1991-06-19

Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming painfully evident that this government does not give a darn about housing and people. In the past three years we have had three ministers, countless studies, reviews, conferences and more bafflegab. The bottom line is that we have received nothing but cuts, cuts and more cuts to co-op housing, to social housing, to public housing and absolutely zero for home buyers and home builders.
The homeless are growing in numbers, the waiting lists for affordable housing have grown by the thousands. Thousands of workers are out of work and the government dawdles while people suffer more.
The Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Canadian Housing Renewal Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Co-Op Housing Federation all call unanimously on this government for a national housing policy, for national leadership on housing and for the Conservatives to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, this government has the unmitigated gall to spend $375,000 for a dog house. The real question is this. Is this government's housing policies going to the dogs?


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Ttfnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in mid-March of this year, I orally warned the now Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that I anticipated unusually difficult ice conditions in Newfoundland.
On May 9,1 wrote the minister again warning him that income for fisherpersons could well be deferred for about a month because of the severe ice accumulation, and I urged him to encourage his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to implement contingencies for this.
Unemployment insurance ran out for fishermen on May 18. From then until now, the extension of UI has been granted on a piecemeal, gradual basis to groups of fishermen from area to area, from week to week. During that period of time, my office made 25 consultative calls with DFO and I wrote two other letters.
Last night, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that all fishermen would be eligible for compensation. In this monthly interval, despite our warnings and advocations, great anxiety has been caused to fishermen and their families, many of whom have had no other source of income since the middle of May.
While we are grateful that this compensation package has finally been approved for all, I would ask the government that should this ever be the case again, that decisions be made earlier, especially when there are warnings and this unnecessary pain, worry and anxiety to those engaged in the primary industry in Newfoundland, be avoided.


MUNICIPALITIES
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, community leaders from across Canada will be brought together to improve dialogue and communications among Canadians as a result of funding from the Secretary of State in support of the initiative of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is a national organization of some 600 municipalities representing more than 70 per cent of the Canadian population. The federation has been a force for national unity for a long time, and this program will play a positive role in promoting better understanding and fostering dialogue among Canadians from different parts of the country. These programs and efforts are important contributions to Canadian life, because strong and progressive communities are essential to the over-all prosperity and happiness of the country.

The funding from the Secretary of State Department will help the FCM undertake a six-month pilot project for an exchange program in the latter half of 1991.


CFB SHILO
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, the threatened closure or downsizing of CFB Shilo by the Department of National Defence would be yet another blow to the economy of Manitoba, from a government seemingly determined to bring it to its knees.
After major reductions to Kapyong Barracks and the transfer of the Second Princess Patricia's Light Infantry from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and the devastating loss of the forces base in the town of Portage la Prairie, it now seems that the government is intent on spreading the misery to Brandon.
CFB Shilo has been invaluable to the department as a training base. It is also the provinces third largest employer outside of Winnipeg and its closing would affect nearly 1,700 military and civilian jobs in the area. Shilo contributes over $110 million annually to the local economy and the spin-off effects from its closure would be disastrous to Brandon and the surrounding area.
We have learned that the troops on the base would in all likelihood be transferred to CFB Suffield, yet another move by this government to build up Alberta at the expense of Manitoba.
I call on the federal government and the new Minister of National Defence to refrain from inflicting further damage on Manitoba's economy.


FRENCH CANADIANS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, since today is the last day before the summer recess, I
June 19, 1991
would like to take this opportunity to wish all Quebecers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to recall what was said 35 years ago by historian Arnold Toynbee, internationally known as one of the greatest historians of this century, when he was a guest speaker at McGill University in Montreal. On this particular occasion, he said that when the Archangel Gabriel sounded the trumpet on the last day, there were two peoples that would definitely be around to hear him: the Chinese and the French Canadians.
I thought he made his point very eloquently and in fact, there is a lot of truth in this when we look at how Quebec, first known as New France, developed since the sixteenth century. French Canadians are indeed here to stay.


PORK INDUSTRY
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, June 24, 1991 marked an important date for Canadian trade. In a unanimous decision, the final bilateral dispute panel of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement ruled in favour of Canada's pork producers and exporters. The decision will mean millions of dollars in recouped countervail duties for our pork exporters.
This decision reaffirms the success of the free trade agreement and once again proves the anti-free trade Liberals and NDP are dead wrong. The Americans tried their utmost to maintain the status quo but they failed.
United States trade representative Carla Hills stated: "We used the rules that were in place. We got a decision and now we will have to live with it".
Contrary to the naysayers, this demonstrates that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is sound and that the dispute settlement mechanism has been tested and proven sound.
% -


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, eastern Ontario and southern Ontario are the only areas in Canada that do not have a regional development program under this government.
Since January 1, 1989, when the so-called free trade agreement became law, 148,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Ontario alone. High interest rates, an artificially high Canadian dollar, rationalization and centralization of corporate business, have pulled industries out of small town Ontario and cities alike. Jobs have moved to Mexico, the U.S. and elsewhere. High taxes caused by 33 tax increases under this Tory government, high fuel costs and other transportation expenditures have driven jobs from Canada.
U.S. farmers are benefiting under free trade but Canadian farmers are not. Post offices, VIA Rail and potential tourist infrastructure have been taken away from the regions of Canada. Canadians want a lower Canadian dollar. They want tax relief, but most of all Canadians want a new government that knows what this Canadian nation is all about.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of all members that this is Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. This is a week dedicated to highlighting the important role of health and safety programs that they have in the workplace in reducing the number of illnesses and the accidents that cost society so much each year.
At the federal level the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for the health and safety of all federal government employees. Health and Welfare Canada through its public service health programs provide a wide range of services to protect and to promote the mental, physical and social well-being of federal employees. Two of their current priorities are, increasing the capacity to respond to post-trauma stress and also a continuing emphasis on investigating complaints about the poor quality of air in the workplace.
The health and safety of our federal employees is important and I am confident their interests are being well served by this department.


INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF LANAUDIERE
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, the International Festival of Lanaudiere will start its fourteenth season of activities this week. A marvellous program of classical music will be presented from June 20 to July 28. The audience will hear world famous performers, including new French singer Frangoise Pollet. Mozart will be in the spotlight on this 200th anniversary of his death, with a number of concerts by performers like Christopher Hogwood and the Handel and Haydn Society.
The festival's amphitheatre, in a breathtaring setting unique in this country, has room for 2,000 people under its roof and 8,000 more on the lawn, whose natural slope offers an excellent view of the stage. The visual impact, however, is nothing compared to the acoustics where no effort has been spared to render the subtle harmonies of our virtuoso performers as faithfully as possible.
This year, the festival will include the biggest hologram in the world, one of the few to be exhibited outside. It was made by artist Georges Diens who was inspired by the Champs Elysees in Paris.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is expired.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, today we met with a group of individuals representing coal mining communities in western Canada. What they told us was both sad and shocking. It seems that for a number of reasons their industry is losing ground to competitors in the United States.
Western Canadian producers are subject to high transportation costs, including the GST, which American producers are not. If this government is serious about increasing interprovincial trade, it should look at a tax rebate for the transportation of goods from one province to another.

Also I would like to remind all members of the House that coal produced in western Canada is on balance cleaner and less damaging to the environment than the American product. It is time that this government showed support for western Canada coal producers, mine workers and the communities that depend on them.
I call upon the federal government to take immediate steps to remove the barriers from interprovincial trade.


WORLD FOLKLORE FESTIVAL OF DRUMMONDVILLE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the 10th World Folklore Festival of Drummondville will be held from July 5 to July 14, and I invite all members and all Canadians to come and take part in the most important traditional event in Quebec.
For ten days, under the festival theme "Dix ans au rythme du monde", more than 30 folk dance groups from 21 countries will share with us their customs and traditions through music, dance and song, as well as a host of interesting activities. More than 800 performers from Canada, the United States, France, and countries as far away as the U.S.S.R., Poland and Argentina, will demonstrate their age-old, enchanting traditions through the medium of the dance.
About 1,300 volunteers have been working very hard for many months to make this popular festival a world class event. Last year, Mr. Speaker, the festival, which was named tourism event of the year, welcomed 750,000 visitors.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sony to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


AUTO SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that U.S. authorities are attempting to restrict Canadian manufactured motor vehicles when the Canadian Department of Transport is proposing to relax the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to give preferred treatment to U.S. manufactured vehicles in Canada.
I find it puzzling and unacceptable that U.S. manufacturers will be allowed to supply a product in Canada that Canadian manufacturers are prevented by law to supply.
In my view, this move will dilute and confuse the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in Canada. It will increase the cost of new cars to consumers and it will transfer jobs to the United States.
It is unacceptable to have two sets of safety standards. It is imperative that the U.S. industry be required to meet the same standards as Canadian industry in Canada. The Department of Transport must review these amendments and assure the Canadian industry a level playing field in our own country.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the war in the gulf may be over but the casualties continue to mount.
The UN Undersecretary-General referred to the near apocalyptic conditions following coalition bombing of Iraq. UNICEF has reported Iraqi children have stopped growing because they are not getting enough to eat. Waterborne diseases are widespread.
Surely Canada must urge the immediate lifting of non-military economic sanctions against Iraq. As the UN Secretary-General reported in March, the Iraqi people may soon face a further imminent catastrophe which could include epidemic and famine if life supporting needs are not rapidly met.
The Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have asked: How is it possible that the
June 19, 1991

Oral Questions
international community allowed its governments to place an entire civilian population in such jeopardy? Canada must accept our share of the responsibility for rebuilding after the carnage of this tragically wrong war.


CFB CHILLIWACK
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Chilliwack is a very friendly and close community. So when part of the community comes under stress and strain, the community comes together in support of its neighbours.
There is stress and strain in Chilliwack right now because there are some vicious rumours that part of our community might come under attack. The Canadian Forces Base is an integral part of the community in Chilliwack, and many people are concerned that it might be closed.
This is causing a great many people in Chilliwack and throughout British Columbia serious concern. As I speak, the First Combat Engineer Regiment is in Kuwait clearing mines. The families are already stressed by the absence of their loved ones. It is encouraging to know that when times get rough and stress gets high, people pull together. Such is the case in Chilliwack where military families are supporting each other and where the community is rallying in support of the base.
I have confidence that the cabinet, when it deals with this, will let common sense prevail and that Chilliwack will remain a stronger, more cohesive community that is 100 per cent intact.


PARLIAMENTARY TOUR GUIDES
Mr. Speaker:: I know that hon. members would want to join me in welcoming our new parliamentary tour guides who will be introducing Parliament to visitors from Canada and around the world. They have been at work since May and will welcome over 300,000 people before the summer is over.


PARLIAMENTARY PAGES
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all hon. members will want to join me in thanking the parliamentary pages whose terms will end shortly.

I am sure all members will agree that the young men and women who were selected to serve as pages have shown they are worthy representatives of Canadian youth, of whom we are justly proud.

You leave this Chamber with our very best wishes for your future. We hope to see some of you back in this Chamber, in a different role perhaps, in a few years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Every 17 minutes, there is a sexual assault committed in Canada. Ninety per cent of the victims are women. Women across this country, including women on all sides of this House, are afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods at night.
In light of these tragic facts and in recognition of the Montreal massacre, will the Prime Minister today announce a royal commission to examine the tragedy of this war against women?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
raises a very important issue.
I do not know where she has been because a commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne that a blue ribbon panel about violence against women was going to be established by this government. The appointments to that panel are being made as we speak in the House today.
The government's commitment to look at this issue very seriously and to identify it as a unique and particular issue of Canadian society, in other words, violence against women being a particular social phenomenon, is clear. We have every intention of following through not just with the study of violence against women, but with the appropriate actions to deal with its causes and its effects.

June 19, 1991
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: My supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. The tragedy at the Polytechnique in Montreal was followed by a tripartite initiative on violence against women. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant has killed this initiative. Why does he today refuse to endorse the creation of a royal commission of inquiry on violence against women? I would appreciate an answer from the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just erroneously and, I assume, inadvertently informed the House that someone I know killed an initiative for a project that would have the effect of reducing and eliminating violence against women. The Minister of Justice just said the exact opposite.
In the Speech from the Throne, the Canadian government announced its intention to initiate a thorough inquiry into violence against women. At this very moment, people are being selected to conduct this inquiry which will be a very important one for Canada, and as far as I know, members of this House are practically unanimous in supporting this very important initiative by the Canadian government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we had a chance in this House to do something unanimously. We had a chance for all political parties to come together to support the initiative of the subcommittee that was struck on the issue of violence against women. Instead, the effort of an all-party committee was torpedoed by the parliamentary assistant to the minister of health.
Will the Prime Minister overrule the torpedo action carried out by his colleagues and will he today-


Mr. Speaker:: The question goes right to the heart of something that is taking place in the committee at this time. I listened very carefully. I know the hon. member will notice that I did not interrupt until I certain I heard it carefully. I think it is out of order. Perhaps the hon. member could put her question another way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The very basic question is this. Will the Prime Minister endorse a unanimous recommendation
in this House and move today to strike a royal commission to examine the war on women that we as women are facing all across this country? Will he do that today for the women of Canada, please?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks me whether I will endorse a unanimous recommendation for an inquiry into violence against women. The answer is not only will I endorse it, I announced it in the throne speech on behalf of the government, not today, but some six weeks ago.
The Government of Canada is in the process of I putting together the terms of reference and the nomi- I nees of a commission of inquiry that will be a very	I
important instrument to protect women against the	I
vicious crime of assaults against women. This was an- I nounced in the throne speech. We are in the process of I following through. There is nothing partisan about it. I I endorse it just as enthusiastically as the deputy leader of I the Liberal Party.	I


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns violent offenders. There is the Takahashi case on the west coast where an inmate was sentenced for three life terms for sexual assaults yet was out playing golf with a murderer, a fraud expert and an unarmed guard.
On the east coast, the Thompson case, an inmate committed a murder while on parole. There is concern in my community that he will receive a temporary absence to Moncton or be moved to a minimum security facility.
Is the minister satisfied with the way in which violent and sex offenders are receiving escorted temporary absences?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: appreciate my hon. friend's question and I realize that he is concerned, as are we, about public security in these matters. The security of the public is first and foremost in the operations of Canada's correction service and we will continue that.
I should tell my hon. friend we are reviewing the matter of corrections and conditional release and we would expect to be coming forward in the fall with a new program which would address the concerns that my hon. friend has raised.
* [DOT] . - * , .. -[DOT] .
June 19, 1991


George Saunders Rideout: My supplemental is for the same minister. Mr. Minister, obviously from what you said, you realize that Canadians have lost complete confidence in the parole system in this nation. As I mentioned, the earlier cases and also the Legere and Gingras cases, all focus attention on the problem. Obviously victims and communities worry. Victims need to have some input into the system before releases are granted and at the very least they should know when somebody is being released.
Would the Solicitor General be prepared to order a full comprehensive parliamentary review of the parole system, especially with regard to violent and sexual offenders?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two points in response to my hon. friend. First, I would like to think that in the fall when we bring forward the reforms I mentioned, that in the discussion and the review of those amendments, we could have that kind of examination.
At the same time, while I appreciate that when dealt with in the specifics, some of these cases do not look as appropriate as my hon. friend and I might think.
I want to say that the temporary absence program is successful. In the fiscal year 1988-89, the success rate in terms of trying to protect the public and rehabilitate people was 99.93 per cent. So there is a fair degree of success to this, while I admit that there are some problems.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Just over a year and a half ago, all members of this House shared the tears of the parents of the victims of the Montreal massacre. Before and since then, many of us in this House have talked about violence against women.
The report of the subcommittee on the status of women, entitled War on Women has made some extremely useful recommendations, has heard a number of witnesses, men and women from across this country who came to speak to this committee and share the pain of violence. They asked this committee to do something, to
Oral Questions
take direct action. It is not only the victims, it is the abusers and it is the children who suffer from violence.
Does the Prime Minister accept the recommendations of the report by the subcommittee to really do something about violence against women or does he support the views of those on his side of the House who rejected this report and refused to endorse it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend, I think, does perhaps an injustice to some colleagues in the House of Commons. There has been no rejection of any of the provisions of the report.


Ms. Black:: Many refused to endorse it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There has been no rejection. As I understand from the distinguished member from Calgary, there was a desire for an opportunity for members of the House to be seized of this and to debate it. There was no rejection.


Dawn Black: They had it over a week.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is asking me an important question and I am trying to give an answer. I was not a member of the committee or of the subcommittee. All I know is that the member for Don Valley North, the chairperson of the committee, Barbara Greene, has done an outstanding job.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: To the best of my knowledge, no one has voted against a single provision of the report. The object of the exercise is to bring the subcommittee report forward to the coiwnittee and eventually to have the House of Commons enact legislation pursuant to the recommendations of that report. That, I believe, is exactly what will happen.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada have waited a long time to see some serious work on the issue of violence against women. All of us in this House, I am sure, want to see that happen, but we want action now. When we want to put grain handlers back to work, we do it in a day. When want to ensure that arms sales can take place, this government does it in a day.
Will the Prime Minister endorse the recommendations of this subcommittee's report? Will he make sure that these come forward quickly for action now, for the women of Canada, for the children of Canada and end violence in this society, not just talk about it.

Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the committee has voted to table the report, which makes it a proper subject of public discussion and that it contains recommendations that touch a number of departments in government. But I think it is important to point out that the government continues now to be actively involved in seeking ways to deal with this problem concretely through legislative and policy initiatives.
As the hon. member will know, I just recently hosted in Vancouver an historic three-day meeting on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice which was historic because it involved high level presentation from the judiciary, representation from every Department of the Attorney General in this country, high level experts in the area of violence against women and other areas related to women and the law. This was a working group that was designed to conform with recommendations that we can act on.
We will look forward, with great interest, to the recommendations coming forward from the parliamentary committee, but we are working now on dealing with the issue of violence against women.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
Clearly, the women of Canada do not feel that. I think this is the issue. The issue is whether this government is prepared to seriously address the whole issue of violence against women.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the provincial, territorial and federal ministers responsible for the Status of Women are meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Which recommendations will the Minister responsible for the Status of Women announce at this meeting, those contained in the report or those rejected by her cabinet colleagues who refuse to acknowledge the tragedy of violence against women?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, because the committee, as I understand, voted to table its report, the meeting of Ministers responsible for the Status of Women will be free to discuss it. It will be in the public domain. More important, they will have available to them the recommendations that came out of the Vancouver meeting, an historic meeting, the first of its kind and will provide a very important subject matter for the meeting of the Ministers responsible for the Status of Women in working to counter violence against women.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, Algo Group Inc., Canada's leading apparel manufacturer became the latest Canadian firm to announce its likely departure to the United States.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this is what he had in mind when he said to the OECD in Paris a couple of weeks ago: "Those who lose jobs during periods of economic slow-down such as we are now experiencing may well find their new positions in different industries, occupations or regions".
Why does the minister not have the courage to admit these effects of his policies at home? What industries, occupations and regions is he referring to and what policies is the government bringing in to help workers through these periods of adjustment?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend would be honest with the people who are listening to this Question Period, he would read the accurate parts of the decisions that this company is making. It says in the article that the company is moving an office to Britain so that they can sell women's clothes that are made in Canada into Britain.
They also point out that if they were to move to Mexico it would not be to take away jobs from Canada, but would be moving jobs from the countries in southeast Asia into Mexico where it would bring those low cost
June 19, 1991

inputs closer to Canada to help maintain the profitability of the manufacturing of that company within Canada.
The suggestions that they might be moving to the United States are speculation. The actual results and decisions that this company has taken are related to decisions that will help the manufacturing facilities here in Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the shareholders of Algo will be delighted with the minister's confidence in their company.
I ask the Minister of Finance to please explain to the people of Canada the meaning of his remarks made to the OECD. I will quote them again in case he did not hear them the last time: "Those who lose jobs during periods of economic slow-down such as we are now experiencing may well find their new positions in different industries, occupations or regions."
Will the Minister of Finance, whose words I have quoted, please tell Canadians what industries, occupations and regions he is referring to and what programs the Government of Canada proposes to give assistance to workers who have to make these adjustments brought on by his own policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the confidence of the shareholders of Algo Industry. He should let the Canadian people know that this is a company that has had a continuous series of profitable years since it was founded in 1942. It has made profits throughout recessions. It has made profits when times are good.
If he wants to talk about some articles that are in the paper today, why does he not talk about Terrence Corcoran when he talks about the recession is over, dead, deceased, expired, it is finished.


CFB GOOSE BAY
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence or whoever is answering for him today.
Goose Bay has been an important northern base since 1942. It still serves our NATO allies and it is the main economic mainstay of the 8,000 people who live there. My question is how can the government contemplate closing Goose Bay when it has absolutely no defence policy for this country? Will the government give an
Oral Questions
undertaking today that before any change is made in the status of Goose Bay or any other base in this country a defence policy for the future will be brought forward that can be discussed with the people. Can we have that undertaking today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I am happy to inform my friend that the minister, pursuant to many meetings with the senior defence personnel, will be bringing forward very soon to cabinet for consideration some changes in our defence posture. The United States and all of our allies are changing some important elements of their defence posture as a result of changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. All NATO members are doing precisely that.
The German government has announced a reduction of some 180,000 troops in Germany alone. Canada will of course be examining options that will best serve our national interests while maintaining the integrity of a very highly skilled and professional military.


CFB SHILO
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister. Canadian Forces Base Shilo is a first-class military base and the third largest employer in Manitoba with nearly 1,600 permanent military and civilian personnel, as well as hundreds of part-time and contract jobs.
How then could this government intend to close this first-class military base and still make sense in the absence of a comprehensive national defence policy? Will the minister make an undertaking today that he will first consult with Manitobans before considering any change in the status of CFB Shilo in Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Portage-Interlake and the member for Brandon-Souris have both made repeated interventions on behalf of Manitoba in regard to this very excellent military installation. The government is in the process of reviewing all of its expenditures in this area from recommendations from the military. We are analysing and will be analysing recommendations that come from the professional military in regard to then-needs across Canada.

June 19, 1991
Oral Questions
I can assure my hon. friend that the government is fully acquainted with the excellence of the reputation of the base because of the very strong interventions by the member for Brandon-Souris and his colleagues from Manitoba.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Statistics Canada today published a study which destroys the government's favourite argument that it is social program spending that is the cause of the country's deficit. The study shows that social spending has not increased relative to Gross Domestic Product for the last 16 years.
Will the Minister of Finance take this study seriously, this study which shows that it is corporate tax breaks and the high interest rate policies of successive Liberal and Conservative governments that are the main causes of the deficit? Will the minister take steps to end the generosity of his government to the corporate elite and to wealthy individuals in Canada and show that he is serious about the deficit?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me when I say that one of our biggest challenges in terms of cost pressures is the cost of servicing the national debt, the national debt we inherited from the Liberals when we took office in 1984.
Yes, this government has been generous toward social programs in this country and it continues to be. For the record, the last five years, in terms of major transfers to the provinces, which is largely for the purpose of sustaining health and education and other benefits that go to help the average Canadian, have increased from the last five-year period of $150 billion to $183 billion during this fiscal period.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is not what the study shows. The study shows that social spending has remained the same over the last 16 years. I grant the Minister of Finance that the deficit is in large part due to corporate tax breaks created by the Liberal Party of Canada. But that does not exempt this government from the fact that they have refused to
close many of the main loopholes that still exist from that time.
Will the Minister of Finance give a commitment in this House today, given that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is meeting with his counterparts today and tomorrow, that social spending in this country will not be asked to contribute one more cent to the elimination of the deficit, a deficit that social spending did not create. When will the corporate elite be asked to pay down the deficit?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the hon. member that for the five-year fiscal period ending 1991-92, the amount of federal transfers to the provinces amounted to $150 billion. For this five-year fiscal period, 1991-92 to 1995-96, it is projected that we will transfer $183 billion in transfers to the provinces, which is largely used for health, welfare and education. That is not a reduction of revenues, that is an increase in revenues. On a per capita basis, the transfers per person have risen from $950 to $1,250 in the last five years. That is not a reduction, that is an increase.


CANADIAN ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. The business arm of the Tree of Peace of the Friendship Centre of Yellowknife submitted a proposal to the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy for a project which would spell and realize, in the long term, a viable and largely independent economic base in the aboriginal community of the Northwest Territories.
Many would benefit from this particular facility. Why, then, does the government defy its fiduciary responsibility to the aboriginal people by rejecting outwardly this very comprehensive and economically viable proposal?
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses
and Tourism)): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very interesting. The Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development program has been responsible in the last five years for creating over 4,000 small businesses on and off reserves in Canada.
June 19, 1991

This particular application is being considered further by the board. I will do my very best to take another look at it.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the executive of the aboriginal community in Yellowknife are requesting that perhaps it would be an option for them to have the proposal revisited immediately, not to wait, and that perhaps the accessibility of a business loan would be considered by the minister.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be reminded that in the last two years alone we have funded over 40 small business projects through the CAEB program in her part of the Northwest Territories, and I think over a dozen in Yellowknife alone. They are veiy good projects, I am sure she supports them. I would be glad to take a look at this one as well.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, major environmental disasters are waiting to happen in Canadian waters. As the Minister of Transport well knows, the report of the public review panel on tanker safety recommended last October 24 that specific measures be implemented to prevent catastrophic marine spills.
Why has the government taken no serious action to implement the panel's recommendations? And what suitable immediate measures will it take to prevent these looming disasters?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this government formed the Brander-Smith committee which examined this whole question. The Brander-Smith report that was tabled with the Ministry of Transport some months ago is a very, very comprehensive and very serious work. We have been examining the different components of it and are on the verge of making some recommendations and decisions as to what needs to be done to take into consideration the contents of the Brander-Smith report.
Oral Questions


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government believes that band-aids can stem serious haemorrhaging.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister and concerns the interim report of the royal commission on passenger transportation.
Since the commission has urged the government to review its policy on abandoning railway lines and alienation of rights of way, to prevent the irrevocable loss of these rights of way, what does the Minister intend to do to ensure that passenger transportation has a future in rural Canada?


