources in those areas of the system that will provide real benefits to firearms users and to the public safety.
It has also been suggested that the expiry time for acquisition certificates be changed. Gun owners would like to see a longer term or easier renewals. Those on the other side of the issue would like to see FAC holders required to re-apply after only two years. The present five year period strikes an effective balance between rescreening too often and not often enough. To reduce this period to two or three years would increase screening costs without any benefit to public safety. To increase it beyond five years or to reduce the screening process would be to compromise public safety. This government will not compromise the safety of the Canadian public.
The amendments I am proposing have been carefully considered with a view to protecting all Canadians from firearms violence. They are also intended to regulate the possession and use of firearms in ways which make it possible for those who require them to obtain and use them with a minimum of unnecessary interference.
One way of doing this is to focus the regulatory system, as much as possible, on types of firearms associated with the greatest risk to public safety, and relatively few, if any, legitimate sporting uses.
There have been concerns raised about the increasing prevalence of military and high fire-power firearms in Canada since the law was last amended in 1978. Hon. members will recall that effective controls on fire-power were a major component of my earlier legislative proposals.
There are still serious concerns about these firearms that this House must address and they remain a key element of the current proposals. These firearms represent a much greater danger to the public than others and they are dealt with accordingly.
Those who own military or paramilitary firearms, fully automatic or converted fully automatic firearms face a much greater degree of restriction than others because their guns are much more dangerous. They are designed and intended for military, not sporting uses.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
The laws dealing with these types of firearms are tough, and I make no apology for that. Many other countries have already prohibited machine guns and other military firearms and more will almost certainly do so in the future.
These amendments will make it clear that these guns have no place in Canada. In 1978 machine guns were made prohibited weapons. There are now large numbers of machine guns in Canada that have been converted to comply with the 1978 law but which still pose a serious threat. They cannot fire automatically but they have other characteristics such as military design and large magazine capacities which make them a problem. In many cases they can be reconverted to machine guns without great difficulty.
The amendments will allow those who now own such firearms to keep their guns, subject to restrictions on transfers to others. The only legitimate reason for wanting a converted machine gun is for a gun collection, and the amendments will only permit collectors who already own them to register them.
The amendments also include a definition of a genuine gun collector and will establish quite significant criteria and standards which must be met before someone can qualify for that category.
Before registering such a firearm, the police would ensure that it has been converted satisfactorily. I recognize that these individuals have obtained their guns legally and will now, in some cases, be unable to sell them. What the law will do is allow those who have these guns to keep them and to sell them to others who also already own similar ones. As these owners die or lose interest in their firearms, the guns will be forced out of circulation so that future generations of Canadians will not be faced with them.
These proposals are the best possible solution. I might add that this was the approach to grandfathering that was taken in 1978 with respect to automatic firearms and it has worked well, because in order to retain those firearms people have had to be brought into the system to be registered. They are known to the policing authorities and it gives us a much better handle on what firearms are there. Standards can be imposed for safe storage and safe handling and that, I think, has worked
very well with respect to those firearms. That is a closed class. Those firearms will go out of circulation as will the converted automatics.
These proposals take into account the property interests of present owners who obtained the guns legally, but most important, the interests of all Canadians which require that they be taken out of circulation entirely.

When I initially introduced Bill C-80, I indicated that it was also my intention to designate other types of military or paramilitary firearms as restricted or prohibited weapons.
This is intended to restrict the availability of the most dangerous firearms, and at the same time, underscore the traditional Canadian idea that firearms in society are more properly regarded as tools for hunting or sporting purposes and not weapons for personal or civil defence. These roles are very capably performed by the police and the armed forces of Canada, and should not serve as a justification for the private ownership of firearms.
It is not my intention, however, to restrict or prohibit every single type of firearm that has ever seen military service. I recognize that many older-style military guns have seen valuable service as hunting firearms.
What I am concerned about, and what the legislation seeks to control, are modem military firearms that contain high firepower, fast-firing mechanisms, large capacity cartridge magazines, and other characteristics that make them very dangerous weapons, and have little or no place in legitimate sporting activities. Where there are relatively few legitimate uses for these firearms, they would be prohibited altogether.
Where they are used for some forms of legitimate target shooting activity, they may be designated as restricted weapons, which would allow the activity to continue, but protect the public by registering and tracking the guns and their owners.

I want to reassure those who own obsolete military firearms such as the Lee Enfield that this proposal is intended to reduce access to the most modern semi-automatic military assault weapons.
June 6, 1991

Older models do not differ significantly from many common hunting rifles. There would be no point prohibiting or restricting these firearms and this government has no intention of doing so.
The Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms, which combines expertise and viewpoints from all sides of the firearms issue, is currently considering criteria for identifying military type firearms and will be reporting to me in the near future.
A number of the members of the advisory council, as firearms users themselves, have already pointed out the sporting applications of older military surplus guns. While I cannot predict the criteria the council will put forward, I am sure that it will reflect the necessary balance.
I would also point out that the final decision will be that of the government. The council is advisory, but the final decision will be made by the government. Those regulations will have the opportunity to be reviewed by this House.
There are many similarities and differences between military and sporting firearms. In trying to identify military guns, the law will have to pay close attention to the differences. Those guns that are clearly of a military nature will be dealt with as I have explained.
The most critical difference is the capacity of the cartridge magazine. The addition of a large magazine can convert almost any ordinary semi-automatic hunting rifle into an assault weapon. This legislation will designate large capacity magazines to be prohibited weapons.
It will also allow the Governor in Council to specify the types of magazine that will be limited and the capacity limits to be applied.
Limiting the size of magazines will supplement the other measures by placing effective limits on the firepower of guns that are on the borderline between military and sporting applications.
The previous proposals would have placed controls on magazine capacity, and the same limitations will also be imposed under the legislation now before this House.
If these amendments become law, I will be developing regulations that will limit the capacity of magazines for semi-automatic handguns to 10 shots, and will limit the
Government Orders
capacity of magazines for centrefire semi-automatic rifles to five shots, exactly as I proposed in the context of Bill C-80.
The fire-power of non semi-automatics and rim-fire .22 calibre rifles does not represent a problem. Magazines for these firearms would not be limited at all.
I also recognize that there are those who engage in legitimate target shooting competitions which normally use magazines that would become prohibited under the proposal. Where involvement in such an activity is established, these persons will be permitted to retain their magazines for competitive purposes. The controls will be strict, however.
Competition activities must be sanctioned and those who take part will only be permitted to keep magazines that are required for suitable types of firearms and firearms which they actually own and possess.
I also recognize that many semi-automatic firearms cannot be used without the magazines designed for them. Collectors and other persons who have large magazines will be permitted to keep them provided that they are modified in an approved manner to reduce capacity to an acceptable limit. The regulations will be worded in such a way as to make this a practical option.
This is similar to the requirements in some provinces to limit semi-automatic hunting rifles to three shots under the terms of a hunting licence. In other words, the practice of blocking off some of the chambers in a magazine to comply with a legal limitation on a number of shots is well established already in Canadian society. We will try to establish standards of conversion that are both effective but also practical to implement.
The gun control system treats all handguns as restricted weapons, and requires that they be registered individually. The present system of permits for possession and use has proven effective at reducing handgun shootings, but it does create obstacles for legitimate shooters.
Some degree of inconvenience is inevitable, if gun control is to be effective at all, but I have attempted to remove unnecessary red tape wherever possible.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
The bill will address some of the administrative concerns of handgun shooters by creating three new permits for restricted weapons.

The permit to carry, which is required to take a handgun to shoot at a range, will be expanded to allow more than one permit to be used for the same gun so that more than one shooter may share it. The holder of the second permit would be allowed to take the gun to a shooting range without having the registered owner present.
Competition organizers have raised concerns about the obstacles facing foreign shooters coming to Canada to take part in sanctioned competitions here. A new temporary carry permit will be created to allow these shooters to bring their handguns into Canada in order to attend sanctioned Canadian shooting competitions and to transport the guns to and from the point of entry.
A new temporary storage permit will also be created to allow a gun owner to store his or her handguns with another owner temporarily where it is unsafe or not practicable to store the gun at home, as is normally required. This will allow persons going on vacation, for example, to store their guns with a friend while they are away and is consistent with our emphasis on higher standards of safe storage.
As Canadian firearms owners are aware, a portion of the gun control system is enacted by a combination of regulations and Orders in Council made under the legislative authority of the Criminal Code. This combined approach makes for a better system for all concerned because it allows for flexibility and clarity which would not be possible using the statute alone.
I appreciate that this causes some concerns and the new legislation contains several safeguards for developing Orders in Council and regulations in the future. New Orders in Council and proposed regulations will be tabled in this House for consideration. When I referred the subject matter of Bill C-80 to the special committee, I suggested that it may want to consider putting some of the features that I proposed for regulation into the statute itself, but on careful consideration of the use of those two devices the recommendation was to continue
with the proposed plan to use the regulations in addition to the statute in order to provide for specificity, clarity and some flexibility.
If a sufficient number of members of Parliament wish to do so, a resolution to revoke the order or proposed regulation may be put forward. All regulations and Orders in Council under Part III of the Criminal Code will be subject to this procedure. In the near future regulations or Orders in Council for a large number of important gun control matters will be reviewed in this way.
In particular, regulations or orders will be used to prohibit large magazines and designate some military firearms as prohibited or restricted weapons, to set new fees for firearms acquisition certificates and to establish clear, safe storage standards for all firearms owners. These are intended and will be used to create additional certainty and clarity in the interpretation and application of the gun control laws and amendments.
I am strongly committed to developing a stricter and more effective gun control system, but I also recognize that the process must be as open and as accessible as possible. This is an essential part of any democratic society, but it is also good common sense. Some members of this House have suggested that a parliamentary review of regulations will weaken the gun control system. However, the right of review is not open ended, but must be exercised within a particular period of time.
This government is committed to developing tough but workable controls. This requires public scrutiny of the process. The changes I am proposing are too important not to receive public and parliamentary review. Rejection of a regulation or Order in Council will require a majority vote of this House.
I am confident that the parliamentary review created by the new amendments will ensure that any proposed regulations help to create reasonable and workable safeguards within the general gun control system and I have confidence in the good sense of the majority members of this House.
Some Canadians have criticized these amendments. They have suggested that the proposals rely too heavily on regulations and Orders in Council and not enough on the statute itself.
June 6, 1991



Madam Speaker, the fundamental goal of gun control in Canada is to protect the public from firearms violence, while at the same time preserving the interests of legitimate firearms owners and users as much as possible. Regulatory powers are an important tool for this task.
The use of regulations allows the law to focus closely on the firearms, individuals, and situations that raise public safety concerns.
Regulations allow for flexibility in the law to achieve effective gun control in ways that can still permit legitimate activities to continue.
Statutory powers are much broader. Attempting to use them to accomplish regulatory controls on firearms would result in a much less responsive and effective gun control system.
This is why a number of elements of Bill C-17 combine statutory and regulatory components.
The essential elements of the gun control changes I am proposing today are in the legislation, not in the supplementary regulations.
Parental consent, references, and the 28-day waiting period for acquisition certificates are all in the Bill itself. The requirement for a safety course or test is not, because it is already in the Criminal Code. In fact, it has been since 1978.
The prohibitions of converted fully-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines are also in the Bill.
The prohibition or restriction of military or paramilitary firearms is not in the Bill. This is because the power to do this by order in council already exists in the statute itself. No statutory amendment was necessary.

Provisions in the bill will also increase sentences for firearms offences and will increase the use of court prohibitions to include bail and peace bond applications.
I consider all of these things to be key elements of the total package of changes I am proposing today and all of them are included in the bill itself. The other elements, some of which will be the subject of new regulations, are
Government Orders
being developed and will be brought forward as soon as possible.
I have already stated the specific details of the types and capacities of cartridge magazines that will become prohibited weapons by regulation. I have already indicated that the regulations will specify a new FAC fee of $50. Regulations dealing with safe storage of firearms and criteria for identifying military or paramilitary firearms are being developed by the Canadian Advisory Council and I expect to have its proposals in the near future. Some of the questions raised are complicated. I want to be sure that the regulations are going to work before they are implemented. They must fit together into a comprehensive and effective package and this will require careful preparation and drafting.
I share the concerns of many members of this House that Canadians expect and deserve improvements of the gun control system as soon as possible. We must also be sure that the job is done properly. Hastily prepared regulations will benefit no one. My commitment is a matter of public record on which I expect to be held accountable. Provisions in a statute may languish for lack of proclamation as have the requirements for training prior to obtaining an FAC. Regulations have the same legal force as statutes and are the essential partners of legislation in a well structured regulatory scheme.
Gun control works. It is probably the oldest and most effective form of crime prevention law, not just here in Canada where it dates back to the last century, but in many other countries as well. It works by ensuring that only those who actually require guns for legitimate purposes can obtain them. Any Canadian who really wants or needs a firearm is free to obtain one provided that he or she can comply with the screening measures. These create some inconvenience for firearms users, but this is a small price to pay in exchange for protecting all Canadians from firearms violence.
Bill C-17 is the product of a long process. It is the product of many contributions from those concerned about gun control and public safety, from those who administer the present gun control system, from previous Ministers of Justice, from other parliamentarians and from those great many Canadians to whom firearms are an important part of their way of life.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders

It reflects a tough approach to gun control because this is necessary for gun control to be effective.
It reflects compromise and consensus because this, also, is necessary for gun control to be effective.
Gun control is, ultimately, the responsability of government. We in this Elouse have an obligation to ensure that all Canadians have the best possible protection under the law.
But the firearms community must have some of the responsibility as well, and I am convinced that it can and will help us to ensure that we have the best possible system.
I am therefore pleased to be able to bring this legislation before this house, and I am grateful to all of those who have contributed to its development.
It is good, effective, workable, and balanced legislation, and I urge all members of this House to give it the support it deserves.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing this legislation before the House in a reasonably quick period of time after the commencement of the new session. When asked when she was going to table the legislation, she said: "As soon as possible in the new session", and I think she has done that.
This bill before us is of tremendous importance to Canadians, certainly to the 80 per cent of Canadians who want stronger gun control and of course to those who do not feel we need stronger gun control.
It has been almost a year now since the minister first introduced the predecessor bill, Bill C-80, which did not have second reading in this House but instead had its contents referred to a special committee. At that time, I and other members of Parliament expressed our disapproval of this process. We felt Bill C-80 should be proceeded with, with the utmost dispatch, and that we needed in this country new gun control legislation as soon as possible.
That was not the case. We went to the special committee, and whether one would say that that was an
improvement or not is history. I think what we have to look at, and certainly what we in the Liberal Party are looking at, is whether this legislation is an improvement over the legislation that exists at the present time. We feel that it is and, as such, we will be supporting this bill.
However, I do want to make a few comments that have been of great interest to me, of great concern to me. I will start of course with the special committee.
I would like to say, first and foremost, that at the least it was an interesting experience being a member of that special committee. I think that all members of the committee worked diligently in trying to put forward the best package possible. Certainly it was a compromise. We all knew it was going to be a compromise when we started. Nevertheless, it does not take away from the good faith of the members who participated in that committee.
While I want to thank all members of this House for their participation and their contribution, I particularly want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Kenora-Rainy River, who I think did a tremendous job. He has a vast knowledge of firearms. He stated his opinions very clearly and concisely and without any hesitation. Through the contribution of that hon. member and other hon. members I think the report was generally well accepted. Certainly it was not considered the result that most people wanted, because some people thought it was too strong and others thought it was too weak. Then again, as a friend of mine who is a labour negotiator said, when you have an agreement in a labour dispute where both sides are not pleased, that is when you have a good agreement. Maybe this was a good report, in spite of what many would have us believe.
I do not feel that any Canadian should be threatened by gun control. I say that more now than I would have said before the meeting of the special committee. The objective of this legislation is to control access to firearms and ammunition in Canada and not to place excessive or undue restrictions on responsible gun owners. I think that has been achieved. The special committee addressed a lot of the concerns of gun owners, and the work of members of the committee such as my colleague and friend from Kenora-Rainy River indicates that.
June 6, 1991

For one thing, in Bill C-80 there was a lot of concern about the term device, that this was unduly restrictive, that this gave the government too much power over a person's rights, and that a device could be termed to be practically anything.
In fact, the Canadian Bar Association objected to that, and I think with a good deal of reason. It said that it was too broad, that a government should not have that kind of a broad scope within legislation and certainly within a legislative framework. The association said that it should be narrowed in scope so that we would have a better idea of what was intended and what was to be brought forward.
This point was studied by the committee, and I think the minister has made an improvement in Bill C-17 by restricting the scope of that to the actual aspect of the firearm itself. I think we have a better idea of what is intended and the actual freedom of rights of Canadians is respected by that change.
We heard from responsible gun owners and gun enthusiasts, be they hunters or collectors, that there was a concern about politicians not knowing enough about firearms. Of course, I felt they were immediately speaking to me because that could be very applicable. However, not only members of Parliament, but bureaucrats and people in particularly the Department of Justice who were framing these laws and who framing these regulations, wondered what right they had to say anything about my use of firearms. How do they know my responsibility? How do they know the intricacies of a particular firearm to say that it should be prohibited or it should be accepted?
That was considered by the committee and it was termed that the advisory board should be given more powers. I do not necessarily say as many powers as it has been given, but more powers to put at ease the concerns of people by having in its hands, the hands of the advisory committee, people knowledgeable in firearms. Not all of them-some of them come from every aspect of society-but many of these people have a vast knowledge of firearms. The concerns of people interested in firearms and the rights of firearms owners and users has to be respected by the vast authority given to the advisory board in this country.
We have heard from many people before the committee who said: "Look, you are punishing gun owners, but
Government Orders
the real culprits are the criminals, and they are getting away scot-free. There should be stricter penalties for criminals". I think that was generally accepted as being the case by pretty well everyone in the committee and those who appeared before the committee.
The minister has increased the penalties in this legislation. We do have stiffer penalties and I think that is warranted. The use of firearms in a crime is a completely unacceptable activity, be it considered social or criminal or whatever; but this is totally unacceptable in our Canadian society at the present time. Crime is unacceptable, but certainly crime with the use of a firearm is even more unacceptable.
We also heard about the concerns of gun collectors. I will get to that more fully at a later period in my speech. However, certainly gun collectors felt that their rights were being abused; that we did not understand the significance of gun collectors; that this was a business; that these were people who knew guns, knew firearms, bought firearms, sold firearms not only in Canada but in the United States as well. They made their point and our report reflected that. The new legislation reflects it, but I am not completely in agreement with that reflection. I would like to say, as I said, more about that later.
There is a misunderstanding, to a certain degree, about young people and firearms, that young people in rural Canada in many cases use firearms from the time they are old enough to know right from wrong, and that they are instructed in the use of these firearms by their parents and friends. In most cases these young people are very responsible and use firearms to an excellent degree.
However, when dealing with young people there is still the questions: Do you really understand the full ramification of what you are doing and of what you have? There was a belief among many people that we would try to take firearms away from young Canadians. We said that if the parents are in agreement with their young people having firearms, then certainly the parents know the children much better than the committee does. This is the reason for the Firearms Acquisition Certificate for young people between 16 and 18 with parental consent.
We also discussed references. People do not like the idea of references. They feel they are an infringement, that people had to comment on their competency, their

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
state of mind and their value as a human being or as a citizen, father or husband. Many people are reluctant to act as references because of this and because of the fact that by giving an opinion on somebody, and it is stated to be an approval and subsequently this person commits a crime, a homicide, more particularly, then this person could be considered as being liable because they gave a reference to this alleged misuser of firearms.
That position certainly warranted consideration by the committee. The minister, I am glad to see, has included this in the bill by making it non-culpable and these people will not be subject to charge under criminal proceedings for giving an opinion that turned out to be wrong. Presumably they did it in the best interest of serving the process and what they believed was the actual state of the person to whom the reference was given, and one could never prove anything else.
There is also the problem of recreational shooters. Canadians would no longer be able to compete in particular competitions because we were reducing the size of the clip to an unwarranted small number of cartridges so that they could not fire successively in the number that was needed to compete in particular competitions. By limiting the use of particular firearms, they could not compete, because some of the firearms they were using would be termed prohibited or ones that were completely frowned upon by society and ultimately would be termed prohibited by a further deliberation of the advisory board. The interests of the recreational shooters have been looked at.
Really, gun users in this country do not need to be concerned about their rights. I have heard it said that it would be ideal to do away with all semi-automatics. There was never, certainly in my party, the consideration that we would ban completely all semi-automatics. It is a simplistic solution to say that is what is going to be done. Certainly the question is going to be with the advisory committee. This party's position very strongly is that we are opposed to the use of military and paramilitary semi-automatic weapons. But that is not all semi-automatic weapons. Sometimes the line is very blurred between what is a paramilitary semi-automatic weapon and the other semi-automatic weapons. Sometimes it is just a matter of design. This is why the advisory committee is going to be looking into this question.
I can assure Canadians that this party is not going to be in any way negligent and will be diligent in following the regulations and deliberations of the advisory committee to determine what the response is going to be and to assure everyone that those military and paramilitary weapons which we feel are not useful for hunting, other than just as a fancy of a particular hunter, but no more useful to a hunter than any other semi-automatic weapon and that semi-automatic weapons, military, paramilitary, be prohibited weapons. I think that is in the interests of all Canadians.
Whether you can say that is in the interests of all hunters is another question. This is where we really have to look into this whole question. There are going to be weapons that are going to be considered prohibited. Certainly the bill talks about the automatic being converted to a semi-automatic mode. These will be prohibited weapons. They will join fully automatic weapons on the prohibited list. Also we hope to have military and paramilitary weapons prohibited.
The question rs that there will certainly be a restriction on the use of particular firearms. That is not something that anyone would ask for unless there was a reason for doing so. The reason has to be in the consideration of the national interest of this country and to say that it is an infringement perhaps on the type of firearm that somebody may have at the present time, there is a need in this country to be responsive to the needs of Canada as a whole and to deal with this in the general interest.
In 1978 my colleague and friend, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was the minister responsible for passing the gun control legislation in force at the present time. At that time it was an excellent piece of legislation. He received a lot of criticism that he was introducing a bill that would infringe on the rights of Canadians, that the Liberal government at the time was going to infringe on the rights of Canadians.
I think we have seen that this bill has been effective. This bill has reduced the number of homicides, accidental deaths, and suicides up to a period. Now we are seeing that violent crimes are on the increase and we are saying that the legislation that is in force at the present time, as good a legislation as it was in 1978, needs to be strengthened. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace
June 6, 1991