Jean Corbeil: That was another excellent initiative by the government and the Prime Minister of Canada. The House will recall that the royal commission of inquiry was established by the Prime Minister himself. The commission's members are extremely competent people who are dedicated to their work. They submitted an interim report some time ago, which contains recommendations on the issues raised by the hon. member opposite.
We are giving these recommendations careful consideration. We are analysing the financial impact and will report on this question very shortly.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Terrence Corcoran, writing in The Globe and Mail says that the recession is dead, it was dead on the 23rd of April, possibly the 7th of May. I think it was dead in March. I was wondering in view of the economic performance and indicators and the very much lower interest rates, whether the Minister of Finance had new projections with respect to growth this year, and what his projections were all around concerning whether the recession, in fact, in his view was dead.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather encourag-

June 19, 1991
Oral Questions
ing to note that good news flows from this side of the House rather than from that side of the House.
I did see the article to which the hon. member refers, and I think it is the second in a series. I think he was pleading with the opposition to start using the other "r" word as they insisted that my predecessor should use the "r" word when the slow-down was occurring.
The article to which the hon. member refers says "the recession is dead, long live the recovery". I think that recovery is very near. All the indicators are there. We assume that growth will emerge again in the second half and 1992 will be a banner year of about 3.5 per cent growth.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Privatization.
Yesterday it was announced that Petro-Canada shares will be sold for $13.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Harvey: They applaud, Mr. Speaker. What they are applauding is the fact that the shares will be sold for about half the company's estimated net asset value per share.
What the Liberals paid too much to buy, the Conservatives will charge too little to sell. Canadian taxpayers will be left reeling from the fiscal one-two punch.
What is the government's best estimate of how much money will be returned to the Canadian treasury once Petro-Canada is completely sold off? Even a ballpark figure would do.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give a ballpark figure on that at all.
Of course, markets will decide the price as we move through the privatization program. It will take some time. As the hon. member knows, it is a fairly large company, so to provide a ballpark figure now would be very foolish on my part.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. minister is correct that it would be very
foolish on his part because it would appall the Canadian people.
Given the very real fears of many observers that Canadian taxpayers will lose more than $4.8 billion of the $6.8 billion in 1990 dollars they paid to build Petro-Canada, what credible guarantees that the Canadian people will not wind up receiving as little as 30 cents on the dollar for their energy company can "Discount John" give us?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that was a real zinger.
I noticed the hon. member's press release that came out today. In the first half of it, he said that the government was giving the shares away. In the second half of it, he said that the ordinary Canadians cannot afford it.
That press release is about as suspect as the figures that he is throwing around in the House today.


TEXTILE AND GARMENT INDUSTRIES
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade, and concerns the textile and garment industries.
The fourth edition of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement now in effect will expire on July 31,1991. Whether or not to maintain this particular status is one of the items on the agenda of the GAIT Uruguay Round. Could the minister tell the House what kind of action the government intends to take to protect the interests of the textile and garment industries and the jobs of Canadian workers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has shown a great deal of interest in the welfare of the textile and clothing industry.
It is a very important industry for his part of the country and also other selected parts of the country. In the multilateral trade negotiations, we have been very careful with proposals that we have been prepared to put out in order to ensure that the ongoing nature of the industry can be protected.
June 19, 1991

We also have been working with the industry in ways to help them put in the equipment and improve their technology to allow them to be competitive on a world scale basis. I am sure my colleague noted my response earlier in Question Period that some companies have been quite successful in being able to maintain and build their markets on an international basis.


AIR INDIA FLIGHT 182
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General regarding the Air India tragedy and the surveillance role of CSIS.
During recent committee questioning, the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee replied that the RCMP continues to insist that a SIRC review would impede the criminal investigation which is still proceeding.
It has been six sad years since flight 182 went down. Why can SIRC not conduct its internal review now? Will he tell the RCMP to back off and let SIRC do its job?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's interest in this matter. He will know that the RCMP has contracted with a deep-sea diving outfit and will be making an effort to recover more of the belongings of those people who died in that particular crash. They will be doing that this summer.
We hope that we will have the same success with that that the government did with the Reyat investigation and subsequent conviction in B.C.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, no one has yet shown how an internal review by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee would impair the ongoing criminal investigation of the RCMP.
Will not the minister signal to SIRC that it should get on with its job and direct it to conduct a section 54 review under the CSIS Act so that questions regarding SIRC's
Oral Questions
or CSIS's surveillance role in this tragedy can be put to bed once and for all.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that under no circumstances would I want to in any way impair the efforts of the RCMP and the progress that has been made to date. The RCMP realizes the concern that everybody has that the perpetrators of this crime be brought to justice and I am sure that everybody in the House agrees with that theory.


CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian dollar continues to climb in relation to the U.S. dollar. There have been many claims that this is because of a secret deal made between Canada and the U.S. as part of the free trade deal.
I was wondering if the minister could tell us today about the true value of the Canadian dollar and if indeed there is any relationship to the free trade agreement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the exchange rate of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement. As the hon. member knows, we have a floating exchange rate. The value of the Canadian dollar is established in the marketplace based upon many factors, i.e. commodity prices, balance of payments, capital movements, inflation, inflationary pressures and interest rates. All of those components are part and parcel of the value of the dollar.
I think one of the reasons that the dollar is enjoying a high value is simply the fact that many foreigners are investing in Canada. It is a clear demonstration of the confidence that is being expressed in the Canadian economy.


CAPE BRETON ECONOMY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.

June 19, 1991
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister will know that on March 31 the mandate of Enterprise Cape Breton expired and that the government promised there would be a new regional development program in place before July 1. As the Prime Minister knows, the economic situation in Cape Breton is very serious. Unemployment is growing, there are continually closures and more bankruptcies. I want to know from the Prime Minister when this new regional development program, the successor program to Enterprise Cape Breton, will be announced and put in place.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can simply respond on behalf of the Devco part of the equation, not the over-all Enterprise Cape Breton part of the question which perhaps my colleague can answer.
In terms of Devco, we have worked very closely with the board and with the union to see if we can have in place a more viable enterprise there. I am very hopeful with the co-operation that I have seen, the last three or four months in particular, between the union and management. So I am feeling more optimistic about Devco's future.
As for the other aspects of Enterprise Cape Breton, perhaps my hon. colleague can add to my answer.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows and the hon. minister knows that Devco has nothing to do with Enterprise Cape Breton.
What I wanted was an answer. One agency has been taken away and we were promised by the government that in Cape Breton there would be a replacement regional development program. I do not think it is too much to ask the Prime Minister and the government when they are going to keep that promise, particularly when the deadline they themselves set for replacing this agency is only a couple of weeks away. When will this agency be put in place?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already given the indications of the government. We are very concerned about the situation in Cape Breton. It has been a tough time in Cape Breton for as long as I can remember, 30 or 40 years. Successive governments have wrestled, with varying degrees of success, with very serious structural problems in the economy in Cape Breton.
We began with Enterprise Cape Breton. We had some successes and, as the report indicated, some failures. The cost of attracting jobs to Cape Breton pursuant to some of the programs that the previous government initiated and we initiated was deemed by some outside observers to be excessively high.
ACOA, which Premier McKenna has described as the most important regional development agency ever introduced into Atlantic Canada, is contributing in some substantial way to some successes in Cape Breton, but we are cognizant of the problem that my hon. friend raises.
We are also aware that decade after decade we have failed as a country to successfully resolve some of these serious problems in Cape Breton. I give my hon. friend the undertaking that the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Government of Nova Scotia will try even harder to bring about a greater degree of prosperity and social justice throughout eastern Nova Scotia and into Cape Breton.


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The government has indicated its opposition to sovereignty association, saying that Quebec can negotiate sovereignty but not association. This echoes statements by Reform Party spokesmen in the past 18 months, indicating to Quebecers that separation is not a costless excursion.
Will the government also indicate its opposition to asymmetrical federalism, that is that it is unacceptable in a truly federal system to grant special sovereign powers to any one particular province which cannot be granted to all provinces?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the little coalition between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois might allow them in their seat to work out the small differences that they might have.
Let me make one thing very clear. The position of the Reform Party of Canada is a position which assumes the separation of Quebec. That is not a position which we in this party or most Canadians in this country accept.
June 19, 1991


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the hon. members who are rising that I will recognize the hon. member for Surrey North on a question of privilege, which takes precedence.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my privileges have been breached by the premature leaking of parts of the reports on health care to be issued by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and Status of Women, prior to it being tabled in this House.
Also the Liberal health critic, the member from Winnipeg North, told the press that "all parties have given their support to the report". However, he knew that the New Democratic Party and I did not support the Tory-Liberal majority report, that I had voted against the report, and that I would be issuing a minority report.
This misrepresentation of my position caused me embarrassment and forced me, in order to set the record straight, to breach House conventions and release my minority report at noon although the French translation was still not available.
This premature release of the parts of the report, the misrepresentation of the contents of the report and my position prevented me from carrying out the proper duties as a member of this House and therefore breached my privileges.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a question of privilege pursuant to the rules as set out in Beauchesne's as well as in the Standing Orders.
There has been no notice given to this side with regard to this particular question of privilege. However, if the Chair wishes to take it under active consideration, perhaps at some point in the near future we may have an opportunity to revisit this particular argument and accept interventions from this side.
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised by way of a question of privilege certain things that emanate from a committee.
It may be premature for the Chair to consider whether or not it is privilege. I will take it under consideration. The hon. member may want to consider my comment.
For the moment, though, I would like to move on. I have another question of privilege.


CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to basically give notice of privilege or potential privilege at this time.
As the House is aware there were media reports this morning indicating that the office of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was wire-tapped during the last round of collective bargaining.
As the member of Parliament of the New Democratic Party responsible for labour issues, I was in constant contact with that union, and I would worry-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Despite whether other members of this House consider it an important issue, my personal communications as a member of this House were potentially violated by the fact that there was a wire-tap occurring. My conversations as a member of this House were important in terms of my speaking in this House, in terms of my communicating and my negotiating.
I would raise this as a notice at this time because if there were a wire-tap conducted by Canada Post, the RCMP or CSIS, certainly my rights were impinged upon.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that the laws on wire-tap in this country are very clear. If there has been a breach of the law, the appropriate authorities should take care of it.
I want to lay to rest any allegation that Canada Post in any way, shape or form tapped any phones during that period. I just did not want that accusation on the record.

June 19, 1991
Privilege


HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND STATUS OF WOMEN
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House events which occurred yesterday during an unrecorded, in camera meeting of the standing committee on health and welfare.
I feel that the rights of members of that committee were breached in several ways. There was interference by the office of the chief government Whip when proceedings were interrupted to change membership and substitution forms required to be relayed-


Mr. Speaker:: If this is a matter which she alleges took place in the committee, it would seem to me that the Chair does not have any lawful authority to intervene at this time. I think the hon. member's proper course is to take the matter back to the committee. Until such time as I receive a report from the committee, I am not at all sure that I have any authority to act.


PROCEDURE DURING PASSAGE OF CERTAIN MOTIONS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege, because last night, after the normal sitting hours of the House, the government, with the obvious co-operation of the opposition parties, participated in a brazen manoeuvre for the purpose of expediting more than 15 motions without consultation, which affected my privileges as a member, effectively gagging all independent members of this House in every debate today.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the attitude of this House, and when we see the members of the three other parties getting upset, it is pretty obvious they feel guilty.
I appeal to your sense of responsibility and especially to your obligation to protect the minority in this House. Mr. Speaker, at 3 p.m. we refused to give our consent to certain motions. When the government realized the motions had been rejected, it first made sure that our members were not in the House and then indulged in this brazen manoeuvre. In fact, it is worse than that. It is abuse of parliamentary procedure, because now all three parties have ensured- Just look at all the motions that were passed! I appeal to your sense-


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with some concern to the comments made by the hon. member for Shefford. Nevertheless, we have a situation where apparently, the members who were in the House moved a motion that was adopted unanimously.
Consequently, the House has spoken. Perhaps the hon. member has a grievance, but all members have a responsibility to be present in the House during the proceedings.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Consequently, there is no question of privilege.
The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead, on another question of privilege.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns my constitutional right to be able to speak and vote in this House every time a decision is made.
I was here in the House until after the scheduled sitting hours. At 10.02 p.m., the government moved a motion for the sole purpose of allowing two or three members to speak to the motion on the Constitution. Today, I heard that instead, they intended to pass 15 motions and gag an independent member.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your sense of honour and justice, and I ask you to allow independent members in this House, members of the Bloc quebecois, to speak to the bills and motions that will be tabled in the House today, despite the orders given last night.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of Rights, members of this House are so proud of -


Mr. Speaker:: In his question of privilege, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead takes a certain position on the events that occurred yesterday, as a result of which a motion conclude the debate received the unanimous consent of all members present.
The hon. member may have a case under the Charter of Rights, but it is not up to the Speaker of the House of Commons to take a position on the Constitution. If the hon. member has a complaint, perhaps a conversation, a dialogue or negotiations with all other members of this House would be in order. Perhaps this approach would be acceptable to the hon. member.
June 19, 1991

However, I must say this is certainly not a question of privilege.

The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, on her earlier question of privilege. I may have ended her comments prematurely. I will hear her now.
My point is that I am having difficulty seeing how at this stage in the committee's activities I have any lawful power to interfere.


HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND STATUS OF WOMEN
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to make is that there was external interference by the office of the chief government Whip, outside the committee, in the proceedings. The proceedings were interrupted to change membership, and substitution forms which were required were withheld by the Whip's assistant. The rights of the committee were breached when a vote which was properly held was improperly rescinded and the decisions of that committee were overturned.
With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an outline of what happened. A vote was taken at the committee. The chair had ruled that the people there had the right to vote.
The assistant to the chief government Whip withheld the papers and as a result of that the vote was overturned.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty I am in is that the hon. member must exhaust her remedies in front of the committee. At this point it would be improper, because I do not have the lawful authority, to interfere. The hon. member may want to pursue this in another way. The immediate way is to take it up with her colleagues in the committee.
I understand the hon. member's feelings on this matter and she may veiy well have a complaint. However, I have to say that I regret I am not in a position, certainly at the moment, to intervene.
There is a number of members rising on points of order. The Chair may need some help in order to get through this expeditiously.
If the hon. member, for example, for Annapolis Valley-Hants has a point of order arising solely out of Question Period I will hear him. That applies to other
Point of Order
hon. members. If they are points of order that do not arise solely out of Question Period, as we are under an order to get on with the vote and then we have Routine Proceedings, I would prefer to take the points of order later.
Certainly the hon. members who are rising, if not heard now, will be heard a little later on. Perhaps if I give that assurance we can get on with the vote.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order does arise out of Question Period. It is very short, it is succinct, but it may be substantive. I will be very brief. As we perhaps break for a summer recess I am just trying to determine what the rules and regulations are. I would like to know if there is any place in the Question Period for a bona fide supplementary yelled out fairly audibly.
That leads me to my second point, which I do not really want to press because I do not want to embarrass the Chair; I have the highest respect for the Chair. Perhaps it is time we admitted that there is a list if there is, and I would not want to say there is because it is an insult to the independence of the Chair to have a list. The Mother of Parliaments in England and the Parliament in Baghdad never had lists because that would be an insult to the Chair. If there is a list, I want to know if that is the sole criteria for members, and especially independent members who now do not come within a government situation, to be recognized. Then we can save a lot of physical energy that we spend in getting up and down like a yo-yo and not being recognized. Those are my two questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. First of all, I am not revealing a great secret when I say that of course there is a list. The hon. member has often been on that list. Your Speaker is not necessarily bound by the list, although I always try to co-operate as much as I can. I could even tell the House how we got to the list. The hon. member knows very well how we got to the list. It was through great discipline in keeping just one member of the party up in opposition so there was only one person the Speaker could go to. There is no secret about a list, and the hon. member knows as much about lists as any member in the House.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
The other question the hon. member poses is whether there is there any place for the independent member or for a supplementary upon certain occasions.
Of course there is. The hon. member was recognized for a supplementary only a few days ago. I have often gone to members for a supplemental. However, I have to take into account the number of members who are seeking the floor and what is happening on any given afternoon. The hon. member knows I cannot satisfy everybody on every afternoon. That is a matter which my hon. friend who may be rising later on a point of order may come back to.
I appreciate the hon. member's intervention and my answer is yes, there is a list. I am not bound by it. I can ignore that list and intervene to allow private members, wherever they are, not only to ask questions but also to ask supplementals. That is a right which remains with the Chair and I do not think it has ever been seriously challenged. I would remind all hon. members that it is a right which the Chair has had almost since: "The memory of man runneth not to the contrary".
If the points of order are not arising out of Question Period, something that happened in Question Period or something that did not happen in Question Period, I would ask hon. members to raise them later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 18, consideration of the motion, as amended, of Mr. Clark (Yello-whead) (p. 1912).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion, as amended, respecting the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to inquire into proposals for a renewed Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Members
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
Points of Orders POINTS OF ORDER


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I voted on this resolution, wholeheartedly supporting the super committee, knowing full well and expecting that there will be provisions made in an ex officio capacity for aboriginal people.
1968 ELECTION


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important date, June 25, next Tuesday, because that is the anniversary for at least seven members of this House of Commons who were elected some 23 years ago on June 25,, 1968.
They include yourself, Mr. Deputy Chairman of Committees, and the Deputy Prime Minister. This illustrious group of members also includes the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden who is sitting down here and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who I guess is not in the House today, a very distinguished member. It includes also the hon. member for Davenport who sits right here but has just stepped out of the House, the hon. member for York Centre and myself.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I might mention that the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel who was elected actually in a by-election in the fall of 1967 has been adopted by the class of 1968 as an integral part of our group.
I might say that 1968 was a really great year, and I think most of the members of the Official Opposition would agree with that. It was great for many reasons, but especially because we were just coming out of our country's centennial year and we showed great optimism, great hope and great confidence in our country.
As we go into this year, with all its trials, tribulations and great difficulties, I hope that we may find anew using those traditional Canadian feelings of of tolerance, goodwill and understanding the hope, the confidence and the optimism that we had in 1968 and go on to build a better and even stronger Canada.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague stole my stuff. I just wanted to add that of the 96 members of Parliament first elected in 1968, only about six and a half of us survived. I warn all hon. members about the mortality rate around here. There is no such thing as a cinch except in the saddle.
I want to say also that the hon. member for York Centre is a second offender because he did not serve the whole time. He got knocked off in one election and came back again in the next one. He is a recidivist. However, we include him in our august group. I want to remind the House that this august group will be meeting this evening and the time and place are secret to everybody else.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I of course want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Algoma and the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I also want to echo what they have said. I think it is fair to say that paying tribute to the survivors causes us to reflect on some of the very interesting times that we have had. I think 1968 was indeed a very special year as the hon. member said.
There was a huge majority. The Liberals were in charge. There was a huge majority, so it gave many of us newcomers an opportunity to learn parliamentary procedure at a very relaxed pace.
I think it is fair to say that throughout the 23 years we have all developed a very warm and healthy respect for each other, a very warm friendship. It is also fair to say that each and every member has contributed something significant to his or her own constituency, own region, and to Canada. For that I want to salute them all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, all I would like to say is that it is great to be a survivor.


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Next Tuesday, June 25, marks another anniversary as well. It is the fifth anniversary of the passage by this House of Bill C-45, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and it has still not been proclaimed.
My question to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is: Can we expect that Parts II and III, which give effect to the act and extend to House and Senate employees the same health and safety rights enjoyed by all other Canadians, will be proclaimed by that date? If not, by that date? When, after five years?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is an extension of Question Period.


SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the House some points of order. I want to use as my references the Standing Orders and Beauchesne's which I know are legitimate because the House leader of the Official Opposition just used them as references in his point of order, so they must be valid. I refer to Beauchesne's citation 410, Standing Order 37 and to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice which all say: "Supplementary questions need no preamble and should flow from minister's questions".
All the supplementary questions today were out of order. I just wish to bring this to the attention of the House management committee. I hope that it will direct-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member has time, maybe in the next couple of days he could go into the Speaker's chamber and discuss it a little further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1990.


HUMAN RIGHTS AND STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table in the House a document on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 I table, in both official languages, the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons on development assistance to Guyana.
#


WESTERN ARCTIC INUVALUIT CLAIM
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies in both official languages of the
1989-90 Annual Review of the Western Arctic Inuvaluit Claim Implementation Report.


ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: While I am on my feet and pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both
Routine Proceedings
official languages, the government's responses to 34 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I tabled yesterday in this House a bill setting out what is probably the most important Public Service reform plan in nearly a quarter of a century.
Economic conditions may command stringent wage constraints, but they must not stop us from having a broader vision. For Canada to be competitive on all fronts, changes have to be made now to produce, in time, a more modem and efficient Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to provide the honourable members with a statement on the status of collective bargaining in the Public Service. I believe it is important that Members are aware of the current situation and that the facts be clearly presented.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the February 26 Budget, the then Minister of Finance set out the government's wage policy for the next three fiscal years. In fiscal year 1991-92, salary budgets in departments are frozen at the level of the previous year.
The Minister indicated at the time that any negotiated wage increase this year would require a corresponding reduction in employment and that, in any case, the government would not contemplate wage increases this year of more than 3 per cent. In the following two fiscal years, provision is made for annual increases of up to 3 per cent.
This approach, Mr. Speaker, was imposed by economic necessity, balanced by a desire to continue collective bargaining with the unions. In that spirit, I met with the leaders of the Public Service unions on the day following the Budget to explain the Budget policy to them person-naly, and to seek their cooperation in negotiating agreements that the Canadian public can afford.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Since February, there have been regular collective bargaining sessions with Public Service unions representing 58 of the 80 bargaining units and 184,000 of the
190,000	employees subject to collective agreements. I regret to inform the House that unions generally have not agreed to accept, in their negotiating demands, the limits established by the Budget-and the fiscal situation that lies behind it.
Union leaders have continued to make wage and benefits demands that are well beyond the capacity of the public purse. Indeed the leadership of the two largest unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada have, to my considerable regret, publicly stated that their unions will take whatever action is required to force the government to change its wage policy.

The government and the country are faced with a fiscal situation which must be addressed. The government outlined its full dimensions in the budget and we owe it to the Canadian public, who are faced with the corrosive effects of recession in every sector of the economy, to live within the measures announced at that time. The fiscal imperatives are clear. We must contain both the deficit and inflationary pressures if interest rates are to be brought down to a level that will lead to a sustained economic recovery.
Continued federal government leadership in dealing with inflationary public sector wage pressures is an essential part of this strategy. The actions of the six provinces which have followed our lead since the budget show that it is the right course.
As President of the Treasury Board I must pursue this objective in a way that preserves the integrity of government services to the Canadian public while minimizing the impact on public employees.
In addition, this government is engaged in a far-reaching process of renewal in the Public Service which I do not wish to see compromised. Its two cornerstones are a more service-oriented Public Service and greater attention to the human dimension in managing the Public Service.
My strong preference, therefore, is to continue to work with the unions to arrive at fair settlements for our employees which are within the limits of what the government and the taxpayers can afford to pay.
At the same time, I will be the first to acknowledge that the choices we have offered the unions are not very palatable to them any more than they are to the government. This is reflected in the current state of the collective bargaining negotiations.
By June 21, the last day before the summer recess of Parliament, 55 of the 80 bargaining units representing some 165,000 employees will have collective agreements that have expired. In five cases, they have been expired for more than one year.
By the time Parliament convenes in September, a further eight agreements will have expired. Also, by that time as many as 38 bargaining units and 170,000 Public Service employees could be in a legal position to strike. In addition, we expect binding awards to be handed down in early July for 18 occupational groups represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

Mr. Speaker these are the facts of the situation. I would now like to advise the House of the guiding principles that the government intends to follow during the summer months as this situation unfolds. We will continue to press for negotiated settlements for as long as the unions are willing to come to the table. We owe this much to our employees and to the system of collective bargaining itself, which has served both employer and employees well over the years.
But we will move swiftly and firmly if the situation deteriorates unacceptably. We will seek the recall of Parliament to enact the necessary legislation if there are illegal strikes or if there is unreasonable disruption in service to the public.
As announced in the Budget, we will act to modify any arbitral awards that go beyond the 0-3-3 guidelines to bring them in line with the Budget. If we are forced to introduce legislation, it will cover all departments and agencies for which the Treasury Board is the employer as well as other public bodies that are dependent to a significant degree on Parliamentary appropriations. This would include Parliament and its employees. And the same terms will aply to all: a 0 per cent increase in wages in fiscal year 1991-92 or in the period immediately following the expiry of a collective agreement and 3 per cent in the following year.
June 19, 1991

Three groups whose contracts had already been the subject of protracted negotiations before the Budget- the Translation, Auditing, and Computer Systems Administration groups-will be provided with higher settlements for the period before this fiscal year, but they too will then be covered by 0 and 3.
This legislation, then, would apply for the first two years of the three-year compensation restraint program announced in the February 26 Budget. The government remains committed to the Budget ceiling of 3 per cent in the third year of the program. The Minister of Finance announced in the Budget inflation targets for the next five years: 3 per cent by the end of 1992; 2 1/2 per cent by the middle of 1994; and 2 per cent by the end of 1995. These reduced inflation levels should allow us to achieve the third year of the compensation restraint program through collective bargaining.
Having stated my desire to continue to negotiate, I recognize that for some bargaining groups it may not be feasible to expect a voluntary agreement by the time the House returns on September 16. If this proves to be the case, I think it will probably be in the best interests of all concerned to introduce compensation restraint legislation at that time to cover those who have not been able to settle for at least a two-year agreement within the 0-3-3 limits. I am very conscious that this would mean the suspension of collective bargaining for this round, but it may be the fairest course to take under the circumstances.

These are hard measures, made necessary by hard times. In the economic climate in which we live, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect public sector employees to assume their share in working toward recovery. In my own recent travels across Canada, I met with Public Service employees at all levels and in all regions. I have concluded that these employees who, after all, are taxpayers themselves, are prepared to accept lower wage increases over the short term in order to make the future brighter for us all.
I received a second message both from union leaders and employees. The recession and the government's fiscal situation have created profound and, I do agree, understandable uncertainties in the minds of Public Service employees about the risks of losing their jobs. They are aware of the job losses and of the sacrifices that are being felt in the private sector and they are deeply conscious of the potential implications for themselves of
Routine Proceedings
the wage targets announced in the budget. This uncertainty also undermines the effective delivery of government services, and I want to put an end to it.
On May 29 I advised union leaders that the government had effectively lost any room it might have had to negotiate wage settlements for the current fiscal year at an increase of more than zero per cent. To proceed with a 3 per cent increase three months into the fiscal year would probably mean releasing more than the 6,000 employees forecast in the budget.
The other side of this coin is that a freeze on wage levels eliminates for all practical purposes the necessity to reduce further the number of jobs in the Public Service during the period of such a freeze. We will continue to need to change or eliminate specific jobs as the Public Service adjusts to changing demands for its services. Here and now I can make a commitment that every current employee of the Public Service who is affected by any such changes resulting from the budget will be offered a position on comparable terms for the period for which the wage freeze applies, if he or she is willing to be trained or relocated.
In that spirit I would also like to announce that departments will be instructed not to proceed with contingency plans which they were asked to develop at the time of the budget to absorb any wage increases in 1991-92 above zero per cent. There will, therefore, be no reason for lay-offs in the balance of this fiscal year as a consequence of the budget.
This is not job security in the sense in which unions negotiating demands too often mean it; a guarantee of lifetime employment. It is not this kind of job security. That would be unacceptable. Like good employers in the private sector, we recognize that it is in the interests of the employer and employees alike to have as much continuity and certainty as possible in order to have a productive and stable workforce.
This government's record in redeploying employees whose jobs are eliminated for other reasons is an excellent one, as the experience of the recently completed five-year downsiding program demonstrates. This has been thanks to the workforce adjustment policy which has provided an equitable safety net for employees. That policy expires on June 30 of this year. However, we are very much interested in negotiating a new one, in consultation with the unions under the auspices of the National Joint Council. In doing so we are prepared to explore ways of alleviating union concerns about the effects of contracting out in particular.

Routine Proceedings
Our discussions with union representatives have made good progress and I am hopeful that we can arrive at an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, today I am asking the leadership of the Public Service unions to go an extra mile with us in avoiding major disruption to the Canadian public this summer.
In my time as President of the Treasury Board, I have developed a great respect for them personally and for the system of collective bargaining that is one of the foundations of our Public Service. I know they share the priority that I give to maintaining the highest possible quality of service to the Canadian public.
I know too that the union leaders understand that the government will not deviate from the terms of the February 26 Budget, especially at a time when there is mounting evidence that we are on the right track and have the strong backing of Canadians for what we are seeking to do.
But I believe there continues to be real scope within the Budget to arrive at negotiated settlements that meet the needs of our employees. The government will introduce legislation if it must, but I would prefer to try to make the established insitutions of staff relations work in these difficult times as well as they do in better circumstances.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 this government was elected on the illusory promises of fiscal responsibility, solving the economic problems of the country and jobs, jobs, jobs. Seven years later 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, the debt and the interest it is costing have more than doubled, and the nation has been in an unnecessary, made-in-Ca-nada recession created by this government. Canadians have been realizing for some time that the Emperor has no clothes, no vision and certainly no economic plan.
Today's statement is the culmination of the government's abject failure to meet its commitment to Canadians, to provide them with good government with quality services at an affordable price.
The statement today appears, like so much the government has done, on an ad hoc basis, decided at the last minute, thrown before Parliament without adequate forethought. In fact, as the person expected to reply to this motion, I heard that from the press that this statement would be made, not from the minister's office.
Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board presented a package of so-called reform and revitalization of the Public Service. I must remind the minister and Canadians that this has been the foremost Public Service in the world, up until recently.
He said that this bill would help Public Service employees to concentrate on service to citizens rather than serving systems. He added that Canadians expect a Public Service that is effective and up to date, which is staffed and led by Canada's ablest men and women.
In this statement today the same minister has shown that he has no understanding of how to build commitment, competence and progressive thinking and service to the public in the Public Service of Canada.
I marvel at the minister's audacity to stand up again, in a final display of disregard, on the eve of the recess of Parliament. It is a display of disregard for workers' rights, threatening to call Parliament back, threatening to introduce legislation when he cannot negotiate a zero increase this year, even threatening to override the decisions of impartial third party adjudicators.
The minister says he has a desire to continue collective bargaining, an admirable statement. The minister should bargain with the unions at the table, and not on the floor of the House of Commons.
May I interject on a point of order? I am finding it increasingly difficult to speak with the rabble going on around me.
June 19, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Speaker finds it difficult to speak with some of the static that is going on over at that side of the House.
I would just hope you would keep it down, please.


Marlene Catterall: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There is a lobby outside and if people want to be disruptive, they can do it there.
The minister quotes economic necessity as the reason for this statement today and for the regressive and excessive measures announced in the February 26 budget. The economic necessity has been created by this government, not by the workers, not by the employees. The economic necessity arises directly from this government's policies: high interest rates, a high dollar which is hurting our manufacturers and hurting our exports, high unemployment and unprecedented tax increases.
The recession has been created by this government, not by Canadian workers. Particularly, federal public sector workers have shown remarkable restraint in wage demands, giving a complete lie to the minister's statement that the unions representing Public Service employees have been irresponsible in their wage demands.
The minister calls on the public sector workers to assume their share in working toward recovery. That is exactly what they have done. The minister knows perfectly well that federal government workers have led the way for over half a dozen years, in wage restraint, accepting wage settlements below the rate of inflation, accepting wage settlements below those of any other public sector worker and accepting wage settlements far below those of the private sector.
He gets up today and pretends to the Canadian public that somehow federal public sector workers have been driving inflation and driving economic problems, and that is simply not an accurate reflection of reality. It is a reflection of the fact that the government wants to try and pretend that somehow it is those who work for the people of Canada who are responsible for the fiscal and economic problems this government has created.
The government served a signal on February 26 that it had no intention of bargaining in good faith. I want to say very clearly in this House that the Liberal Party introduced collective bargaining into the Public Service of Canada and the Liberal Party will continue to defend collective bargaining in the Public Service of Canada.
The government has stalled on negotiations. It calls on the unions in this statement to come back to the table. It
Routine Proceedings
is the government that has stalled on negotiations and has not been negotiating. It is not negotiation when you sit down at the table and say "this is what you are going to get." The minister's concept of negotiation is like the concept of justice in some countries: "Yes, we will give you an open, public trial. Yes, you can call witnesses, but in the end you are going to get executed." That is not justice and this is not collective bargaining.
Unions have not accepted the bargaining by blackmail which this government tried to introduce by saying very clearly to people at the beginning of the process, before they had any discussions or any negotiations, here is the bottom line, like it or lump it, and the bottom line was this: you can either get a fair salary increase this year or you can sacrifice the jobs of your fellow employees.
The unions, I think quite properly, have said they are not prepared to bargain away the jobs of their fellow workers. This kind of bargaining by blackmail simply is not the way we operate in a democratic nation. We operate in a democratic nation by workers, employees and their employer sitting down and trying to reach a reasonable solution.
Since February 26, this government has precluded that happening. It has given employees every reason, in this statement today, to know that it is not dealing in good faith with its employees. They know that. They have those cases before the courts and those cases will be dealt with before the courts.
But clearly, when you sit down at a bargaining table and say this is going to be the end result, no negotiations take place, no negotiations have taken place and no negotiations can take place. For the minister to try and blame the employees for the outcome of that kind of bargaining by blackmail, is simply not a fair representation to Canadians or to this House of the situation.
The minister has said that the fiscal situation is responsible for this. Well this government has created the fiscal situation.
I ask Canadians, as I ask all members of Parliament, to listen to the messages we have had from this government. For six consecutive budgets it said: "We have a debt problem. We have a deficit problem. Here are tough measures to deal with the debt and deficit. We are asking all Canadians to pay more, to get less, to do with less, tighten their belt buckles so we can get rid of the debt and the deficit." That is six consecutive years of promises to do something about the debt and the deficit and it keeps going up.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Canadians are starting to wonder if this government has any idea what it wants to do about the debt and the deficit because every single solution it has proposed has failed to work.


An hon. member:: No credibility. No trust.


Marlene Catterall: This government claims fiscal responsibility. I sat in meetings of the public accounts committee where Treasury Board officials said: "We cannot tell you if you are saving money by your downsizing program because we cannot tell you what you are spending on contracting out or short-term employees".
In other words, while contracting out has gone up by billions of dollars, while the Public Service of Canada has been destabilized, while service to the old, the young and the sick has been suffering, this government is totally unconcerned about how much money it is wasting on contracting out. In fact, for all the Canadian public knows, for all the public accounts committee knows, for all this House knows, we are spending twice as much on services, through contracting, as we were six or seven years ago, because this government simply does not know. Is that fiscal responsibility? Of course it is not.
The government will cite its commitment to austerity in the bill that says: "Well members of Parliament are going to restrain their own wages in line with the restraint on public sector wages." We note that the government did not decide to restrain its own wages based on this year's collective bargaining when public servants' wages are to be frozen. Oh, no, we, as members of Parliament, are not going to put ourselves in that boat. We are waiting until next year when we are promising the Public Service 3 per cent.
That kind of hypocrisy is something of which Canadians are sick and tired. That kind of hypocrisy is something that makes it impossible for public servants to work with confidence and with trust in partnership with this government.
Who is really going to suffer? It is easy when you are earning over $100,000 a year to say: "Oh well, I will do without a salary increase this year", or "I will accept 3 per cent next year". Who is going to really suffer? How
about those tens of thousands of people, 80 per cent of them women, who are earning under $19,000 a year? They are the ones who are going to suffer. Is there any special provision for them?
How about the 68,000, nearly one-third of public sector employees, who earn incomes below the poverty line?
That is not the message that this government wants to get out there. It wants to get out the message that everybody working for the federal government is a fat cat, living high off the hog, working maybe one-quarter of the day. They know that it is not true and they have a duty to tell the public of Canada that it is not true.
The minister promises no further job cuts. Does he think anybody believes that? My phone has been ringing for months with calls from people. We are cutting out things like health promotion services and people are losing their jobs. We are cutting out or eliminating supervision of drug residues in foods in Health and Welfare and it is probably still going on today.
People are losing their jobs and Canadians are losing valuable services.
A few years ago we had a five-year downsizing program which is now finished. It ended at the end of last year. Now we have another downsizing program. The minister has said that they told departments not to implement their downsizing. That is not very believable when today in government departments across the country people are being told they do not have jobs and are on surplus.
If you were going to cut the fat in government you might look at the most bloated cabinet in any nation in the free world. You might want to look at why cabinet ministers have doubled the number of employees they can take out of those over-worked government offices and put to their own personal and political service. They have doubled the number that they can use, doubled the costs to the Canadian public, and cut services to Canadians.
June 19, 1991

Perhaps we on this side of the House should be happy that 1.3 million people who work for the public sector across Canada are seeing this government for what it is because they are not going to want to vote for it, they and all their families, friends and neighbours. Perhaps we should be happy about that. We are not. We are not because we know it will be Canadians who suffer.
Seventy per cent of the Public Service is not here in the national capital region, not at the beck and call of members of Parliament and members of cabinet. Seventy per cent is out there across the country in communities from the 12,000 in Victoria, to the 18,000 in Halifax, to the 9,000 in Newfoundland, delivering service to Canadians. Cutbacks are hurting Canadians. We saw with the ships' crews it is rescues at sea that suffer when public servants are not there to do the job. Seniors suffer when they cannot even get a simple answer to a pension request for over six weeks. The unemployed suffer when they are trying to feed a family when they are out of a job and the unemployment office is so over-worked that there is going to be a six to eight week delay in the delivery of their cheques.
Canadians suffer when customs at the border are understaffed. Those who collect 25 per cent of the revenue that comes into the country are only collecting 40 per cent of what they could because they do not have enough people to do'the job.
We heard very recently in this House about cutbacks to health services to Canadians at a time when our medicare system is in desperate trouble because of the cutbacks of this government to the funding of medical services.
All those services which Canadians consider part of being Canadian, part of a just and compassionate society, part of a society which serves its people from coast to coast to coast are in danger because of the actions of this government.
This statement is a travesty. It has nothing to do with good management. It has nothing to do with good government. It has a lot to do with the politics of Preston Manning and the Reform Party. If Canadians wanted to see a precedent of what they are in for with the next Conservative government, or with a Preston Manning government, just let them watch. I ask Canadians this summer when some of their services may be disrupted to remember it is not the over-worked public servant behind the counter who is to blame, it is this government.
Routine Proceedings


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the hon. member from the Liberal Party when I say how frustrating it is to have the opportunity to respond to a statement not even knowing that the minister is going to make a statement in the House.
On a day when we should be celebrating the end of a parliamentary session and heading home to our ridings and families, we face instead a day of mourning. After hearing the minister speak I think we have to acknowledge that we have heard the minister sound a death knell for collective bargaining in the public sector.
The minister in his speech said that on the day following the budget he met with the unions personally to seek their co-operation in negotiating agreements that the Canadian public could afford. The day after the budget he decided to consult, the day after the hammer came down the minister decided to consult. Not before the budget, not in any way being serious about consultation when that consultation was taking place after the fact.
The minister went on to say that the unions generally have not agreed to accept in their negotiating demands the limits established by the budget. What a surprise. They were consulted after the fact.
He went on to say that the leadership of the two largest unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, have, to his regret, publicly stated that then-unions will take whatever action is required to force the government to change its wage policy.
That is exactly as it should be, because those union leaders were speaking on behalf of their membership after having had a free vote within their unions about what they thought about the government's policies.
Government after government, both Liberal and Conservative, have refused to legislate full free collective bargaining for public sector workers. Both those governments have treated their workers with great disdain; both have consistently refused to treat the men and women who work for them as partners. They have continued consistently, both governments, to treat them as adversaries.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
They cannot negotiate classification or pensions and there are a whole number of prohibited areas under the Public Service Staff Relations Act which the unions cannot negotiate. That act was passed 25 years ago. We have had a successive parade of Liberal and Tory governments ever since, for at least 20 of those 25 years, which have wanted to amend this legislation.
The government introduced Public Service 2000. Many of the attitudes at the bargaining tables and the reason many of the components have not completed their bargaining is because the government has been stalling, waiting for this legislation. Now we find out that the government introduces legislation which does not bring Public Service 2000 into a mode to be ready to go into the 21st century. As my colleague from Nickel Belt says, we should be calling this PS 1000 because you have taken us back to the dark ages.
The minister referred to continued federal government leadership in dealing with inflationary public sector wage pressures as an essential part of his strategy; "and the actions of six provinces which have followed our lead since the budget show that it is the right course". Everybody in this House knows and Canadians all across the country know that the Minister of Finance called together the finance ministers, cut a deal, and agreed before the federal budget came in that they would attack the public sector workers from coast to coast to coast in this country. The two governments in this country which have made it absolutely clear that they will live up to their collective agreements have been the Bob Rae government in Ontario and the Tony Penikett NDP government in the Yukon.
The fact that six other governments in this country have followed suit with this misguided Tory government does not mean that this government is following the right course. It means that six other Liberal and Tory governments are on the wrong course.
I would like to go on through the minister's comments.
He talks about a renewal of the Public Service which he does not wish to see compromised. Does he mean renewal with a hammer?
He talks about bringing the human dimension into managing the Public Service. The human dimension is back to work legislation. He is saying: "If you do not settle, we will tell you what you get". Is that the human dimension that the minister is speaking about? If that is the human dimension that this government talks about then I am surprised that this government has not introduced legislation to abolish collective bargaining in the public sector.
That is in fact what the minister is doing. He is calling it another name. He is saying: "If the unions do not settle by September 16, it does not matter that they are in a free collective bargaining process". If they do not settle, the minister has said: "We will tell you what you get. We will suspend collective bargaining for this round".
I wonder about a minister who says he is concerned about the human dimension in managing the public sector in one paragraph and in the next paragraph talks about suspending collective bargaining in this round.
He goes on to say that 55 of the 80 bargaining units representing some 165,000 employees as of tomorrow will have collective agreements that have expired, in five cases for more than a year.
It is interesting that when this government wants to make progress and wants things to happen-my leader mentioned during Question Period that it wanted the grain handlers' industry back in operation, it wanted gun sales legislation to go through-anything can be done by this government. When it comes to collective bargaining, this government has set the pace for the country for stall tactics.
Fifty-five out of 80 bargaining units are living with expired collective agreements. Yet, the minister says that if they do not settle by September 16 he will tell them what they get. He goes on to say that by that timemeaning September-as many as 38 bargaining units and
170,000	Public Service employees will be in a legal position to strike.
"Legal" is the operative word here. The minister very clearly stated today that "legal" means nothing. The minister has said that he will recall Parliament immediately to legislate these workers back to work whether the strike is legal or illegal. If they do not have a collective agreement by September he will tell them what they are going to get.
June 19, 1991

Free collective bargaining is something we should be very proud of in this House. He says he will continue to press for negotiated settlements for as long as the unions are willing to come to the table. When somebody announces to me that the deal is zero-three-three, that we are not moving on anything and that we are going to sit around and wait until the minister introduces the legislation.
He is going to draw up the legislation. We are going to adjourn for a couple of months and if the unions wait long enough we will tell them what they are going to get. Who the heck would want to come to the bargaining table? I am surprised that the unions have stayed at the table as long as they have.
He says: "We will seek the recall of Parliament to enact the necessary legislation if there are illegal strikes or unreasonable disruption of service". Again, "legal" does not mean anything. What is the point of having the right to legally strike in the public sector if the minute you do you are legislated back to work? That is a farce.
The minister talked about recognizing that for some bargaining groups it might not be feasible to expect a voluntary agreement by the time the House returns. It might not be feasible. Mr. Minister you said that. Yet, the minister is saying that he will introduce compensation restraint legislation at that time to cover those who have not been able to settle their agreement.
What is the point? The Treasury Board has no reason to bargain now. The union could keep coming to the table all summer long, but there is no reason to bargain. The minister has promised the Treasury Board bargainers: "Just hang out, guys, because on September 16 I am going to introduce legislation and you do not have to do the work you set out to do. I will do it for you". That is free collective bargaining, public sector style, under this government.
He says that on September 16 he will suspend collective bargaining for this round, but it may be the fairest course to take under the circumstances.
Why does he not just save time? Why does he not just introduce legislation today saying: "You have no rights, public sector workers. I am going to do it for you. I am going to tell you what you get". There is nothing fair about even one thing the minister said in his statement today. Not one thing he said was fair. Yet he says it may be the fairest course.
Routine Proceedings
He has concluded that these employees, after speaking to a number of public sector workers across the country, are prepared to accept lower wage increases over the short term in order to make the future brighter for us all.
I ask the minister to name names. I would like to know if any of those workers who were willing to take a lower wage to make life rosy for us all, were the women who are working at the poverty level for the federal Public Service.
I would like to know if any of those people he spoke to were women who were waiting for the promised pay equity under this federal government. I would like to know and I am anxiously going to await a response at some time from the minister on that count.
He says that the uncertainty undermines the effective delivery of government services and he wants to put an end to it. I guess it is better to be certain you are being beaten up by this government than to continue to be uncertain whether you are going to be beaten up by this government.
He says that for the period of the wage freeze he is willing to ensure that nobody is laid off if the union accepts the zero, three and three, and if workers are willing to be trained and relocated.
Just yesterday, in the briefing for PS 1000 the minister's representative told us-PS 1000, we are back to the dark ages here-that deployment or redeployment of public sector workers, in other words, moving them around, would be strictly voluntary. It would not be compulsory. Yet we have the minister saying today: "They will not be laid off if they are willing to be trained and relocated. No choice, just move".
The minister went on to refer to the work force adjustment policy, the fact that it has already expired and a new one will be developed in consultation with the unions. I have already spoken about the kind of consultation the public sector unions can expect from this government.
He says that our discussions with union representatives in the area of contracting out have made good progress, and he is hopeful that they will arrive at agreement. I challenge the minister to give an example of one government jurisdiction in this country where public sector contracting out has proven cheaper or more cost effective. In fact, yesterday the minister spoke of bringing the federal government more into line with the private sector.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
There are many people on the government side of the House who know that the private sector would not put up with the inefficiencies in the area of contracting out. The reason it would not is because it is not efficient, it is not productive, and it is not good for morale.
The minister has yet to show any of us one area where privatization or contracting out has been efficient or effective.
In fact Mr. Kenneth Dye, former Auditor General, referred to contracting out as "the government's greatest boondoggle". There have been studies done in British Columbia that outline very clearly how expensive contracting out becomes for government. Yes, you get rid of a few workers on your payroll, but you are paying out this big contract and you have to develop a whole new bureaucracy to supervise and look after the contracts.
It is very interesting that nobody has been able to show us how contracting out is effective.
The minister said that he would like to see the unions go the extra mile with the government to avoid disruption of the Canadian public this summer. Some 55 of 80 bargaining units representing 165,000 workers have had their collective agreements expire, five of those bargaining units for over a year, and the minister says: "I would like to see the unions go the extra mile".
I would like to see this government go even a few centimetres toward finding a solution to the collective bargaining process.
The minister said that he has developed a great respect for the workers personally and for the system of collective bargaining. What the minister said today does not indicate great or little respect for the collective bargaining process. In fact, it is questionable whether this minister has any respect at all for the collective bargaining process.
The minister really said it all when he said in his closing remarks that "the government will introduce
legislation if it must, but it would prefer to try to make the established institutions of staff relations work in these difficult times as well as they do in better circumstances".
He makes a farce of the free collective bargaining process and of arbitration by making that statement. If the government wants to run the government like the private sector, he had better start by treating the workers with respect. Instead of threatening back to work legislation and suspension of bargaining, he should introduce legislation providing for full free collective bargaining in all areas, as in the private sector. Then we would know that he is serious and then we could expect efficiency, enthusiasm and respect for this Parliament, this government and this employer from public sector workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have received a request from the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer to reply to the minister. I regret that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(1), the hon. member is not eligible to respond to the ministerial statements.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time, but I think that this is common practice. If you care to check precedents, even in the days when the Social Credit was represented in this House without the status of an official party, their members speak for a few minutes. This was done out of courtesy and goodwill. In fact it is up to you. The Precis of Procedure leaves it to the discretion of the Speaker. So, I appeal to your discretion and your generosity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What I can do is
ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.
June 19, 1991

Routine Proceedings



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group which represented Canada at the 32nd meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta from May 23 to 27, 1991.
This was the 32nd annual meeting and the Canada-U.S. delegates divided into three specific committees: one dealt with trade and economics, one with international issues, and one with energy and the environment.
I want to thank all the delegates from all sides of the House and indeed the other House down the hall who participated. I would also like to send our sincere thanks to the staff who made this meeting very successful.