has been a very strong proponent of the strengthening of this legislation and I want to thank him for his contribution and his work on behalf of gun control in this country.
There is no question that firearm restrictions work and no one who is capable and responsible enough to own a firearm needs to be worried about excessive restrictions.
I do not feel that responsible gun users in this country have anything about which they should be concerned. I think that their rights as recreational shooters, as hunters, as gun owners will be respected. There will be a reduction in the type of firearms they can use. It is important in the interest of Canadians as a whole that this be done.
In 1989,1 believe, there were 1,400 gun related deaths of which 1,100 were suicides. Homicides constitute about 15 per cent of all firearms deaths each year. A significant proportion of these deaths are the result of domestic disputes and crimes of passion. The minister has said quite honestly, forthrightly, and correctly that violent deaths and homicides are as much a part of rural Canada as they are of urban Canada, and the percentage of these deaths and homicides that are crimes of passion are in equal ratio in rural Canada as in urban Canada.
We were told in the special committee that as committee members we were bringing forward this legislation as a reflex action of the tragedy of Ecole Polytechnique in December 1989. I will say to any Canadian that there cannot possibly be any member of Parliament who was not influenced by that tragedy; of course we were influenced by it. We were influenced by the tragedy of those young lives ending, of the trauma of those young people coming to a complete halt as a result of this completely incomprehensible action. We could not possibly be insensitive to the families who have lost these wonderful young women, to the community that could have benefited from the lifetime they could have given to the community and to this country as a whole. It is not something any of us in this House of Commons will ever forget, the senselessness, the tragedy, the loss.
I can honestly say, and I think I am speaking for all members of the committee, that what we formulated in the special committee was not just as a result of that. What that tragedy did do was to highlight the possibility
Government Orders
of the misuse of firearms. We are not, even with this legislation, or stronger legislation, going to erase the misuse of firearms. We are not going to stop homicides, family disputes, crimes of passion completely, but I think we are going to reduce them. We are going to reduce them in number.
I use as an example the way these crimes and these activities were reduced after the passage of the existing legislation presented by my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I think that we have to look at that. We have to say that all Canadians are concerned about firearms. Some who use firearms on a regular basis are not as concerned as others. There is one very large segment of this country that is concerned and that segment is the women of Canada.
I do not have to tell you, Madam Speaker, the fear that women in this country feel, that men cannot possibly understand. We hear about it. We have got to start listening. We have got to start listening to the women of this country and the concern that they have; women in this country who are petrified when they step off of a bus and have to walk a distance of maybe only one or two blocks to their apartment building; women who are petrified when they get into an elevator alone not knowing who is going to be on the elevator or who is going to be at the floor they want to reach.
This is something that most men cannot possibly understand, but it is a way of life for many women in this country, day after day after day. If they feel that their safety and the rights of Canadians and the general benefit of all of Canada is going to be strengthened by this bill, then I think this is something of which we have to be very cognizant.
However, I think that we could say that good gun control is all that is needed. A recent poll by Allan Gregg and Decima Research has shown that Canadians are very concerned about the increase of crime in this country. I think that gun control is important.
Other areas are very important. We have to look at the question of violence in the family; we have to look at violence against women; we have to look at the question of young offenders and their rights; and crime prevention in the communities. All this comprises a package which is of great concern to Canadians. Gun control is a large part, but we have to look at the whole subject. I am not sure that that is being done in a comprehensive manner.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
We need also to erase the fears as much as we can. There are going to continue to be fears. A mark of a good government and a dedicated parliamentary body is that we do what we can to reduce the fears that exist as much as we possibly can.
I do not think these fears are being reduced as much as we possibly can. I do not think for instance in the bill-I think it is Bill C-12 now in its new incarnation-the young offenders, provides that. I agree with longer periods of incarceration but incarcerating young offenders with adult criminals is to me a barbaric situation. I do not want to get into that bill, but I do want to say that if we do not look at the whole picture of crime prevention in this country, we are not doing our job as parliamentarians.
I would also like to state that I feel that a great deal, too much frankly, is being left to the Advisory Council on Firearms. I think it is important that it use every discretion.
The reason I am concerned is because of the 15 who are appointed, probably 10 would be considered as more sympathetic to the use of firearms than the other five. I think there has to be a balance, and I would hope that the minister would keep this in mind.
We have to reassure the users of firearms that their rights are being protected. We also have to respect the rights of all Canadians, particularly the citizens of this country who are concerned about the increasing crime rate in Canada.
I would ask the minister to look at this and ensure that this advisory committee will reflect the needs of this country.
I would also like to ask the minister to present the regulations to the committee when this bill gets to the legislative committee.
She may not have them all completed, but I would like to see the regulations that have been completed and formulated so I can give consideration to these regulations.
I am very concerned about shell legislation. I am not saying this piece of legislation is a shell legislation. However, we have to watch out for the tendency to have just the absolute minimum in a piece of legislation and to
put as much as we can into the regulations, so that they can be changed by Order in Council and do not have to come back to Parliament.
I do not say that this is the case here because, for one thing the regulations are going to be referred back to the House of Commons for consideration. I think that is very important.
I do not feel, as the minister does not feel, that this is a threat to anybody because I feel that most members of Parliament reflect the opinion of Canadians in general.
That is, 80 per cent of Canadians favour stronger gun control. Whether they favour stronger gun control than they are going to get in this legislation, the poll did not answer that. They wanted stronger gun control compared to the gun control legislation that existed at the present time. This, of course, is stronger.
My own personal feeling is that there are things that could be changed. It is not the intention of this party to ask for a two-year firearms acquisition certificate.
As the minister has said, we can get too bound up in the paperwork and the actual bookkeeping and not leave time for other very important supervisory and research ideas, regulations and requirements in the issuance of the firearms acquisition certificate.
I also say that the $50 fee does not represent merely a sum of $50. It was determined when we were in the special committee that this is what we believe the cost of supervising the review process, the FACs and related activity will be.
If the advisory committee feels that this process can be carried on for less than $5 per person, then fine. I have no objection-nor does my party-to a reduction. However, the question of this being a figure which is reasonable to pay for the process is important.
Unfortunately the minister has relaxed the requirement of the training provision to too large an extent.
Page 22 of the bill goes on in the first part about the successfully completed process. In the second section it states:
(ii) been certified by a firearms officer as meeting the criteria of competence in the safe handling and use of firearms and the laws relating to firearms prescribed by regulations.
June 6, 1991

This means that if a firearms officer feels that this person is certified and does not need the training program he or she can give an exemption.
It does not say that this is somebody who has owned a firearm for a certain period of time. It does not say that this is a person who is going for a second FAC. It could be somebody who is just applying for the first time. It is far too broad.
The training program is something that everybody who appeared before the committee and everyone to whom I have spoken feels is a very worth-while thing. We need to train the users of firearms. This has received almost universal approval and I think the minister has to make changes to strengthen this program, to ensure that this training takes place, except in strictly defined areas where the minister feels there should be an exception. What those exceptions are is open to question. Certainly the exceptions should not be as broad as this act allows.
It is vital that the minister use eveiy bit of influence and persuasion on the provinces that she possibly can to implement these courses as soon as possible. I realize it is a provincial jurisdiction, but it is in the interests of all Canadians and all governments, be it federal or provincial governments, that this whole question be looked at. We should have a training program implemented from coast to coast to coast in this country as soon as possible.
If we do not have suitable training programs, not only do the applicants lose the instruction and the knowledge they would gain from that program, but the instructor will not have the ability to weed out somebody that he or she feels should not own a firearm. It is very important that not only is there an instruction consideration but there is also the consideration of the person who will be the possessor of a firearms acquisition certificate.
Safe storage is important. The minister considers this in the bill and that is very important. The problem, of course, is enforcement of safe storage. That is going to be difficult generally because a lot of the firearms are not registered and it will be difficult to know who has them. Also, there is the question of somebody who has a firearm which is not registered having a regular visit from an official to check as to whether his or her firearm meets the criteria. I certainly hope that one of the criteria will be a trigger lock on all firearms. That would be helpful.
Government Orders
It is also helpful that, whether or not safe storage can be monitored and inspected at all, there still be penalties for breach of safe storage. However, it is going to be awfully hard to implement, awfully hard to prove.
This brings me to the other consideration, the genuine gun collector. Now, it was the intention-as I understand it, my intention-that a gun collector be defined as a specific group of people who understand firearms, buy firearms, sell firearms and deal with them in a responsible way. For many people it is a business. They have invested a good deal of money in their collections. A definition of a gun collector to me has those connotations.
To be even more specific, the term genuine gun collector was used so there would not be any doubt as to the type of person to whom we were referring. This is my own subjective perception of what went on in the committee. There may be others, of course, who disagree but that is my own understanding, the reason being that we wanted the prohibited firearms to be restricted. We wanted the restricted firearms not to exist in every home where they are at the present time, but to be restricted, to be restricted in use and as to where they could be located.
We wanted a particular level of safe storage for gun collectors. The way this definition is set forward, it states that this could be an owner of one or more related firearms, or one person who intends to buy related firearms. This means that a person can own one firearm and be a genuine gun collector. If you go to the post office and buy a stamp, that does not make you a stamp collector. This is a very vital distinction. This definition is too broad. We want, through the gun collectors who will sell these prohibited firearms to other gun collectors, there to be a certain restricted number. We also hope that they will take these prohibited weapons into the United States to gun shows and sell them there, and then they will be out of the country.
I think it is important to make that distinction. I would ask the minister to consider a change to this definition to make it a stricter definition.
I would also like to speak to the minister on amnesty. I think these periods of amnesty that the minister brings forward in the act are very important. There should be an amnesty after this legislation comes into effect. There should also be an amnesty after the advisory board states that certain military and paramilitary firearms are prohibited. I also feel that there has to be consideration to financial compensation for some of the firearms that are turned in.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
A lot of these firearms, except for the case of automatic weapons which have been prohibited since 1978, are owned completely legally at the present time. If they are $500, $600 or $700 apiece, then we are asking the individual to come forward with a donation of $600 or $700. There are a lot of people who say that the people who own these firearms should not be compensated, that they should not have these firearms. However, it comes to the question of rights of Canadians. Whether you like these people or whether you like their firearms, they are abiding by the law. If you say retroactively that they are criminals, then I think this is an infringement of their rights.
The amnesty may see a lot of these automatics, converted automatics and subsequently military and paramilitary weapons being brought forward, but it may not as well. What will happen? A lot of these prohibited weapons will not be registered. They will merely be kept in the homes of Canadians and we will not know about them.
What we want to do is get these firearms in. We do not want them left. We want to give owners an opportunity, if we can. I would ask the minister to consider that possibility because we do want to make this bill as effective as it possibly can be. To be effective, we have to look at what we feel are going to be the results.
This is human nature, and I think it is a reality to think about and to look at this aspect. I would, as I say, ask the government to look at this.
My major concern with this legislation is something the minister mentioned, but not in the context that I feel it needs to be mentioned at the present time. She talked about customs and having stricter penalties for those who illegally bring firearms into the country and sell firearms. I think that is important and necessary as far as it goes, but within this country there is a large problem at border crossings as the minister will know. Each year we import about 130,000 firearms and about an equal number come into this country unlawfully. Unless we do something to curtail the illegal importation of firearms into this country, we are not going to have effective legislation. There have to be new enforcement procedures at border crossings and there has to be more
attention paid to the unlawful importation of firearms into Canada.
I would ask the minister, when she speaks to the legislative committee on this, whether she can help the committee understand if this is in fact going to be a concern of government and if government is going to turn its attention to this problem. I think it will.
While this bill is not everything I would like to see, I do feel it is an improvement over the legislation we have at the present time.
I commend the minister once again for bringing it forward. It was not brought forward too soon and it cannot be passed too soon. Those who want to appear before the legislative committee will have every consideration, as far as I am concerned. I hope it is the minister's intention to allow large numbers of people, not unduly large, but a large cross section of this country to come before the legislative committee to testify. I think that is important. That voice is necessary. That is why we in this party are agreeing to pass this legislation on second reading as quickly as possible.
To Canadians, whether they are in favour of gun control or not, I would like to say that there is not going to be any legislation which is going to be weaker on gun control than this brought before this House. I would say that there is no threat to responsible gun users. It meets in a minimum way the requirements of Canada for the safety of the Canadian public and the needs of all aspects of our society. We in this party will support this legislation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, just before I begin, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House. I have 20 minutes to speak, but I may go over for a few minutes, not much more. I would like to ask that at the outset. I will not abuse that.
We in the New Democratic Party welcome this debate. For some time we have been pressuring the government to bring in effective and fair gun control legislation. We regularly demanded a second reading of Bill C-80, which is the predecessor of this bill. Even though, in our view, this Bill C-17 is at best a modest proposal, it is something to build on and it can be improved as it goes through the legislative process.
June 6, 1991



Madam Speaker, Canadians generally want to reinforce our present gun control system. Unlike the American, the Canadian frontier was not opened with a gun.
In the Canadian West and the North, you checked your guns with the RCMP, and even the police were under orders not to draw their weapons unless absolutely necessary. Canadians do not believe that the gun solves all problems. Our people want stricter and more effective control of firearms.

The Canadian approach to the role of firearms and the use of violence is a fundamentally different approach than that found in the United States. This is a real cultural characteristic of Canada and something we can be proud of.
In the United States the use of guns is widely seen as a right. In Canada gun ownership has long been considered a privilege. The history of the Canadian system of gun control dates back not just to 1977-78 but to 1877 when a law was introduced to prohibit the carrying of handguns where there was no reasonable cause to use them for self defence.
As I said a moment ago in French, the west and north were settled peacefully in Canada without the use, by and large, of weapons.
During the debate in the United States on the Brady bill, some very interesting facts were revealed. In the United States, 23,000 people were killed by handguns alone last year. That is 64 people a day. Every day in the United States there are three accidental deaths from handguns alone.
In short, I think Canadians are right to think that our gun control system has made our society less violent. Gun control works and the reasonable extension of gun control without the creation of needless bureaucracy for hunters and trappers is our goal in this debate.
I believe that Canadians want effective gun control. I believe there is a consensus from all sides in this country for effective gun control.
Government Orders
I just want to say something about the chronology of this debate over the last few years, because it helps us to understand where we are at and where we are going.
In 1978 the current gun control law was passed in the House of Commons. I see the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who was the minister at the time, is here today. Without going on too much about it, he is one of the members of this House that I very much look up to. He has made an enormous contribution to this House and this country and it is very interesting that he is here today.


An hon. member:: He is not a bad hockey player.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says he is not a bad hockey player, too.
That bill is worth looking at. It is the present law. The provisions enforcing mandatory firearms training in that bill, I point out, have not been affected. That is a part of the bill I would still like to see come into force. However, let us look at the bill and the present law.
The 1978 law prohibits automatic weapons. The 1978 law restricts some weapons, including hand guns. The 1978 law makes it mandatory to have a firearms acquisitions certificate and to meet certain criteria to get that certificate, although rather weak criteria I must say. There is a theory stated in the bill that there should be mandatory training before buying a gun. That has not been enacted yet. It really is basically an acquisition system. People who had a gun before 1978 are not involved and people can still get, after 1978, as many guns as they want. Less than 1 per cent of the firearms acquisition certificate applications are turned down. It costs you 10 bucks for a certificate for five years. So, it in itself is a very modest system.
In January, 1989, about a decade later, in Stockton, California a man who said he had a "military hang-up", armed with an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle and two pistols, fired 110 rounds from the rifle and killed five children and injured 29 others. This was an indication, it seems to me, of the more and more violent society we have in North America. The state of California responded to the tragedy by banning the sale, possession or manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons. On March 14, 1989, President Bush announced a suspension of the importation of assault weapons. The United States, in some aspects, back in 1989 had a law more advanced than we had with respect to these kind of semi-automatic weapons. That was the impetus for new tougher laws in Canada and was the beginning of the

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
government's commitment, through the previous Minister of Justice, to a tougher gun control law.
In June 1989 the government indicated its intention to introduce fall legislation controlling the importation, possession and sale of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. It received agreement at the federal-provincial ministers' meeting to do that. Then, in December 1989 we had the terrible tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in which 14 young women needlessly lost their lives. In April 1990 a petition was presented to the minister by the students at the Ecole Polytechnique with 516,487 names on it. That total would reach 700,000.
On June 17, 1990, the minister introduced Bill C-80. She announced her firm intention to push the bill through. The intention was not as firm as all that because the bill came to second reading in the House and the bill was diverted to a committee for further study. I will not say any more about that. The fact is that we have the bill back before us.
The committee met and produced a report under the chairmanship of the member for Kitchener. I was proud to be a member of that committee and I would like to acknowledge the work of fellow members on that committee, all of whom did an outstanding job. The member for Rosemont from the Bloc Quebecois also attended the committee and contributed as much as he could to that committee, not being an official member. However, he did show up and contribute and I would like to acknowledge that and the efforts of other members as well.
The committee produced legislation which is now Bill C-17.
Let me deal with Bill C-17 which I have called a modest proposal. Bill C-17 is a somewhat complex proposal. All of us in the debate have received a large number of letters of concern. Many people have really misunderstood the legislation. They think their gun is going to be taken away or they are going to be more affected than they really are. I will give an example.
I had a letter from one of my constituents saying "I am going to be affected". I called the person and found out that he had in fact a non-semi-automatic gun with a bolt action. He was concerned about the magazine size under the regulations in this bill and he felt he would have to
dismantle his gun. It was not true. That was not part of the bill. The magazine size only applies to semi-automatics. It seems to me that we all have a job to do in this House to explain to Canadians just exactly what is in the bill and what is controlled.
First of all, the bill prohibits automatic weapons that have been converted to fire in a semi-automatic mode. These machine guns-and basically they are machine guns-have been brought into Canada in large numbers. The estimate is 15,000 to 50,000 guns in Canada at present. The existing weapons are grandfathered to the present owners. I am glad the minister did not accept the recommendations of the committee. In fact, the department accepted the minority report of the committee not to extend that grandfather. It is bad enough that there is a grandfather provision, but at least it was not extended as the committee wanted to do. There is the first thing: a prohibition of automatic weapons that have been converted to fire in semi-automatic form.
Second, it prohibits a semi-automatic military assault weapon. This is done by regulation and it is not dependent on the bill. As a matter of fact, the minister has the power to do that, I think, under the 1978 law, the old law, and we are still waiting for that.
The problem is this Rambo culture that is growing in the United States where these military assault weapons were produced in surplus by the war machine industries in the United States. Some of them are flowing across the Canadian border. This is what we are aiming at, not at ordinary hunters and trappers in Canada but at this kind of Rambo culture industry that is flooding these weapons into Canada. This is what we should focus on.
There is a real question, however, even after this bill about the Rugez Mini-14. That is a high-powered rapid fire gun. It was used by Marc Lepine, incidentally, in the Montreal massacre. Will it in fact be restricted? Will it be prohibited under this bill?
It will depend on the regulations. We will have to wait. However, the point I am making is that-and I want to repeat it-these are the only firearms whose status is affected by this law. These are the only firearms. It is only the future firearms that are imported. The present ones will be grandfathered and one will be able to sell them to genuine gun collectors. This is a very modest proposal indeed. It is a modest bill. I suggest the minister have a look at the bill. She will see it is a very modest proposal.
June 6, 1991

Third, there is a prohibition on large capacity magazines. That is the other area people are concerned about. There has been more confusion about this proposal than anything else. Again, it is going to be done by regulation with the enabling power of this bill. The limits are as follows: all semi-automatic handguns, a 10-shot limit. This is what the minister has proposed. All centre fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, five shots; 22 rim fire rifles, no limit. All bolt, pump or leverage action firearms, no limit.
Therefore, it seems to me that only semi-automatics are affected by this provision. I say to the people who are writing us: "Have a look at actually what is in the bill".
There was a concern expressed by several firearms groups that this proposal would lead to the destruction of thousands of rifles with built-in magazines. However, evidence presented to the special committee shows that of 2,600 makes and models of shotguns and rifles on the market, only 28 are directly affected by the limits. Of these, 26 are military style semi-automatics such as an AK-47. These are precisely the kinds of weapons the limits are supposed to target. Only two weapons, versions of the Marlin Camp carbine, would require modified magazines.
This proposal is an alternative to a ban on all semi-automatics. That is what some groups were advocating. It is a means of limiting fire power.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that Marc Lepine had a 30-round magazine. The feeling is if that at least could have been limited it might have saved more lives.
There is an exemption here for competition shooters. I have flagged that to have a look at that exemption in committee, again the point being that this is a very modest proposal.
Fourth, in the bill there are changes to the FAC, the firearms acquisition certificate screening process to improve screening: two references, a photograph, a $50 fee, a 28-day cooling off period, and a mandatory training program.
Government Orders
Fifth, safe storage is to be applied to all firearm owners. A genuine gun collector is defined. It seems to me that the genuine gun collector may be a major loophole in the system today. We will have to look at that proposed definition in committee to ensure that it is sufficient. It is a possible area for amendment. I would like also to flag the storage problem. We have got to be flexible on this, deal with it in committee and define it better.
Sixth, there are tougher penalties for firearm usage, although there is not, as the committee recommended, a section 85. That would mean higher minimum sentences for criminals using guns in the course of an offence and, if there is plea bargaining, would ensure that the Attorney General actually does not make it easier for someone who used a gun in a criminal offence. That was not accepted in the bill, although it is in the committee's report.
Finally, there is a parliamentary review of the regulations.
I think it is a modest proposal. The FAC process is strengthened, but no one I think can really call it onerous. There are two types of Rambo weapons which will be prohibited, but only in the future, and the existing weapons will stay. Fire power on semi-automatic weapons will be limited somewhat, so I think it is a modest proposal.
If we were really serious about gun control, really serious, the government would go after all those machine guns, semi-automatic guns and military style weapons, and would really nail them and get them out of this country. There is a lot of wrapping ourselves in good intentions and a little bit of posturing on this. We should really look at this bill again as to how modest it is. We could have gone further.
It was proposed, for example, that there be a registration system and that every gun control supporting group, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Caucus of Big City Mayors, the Coalition for Gun Control, the students at Polytechnique, hospital associations and so on. They came before the special committee. The minister's officials said that such a system of actually registering all the guns that are in Canada would not be worth the effort. I find that rather incredible.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders

Personally, I made the following proposal in my report on gun control. Since the restriction on semi-automatic weapons under the present law would effectively prohibit hunting activities, I recommend that all unrestricted, semi-automatic weapons be registered as a separate class of firearms. All future firearms obtained using the FAC, would also be registered at the time of purchase.
Finally, every applicant for a FAC would be required to list all their firearms on the application. This would not place any additional bureaucratic burdens on firearms owners with non semi-automatic rifles who do not need a FAC at present.
This would move us toward a long term goal of a full National Registry System.

There are other weaknesses in the bill, but my time is limited.
I would just like to read a quote from Mr. Lome Newson, the chief provincial firearms officer in British Columbia. I would like to quote from what he told the special committee: "In the first place, these people were very much aware that they were skirting the law by buying superficially modified machine guns. They are deserving of no sympathy." "I am concerned that grandfathering these weapons may overturn the present case law. Presently these guns are declared illegal by law and this bill may actually weaken them."
I want to conclude by saying that we have to look at gun control from differing perspectives. The gun debate is seen as a polarized one. You are either right or wrong, yet it seems to me that there are a number of different points of view. I want to underline three, just briefly.
First of all, I think women have a profoundly different attitude toward guns than men do. Women own only a small percentage of guns in Canada and commit only a tiny percentage of firearms related criminal offences. While women commit less than 5 per cent of firearms homicides, they are the victims of 30 to 40 per cent of such cases.

The massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique focused public attention on the issue of firearms and violence against women. These are issues that have been around for some time.
Sixty per cent of all homicide victims are killed within a family context, and most often, rifles shotguns were used.

I said in my minority report on gun control that no one believes gun control alone is the solution to the problem of violence against women in our society. I think it is part of the solution.
Second, there is a distinct view in rural Canada. One of my members from the Kootenays put it very well. He said: "If a pick-up truck drove up Wellington Street outside the Parliament Buildings and had a shotgun or a rifle in the back, we would freak out. We would be asking, what is going on?" In rural areas of Canada that is quite normal and we must recognize that distinction. We must recognize that people use guns as part of their livelihood. We must recognize that bureaucracy does not work as well in rural areas, so in committee we have to look at safe storage, as well as other provisions.
We helped a little bit in the committee report giving some discretion to rural firearms officers to help rural people, and I think we have to have a further look at that.
I will point out that in rural Canada, a public opinion poll said that three-quarters of the people did support stronger gun control as long as it is effective and fair.
Third, aboriginal concerns. I draw the minister's attention to my minority report. I believe that the federal government is constitutionally bound to consult native people with respect to gun control.
In view of the Sparrow case, the Sioui case and other cases, it may well be that constitutionally and legally this bill and this regime may not apply to native people. This is a debatable question, but there should be concerns not only with the constitutional position of native people but at a minimum, native leadership and native people should be consulted, especially natives living in northern areas.
June 6, 1991

Finally, I have some other concerns which I will flag at committee. For example, I would like to make sure that the film industry in British Columbia is protected and we do not needlessly harm them with needless bureaucracy. That can be raised in the committee because they do use blank, automatic and semi-automatic guns.
I would like to give credit to the Coalition for Gun Control and the work that they have been putting out. That is the group led by Suzanne Edwards, Heidi Rathjen and Wendy Cukier.
I want to say that this debate is changing. If you read the editorials, you will see a lot of support for gun control. You will see them sharing the feeling that I enunciated that the bill is very modest, perhaps too modest. It is not a partisan issue and we have to deal with this.
When you see today: "Gun permits jump by 28 per cent in Toronto," our society unfortunately appears to be becoming more violent.
I want to tell the minister that what we have seen in the course of this debate and in the committee reports is that the people who want gun control, the lobby if you like, for that particular point of view has grown and matured very much. Traditionally there was a view that those who supported gun control were well intentioned but misinformed people. Those who were for less gun control, the gun lobby if you like, would try to bury you with so-called facts.
Now it seems to me that the gun lobby in many ways is sounding emotional and the people who want more gun control are sticking to their facts, are exploring the myths about gun control. Myths like, "guns do not kill people; people kill people". In fact, people without guns injure, people with guns kill. Myths like, "gun control legislation does not reduce gun violence". The fact is that gun control legislation saves lives. The myth that, "what is needed is crime control, not gun control". The fact is that easy access to guns contributes to crime. Look at the studies of Seattle versus Vancouver. Look at the statistics on homicides in Canada.
The myth that people need guns for protection seems to be growing in Canada. The fact is that a home is safer without a gun. These are the debates we are going to hear in the future. This issue is not dead. This issue is just beginning.
Government Orders
Let me conclude by saying that I believe that all Canadians want effective and fair gun control. At the committee stage we are going to make sure this is a workable bill for all segments of the country. We are supporting the bill at second reading. We put the minister on notice that we intend to improve the legislation in committee.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, this new gun control bill is very disappointing, and I think it shows a clear lack of political courage on the part of the Minister of Justice.
Nearly all legitimate requests from individuals and groups who support gun control were turned down, and most of the proposed measures will be very difficult to enforce. This bill seems more designed to soothe public opinion than to provide effective gun control.
The groups in question estimate that 90 per cent of the bill is about concessions to gun lobbies and only 10 per cent is about improving control measures as demanded by the vast majority of the public.
We were particularly disappointed in the refusal to introduce a firearms ownership licence that would make routine registration of firearms compulsory. We all know that this type of measure is absolutely necessary for genuine gun control.
How many firearms are there in this country? Today, no one can answer that question, and there is nothing in this bill to help provide the answer in the future. Who uses the firearms in this country? Today, no one can answer that question either, and there is nothing in the bill that will provide us with an answer in the future.
The minister expects us to believe the bill will improve gun control. She says quite candidly that she also wants to protect the interests of legitimate firearms users. Would registration unduly restrict their privileges?
The minister knows perfectly well that hunters, for instance, must meet far stricter criteria to exercise their hunting privileges. They have to get an annual licence and conform to very strict wildlife protection regulations.
For instance, in many parts of the country, there is a draw for moose licences. Every year, hundreds of thousands of hunters whose names are not selected are deprived of the privilege of hunting. However, hunters accept this practice because our wildlife must be protected.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
One wonders why the minister is so timid about protecting public health. Practically all firearms owners I know would be perfectly willing to have firearms licensing and registration, and to pay the requisite fees.
The Minister of Justice knows perfectly well that this type of measure is badly needed. She has implied that the House will probably be asked to pass such a measure in the future. Why not do it now? Just because there is a very small but effective lobby of sellers and owners of firearms who consider that owning a weapon is not a privilege but a right. These people will not tolerate having this privilege subject to a minimum amount of regulation. They are a minority howerever, and this is unacceptable in any civilized society.
Another deplorable aspect of this bill is the procedure selected to exclude weapons we want to prohibit. There is always a risk that regulations are unable to keep up with the latest developments in technology, and they are difficult to enforce, especially for customs officers.
As the hon. member pointed out earlier, why is the weapon used by Marc Lepine at the Polytechnique still not prohibited, eighteen months after this tragic event? How can we tolerate this any longer, especially since this paramilitary weapon is already prohibited elsewhere, even in the United States, for instance in New Jersey?
There is a simple and effective method for changing all this. We must decide that from now on, only legal firearms may be sold in or imported into Canada. Any administrative delay would actually reinforce controls, and when in doubt, customs and the police could refer cases to the appropriate authorities.
Some people will say this will require creating an additional and costly bureaucracy, but why is it easier to import firearms from the United States than to import beer from Belgium? Why are there fewer controls on the purchase and use of firearms in this country than on the purchase and use of sleeping pills? It doesn't make sense.
As for the costs involved, they must of course be kept to a minimum, but not at the expense of public health. In fact, gun control lends itself admirably to the "user pays" principle. Incredibly, the bill fails to prescribe an additional fee for issuing licences and monitoring restricted weapons permits. Why should all taxpayers have to pay for these administration costs? Clearly this is something that will have to be remedied in committee.
Several other aspects of the bill will also have to be thoroughly reviewed. For example, the new regulatory powers regarding safe storage might seem adequate, but how could the minister argue that such regulations will be effective when we won't even know who owns firearms? The fact that there will be storage requirements might make people more careful about the way they store their guns, it would be a kind of education, but it is not, in any way, a real prevention policy.
This bill contains an insidious clause that should be denounced. The whole process of preparing regulations under this act will be done according to an exceptional procedure, which might limit greatly the scope of the act by opening the door to continuing pressure from the gun lobby. As a matter of fact, any proposed regulation or order in Council under this act could be challenged by 20 members or 15 senators who could force a debate and a vote to cancel the said regulation. Such a clause is an open invitation to the gun lobby to pursue its action with a minority of members and senators who oppose gun control.
The minister and the cabinet will hesitate for a long time before introducing regulations or orders in Council which could solidify this opposition to gun control and force a debate in the House. Consequently, this bill imposes self-censorship system on the cabinet which is totally unacceptable and which will lead to a continuing watering down of the required regulations. These clauses must be withdrawn from the bill.
In fact, the bill that is before us and that deals with arms exports and will enable Cabinet to decide to export arms to one country or another, contains no clause enabling members of Parliament to invalidate such provisions. It must be understood that this provision is unique in Canadian laws. I think that the legislative committee will have to ask the minister to backtrack on this issue.
June 6, 1991

Finally, this bill is an unacceptable step back, particularly as regards the prohibition of military or para-military firearms, since it provides for grandfather's rights in the case of present owners. The legislative committee will therefore have to undertake an in depth study in order to transform this rough draft into a real bill providing a legitimate and necessary control of firearms.
In concluding, I would like to mention that the only provision in this bill that deserves unanimous support is the one which provides that, from now on, courts will have to consider issuing prohibition orders regarding the release, on bail or temporary, when the offence was committed by using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence, and when a request is made for an order not to disturb the public peace.
This provision is a real improvement towards real prevention and one that would justify supporting this bill if the other provisions can be improved, notably the withdrawal of the power of revocation in the legislation.
It is still possible for this government to show political will by agreeing on legitimate amendments. I hope that the government will clearly demonstrate this will at the legislative committee. That is why I reserve my judgment until the vote on the committee report.
{English]


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, if you would call the yeas and nays again I think some members were thinking of other things.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is possible that the Speaker was not speaking as loudly as I thought, as I was told earlier this day.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have been advised by the government whip that the vote is now postponed until Monday at six o'clock p.m.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order. Is it the disposition of the House to call it one o'clock?


Robert Daniel Nault: On the same point of order, it is my understanding that you had already called the members in. Are you deciding now to change your mind after you have already called the members in?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may answer the hon. member's question? If the hon. member checks the rules of the House, he will see that once the bells have started to ring the whip from the government or the whip from the Official Opposition can come to the Chair and ask that the vote be deferred. This is part of our rules.
Once the whip of either the government or the Official Opposition makes that request of the Chair, the Chair has no recourse in the matter but must defer to the request of either of the whips. At this time both the government and the opposition whips came to the Chair and asked me to postpone the vote until Monday at six o'clock p.m. So I do not have the choice. Those are our rules.
I think there had been agreement earlier that should we be finished with this business before one o'clock we would call it one o'clock and then come back at two o'clock. Is there agreement on that?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, the House will now be recessed until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 12.23 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 47th anniversary of D-Day: June 6, 1944, the day when the Third Canadian Infantry Division and the Second Canadian Armoured Brigade went ashore on Juno Beach to participate in the invasion which would achieve the liberation of western Europe from Nazi tyranny.
Canadians take pride in knowing that our troops were a major part of this armada. Over 15,000 Canadians, one-fifth of the total allied invasion force, established themselves on the Normandy beaches that day. Our army, navy and air force all played notable roles in the invasion.
Let us bless the memory of those Canadians who fought in this invasion. Let us bless those who did not make it home and were buried in Europe. Let us also bless those who went on to liberate the Netherlands less than a year later. All of them helped to restore freedom.
Mr. Speaker, 47 years ago the prospect of freedom came ashore in Normandy. Let us never forget those who were there for us on that day, and let us never forget those who died for our freedom on D-Day, June 6,1944.


JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the following statement was made by convicted murderer, Allan George Foster, after sentencing for the murder of three women while on parole. He said: "There is only one thing crazier than me and that is the system that allows me to do what I do".
Many Canadians have become terrified as a result of violent crimes not only by adults but by young offenders. Whether in a mall, a poorly lit street or a parking lot, women are worried about their safety.
One of the root causes of these violent crimes is our justice system, which either renders an all too short prison sentence or grants a too lenient parole.
I call upon the Minister of Justice to address this issue. Let us restore law and order in this country.


SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, today is the 100th anniversary of the death of Canada's first Prime Minister and first member of Parliament from Kingston, the Rt. Hon. Sir John. A. Macdonald, who is also being recognized at his grave site today in Kingston.
Perhaps, more than any figure in our history, Sir John A. Macdonald is recognized as the driving force behind Confederation. His unwavering conviction that Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia could become prosperous and strong by forming a political union under one flag, serves as a guide for us today as we review our constitutional agreements.
During his political career he was elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada seven times and was Prime Minister for 19 years. He is truly the Father of Canada.
On the 100th anniversary of his death, I urge all Canadians to reflect on the trials and obstacles he overcame in order to forge a nation which today is one of the wealthiest in the world.
By capturing the spirit and confidence he held in Canada, we can continue to make our country prosperous and continue to uphold the proud legacy he left behind.


CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, according to a recent public opinion poll, 68 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec and 57 per cent of Canadians in Quebec favour holding a constituent assembly to resolve our national unity crisis.
June 6, 1991

Yet, at the same time, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs was quoted as saying: "The federal government has considered this and now, for several reasons, we have rejected the pure and simple option of a constituent assembly. We have reason to believe it would not be acceptable to Quebec".
Is it any wonder, then, that Canadians feel politicians are not responsive to their wishes and that they have lost faith in the political system and its leadership. If the Prime Minister is really looking for ways to restore the faith of Canadians in this House and in his leadership, he can start by establishing a constituent assembly as favoured by a majority of Canadians, both inside and outside Quebec.


REVENUE CANADA
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that Revenue Canada is now withholding the goods and services tax credits from persons who qualified for the full GST rebate because they owe back taxes. It is my understanding that Revenue Canada is going back to collect 1986 taxes in order to receive back taxes of lower income Canadians who qualify for the full GST tax rebate. In other words, they are offsetting the GST rebate against back taxes that low income earners owe the government. And when I say low income earners, they are the ones who have the right to the full goods and services tax credit owed.
I don't know how many thousands of low income Canadians have had their rebates taken back to pay back taxes. Usually the rebate would only cover the interest on these back taxes. I think the Minister of National Revenue should spend the weekend and report to the House as to how many people are in involved in the taking away from Canadians of their GST credits.


QUEBEC'S REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois condemned the minister and member for Roberval, the Hon. Benoit Bouchard, and Conservative members for the Conservative government's involvement in regional development in Quebec's resource
areas. Today, after abandoning Abitibi-Temiscamingue, lac Saint-Jean, the North shore and the Gaspe, those same opposition members are asking Ottawa for greater federal involvement in the economic development of the Montreal region.
Since 1985, the Conservative government has been constantly involved in regional development in Quebec and has implemented programs to improve the economic situation of Quebecers.


SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: One hundred years ago today a young Canada mourned the death of a political giant. Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister and a Father of Confederation, worked tirelessly to weave the fabric of a young land. From his dream of a national rail link to his battle against the veiled threat of treason of unrestricted reciprocity, Sir John A. shepherded a design for confederation that has held fast for over a century. "Whatever you do, adhere to the union", he stated, "We are a great country and shall become one of the greatest if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance if we suffer it to be broken."
Well, look around, Sir John A., wherever you are. Your contemporary successor is flouting your vision. When today's Prime Minister was first elected he trumpeted "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this country". Sir John, seven years later we are at the brink of becoming, in your own words, "a country broken". I know, sir, you will agree when you look at your political contemporaries that they have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.


CANADA POST
Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, now, more than ever, national symbols are vital to our Canadian identity. One such symbol, the heritage post office in Mossley, Ontario, is in imminent danger of disappearing. I was shocked to learn that at least 12 post offices of similar size to Mossley's have advertised recently for postmaster positions in Quebec and in other regions of Canada, as opposed to converting to a retail outlet.

June 6, 1991
Does Canada Post have different policies for the regions of our country? If so, why? Is that fair, Mr. Speaker?
Last year Canada Post amassed a profit of over $149 million. Does Canada Post really need to shut down the fourth-oldest post office in our country to improve its balance sheet? Don't the residents of Mossley deserve to keep their own Canadian national symbol, their piece of Canadiana, which they want to share with future generations of Canadians?
Will the minister change his decision?


MIDDLE EAST
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, as all people of good will seek justice and peace in the Middle East, we are shocked to learn that once again violence and conflict have erupted in the Middle East. This time the conflagration occurs between the old arch rivals, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Questionable alliances have occurred between Syria and Lebanon during the last months, but now, seemingly unprovoked, Israel this week has launched air raid attacks on southern Lebanon. For more than a year, the UN has verified that no raids have emanated from the internationally recognized Lebanese border. Yet, in the Israeli attacks, Lebanese civilians and children have been left dead. In fact, it appears that the magnitude of these attacks surpass those of Israel's notorious 1982 attack.
In view of the very tense and fragile peace that is being sought in the whole of the Middle East, I ask our government to condemn these raids and to call upon the United Nations to intervene to prevent even greater tragedy from occurring.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe Environment Week is the right time to send a signal to Canadian industry that we support greater production and use of ethanol from renewable resources in gasoline blends.
This government can help create new domestic markets for this product by encouraging the use of Gasohol in federal government vehicles wherever it is available in Canada.
In so doing, we would also show our support for the recommendations of the recent report of the Standing Committee on the Environment.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights has published a document which reveals that children from Haiti are brought illegally and deceptively into the Dominican Republic to work on sugar cane plantations.
These children are promised high wages. Once they arrive they are forced to work as slaves, receiving low wages, working under inhumane conditions, and most shocking of all, they are prevented from returning to their homes in Haiti.
The International Labour Organization has been denouncing this blatant abuse of human rights since 1983.
This is nothing less than the trafficking of children. Worse still, according to the report, the Dominican Republic is involved in this through a state-owned sugar producer. This same government also ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in January, 1990.
The Dominican Republic should respect its own law and convention. I ask the Government of Canada, in any deliberations with the Dominican Republic, to bring all influence to bear in having this monstrous system of child trafficking dismantled.
As a fellow signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we can do nothing less.


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, this is the twentieth anniversary of National Environment Week, and this year the theme is: "A Time for Action".
This week, many Canadians will take part in more than 800 activities across this country.
June 6, 1991

I take great pride in drawing your attention to the official opening of the first Canadian arboretum for rare species on June 9 in Joliette.
This initiative by the Association quebecoise de lutte contre les pluies acides, in co-operation with the town of Joliette, will provide a major conservation park for tree species that are rare or on the endangered list. This unique concept reflects the commitment of the people of my riding to protecting our environmental heritage.
On this occasion, 1,000 Norway Spruce seedlings will be distributed to the public, I hope that the many activities organized, for instance, by the CARA and by the ACEF in Lanaudiere will be a tremendous success.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Joliette have once again shown that they know how to organize and how to act.


D-DAY ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore -Malton):: Mr. Speaker, 47 years ago today, freedom returned to the shores of Europe. June 6, 1944, D-Day, still rates as one of the most famous days in history. It marked the beginning of the end of Nazism and the brutality it represented.
Canadians can certainly look back to D-Day with considerable pride. All three of our services were involved in the masterly-planned invasion. Our seamen steered the landing craft and our naval gunners pummelled the enemy's beach defences. Our pilots helped to ensure that the allies had overwhelming air superiority when it really mattered.
Over 15,000 Canadian soldiers waded ashore on Juno Beach that morning, just one-fifth of the total allied invasion force.
By the end of the day most of them had reached their objectives, overcoming a combination of mines, booby traps, barbed wire, machine guns and hand grenades.
Over 350 Canadians were killed trying to reach their D-Day objectives.
Let us never forget that they forfeited their futures so that others would no longer be captives in their own lands.
Oral Questions
Europeans have never forgotten D-day, neither should we.


SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to also add my voice to those who have brought before us the memory of the passing of Sir John A. Macdonald 100 years ago.
John A. would have been proud and delighted to see how much Canada has grown and prospered in those 100 years, to know that 100 years later, Canada, as judged by a recent United Nations study, is considered the second best country in the world to live in.
It was 130 years ago, in a speech delivered in 1861 that Macdonald cautioned: "Whatever you do adhere to the union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken."
Canadians have a great deal to be thankful for. We have accomplished much. This country united can accomplish a great deal more. There is, after all, first place and John A. liked being number one.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Today, when giving an interview to the press, the minister said: "Mr. Raymond Chretien believes he is due for an apology. He shall let me know, and I will respond."
Is this minister, with this offer of an apology, saying that he has made serious errors in the handling of this case?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, specifically, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs a few weeks back made a statement on

June 6, 1991
Oral Questions
national television that he had received an apology from the senior public servant, Raymond Chretien.
Will the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs do the honourable thing and take this opportunity in the House to correct this statement which he now knows is clearly untrue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that matter was dealt with completely in committee this morning.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is not being dealt with publicly which is the place where that apology should be made.
I would go back to a final supplementary to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Again, in speaking to the press this morning, he said: "I regret all aspects of this matter," referring to the Al-Mashat affair. With the minister acknowledging these regrets, will this lead to an apology of all the ministers who are involved in unfairly blaming public servants, while taking no responsibility themselves for this very sorry affair that has been so bothersome to the Canadian people and to this government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no.
I want also to add another point, that is, I think the behaviour of members in this House in this matter has not led to a greater esteem for Parliament among the people of this country.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister.
On May 15 in this House, the Prime Minister said: "There were administrative errors made in the system for which apologies have been conveyed."
In view of the fact that Raymond Chretien denies conveying an apology, will the Acting Prime Minister now on behalf of the Government of Canada acknowledge that that statement made by the Prime Minister on May 15 was inaccurate and misleading? Will he, on behalf of the Government of Canada and this House convey an apology to Raymond Chretien?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, both my former answers apply.
That was dealt with in the House and in committee: no.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in a report that was made public on May 15, it says: "Mr. Chretien has apologized."
The Acting Prime Minister, on television, referring to Raymond Chretien, said: "He obviously very much regrets what happened. He apologized to me."
These statements are misstatements. They are false. They are misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I want it made very clear the questions that have just been asked by the hon. member's colleague have been allowed because they were in order. The question that the hon. member wants to pose may very well be in order. What is not in order are the accusatory words that have just been used in the preamble. The hon. member may want to put his question, and I will listen carefully to it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this government has made public certain statements that are inaccurate, according to Mr. Raymond Chretien, the person who was accused of making or conveying an apology.
I am asking the government today in the House of Commons in a public way to convey an apology to a civil servant who has served this country for the last 25 years. In view of the inaccuracies in those statements by the Government of Canada, will it now have the decency and apologize to Raymond Chretien?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered earlier this day.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on March 12, Paul Tellier, the Clerk of the Privy Council, knew that former Iraqi Ambassador Al-Mashat had jumped to the front of the queue and was provisionally accepted as a retiree immigrant to Canada.
On April 8, Mr. Tellier learned Mr. Al-Mashat had in fact arrived in Canada, yet he did not tell the Prime Minister until April 30. In view of the fact that this minister blamed Raymond Chretien and, for symmetry, David Daubney for not having alerted their bosses to
June 6, 1991

Al-Mashat's possible presence in Canada, how can the minister explain this very clear double standard?


Charles Joseph Clark: What requires explanation are the leaks in logic and the very creative interpretation of other people's language used with some consistency by my colleague who has put the question. He knows that Mr. Tellier was before the committee, answered questions put to him when he was allowed to respond and that closes that matter.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not close that matter at all.
I want to ask a question about another official of the Privy Council to the minister in his capacity as President of the Privy Council. The minister's Chief of Staff, David Daubney, said: "I was told that my name was put in for reasons of symmetry. I think essentially it was that given the surname of the official involved and his relationship to the Leader of the Opposition that they felt a political staffer should be offered".
I want to ask the minister: Does the minister stand by the statement of his Chief of Staff that they felt, they, the lynch-mob cabinet committee, should in fact be offering up a political staffer for symmetry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there was no cabinet committee that acted in that way.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is now saying that his Chief of Staff did not tell the truth.


Charles Joseph Clark: Svend baby.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I have to remind the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, as I have had to remind other members on both sides of the House, including yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister, that this line of questioning is not easy for the Speaker, nor is it easy for hon. members.
The hon. member may have a question which is acceptable. But what is not acceptable are preambles which are hurling accusations that are improper either
Oral Questions
against anybody in this place or anybody outside of it. I ask the hon. member to be very careful and put his question and I will listen to it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will put my question to Joe baby-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.