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from Scarborough East, I am pleased, pursuant to Standing Order 34, to present to the House the fourth and fifth reports in both official languages of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have a report from the interparliamentary delegation? Let me hear your point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all these reports from interparliamentary delegations being presented, I wonder what the Chair thinks of the fact that independant members of this House have no access to these delegations.
Could the Chair take this under advisement? We do not travel much, as you know. Still, there are things about this Parliament that we should know. I think we are being discriminated against, and they-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member can put his name down on any of these interparliamentary delegations and, if he is selected, he will be able to go on the trip.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on House Management and, if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.

Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the reconstituted committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and Status of Women.
The committee appointed in the last session has been reconstituted by special order of the House for the sole purpose of completing its report entitled The Health Care System in Canada and its Funding-No Easy Solutions as a result of almost two years' work.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, in both official languages.
The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive report within 90 days.
The human rights violations that the committee heard about in this report are similar to those that occur in a war. I truly think that the committee's feelings are that the government must address this and is very supportive of many of its recommendations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings STATUS OF WOMEN



CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might have unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence in the first report of the subcommittee on the status of women.


An hon. member:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: No.



Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there are several bills that the government would like to introduce, including the Judges Act, the amendment to the Criminal Code (mental disorder), the energy efficiency bill, the foreign ships bill and the Extradition Act.
I would therefore move:
That, notwithstanding any standing orders and usual practices of this House, for all government bills that appear in the Notice Paper today the usual 48-hour notice period be waived and that the said bills be introduced and read a first time in this day during Routine Proceedings under the item "Introduction of Government Bills".


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


Some hon. members:: No.


FOREIGN MISSIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT
Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an act respecting the privileges and immunities of foreign missions and international organizations.


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

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the National Transportation Act (1987) and Criminal Code (overbooking). He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent airlines from over-selling their seats while at the same time preventing people from not paying for seats they do not use.


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

Iain Francis Angus: for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: This bill includes a number of things with regard to the Canada Elections Act such as the financing of elections and the definition of expenses. It deals with the ability of riding associations to appeal the boundaries and it guarantees that senior citizens have voting booths in their buildings.


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

Iain Francis Angus: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Criminal Code (facsimile advertising).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to make it illegal to use fax machines to advertise material in an unsolicited way, called the junk fax bill.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to prevent parents and any person standing in the place of parents from using force toward a child as a means of correction. It would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. While we have abolished corporal punishment in most schools in Canada, too many children remain victims of violence and abuse within the family.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-246, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to implement the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the unanimous recommendation of the parliamentary committee on equality rights, to prohibit discrimination within federal jurisdiction on the basis of sexual orientation. At the present time, lesbians, bisexuals and gay men are not protected from discrimination in employment or access to services or accommodation. I would note that the government promised to amend the law in 1986. We have waited far too long for justice, not special rights but equal rights.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 318 of Criminal Code provides that everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence. This section defines genocide as the killing of members of any
Routine Proceedings
identifiable group with intent to destroy the group. This bill would expand the definition of identifiable group to include any section of the public distinguished by sex or sexual orientation.
Gay bashing and violence against women are widespread in Canada and this bill is a small step toward reducing this violence and harassment


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning on alcoholic beverage containers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to warn pregnant women and other persons of certain dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages by ensuring that all containers with alcoholic beverages carry the following printed warning: "Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs a person's ability to operate machinery or an automobile and may cause health problems or cause birth defects during pregnancy."
In conclusion, on this bill I want to pay tribute to the work of Burnaby resident, Joy Kilmore, who has put tremendous energy and dedication into this very important issue.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan (definition of spouse).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the definition of the term spouse in the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act to ensure that the same financial and fiscal benefits relating to pensions are available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The Government of Ontario has urged the federal government to implement this important change to reflect the reality that the relationship of lesbians and gay men are just as strong, just as loving and just as committed as other relationships in our society and our laws should reflect this fact.


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

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to repeal subsection 13.(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This subsection is discriminatory to rural route carriers in that it prevents them from the enjoyment of rights by excluding them from the employee's status as provided for in the Canada Labour Code.
I therefore submit this bill in the hope that the House, in its wisdom and concern for justice, sees fit to repeal an unjust and unjustifiable provision of the Canada Post Corporation Act.


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

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after 45 years of procrastination, foot dragging and outright discrimination, it is time for this Parliament to act on making merchant seamen veterans of the Second World War and every war since. I know the minister and the committee are dealing with it, but the foot-dragging is still going on.
We have 18 provisions for the welfare of veterans of the three armed forces; merchant seamen qualify for
four. They do not qualify for seven of them at all. If you are a merchant seaman and want to start farming under the Veterans Land Act, the only way you can get a loan under the Veterans Land Act is if you are disabled. Who the hell is going to farm if they are disabled?


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

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an act respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since 1973 when the Horticulture Council of Canada passed its first resolution to introduce a national marketing agency for potatoes, this issue has been bounced around. Numerous times various provinces have wished to go forward but there was no national legislation enabling them to do so. This will provide an umbrella for those provinces to set themselves up in a national agency.


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

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Food and Drug Act (food irradiation).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to prohibit food irradiation, the importation of irradiated food and the exporting of equipment or materials likely to be used for food irradiation.
The bill would also provide for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake studies and research on the effect of food irradiation on human health and the environment, and to present a report to Parliament which could then be referred to a committee of the House of Commons or a joint committee of the two Houses, after which the Governor in Council could decide whether or not to continue the irradiation of food.


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

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act respecting interprovincial livestock trade.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that any interprovincial transaction where livestock are moved from one province and slaughtered in another, that the company operating the slaughterhouse and buying the livestock must be deemed to hold the funds for that transaction in trust to avoid a situation which occurs occasionally, where a packing house goes bankrupt and the producer is left with a year's work and no money.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce C-255, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to lower the voting age in Canada to age 16 so that people 16 and older will be able to participate in federal elections.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to recognize hockey as a national sport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is an opinion held by some that lacrosse is actually our national sport-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Though all of us enjoy and admire the sport, the point is that lacrosse was never officially declared Canada's national sport, and considering the popularity of hockey across Canada, I am introducing this bill to declare hockey as our national sport.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act respecting Magna Carta Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the title explains it adequately.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle rustling and range cattle).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as most members of the House of Commons know, cattle rustling is a serious situation in much of Canada. We are suggesting with this legislation that we increase the penalties for cattle rustling. We are all aware of what the penalty was in the old days, but we do not permit that in Canada any longer so we want to increase the penalties to encourage people not to rustle cattle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Attewell:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of very important petitions of an urgent nature which I hope we get to soon. I do not know why this backlog of private members' bills occurred but I think you might find, if you ask the members, that there might be unanimous consent to proceed to the next step.


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


Some hon. members:: No.
Routine Proceedings AUDITOR GENERAL ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
June 19, 1991
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act to amend the Auditor General Act (request for an inquiry).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill is to empower standing committees of the House of Commons to require the Auditor General of Canada to inquire into and report upon any matter relating to the financial affairs or public property of Canada. The report is to be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and laid before the House forthwith by the Speaker.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (corporate and political office prohibited).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit senators from holding directorships in any companies which have dealings with the Government of Canada and to prevent them from functioning as professional organizers and fundraisers for any political party while being paid to serve in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the other day the First Nations of Canada asked that June 21 be set aside and recognized as Aboriginal Solidarity Day.
We are rising later today. I was originally going to give notice of this and present it on Friday. I wonder if I could ask-considering that it is aboriginal people and they requested this-for consent to present this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Bloc said "no".


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like the Speaker to tell us if he has recognized the "Bloc" as such?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What is there to recognize? I just heard a "no" from your part of the Chamber. There is nothing to recognize.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think there is some confusion among my hon. colleagues.
Is it my understanding that representatives of the Bloc Quebecois have opposed the notion of setting aside June 21 as Aboriginal Solidarity Day?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask for unanimous consent again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


François Gérin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, you have just singled me out as a member who refused consent. I did not refuse consent for the reasons given by the hon. member who sponsored the bill, but because of mistakes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are really not interested in that. All we are interested in is if it is a "yes" or "no" for unanimous consent. The rest is debate.


EUTHANASIA AND CESSATION OF TREATMENT ACT
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to legalize the administration of euthanasia under certain conditions to persons who request it and who are suffering from an irremediable condition and respecting the withholding and cessation of treatment, and to amend the Criminal Code.
June 19, 1991

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make some necessary changes to the Criminal Code to allow individuals to refuse the commencement of life extending medical care, to request the discontinuation of life extending medical care and to consent to and request the administration of palliative care which may in fact shorten their life.
In another context, the purpose is to allow individuals then to die with dignity without subjecting their physicians to legal repercussions.


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

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointed proxy voters, non-listed electors and advanced polls).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very simple one. It is to correct what was not permitted during the last election, that is, to permit all Canadians to vote wherever they happen to be on election day. That is the nature of the bill, and I would hope that it could in fact proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too would seek the leave of the House to introduce a bill for which notice has been given. Unfortunately it is not the appropriate 48-hour notice, given the early decision of the House to rise in an unexpected fashion tonight.
The bill has, in fact, captured the attention of an all-party committee. It is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, to encourage the labelling of food to prevent unnecessary deaths in the sale of food.
It was supported in a non-partisan fashion in the last Parliament. It was a measure designed to save lives and I hope that it will not be blocked this time, because whatever one's political party, I think as a Canadian, one should be interested in saving lives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Routine Proceedings


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (personal and living expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadians who are concerned about the fairness of the income tax system. Yet there are many Canadians who receive tax free income on the basis of expense allowances. Those Canadians include many municipal politicians, school board members, commissioners and other people elected to those bodies, public school boards, separate school board trustees, municipal councillors, regional councillors, members of provincial parliaments, members of Parliament and senators.
Some receive allowances 50 per cent greater than their income, income tax free. Members of Parliament and senators receive another 33 per cent.
Basically, the intent of this bill is to make all those allowances taxable.


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

Gilles Loiselle: That, in accordance with subsection 49(1) of An Act respecting the status and use of the Official Languages of Canada, Revised statutes of Canada, Chapter 31 (4th Supplement), this House approves the appointment of Dr. Victor Goldbloom, as commissioner of Official Languages for Canada;
-He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, speaking on behalf of the government, I would like to thank the former Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, for his dedication to the task at hand and for exceptional services rendered to the government in the course of a brilliant career that spanned four decades.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Fortier first joined the public service in 1952 and served in Canada in diplomatic posts world-wide until his appointment as Commissioner of Official Languages nearly seven years ago. We extend our best wishes for the years to come.
It is a great pleasure for me to address the appointment of Dr. Victor Goldbloom as the next Commissioner of Official Languages. Knowing Dr. Goldbloom as I do, it came as no surprise to me that when the Prime Minister spoke with opposition leaders, both fully endorsed and welcomed the proposal and then approved it.

In fact, Dr. Goldbloom's background and his expertise in so many areas make him eminently suited to taking on the duties of Commissioner. He chaired the language rights committee of the Court Challenges Program. He is a native of Montreal and a graduate of McGill University. He practised as pediatrician and taught pediatrics for many years before entering public life.
He became chairman of the medical economics committee and was, successively, president of the Association des pediatres de la Province de Quebec, the Association medicale du Quebec and the Canadian Medical Association. In this latter capacity, he travelled across Canada, becoming acquainted with the health care systems and social problems of the provinces and territories.
In 1966, he was elected in the new riding of D'Arcy McGee as its first representative. He represented the riding in the National Assembly for nearly 14 years. In 1970 he was appointed minister and became the first member of the Jewish community to sit in the Quebec cabinet. Subsequently, he became Quebec's first Minister of the Environment.
In February 1973, he took over the Municipal Affairs portfolio, and in 1975, he also became the minister responsible for the Olympic Games facilities. Re-elected for a fourth term on November 15, 1976, he resigned his seat in the fall of 1979 to become president of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. From 1982 to 1990, he was president of the International Council of Christians and Jews.
Dr. Goldbloom has been the executive director of the Folds de la recherche en sante du Quebec since January 1990. The new commissioner is active in community life and participates in numerous voluntary associations: the Canadian Council for Native Business, the Jean Lesage Foundation, the Jewish Public Establishment Co-ordinating Committee, the Canadian Medical Association Subcommittee on Environmental Occupational Health, and chairs a task force for the Canadian Paediatric Society on Environmental Aspects of Day Care. He is a member of the board of the Quebec Drama Federation. He is an honorary patron of the Quebec Bar Association Foundation. Many of his accomplishments have been recognized. He is an honorary Doctor of Law at the University of Toronto, an Officer of the Order of Canada. He has received the Government of Canada Award for Race Relations and he is an officer of VOrdre nationale d Quebec.
In 1988 the government adopted a new Official Languages Act, which built on and improved the previous legislation. Dr. Goldbloom will have the critical responsibility of overseeing the realization of these provisions.
The role of the commissioner is an important one. He is an ombudsman, a servant of Parliament responsible for ensuring the recognition of both official languages and the compliance with the Official Languages Act by federal institution.

Mr. Goldbloom comes to this position at a critical time in our country's history. Our new Commissioner of Official Languages will undoubtedly want to take an active part in defining our country's identity, as did his predecessors.
Mr. Speaker, we-the government and I-are confident that Dr. Goldbloom will be successful on this important mission and we wish him the best of luck.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I am pleased to support the appointment of Dr. Victor Goldbloom as the Official Languages Commissioner for Canada. Dr. Goldbloom is the first anglophone Quebecer to fill this position. He is a bilingual Montrealer and a graduate of McGill University. All of these things we have in common with him. I

June 19, 1991

might also say that for 14 years he represented the provincial constituency of D'Arcy McGee, which shares territory with my federal constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
The hon. minister pointed out many of Dr. Gold-bloom's accomplishments, including the fact that he was president of both the Quebec Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association. As minister, he was Minister of Municipal Affairs and the first Minister for the Environment in Quebec. Recently, he has been the president of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. Also he was president of the committee which decided whether or not certain individuals and groups should get funding to contest violations of their official language rights before the courts.
Mr. Goldbloom himself is from a minority in Canada. Consequently, I believe he will be extremely sensitive to the position of the linguistic minority communities in this country.
That having been said and without any criticism of the individual who is appointed-and we support that appointment-I must say that the process by which the government went about this appointment was deplorable and once again shows the great incompetency of the government.
The government knew more than one year ago that Mr. Fortier, the previous commissioner, was to resign on June 14, yet even last week it had not started consultations with the opposition parties on an appointment.
I want to point out that the Commissioner for Official Languages is an officer of Parliament. He is not an officer of the government. He reports to Parliament. He does not report to the government. Therefore, he requires the support of all political parties in this House. Consequently, it is incumbent on the government to consult closely, in advance, with the opposition parties. It did not do that. Mr. Fortier retired from his position last week and consultations only started this week, the week in which Parliament is to adjourn.
That having been said, I hope this statement on the record will assure that the next time in seven years' time-and this will not be forgotten-this will be done in a more proper manner and that the consultations will be done as I think they were intended.
Routine Proceedings
At the retirement party reception for Mr. Fortier, I congratulated Mr. Fortier and especially congratulated him for his close contact and communication with members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He was always in touch with us and he was always available. I also pointed out that he always acted with great balance and fairness and also with courage. If an ombudsman or a Commissioner for Official Languages is to be successful, he must be fair to all language communities in Canada and when he sees a violation of their language rights, he speaks out with courage and with forthrightness. That is what Mr. Fortier did and we are sure that Mr. Goldbloom will do the same.
Among the outstanding issues that Dr. Goldbloom will have to deal with, of course, is the fact that despite we passed the Official Languages Act in 1988, we still have not got in force the regulations that go with that Official Languages Act.
The government has presented to us draft regulations for service to the public. Those have been examined by the standing committee and referred back to the minister. One hopes that they will soon be in operation. But the government still has not provided us with the draft regulations relating to the language of work in the federal government or to equitable participation by English and French speaking Canadians in the Public Service of Canada. We are still waiting for that.
The former commissioner, Mr. Fortier, spoke out strongly demanding those regulations time and again.
The new commissioner will also have to deal with the attempt by certain groups in Canada to dilute and to step backward with respect to our policy on official languages. There are even rumours today that the Spicer commission next week will recommend a weakening of the commitment to official languages or a stepping back with respect to that policy.
I must remind the House, Mr. Speaker, through you, that this attempt-and this was even discussed at a behind the doors conference of the government-to move to a sort of Swiss model in Canada is totally out of context and ridiculous for Canada where we have a million francophones living outside of Quebec, more francophones living outside of Quebec than there were francophones altogether in 1867 at the time of Confederation, and 700,000 to 800,000 anglophones living in Quebec.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
So that model that is being suggested that Quebec would live entirely in French or work in French and the rest of Canada entirely in English is not to be accepted. One would hope that our new commissioner will deal as strongly with that as well.
The final issue is the attempt by the government by privatizing Crown corporations to the private sector and removing them from the ambit of the Official Languages Act. We were dealing with a bill that was before this House recently, making the point that in privatizing the airports in Canada they should not be exempt from all the provisions of the Official Languages Act. When Air Canada was privatized, it was privatized with all the obligations of the Official Languages Act imposed on it. We again have to be vigilant and the new commissioner will have to be vigilant to see that the government does not try to get away with those sorts of things.
Those are the difficult issues that the commissioner will have to deal with. We congratulate him on his appointment. We are here to support him. We are here to work with him and we know he will do a good job.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The honourable member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I was reading the Official Languages Act. As you know, the Act provides that the Commissioner shall be appointed after approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. The procedure being followed in this instance is totally unusual and everything is prearranged. The vote of the honourable members was taken for granted. Mr. Speaker, this is not in accordance with the legislation, nor with its spirit. Look at this resolution which says: That, after those speeches, the motion be deemed to have been put and carried.
Mr. Speaker, I think that everything was prearranged and that is not at all in accordance with the spirit of the legislation, nor with the tradition. This is a point of order and I invite you to read again the provisions of the Act. You should have tabled a resolution in proper form. I challenge the legality of what we are doing right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion was adopted yesterday that there were going to be four speeches and pursuant to the order made yesterday, the question and the motion now before the House will be deemed put and the motion to have been adopted.
That was ruled by the House yesterday and that is the way it is going to be.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, that appointment was made in secret, without consulting the Members of the Bloc-Quebecois.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to congratulate the Prime Minister for having been able to convince Victor Goldbloom, an excellent choice, to accept the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Goldbloom, and to express my sympathy, to him, for he is taking on a demanding and difficult task. It is a difficult task because the expectations are very high. Many Canadians ask themselves questions about bilingualism. Is it a program that costs too much money? How much does it cost? Why all that money? Does bilingualism mean that a linguistic group has a better chance of obtaining a job in the federal public service? Those of us in this House that support bilingualism and the Official Languages Act know that there are good answers to those questions.
It is the job of the Commissioner of Official Languages to go out and talk with Canadians, to explain to them the importance of bilingualism, and to answer their questions about that very important act. However, Mr. Speaker, progress in the federal public service has been slow and inconsistent as regards bilingualism.
June 19, 1991

Routine Proceedings
For instance, I worked for months with a group of francophone members of the RCMP who did not get the bilingualism bonus, even after having won a very clear decision by the Federal Court. Those people are entitled to that bonus.
The Commissioner of Official Languages is the watchdog of the federal public service. His mandate is to ensure that the Act is implemented. I hope that Mr. Goldbloom can bark and has sharp teeth, because he will need those requirements.
The tensions between the different linguistic groups in that country are very strong and the francophone minorities are still fighting for their rights. The role of the Commissioner is essential to help this country find a common ground concerning those issues. Mr. Gold-bloom, an anglophone from Quebec, was a minister in the Quebec provincial government during a turbulent period. Therefore, he is well prepared to help find a solution to problems that he knows very well.
As for me, I would like to give three pieces of advice to our new Commissioner: First, to ensure the implementation of the Official Languages Act while always respecting the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec; secondly, to continue to build bridges between our two linguistic groups, by showing great patience and humility; and, thirdly, to oppose the efforts of this government which is trying to back off as regards the implementation of this essential piece of legislation. In other words: Don't give up!
I wish the best of luck to Mr. Goldbloom in his job as Commissioner of Official Languages, and I offer him all the assistance and cooperation that my party and I can provide, so that he can succeed in bridging the numerous gaps that still exists between our two linguistic groups.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome the new Commissioner for Official Languages, Mr. Victor Goldbloom.
Under the Official Languages Act, the duties and functions of the commissioner are defined as follows:
It is the duty of the Commissioner to take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this Act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Goldbloom's predecessor carried out its duties with efficiency, vigour and a lot of courage. Indeed, always mindful of the mission this House gave him, Mr. D'Iberville Fortier had the courage to enforce the Official Languages Act, for which criticisms were sometimes levelled at him. He was able to honour his responsibilities and also the confidence placed in him by the linguistic communities. He showed the way for Mr. Goldbloom who now takes over.
Not only will Dr Goldbloom fill the shoes few people would fight over, but he will also have to sell the linguistic duality. Our new commissioner will have to say no to all those who would want to trade the official languages for the so-called sake of national unity. As the watchdog for the rights of linguistic minorities, that is of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec as well as English-speaking Canadians inside Quebec, as the advocate of linguistic equality in our country, and on behalf of the minority he has the duty to protect, he will have to say "no".
Mr. Speaker, our new commissioner will have to continue to uphold these principles. He will have to explain to all Canadians the difference between institutional bilingualism and individual bilingualism. Several individuals who are against the Official Languages Act think this legislation aims at making Canada a bilingual country. Several people think that, under this legislation, all Canadians must become bilingual. And yet, this Act only ensures that all Canadians, whether they speak English or French, can be served in the official language of their choice in federal institutions. Why would anyone object to an English-speaking Quebecer being served in English by his or her government or a French-speaking Ontarian being served in French, when dealing for example with old age pensions or immigration or defence? Why would anyone be against an unemployed anglophone from Sherbrooke or an unemployed francophone from Vanier being given services or directions in his or her language?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees language minorities the right to education or trial in their own language. How can we logically transfer to the provinces the responsibility of enforcing those rights, when the majority in these provinces is not even abiding by them, Mr. Speaker.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The message from the Federation des communautes francophones et acadiennes du Canada, last weekend, and the one from Alliance Quebec are very clear. Minorities do not intend to relinquish their rights and are planning to be very active during the constitutional debate. Minorities do not want to be left out and are planning to make themselves heard loud and clear. The new Commissioner will have to do the same.
Racists of all stripes are spreading lies and inflating the cost of bilingualism, hoping to fool the innocents. The present attacks come mostly from these defeatist groups which have never accepted the Canadian reality.
When we talk about official languages, we are talking of the co-existence of these two languages in Canada, and sometimes in some provinces or some parts of the country. We must stop blaming all the problems of Confederation on this co-existence. We must stop making it the scapegoat for all our problems. As some would say in my riding, Mr. Speaker, we must stop using bilingualism as the national ketchup to put on all the problems this country has.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must stop talking about the cost of language duality and start talking about its benefits.
Whether it is bilingualism, multiculturalism, native programs, fisheries, defence, the CBC, transportation or anything else, we must not see only the cost, especially if it is inflated, we must also judge the value. The only way to maintain Canadian unity is to keep the values which are the essence of this country.
The new Commissioner, Dr. Goldbloom, must face quite a challenge, but a challenge vital to the future of our country.
I wish him all the best in the fullfilling of his mandate. We would like to assure him of the same support we gave to his predecessors, Commissioners Spicer, Yalden and Fortier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Inadvertently I missed Private Members' Bills because of some of the confusion around here.


BANK ACT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-264, an act to amend the Bank Act (fair banking practices).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the availability of basic bank services at no cost to consumers, the prohibition of certain charges as well as the disclosure and notification requirements governing service charges. The amendments would also suspend all bank service charges for a period of one year.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-265, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts.
He said: This bill deals with the problem we have when interest rates go up, when the bank rate goes up, then credit card and retail card interest rates go up very, very quickly. However, when the bank interest rate comes down, interest rates come down very, very slowly. This bill would provide a floating cap on retail credit card interest rates and on bank credit card interest rates. They will go up and down in relation to the bank rate.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (salaries).
He said: This bill would ensure that any corporation to which the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act applies be required to file with the Chief Statistician of Canada a return containing information on the salaries paid to its officers.
June 19, 1991


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to change the priorities and place above the secured creditors, employees whose salaries, vacation pay, pension credits and all other benefits have been lost as a result of a bankruptcy. They would be placed ahead of any financial institution which is a secured creditor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that we have returned to Private Members' Bills, I would seek leave to introduce a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It is the bill which I explained earlier would have been introduced if the proper 48-hours' notice had been given. There has been a 24-hour notice given. The bill seeks to reduce the number of deaths caused by the improper labelling of food and drugs. Since we have returned to Private Members' Introduction of Bills, I thought that with the goodwill of the House and the wish of everyone to save lives, that they might agree to this particular-


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion standing in my name that has never been put to the House. I wish to withdraw the motion in light of the motion adopted that effectively does what this motion was intended to do. Given the subject matter, it has been referred back to the committee. It is the one for concurrence in the
Routine Proceedings
privileges and elections committee report, so I withdraw the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There was no necessity for it, but I have noted the withdrawal.