Ms. Copps:: He called him Svend baby.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Last night at a press conference, the minister's chief of staff, Mr. Daubney, indicated that he and Mr. Raymond Chretien had been blamed in the Al-Mashat affair for reasons of symmetry. Why would the government want to blame two senior officials for reasons of symmetry? We know a minister or ministers made the decision.
Could the minister tell us which minister made such a stupid decision? Second, the minister knows that in all parliamentary systems like ours, in a case like this the honourable thing to do for a minister is to offer his resignation. Why has no minister in this government done the honourable thing so far?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the government's position was made quite clear in a paper tabled a few months ago about the issue of ministerial responsibility. A minister cannot be held responsible for matters that concern him if he was not informed. That is the case here. What we have here is a case of human error, errors of judgment and mistakes in the system. That is why the Parliament of Canada has formed a parliamentary committee to consider this matter, and I think the committee is still looking into this question-
I apologize for speaking French to my friend, Mr. Nunziata, but it is one of the official languages in this House, and I intend to speak French, even if they don't like it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He should not use the French language like that!

June 6, 1991
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: would like to give the minister another opportunity to speak French. But I think that he is going to be just as embarrassed whatever the language he uses.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why Mr. Chretien's name was added to that of Mr. Daubney. For reasons of symmetry?
Why do the government and the ministers, after stating publicly that errors were made by certain civil servants for which apologies were conveyed, when in fact none were conveyed, keep giving the impression that a civil servant made a mistake? They know full well that those responsible for this mistake did not convey any apologies or admit they did wrong.
Can the minister tell me, just for symmetry, if there should not be two ministers blamed for their incompetence, the same way the government tried to put the blame on two civil servants?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, these two individuals were mentioned because they were the two senior civil servants who were in charge, in this case, in the Department of External Affairs.
Mr. Daubney was my chief of staff at the time at External Affairs and the mistake he made was to read and deliver a memorandum intented for the eyes of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As for Mr. Chretien, the Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, his was an error of judgement. He has let his minister travel to the Middle East while there was a controversy about Iraq. Although he was fully aware of what was going on concerning Mr. Al-Mashat, he did not breathe a word to his minister. He put the minister representing Canada in a situation where he could not be apprised of the case.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On May 14, at page 51 of Hansard the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, this morning I made public a chronology of events
explaining how this decision came about-The facts were disclosed
this morning and we have been quite transparent about it all.
Mr. Speaker, we now know that material facts in the possession of the minister were omitted from the May 14 statement. Does the minister still stand by his statement of May 14 in the House?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thought these people were interested in finding out what happened but I have found out differently. The display of the opposition members both in committee and in this House reminds me of the days of the kazoo's in the Senate. I am not surprised.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. The minister has admitted participating in a meeting on May 13 which we know decided to omit certain facts and blame two individuals while ignoring the inaction of others and of ministers.
Surely the minister must see that this was wrong. Will he do the honourable thing and apologize to this House and Canadians?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, never will I apologize for having Canadians know what really happened.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. During the Canada-U.S. free trade talks, Canadians were fearful that the United States was after our fresh water and today our fears have been realized. A firm with United States links called Multinational Resources has announced today its intention to divert water from the North Thompson River, a major tributary of the Fraser, into the United States to serve the San Diego market. The governor of California days ago said that he was keen on buying Canadian fresh water.
Will the Acting Prime Minister stand in his place today and say to Canadians, and indeed to Americans, that this country will not divert its rivers wholly or partially into
June 6, 1991

the United States, that Canadian rivers are simply not for sale.


An hon. member:: Another alarmist in the NDP.


An hon. member:: That is a Reform Party policy, not ours.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member never ceases to come in with a question about this every two months, usually quoting some American wish list which will go nowhere. In fact, the free trade agreement made it clear that bulk exports of water are not part of the agreement and will not be part of the agreement.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my question concerning another free trade related issue is for the Minister of Communications. Traditionally, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed relatively free movement of performing artists across our borders. Now the United States has imposed a barrier to Canadian artists performing in the United States as a protectionist lever in the upcoming trade negotiations.
I want to ask the minister whether he will acknowledge that such actions amount to a pre-emptive strike against Canadian cultural industries? Will he advise what remedy he has sought? Will he assure us that Canadian culture will not be used as a bargaining chip to be bargained away in the upcoming trilateral negotiations?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should remember that the Minister for International Trade already said that just a few days ago.
More important, I am very interested to hear the NDP now talking about the value of free movement of people back and forth across the border as a result of the free trade agreement.
I have been concerned, as indeed my colleagues have been concerned, about the lack of free movement in the past for performing artists into the United States from Canada. It is a concern. We have expressed that concern and are continuing to work on it, but we also will make sure we keep in place the free movement of people and of businesses under the free trade agreement.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. On May 14 the Acting Prime Minister said on national television, speaking of Raymond Chretien, the following: "He obviously very much regrets what happened. He has apologized to me and I say that ends the matter."
It does not end the matter because we know that the minister and Raymond Chretien have not spoken together even to this day. Therefore it is impossible that Raymond Chretien apologized to the minister.
My question is the following. Will the minister not take advantage of this opportunity now in Parliament and before the people of Canada to set the record straight, to indicate there was no apology, personally or indirectly to the minister and that to the extent1 the minister inadvertently, or any other way, misled the people of Canada, inadvertently or any other way maligned Mr. Chretien, he apologizes for that. Do the decent thing, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised and answered in committee this morning.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister this question, given that his statement of May 14 was made on national television potentially to millions of Canadians. The statement claimed an apology that never happened, a conversation that never took place. Given the importance of the credibility of this minister, the integrity of this minister, will he not now clear the air for his own sake and for the sake of decency for Raymond Chretien?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chretien knows, because I am sure he was paying attention to the testimony in committee this morning, that if he has a request to make of me he has only to make it. He has not made it.
With respect to the committee in which these questions were first posed today, I remind the House that that committee was established at the explicit desire of

June 6, 1991
Oral Questions
this House to provide a parliamentary opportunity so that the facts could be known.
I think what is becoming increasingly clear is that while it is possible for the facts to be known in that committee, it is not possible for dramatic and sometimes misleading statements to be made on television, which is why the opposition keeps repeating these questions here in the House. They are interested in a sound bite, they are not interested in the facts.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council.
This morning he told the press that he would be reviewing the transcripts of Mr. Shortliffe's statement about Mr. Chretien's unsubstantiated apology. Has the minister spoken to Mr. Shortliffe since making this commitment? When will he review the transcripts?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have done both.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Will he review carefully the statement of ministers of May 14, which makes public an apology to ministers on the part of Mr. Chretien and Mr. Daubney? Does it make a difference to this minister that this statement of apology on the part of Mr. Chretien was made public in spite of the fact that Raymond Chretien says he did not apologize.


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not want to stray into the area of testimony in committee, but I think the hon. member was there. She will know that Mr. Shortliffe, when faced with questions of this kind, indicated that Mr. Chretien knew what would be in the statement issued the next day.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Business people across the country have pointed out yet another problem with the goods and services tax.
When customers charge the purchase of a product to their credit card, the fee which the merchants must pay to the bank is calculated after the GST is added. This means that the banks will earn income in excess of $60 million this year at the expense of the merchant, as a result of the GST.
Will the minister justify this added expense to small business people? Why should small business be shoring up the profits of banks at this time of high business failures?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, they used to do that on 13.5 per cent, now they are doing it on 7 per cent. But we will be happy to look at it.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental. This government has stated an interest in assisting small business, yet is again helping its banking friends reap profits at merchants' expense.
Will the Minister of State for Small Businesses meet his responsibility and exert pressure on his banking friends to charge the merchant fee on the actual price of the items exclusive of the tax?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that banks pay taxes just like anybody else-


Some hon. members:: Come on, come on.


Otto John Jelinek: A billion dollars. We know where the New Democrats stand on-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: In any event, my answer to the hon. member's second question is the same as the first one. This is constant policy of the government.
We have brought in a new tax which is going to benefit the competitiveness of Canadians. There is no question in anyone's mind that the old manufacturers' sales tax was an impediment, an albatross around the necks of Canadian businesses, manufacturers and exporters, small and large, and the elimination of that tax and its replacement with a modern value-added tax like the GST, used in 48 other countries around the world, is going to benefit businesses and, therefore, all Canadians.
June 6, 1991


JUSTICE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
I believe that Canadians are becoming impatient with our government's failure to introduce legislation to streamline and, indeed, speed up our extradition process. Therefore, my question to the minister is this. When will the minister address this problem to reduce the number of appeals open to fugitives such as Charles Ng and, in so doing, send a message that Canada is not a safe haven for fugitives?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the hon. member and a number of my colleagues in the House on this particular issue.
The government is undertaking a complete review of the extradition law. I am happy to report that I have asked my department to fast-track this. I expect to be able to introduce amendments to the provisions of the Extradition Act relating to appeal that address the concerns raised by the hon. member, namely the speed with which these issues can be dealt with prior to the rising of the House before the summer.
So, within this sitting, I will be introducing those amendments.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, about the lease his department signed with Transport Canada. After two years, we finally got a copy of the lease and it confirms what the opposition and myself were suspecting, namely that Public Works paid more to renew the lease with Campeau, at Place de Ville, than it would have cost to have a new tower built in the Outaouais. I would like the Minister of Public Works, who signed the lease for the government, to apologize for misleading the House in 1989?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the member, in bringing this matter up, gives me an opportunity to remind colleagues that this
Oral Questions
project was one of several capital projects that were cancelled in the name of budgetary restraint.
In saying that extra cost or an apology is in order, he ignores the fact that the lease is renewed at $35 per square metre less than the previous lease that was signed years ago by the Liberal government.


Gilles Rocheleau: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say to the minister that, under the present lease, it costs $250 per square meter, a lot more than what would have cost a 20-year lease in the Outaouais. I want to ask the minister why he changed the allocation rules for leases, by establishing criteria which do not take into account the situation in the Outaouais?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there were no rules changed. The project was terminated and there were many arguments that could be placed both ways.
Many public servants were pleased that this was cancelled. There was a substantial saving in terms of relocation, infrastructure demands and many colleagues in this House were very pleased that the government had followed this policy.
We have discussed this before and we can argue about it again, but the fact is that this project was one of several that were cancelled and, on a net basis, the renewal has not been a bad deal for the taxpayers of Canada.


NOISE POLLUTION
Harry Chadwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
I am very glad to acknowledge the progress made by the minister in proposing amendments to the Aeronautics Act. It will impose a significant fine on violators of noise regulations at our airports. A $10,000 fine against corporations should successfully deter violators, much to the relief of my constituents.
Could the minister please give consideration, when this bill is before the Standing Committee on Transport, to including an equally significant minimum fine for violators so that airports will be obliged to enforce a

June 6, 1991
Oral Questions
significant fine and not the token fines presently being levied?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know, over the many years, that he has taken the concerns of his constituents in the area of the airport at Toronto very seriously, and worked hard on their behalf.
As he knows, the bill is now before committee, which will be looking at all the options. This is an amendment that I am sure will come up for debate and one that can be dealt with in the committee.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Public Works and it concerns the mother of all boondoggles, the lease on the Transport Canada building.
How can the minister justify the cancellation of the 1989 construction of the Transport Canada building at a cost of $200 million over 20 years, and instead grant a sweetheart deal of at least three times the cost to Campeau Corporation now led by the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Stanley Hartt?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he is an objective and knowledgeable critic, that the sweetheart deal was the one I referred to when Judd Buchanan and Arthur Laing entered into the original lease many years ago at a cost much in excess of the one we are able to renegotiate the new lease.
He also knows that he is trying to compare apples and oranges. He is trying to compare a 20-year lease purchase with the renewal of an existing lease. He ignores all of the advantages that are gained in staying in the lease arrangement and renegotiating it.
He ignores the fact that we were able to make arrangements to have the asbestos cost shared. He ignores the fact that there was swing space arranged with Campeau Corporation. He ignores the fact that if there was any particular corporation which I would be disposed to make a deal, it would not be the Campeau Corporation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, and I am sure pigs can fly as well.
I want to ask a supplementary question of the Acting Deputy Prime Minister concerning this new lease on life for Stanley Hartt.

My supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. When the tender process for the new Transport Canada building was cancelled, Mr. Stanley Hartt, the then Prime Minister's chief of staff, was the same person who later became president of the Campeau Corporation, three months after leaving the Prime Minister's office. Did the Acting Prime Minister ensure that both the letter and the intent of the code governing conflicts of interest and post-employment were observed? If not, does he intend to do so today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that particularly when he is dealing with merely an Acting Deputy Prime Minister, if he wants an answer to a question of that kind, he will be well served by giving me notice.
I did not have notice. I do not know the answer. I suspect the answer is in the negative but he does not want my suspicions. I will take it as notice and get back to him.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Today is the anniversary of D-Day. Canadians are paying tribute at memorials and cenotaphs across this country. In Avonmore, Canada Post is attacking these symbols. Canada Post intends to close the post office. It has asked the township to remove the cenotaph so that it can sell the property.
Will the minister intervene on behalf of veterans and stop this horrendous attack on Canadian symbols and veterans?
June 6, 1991


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, when the question about the cenotaph in Avonmore came to my attention, I contacted the post office. They said that their intention, if they have not done so already and I think they might have, is to donate to the town of Avonmore the land, the cenotaph, and the surrounding land so it will be a long-lasting memorial to the veterans of Canada permanently in the hands of the town of Avonmore.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. I would first commend him for his actions with Avonmore.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jerry Pickard: I would also remind him that Canada Post is attacking the very fabric of rural Canada. They have removed the word "Canada" from Canada Post. Flags and symbols across this country have been removed in hundreds of communities because of closures. In Avonmore the cenotaph question came up but again that question is going to be asked a hundredfold over with the hundreds of closings that are going on.
Will this minister reconsider his position in shutting down the symbols of Canada in closing post offices and maintaining rural dignity in this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, not only is this the day to remember D-Day, it is a day to remember because it is the first time in 20 years I have received applause from the other side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the actions taken by the previous government-the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was the minister at this time-in making Canada Post a Crown corporation so it could operate free from political interference, it has become the most efficient post office in the world.
Given that tremendous track record, of which all Canadians should be truly proud, I am not about to go second guessing the management and saying they should do this and do that. The representations the hon.
Oral Questions
member makes have been heard and acknowledged and I am sure that if we allow ourselves we will see that Canada Post is something we can all be proud of as a tremendous accomplishment by the employees who work there.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and refers to a question which was asked last Friday in the House. It concerns the Canadian printing industry and the fact that the rule requiring material printed in the United States of America to state clearly on it that it is printed in the United States of America is not being enforced by Canada Customs in the way that the reverse rule is being enforced by American Customs, thus putting the Canadian printing industry at a disadvantage.
This was a concern raised by the industry when they were in Ottawa a week or so ago. Last Friday the government made a commitment to look into it and see what could be done about it. I am asking the Minister of National Revenue what the government will be doing and will they be moving to enforce this rule?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that we only had an opportunity to meet with representatives from the printing industry last week. As a result of that meeting I have asked my officials to review all aspects of the concerns that were raised at that meeting. The report has not been finalized. When it is and comes to my attention for review I will be very happy to share the information with my hon. friend.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of National Revenue could at least make it clear that the government intends to enforce its own rules, which is part of the problem. I wonder if the minister could at least give us that assurance.
While he is doing that, could he also assure us, because I have heard information to the contrary, that the government, particularly the Department of National Revenue itself, is not having GST information and other information printed across the border and coming back into Canada for distribution. Could he give us

June 6, 1991
Oral Questions
assurance that his department is not cross-border shopping?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member my assurances that my department is not cross-border shopping in any way, shape, or form.
I can also give the hon. member my commitment that we are enforcing all rules as they apply to Revenue Canada under existing legislation.
I will go even further than that and say that as a result of the meetings with the printing industry and the review that is under way now, we are looking at ways and government as a whole is looking at ways on an ongoing basis, to try to level the playing field wherever we find it is not level. If we find out that there is not a level playing field in this instance, we will take appropriate action to correct it.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It is urgent that we move ahead quickly to pass improvements to the Young Offenders Act. Many of the residents of my riding are demanding changes.
I raised this issue with the former Minister of Justice on June 12, 1989, two years ago. I submit that our laws must be changed to reflect greater concerns for the victims of criminals and society in general.
What major changes will be incorporated in Bill C-12, including amendments, and what changes are being considered in phase two of the Young Offenders Act?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and, once again, for his interest in his particular area. Bill C-12, which is the reinstated version of Bill C-58, was introduced by my predecessor and is at report stage in the House. It deals with the question of the test for the transfer of a young person to adult court and the sentences available to the young offender in the adult courts for youth convicted of murder.
I am hoping that this legislation will come forward quickly. I understand a number of amendments have been proposed. I will be bringing forward the second phase of the Young Offenders Act amendments this fall
which will address a broader application of youth in conflict with the law.
I cannot be more specific on it at this moment since the bill is not tabled, but I can assure the hon. member that we are in full consultation with the provinces and other interested parties and I hope to table phase two before the end of this calendar year.


IMMIGRATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I want to remind the Acting Prime Minister that in his new job as Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs he will require the trust and the confidence of all Canadians.
In that regard I would like to ask the minister once again to answer clearly in this House and to Canadians for a statement that he made on the May 14 to all Canadians in which he spoke about Mr. Raymond Chretien in stating: "He very obviously regrets what happened. He has apologized to me, and as I say, that ends".
Obviously the minister must have known that statement was not true because he had never spoken to Mr. Raymond-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member said that the minister must obviously have known that that statement was not true, but there is no difference between saying that and saying that the hon. minister is a liar. That is not appropriate questioning.
I am going to hope that the hon. member did not mean an accusation like that, but that kind of language used in a preamble certainly creates that kind of an impression. The hon. member may put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the minister stand by this statement he made on that date?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no one is more conscious than I am of the need for me, and indeed the need for all members of this House, to earn the respect and trust of Canadians.
I try to conduct myself in a way that will attract and maintain that respect and trust.
June 6, 1991


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is one of the reasons why this government, when this affair arose, agreed very quickly to establish a parliamentary committee that would allow more extensive discussion of these issues than Question Period permits.
We have a clear example of how right a decision that was today because that very question was asked and answered earlier this morning in the standing committee. The standing committee provides the latitude for there to be that kind of fullness of answer.
I do not think that there is much point or indeed much respect for this institution for me to repeat here what I said in committee established by the House of Commons when I was there as a witness earlier this morning.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret on a point of order concerning the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs who has just indicated that he tries to maintain himself in a position that will attract respect and trust.
He and his colleagues have called upon us on a regular basis to change our habits in an effort to raise the dignity and respect which this institution deserves.
During Question Period, the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs referred to my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway as "Svend baby".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, he did that and I do not think this adds to the decorum of this House. I do not think that attracts the trust and imagery that the minister would want to have. I want to provide him with an opportunity to stand in his place and withdraw those remarks.
Point of Order


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would want to withdraw that statement.
While I am on my feet, may I say that I want to consult the "blues" to ensure that my response to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said what I wanted it to say.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that I think the President of the Privy Council demonstrated by his response to that point of order the kind of dignity and respect for each other that we would like to see.
I would hope that the House leader of the New Democratic Party will notice that, take it back to his caucus colleagues and tell them how inappropriate it is to have questions with accusatory, inflammatory preambles, particularly the kind his colleague, the member from Burnaby, has frequently put forward to the House. He would be helping us all earn some respect in this House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The right hon. President of the Privy Council was on his feet extending an apology with regard to my colleague from Burnaby. Perhaps he would avail himself of this opportunity to stand in the House and extend an apology to Raymond Chretien.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be in a period of some flexibility in the rules.
What I have said, and I welcome the opportunity to say it again although I am sure it has already been drawn to Mr. Chretien's attention, is that if he believes that any of my comments give him reason to request an apology, he has only to ask me for that kind of apology and I will respond. I do not think that it is particularly helpful to the reputation of this House, nor does it serve the reputation or the interests of Mr. Chretien to have this matter pursued in a partisan way.
He and I have known one another for eight or nine years. We have worked together very closely.
The House leader of the Liberal Party is asking if I will apologize. I do not think he has any authority from Mr. Chretien to seek that. I have made it very clear that if

June 6, 1991
Business of the House
Mr. Chretien believes that I have said something that would-


David Charles Dingwall: What an example for national unity. What an example.


Charles Joseph Clark: No. If Mr. Chretien believes that there is some matter that I have said that should elicit from him a request for an apology, he has only to call me. We have spoken together on matters in the past and I am quite prepared to do that again.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, earlier in Question Period in the preamble to my third question I referred to the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs as "Joe baby" in response to his statement to me.
Obviously in the same spirit in which the minister has withdrawn his reference, I too fully withdraw mine.


TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the the generous atmosphere that has been established here in the House, I would like to follow up on the request made by the Liberal House leader. It is not good enough for the minister to claim that this is a private matter between himself and Raymond Chretien. He tabled a statement in the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What is the hon. member's point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: My point of order is that when a minister comes into this House and tables a document which makes false statements he has the responsibility to apologize to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition wants to know about government House business. What is the point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The point of order is this: Is there not a responsibility upon the Speaker when documents are tabled, as there was a document tabled on behalf of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, which are patently at variance with the truth? Is it not the responsibility of the House to see those statements corrected publicly?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know if they are patently untrue. I have not seen the documents. We will have a look at them and then I will come with a decision on it. The hon. leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I pose my question to the government House leader, and in doing so I remind him that my colleague from Ottawa West will have a specific question for him with regard to House business and I hope that he will be able to respond in kind.
Perhaps the government House leader could indicate to members on this side of the House what the business will be for Monday and Tuesday and for the remaining part of next week.


George Albert Proud: Two full days of the Machete affair.


Harvie Andre: That is serving the nation's interest. You are really interested in that, are you not? I know you have been here 25 years, but please do not interrupt.
Today we will continue with third reading of Bill C-ll. Tomorrow was to be an NDP allotted day, but by House order it was agreed that we would not sit so that the NDP could attend its convention in Halifax. Monday will be an allotted day. Tbesday it is my intention to call for second reading of Bill C-10, Excise Tax Act dealing with tobacco, and also for second reading of Bill C-20, the budget implementation bill. At this time, subject to confirmation, Wednesday and Thursday of next week would be allotted days, Thursday being the final allotted day for the current supply period.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I pursue a point of order. The hon. House leader for the government has indicated the business for Monday. Would he clarify whether there will be a vote on Monday? I thought we had an understanding between the House leaders that on that one bill the vote would be passing on division. That obviously did not take place. Will there be a vote on Monday and at what time on Monday?
June 6, 1991


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the deferral of the vote on Bill C-17 was to six o'clock on Monday. It is an allotted day. Assuming the extension of hours until ten o'clock, it would be my intention as government Whip to defer that vote on the allotted day until Tuesday to give members a better chance to be present.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of business of the House, today the Supreme Court of Canada turned down the government's appeal and upheld the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal that section 33(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, prohibiting public political activities by public servants, contravenes the charter and is an undue infringement of the right of freedom and association.
I would like to ask the House leader, now that all appeals are exhausted, does the government intend to bring in a bill to remove the part of the act that the Supreme Court of Canada has now confirmed to be contrary to the charter?


Harvie Andre: It is my understanding that the President of the Treasury Board is examining the ruling to see its implications and we will bring the Canadian law into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I have a question as well for the hon. government House leader.
There have been repeated requests to the Minister of Justice, including a request from the Prince Albert Friendship Centre and the Prince Albert Tribal Council for an investigation into the shooting of an Indian gentlemen, Leo La Chance, by the leader of the Aryan Nations in Saskatchewan, Carney Nerland. Many people are concerned with the relatively minor charge and light sentence that the Crown sought in that particular case. Many people feel that the connection to the Aryan Nations has not been properly explored.
Routine Proceedings
Therefore, I would like to ask the government House leader if he would please request the Minister of Justice to respond to this situation at the next sitting of the House.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would question whether the Minister of Justice or anybody else should respond to a request to interfere in the justice system. As I heard the case described, it is being proceeded with in the normal way.
However, I will bring the member's representation to the Minister of Justice and she may have a response. I remind the hon. member that questions, whether during Question Period or by points of order, on situations of sub judice are really not proper for the very good reason that we should not, through things we say here under the protections of this institution, jeopardize the fairness of our judicial system which we all believe to be as fair as we can make it.
With that reminder, I will, nevertheless, talk to the Minister of Justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would also like to add to that. It is not because of what the hon. government House leader has just said, but that kind of question should be put at Question Period. It is not a point of order.


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did consult with my colleagues from all parties and I even consulted with the independent members. I think you would find unanimous consent to allow me to revert to presenting reports from special and standing committees.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
wish to table the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on the Main Estimates for 1991-1992.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member and his committee report. Tomorrow the estimates are deemed to have been tabled and, as far as I can recall, this is the only committee that has been working and is actually now tabling its reaction to the estimates.
I think it is first rate. I think the committee and its members are to be commended. I only wish that other committees could do the same thing. However, because of the realities of the time on some of the impositions that have been placed on the committees, this is impossible.
I certainly want to acknowledge the first-rate work done and I hope that this can be a model for other committees in the future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Bernard Valcourt: that Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read the third time and
passed.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House seeks to eliminate a subsidy which has outlived its original purpose and has become a burden on the public purse.
The At and East subsidy program was originally introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Canadian grain and flour would move through Canadian ports. The program provided subsidies to the railways based on the difference between the railway's cost and the statutory freight rates dating back to the 1960s. It is worth noting that only a relatively small amount of Canada's export grain moved under this program, less than 3 per cent.
Various studies have been done on this subsidy over the past 15 years. Those subsidies indicated that the subsidy encouraged inefficient movement plus extra handling and storage. It was clear that the program was expensive and no longer necessary. As a result, the subsidy was terminated effective July 15, 1989, as announced in the April 1989 budget.
In order to minimize the impact on users, the legislation provided for a six month transition period to cover grain and flour inventories that were in the rail system on that day.
Members are aware that the government is undertaking a comprehensive review of agricultural policy, which includes an examination of related transportation issues and involves all stakeholders from the farm level through to the consumer.
The principal goal of growing together is to develop options for a national policy which will serve to prepare the Canadian agrifood industry for the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.
Virtually all of the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee on this bill agreed that the At and East program should be terminated. However, some of the witnesses expressed concern about the impact that terminating the program would have on the two Atlantic grain elevators. In particular, people were worried about the implications that the possible closure of the Halifax grain elevator would have on Atlantic agriculture sectors.
In response to these concerns, the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds jointly announced on May 16, 1990, the creation of a steering committee to study the viability of grain handling facilities in the Atlantic provinces.
The steering committee included representatives from industry and the ports, as well as both the federal and provincial governments. The study examined the financial viability of the elevators at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Saint John, New Brunswick. It also examined the feasibility of a new elevator at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, to handle the increasing volumes of grain being grown in that province.
Proposals put forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission, concerning alternatives to
June 6, 1991

the At and East program, were examined as part of the study.
The study concluded that virtually all export grain shipments by rail to both Halifax and Saint John stopped with the termination of the At and East subsidy. The Halifax elevator remained a viable operation because it serviced the Atlantic livestock industry and flour mill in addition to the grain export market.
Unlike the Saint John elevator, it can receive grain by either rail or water. However, the Halifax elevator could be at risk in the longer term unless more export grain can be brought through it.
The study indicated that livestock producers in Atlantic Canada would pay at least $10 more per tonne for feed grains if the Halifax terminal were to close.
The terminal provides an alternative to rail shipping and feed grain to the region as well as competition between rail and water for the feed grain business.
The Saint John elevator, which was almost exclusively handling export grain, closed in May 1990. Unlike the Halifax elevator it was not equipped to receive grain by water.
The study did identify a program that could ensure the long-term viability of the Halifax elevator which is more cost-effective than earlier proposals. This option would be to increase traffic through the Halifax elevator by an additional 200,000 tonnes per year, based on a subsidy of about $3 per tonne.
At the time of the study $3 per tonne was the amount required to equalize the freight rate to Halifax, relative to the St. Lawrence port for grain shipped by water from Thunder Bay. Members will appreciate that it is cheaper to transport bulk products, such as grain, by water than by rail.
One of the main deficiencies of the At and East program was that it subsidized the more expensive rail movements. The government acknowledges the importance of the Halifax grain elevator to the Atlantic livestock and flour milling industries.
I am pleased to advise members that the government is closely monitoring the situation and, if needed, is prepared to ensure that the Halifax elevator remains in operation for the benefit of the Atlantic livestock and flour milling industries.
Government Orders
With respect to the Saint John elevator, the construction of marine unloading facilities and additional storage would be required before the elevator could handle the amount of through-put required to ensure its long-term viability. However, the government is prepared to offer assistance to the Saint John elevator, comparable to what it offered to the Halifax elevator.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the At and East subsidy is an expensive, inefficient and unnecessary mechanism for supporting grain handling on the east coast. Canadian taxpayers cannot afford a subsidy program based on a 1960 policy which is no longer required.
The government is prepared, however, to minimize the impact of terminating the program on the Atlantic livestock and flour milling industries. Therefore I ask members for their support and approval of Bill C-ll.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances I would be very happy to take part in a debate of this kind. However, as you well know, these are not normal times in our country. These are not normal circumstances. Witness the kinds of goings-on here in the House and elsewhere in the past few days. Witness the breakdown in national unity in this country. Witness the breakdown in the economy. These are not normal times and these are not normal circumstances.
The reason why I am not particularly happy about taking part in this debate is that this bill should not be here in the first place. It does not belong in this House at this particular time. At least, at the very minimum, we should not be debating this bill at third reading. At the very least, this is the day this bill should be introduced. We should not be debating it at third reading.
I say that because this particular bill was introduced a long time ago-more than a year ago-under another name or number and died with prorogation. It died. It died early in the month of May and it should not be in this House. The reason why it is here is that this government broke every tradition in this country, every tradition in this Parliament. It broke every convention that we know of and resurrected this bill along with four others.

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, you will recall very well that we went through this kind of debate just a few days ago. Never before in the history of our Parliament have we ever resurrected a bill without unanimous consent. It has never happened in the Mother of our Parliaments in England, in Great Britain.
In my opinion we are debating this bill today as a result of contempt for our traditions, contempt for this House, and ultimately I believe contempt for the Canadian people. Nevertheless, we have it here. I just want to remind you that this bill, in its previous incarnation, was brought out of committee on May 31, 1989. That is more than a year ago. It was debated at report stage and concurred in on June 5, 1990. That is a year and one day ago.
This government had all the time in the world to finish this bill. It had ample time, but it mismanaged and bungled as usual. Here we are, the government breaking tradition, breaking convention and resurrecting a bill that really died at prorogation in early May.
It is little wonder that this kind of debate at this particular time is kind of vexing. It leaves me a little angry, but we have it. I guess we are going to have to live with it and we are going to debate it.
We might recall-I will just provide a little more history-that the bill, which was designed to eliminate the At and East subsidies, was actually brought in after the subsidies were already eliminated.
The subsidies were eliminated back in July 1989. Some time after that the bill was brought in to confirm something that the government had already done.
In my opinion, that is just more contempt for the traditions of this House.
It was said at the time the bill was brought in, more than a year ago, that it would have harmful effects across the board, particularly in the maritimes.
I am sad to say that some of those forecasts have already come true. I would think that most of the other forecasts will be confirmed in the months to come or at least in the years to come.
Let us look at the facts. They are indisputable. First of all, the elevator at Saint John is gone. It is closed. It is no more. There were 55 jobs lost. In a region of Canada like
Atlantic Canada that is particularly painful. Losing 55 jobs is nothing to be sneezed at.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said a few minutes ago in his remarks that this legislation, the At and East legislation, had outlived its usefulness and had become a burden on the public treasury.
Of course, we all know that this government does everything in the name of deficit reduction.
It has outlived its usefulness. I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport would say that to the 55 people in Saint John who lost their jobs. I wonder whether they would agree. I doubt it very much.
Not only that, it has already had an impact on the elevator at Halifax, Nova Scotia. There are serious ramifications for that facility. Already, according to figures that I secured just today, 27 jobs have been lost at the Halifax elevator.
That is a loss of $14.4 million to the Halifax economy. If that elevator, which is in a precarious situation, closes it will mean an additional $13.2 million lost to the economy in Halifax. When it comes to jobs it will mean an additional loss of 220 person-years.
We are talking about a very serious situation.
The Halifax elevator, according to information that was given to me today, needs about 260,000 tonnes to break even. It is just at that figure now. It is operating at around that figure, so if it drops below that the Halifax facility is in trouble and it could close.
That is very disturbing. It is a very important facility to the city of Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of something that my colleague from Halifax said in this House back on February 12, 1990. She was taking part in the debate on the legislation at the time and she said: "Halifax is a city that depends on its ports. The grain elevators, the activity produced by the grain elevators and the jobs created thereto are part of the relative economic health of the city of Halifax."
I say relative because it is relative to the ill health of the rest of the region. That ill health in the rest of the region has been caused by the poison dart of government policy.
June 6, 1991

Then ray hon. friend from Halifax continued, and I quote again:
There is no particular reason, other than a government devoted to a Canada that does not exist outside the very central part of our geography, to see our regions die, and yet they are dying. They are dying from a lack of interest. They are dying from an interest that can only be described as poisonous and that can only be described as anti the best interests of large numbers of Canadian citizens.
That is what my colleague from Halifax said in this House on February 12, 1990. When we are talking about the Halifax elevator, we are talking about something that is crucial to the economy of that city.
As a result of the At and East subsidy elimination, there has been an increase in the cost of transportation to the tune of about $10 a metric ton. This is in line with predictions and forecasts that were made by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission some time ago. Unfortunately the assessment-I say unfortunately because the assessment by the APTC was somewhat alarming-their forecasts are coming true.
While I am talking about the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, this is what it said about the termination of the At and East program. It said that when it comes to grain elevators, the impact-that is, a loss to the economy- would be $3,735,000; the flour mill in Halifax, another $3,200,000; additional cost of livestock and poultry feed, another $8 million; local grain production, $950,000; port and railway employment, $8,280,000. The total identifiable impact on the Atlantic provinces through the termination of the At and East program came to just over $34 million.
Also the Canadian Transport Commission some time ago in its assessment of the At and East program pointed out that the program was responsible in the way of transportation for about 330 jobs; milling in western Canada, another 295 jobs; 75 more jobs at Georgian Bay port; 85 more jobs at Halifax and St. John's; and 402 jobs when it comes to milling in central Canada.
Another thing that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission pointed out is that if the At and East legislation proceeded to the bitter end, and it looks like it is going to happen-of course the subsidies are all gone-the buyers in the provinces who normally relied on grain from western Canada would have to turn
Government Orders
elsewhere. They would have to turn to countries like the United States and to countries in western Europe.
I do not think that makes the people in Atlantic Canada very happy. In fact, I was listening to a speaker from Atlantic Canada in one of our earlier debate. He in effect said that Atlantic Canadians are good Canadians. They want to belong to Canada. They want to participate fully in the Canadian economy. It pains them, it grieves them a lot, if they are forced to turn to other countries for their supplies.
I think it is a dam shame that the Atlantic provinces will have to look elsewhere for their feed grain. In fact, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee has already suggested that there be an elimination of the countervail on U.S. com. It is a ridiculous situation. Here we have a countervail to protect our producers in this country, and now we have in effect Canadians pitted against Canadians. This is the situation we face. Atlantic Canadians who normally buy their feed grain from other Canadians, especially in western Canada, will perhaps have to turn to the United States or to western Europe. Does that make sense? I do not think it does. Of course it is a blow to the west, particularly at this time. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is tough times down on the farm these days. Farmers will be very happy to grab on to any market, small or big, to maintain their survival. Western farmers do not want to lose one dollar of market in Atlantic Canada. This is what the elimination of the At and East subsidies has done.
I think that perhaps one of the problems we have here is that this government never really understood the purpose of the At and East legislation. Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the legislation outliving its purpose. Well, what was its purpose?
Let me go back exactly 25 years to 1966 when the legislation was brought in. At that time the new legislation or the proposed legislation was spoken to by a very venerable, honourable occupant of this House, a man no less than J. W. Pickersgill. You probably know him. What did Mr. Pickersgill say at the time? Describing the purpose of the At and East legislation Mr. Pickersgill said: "To ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports".

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
In other words what Mr. Pickersgill was saying at the time, in addition to ensuring that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports, was that the At and East rates were also intended to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with Montreal and other St. Lawrence River ports. That was the original purpose of the At and East legislation.
The other thing I would like to point out is that the At and East legislation really was in keeping with the history of this country. What we have done over 124 years is defy the physical make-up of this country, defy our geography. What we did was build up parallel systems to what was available in the United States because under normal conditions and forces the pull north-south. If the nation-builders in the early days of this country had ignored the realities of Canada and the north-south forces, this country might not have lasted. It certainly would not have lasted 124 years. But it lasted and prospered because we had statesmen, politicians, and nation-builders with vision and a strong belief in this country. They established programs and legislation to ensure the future of this country. The building of the CPR is an example, as is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the At and East program. I could go on and on.
The At and East program is in keeping with our heritage. It is in keeping with our history. It really carries the spirit of Canada, yet this government is saying to heck with all that. It does not care about that. It is not interested in that. It is interested in something else.
No wonder this country is in a state of confusion. No wonder this country is going down hill. No wonder Canadians feel alienated. No wonder Canadians are obsessed with their cynicism. They have a government and particularly a Prime Minister who does not understand the history of this country, who does not understand what this country is all about. At and East is part of that.
At and East was just part and parcel of an orderly marketing system which we had built up over many long years. These things did not happen just overnight. These
things did not happen over a weekend or two. It took years and years to build.
Over the years we have built up an orderly marketing system. In that orderly marketing system we have now all kinds of marketing boards. Also within that orderly marketing system we have a supply management system.
Despite some of the grievous problems that we have, particularly when it comes to grain farming in this country, those institutions that we have developed over the last number of decades have served Canadians well, are serving Canadians well and I would submit will continue to serve Canadians well provided that this government stops its dam tinkering and tampering.
There is concern that under this government the unravelling of our programs will continue. It is not just a matter of At and East, it goes well beyond that.
In this House about a year ago or so we witnessed the government putting the kibosh on the interest-free advance payments for crops. There was a great outcry because of that. Prairie producers in particular said: "No, it was wrong. It was an effective program. It was not a costly program. It paid all Canadians in the long run". Fortunately, after a great outcry, after a lot of pressure on the government, the government did change its mind. For how long? We can never be sure. When it comes to this government we have to be ever vigilant.
There is more. It is not only At and East and the interest-free advance payments for crops, there are other programs and institutions at risk. Take for example the Canadian Wheat Board, the venerable Canadian Wheat Board which has served Canadians well. In particular, it has served grain farmers well in this country.
The wheat board is in great danger, I submit. We know that it is now in a serious deficit situation. It is perhaps looking at a deficit of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700 million, $800 million, $900 million, perhaps as much as $1 billion. I am not suggesting when I cite those figures that the government is totally responsible for that deficit. There is a terrible international subsidy war going on and it is costing the wheat board a lot of money. Where does the wheat board get its money? From Canadian taxpayers.
June 6, 1991

I do submit that the government has put the Canadian Wheat Board at risk. How? One way is by allowing American wheat into this country.
Under the free trade agreement if the subsidy level in Canada reached that of American subsidies, there was a clause triggered in the FTA that meant Americans would have the right to come in and sell their wheat in Canada.
Unfortunately, the subsidy levels in the two countries met some months ago and it was decided just a few weeks ago that American wheat had to come in.
That poses a terrible risk to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Right off the bat, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $25 million. For the Canadian Wheat Board to compete with the lower priced subsidized American wheat, it would have to drop its prices, and it did. It will cost the Canadian taxpayers $25 million.
There is more to it than that. Once you allow American wheat to come in, you trigger another set of dynamics. I think I have said it before in this House and I will say it again.
When farmers, especially those who live near the U.S. border, see American wheat coming into this country, they are going to look at the American market and say to themselves: "If American wheat can come into our country, maybe we can sell our wheat directly into the American market. We will not have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board. We will find a little niche market here and there, and we will sell our wheat at perhaps a higher price than that offered by the Canadian Wheat Board."
If that happens, and it surely will, one can appreciate the kind of pressure that is going to put on the Canadian Wheat Board.
You cannot have the Canadian Wheat Board, in effect, selling wheat for some Canadian farmers and not for others. You cannot have it that way.
It has to have exclusive jurisdiction or it is going to be out of action completely. I am really afraid for the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We hear all kinds of comments from the Conservatives on the other side, this government, saying: "Our faith in the Canadian Wheat Board is solid. Do not worry. We are right behind the Canadian Wheat Board 100 per cent, so all your talk about possible doom and gloom when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board is totally and completely off the mark."
Government Orders
I do not think I am wrong, and I also know that this is a right wing government. It really does not believe that the government has a place in the economy. It really believes in laissez faire, and so when it talks about supporting the Canadian Wheat Board I really wonder.
The other thing when we are talking about American wheat coming into this country is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said: "Hold it. We do not want American wheat coming into Canada at this particular time because we have some unfinished business."
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture took the position that its members were not afraid of competition. They were not afraid of taking on the Americans. Their product is just as good as that of the Americans. They are just as efficient as the Americans and so they were not afraid of competing with the Americans. However, as I said, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture took the position that there was some unfinished business. As long as Americans were raiding our traditional export markets, as long as the Americans were using their so-called Export Enhancement Program to raid our markets, it was the position of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to say and say bluntly to the Canadian government: "Don't let American wheat come into this country until that other serious matter is resolved".
In my opinion the position taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others made a lot of sense. The Americans play hardball; they are tough negotiators. You don't mess around with the Americans. If you are going to deal with the Americans, you take them on and you take them on frontally, directly. You don't mess round. You don't play games. You take them on directly. I think that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had the right idea. If the Americans want access to our market when it comes to their wheat, then they had better lay off our traditional markets elsewhere around the world.
Now you ask why they should lay off our traditional markets elsewhere around the world. After all, is competition not just competition? It may sound that way, but under the free trade agreement, the infamous free trade agreement, there was an agreement with respect to this matter of one country raiding the traditional markets of the other. I refer to Article 701.4 of the free trade agreement. In that article it says: "The U.S. and Canada

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
are to take into account the effects of their export subsidies on other nations to avoid prejudicing each other's markets".
That is a direct quote. That is what Article 701.4 of the FTA says. There is another article as well and that article is 2011. What does it say? That article stipulates that if one party causes nullification or impairment of any benefit reasonably expected to access to that party directly or indirectly under the provisions of this agreement, that party may, with a view to the satisfactory resolution of the matter, invoke the consultation provisions of the Article 1804 and, if it considers it appropriate, proceed to dispute settlement pursuant to Articles 1805-1807 or, with consent of the other party, proceed pursuant to Article 1806.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Under the free trade agreement we had a right to take the Americans on, to resolve this matter with respect to their raiding of our traditional markets. As I said, I think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others had it right when they said: "Until that Export Enhancement Program problem is resolved, don't let any American wheat come into our country".
Do you know what members of the government said or did? Absolutely nothing. They did nothing. They would not go to bat for our producers. They would not go to bat for our consumers. They would not go to bat for the country. They had all the right. Not only did they have the legal right under the FTA, I submit to you that they had the moral right on behalf of all Canadians to get some kind of justice out of the situation. However they said no, and I think that is abominable.
I think it is terrible that our government would not go to bat on behalf of our farmers. Then again, I guess it really should not come as any great surprise. As I said earlier, this is a laissez-faire government. It believes in the unfettered market driven economy.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


John Harvard: Yes, there is my hon. friend from Calgary confirming it. According to these anti-diluvian thinkers, according to these dinosaurs, we should close down our democracy, close down our governments. "There is no place for government in the economy. We
will just leave it to the boys out there in the marketplace. We will just leave it to the boys and they will do us justice and they will do well. We will have the old trickle down theory and all that nonsense".
You know dam well that is pure, utter hogwash, pure, utter nonsense.
It is not an accident that just days ago the United Nations declared Canada, according to its human development index, the second best country in the world. The United States is number seven, by the way.
Do you think it is really just an accident that relative to other countries in the world Canada is a veritable paradise? Was that just an accident? Not on your life.
We are a great country. This a country that is one of the greatest in the world because we had visionary leaders in this country. Through our democracy they wisely and very judiciously used the instrument of government for the betterment of human development to build our economy and raise our standard of living.
I do not ask government to be oppressive. I do not ask government to take over and run everything. I do not ask government to own everything. There is a place for government. After all, if we are a democracy-and this is a democracy-we must have an instrument to express our democratic will. We do that through the instrument of government, yet we have this anti-diluvian government that is more like a 19th century or 17th century government that says: "to heck with all that tradition, to heck with our history, and to heck with all our economic successes of the past number of decades, we have a better way. We have a laissez-faire way. We have a right wing agenda to pursue and, you know what, they don't listen to us".
I think that we have seen in the past little while that government policies are not working. Just look at the economic indices. Look at the economic numbers. The Tory approach is the wrong way. They are taking us down the hill. I want to say that I think it unfortunate, as I conclude my remarks, that we are debating this bill at this particular time.
As I said at the top, it should not be here at all. I wish the government would rethink, but I know that is hoping
June 6, 1991

in vain. The subsidy is all wrong. That is their opinion. I guess we are wasting our time, but I think it is important we put these thoughts and these comments on the record. I have done that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is again hardly a delight to participate in the debate today on Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act regarding grain and flour subsidies. I do want to say from the start that the purpose of this bill, interestingly enough, is to eliminate the At and East grain transportation subsidy given to shippers of export grain and flour from Thunder Bay through the ports of Saint John and Halifax in Atlantic Canada.
What is interesting about this legislation that the government has brought forward is really two points in terms of process. One is that this is all after the fact. This particular support for the grain industry, to encourage the viability of the elevator at Halifax and the elevator at Saint John, as well as the viability of the livestock industry throughout Atlantic Canada and to provide an essential role in the delivery of competitive priced feed grains to the maritimes, to say nothing of the flour mills and the thousands of thousands of people both directly and indirectly employed by the movement of grain into the Atlantic region, was done away with months ago. As a matter of fact, it was months and months ago. Now we are debating legislation to legitimize what the government did in the past. This is retroactive legislation.
This is not the way to run a government. No wonder the people of Canada are cynical, disappointed and disillusioned. It is no wonder that so many Conservative friends of mine in western Canada shudder when the name of the Prime Minister is mentioned. They are now joining the Reform Party in leaps and bounds as a legitimate, I suppose, conservative party in western Canada and elsewhere, as we are seeing in the papers.
They feel if you have a government and you want to pursue a particular course of action, the usual process is to introduce legislation, take it through the various stages: first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading, and then through the other House.
Government Orders
This government has that sort of "father knows best" approach. It has this big brother approach to government that says: "We know what is best for this industry, this region, this community or this sector of the economy, and we are going to just do this with the stroke of a pen or a hack of an axe. Later, if we have the opportunity or some time in the future, we will legitimize what we have done". That is how dictatorships work. That is how totalitarian regimes operate. That is not how a democracy operates, where the duly elected people of Canada participate in a decision: a vote is taken and, if the majority supports an initiative, then that is that.
It is a bit biased, because in this case we have a large Conservative majority and it tends to carry the day. Nevertheless, normally one would expect Parliament to go through those various stages.