Mr. Comuzzi:: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the guidance of the Chair so that the Standing Committee on Transport can be immediately convened for the express purpose of reviewing the sale by the Canadian National Railway of Route Canada Incorporated. After an extensive investigation, the principals of Route Canada have just been charged by the RCMP for fraud in excess of $4.2 million.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there were many questions put in this House about this sale and particularly about the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that is debate. Are there any further motions?


PETITIONS
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table a petition signed by some Lebanese religious leaders and some groups who are asking the government of Canada to reopen its embassy in Beirut as soon as possible.
These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, have live through a fifteen year war and foreign occupations, and they ask the international community, countries like Canada, to intervene because they have a commitment to Lebanon which is a democratic country, and to ensure that the United Nations resolutions Nos 425 and 520 are complied with.
For too long Lebanese people living in Canada have been asking their government to make representation to the United Nations to merely give the Lebanese people the opportunity to live in peace.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of aboriginal citizens of the First Nations of Canada. This petition was collected by my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic.
The petitioners state that the goods and services tax has been unfairly imposed on them because they are immune from such taxation by virtue of their aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights have, in part, been

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
affirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution Act of 1982 and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Sparrow case.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibility to the citizens of the First Nations in Canada by taking immediate steps to rectify the deficiencies of the policy guidelines, including changes which will protect the taxation immunity of First Nation citizens both on or off reserve lands, including those citizens who do not as yet have recognized reserved lands.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions, signed by residents in my riding of Hamilton West, Stoney Creek and Winona. They clearly state that an absolute majority of voters in Croatia, Slovenija, Boznya, Herzigovina and Macedonia adopted for democracy, independence and sovereignty of their respective republics.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt a policy that would encourage and help the republics that opted for the democratic process.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians primarily from my constituency in St. John's East and a number of Nova Scotians.
The petitioners request that we enact legislation to amend the food and drug regulations to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives and also that restaurants and food retailers make the same information available, particularly in response to the citizens who suffer from allergies, a great concern of many people.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition certified correct under Standing Order 36 from about 50 constituents of my area.
The petitioners believe that Bill C-21 has discriminated against adoptive parents and have asked that the government change Bill C-21 to allow both biological and adoptive parents to have equal treatment by allowing both to be home with their children.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
One is signed in favour of the First Nations of Canada who are immune from such taxation as the GST by virtue of their aboriginal and treaty rights.
The petitioners want Parliament to recognize its responsibility to the citizens of the First Nations in Canada by taking immediate steps to rectify the deficiencies of the policy guidelines, including changes which will protect the taxation immunity of First Nations citizens both on or off reserve lands, including those citizens who do not as yet have recognized reserve lands.
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from Canadian citizens who object to the GST being applied to books, magazines and all kinds of printed matter.
The petitioners feel that this is a first in Canada. They totally object to it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice with those of other members, including the member for Hamilton West, in presenting a petition wherein the undersigned call upon the government to recognize the right to self-government and the absolute right to self-determination of the majority of voters in Croatia, Slovenija, Boznia, Hetsnogovia and Macedonia.
The representatives of the Croatian Multi-party and Inter-organizational Committee for Hamilton are convinced and petition Parliament to recognize that only by support for freedom and democracy and by strong opposition to martial law will civil war be prevented in that particular part of the world.
That is the wish of all of us, to support the right for self-determination and to abhor the use of force to meet a certain political end.
That is the petition that I am very happy to present on behalf of hundreds of residents of the Hamilton area.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which is calling upon the Government of Canada to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.
The petition is signed by dozens of Canadians from Cambridge Bay through to Kanata. It recognizes the fact that the cost of living in northern Canada is one-third higher than it is in southern Canada. This imposition of wage controls has an even worse effect on northern Canadians. That should be recognized.
The petition calls upon the Canadian government to correct these grievances and injustices.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is signed by several dozen residents in the Hamilton-Stoney Creek area and calls for revisions of the Young Offenders Act to protect Canadians who are seeking a better justice system with justice not only for the offender but also for the victim.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by many hundreds of people in Toronto concerning the situation in Lithuania.
The undersigned asked the Parliament of Canada to immediately recognize the legitimate democratically elected government of the Republic of Lithuania and establish diplomatic relations with it.
The petitioners demand that the Soviet Union not annihilate the legitimate government of Lithuania. They demand that the Soviet Union withdraw all its military forces from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They demand that negotiations between the Soviet Union and Lithuania begin and ensure that international mediation is provided during negotiations. They demand that unconditional international aid to the Soviet Union in the form of credits and feed grains be conditional upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Baltic states, and resolution of the Baltic crisis.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 361 have the honour to present a petition concerning some of the problems and difficulties of adoptive parents. I asked a question in the House yesterday on this topic.
Routine Proceedings
The petition asks the government to review Bill C-21 with regard to adoptive parental leave, considering the literature that deals with the adoptive process, the bonding process, needs and rights of adoptive parents, proper terminology in adoption, and discussion with adoptive families and so on. It is signed by a number of residents of Markham, Unionville, Thornhill and other areas.


Bill Attewell: My second petition, as secretary-treasurer of the Canadian parliamentary group for the Baltic people, is similar to the one the hon. member for Winnipeg-Strathcona put forward just a few minutes ago, so I will not read it out in detail. However, it basically supports the independence and freedoms that the Baltic people are seeking.


Bill Attewell: My third petition, signed by literally hundreds of names, asks the government to enact legislation amending food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in the prepackaged foods in place of the general classifications now permitted.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. One is from Canadians, particularly those from Alberta and British Columbia, and calls for an increased priority for education to meet objectives such as globalization, changes in the economics of the country and Canada's social challenges. It points out that there is tougher competition out there and we need to increase our support for education. It points out that there has been a cut of almost $500 million to education this year in transfers to provinces. It deplores the 3 per cent tax and points out that education is for everyone, not just the wealthy.


Ron J. Duhamel: My second petition is from some residents of Saskatchewan and Alberta, pointing out the government's 33 tax increases and indicating that they deplore the interference with collective bargaining. The petition also says that the government is using civil servants to attempt to enhance its political message, its political popularity. It calls upon this House to consider the petitioners' grievance.

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings SELF-EXILE APPLICATIONS


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first petition is signed by 132 residents of the Kitchener-Wa-terloo region. It calls upon the government to speed up the processing of all outstanding self-exiled applications of thousands of east Europeans who came to Canada under the self-exiled program.
The second petition is signed by thousands of people across Canada. My colleague from Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville mentioned the intent of this petition, so I will not repeat it.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today, the first one from approximately 1,000 residents of the Moose Jaw-Lake Centre riding calling upon this government to cease its insane economic policies and particularly to withdraw the goods and services tax and introduce a truly progressive tax reform that is fair to all Canadians.


Rodney Edward Laporte: My
second petition is from approximately 100 farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon this government to place oats back under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now enjoys under the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, duly certified as to being correct in form by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petition is signed by a good number of residents of one community in my constituency, about 200 residents of Edam, Saskatchewan. They note that Canada Post has proposed to close the post office in Edam, Saskatchewan, along with other post offices in Canada. They note that rural post offices like the one in Edam, Saskatchewan, are serving their communities well and should be maintained. Therefore, the petitioners-and I agree with them-call on Parliament to support the maintenance of the rural postal services from existing full service post offices, like the one in their community of Edam, Saskatchewan, and they call on Parliament to reject any proposal which would result in the closing of the existing post office.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a petition today that reminds Parliament that Canada has never recognized the forcible annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the Soviet Union and responding to the Government of Lithuania's request for immediate support of all democratic countries to protect independence. The several hundred signatories, from Fort McMurray to Toronto, ask the Canadian government to immediately recognize the legitimate, democratically elected government of the Republic of Lithuania and establish democratic relations with it and take several other measures to indicate Canada's support for the elected democratic government of Lithuania and for its right to self-determination.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition that has been signed by a number of residents of the province of Prince Edward Island. These residents are concerned that the federal government has chosen to proceed with a bridge connecting Prince Edward Island to the mainland when the residents of Prince Edward Island have had no opportunity to express their opinions in this matter. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the NDP's request to halt all business relating to this issue until such time as a direct vote of the public is held in the form of a plebiscite to specifically determine whether the construction of a bridge should proceed across the Northumberland Strait. These people suggest that Canada should let the island decide.
June 19, 1991


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people in my riding wherein the petitioners humbly sheweth that the tools for building a better Canada have been abandoned, that this government has cut CBC funding by $140 million over the next four years, resulting in
1,200	job losses and the closing of 10 regional stations in Calgary, Comer Brook, Goose Bay, Sydney, Toronto, Saskatoon, Windsor, as well as other areas. The petitioners call upon Parliament to re-examine the government's priorities and to consider restoring funding to the CBC so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert and I have waited patiently to put in petitions for the members of our communities. It would only take a short time and I am sure the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. members?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5, 15, 30, 39, and 43.


Mr. Walker: Did the government send two officials to Europe on a three week mission to try and counter any impressions of Canada's treatment of its aboriginal peoples, and, if so, (a) what was the selection criteria used to determine which officials would be sent (b) what consultation process was undertaken with aboriginal people concerning this tour (c) what were the names and credentials of the two officials?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: The Government sent an official of
Routine Proceedings
External Affairs and International Trade Canada, accompanied by an official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to Europe to brief Canadian embassy officials and other interested parties about the Government's policies respecting the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The briefings were given in eleven capitals (Lisbon, Madrid, Rome, Vatican, Bonn, Oslo, Stockholm, The Hague, Brussels, London and Paris) on eleven consecutive working days (January 28-February 11, 1991).
(a)	The official of External Affairs and International Trade Canada with the appropriate mandate was the Departmental Coordinator for International Aboriginal Affairs. The official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was an advisor on international affairs and was selected for her detailed knowledge of federal aboriginal policy and programmes.
(b)	The aboriginal people were informed of the mission. Such briefing missions are normal practice for External Affairs and International Trade Canada.
(c)	External Affairs and International Trade Canada was represented by Mr. B.D. Marantz whose career has been divided entirely between external relations and aboriginal affairs. The Department Of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was represented by Ms. Catherine Chalupa, an advisor on international affairs in the self-government sector of her department.


Mr. McCurdy: Has (a) the Prime Minister (b) any other minister been contacted by Mr. Fred Doucet, or anyone employed by Fred Doucet Consulting International Inc. concerning the sale of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada and, if so, on what dates?


Albert Glen Cooper: The Lobbyists Registration Act does not require for the registration of meetings or representations.


Mr. Vanclief: Is Mrs. Mila Mulroney currently allocated office space by the government, on or off Parliament Hill, and, if so, (a) where is that office space located (b) what official business of the government does she conduct in that office (c) what is the operating budget of that office (d) under which department of the government are the funds for that operating budget allocated (e) how many people staff that office (f) what office equipment and furniture has been supplied to the inventory of that office?

June 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Leonard Gustafon (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: (a) Office space located in the Lange-vin Block is used by Mrs. Mulroney.
(b)	Mrs. Mulroney assists the Prime Minister in fulfilling the duties of his office including responding to the substantial correspondence she receives from individuals, charitable groups such as the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation etc, community groups, and professional associations.
(c)	There is no separate budget for the activities described in paragraph (b). Operating costs are absorbed within the overall budget for the PMO.
(d)	Costs are absorbed within the PMO operating budget which is part of the Privy Council program budget as reflected in Part III of the Main Estimates.
(e)	A number of staff members of the PMO provide assitance to Mrs. Mulroney for official functions, in addition to other duties they have within the PMO.
(f)	There are no separate budgets within the PMO for the purchase of office equipment and furniture. Such costs are kept within the limits of the overall operating budget of the PMO.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): Does the government have a policy regarding the payment of legal fees for public servants and, if so, (a) what is it (b) are they totally protected (c) does this policy also apply to Members of Parliament?


Gilles Loiselle: (a) When a public servant requires legal assistance for a job related matter, the Department of Justice normally provides a lawyer. Where the Department of Justice is unable to provide legal assistance (for example, where the public servant has been charged with an offence, or where it would be a conflict of interest for the Department of Justice to act), government policy allows a departmental deputy head Minister to authorize payment of fees for private legal counsel.
(b)	This policy generally covers cases when a public servant is: charged, or likely to be charged with an offence; sued or threatened to be sued; required to appear before a judicial, investigative or other inquest or inquiry; of in other circumstances sufficiently serious to warrant the provision of private counsel.
(c)	This policy does not apply to Members of Parliament. However, where Ministers are acting in their capacity as heads of government departments, the government may provide legal services or pay legal fees.


[Stage Direction]
Question No.43-Mr. Boudria:
1.	Since November 21, 1988, how many motor vehicles has the government purchased for the use of Cabinet Ministers and, in each case (a) who was the vehicle purchased for (b) what was the (i) make (ii) model (iii) price of each vehicle?
2.	Was there a vehicle trade-in with respect to these purchases and, if so, what was the (i) make (ii) model (iii) year (iv) value of each trade-in?
Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: See attached, (p. 2103)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 10 and 18 could be made Orders for Return, the returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 10 and 18 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
CABINET MINISTERS	MAKE/MODEL	PURCHASE PRICE	NVFN	MAKE/MODELBlais, P.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$22,400,00	225106	1987 Ford LTD Crown VicBouchard, B.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$25,000,00	225086	1987 Olds Delta 88Cadieux, P.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$24,992,00	225114	1988 Chevrolet CapriceClark, C.J.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$25,000,00	225087	1987 Olds 98 RegencyCampbell, K.	1989 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$22,245,30	225112	Pas de vehicule anterieurC ha rest, J.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$22,326,00	225063	1987 Buick CenturyCollins, M.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$24,340,00	225117	1987 Crown VictoriaCorbeil, J 10/2/89	1989 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$24,421,00	225042	1988 Pontiac 6000Corbeil, J 18/7/90	1991 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$24,512,00	225125	1989 Ford LTD Crown VicCrosbie, J.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$21,767,74	225054	1988 Olds Delta 88Danis, M.	1991 Chevrolet Caprice	$24,800,00	225142	Pas de vehicule anterieurDeCotret, R.	1991 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$24,527,00	225144	1988 Mercury Gr. MarquisDick, P.	1991 Chevrolet Caprice	$22,495,00	225131	1988 Chevrolet CapriceHockin, T.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$24,992,00	225089	1988 Mercury Gr. MarquisLandry, M.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$24,992,00	225123	1988 Buick ElectraLewis, D.	1990 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$24,835,00	225122	1988 Ford Crown VictoriaLoiselle, G.	1991 Chevrolet Caprice	$24,903,32	225116	1987 Olds Regency BrghMackay, E.	1989 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$24,250,00	225051	1988 Chrysler New YorkerMasse. M. 19/4/89	1989 Mercury Gr. Marquis	$24,200.00	225062	1987 Buick CenturyMasse. M. 6/12/90	1991 Mercury Gr. Marquis	$27,408.00	225146	1989 Mercury Gr. MarquisMayer. C.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$21,264.00	225059	1984 Buick CenturyMcDermid, J.	1991 Mercury Gr. Marquis	$23,565,00	225143	1987 Chevrolet CapriceMcDougall, B.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$20,320,00	225035	1985 Chevrolet CelebrityMcKnight, B.	1989 Ford LTD Crown Vic	$22,400,00	225052	1984 Buick CenturyMerrithew, G.	1990 Mercury Gr. Marquis	$25,000,00	225133	1987 Mercury Gr. MarquisMurray, L. (Senateur)	1989 Buick Park Avenue	$24,882,52	225048	1986 Buick LeSabreOberle, F.	1989 Mercury Gr. Marquis	$24,987,00	225041	1987 Mercury Gr. MarquisSiddon, T.	1990 Chrysler 5th Ave.	$25,000,00	225107	1986 Pontiac ParisienneVezina, M.	1989 Olds Delta 88	$25,000,00	225043	1986 Olds Delta 88Weiner, G.	1990 Olds 98 Regency	$25,000,00	225111	1988 Chrysler New YorkerWilson, M.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$20,000,00	225034	1985 Chevrolet CapriceWinegard, W.	1989 Chevrolet Caprice	$20,746,00	225103	1988 Chrysler New Yorker
As of 12 March, 1991


[Stage Direction]
PURCHASE PRICE	NVFN	STATUS	DISPOSAL DATE	PROCEEDS$20,791,00	219045	Disposed thru CADC	89-05-01	$9,015,08$24,950,00	219052	Disposed thru CADC	90-05-28	$8,900,99$21,261,42	225025	Disposed thru CADC	N/A	N/A$24,654,00	188934	Disposed thru CADC	91-01-26	$8,100,00N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A$24,900,00	219054	Disposed thru CADC	89-05-26	514,500,00$20,208,00	225008	Still in use	N/A	N/AN/A	307357	Lease vehicule ret'd	90-01-02	N/A$24,421,00	225042	Disposed thru CADC	90-07-31	$14,500,00$19,940,00	188998	Still in use	N/A	N/AN/A	N/A	N/A	N/A$24,999,00	225023	Still in use	N/A	N/A$21,470,00	225019	Trade-in	90-08-16	$8,000,00$24,886,00	219184	Disposed thru CADC	90-04-27	*$24,986,00	325026	Still in use	N/A	N/A$18,000,00	219047	Disposed thru CADC	90-02-21	$13,101,00$17,838,00	188916	Disposed thru CADC	90-04-26	$13,587,00$22,660,00	225029	Trans, to W. Winegard	89-03-02	$11,050,00$26,700,00	219004	Still in use	N/A	N/A$24,200,00	225062	Caught Fire	N. A	N/A$16,090,00	188411	Disposed thru CADC	89-06-26	$6,900,00$17,411,00	219006	Disposed thru CADC	90-02-27	*$16,081,00	188523	Still in use	N/A	N/A$21,600,00	188476	Disposed thru CADC	89-05-29	*$20,753,00	219002	Disposed thru CADC	89-03-03	$8,150,00$18,945,00	188882	Disposed thru CADC	89-04-19	$7,100,00$20,753,00	219002	Trans, to G. Merrithew	89-02-03	N/A$18,435,00	188809	Still in use	N/A	N/A$24,950,00	188878	Disposed thru CADC	89-03-29	$9,000,00$24,871,00	225011	Still in use	N/A	N/A$16,206,00	188797	Disposed thru CADC	89-01-04	$5,700,00$22,660,00	225029	Disposed thru CADC	90-04-27	$11,050,00
>3
Ci
[Stage Direction]
5'
rj
&
* Unable to obtain resale value from CADC
June 19,1991	COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders

Mr. Robinson: Did the Canadian delegation, composed of the Canadian Ambassador, an RCMP Liaison Officer and another officer of the Embassy in San Jose accredited to El Salvador, that visited San Salvador from January 4-6, 1990, to review the investigation of the assassination of the Jesuit Fathers, their cook and her daughter, issue a written Report to the Canadian government and, if so, what was the content of the report or reports?
Return tabled.



OFFICIAL RESIDENCES

Mr. Milliken: With respect to expenses incurred to develop the master plans for the residences of the Governor General and Prime Minister (a) what studies were commissioned (b) what was the cost for each of the studies on each of the two residences?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining Notices of Motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, that it submits to the assent of the House: Bill S-3, An Act to Amend the Act of incorporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, and Bill S-4, An Act to Amend the Act of incorporation of the University of Emmanuel College.
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 52 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gilles Loiselle: that a Ways and Means Motion with respect to Special Assessments of Insurance Companies and Fraternal Benefit Societies, laid upon the Table on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not question the authority of the Whips, which allows them to go back into the House immediately. However, I do wish, and I am not saying that he showed a lack of decorum, because I don't want to be rude, but I even saw the Deputy Prime Minister running because the bells only rang for a few moments.
I realize the Whips may enter the House immediately, but as a senior member of this House, I feel I must at least protest against the unseemly haste with which they want to end the session. I have no objection to ending the session, but if there are further votes this evening, I wish all members would at least be given a chance to enter the House to do their duty as parliamentarians, because otherwise, the House cannot function properly. And this applies those who asked for the vote, as they are entitled to, and to those who proceeded in haste, which they have a right to do. However, as a member I expect to be given a chance to exercise my rights as a parliamentarian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair always welcomes comments by the dean of the House. However, I may remind him that what happened was entirely in accordance with the Standing Orders and practice of this House.


INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Gilles Loiselle: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an Act respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies.
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: When shall this bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. To my knowledge, we have not reverted to introduction of government bills. I would like to know why this can be done at any time. Could you explain?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Shefford ought to know the Chair is bound by a number of orders that were adopted last night, with unanimous consent. This was done in full view of the Canadian public, it was on television, and the Chair is bound by these orders which were adopted unanimously.


WAGE CLAIMANT PAYMENT ACT
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-22, an Act to enact the Wage Claimant Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be prestudied by the standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, the Chair will now recognize one member of each of the three official parties, for a period of ten minutes each. Subsequently, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be authorized to proceed with a preliminary study of Bill C-22, an Act to enact the Wage Claimant Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


François Gérin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this order made in the middle of night and on the sly is unfair and should not be approved while-

June 19, 1991

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please! I would call upon the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead to co-operate. The point he is raising was raised several times already today and has been settled. Again, I call upon the goodwill of the members of this House, keeping in mind people are watching us on TV. Moreover, the Chair is bound by the order that was made pursuant to the rules of this House and approved uninamously. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House this afternoon to support Bill C-22 which I had the privilege to table last week. All members have a clear and pressing responsibility and that is to update every piece of legislation so that it will foster economic growth and prosperity in Canada while ensuring that businesses and consumers are treated fairly.

The amendments before the House represent the fruit of an extensive process of consultation review and reflection with those with a stake in the reforms: governments, business, labour, consumers, financial institutions and the insolvency community.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House agree that the bankruptcy legislation should foster rehabilitation rather than liquidation and that it should afford consumers better protection. Because of this common vision, I can give the members opposite the same assurance I gave the critics I met with: I shall remain open to any reasonable suggestion concerning changes to be made to the proposed legislation.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to outline briefly the contemplated reform. The new legislation will give businesses that have a reasonable chance of surviving the tools to ensure their survival.

We are proposing that the current rules be changed to allow businesses in financial trouble the option of filing a notice of state of 30 days, with the official receiver for protection from all creditors, both unsecured and secured.
Another goal of the proposed reform is to strike a new balance between the following: the rights of the unpaid suppliers, the Crown interests and personal bankruptcies.
Everyone in this House will certainly be happy to hear that the primary purpose of the new provisions concerning the rights of the unpaid suppliers is the well-being of small businesses. All too often, in a single customer context, a flourishing business would collapse over a single deal when a shipment could not delivered because the business it was intended for had declared bankruptcy.
So, from now on, within 30 days of the delivery of goods to a business which is subsequently placed under receivership or declared bankrupt, suppliers will be entitled to reposess the goods.
We also took steps to limit the priority of the Crown, one of the more blatantly unfair aspect of the present Bankruptcy Act.
We have not forgotten consumers in the reform. Under the current rules, individuals cannot effectively negotiate with their creditors on amounts owing. This is unfair to both debtors and creditors. That is why we will permit the repayment period to be extended and permit debtors to negotiate with their creditors on amounts owed.
In the same vein, our reforms will make it less difficult for bankrupt individuals to get back on their feet by proposing to streamline guidelines governing access to summary administration.
Mr. Speaker, everyone has been saying for the longest time that one of the most serious deficiencies of the Bankruptcy Act, as it stands, is the fact that it does not protect the people who work for businesses that go bankrupt. In such cases, not only do the workers loose their jobs but, all too often, they never see a penny of the back wages their employer owed them. That is why we are proposing a new wage claim program to give them some protection as regards the payment of their wages and vacation pay upon their employer declaring bankruptcy or being placed under receivership.



June 19, 1991



-to be funded from employer contributions of roughly 10 cents per employee per week.
The program will allow employees in an employer's bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation to receive up to $2,000 for wages and vacation pay, and up to an additional $1,000 for unpaid expenses for travelling sales people.
The federal government, the largest employer in the country, will pay into the program as well, and we have asked provincial governments to do likewise.
To minimize the paper burden of employers, premiums will be collected jointly with the unemployment insurance program.
Finally, we have also included in this act a provision for it to be reviewed by Parliament after three years. We must never again allow so important a piece of legislation to become as seriously out-dated as the Bankruptcy Act.