Mr. Belsher:: You are a little biased in your remarks, Nelson.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend says I am biased in my remarks. Indeed, as my good colleague indicates, I am. I cannot believe we are actually doing this. I feel dirtied by participating in this process, which I really deem to be bordering on totalitarianism. The government just says: "Forget about Parliament. Forget about democracy. Forget about the opposition voices. Forget about the legislative committees we have in the House of Commons. Forget about the backbenchers of the Conservative Party. The cabinet just made a decision and that is it, and you had bloody well better accept it. If you do not, it does not matter anyway because we have abandoned all this support for the Atlantic grain industry".
That troubles me. It troubles me as a parliamentarian. It troubles me a democrat. It troubles me as a New Democrat, that somehow we are once again seeing the government ignore and abuse the House of Commons. However that has now become a theme. I guess we just have to simply be part of this process and do the best we can.
That is why we have opposed this legislation. Not only do we think it is bad legislation for Canada and a terrible legislation for the Atlantic region, but it is an inappropriate way to proceed.
I know my hon. friend across the way, who is sitting in listening to these debates, shares my concerns. I know he must share the feelings I have, but unfortunately he is

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
not in a position to really do much. However I sense in his heart of hearts that he has agreed with my comments and particularly those of the previous speaker who had a very thorough deliberation on this issue.
That is one concern. Another concern is that this bill used to be called not Bill C-ll but Bill C-26. Bill C-26 was a bill from the previous session. I emphasize the previous session because at the end of the previous session all of the bills the government was dealing with normally just die on the Order Paper. That is the end. It is a new beginning. It is the end of that session and the beginning of a new session. The government introduces a throne speech, the Governor General sits in the Senate and reads out the new agenda for the government and it starts anew.
That is what usually takes place and it is what most governments have done. As a matter of fact, it is what all governments have done in Canadian history. It is what has happened in the United Kingdom year after year, decade after decade for hundreds of years.
However, this government said: "We have a new idea. We are going to ignore what happens at prorogation". Bill C-26 ought to have died on the Order Paper, as has been done now for hundreds of years in the parliamentary tradition. The government decided to bring in a Draconian piece of legislation, a motion that reinstated this bill and simply said: "Let us now call it C-ll and we will pick up where we left off".
That is not right. It is not the parliamentary thing to do. It is not the democratic thing to do. It is not something that would be done in any serious Parliament of the world, and yet that is what we have had done here.
It is very discouraging to have to participate in this process which I consider to be inappropriate democratically. Also, the fact that we are debating legislation to legitimize a decision the cabinet took months and months ago seems obviously not to be the kind of practice found in a democratic society and during the continuation of a democratic process.
However, having said that, let me just indicate why some of us have been so intent on stopping this legislation. This legislation would have done a great deal for Atlantic Canada. I do not think there is anybody in Canada who would disagree that any support, encouragement and development that we can encourage and initiate in Atlantic Canada is good, not just for the people living in Atlantic Canada, but good for the country. If it is good for the country it is good for all regions of Canada.
As a result of the At and East Program, as it has been referred to, a few years ago the grain elevators in Saint John and Halifax had an economic impact of $3,735,600 a year. That is substantial. The flour mill in Halifax alone had an economic positive impact of $3,200,000 each year. For the hundreds and hundreds of families involved in the livestock industry in Atlantic Canada the cost saving to allow them to participate, not only in livestock but in the poultry business as well, amounted to an annual amount of $18,160,000. That was a tremendous level of support the federal government was providing for the livestock producers and people using grain, as I say, poultry growers as well.
Local grain production benefited by $950,000 a year. The port and railway employment benefited by $8,280,700 a year. Those were the men and women involved with the elevators, the port facilities and the railway systems in that area, a substantial number of people, hundreds and hundreds of them.
The total identifiable impact on the Atlantic provinces amounted to $34 million-plus each year.
I read the other day with interest an account in one of the financial papers commenting on the situation in Atlantic Canada regarding this legislation. It said that the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission indicated that the economics of grain traffic at the port in 1988 amounted to $25.9 million in revenues and 263 jobs, while flour traffic resulted in $28.4 million in revenues and 220 jobs.
A substantial number of people are employed, then, in the elevator industry as well as the flour industry. In Saint John, the Saint John Port Commission put out an information program which indicated that the movement of bulk grains through its port back in 1988 under At and East program amounted to $8.5 million and was responsible for 90 direct jobs.
That in itself is very impressive. In other words, because of the At and East program, hundreds and hundreds of Atlantic Canadian men and women were meaningfully employed. Those were direct jobs. As we know, for everyone directly employed at the elevator, at the flour mill, at the port, on the railway or in other related activities like livestock producers and so on, there are other people that depend on them. I am talking now about the dentists, the school teachers, the bus drivers, people working in retail stores and so on and so forth. In other words, we can talk about the hundreds of
June 6, 1991

direct jobs, but also let us be cognizant of the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of indirect jobs that are related to these permanent positions.
The government, in its wisdom, has decided to eliminate the grain support from central and western Canada. The Halifax elevator plays a vital role as a grain storage facility. Without it Cover Flour Mill, the only flour mill in Atlantic Canada, would likely be forced to close.
The Halifax elevator requires 260,000 tonnes a year to make it a viable facility. At the moment it is perilously close to moving below that. If that occurs in any substantive way the elevator would be forced to close down its operations partly or wholly and move hundreds of people out of full-time meaningful employment.
Without the Halifax elevator shipping feed grains by light vessel through the Port of Halifax, the only competitive alternative to rail transport, would no longer be possible. Based on past experience, this would result in an increase in the rail rates for domestic feed grains of at least $10 a tonne.
The livestock industry in the maritimes depends on grain from Ontario and western Canada. If the transport costs go up by $10 a tonne it is estimated that 5,000 jobs will be lost in the livestock industry, the feed mills, meat packing plants and dairies. I think that bears repeating. If the transportation costs go up by $10 a tonne it is estimated that 5,000 jobs will be lost.
For some people in the House of Commons losing
5.000	jobs may not be considered a major issue. Large plants in central Canada can close down and 2,000 or
3.000	people lose their jobs. Unfortunately, under the free trade agreement that has become a reality, a regular news item now in many of the regional newspapers. This is sad, it is disappointing, it is regretful, but under the free trade agreement this has become a reality.
In Atlantic Canada losing five jobs is serious. Fifty jobs is a major issue. Five hundred jobs is a regional crisis, and 5,000 jobs is an absolute, total disaster. Yet, that is what the impact of this legislation will do to Atlantic Canada.
Government Orders
I do not understand why people, particularly on the government side from Atlantic Canada, are not standing up and ranting and raving about the absolute lunacy of proceeding with this legislation, are not lobbying the cabinet and lobbying their colleagues to stop this sort of pell-mell run into a major economic crisis. Yet, there seems to be no sound whatsoever coming from the government benches.
If the Halifax grain elevator is required to close because the 260,000 tonnes a year are not realized, that will result in the loss of 283 jobs in the port itself. Another 250 indirect jobs may be lost as well, as I said earlier. Closure of the Dover Flour Mills would result in another 45 jobs being lost and the loss of a local market for producers of milling wheat.
In Ontario four grain elevators have been shut down because At and East has been cancelled-two in Midland, one in Port McNicoll and one in Prescott.
The Ontario flour mills have lost export contracts and require lower wheat prices to compete with Quebec mills for CIDA contracts. At the same time, Ontario farmers are already receiving record low prices and cannot afford to see their prices drop any further.
One can go on and on. I do not think that is necessary. We have to ask: "Who gains by this? Who benefits from this legislation?"
Previous speakers and I have pointed out that hundreds and hundreds of people who live in Atlantic Canada will be losers. A major livestock sector will be a loser. The poultry sector will be a loser. The flour milling will be a loser. Local grain producers will be in difficulty. The people who work in ports and elevators will be losers.
Who gains? Surely, the government must be helping somebody with this particular initiative. Interestingly enough, the winners of the loss of the At and East program are places in central Canada, primarily Montreal, but also ports in Ontario since Halifax and Saint John cannot compete with the St. Lawrence rates.
There is a deep unfairness in that the St. Lawrence seaway is subsidized several millions of dollars annually by the federal government through the provision of free ice-breaking, dredging and other Transport Canada services. While the support for the Great Lakes and the

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
St. Lawrence seaway operations continue, the support for the Atlantic system is removed, which essentially is cutting off the lifeline for all those people in Atlantic Canada.
I simply want to summarize my remarks by suggesting that this is part of the way the Conservative government has been progressing.
In other words, let the free market decide what happens in Canada. Imagine if previous governments had done that. If they had simply allowed the American and the Yankee to and fro economic forces to dominate right across Canada, we would not have a country. There would be no Canada.
We were celebrating today the 100th anniversary of John A. Macdonald's death. One hundred years. Here was a leader of the Conservative Party with a vision of Canada: rails across the country and appropriate programs to support Canadian industry and create jobs from coast to coast to coast. He had a vision and a commitment to Canada as a country; something separate, an identity separate from the United States. It would be a way of life, a country and a vision of the future that was separated completely from that of the United States.
Today, we have exactly the opposite. We have a government with no vision at all, quite prepared to sell Canada to the United States in whatever form, and the sooner the better. Here is a government that is removing all sorts of programs which link up Canada and Canadians.
Today we are debating one. It is an opportunity for Canadians in the House of Commons to stand up and say: "Enough is enough". The At and East legislation will eliminate one of the critical and crucial lifeblood systems in the economics of Atlantic Canada forever.
We do not have to allow this to happen. We do not have to see this occur. That is why I am begging my colleagues opposite to do the right thing: stand up and support Atlantic Canada.
If we do not, all of the action is going to continue to flow economically into central Canada. As a result of the free trade agreement with the United States-God forbid if we ever get into the free trade agreement with Mexico as well-if we continue erosion of the economic
activity southward into the sun belt and into northern Mexico, that is where the economic action will be in North America.
That is where the jobs will be. That is where the synergy of economics and financial investment will occur. It will not be in Atlantic Canada. It will not be in Canada, period.
This is an opportunity for us within our own area of jurisdiction to stand up and say: "Let's do something for Atlantic Canada that is meaningful."


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 Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, Environment; the hon. member for Ottawa West, Public Service; and the hon. member for Hamilton East, Immigration.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address remarks to Bill C-ll amending the Railway Act. I say to the member from British Columbia of the New Democratic Party, first and foremost, the At and East is dead. It has been dead since July 16, 1989. There is absolutely no point voting against the bill because nothing in the world will resurrect the At and East.
The grain products that were moving under the At and East subsidies ceased to move prior to July 16, 1989, and all we are dealing with is a legal technicality, one that should have been put to rest in the last session of Parliament. Why should it have been put to rest? Apparently the member from British Columbia of the New Democratic Party does not know. It should have been put to rest so we can get on with remedying the situation and to establish set-offs to the cancellation of the At and East that will benefit the port of Halifax and hopefully other east coast ports.
It is very disturbing to hear members of Parliament from other regions of Canada, no matter how well meaning or how good their intentions, to wax so eloquently on an issue that now has been put to rest in the area affected; Nova Scotia and the east coast ports. Let me explain why. There has not been one gallon, not one tonne of grain or grain products moving through the port of Halifax or any other east coast port under the At and
June 6, 1991

East for approximately two years. Everybody should be clear on that.
Let us look at the positive side to which we have been trying to move for that same two year period, the assets to At and East. Even organizations like the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission representing the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have said: "Eliminate the At and East."
The At and East was involved in expenditure over the years of approximately $40 million by the Government of Canada. What the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission wanted was all or a portion of that money to be spent on other transportation initiatives affecting not only marine transportation but the agriculture industry.
What were some of those offsets? We have had this in the House of Commons before. They are all on record. They have been before standing committees on transport and in various other places. Let me briefly list some of the offsetting items that were talked about by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, by the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Commission and by many other organizations.
One of the things that would offset the cancellation of the At and East and reduce the negative and adverse aspects of the cancellation would be utilization of unit trains to move grain to Halifax. We have for other reasons the possibility of the double-stacking of railway containers which would perhaps be a part of those kinds of railway line improvements.
This has been done in western Canada. Under the grain transportation system additional cars were provided by other agencies such as the government of Alberta, and so more people and agencies can provide better facilities for land transportation of grain. We can make better use of water transportation systems to Atlantic ports for feed grains. We can eliminate countervails on some of the U.S. products such as com and use those products in Atlantic Canada. We could help the port of Saint John by improving the facilities there for the handling of grain products, and we could promote the export of flour from the port of Halifax with suitable attractions. We could also provide for export permits for feed grains to and from other foreign countries including
Government Orders
the United States. We have all of these possible offsets listed, but we are not able to get on with the business of reducing and mitigating the impact of the cancellation of the At and East because it has been held up in Parliament. It has been in limbo for two years. That limbo was created by the opposition, and not always opposition members from Atlantic Canada who knew what was at stake but opposition members like the member of the New Democratic Party from British Columbia.
Let me digress to say that this very weekend the New Democratic Party is having a convention in Halifax. I hope while the New Democratic Party members are in Halifax they will seek the opportunity to consult with port officials and others actually involved, not armchair socialists but people actually involved in marine transportation and in the shipment of grain and grain products. I hope they will say to them: "What do you want us to do in Parliament? Do you want us to continue to hold up the finalization of the cancellation of the At and East, or do you want us to pass the legislation and get on with mitigating the disadvantages of the cancellation of the At and East?"
I am sure they will hear from everyone-port officials, stevedores-to get on with the business of mitigating the adverse impact of the cancellation of At and East.
I stand in the House once more to appeal to the opposition to get this legislation passed. The At and East is gone. There are no grain products moving in Canada on the basis of subsidization through the At and East provision. It is over. As I said at the outset, it is a dead issue; do not prolong it.
Let me talk about the port of Halifax and marine transportation in general. Again, we have those awful armchair socialists in the New Democratic Party reading briefing notes supplied by God knows who and getting up in the House of Commons making speeches about subjects of which they have little or no knowledge.
I am not trying to make remarks in their absence. I know they are all heading to Halifax, and I hope they spend their money there, but unfortunately there are no members of the New Democratic Party present in the House. However, in case they read the record, and I am not saying that any of them take the trouble to read any

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
good material, let them note this. The marine transportation industry is international. It goes across the world.
If you are building a $50 million to a $100 million vessel and you are providing a crew and all the equipment necessary, you take that vessel anywhere you want to go in the world. Anyone in the marine transportation business knows that they have to compete world-wide. It has nothing to do with arrangements with the United States of America. It has nothing to do with loyalty to the North Atlantic routes. They are captive of no one in the marine transportation industry. They go where they get the best deal. They go where they get the best facility.
If Canadian ports do not provide the best facilities and the best arrangements, the marine transportation community operating massive fourth generation container ships and other vessels will go elsewhere. We have got to compete.
There is no way to protect Canada or Canadians in the marine transportation industry. Get it through your heads in the New Democratic Party and in the Liberal Party that this is not Canadianism at stake. We cannot have a made-in-Canada marine transportation policy. We might have a made-in-Canada shipbuilding policy- and we can debate that at another time-but we cannot have a made-in-Canada marine transportation policy.
Do not talk about the United States of America. Do not talk about arrangements with Europe. We have to compete with everyone, and they are from Hong Kong. They are from Taiwan. They are from Korea. They have massive ships. They have the crews to operate them, and they do not have to go to any ports. There is always a port they can find that will accommodate them. The issue is competition. You have to be competitive. The very word these armchair socialists don't like. They hate that word "competition". What happens is they come into the House of Commons and they tell members and the public that we do not need to compete, and that is simply not true. It might be true when you are growing grain and subsidizing it. I don't know about that. It may be true in some areas. But, for heaven's sake, understand it is not true in marine transportation. It is not true in the port business. This is why I want everybody to
know, and if I have to say it louder I will: "We have to compete".
They understand that in the port of Halifax. The Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission, the Halifax Port Commission, everybody connected with marine transportation understands it. It is the first thing they will tell you: you have to compete. You have to compete with New York. You have to compete with Montreal. You have to compete with Baltimore. In order to get the business you have to provide the facilities.
Now, let me talk about the port of Halifax, if I finally got that point through to anybody who is interested in that subject. My questions are about the port of Halifax, as an example. Somebody else can make a speech for the port of Saint John. Maybe my good friend from Carleton County will make that speech. For the moment I am going to talk about the port of Halifax, because there are real difficulties in the port of Halifax. They are caused by the pressure of international competition. How are we going to react to these pressures that make the port of Halifax not competitive in some areas?
First of all, we have to have a level field among Canadian ports. That is to say, neither the port of Halifax nor the port of Montreal, nor any other east coast port can have an advantage over the other ports, based on government intervention and subsidization. For decades the complaint in the port of Halifax has been that the government policies favour the port of Montreal. I have nothing against the port of Montreal. I have nothing against appropriate and proper competition among ports. But I, like most people in Halifax, think that the port of Montreal is given advantages over the port of Halifax on the basis of government policy.
I could go back in history in other speeches I have made and detail those specific areas of advantage or disadvantage. Many years ago, the Government of Canada built substantial infrastructure within the port of Montreal. It gave the port of Montreal tremendous facilities at government cost, at taxpayers' expense, and then wrote off the debt. When the Government of Canada under the Liberals-and I do not blame my good friend from Newfoundland about that, those things
June 6, 1991

happen-wrote off the debts for the Canadian ports, the debt they wrote off for the port of Montreal was in the area of $600 million. The debt they wrote off for the port of Halifax was in the area of $100 million. I have the statistics. I presented them years ago to the House, but that is the kind of thing that has happened.
But the big gripe, the continuing gripe, the everyday gripe is the facilities that are made available to the port of Montreal for ice-breaking and navigation. Let me tell you as quickly as possible why that complaint exists.
Halifax is one of the greatest deep water ports in the world. You can get any kind of ship, any size of ship in. Mr. Speaker, as you are from Edmonton you may not be interested in this; you couldn't get a rowboat into Edmonton. In the port of Halifax any day of the week, any time of the day, you can get the largest ship in the world right up to the dock, no problem at all.
You cannot do that in the port of Saint John. I am not going to argue that point. But, in order to get that kind of vessel into the port of Montreal, you pretty nearly have to pick it up and carry it in. It is not quite that bad, but you have to have all kinds of navigational aids. You have to have all kinds of harbour dredging. You have to have all kinds of assistance, and you have to keep the shipping lane free of ice. Who does that for the port of Montreal? The taxpayers of Canada do it for the port of Montreal, because the Government of Canada provides that service and it is not charged to anybody. What we say in the Port of Halifax is: charge those services out to the users.
It is unbelievable from the perspective of Edmonton. For years the port of Halifax was saying: "charge those expenses out to the shippers, charge those expenses out to the users of the facilities". For years the Liberal government refused to do that. Finally, when the Conservative government came to power in 1984, it said that it was time to end this anomaly. It was time to end this unlevel field. It was time to create a proper atmosphere for competition.
The Government of Canada brought in Canada Shipping Act changes in Bill C-75. In that act there was placed a provision that would allow for services such as ice-breaking and navigation to be charged back to the users. The international shipping companies, from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Europe, Hapag Lloyd from Hamburg-all those organizations-would have to pay the cost of ice-breaking, navigational aids and so on.
Government Orders
Do you know what happened? I do not want to embarrass the member from Newfoundland, but another member from Newfoundland, from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, personally, individually stopped the passage of this legislation in this House of Commons by standing up for seven hours on third reading and stopping that legislation.
Do you know what he said in the House of Commons on October 31, 1986, which was more or less something he said earlier on June 27, 1986? He said that there was no way the Liberal Party was going to allow such a provision to be passed.
He said on June 27, 1986: "I think it is extremely important that the record be set straight, because we would not want the House to inadverently or accidentally get the impression that anyone in Canada is warped enough or misinformed enough to endorse clause 4 of Bill C-75".
Later, on another occasion, October 31,1986, he spoke of Bill C-75, clause 4, and he said: "That bill died on the vine because we in the Liberal Party opposed it". The Liberal Party opposed clause 4 of Bill C-74, which he said in his speech would allow the imposition of user fees. He said: "User fees for what?" User fees for Coast Guard service, navigational aids and ice-breaking services.
A member from Atlantic Canada stopped the legislative position that would have allowed for a level field between the port of Halifax and other east coast ports and the port of Montreal. It is on record; it is undeniable. Today, five years later and for the last 500 years since John Cabot or somebody sailed up some kind of strait, the port of Montreal has had an advantage over the port of Halifax. We can lay the blame on the Liberal Party of Canada.
They are still at it. They are still stopping measures that could be used to rebuild the competitive base, that could give the port certain advantage, that could provide for offsets to the At and East, that could get us on with the business of improving the port of Halifax.
Let me tell you what the most serious difficulty is now. It is inland transportation. It is the Canadian National Railway system. Unless the Canadian National Railway changes its attitude, unless it provides better facilities, unless we get better service through double stacking, rail

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
line improvements and lower rates, then we cannot be competitive.
People in the marine transportation industry are saying that if Halifax does not get competitive the port can die. It is almost impossible under the present situation for the port of Halifax to compete with the port of Montreal. Forget the port of Montreal. If was not them-and thank God it is-it would be the American ports. At least the business is staying in Canada. But in a short time it will be the American ports that are going to take all the business with the help of Canadian corporations like Canadian Pacific. They are buying railways and providing facilities that will allow Canadian destined cargo to go through American ports.
It is a very difficult situation. It will not be resolved unless we take the initial steps to correct the situation we now have: get rid of the subsidization that now exists, provide effective and constructive assistance , and get on with the matter of competition. There is in no other answer in international trade.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Halifax West and, first of all, I want to respond to the remarks he made about the member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.
The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte did, as the hon. member just suggested, stand in the House of Commons for six or seven hours and spoke to the House. He dragged out the debate. He spoke all afternoon, all evening, and he was prepared to speak all night. In fact, I am sure he would have spoken for 48 hours or 72 hours if need be.
I want it on the record why the hon. member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte stood here in the House of Commons last year and single-handedly filibustered a bill presented by the Government of Canada.
The hon. member who just spoke was absolutely correct. The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte spoke against clause 4 of Bill C-75.1 do not recall exactly what the number was, but the clause had to do with imposing user fees for ice-breaker services in Canada.
I would like to put it on the record, in this way, why the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte did what he did.
Today I had telephone calls in my office from two people who lived on an island called Long Island on the east coast of Newfoundland. One gentleman had to go to the doctor because he was having what he called radiation sickness. He was being treated for cancer. He was very sick and he felt very bad. He wanted to go from Beaumont, Long Island into Robert's Arm in Newfoundland to see the doctor there in order to be prescribed some pills because he was feeling so bad after he had taken the radiation treatment, which he told me he takes once a month in the Health Sciences Complex in St. John's.
He telephoned me, and his voice was not very good because the radiation had affected it. He said: "Look, I'm stuck here on this island and I cannot get in to see the doctor. The ice is all piled up around the shore and I cannot get in to see a doctor".
Now there are four islands in a row: Little Bay Islands that the hon. member for Labrador knows quite well; Long Island; then there is Change Islands further on; and then there is Fogo Island. Each one of those islands has ferry boats going back and forth, except right now the ice has clogged up everything. It goes out for about 180 miles.
This gentleman was saying: "Look, there is no helicopter service and planes cannot land". This is today, and he wanted to get in to see the doctor.
I checked with the Coast Guard and it said: "Well, we have one ice-breaker assigned to those four islands to try to keep it ice free. But we needed the ice-breaker today because there was a paper boat going into Beaumont and there was an oil boat that needed to go into Lewisporte and we only have one ice-breaker on all of that east coast of Newfoundland".
I phoned up the Coast Guard and I said: "Now, where are your ice-breakers? Don't you provide ice-breaker service anymore to these ferry boats along the coast?" It said: "Well, you know we have got a lot of business accumulated and we have got one ice-breaker on dry dock and we have another one with the propeller that was damaged". I said: "Well, where are all the other ice-breakers?" The Coast Guard said: "Well, there are seven sitting tied up to the dock in Quebec City."
June 6, 1991

I said: "Are those working?" The answer was: "No, no, those aren't working, but a couple of them are on stand-by. You see, we do not send anymore ice-breakers to accompany ships that go through the Arctic. We found that it is more cost-effective to leave the icebreaker in Quebec City tied up and if the ship gets stuck, we will send up the ice-breaker then-more cost effective".
There are another five tied up in Nova Scotia. I said to the Coast Guard: "Now, come on, you have islands that are being totally isolated because of ice. Can't you assign more ice-breakers to keep these islands open?" The answer was: "No, that is not the policy of the Coast Guard anymore. You see, we are into a policy of trying to save money".
See how things have changed. The hon. member a moment ago said: "The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte stood in the House and he was opposed to user fees with ice-breakers".
Of course he was, of course he was. Why, if the Government of Canada brought in that policy there would not be any ferry boats operating. There would not be any because the ferry boats are no longer owned or subsidized by the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada did away with the subsidies for all those ferry boats, didn't they Mr. member for Labrador. He knows quite well. The government did away with that. Now it is whoever uses the ferry boats has to pay for them, not the Government of Canada.
In fact, when we think about this policy of subsidies and trying to save money we know quite a change has taken place in Atlantic Canada. The hon. member spoke about marine transportation, but that is only half the story. Marine Atlantic moves our freight and people throughout Atlantic Canada. Yet, Marine Atlantic has no 1-800 number anymore. We cannot pick up the phone anywhere in Canada and phone a 1-800 number to find out when the ferry boats are going to operate in Atlantic Canada. It was cut out this year by the Government of Canada.
We can no longer phone a 1-800 number to find out or make reservations on Marine Atlantic, but if we were in the United States we can.


Mr. Rideout:: That can't be true.
Mr. Baker Oh yes, oh yes. In other words, in Texas we can phone to find out when the ferries are operating. To
Government Orders
make a reservation to go to Newfoundland on a ferry or to P.E.I. phoning from Texas you can do it free of charge, but if you are living in Canada you cannot do it anymore. The Government of Canada through Marine Atlantic says it was because of the high costs that it wanted to keep the 1-800 number from the United States because fewer people were using the 1-800 number. Those are the decisions that have been made by the Government of Canada in trying to reduce subsidies for transportation in eastern Canada.
I was looking at the books the other day for marine transportation and I noticed that three vessels now used for the movement of freight on the east coast are not even registered in Canada. In fact, the last vessel that was hired by CN is actually not only registered in a foreign country, but owned in a foreign country.
Quite a change has taken place. If you picked up the telephone in that same area we are talking about, from Labrador down to the northeast coast of Newfoundland, you would no longer speak into the receiver of a company that is a subsidiary of the Government of Canada. That was sold last year.


An hon. member:: Really?


George Baker: Yes, and it was sold-this is a long story, but I am going to make it very short.


An hon. member:: Oh, no, no, we want the story.


George Baker: The successful bidder was the bigger telephone company in the province, represented of course by a consultant who happened to be yes, a former member of the House of Commons. That is the telephone company. We can no longer pick up the telephone and phone through a telephone company that was called TNT at the time, up until a couple of years ago-Terra Nova Tel.


An hon. member:: That is an explosive.


George Baker: It was an explosive telephone company. It was an excellent telephone company. You could phone and ask information what the number was for such and such and it would be able to tell you, because it was living locally in those areas.
The telephone company is gone. Now you go down to the airport. There is no longer a sign saying Air Canada. That is gone since this government took over. You can no longer pick up the telephone and phone through the government subsidized company, a subsidiary of the

June 6, 1991
Government Orders
Government of Canada that was making money every year. The government sold it.
There is no sign that says Air Canada anymore. Then there is the ultimate insult. In this bill we are talking about railway subsidies. We know what the government did to the railway. Every weekend when I am in my riding, I usually try to get a little bit of exercise and go for a walk. I go for a walk along where the railway line used to be.


An hon. member:: That is pretty safe, eh, George.


George Baker: Pretty safe. You will never get knocked down by a train because there is no track anymore.


An hon. member:: You mean the government even took the track away?


George Baker: It even took the track away. It not only took the trains away but took the track away. Not only that, but if you go a short distance to one of our smaller communities you will find a fellow who does not pick up the phone anymore through a government-run outfit to make a reservation on Air Canada, which is gone, or check on the train, which is no longer operating. Also, there is no post office in the community.


An hon. member:: What. Oh, shame.


George Baker: There is no post office in the community. Where is the federal identity at all in those communities? There is no federal presence at all. There is nothing. That is the policy of the Government of Canada.
What are we doing here today? Today we are dealing with a bill, Bill C-ll, that says that if you loaded flour on a railway car after July 15, 1989, and it has not arrived yet, then it is not going to be subsidized.
That is what the bill says. If you loaded the flour on the train after July 15, 1989, and it has not yet arrived, then it is not subsidized.
I just hope that it is not what they call bread and roll mix because those railway cars would have blown up by now. I do not know if there is any date on flour but maybe that is what I am doing wrong.
That is what the bill is. The bill is to do away with a subsidy that it did away with several years ago. The Government of Canada is not interested any more in paying a subsidy for anything going to the east coast of Canada.
Hon. members know today where the grain comes from for the livestock feed. Only 380,000 tonnes of it come from domestic places; 320,000 tonnes now come from the EEC or the United States. The government member stands up and says: "We've got to be in a competitive market. We've got to do away with all of these subsidies for moving grain and flour to eastern Canada". The most highly subsidized grain movements in the world are those in the EEC, which now exports grain to eastern Canadian markets and grain movements throughout the United States of America.
All in all, this bill is part of a general philosophy of the Government of Canada which says it is going to set people adrift. It is no longer going to be responsible for an even, fair and level playing field in Canada because it is going to say that those who have it will always have it and those who cannot afford it are never going to be able to get it.
Those people set adrift are the people in eastern Canada, the people in Atlantic Canada. It is the Government of Canada that is totally to blame.
I would suggest that the Government of Canada take a second look at this particular piece of legislation. I do not know what would happen if the bill did not pass. What would happen if the bill did not pass? Is there flour and grain aboard railway cars in Canada that has been there since July 15, 1989 waiting for export which was not completed until after January 31, 1990? What would be the legality? It is an interesting question.
If someone took the federal government to court and said: "Look, you are going to have to pay this subsidy because it is presently a part of the Railway Act and it was never amended by the Government of Canada", it would bring up the question of the supremacy of Parliament. Can the Government of Canada pass a bill which says it is going to discontinue a direct subsidy on a product from point A to point B without amending the legislation to end that subsidy? What would the judge say?
We all know the way legislation is treated. We have all appeared before judges on behalf of our constituents and we have presented arguments on everything under the sun. I have grave doubts whether the Government of Canada would be able to answer the question of why it discontinued a subsidy without amending the appropriate
June 6, 1991

legislation to end it. The Government of Canada should reinstate the subsidy and be true to its word.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next time the bill comes up, the hon. member will have 10 minutes questions and comments. I hope that you will all be there when the debate is all over.
I have received written notice from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Mr. Allmand, that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, June 10, 1991. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94(2).
Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the House will meet to consider Government Orders at 11 o'clock a.m.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]

Raymond John Funk: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of directing financial assistance to Cooperative Development Agencies, pilot co-op projects, and Community-based Economic Development Organizations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is again a privilege to rise under private members' business to discuss an item of business which I think is very important to a great many Canadians, but which is not very easy to cover within the regular business of the House because co-operatives and community development organizations enjoy a very low priority with the present government.
Private Members' Business
When we are talking about co-operatives and community development organizations, I think we are talking about something that is part of a larger trend in our society.
Certainly when Canadians are discussing the political and constitutional future of their country, we hear a lot of talk about Canadians wanting to be directly involved in determining the future of the country.
They want to be directly involved in making the decisions that affect their political and economic future. It could well be said that the low standing which the government currently enjoys in public opinion polls is a direct result of its inability or unwillingness to involve Canadians directly in their political future.
I think this feeling on behalf of Canadians that the future is out of their control and their deep concerns about the future of their community, their children and themselves is also very evident when it comes to their economic future. People ought to be involved just as much in their economic future and ought to have just as much control over their economic future as they do over their political future.
If I could review just briefly the general trends when it comes to economic development in this country, I think it is fair to say that we have seen two major trends since the Second World War.
The general policy pursued by Liberal governments through the years relied very much on attracting branch plants to the country and developing an the economy that was very closely linked to that of the United States.
There was very little opportunity within that economic structuring for local control or development of local economies.
With the Progressive Conservative government which we have seen since 1984, those trends have become much more evident. The trend toward the loss of local control has become much more serious through two specific trends which the government has introduced, those being its reliance on megaprojects which are directly tied to its reliance on the major corporations, the large corporations in this country and in other countries.

June 6, 1991
Private Members' Business
That again is tied directly to its reliance on the free trade deal to attempt to move the economy of this country forward.
As a result, what we see is an economy that is reeling. It is not only reeling at the national level when it comes to the macroeconomic trends, but it is expressed very much at the local level in the loss of confidence in the future by many people in local communities and the loss of control over what is happening to people's jobs and economic livelihoods.
At the same time, we see the exacerbation of a trend which Canada has noticed for a long time, that is the widening gap between the rich and poor in this country. Canada has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to the gap between rich and poor in this country and that gap is only becoming wider. However, there is an option and that is the option represented by the democratic economic system.
From coast to coast we see Canadians veiy much involved in the democratic economic system. On the east coast we see the Antigonish movement. In northern Canada we see Arctic co-ops. On the west coast we see fishing co-ops, In Quebec we see the Desjardins movement. In the large cities and metropolitan areas we see the development of housing co-operatives. On the prairies we see the pools and federated co-ops. There are credit unions from coast to coast. There are community economic development organizations in many communities, and these are particularly successful in many of the native communities in this country.
In fact when we look at this sector, we look at 12 million Canadians who have a direct stake in the economic future of their community, 12 million Canadians who are direct stakeholders in their economic future. This is many times the number of Canadians who own shares in corporations through stock exchanges or own and have interest in private businesses. This is the most effective way to get people directly involved in their economic future and that of the country.
When you look at the size and strength of the co-operative sector, seven of the ten largest enterprises in agriculture handling over 40 per cent of the receipts in agriculture are co-operatives. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are involved in community economic development corporations of one sort or another. We must say
that these organizations have grown up largely on their own. At best they have experienced benign neglect from governments both provincial and federal and have in fact developed on their own. In some ways this is appropriate to grass roots economic organizations, but it also demonstrates the strength of bottom-up organizations as opposed to top-down approaches to economic organization. It boggles the mind to think of what these organizations could be doing if in fact they had the appropriate kind of assistance, some of which I plan to outline in my presentation.
In 1984 the co-operative sector, through the Canadian Co-operative Association, undertook a major study on the future direction of co-operatives and how governments could relate to them. There were four major recommendations coming from that task force, including the appointment of a minister of state for co-operatives, the formation of a co-op savings plan, more funds for co-op research and education, and the promotion of housing, worker health, and resource co-ops.
Since then we have seen the formation of the co-operative secretariat and the appointment of a minister in 1987. But it has been a very tentative step and it has fallen very much short of the expectations of the co-op sector and the realization of the potential of this sector. In fact there are only nine people in the co-op secretariat. Certainly when you view the vast mandate to promote co-ops, to organize federal-provincial conferences, to follow up on initiatives from those conferences, to co-ordinate co-operative development through other government departments, nine people arrayed against the vast federal bureaucracy is a mere drop in the bucket. It is a credit to the dedication and competence of those people that we get as much activity out of that secretariat as we do.
One direct result of the fact that those resources are inadequate is what we see happening with regard to the GST and co-ops. I have repeatedly asked in this House over the last year-and the co-op sector has made numerous representations-for equal treatment under the GST for co-ops. As it stands now, the government argues that membership and shareholding in a co-op is the same as membership in a golf course. This is preposterous and indicates what a fundamental lack of understanding there is for how the co-op sector operates
June 6, 1991

among both government bureaucrats and members opposite.
It seems as well that regional development organizations and organizations promoting economic development like the FBDB are inoculated against involvement with co-ops because when you look at the regulations, the pro-active activities they undertake, co-ops and community development organizations very often seem to be the last thing on their mind.
There are a number of specific co-operative initiatives that I would like to outline as being very worthy of public sector support.
First of all, in the area of co-operative housing, we have the sad spectacle of a promise the government made to build 5,000 co-op housing units a year. Has this promise been kept? No, Mr. Speaker. We are now down to about 1,500 units a year. These units are being built under a constant barrage of criticism within this House, misplaced criticism that could only be politically motivated by members of both the government and the political opposition. They attempt to use the fact that several members of Parliament have been involved in organizing and maintaining co-op housing and are trying to use this to discredit the co-op housing movement in general.
When you look at the record, CMHC's own studies show that co-op housing is by far the most cost-effective way to provide housing for Canadians who are now sleeping in streets, sleeping 20 to a home in northern Canada, and in desperate need of moderately priced and affordable housing.
At the same time, I do not hear anything from these members attacking the fact that we subsidize luxury condominiums by an average of $20,000 per unit through the MURB Program.
A second initiative that I think is very worthy of support is the whole area of worker co-ops. A study done in Atlantic Canada showed that worker co-ops use only approximately $1,500 in capital per job to provide jobs through the formation of worker co-ops. At the same time, the government's operation ACOA spends an average of $150,000 to create a single job; that is $1,500 as opposed to $150,000 when you compare worker co-ops to the jobs that are created through ACOA.
Private Members' Business
It is no wonder that the premiers of Atlantic Canada have noted this phenomenon. They are, at this very time, organizing themselves to provide a major initiative in Atlantic Canada to provide jobs, to develop communities through the development of not only worker co-ops but community based co-ops of all sorts.
I am very pleased to see this and I commend the premiers of Atlantic Canada for recognizing the tremendous potential of worker co-ops and other co-operatives.
At the same time, in other parts of Canada, we see a massive job loss through free trade and economic decisions related to free trade. We see plants being shut down that are perfectly profitable, where those jobs could go on for a long time if it were based only on the economics of the particular plant or enterprise. These kind of enterprises are surely ripe for worker co-operative ownership.
In that respect, I would like to commend my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing forward a private member's bill that would enhance worker ownership in this country and make it much more feasible to undertake worker ownership. I think this is certainly one of the key factors or mechanisms that we could be using against the very sad trend toward job loss and the loss of economic futures in many communities.
In fact, I would like to say to government members that when the government promised adjustment mechanisms to cope with the fall-out from free trade, surely pilot projects in the area of worker co-operatives are something the government could and should be looking at very closely.
I would also like to say that the government might well look at some of the proposals made by the Canadian Co-operative Association for a worker co-op investment fund and the establishment of worker co-op enterprise centres to spur the development of worker co-ops in this country.
A third area where co-operative development has a bright future and could help economic development is in the whole area of the resource sector. There are farming, fishing and forestry communities from coast to coast in this country under tremendous economic stress and see themselves as having very little economic future if present trends continue. I personally undertook an economic consultation tour in my own constituency recently. My own constituency combines all of those

June 6, 1991
Private Members' Business
resource industries. It has farming as a major industry. There is a sizeable inland fishery and there is a significant forestry sector in that community. Every community I went to and virtually every group I talked to said the problem is that they have lost local control of the resource, that they can no longer make the economic decisions on resource allocation which would make it possible to sustain their jobs into the future.
Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that co-operative development in the resource sector, the use of regional development money to finance these kinds of projects, is exactly what we need. We do not need any more megaprojects. We do not need any more fancy schemes cooked up in the capitals to try and prop up these industries. What we need is support for local control, support for local co-operative and community enterprises.
The fourth area that shows a lot of promise when it comes to community and local control is the area of health. A study in Saskatchewan has shown that there is a potential 17 per cent saving in health care costs over all through the use of co-operative and community based health associations.
This is a tremendous saving at a time when our medicare system is under threat from both provincial and federal governments due both to a lack of a philosophical belief in medicare and publicly funded health and the costs associated with it. These savings are possible because these kinds of organizations can provide the kind of integrated health care and the kind of preventive measures that make it possible for Canadians to stay healthy without the high cost intervention of the current medical model.
I would like to commend the community health associations in this country which in the last few days came together to try and form an association of community health centres to promote this kind of development from coast to coast. I would encourage the government very much to support that movement with all the resources that it has and to make a basic commitment to this major change in how we approach health care.
Child care is another area where co-operative involvement has shown itself to be not only effective in giving parents control but also effective in providing low cost
quality child care for the many children in this country who do not have it.
We talk about being competitive and productive in this country, but there are hundreds of thousands of parents, particularly women, who are unable to become competitive and productive because they cannot undertake the training or take the jobs that might be available because of the lack of adequate child care. I might note that the national association of those organizations tries to make do with budget of $11,000 a year.
As well, frontier co-ops, as demonstrated by Arctic co-ops and the co-operative development fund in the north, show very clearly that this kind of development is most appropriate to the economic development of native communities and isolated communities in this country where unemployment often runs as high as 85 to 90 per cent, with the resulting despair, stress and social breakdown that comes with it.
I turn briefly to the whole area of community economic development. There is a huge number of these organizations across the country, but they are plagued with several things. They have lurched from one program to another as governments tried to come to terms with this phenomenon, without any real vision or without any real co-ordination. In fact, the Economic Council of Canada in a major report called From the Bottom Up says, and I quote:
People banding together at the local level to promote community economic development can make a real difference to many places across the country. Local residents are often in a better position to judge the economic problems and possibilities of their communities than are federal and provincial bureaucrats.
As part of that report, the Economic Council of Canada recommends several things. It recommends, first of all, that support should be channelled into the establishment of community economic development organizations and their organizational support. They need better information networks, need training. They need access to market opportunities. The council recommends that business funding should in fact come through existing channels while funding for these organizations should go toward promoting their establishment and organization. They say too that priority should be given to rural and remote areas and that an integrated approach to community development should include not only economics but the provision of services and enhancing the quality of life.
June 6, 1991

Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to say that there is another option to the way that we have been going in this country, to the regime of free trade and letting the big corporations look after our economic future. This is the community based economic option. The potential of this sector is a sleeping giant. We have seen its potential, but this potential is still untapped.
Therefore I would like to call on the government to exhibit the imagination and political will to realize this potential. Not only would individuals and communities benefit, but we as a country would be very much stronger.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on what is not only an important issue but an important movement in the sense that co-ops have been a very integral part of Canada for many decades, and that is particularly true, as the hon. member has just indicated, for rural Canada which in a very real sense each of us represents.
I would like, as a member from western Canada, from the province of Manitoba, representing Brandon-Souris, just to say one or two words by way of introduction with respect to the role of co-ops in the history of western Canada as I have perceived them to be, and then to discuss in greater detail the specific point which is before us this evening.
I think it is probably true that the history of the co-operative movement has not yet been written in any definitive sense. I believe when it is written, or when it is more generally appreciated than is the case now, that there will be a greater awareness of the fact that the co-operative movement for rural Canada has in many cases filled a void which had been there for some time and might have continued to exist into the distant future, had it not been for the co-operative movement and the response of those who lived within the areas.
One of the advantages of course which the co-operative movement had was the fact that it enabled people to a very large degree to look to themselves for solutions to their own problems, whatever the nature of the problems may have been. That is true in terms of the origin of
Private Members' Business
the wheat pools in western Canada, in what we now know as Saskatchewan, then part of the territories, or whether it is in the more recent development of child care co-operatives, day care centres, that are very much a part of most of our urban communities.
One of the great difficulties in rural Canada in the past-and certainly it continues to be now-is the component of size. Very often the private sector is not as interested in meeting what it perceives to be the limited market perspectives of the area. Unfortunately, as a result of that, the alternatives to those who live within the area, the resources available to those who live within the area, were not as great as they would have been.
When I go back and think about the history of the co-operative movement with respect to the marketing of grain, I recall the fact with some clarity that western Canadian grain farmers were faced not with the fact that there were no services made available to meet their needs, but with the fact that very often they were indeed a monopoly. As we know very well, it is the essence of the private sector that it should depend upon the competitive factor to protect the interests of the consumers. Where that is not the case, then very often the consumer is at a disadvantage.
What happened in western Canada in many of our smaller communities is that people began to rally together either to provide a service that was not present at all or to act as a competitive factor with services which already existed and often were operated in a monopolistic fashion.
Thus was bom the wheat pools, which today of course is a major agribusiness throughout western Canada, a huge business, perhaps one of the largest that we have, although I do not have the statistics before me.
Another advantage of course of the co-operative movement was that it permitted people to make decisions or have decisions made within their own community, and not to depend upon the headquarters of a business whether it be in Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto or wherever it may be. Very often decisions made by the co-operative movement then, and to a significant degree now, were made by local people in response to local conditions.