Mr. Speaker, preparing this reform was a real challenge because we had to strike the right balance between protecting the interests of small businesses, consumers and wage-earners on the one hand and, on the other, helping viable businesses get back on their feet and protect jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the reform I put before this House will help us reach those goals. I ask all honourable members for their support so that Bill C-22 is enacted as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this House that in 1987, the last time a bill numbered C-22 was tabled in this House by the present Government House Leader who was then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that bill on the drug industry was a resounding success. I hope 22 will be a lucky number again. We trust that, with the cooperation of my colleagues in this House, we will be able to pass this bill quickly at this stage. We will refer it to committee for preliminary study, so that, come September and October, we will be in a position to pass it in this House so that we may enjoy the benefits of this legislation very soon next fall.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak to
Government Orders
this motion which deals with the disposition and the treatment of Bill C-22 in that it would allow Bill C-22 and its contents to be pre-studied by the consumer and corporate affairs committee prior to its introduction and debate at second reading in the House.
I think it is fair to say that after some consultation with the minister who just spoke, I would have to be in agreement that the timing of this bill is important. The Bankruptcy Act has not had substantial amendments applied to it since 1966. The current bankruptcy legislation which we are operating under has been around since 1949.
There are a number of provisions in that act which have to be scuttled. There are some new provisions which have to be added. There is some updating which certainly has to be done. Some of the major components of the act lead me to believe that with some flexibility on the side of the government, and it is there because I think it truly has a desire to come up with a piece of legislation which is workable and supportable by all those who are concerned, during the pre-study period we will certainly be able to listen to interested groups.
It is my hope that the committee will be able to travel as we do the pre-study, not extensively, but as much as necessary to listen to those parties that are interested outside of the capital region. Bankruptcies do not just happen here, they happen all over the country. If good suggestions come forward in the spirit of co-operation and compromise, I hope the government will listen to that and will accept good amendments that do not alter the direction of the act.
Concerning the direction of the act itself, there are two or three points which I just want to very briefly address.
The Wage Earner Protection Program is one which is long since overdue, and is one which has been the subject in the past of some private member's motions in this House. Back in 1949, there was a provision for some priority for workers' wages up to an amount of $500. The effect of this Bill C-22 would put in place a fund for workers' wages to a maximum of $2,000, plus the $1,000 for sales persons' expenses would come out of the fund. The government thinks that this may cost abut $60 million per year. It is proposed under that piece of legislation to be financed solely by the employers.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
We have some difficulty with that for a couple of reasons, which we will get into during the course of the debate, and which I am sure will be raised by interested parties which will be called upon to submit testimony during the pre-study period.
One of the questions we want to examine and talk to individuals about is whether the wage earner protection fund actually should have been in two parts. One fund with a super priority for wages and the second fund, financed either by the Treasury or by a combination of an employer tax and the Treasury of the Government of Canada, which would basically act as the emergency fund but still give super priority.
Those are things about which we will listen to witnesses to determine if the current proposal is the best one for the circumstances.
Another provision which is very timely and overdue deals with the 30 day stay provision for firms in financial difficulty. It is absolutely essential that this type of protection, which they have had in the United States for a number of years, is introduced to a modern bankruptcy act in Canada.
As we all know, because we all have constituents who are in business, all too often secured creditors walk in quickly, seize assets, cut off credit lines, and put receivers in place. Many times healthy companies, for whatever reason-they may be having some temporary difficulty-find themselves in a position where they cannot go on with their business and bankruptcy ensues. The purpose of any amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, as the minister said, is to instil some balance in the system, balance between all the players in business, without any question.
We must ensure that this 30 day provision is sufficient to protect the interest of the debtor, of the consumer and of the secured creditors. Those things will be debated.
One of the other provisions which is extremely important deals with suppliers. All too often what happens is that suppliers, who basically lend, give material to other businesses and perhaps they are out 30 or 60 days. A day or two after the material, perhaps large amounts, go to
another business that business will declare bankruptcy and most of the time the supplier is not in a secured position. Unfortunately, the supplier loses a tremendous amount of money and in many cases the domino effect causes that supplier to go out of business. We have seen that a lot in the current recession.
Those provisions are also addressed in the bill. A pre-study of the bill will allow other interested parties to participate and I think we might see some good suggestions for amendments.
The only major concern I have at this point is that we are in a period of record bankruptcies. As we well know, the bankruptcies in the first quarter of this year have been at a near record level. The total number of bankruptcies in the last seven years, since this government took power, is a staggering 273,789. In each of those cases in the case of consumer bankruptcies, there is a great deal of devastation felt by those people who have had to claim bankruptcy under this antiquated act.
As for business bankruptcies, there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who over the last seven years have found themselves in great difficulty with some of the wages, the investment they have put in the company, at risk. I am certainly hoping that those individuals will be able to be heard during the pre-study and have some input into the final package presented to the House, during second reading and when it finally does get to committee after second reading.
One of my big concerns, and I should say it here, is the amount. The ceiling is $2,000. If we simply factor in the $500 protection of the 1949 act with the CPI factor it should be around $3,100 or $3,200.
Again in the Coulter report of 1980, a figure of $2,000 for such protection was suggested. If you factor in the CPI it appears that protection should be around $3,200. Those are the types of concerns that we will be bringing to the pre-study and that I am sure we will hear about.
Again, the big concern we have is that some of the provisions of this act are not going to be enforced. If the act was passed today, we would still have a problem with the wage earner protection program.
June 19, 1991

The wage earner protection program cannot be put in force until January 1, 1992, which means that even if this House could find some consensus right now, there would still be hundreds of thousands of individuals, if the current recession and record numbers of bankruptcies continue, who would not find any protection in that particular fund.
Indeed, the studies have shown that in commercial bankruptcies 30 per cent of them have wage claims that are left outstanding. The sooner that this type of protection is brought in, the better off it will be for thousands of Canadian workers right across this country.
In closing, I hope that by the time this committee gets to do the pre-study in the fall, we will see some signs of recovery, some signs of a change in this government's economic policies which caused this recession in the first place.
I hope that we will not be sitting here in this House in December after this bill is passed, knowing full well that because the bill did not come in earlier in the session and the wage earner protection fund did not kick in earlier, that another 40,000, 30,000 or 25,000 companies and individuals have declared bankruptcy. Another 10,000 or
20,000	wage earners have seen their hard earned investment in their companies go up in smoke.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I move that the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Again, I remind hon. members that the Chair is bound by a House order adopted unanimously last night in this House. I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


An hon. member:: Point of order.


An hon. member:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I refer hon. members who want to raise a point of order to the Votes and Proceedings of the House, where the order that binds the Chair is recorded. It says:
The Speaker shall recognize one speaker from each of the three
recognized parties to speak for a period not to exceed ten minutes
each.
Government Orders
So I have to follow that order, and I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


François Gérin: On the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that we waited 42 years to get into the House of Commons.
Successive Liberal governments refused to do anything about updating the Bankruptcy Act of 1949. They went through the recession of 1982, which was one of the worst downturns in economic activity in Canada, with thousands of bankruptcies.
Thousands of workers lost their jobs because of bankruptcies and received no compensation. We started into this recession brought on by this government and now we have gone through the worst of it. Today, they have the gall to stand up and say the r word.
Say the other r word, "recovery". The recession is dead. Here we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The fireman has now come to put out the fire. It is a towering inferno. He arrives at the fire with a stepladder and a garden hose.
The one positive thing I could say about this minister-I must say it-is that he is courageous. After all, he has been in this post longer than any other Conservative Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At seven months, that is an eternity. Finally, he has delivered, but what has he delivered?


An hon. member:: A baby.


John R. Rodriguez: No. He has delivered a mouse.
He has laboured hard and long, and we have waited with bated breath for this delivery. We were expecting a very modern bankruptcy act.


An hon. member:: There is a mouse in the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Anyway, at least we have the bill before us. The bill will go to pre-study and as it goes to pre-study there are certain things about it that we want to examine. I welcome the minister's openness. He said he is prepared to take amendments. Let us see what some of those things are that we are concerned about.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
First and foremost, we must be concerned about the compensation for workers who have lost their wages. I want to tell you that in 1949, $500 was what workers could get. In 1949 you could buy a car for $500.


An hon. member:: And it would run, too.


John R. Rodriguez: My friend, who is an expert on hidden car warranties, told me it would run. One could buy a car for $500. Why, $500 would be the down payment on a house in 1949.
The minister says he is updating the bill. One would think he would really update it. What does he tell us the maximum amount is that workers could get now in lost wages in a bankruptcy?


An hon. member:: Tell us, John.


John R. Rodriguez: In lost wages and vacation pay? Up to, no, no, not $10,000. No, no, not $8,000. No, it is $2,000.1 mean $2,000.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


John R. Rodriguez: I did a bit of calculation and took $2,000 in today's dollars back to 1949, and do you know how much it is? It is $50. Yes, $50. In 1949 dollars it is $50.
This is a generous minister you see here, and he is not even generous with his own money. He is going to really make those big corporations pay, 10 cents a week per employee. Do you know how much money he projects to collect in this fund? Sixty-two million dollars.


An hon. member:: And how do the banks make out, John?


John R. Rodriguez: They are doing quite well in this. If you are a mom and pop operation with 10 employees, you pay 10 cents a person a week. If you are a big bank with
30,000	employees, you pay 10 cents a person a week. There is regressive taxation for you.
Pascals, which went into bankruptcy, would take 5 per cent of the fund right off the bat. There are thousands of Pascals that have been going bankrupt in the last little while. We have a problem with that. We have a problem with the fact that the minister decided he is not a fighter.
This minister is not a fighter. He is a lover. That is what he is.
Let me explain before he thinks I am being dishonest here. The minister had a choice to make on this Bankruptcy Act. He could take on the big financial institutions of this country. He could have placed workers in a juridical position in terms of secured creditors. He could have put them at the front of the bus. What does he choose to do? He says: "No, I am not going to fight those big financial institutions".
They lobbied him. Do you know what he has done? He has put the workers into a little fund, $62 million in the fund, and he did not fight for the workers in terms of their position on the scale. We have a problem with that. We want you to explain why you did that.
This fund, for all of Canada, is $62 million. Ontario alone has put aside $175 million for the wage loss program, $175 million. You got the surplus in the GST. Why do you not go there and take $100 million and put it in? Why do you not go there? Why do you go to small businesses and put another tax on them? Why do you tax small business? All you know how to do is tax, tax, tax. All the Tory backbenchers are saying: "Oh, we have to lower taxation". I hear an election on the horizon. It is not going to do. We have to look at that.
We have a problem. The minister says we are going to protect suppliers. Company a supplies company b with materials on June 1. Company b goes bankrupt on June 15 so company a has until June 30 to go and get the supplies that it delivered there on June 1.
Now the question is: What happens if company b goes bankrupt on June 29? It was supplied with the materials on June 1 and it goes bankrupt on June 29. Company a has one day, and it gets even more interesting. What if b goes bankrupt on June 30 early in the morning? There is no time for a to go and get his material. What if he arrives at the place and his materials are hanging from the ceiling? Is he allowed to remove them?


An hon. member:: Exactly.


John R. Rodriguez: No, he is not. We have problems with that.
June 19, 1991

Government Orders
The bill is not retroactive, particularly for workers. There is no retroactivity. We have come through the worst part of the recession. This bill will not get passed till some time in the fall, so all of the victims of this government's inept economic policies have all gone by the wayside. There is no retroactivity in the bill, so we have a problem with that.
We have a problem with the taxation to small business. This is another tax on small business. No matter how you cut it, no matter how you twist it, it is a taxation on small business.
Then the minister says he is going to tie this into the unemployment insurance program. This one we have to explore because the UI Act says any moneys received from an employer have to be counted as income. We have to see how these two things relate.
Last, but by no means least, we are concerned about the ripple effect. The minister says that at some point maybe the provinces will have also to pay into this fund and probably the municipalities. The municipalities can only get their money from one group of people, and that is from taxpayers, homeowners. We have a problem with that.
While I welcome the fact that you have actually brought in a bill and that it is going to go to study, I want to say to the minister that I hope he is going to be as open-minded in terms of amendments, when we get into the discussion of the bill, as he has been when he wanted us to give support for this matter to go for study.
I hope he will maintain the same generous spirit, brother, when we get down to the short strokes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Consequently, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs is authorized to proceed with the preliminary study of Bill C-22. An Act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime, as reported without amendment from Legislative Committee E
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that you will find, if you examine the amendments which have been put forward with respect to report stage of this bill, that they are all in my name. I would like to withdraw all those motions, with the exception of Motion No. 9, which I would like to continue to have stand.
Let me read the motion to you, then, that would continue to stand:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 6 to 13 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) When a regulation under this Act is changed during the 95-day period referred to in subsection 2 above, such regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least 30 days before the proposed effective date thereof".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So, the Chair takes into account the request made by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.
Pursuant to the order of Tbesday June 18, the Speaker will now recognize one speaker from each the three recognized parties to speak for a period not to exceed 10 minutes each, following which the Speaker shall fortwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading of said bill.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the order of the House, from last night, in the middle of the night, must be taken integrally. Now that you have accepted the motion of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, you must allow all the other members, including the independent members, to take the floor.

June 19, 1991
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, it is undemocratic that the whips of three parties exclude the independent members, including those of the Bloc Quebecois.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead that he should be careful and use a parliamentary language that is in accordance with tradition.
That being said, Motion No. 9, to which the member for Essex-Windsor is referring to, is part of the report of the committee. It is not necessary here to get anybody's approval.


Mr. Rocheleau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge, this report belongs to the House and the decision rests with the House and not mutual agreements concluded between the three parties last night, without the knowledge of Canadians.
I request a declaration from the House on that issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion proposed by the member for Essex-Windsor is in accordance with the rules, but the debate on this motion must take place according to the order which is binding for the Chair and which is in the proceedings.
Consequently, I recognize, pursuant to the order, one speaker from each of the recognized parties.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question put to you and for which we request a ruling does not have to do with those who will take the floor. We know that ourselves; we read the order and we saw the gimmick. That is not what the question is about.
We want to know if a member can withdraw a motion, like that, without unanimous consent. That is what I want to know.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize, but we are dealing with technicalities and, once again, the member for Essex-Windsor-I may have used the wrong wording-has not moved a new motion. He is simply indicating that, in the series of motions on the Order Paper, he is only keeping motion no 9.
In that regard, we are authorized, at the report stage, to recognize only three speakers on the motion kept.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. According to the rules of this House, we have to put forthwith every question necessary, to dispose of proceedings not only those indicated by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. We want to vote on and dispose of every question and motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. That is the question I raise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. We are again dealing with technicalities. The hon. member for Essex-Windsor has only given notice of his motions. He has not introduced them yet. The hon. member just pointed out to Motion No. 9, and I must say about this motion and all other questions that have to be disposed of on this Bill, that I am bound under the rules of this House to recognize one member of each of the three officially recognized parties.


Steven W. Langdon: I move: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 6 to 13 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) When a regulation under this Act is changed during the ninety-five day period referred to in subsection (2) above, such regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least thirty days before the proposed effective date thereof."


François Gérin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret, but, pursuant to Standard Order 30(6), since it is 7 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
May 16, 1991-That, in the opinion of this House, the government should require each government department and agency to include in their budget submissions an accounting of the use of resources whose use or disposal has an impact on the environment and annual targets for reduction and to report any associated cost savings.

June 19, 1991
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-West is not available at the moment. I would then ask that the motion-

-be left in its order of precedence, retain its precedence in the Order Paper and accordingly we are unable to proceed with private members' hour at this time.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the member was here a few minutes ago. I do not know if she had something urgent to attend to, but I myself am prepared for this motion. I was advised of it this morning, and I am now ready to proceed with my speech.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 42,1 think if the government is willing to accede to the request that comes from the official opposition it can be granted by the Chair. We would suggest that it keep its order of precedence. We make such a request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to refer the hon. members to section 42(1) of the Standing Orders. It is stated that: Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence.
Since, that is the case of motion 473, the government just called the motion will stand.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like for you to explain the meaning of the expression "not taken up". For myself, I am ready to take it up, I am ready to speak, I am available.
Government Orders


William Warren Allmand: But she is not even here to move the motion!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Someone could do it for her. She was here just three minutes ago.


Gilles Rocheleau: That is what we call cohabitation!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. To open consideration of a motion, the mover must be present in the House to introduce it. The member knows as well as I that it is not the case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, as reported without amendment from a legislative committee, and the motion of Mr. Langdon (p. 2111).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, considering that we gained an hour by not dealing with private members' business because the member was hiding, I move that the House do now adjourn until 8 o'clock, to allow members to see to their business, which could prove more interesting for Quebecers than what is going on now.
I move that the House stands adjourned until 8 o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. As you know, the Chair is bound by the Order of Business as set out in the Order Paper which provides for extended hours to 10.52 tonight. Since there is no other private member's business according to notices on the Order Paper, I have no choice but to pass on to the next order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would it be possible for a member, me for instance, to move Mrs. Catterall's motion, given her absence?


An hon. member:: No.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: You are not the Speaker!


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting 20 minutes. We now start to look at the question of money laundering which Bill C-9 deals with. Bill C-9 is an important piece of legislation which requires financial institutions to keep the various paper records which will be essential in the tracing of money laundering operations associated with organized crime.
This attempt to deal with money laundering more effectively is certainly something that we in the New Democratic Party support. We were especially pleased to be able to persuade the government in the course of the previous session of Parliament that it was important in a bill such as this, which leaves so much of the details of what will take place to regulation, to see to it that regulations would not be put into effect until there had been a period of at least 90 days after their publication in the Canada Gazette, during which time people would be able to make presentations to the government with respect to those regulations.
We feel that is an important precedent for future pieces of legislation which have the same reliance on regulations as Bill C-9 does.
We also feel, and I gather that the government is in agreement with us now on this point, that if during that 90-day period there is a change in those regulations which leads to a different set of regulations being put out within that 90-day period for reflection and representation, it shall then be possible still to have a further 30 days for those people who were prepared to accept and to live with the previous regulation to be able to adjust to the regulation change, and to be able to make representations with respect to the change and so on and so forth.
The recommendations which came first to the government for this extended 90-day period and subsequently, were presented to a legislative committee which reviewed this bill, came from the Canadian Bar Association. They represent an important principle in the view of the Bar Association that you should not have regulations put into effect without some period of possibility for dealing with those regulations and responding to those regulations on the part of those who will be affected by the regulations.
We would have preferred to move this particular amendment at the legislative committee stage, but some mix-ups in communication at that stage made it impossible to do so and so we have moved it at report stage on the basis of the representations made to us during the legislative committee hearings by the Canadian Bar Association. It felt this legislation should not proceed without this further 30-day period if there is a change in regulations as a consequence of representations during the 90-day period allowed with respect to the original regulations set out.
With this change, which I understand the government is prepared to accept, there is the possibility that it will be moving a subamendment which will put this particular amendment into conformity with the original piece of legislation; making it 90 days as opposed to 95 days. We would support and accept this change. We think that this now represents a good piece of legislation.
It is a piece of legislation which will make it easier for our police forces to deal with money laundering associated with drug trafficking and with other forms of money laundering. We think it is an important step for the government to be taking. We are pleased that step is being taken as part of a broad series of moves on the part of various countries throughout the world to try to get better control over money laundering in order to deal with the serious problems which it represents and which drug trafficking represents to our society, to our children, and to the world itself.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I will be taking 10 minutes.
I want to thank the members on the legislative committee for their co-operation. We had a good hearing and we heard some very interesting witnesses. It was the feeling of the members that we could move along and bring this to the House in report stage, get it through report stage and third reading at this sitting.

I am sincerely thankful to the members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party for their co-operation and assistance. It is an example of how we can work together when we really want to.
As the member for Essex-Windsor has said, this is a very important bill and is part of the drug strategy that we have in Canada. We also have an agreement with the G-7 nations to try and track the money laundering or money that is used or acquired in the sale of illegal drugs. It is also part of a United Nations' initiative which is going to grow into, I believe, a very, very important strategy on the part of various governments to control the funds acquired through the sale of illegal drugs.
The member for Essex-Windsor moved Motion No. 9, and I, as he has indicated, intend to amend Motion No. 9 as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word "95" and
substituting therefor, the word "90".
As the member for Essex-Windsor indicated, this will bring Motion 9, which amends C-9, into conformity with the bill.
I think that is about all I can say on it. It is an interesting bill. We had some good briefings from the Canadian bankers, the RCMP and others. I think the initial co-operation of members to pass the bill with a speaker from each party and with the speed with which it was dealt in committee shows the will of the members to get this bill into law as fast as we can.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-9 and the amendments put forward by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
The bill before us would provide for the tracking of money laundering in Canada by requiring Canadian financial institutions to comply with bookkeeping requirements.
The draft regulations published with the bill indicate that any transaction of $10,000 or more would be recorded. The penalties for a violation of the provisions of this legislation would range from fines of $50,000 to $500,000 and prison terms from six months to five years.
As it has been noted by the government, my party has been supportive of the basic aims and intentions of the government with regard to combating and laundering of proceeds of crime. The bill builds on the so-called freeze and seize legislation, Bill C-61, which in addition to
Government Orders
giving new powers to both the courts and the police to seize crime proceeds, created the offensive money laundering.
Money laundering is a process by which illegal profits are transformed through financial markets and to legitimate-


Gilles Rocheleau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: I would like to have quorum in the House so that I can give a speech that the Canadian people appreciate, but not the hon. members it seems. So, I am calling for a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There is quorum. The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk has the floor.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his concern.
As I was saying earlier, money laundering is the process by which illegal profits are transformed through financial markets into legitimate funds serving to obscure the real identity of the real owners of the funds and to obscure the nature and the source of these funds.
These activities are being pursued on an international scale and there has been a move afoot in the G-7 and other international forums to develop domestic programs and encourage co-operation to combat this program.
There is little question that a fundamental part of any attempt to control and combat the smuggling of illegal drugs must be the development of effective monitoring and evidence gathering systems in the laundering of drug profits.
There has been general consensus in this country for some time that there are great shortcomings in Canada's financial reporting laws. It has been because of these shortcomings, coupled with our proximity to major drug routes and our large, open border with the United States, that Canada has gained a reputation world-wide as an easy and safe place to launder the profits of illegal activities.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
In testimony to the legislative committee studying the bill before us, RCMP officials confirmed that the problem of money laundering in Canada has indeed been a large one. In fact, over $1 billion a year is laundered in Canada through illegal drug practices.
What this has meant is that police agencies, once having identified someone believed to be engaged in criminal activities, were severely hampered in the collection of evidence that might help convict these people. As such, we are very eager on this side of the House for this government to bring down legislation that will correct these matters.
After the disappointment with the government's first attempt in the last session with Bill C-89, we are considerably more satisfied with the bill before us today. We are pleased that the government has given consideration to the shortcomings of the previous bill brought to the attention of this House by members on this side of the House.
The draft regulations accompanying the bill are also an improvement. There are now definitions of cash and of the nature of the records that must be kept. There is still some concern however in our party that too much is left to regulation. As such, the operation of this legislation could change dramatically without being brought before this House, again requiring only an Order in Council.
We do understand the need as was articulated in the committee for flexibility in such a moving area. We recognize that, as many people are engaged in money laundering activities, they are very quick to find and exploit any loophole in the law. We must be just as quick to stop them from doing this.
There also remains a concern that the recording of large transactions will be extended to overseas branches of Canadian banks. We know, for instance, that there is a significant amount of money laundering activity going on in the Caribbean. It is our hope that this will not provide for the significant undermining of our efforts. We are pleased that more countries are joining the effort to curb laundering activities at this time.
I will leave it at that, but I would just like to leave you with a note. We want to send a message to this government and to the people who would do these illegal activities in our country. We as parliamentarians will not stand for this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order made on Thesday, June 18, 1991, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Kempling.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would like to defer the vote until 9.45 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Stop the bells now. Pursuant to Standing Order 40(5)(a), the division stands deferred until 9.45 p.m. tonight.
And the bells having stopped:


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, there are precedents. Once the bells have started ringing-You know full well, ask your old colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, Mr. Neilsen. We have been through that bell ringing before, Mr. Speaker. Members were called in. You cannot stop that, we are not in a lawless place, Mr. Speaker.
June 19, 1991


Mr. Kindy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, once the bells start ringing, I think we cannot stop them. Maybe you could indicate how you go about having them stopped.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but the rules are very explicit about that.


An hon. member:: Which rule?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Standing Order 45(5(a), page 27, latest edition.
(5)(a) When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, including any votable Opposition motion on an allotted day- except as provided pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes -
And carefully note this:
- provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred -
This is what I have just noticed.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, you are right. Standing Orders state it clearly. But we are now told the division will take place at 9.45 p.m., if I am not mistaken. Can the Chief Government Whip guarantee that the Prime Minister's party, which is being held at 24 Sussex Drive, while Canadians go hungry, will be finished at-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! That was no point of order.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of report stage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the National Energy
Government Orders
Board Act, on which Legislative Committee C reported without amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order made Thesday, June 18, 1991, the Chair will now recognize one member from the government party, two members from the Official Opposition, and one member from the New Democratic Party to speak for a period of time not to exceed 10 minutes each, following which the Speaker shall put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage and third reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act.


Gilles Rocheleau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you permission to speak, because Bill C-2 relates to the National Capital-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. I remind the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer that the Chair is bound by an order of the House unanimously agreed to by the members present and that, after having recognized each of the members named in the motion, if the House unanimously agrees, I will be pleased to recognize the hon. member.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the whips can agree for their own party, but they cannot agree for independent members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order. The hon. member knows very well that there is an order of this House and that the Chair is bound by it.