June 6, 1991
Private Members' Business
The other advantage is that it has provided a tremendous opportunity for the emergence of local leadership. Within all of our communities-and this becomes evident to those of us who are politicians at election time-there is a tremendous talent, a reservoir of leadership talent which is not always tapped. Those of us who get elected as a result of volunteers, in essence often coming out of the woodwork, discover there are many people who have talent for leadership which is not always recognized.
That was true in the emergence of the co-operative movement in the past and I continue to believe so now.
When we look today to the role of the co-operative movement and where I see it as being particularly important and where the government recognizes its importance, is in two areas that I would identify, one, of course, being the north, in the area of the Arctic.
Many of the conditions that exist in the Arctic now are not unlike the conditions which existed in western Canada in days gone by. The reason why the co-operative movement is emerging now, as it did then, is because those conditions are very similar. In fact, if I recall correctly, in the last 30 years some 52 new co-ops have emerged in northern Canada, which of course is a testimony to the fact that the needs which were there in the past are there at present.
The government is delighted that as a result of the emergence of the co-operative movement in Arctic Canada, people have economic opportunities they did not have before. For example, in the area of local community development, we see major management training programs being provided in some cases by the Arctic Co-Operatives Limited. In other cases we see sales outlets being developed in southern Canada for product which otherwise might not reach the market with ease.
The federal government has been happy to play a partnership role in that process through the co-operative secretariat which was established in 1987 and by working in close co-operation with provincial governments in some cases and with territorial governments in others.
The establishment of three community development organizations have occurred in the north and some financial assistance has been provided to them. In
addition, looking into the broader area of the co-operative movement today we see the renewal of the co-operative housing program. This, of course, has been important for many of our communities. I have such projects in my constituency of Brandon-Souris and very often it provides a stimulation to the construction industry which is much appreciated and very often much needed. In addition, it often provides a source of stable and affordable housing for those to whom such housing might not have otherwise been available.
The government is pleased to work with the child care co-ops, recognizing that in a changing world there is a recognized need for child care facilities that was not there two and three decades ago. In saying that, I am not suggesting that the need was not there, I am suggesting that the recognition of the need was not there. This provides an excellent opportunity, as I said before, for people to gather together the resources of their own community.
Very often the co-ops are not looking for substantial amounts of federal government assistance. They are to be complimented on that. In fact, what they are basically saying, at least to my understanding, is that they really are not generally seeking anything more than is available to any other institution trying to provide a comparable level of service.
As I say that, I am conscious of the fact that there is some division within the child care community in terms of how services should be provided and who receives what assistance. But I think the generalization which I have issued is reasonably valid.
The other area which I would like to address in a moment is the fact that I believe the co-op movement is extremely important in Atlantic Canada, as it has been in the past.
There are many Atlantic Canada co-operatives that have benefited from some federal assistance. The figures are not huge. In fact, they were talking in terms of, for example, a community development co-operative in Nova Scotia receiving $25,000 in assistance. I think what is noteworthy about that is perhaps not the fact that they received $25,000 but the fact that it is only $25,000 because as we know in this House, we live in a world where now that is not considered to be a huge amount of money.
June 6, 1991

There is a fisheries co-op in the maritimes that has received assistance of $50,000 to identify ways to pull themselves out of some financial difficulty. The list goes on and if I had more time-I realize the rules do not provide me with more time-but there are many such examples. Perhaps other members in the House will address some of those, and particularly with respect to Atlantic Canada.
I think the history of the co-operative movement in Canada is one of partnership, partnership between people who have the capacity and the desire to assist themselves and the federal and the provincial levels of government trying to assist them wherever they can. I think it is partnership that has been working and I would encourage hon. members to join together to ensure that that partnership continues to function in the future as it has in the past.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as well to join in the debate on this motion. I think that I in particular am very pleased to be speaking on this motion because my community has a very large co-op in it. The Co-op Atlantic, which is the main co-operative in Atlantic Canada, is headquartered in Moncton and it has made a very valuable contribution to our economy.
I believe that when you look at our economy in Moncton it is the proper mix of those types of enterprises, some large-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: First of all, let me apologize to my colleague for a short intervention.
There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to pass the following motion.
Notwithstanding any previous proceedings of this House, Bill
C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and Customs Tariff in
consequence thereof be deemed read a second time and passed on
division.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Private Members' Business


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no agreement.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted, Moncton has an economy that has the kind of mix that indicated how well a good positive economy can function and in that the co-op movement makes a very valuable contribution.
As I was stating, Co-op Atlantic is the largest co-operative organization in Atlantic Canada and its headquarters is in Moncton. It employs a large number of people and makes a very substantial contribution to our economy. We are proud of the association that our community has with the co-op movement and with Co-op Atlantic in particular.
If you have ever been to Moncton you can see there are large office buildings on Commercial Street, Record Street, you can see the large buildings on Halifax Street and you can appreciate the tremendous contribution that is being made.
In addition, we have a co-op housing organization called Atlantic People's Housing and, again, that is a co-operative that has made just tremendous contributions in the housing field. They have had a concern for people and they have provided low-cost individual housing and, as well, they have provided good, substantial senior citizen's housing.
In my own neighbourhood there is a large apartment building for seniors. It was erected by the Atlantic People's Co-op and it has done just a tremendous job. In fact, they are always having people trying to get into that particular co-op because of the quality of the building and the quality of the lifestyle. It is a co-operative and people have a say in how it functions. They have input and they have a say. That, I think, is the distinction.
We have also seen the tremendous contribution that credit unions have made to our community and to Atlantic Canada. For that reason we can see the excellent results that the Caisse Populaire, the Desjardins organization in Quebec is having. It is really fuelling the Quebec economy. It has been the small credit unions who know the people, who know the players, who have made those decisions, not on the basis of dollars and cents, but on the basis of people. That is the difference

June 6, 1991
Private Members' Business
between the co-op movement and some of our banks and other financial institutions. Needless to say, we are pleased in Atlantic Canada, because we are the type of communities where people count, where they make a difference. We are not just a number or a statistic, as happens in some of the larger communities. The co-operative movement is typical of an Atlantic Canadian organization.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are going to try another point of order here.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move:
That, notwithstanding any previous proceedings of this House, Bill
C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and Customs Tariff in
consequence thereof, be deemed read a second time and referred to
Legislative Committee H, on division.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Funk (p. 1305).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Moncton.


An hon. member:: I think it is a great speech.


George Saunders Rideout: Well, it had all kinds of potential until now.
I think the one interesting thing with Co-op Atlantic is that it has just adopted a new mission statement for renewing the co-operative option. I think it bodes well for the co-operative movement in Atlantic Canada and throughout all of the country if other co-ops take the same imaginative approach.
I would like to read from their proposal for renewal. "The ultimate goal of the co-operatives that own Co-op
Atlantic" says part of the proposal for renewal "is to extend co-operative values to all parts of the socioeconomic system through the creation of an interdependent network of co-operative enterprises whose operations gain their vitality and business strength through innovative application of co-operative values and principles".
That option for renewal is going to be most beneficial to the co-op movement and most beneficial to people in Atlantic Canada.
If the co-op movement in the west and across our country adopts the same option of renewal, not only will just the co-ops benefit, but all of Canada will benefit from that endeavour.
The nice thing about co-ops, as we all know, is that it is a bottom-up theory. We see all of these top-down, big government measures, big corporations that dictate exactly what is going to take place. We have seen it in the fishing industry where the big corporations come in and dictate what is going to take place and the little guy is left out of the process. The beauty of co-operatives is that it is bottom-up. It is the people who are affected who are involved and have the say. That is why we have seen some of the best co-ops function in our fishing industries, our farming co-operatives, as well as retail co-operatives. We all know the wonderful effects it has had in the area of credit unions.
We on this side of the House see very positive advantages to the motion that was put forward and the direction the motion suggests. Again, I look to Moncton and at the amounts of money that Liberal governments put into co-operative housing for seniors, for single parents, for the poor. These large sums of money show the commitment of Liberal governments of the past.
That commitment has not remained. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would agree with me and that you are as upset as I am by the fact that the government has instituted cut after cut after cut in the area of housing and particularly, co-operative housing in the most recent budget. I can see by the look on your face that you are as upset as I am that the government is taking these steps and doing these types of things, when we should be doing the reverse, putting more money into single family co-operative housing; more money into senior citizens co-operative housing.
I am sure that if you had your way, you would think the way we are, and that is to add and help and try to create something positive rather than tear down and remove

June 6, 1991

the excellent work that has been done by co-operatives across this country.
It is a pleasure to stand up and be supportive of what this motion intends. I hope the government will heed the direction this motion is suggesting and provide the support to co-operatives so they can do the job for the little guy and take care of the little fellow.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago, I was invited to be the guest speaker at an annual meeting of a co-operative. I was reminded of that when the hon. member who introduced the motion and the hon. member for Moncton mentioned that they were resource-based industries as they relate to co-operatives.
I was sitting in that meeting of the co-operative called the Fogo Island Co-operative. There were hundreds of people in the room to listen to the annual financial statement.
By the way, there are four or five major fish plants operated by this co-operative and two or three, depending on what kind of a year it is, smaller fish plants. In other words, we are talking about 1,000 regular workers, and another 1,000 people who catch fish to bring into this co-operative.
Everybody was waiting in this room for the financial statement. All we have heard in eastern Canada about the fishing industry is disaster after disaster after disaster. We have had governments, present and past, which have had to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into large private companies in Canada like Fisheries Products International and others.
National Sea Products Limited sometimes forgets that the federal government is about a 20 per cent shareholder in that fish business because of its financial involvement. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been placed in these very large privately owned companies on the stock market to revive them and to keep them alive so that people can continue to have their jobs.
There I was, three weeks ago, sitting down in a hall on an island in the Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of Canada listening to the financial statement of a co-operative. I learned from that financial statement that it did not lose any money. None. It made $1.5 million this past year while other companies are floundering, while
Adjournment Debate
the federal government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in our large multinationals.
This co-operative made $1.5 million last year without financial assistance this year, last year, the year before or the year before that when all of the other companies- not all of them-all the big companies and all of the multinationals were being bailed out by the taxpayers of Canada to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Here is a co-operative that was competing against them. Not only did it compete, but it made money. It made a profit. I am in complete agreement with the words of the hon. member for Moncton in whose riding, as he pointed out, is the headquarters for Co-op Atlantic, a great organization which deals throughout the four Atlantic provinces, employs hundreds and hundreds of people and gives excellent produce in every single one of its stores in Newfoundland and throughout the mari-times.
I would promote it any day of the week because my mother belongs to that co-operative. I know about the excellent service that it provides.
The resource based industries deserve the presence of co-operatives and the encouragement of co-operatives as the hon. gentleman has put in this motion before the House today. If only the federal government would listen to his good advice.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on May 28 I put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence regarding the defence cuts

June 6, 1991
Adjournment Debate
that have been talked about by that ministry, as well as those announced concerning cutting of equipment.
I am particularly concerned about the cutting of the numbers of the Armed Forces. These cuts apparently are going to go ahead at a time when we still do not have any clear defence policy, nor do we know what roles are going to be expected of our Canadian forces in the years to come. We know that the government is using the calmer period in Europe and the end of the cold war as a reason for downsizing the Canadian forces. However, the truth of the matter is that during past years we were told that we did not have enough military personnel to perform our roles and that we were always shorthanded. Now that there is less responsibility in Europe, why not leave the forces as they are so that we will have enough personnel to do the job in the years to come.
We do not have a large armed force, but I want to put it on the record that when this government came to power it promised many things that would be done for the Canadian forces, among which was an increase in numbers to 90,000, to 100,000. That never did happen. In the election campaign of 1984 in a speech in Newcastle, New Brunswick, the Prime Minister stated he was going to increase the number of forces to 90,000. That promise was never kept.
There has always been a discussion in this House about equipment. The present government, which has been in power for more than six and a half years, has not come to grips with this and much of the equipment that it talks about today was either ordered or on stream or produced prior to its coming to office.
For example, the long-range patrol aircraft were already in the air before this government came to office. The CF-18 fighter aircraft contract was well down the road and was completed shortly after this government came to office, but many of the planes had already arrived at Canadian air force bases long before. It talked at great length about tanks but none have been produced since coming to power. The north warning system modernization program to replace the old DEW line was 90 per cent completed before it came to power.
In this regard equipment processes were ongoing, but this government has not kept up with re-equipping the forces. Now that the cold war is off, we still are going to
need equipment regardless of the size of the force. I want to emphasize that the Canadian forces have done such a fantastic job in peacekeeping and in fracases such as the Persian Gulf war. I would point out that the ships used in the Persian Gulf were built many years ago by the previous Liberal administration. The government has not brought its new ships on stream-as a matter of fact they are over a year behind schedule. Why not leave the forces personnel intact and centre our policy around that. Tell us what the policies are going to be before deciding what will be cut in the Canadian forces. That is the rational way.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to offer a few comments and to respond to the speech by the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
Mr. Speaker, today's fiscal and geostrategic realities have a major impact on defence, and that is why the Department of National Defence has embarked on a detailed study of the defence policy formulated in 1987.
The Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister consider this review essential to Canada's defence operations. Both ministers are in favour of formulating a new policy that will provide for a plan that is realistic, effective and appropriate to the needs of the Canadian Forces.
Since a decision in this respect has yet to be submitted to cabinet, I am sure the hon. member will appreciate it is somewhat premature at this time to talk about closing Specific military bases. Furthermore, I may remind the hon. member that a review can affect any part of the defence program.
Mr. Speaker, the principles that govern Canada's defence policy have remaining virtually unchanged in recent years. We remain firmly committed to the principle of common defence and security; arms control and disarmament; and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Although the review started some time ago, the fact remains that as far as defence is concerned, this government has made more important decisions and has been
June 6, 1991

more active, both in Canada and abroad, than had been the case in recent years.
The hon. member will recall the exemplary service of Canadian Forces during the crisis in Oka and the Gulf war. Furthermore, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the peacekeeping role that Canada continues to play in various places throughout the world.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House know, the Fraser River is one of the most important tributaries in all of Canada. It has played an integral role in B.C.'s development and it is vital to our fisheries, our industry, our agriculture and our recreation.
Decades of abuse have left the Fraser River seriously injured. We are pumping raw sewage, toxic chemicals and practically every form of garbage available into its waters.
We need only look at the river to realize its precarious position. When you realize the high concentration of toxins in existence, you know that action is needed immediately.
We are fortunate that there are alternatives available to stop polluting the Fraser River. What is unfortunate is the fact that this government lacks the political will to effect these changes.
The government announced, with great fanfare, its commitment to clean up the Fraser. I would support it in this effort, I really would, except in reality it is trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes.
The government's green plan commits $100 million to clean up the Fraser. We are left with the impression that this money will be spent immediately to address the pollution problems in the river, but that is not the case. It will be spent over six years. Each year the Fraser will only have a fraction of this money allotted to the clean-up.
We have also been given no specifics, there are no goals and no timetables. We cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the plan.
Adjournment Debate
When will we actually see a plan to stop the flow of pollution into the Fraser River? No one knows. When will we see a plan to remove the toxins already there? No one knows.
The plot surrounding this announcement has thickened like the sludge you can see floating on the surface of the river, for the government is tossing out green plan platitudes with its right hand while its left hand pulls out of existing, necessary environmental promises and guides the dumping of toxic soil near the river mouth.
As the House knows, Richmond, B.C. will be the unfortunate recipient of toxic soil from the old Expo site in Vancouver. The public was not informed, even though it puts nearby farmland and the fisheries at risk.
In Question Period I asked the Minister of the Environment to show British Columbians that he is a friend of the environment. He should have halted the dumping of this toxic soil and announced an environmental assessment review plan in accordance with his own government's guidelines. It would have demonstrated his commitment to a new era of environmental leadership. He refused to do so.
Surely this government can see the folly in pledging to clean up a river and then in the next breath supporting a toxic dump on federal lands near its shores.
Can the minister guarantee that this dump will be stopped? Regrettably the government's guilt is compounded by its back-handed withdrawal of its obligation to the Debris Control Board. This agency is responsible for clearing the Fraser of its debris. It is so successful that it is able to recover enough soil to fill three football fields to a depth of one metre each year.
What has this government done to this long standing clean-up pledge? It has reneged on it. Not only did it fail to come through with half of its share on April 1, it has now announced it will be pulling out completely of the debris control plan within 10 months.
Can anyone make a radical leap of faith and explain away this blatant hypocrisy? Can anyone with an ounce of common sense figure out this government's action?
The government knows its green plan has been a big disappointment. It knows its all talk, no action leadership has seriously damaged its credibility and the credibility of its environmental plan.

June 6, 1991
Adjournment Debate
We want to see the Fraser River cleaned up in British Columbia. We want to see a government that is truly committed to environmental protection for all parts of Canada.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, first let me assure the hon. member that this government is concerned with issues affecting the environment. As the member is no doubt aware, various actions have been announced to ensure that appropriate steps are put in place to address these concerns.
Insofar as this issue is concerned, the soils that are planned to be removed from the Expo '86 site have been closely examined and analysed to determine if they are a threat to the environment.
The member may be aware also that local concerns resulted in the city of Richmond putting in place a by-law which has strict guidelines for the movement of soils. The Fraser River Harbour Commission is respecting this by-law and the movement of soil has stopped while the province and the city continue their discussion and analysis of the soil.
I would like to stress that the comments made by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby are most unfair and that she certainly realizes that this government has been the first federal government to commit so large an amount of money and to take so many important steps with concern to environmental issues.


IMMIGRATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to object most strenuously to the answer put forward by the Acting Prime Minister in the responses last week to questions on the Al-Mashat affair.
Most specifically, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs has failed to meet his obligation as a minister in accepting ministerial responsibility. He has deliberately put on the record misstatements of facts and falsehoods that should not be allowed to stand. On several occasions in this House up to and including today the former Secretary of State for External affairs, the former Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, was given the chance to apologize to the people of Canada and in particular to a civil servant whom he maligned in the name of Raymond Chretien.
We heard last week the minister refuse to take any personal responsibility for actions of his office, but we now know as a result of revelations in the Al-Mashat affair that his Chief of Staff had in his hand the memo which specifically laid out the the political difficulties inherent in the Al-Mashat case and they were ignored by the minister.
For the minister to finger a public servant, as he has done in this case, is reprehensible and given the future work of the former minister, since he is now charged with the constitutional dossier, it is important that he personally take this opportunity to clear the air and correct the record.
We heard him say in the House today that if Mr. Chretien wants an apology he should ask him for it.
I would like to say to the minister that in fact the apology he owes is not only to a civil servant whom he has wrongfully fingered but also to the people of Canada. The false documentation and the false statements were put on the record here in the House, and they were also put on the record in the public domain for millions of Canadians.

The crux of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister be trusted by Canadians in constitutional affairs, when he can't even tell the truth in a matter as important as the Al-Mashat affair?


An hon. member:: Will you say that outside?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked whether I would say that outside. Of course I will say outside what I say inside, unlike the minister, who today repeatedly and adamantly refused to apologize to Raymond Chretien and to all Canadians. He refused to apologize. He claimed that he had already talked about the matter, and he refused to provide any details, when he knows perfectly well that according to testimony about the Al-Mashat affair, he didn't even talk to Mr. Chretien. How could Mr. Chretien have apologized-as the minister claimed he did-when he didn't even talk to him since the beginning of this affair?
He claims this is only a matter concerning a public servant, a private matter between Mr. Clark and Mr. Chretien, but it is not. He told Canadians here on the floor of the House that Mr. Chretien had offered his apologies and that he was to blame in this matter.
June 6, 1991

However, Mr. Speaker, we now know that the fault lies with the Minister for External Affairs, and to re-establish his credibility in the important area of constitutional affairs, he must-
[English\


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs said in committee today: "I am not responsible for things we knew nothing about". In this case it is clear that ministers knew nothing about Mr. Al-Mashat before he arrived in Canada.
Second, ministers fulfilled their responsibility by ensuring that a full and complete investigation of the matter was carried out.
Third, ministers ensured that the procedure has been changed and the system has been improved. There is no guarantee that errors in judgment and mistakes will not happen again, but ministers have done their best to make improvements in procedures and systems.

Earlier on, I was asked why do I speak mostly English. I can carry on in French. I for one, Mr. Speaker, believe in the sovereignty of this House, and this House has decided to refer this question to a legislative committee. It is not the truth we are seeking, but merely the show. Otherwise, I think we should be sovereign enough, out of respect for the committee working on the matter, to wait for its report. About confidence, I have to say that I have every confidence in this minister. He also has the confidence of the government and over half of Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow up on the question I posed last week to the President of the Treasury Board in Question Period concerning the terrible damage that is being done in many domains of the Public Service by this government's continual bashing of the Public Service.
Adjournment Debate
We had a leaked memo from the Department of National Health and Welfare that showed very clearly that by meeting the restraints in spending and personnel this government is imposing on the Public Service it is going to damage tremendously the delivery of health services in this country.
That almost amounts to a contempt of Parliament, when the government refuses to provide the resources that Parliament has determined should be delivered to the people of Canada. When people have seen decisions made in this House that certain services are in the public interest and are to be delivered, it is incumbent on the government to do the will of Parliament and to provide the resources to make sure that those services are delivered. The minister said: "Well, we are saving money-fiscal restraint". This is a political Preston Manning agenda of pandering to the worst elements in society who do not believe in government and do not believe in government delivering services to Canadians; who would be happy to see our medicare system gone; who would be happy to see our social services system gone and would be happy to see the unemployed left to fend for themselves.
I would like to talk about the $50 billion this country spends annually on health care. It is not really health care, it is sickness care. What I want to talk about is what the actions of this government are forcing to be cut out of services to Canadians that keep them healthy.
The actions of this government are forcing Health and Welfare to reduce health promotion, which at very little cost keeps people healthy, out of hospitals and not costing the taxpayers a lot of money.
Community advertising, community education about public health and disease prevention are going to keep Canadians healthy. With diseases like Alzheimers and AIDS gaining ascendancy and costing us billions of dollars every year, how dare this government say: "We do not want to promote the health of Canadians. We want them to get sicker and sicker so they will end up in hospital and cost taxpayers even more money".

June 6, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Our medicare system is in danger of breaking apart because this government does not know how to start promoting the health of Canadians and now we see it cutting even more.
We see the discontinuation of the Consumer Products Safety Program, the discontinuation of the campaign against drinking and driving that alone has probably saved thousands of lives in this country since it was initiated.
Even more desperately, we see the elderly and the sick told that they are going to have to wait even longer for potentially life-saving drugs to be evaluated and approved by government. This government will not provide the people and the resources necessary for those new pharmaceuticals that can save lives, reduce pain and suffering, keep people alive and functioning and out of hospitals. This government does not think these kinds of services are important to Canadians.
We are going to see seniors waiting increased lengths of time for their pension cheques, families waiting for family allowances. We are already seeing the unemployed waiting up to six weeks or even longer for cheques to feed, clothe and house their families when they cannot have a job. There are going to be 3.5 million of those Canadians this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has one minute left.


Marlene Catterall: The government has delivered seven years of slashing people, slashing dollars and now it is even worse. As the Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare said: "For years now we have been doing more with less. Now we have to do less with less". It is the people of Canada who are suffering when the availability of services to the public are cut and when the people who deliver those services are cut; it is not the government, not the politicians and not us in this Chamber.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, reductions or cuts to federal programs or services are always tough to make. But when you are faced with the staggering deficit in the country then you ought to get spending under control. That is what the federal government is doing.
I want to tell the hon. member that despite some reductions in services and programs, Canadians can still count on the Department of National Health and Welfare to look after their safety and health. It remains a top priority for this government and the department. We have a health care system in Canada that is second to none and we intend to keep it that way.
If you look at where the impact of the budget reductions will be, you will quickly see that they will occur across a broad range of areas within the department so that the impact will be as minimal as possible.
I want to assure all Canadians that high priority areas such as food and drugs, safety, family violence programs, AIDS initiatives and many others will not be affected.
I think any fair analysis of the actions taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare to implement the recent budget reductions would show that while there is some impact, over-all Canadians will continue to be well served.
The government has tackled the deficit. It has cut spending and attacked waste and inefficiency in the government's operations. As well, it has implemented structural reforms to improve the growth potential of the Canadian economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House has now been deemed to have been adopted.
Pursuant to Standing Order made on Monday, June 3, 1991, this House stands adjourned until Monday, June 10, 1991 at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 18.10 p.m.