Gilles Rocheleau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the Speaker of this House to protect the rights to the minority members. Independent members have the right to speak and I have the right to protect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. I will point out again that this matter was resolved several hours ago. The Chair is bound by an order agreed in front of the whole population by the members present in this House. I recognize the honourable whip of the government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise for a few moments to speak on Bill C-2. As members know, my constituency is the constituency of Calgary West.
For some time now one of the smaller units of the National Energy Board has been located in the riding of Calgary West and in fact is housed at the present time in the same building as my constituency office.
This piece of legislation in terms of western Canada, the provinces of Alberta and Calgary in particular, has symbolic significance of great importance. We lived through a very difficult time some years ago with the National Energy Program which had some very difficult consequences for our community and our part of the country. That is where the symbolism comes in, the transfer of the National Energy Board to Calgary has a symbolic flavour.
Perhaps of more importance in the longer term is the fact that it will reduce the costs consumers ultimately have to pay for the provision of energy in this country. The location of the board in the city of Calgary really signifies the fact that 90 per cent of the work done by the board and those who are petitioners before the board involve firms in the city of Calgary. This will cut down enormously on their travel costs, food costs, airline tickets and so on, and ultimately any business expense ends up being paid for by consumers.
This move, while a bit costly in its initial phase, will have long-term consequences over the decades and will reduce those costs to the consumers of the future. It is a sound business proposition. It has symbolic importance,
particularly in this year when we are so engaged and will be engaged in the 12 months ahead on national unity issues. That symbolic importance for the good of this nation through its willingness to stay together cannot be underestimated. I guess if there is a negative side to it, we know and we feel badly for some of the families that feel they cannot travel to Calgary. It would be lovely if they could. They would enjoy it and their children would prosper in that part of the world, but there are families with two incomes, with two jobs and there are difficulties in many cases caused to families in the Ottawa region.
The provisions to assist those people in securing employment with the Government of Canada in this region are also an important part of the plan of the government so that the disruption to families is minimized as much as possible.
In closing, I just want to say to the National Energy Board on behalf of the people who live in my riding, the people who live in my city, the people who live in my province and the people who live in western Canada, welcome, we will treat you well. The country will be better off when this piece of legislation is proclaimed.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for your help because I see that the Minister who moved the motion is not present in this House, and since there is no Member of the Cabinet in this House, it is out of order that we should continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to point out to the hon. member that no member should mention the presence or the absence of any member in this House.


François Gérin: But the Minister is not here!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If you remember, a moment ago, I simply said that the custom is that the member moving a private member's motion has to be in the House to move his or her motion. That is why we then had to make this observation.
However, more generally, the House rules provide that we should not mention the presence or the absence of a member in this House.


François Gérin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. But the Minister did not present his bill. There is no Minister here and the government-
June 19, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I think hon. members are questioning the Chair's ruling, which is not allowed by our rules.
The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I know it is getting late but I really did need to speak on this bill. I have just been through the rather unpleasant and difficult experience of sitting on the legislative committee on Bill C-2 and it was once again a demonstration that the government is prepared to use its majority power either in the House or in committee to override any sense of good democratic process.
The government has had this bill in hand in committee since May 23, 1991.
It was only last week, over three weeks later, on June 18 that the committee finally convened to consider who it would invite as witnesses. Having sat on the bill for three weeks, the government members on the committee used their majority to ensure that the committee would complete its business less than 48 hours later. What it essentially said was there are witnesses who want to be heard from, but unless they can come to its beck and call within the next 36 hours, the committee is not going to hear from them.
As a result, many of those employees to whom the member just referred, who are affected by this decision of the government to move the National Energy Board, were unable to appear either individually or through their union representative and present their concerns about this bill, some suggestions which they felt should be considered by the government and possibly even in the legislation.
There was ample time for the committee to hear from witnesses and conclude its business in time for this House to deal with this bill before the recess. However, members were adamant that they would not sit at all on a Friday or on Thursday evening or on Monday to hear from people whose lives are being disrupted and changed with very little warning and very little notice.
The committee was able to hear, excuse me, chose to hear from only one representative of employees representing the small component, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. The Energy, Mines and Resources component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Council of Canadians and numerous others that had written to the minister indicating their interests
Government Orders
in this bill and their opposition to this bill were not allowed to come before the legislative committee.
Many of my own constituents could have come had the committee in time given any indication, had the government members of the committee in time given any indication that they would not hear from the duly elected union representatives of those employees. They did not, and therefore people were denied the opportunity to present to the members of this Parliament their concerns and ways in which those concerns could have been remedied.
There is a lot of playing with words in this. It was very interesting during the course of discussions to find out that this government has no decentralization policy. It was very interesting to find out that it does but it does not. We asked very specifically, and the information I have from the Treasury Board is this: "The decentralization program no longer exists." The decentralization policy does not apply. On the other hand, the next paragraph says: "For some time the Treasury Board has been working to eliminate the decentralization policy".
You may ask: what difference does this make to this bill and to these employees? The change in location of the National Energy Board affects over 300 employees. If this were being handled properly, as the decentralization should be, the employees would be given up to a year's notice of their move. They would be given an extended period of time in which to maintain a residence here, travel back and forth, and adjust their family life to their new situation.
Because the policy is not being followed by this government, people are being forced to make choices to either separate their families or not move with the board. The result is that the board is losing some very competent and capable people. I think that is a shame, but I think it is more of a shame that the federal government is not living by its own policy, which says one year notice to employees.
We all know that this has been extremely rushed and as a result it is extremely expensive, and I will come to that in a moment. The announcement was made in the budget on February 26 without the knowledge of the chairman of the board of the National Energy Board and without, I am told, the knowledge of the minister. As late as the end of April people did not know the conditions under which they were being asked to move, they did not know what expenses would be paid or what would await them in Calgary, but they were asked to make a decision within less than three weeks as to whether they wished to uproot their family and move halfway across the country. That is not a fair and just way to treat people.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
The minister, when he appeared before the committee, referred to fair and equitable treatment of all employees. I want to acknowledge that the minister seemed genuinely surprised when he found out that all employees were not being treated equally and were not being treated fairly, that some employees in the management category were being treated with much more compassion, with much more respect and with very special privileges compared to the rest of the employees of the National Energy Board.
I urged the minister during the hearings, and I urge him again, to ensure that the equity and fairness he referred to in his presentation to the committee are respected and that people are treated with compassion and concern for their individual lives.
Unfortunately, the minister chose to use the opportunity to make some rather unfortunate comments about public servants and I want to refer to them because I do not think that was appropriate. The attitude on the other side of the House seems to be that if people choose not to go with the Energy Board it is because they are not loyal to their employer or because they somehow have something against Calgary. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People have reasons why they are unable to relocate when a government job relocates. It is entirely inappropriate for the minister to say things like: "To put it bluntly, I have very little time for public servants who, with emphasis on service, somehow feel it is their great gift to the Canadian public if they are located in Ottawa". That is not the case at all. People were hired here. They have established families here. There were many particular cases we heard over the course of the hearings which indicate why people will choose not to move.
The kind of special treatment the management category is getting is very effective because 75 per cent of the management category is going while-and I think this should be a real concern-only one-third of the scientific and technical category is going and less than 10 per cent of some of the support staff.
That very clearly indicates that this move has a discriminatory and much more significant effect on women employees of the board, and I think the board needs to address that.
The other concern is the move to special employer status. Unfortunately the chair of the committee ruled out of order an addition to the bill which would have protected employees during the transition to special employer status. Again I urge the minister, having not agreed to that amendment so it could be incorporated in the bill, to have a look at truly meeting the obligation of fairness to employees of the board, as he stated.
The member who spoke previously said that this will save money. In fact it will cost $26 million and there has been no cost benefit study done, so he has no way of knowing whether it will save money or whether it will cost more money. It will definitely cost more money to hire employees. The board will have to pay up to $15,000 extra for many of their employees to compete with the market in Calgary, and that is the reason for applying for special employer status.
I would encourage the member to stick to the facts, to withdraw any suggestion that he knows this will save money, when he knows no such thing. In fact, the cost is $26 million, some of which will be paid by the industry. However, as the member has said, that portion will end up on the oil, gas or coal bill of every consumer in Canada.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, first of all, that I share the concerns of the member for Ottawa West. Second, I have nothing significant to add to the remarks I made at second reading or to the remarks made by my colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan at second reading. The concerns we have for the employees of the board stand. However, on balance we support the bill.
Having noted that, I would like in the interest of fairness and balance to seek the unanimous consent of the House to turn my remaining time over to the member for Hull-Aylmer so that he may speak about the effect of the move on his constituents.
June 19, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I understand the hon. member. Does the House give its unanimous consent to hear the member of the Bloc Quebecois?


Some hon. members:: No.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-2, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act, a government bill to move the National Energy Board from Ottawa to Calgary-
I think it is absolutely abominable, Mr. Speaker, that the government should want to transfer anything out of the National Capital Region, all the way across the country. Especially not these days. Today, we have heard the President of Treasury Board announce that he does not want to hear about salary increases for public servants unless they are at 3 per cent at the most.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to enforce the Rules of this House. We find it very hard to hear the excellent speaker, the hon. member because our colleagues on the other side are chatting right and left and their voices cover almost everything else. From my place, all I can hear is their murmur.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I can tell the hon. member that I hear voices from both sides of the house while he is speaking.
I recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester again.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon. members of this House are supposed to remain in their respective places.


An hon. member:: Only for the votes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: What the hon. member means is that members of this House can only speak from their place in the House. But the Rules of the House provide nothing on the matter as far as other periods are concerned.
So, the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester has the floor.
Government Orders


Eugène Bellemare: Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I also thank my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois who are kind enough to want to hear what I have to say. They really believe that the government is wrong in presenting this bill. I would like for them to do me the courtesy of listening to me for at least a few minutes and not interrupt me for the fourth or fifth time.
They could try. Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board announced today that salary negotiations were now over as far as he was concerned and that, contrary to what had been said, the maximum raise public servants can expect in not 3 per cent but 0 per cent.
Now, public servants will have to accept a 0 per cent maximum raise this year so that none of them is laid off. Mr. Speaker, he gave as an excuse the yearly big deficits but especially the huge and disastrous national debt which is now nearing $400 billion. A few hours later, the govemement was trying hastily to spend a lot of money to transfer an entire government unit to Calgary.
I am clearly under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the government has not moved in this case by reasons of efficiency and efficacy but strictly by political reasons. It is evident when talking with government members who do not represent the Capital Region, and sometimes I ask myself if they care for it, if they would rather transfer every good public servant to be found in the capital anywhere else in Canada. The government members give everyone the impression that all the public servants are to be found in Ottawa. Rarely have I met a member who knows that less than a third of the federal public servants live or work in this region. So that means that more than two thirds work elsewhere in Canada. There is a report on the Public Service.

"Key statistics on Federal Public Service Work Force, 1990"

And this tells us that, in 1990, all these 218,328 employees were proportionally distributed according to the population of each province. I note the province of Alberta which has 6.1 per cent of the public service work force. I notice here that the province of Quebec has 14 per cent and Ontario 16 per cent to be added to a third already in the capital region, divided between Hull and Ottawa.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
In the discussions with the Public Service, we are also reminded that they are trying to reach a proportion which would be fair for women, men and visible minorities. Two hundred and seventy-three civil servants will be asked to leave the national capital region, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering what for. Thirty per cent of these civil servants are French-speaking people who live either on the Quebec or on the Ontario side. These families will now be forced to live in Calgary, a wonderful place which is extremely friendly, I have been there. I know some people and I have friends who work there. However, the majority of the people who work in Calgary-I would even say practically everybody at the present time-are people who really want to live in Calgary and make it their home. But presently, some families are going to be torn apart.
Several civil servants belong to families where both husband and wife are working. They both work to pay for their home, their mortgage and all the family related expenses. What protection is the government going to offer in the case an employee who is moved to Calgary if his or her spouse cannot find a job? What protection? None. In the case of children, are there any French schools? I am told that yes, there are some. As we know very well, here in the National Capital area, some people prefer either the Quebec school system or the Ontario school system. Only on the Ontario side, there is a choice between French public schools and French Catholic schools. Is there such a choice over there? What about the choice of doctors for example, when people are used to having a family doctor? Will French-speaking families enjoy health services in French? Will they have access to professional legal services in French? Will they have a French community centre? Will they be able to live in French, if they want to?
Families will be torn apart, Mr. Speaker. For all the 273 families that will have to be transferred, there are young people who are 16 to 21 years old and do not want to leave the area they live in, the house they live in; as a former educator, I am sure many of those young men and women will want to stay in the National Capital area, and this will tear families apart.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it does not make sense to move the National Energy Board to Alberta even if 80
per cent of all oil and gas activity takes place there. It is easy to forget about activities related to electric power elsewhere and other energy products the National Energy Board has to deal with.
Another impact of the move, Mr. Speaker, will be considerable travel costs between Calgary and Ottawa because the National Energy Board officers will have to come here for meetings with directors, administrators and ministers responsible like the energy minister. I tell you they will end up with two head offices in no time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In putting the bill now before us you noted that the agreed upon allotment was a 10-minute speech by a member of the government, two 10-minute speeches by members of the Official Opposition, and a 10-minute speech by the New Democrat opposition.
That 10-minute speech by a New Democrat opposition member has not been made. I spoke for two minute at the most.


An hon. member:: It was the best speech of your life.


Ross Harvey: Why, thank you. I would like, therefore, to seek unanimous consent of the House to allot the remaining time from that New Democrat allotment to the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, that he may voice the concerns of his constituents in this regard.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Members of the government agree.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton-East, from the New Democratic Party, for giving up a few minutes of his time to allow me to support the federal civil servants in the National Capital Region, on the Quebec side.
Mr. Speaker, as we can see tonight, a lot of bills are being pushed through at the end of this session, without Canadians, especially in the National Capital, being aware of them.
June 19, 1991

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-2, almost 300 employees of the National Energy Board will be relocated to Calgary, and they either take it or leave it. As stipulated in the bill, Mr. Speaker, from now on, these civil servants will have to reside in, or within a reasonable commuting distance of Calgary.
Mr. Speaker, for several months now, we have seen civil servants leaving the National Capital Region, and especially the Outaouais, for various parts of the world.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of decentralization the government has to offer to the provinces, if that is the kind of decentralization which is supposed to satisfy Quebec, and all Quebecers, we do not want any of it! Within the National Capital Region, on the Quebec side, there are 26,000 civil servants. A few hours ago, we took away their job security, Mr. Speaker. A few hours ago, we gave the President of the Treasury Board the right to eliminate the persons-years principle, and authorized managers to transfer employees.
Mr. Speaker, how many of these measures will the government apply from now on, and who will get hurt? The federal civil servants, that's who. In closing, I want to say that this is an intolerable situation for the Outaouais and all of Quebec. If that is how you intend to ensure national unity, Mr. Speaker, I feel very sorry for you. Mr. Speaker, the president of the Treasury Board mentioned earlier that he would most likely pass a bill if civil servants decide to go on strike when the timing is right. This is a decision they already made. What did the minister tell us tonight? That he would pass a bill precluding any strike in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, this a shameful dictatorial attitude towards federal civil servants. This a totally unacceptable way to deal with those civil servants. I have to speak for my fellow citizens in the Outaouais Quebecois, because none of the 67 Quebec members of the government said a single word tonight to protect a single job in this area. This is the kind of government we have. It reminds me a bit of Christmas Eve, when you open presents under the Christmas tree. The only difference is that there is no gift for the Outaouais Quebecois. They are transferring employees one by one, and these will soon be discharged. That is the way you deal with your civil servants.
Mr. Speaker, never in the history of Canada did a government trample on his employees the way this
Government Orders
government does. There are 26,000 public servants in Quebec who are worried because they think Quebec will become a sovereign State in 1992 because Quebec is not satisfied with federal propositions after the Meech Lake rejection. Mr. Speaker those same public servants who clung to employment security with the federal government just lost that security tonight. I say this to the public servants on the Quebec side of the Outaouais and also to those on the Ontario side of the National Capital area, because the whole area will be affected by that move. It is not only the people from the Outaouais who will lose their jobs, but also people from Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester and Carleton, people from Buckingham, Aylmer and Hull, people from all over the National Capital area.
I see those whited sepulchres opposite looking at us and laughing as if it were funny to cut jobs here and transfer them to the riding of the Chief Whip of the Government of Canada. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is another hard blow. After getting involved in education in Quebec, in professional training, in regional development, today they are depriving us of our jobs on both sides of the Ottawa area.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 300 employees will have to move to Calgary, and but the worst of it is that Canadians who have been asked to tighten their belt will now have almost $30 million for unfairly transfering those public servants who are now working here. If they do not want to go, they will get kicked out. A little pay cheque and then out.
Mr. Speaker, I find that absolutely ridiculous.


Mr. Pronovost:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice is rising on a point of order.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer has really taken off on a flight of oratory, but before we have a work accident in this House, I would invite him to remove from his jacket the knife from the parliamentary restaurant and the fork that everybody can see-


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I did have a knife. It is the knife the Conservatives use to cut jobs in the Outaouais. That is the knife, Mr. Speaker, and here is the gag that the Conservatives stuffed in our mouths tonight in this House.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will ask the House of Commons, I will ask all members who are here, even though, unfortunately, there are not many, if empty seats could talk, they would not say a word.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to the order of Tbesday June 18, 1991, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion on the bill at the report stage?


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Shefford.


François Gérin: It is Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, Mr. Speaker, but it is a neighbouring riding, a very scenic rural riding in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I note that there was a minister to move the motion, but that there was none to second it. Therefore, I think that we should simply reject this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Canadians are getting a course on the rules of the House, this evening. I remind the House that it is not necessary for such a motion to be seconded by a minister.
I ask the question again. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this vote deferred until 9.45 p.m.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, all day you have reminded us how important are the motions carried last night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I remind the hon. members that Standing Order 45(5)a) authorizes the government whip to request that the division be deferred. I am only following the Standing Orders.
Therefore, at the request of the whip, I defer the division until 9:45 p.m. On a point of order, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal your decision and ask that the question be put forwith, in accordance to the order that was carried in secret last night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I have two comments to make. First of all, nothing was done in secret, and I want to say to the people who are watching us on
T.V. that the proceedings of the House of Commons are public, that they take place in front of the T.V. cameras, d'un ocean a l'autre.
Moreover, the question was put forthwith. You have to understand that it is the recorded division that was deferred. But the question was put and, in accordance with the Standing Orders, I have no other choice but to defer the division until 9.45 p.m., as requested by the whip.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find there have been discussions among the parties and that there is unanimous consent to permit me to introduce a private member's bill regarding a National Solidarity Day for the First Nations of Canada.


Some hon. members:: agreed.
June 19, 1991



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act respecting a National Solidarity Day for the First Nations of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me take this occasion to thank all of my colleagues for this generosity. I am simply requesting that a bill be introduced and read a first time. It is called, an act respecting a National Solidarity Day for the First Nations of Canada.
It says: "Throughout Canada, in each and every year, June 21 shall be known under the name of Aboriginal Solidarity Day". I will consider this to be first reading of this bill.
I do not seek time for further discussion, but as the clerks are looking for the bill at this unexpected time for introducing private members' bills, may I just ask the members present, if it be appropriate, that we simply deem to have read the bill a first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So that there is no misunderstanding later on, the chief government Whip has asked that the vote be postponed to 9.45 p.m. He has just asked for another vote to take place at 9.45 p.m. I think he should revise what he just said to make sure that we do not have a debate on which vote will take place at 9.45 p.m.
He should tell us how you intend to proceed. You should make your wishes very clear to the House. It is regular, but I want to make sure that we do not have a useless debate when we arrive to vote.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the most common practice of the House with a deferral is that the first deferral would be the first item voted on. If there is a second deferral at the same time, it would be the second item, and so on. The series would be in that form.
The bill we just completed would be the second item in terms of report on third reading. The first deferral would be the first set of votes.
Government Orders
I thank the member for raising it because it is an important instruction to members. Some members may want to vote on some of these items and others may want to vote on other items.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has taken note of the interventions from both sides, and we will proceed with the successive votes on the various bills at 9.45 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons, as reported with amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 18, 1991, the Chair will allow 30 minutes of debate at report stage and 30 minutes of debate at third reading, following which the Chair will put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of third reading of said bill.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate at report stage.
I would like to begin by putting on the floor two amendments. I would like to move these two amendments pursuant to the motion passed last night.
Perhaps I can read them into the record. I move:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-6 be amended in clause 2 by adding immediately after line 5, at page 2, the following:
"4.2 The Governor in Council shall not establish an Automatic Firearms Country Control List, or re-establish, amend or vary such a list so as to add a country to that list until
(A) the Minister has tabled in the House of Commons a certificate in respect of any country to be included in or added to an Automatic Firearms Country Control List stating that

Government Orders
(1)	the country is reasonably required to be included or added to an Automatic Firearms Country Control List for purposes of Canada's national security;
(2)	the inclusion or addition of the country in or to an Automatic Firearms Country Control List will enhance security in the region of that country;
(3)	the country is not a country that is a threat to international peace and security;
(4)	the country is not a country that is excessively armed; and
(5)	the country is not a country using military armaments, or a country where there is a serious risk that such military armaments will be used to suppress human rights in breach of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations declarations and convention relating to such matters; and
(B) the inclusion or addition of a country referred to in paragraph (A) in or to an Automatic Firearms Country Control List has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons."
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-6 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 37, at page 2, the following:
''(C) a security impact assessment in respect of the export made by a committee of the House of Commons after the committee has conducted public hearings in respect of the export, concluding that the export will have a net positive security impact on Canada, has been tabled in the House of Commons".
I would so move both of these motions, seconded by the hon. member from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. If I may pass them to the clerk, I will then perhaps address a few minutes of remarks to the motions.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule the proposed amendments out of order because the motion was made last night between parties excluding, of course, the independent members who were not consulted. Today I understand the motion that was presented, I was not allowed to speak to the motion or the amendment, despite the fact that it is new. There was no way to know even, this morning or last night. So either the order is changed and I am allowed to take the floor to defend the interest of my constituents, or you reject the amendments as such.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this motion was deliberately worded to allow 30 minutes. If the member would like to speak to the amendments, I think those who would like
could shorten up a little to make sure that there is adequate time to respond to the amendments.
The government has no intention, unless there is time left over, of using any of the time that it might normally claim.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what the chief government Whip is saying. Are there two standards? There was a government order that only government members and opposition members would be able to speak, and suddenly he is changing that order and there was not unanimous consent.
Could you make it clear to me, please, Mr. Speaker? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I want to be very clear. It is said in the Votes and Proceedings, that there were 30 minutes for the debate at the report stage and 30 minutes of debate at third reading. There is no other restriction. So any member can take the floor during the 30 minute period.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on that basis perhaps we can then proceed to debate the two motions that are on the floor.
The two motions deal with the following points. There are really three points embodied in the two motions. The first important point is that the first amendment would provide that the government will be bound by very specific criteria when it comes to consider adding countries to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Bill C-6 gives to the Governor in Council the right to establish an Automatic Firearms Country Control List, the result of which is that automatic firearms can then be exported to that country.
There is in place now a government policy that covers export permits in respect of weapons and military goods. The government has said in committee-and the hon. Minister for International Trade said it in committee- that the government would be bound by the polity which has been established by the government in deciding whether or not it is going to permit the export of automatic weapons. As well, the minister gave some very express words to the committee as to the policy that he or the government will follow in respect of adding countries to the list.
June 19, 1991

This amendment embodies precisely the requirements that the government says it will be bound by. Rather than leave it to the government, this amendment would have Parliament control the criteria applicable to adding countries to the list. The great significance of this is that we have here a very critical national policy as to whether we are going to get into the arms trade business with countries outside NATO and countries with which we have traditionally traded arms.
Saudi Arabia is the first in a slippery slope. There is a risk that governments will be tempted, for industrial policy reasons, to begin trading with Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines, South Africa, who knows what countries, in the interests of furthering the industrial concerns of various constituencies. These criteria will prevent a government from changing, at whim, the policies that it wishes to follows, and we call on the government to consent and agree to that.
The second part of the amendment imposes a requirement that the list be approved by the House of Commons, that the list be made public and open to public debate. It would seem to me that the reasons for that are self-evident, because of what the government calls an anomaly in the Criminal Code. The government is being forced out in the open to debate the sale of light armoured vehicles, with automatic weapons attached, to Saudi Arabia. That debate has been very valuable, as we will see shortly. It is critically important, as a matter of public policy, that whenever the Automatic Firearms Country Control List is established, whenever countries are added to it, that that be a matter of public debate in this House and subject to the approval of the House.
The final point, and I will finish now, is that the amendment will require that before an export permit for prohibited weapons is issued, there will be a security impact assessment by a committee of the House of Commons. Again that is self-evident, similar to an environmental impact assessment. We believe that no sales of firearms or other weapons should take place around the world unless it is in the security interests of Canada.
It cannot be merely for the industrial interests of Canada. It must be for the security interests of Canada and consistent with those security interests. The idea of a
Government Orders
security impact assessment was put to our legislative committee by Ernie Regehr of Project Ploughshares. It is a fine idea, one which is incorporated in this amendment, as are the other amendments. I would urge the House to adopt these policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The two motions presented by Mr. Brewin and seconded by Mr. Hovdebo will be debated together and voted on separately.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, these two amendments to Bill C-6 are substantially the same as two amendments which I presented to the bill while the bill was in committee, although I must say that my amendments were better drafted and more comprehensive. Nevertheless these amendments have substantially the same content and therefore I would support them.
Let me go on to say that these amendments, as well as the amendments I put forward in committee, are similar. The first amendment is similar to the government's policy on these questions, not legislation, but to its expressed policy.
Why then are we attempting to put the government's policy into legislation? The reason we are trying to do this, and the reason the hon. member is trying to do this, is that as the legislation is written it is too wide open. Through the legislation alone the government could in fact sell to a number of countries that many of us would not approve of.
For example, the legislation as written says that the government can sell these automatic firearms to any country that is on the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. It says that only those countries with which the government has an agreement for defence, research, development and production, can go on that list. At the present time, the government has 10 such agreements. Nine of the agreements are with NATO countries and the tenth one is with Sweden. At the present time, the government can only sell these automatic firearms to those 10 countries, but not necessarily to those 10 countries.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
The problem is that the government can conclude further agreements on defence research and so on with countries and there are no guidelines, no criteria to stop it from developing, let us say, from concluding agreements with countries all around the world, some of whom are involved in conflict, some of whom have serious human rights violations.
The government has a policy-it is not in this legislation-that it will not sell arms or that it will consider very seriously selling arms to countries that are involved in conflict, either international or internal conflict, or it will consider very seriously selling arms to countries that have serious human rights violations.
We think these are good policy criteria, but we want those policy criteria included in the legislation. That is what I attempted to do in committee, and it was defeated by the government members. Now the hon. member is attempting to do the same thing at report stage. I think that is a good thing.
The response of the government, when we tried to do that in committee, was that this would make it too inflexible for. the government. We say that is correct. It will make it too inflexible for the government. Why should the government suddenly want to change its own guidelines which are sound? Why, for example, would the government want to sell weapons to a country where there are serious human rights violations? Why would the government want to change the policy and sell arms to a country that is involved in conflict, either internally or internationally, where the security of Canada is not involved? Why would the government want to sell arms to a country where the United Nations has imposed sanctions, such as South Africa?
We are saying if the government takes these guidelines seriously, and they are sound, then they should not be subject simply to ministerial change in a cabinet room. We are saying that these guidelines are so sound and so reasonable that they should be put in the legislation.
That is what my hon. friend is trying to do. They are not expressed exactly in the same way, but they are substantially the same as the government's policy guidelines. He is putting them in the legislation and, yes, they will make it more inflexible. The government will not be able to change them unless they come back to the House of Commons and seek an amendment. We think that is a good thing, because it puts the control of these very important matters, that is, to whom we sell arms, in the hands of parliamentarians and not simply the cabinet.
The other reason why it is important to put these guidelines in the legislation is because if they are broken, or if they are interpreted too widely, then a
citizen can go to court and seek an injunction saying: "You are breaking the legislative guidelines".
If the guidelines simply are left in a policy document as expressed by the government, by the minister, and they are interpreted too broadly or too loosely or even violated, there is no way anyone can go to court and say to the judge that the government is breaking the guidelines because they are not law. What the hon. member is doing is putting these guidelines into law, and we support that.
One might ask again, why we want to do this at this time when they have been in policy documents for years and years and that has been more or less satisfactory. We want to do it now because there is a new commitment to stopping the sale of arms to countries with serious human rights abuses or who are involved in conflict.
During the Iraq-Kuwait war, the world was outraged by the fact that 95 per cent of the armaments held by Iraq were sold to Iraq by the five permanent members of the Security Council. The Prime Minister of Canada, and rightly so, said he was outraged at that and called for a world summit to control the arms trade. That was seconded by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said that it was very bad that the world should be selling arms to a country like Iraq, especially in such great numbers, and that we must do something about it.
We agree with the government. We agree with the Prime Minister. We agree with the former Minister for External Affairs that something more substantial should be done. What we are suggesting, and I support the hon. member, is that we put these guidelines into law and I hope the House will accept that.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the right to speak is given back to independent members and that the government is beginning to realize that, after all, democracy is what is best in the world. The government presents today a bill forbidding the sale of Canadian arms to countries where democracy is really not what it should be, to countries where Canadian arms could be used to infringe on human rights. But what happened in this House in the middle of the night, Mr. Speaker? The House passed motions secretly, so to speak, after independent members were led to believe that it was all over and that everybody could go to bed at eleven o'clock after they had spent 12 hours in a row in this House. All of sudden, at eleven o'clock, 15 very important motions were passed without any debate. Mr. Speaker, those motions made it clear that no independent member, no
June 19, 1991

member of the Bloc Quebecois would have the opportunity to speak. If that is what the new Canada is all about,
I think that we should-


Denis Pronovost: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice is rising on a point of order.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very specific motion that was submitted to the members of the House of Commons, but the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is talking about an entirely different subject. He is talking about what happened last night, and I think you should call him to order immediately so that he can talk about the motions before the House, since he wants to exercise his democratic right to express himself as a parliamentarian. Now that the House has allowed him to do that, I wish he would do it properly for once.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, this same government which had sold arms to Iraq when Iraq was our friend found itself in a tight spot when the president of Iraq turned against the western world, since we had to declare war. The government knifed independent members of this House in the back last night, and I think there is an interesting and important parallel to be made here. We simply should not allow the exporting of arms to countries that could use them to violate human rights, to repress people, to build an arsenal, and suddenly find out that, we have to spend billions and billions of dollars to try to take those arms away from them.
Think about what happened in Iraq. How much did that war cost the free world? The Iraqi people were fighting with weapons those same countries, not only Canada, but also the United States, France, and Great Britain sold them, when they were considered a friendly country, fighting against Iran. That is making fun of us! There is a parallel to be made here between the tragedy which happened at the Ecole Polytechnique and these
Government Orders
weapons. If these weapons are made in Canada, if we have research and development done in that area, if we allow such weapons in our country and authorize their exportation, then we are more likely to have dangerous people firing crazily at innocent victims, as we have seen in Montreal, Quebec.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want the government to get serious. You have heard some interesting speakers. There is no substantial policy, and I know the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is knowledgeable in that area, there is no substantial policy in this bill. It will give us great pleasure to defeat it in a little while.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the motion standing in the name of Mr. Brewin. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this is an unanticipated result, but I think the solution for the House is to defer this vote as well until 9.45 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: According to the Standing Orders and according to the request of the Government Whip, the division on the question stands deferred until 9.45 p.m. when the divisions will be taken seriatim, that is successively after the previous bills will have been disposed of.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, a motion was passed last evening which provided for 30 minutes of debate at report stage and another 30 minutes at third reading. I am wondering if the House would give consent to allow the debate on third reading to continue at this time and then we will put the question later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the Chair has no other choice since it was specified in the order found in the Votes and Proceedings. We have just concluded the thirty minutes or so of debate at report stage and we must now proceed to third reading, if I understand the order correctly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The normal practice at report stage is to hear the yeas and nays for each proposed amendment and to do that in sequence with the debate to take place on each amendment. We have in fact disposed of the first amendment. There is a second one on the floor. We would have no objection to members spending 30 minutes on the second amendment if that were the will of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So I had a little distraction. Of course, before we proceed to third reading, we have to dispose of the bill at report stage, and that cannot be done until the recorded vote is taken at 9.45 p.m., after all other motions have been disposed of.
So, to be very clear, a motion was presented a few minutes ago asking unanimous consent of the House to proceed to third reading stage.

Does the House give its unanimous to go to third reading?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, given the situation we are in with the motions that have been passed, it would be in the House's best interests if we suspend to the call of the Chair at 9.45 p.m. at which time the bell would sound to call in the members.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is member of the Whip's own party who wishes to speak on an adjournment debate. It is a four-minute speech. There will be a gap of time before the votes.
If the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is prepared to give consent for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, it would be in the interests of all of us since we are here until 9.45 p.m. anyway to permit that member to speak on the adjournment debate.
I would appeal to the Whip to be reasonable to one of his own members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tend to be reasonable at all times to all members. I hope that is my reputation.
The government would have absolutely no objection to any member of the House who feels dissatisfied with any of the questions they have asked making some comments. Perhaps we could start on a priority basis with those who were on last night's list and lost their opportunity at that stage to have their late show privilege of four minutes. On any side of the House, if there are members in that position, we would have no objection to use the time between now and the time of the votes in that way.
This House is the bastion of freedom of speech in this country. We would like to see consent from all sides of the House to continue the debate on this important piece of legislation. In the absence of that, we would be quite happy to have the late show for as long as it takes.
June 19, 1991

Government Orders


François Gérin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to vote in favour of the government bills, because of the major blow dealt to democracy. However, members do have rights, even though they are not the same as those of the government. That is why I think we should allow members to ask questions, which we could have done yesterday, that is, of course, if there are people on the government side who can answer, but then I would be very surprised if there were.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since we do not have unanimous consent on the motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton South East, I will recognize the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the individuals originally scheduled to speak. I think I was second last night for the adjournment debate.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I will listen to you after the hon. member.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, to continue, I was one of the members last night. I think there were five of us in total. Of course, when extended hours happened last night automatically the adjournment debate was killed. I would really appreciate the co-operation of the House to have the adjournment debate tonight. I am speaking further to a question about the need for pornography legislation. It would be for four minutes and, if there is a parliamentary secretary, there would be a reply. There may be one or two Liberals who were scheduled last night as well. It is time that is not going to be used for any other purpose, and I would really hope that I could get consent of this House to proceed with that.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I do not give unanimous consent to this request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The matter is settled. There is no consent and I will suspend the sitting until 9.45 p.m., when the question will be put on several
bills.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Why should we suspend the sitting, Mr. Speaker? I live 350 kilometres from here and my constituents expect me to be in this House to participate in the proceedings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order. I suspend the sitting because there is no unanimous consent to proceed. The sitting is suspended until 9.45 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 9.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the sub-amendment of Mr. Kempling at report stage of Bill C-9, An Act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried. The next question is on the amendment, as amended, standing in the name of Mr. Langdon.
On a point of order, the hon. Government Whip.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is a predispostion in the Chamber to apply the vote just taken to this amendment.
An hon. member. No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is not unanimous consent, we will proceed with the vote. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment, as amended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


PAIRED -MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment, as amended, carried.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate my presence in the House during the vote.


Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-9, an Act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime be concurred in at report stage, with an amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Government Orders


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:



[Stage Direction]
Members
Be lie mare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that the end of the session is near, we should regain some common sense.
I do not think that this is the most sensible way to conduct our affairs. Mr. Speaker, you had, as is your duty, to call the votes. You asked for those who were in favour. There were yeas and there were nays. Therefore it was your duty, and you did it, to call the vote. So it is incomprehensible that the vote would be unanimous in many instances.
We know veiy well what is going on. But this is not the way to conduct, in my opinion-
(English]
I only say that as far as Marcel Prud'homme is concerned, I do not think it is the way to conduct our affairs. I understand it has been difficult since last night for a group, I will call them a party, it has been difficult for a political party but that is no reason. I will not participate in that kind of charade. If you call a vote, I will vote. I will let the others do what they want, but I know exactly what I will do. If you call for a vote, I will vote. If it is a unanimous vote, I do not understand why we are being asked to vote.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been prevented from speaking because of the motions of last night, but we will not be prevented from voting!
*
*


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act, be concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want it on the record that despite the curtailed vote games that are being played this evening, I have been present for every vote, I will be present for every vote. Whether I am allowed to vote or not, I am here, and I want my people to know that.


Mr. Darryl Gray (Bonaventure - iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for seven years, we are all Canadians, but I have never seen such a fiasco as this tonight. If we want to go on in that way, Mr. Speaker, my constituents of Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine will know that I am ready to keep sitting in this House.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, this government has deprived us of our right to speak for two days to stand for Quebec.


Mr. Epp moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons, and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Brewin.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Brewin.. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of Mr. Brewin. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Allmand
Angus
Baker
Blaikie
Brewin
Funk
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hicks
Kaplan
Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Nystrom
Riis
Rocheleau
Taylor
June 19, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at the report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Wilson), which	
was agreed to on	the following division:
Anderson	(Division No. 35)
 YEAS Members Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bjornson
Blais	Blenkarn
Browes	Casey
Chadwick	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole	Corbeil
Crosby (Halifax West)	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	Dick
Epp	Ferland
Fretz	Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hockin	Hudon
Jelinek	Johnson
Kempling	Landry
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacKay
Malone	Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid	Nicholson
Oberle	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reimer	Ricard
Schneider	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Turner (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle	Vezina
Vien	Weiner
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-67 Allmand	NAYS Members Alt house
Angus	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker	Benjamin
Black	Blaikie
Brewin	Dingwall
Edmonston	Funk
Gerin	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Hunter
Kaplan	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lapierre	Laporte
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Mitchell
Nystrom	Prud'homme
Riis	Robinson

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
Rocheleau	Stupich
Taylor	Whittaker-32


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
MacAulay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill, as amended, concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 18, 1991, a thirty-minute period is scheduled for third reading of the Bill.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I trust that most of the members of the House will remain while I explain to them why they should vote against this bill on third reading. I am sure that they know the reasons why they should be against this bill. It is those opposite who should remain while we are doing this. Perhaps we could have a second while the House clears.
We have 30 minutes in which to address the issue of the fundamentals of this bill. What I would like to do is first of all set out the two fundamental reasons why our party is against this bill and will vote against it on third reading.
The first is fundamentally a matter of conscience. This bill will permit the sale of automatic weapons to any country in the world that the government deems fit to sell those-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I would ask the cooperation of both sides of the House. I would remind hon. members they are invited to a reception given by the Speaker at the usual place.

I recognize again the hon. member from Victoria.


John F. Brewin: The minister of privatization or whatever it is, says he is going for a drink. That would probably help his understanding. The member chose to intervene in the debate. The minister chose to heckle during the debate. There is no order in that point. It seems to me
that if the government members are interested in listening, I hope they will just learn a point of two from the observations we have to make.
This is one of the most important policy initiatives that is before the House in this part of the session. It represents a significant departure of Canadian policy which would permit the sale of automatic weapons to Saudi Arabia. That country has a very poor human rights record. It is in a region of the world which is sensitive, testy and has just come through one of the most difficult wars of this century. The people of that region are still paying the price.
The war that we have seen in the gulf is a war which both sides in this House can see was caused by the uncontrolled sale of arms by the western world to a region which did not need those arms. It seems to me that the first issue is an issue of conscience of all Canadians. I believe that Canadians find it very difficult to understand why it is that one of the first bills that this government introduces in this session is a bill to extend and expand the sale of arms after the eloquent statements which were made at the end of the gulf war.
As we went through this bill and through committee, I learned a thing or two about how the government works. It became very clear that instead of the conspiracy theory of operation it is the screw-up theory that really counts most of the time. This bill was an invention of the international trade side and those who are responsible for selling goods abroad. The export permit people in External Affairs and the trade minister are responsible for this bill, not the External Affairs minister who is responsible for disarmament and arms control, not the Prime Minister, but those who are responsible for industry.
The argument that is made in committee for this bill over and over again is the industrial argument. Here we have jobs. Here we have an industry. Let's sell them. Who cares what the purpose of the weapons are? Who cares that there are people who may be killed as a result of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia? That is irrelevant.
We had an official from the minister's department who came before our committee and said that the only reason for this bill was industrial. There was no examination of the security reasons for this bill, there was no suggestion of the foreign policy reasons for this bill. What we had was simply a trade deal.
June 19, 1991

Surely, after everything that the world has seen in this century, the time has come to call a halt to arms sales. That is the first issue before the House.
The second issue is that this bill is flawed. The government has said over and over again that it complies with certain standards when it comes to the sale of arms. But its members refuse to agree to an amendment which would incorporate those standards in the legislation. The government has refused amendments which would require it to make the list of countries public to whom arms will be sold. It has refused those amendments. It has refused sunset clauses. It has refused to set out the reasons why we should be permitting sale of arms abroad. That is the second reason why we are against this bill.
The government was so anxious that this bill go through because there is at least one side of the government's head which understands that the defence industry is fundamentally a flawed industry. Around the world, the market for arms is fading. The third world can no longer afford arms. The market in the west is contracting. The cold war is over and investments which Liberal and Conservative governments have made in the arms industry are proving to be flawed investments.


An hon. member:: Yes, hundreds of thousands of jobs.


John F. Brewin: My Liberal friend here says "Hundreds of thousands of jobs". But it is jobs at the price of human lives.


An hon. member:: Give me a break.


John F. Brewin: He says, "Give me a break". They are making guns, they are making automatic guns which are going to be sold to a repressive regime in Saudi Arabia.
Out of all of this has come at least one ray of hope, and I would like to use the remaining couple of minutes to outline where that ray of hope is coming from.
Last night the government agreed at long last to a suggestion put before our committee by the Canadian Arms Control Centre, John Lamb and Project Ploughshares, that the time had come for a full public review of the export of arms by Canada, the defence production industry and policies of conversion from military uses to
Government Orders
civilian uses. As a result of that agreement, tomorrow morning the external affairs committee will meet and will strike a special subcommittee, which will be authorized and agreed to by all sides of this House, to conduct that public inquiry.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


John F. Brewin: That public inquiry will have hearings not only in Ottawa, but outside of Ottawa. We will work in full co-operation with the citizens' inquiry that has been established by the Canadian Peace Alliance and involves groups from all across Canada. We will be working closely with that citizens' inquiry. Members on all sides of the House will work to try to understand that there must be a better way for Canadians to earn their living.
This morning I spoke to CAW Local 27 from the hon. Liberal member's riding. Its members asked for this bill to be passed. They disagree with our position that this bill should be defeated. But they said to me this morning that they, more than any other Canadians, want to earn their living doing something other than making arms. The time has come for members on all sides of this House to realize first, that this is a dying industry. This country cannot continue to go through the slippery slope of first selling to the Americans, then to the Europeans, then to countries like Saudi Arabia. Who will be next? Indonesia? South Korea? South Africa? If the government accedes, as it has in this case, to the argument of selling to Saudi Arabia, it will accede next year to an argument to sell to Indonesia or South Korea or to whatever other dictatorship wants arms from Canada because this is a dying industry.
The first thing the government has to realize and will realize is that there must be a change in how we earn a living.
Let me finish with this note. All Canadians want this Parliament to show some leadership in ending the arms race which has caused so much tragedy around the world. I believe that the agreement the government made last night to establish a public inquiry into Canadian policies in this area is a very important first step toward working out that kind of leadership for this country.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
I am very pleased that the government has acceded to that. I am very hopeful that the subcommittee will do very useful work for Canadians and that finally, perhaps, we can turn the comer and Canada can truly realize its place in the world as a peacemaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take long in this debate but I do want to put some perspective on what the hon. from the New Democratic Party has been saying.
To listen to him you would think that one of the major industries, one of the largest industries in this country was the arms industry. This is simply not the case. To listen to him you would expect that we were a major contributor to the build-up of arms in the Middle East which took place prior to the gulf crisis. That is simply not the case.
What I think is very clear is that we have in this legislation listened very carefully to the concerns that people have expressed about the importance of putting tight controls on any arms shipments. As we have moved into the area of the export of automatic weapons, we have been conscious of the fact that there is an anomaly which has prohibited the export of these arms, an anomaly in the Criminal Code which was not contemplated at the time the Criminal Code was changed in 1977. We are correcting that anomaly.
I think it is important to note that as we have corrected this anomaly, we have put a tighter set of export controls on the export of automatic weapons by providing for a country control list which will be very tightly controlled. There are very stringent requirements as to what type of country can be on that list. In addition to that, there will be a case by case review of every arms shipment that will be made that is subject to these restrictions.
There is a long history of control of weapons from this country. This government is not changing that history. It is not trying in any way to make any deviation from the standards and the traditions and values which have been expressed by Canadians during the course of many, many years. Those traditions will be honoured. Those values will be honoured in the administration of the control system that we have put in place.
I do want to make a comment on the statements made by the hon. member to the effect that we are ignoring the fact that there are certain countries, certain areas of
the world which have been subject to excessive arms build-up. We are conscious of that.
The Prime Minister has spoken of that. The previous Secretary of State for External Affairs and the current Secretary of State for External Affairs have spoken to that. We have been at the forefront of encouraging nations, the major arms exporters, to put a more transparent system in place so that we can avoid, as a group of peace loving countries, these build-ups in arms.
I go back to what my friend from the New Democratic Party has said, that the workers of Diemaco or GM Diesel would like to have other jobs so that are not working for a companies that produce arms.
I think that if we lived in an idealistic world, in a utopian world, we could all say that is something we strive for. However, it is simply not a realistic thing that we can expect to achieve in the world we live in today. We have to have armed forces in this country and we have to arm those armed forces so that they can do then-job.
Our level of requirement in this country is simply not sufficient to support domestic industries. What we have put forward in this legislation is a very tightly controlled means by which these companies, which have been suppliers to Canada, can also broaden their markets and supply to other countries and, by so doing, keep a viable arms industry within this country for our domestic needs as they are required. That is the simple basis on which we have allowed a very tightly controlled export, a process, a mechanism by which these arms can be exported to other countries.
If we are going to live in the real world, if we are going to recognize the reality as it is today, we must have some basis of supplying our own domestic needs. We must provide these companies with a basis whereby they can be viable enterprises or else we simply will not be able to have them supplying our needs and we will be totally reliant on the supplies from other countries. I do not think that is a sensible policy.
This is the basis on which we have gone forward. I have not heard much criticism of the mechanisms that we have put in place because they are among the tightest in the world today. It is on this basis that we present this legislation to the House.
June 19, 1991

As I said, we believe that it honours the traditions and values that Canadians have set forward, and we will continue to do so in the implementation of the policies that we have established.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are now debating the final stage in Bill C-6, which authorizes the sale of automatic firearms to other countries.
The minister, in the speech which he just gave, is pretending that this bill does not open up, to a greater extent, the sale of arms to other countries, but he says that it in fact places greater restrictions on the sale of arms. That is complete nonsense. This bill authorizes the sale of automatic firearms to other countries, firearms that, up until now, are not authorized to be sold to other countries.
This bill in fact authorizes a wider and greater sale of armaments to other countries at a time when the whole world, including the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for External Affairs and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs have said we should cut back on the sale of arms to other countries.
I just listened to the television news at 10 o'clock and at the CSCE meetings, which are taking place in Berlin, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs tried to convince the ministers of other countries that they should cut back the sale of arms to other countries. I could not believe what I was hearing since this bill is before this House tonight.
Let us read again what the Prime Minister said on February 8, 1991 in the midst of the Iraq-Kuwait war. He said: "One of the main lessons to be learned from this war is the danger to us all of the proliferation of both conventional and non-conventional weapons." He went on to say: "The major arms exporting firms and nations have contributed to the current crisis."-that is the Iraq-Kuwait crisis-"The greater majority of weapons in Iraq's arsenal come from suppliers in the countries of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This problem must be brought under control and the time to act is now." He went on to say: "Next week I will propose to the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, that the United Nations convene a global summit on the
Government Orders
instruments of war and weapons of mass destruction." That is the Prime Minister on February 8,1991 only a few months ago.
What did the Secretary of State for External Affairs say? He said: "It is imperative that the world declare that there be no Middle East arms bazaar. Ninety-five per cent of the weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein came from the five permanent members of the Security Council." He went on to say that he would call for a world summit to control the arms trade. There was such outrage at the time of the Iraq-Kuwait war at the fact that 95 per cent of Iraq's armaments came from the five permanent members of the Security Council, that the world said: "Let's do something about this". I thought they were serious. That was one of the few occasions I applauded the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What do we get a few months later but a bill to authorize the sale from Canada of armaments that up until now had not been possible to sell. We opposed this bill at second reading because it was too open-ended. We can understand the sale of armaments to countries who are involved in collective security arrangements with us for defensive purposes or for peacekeeping. Consequently, I have no argument with the sale of these small arms to the Netherlands and to certain restricted countries. But this bill was too open-ended and lacked parliamentary control, too much control was in the hands of the cabinet and the minister.
At committee I proposed two amendments. One would have restricted the sale of arms in this bill to the very policy criteria that the government has in its policy statement on this matter. The government does have a policy statement on this matter. The problem is that it is not legislated, and if we take the words of the Prime Minister to heart, the words he said in February, and the words the former Secretary of State said in February, then we should make our rules a little bit tougher. We would make them a little bit tougher if we put the guidelines, if we put the policy principles they have in that policy statement, into law. That is what I tried to do in committee and it was defeated by the government members.

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
Tonight the hon. member for Victoria tried to do it again. He had more or less the same ideas in his amendments and it was defeated once again tonight.
The other thing we tried to do was provide for greater transparency in the sale of these arms within our own country. I had put forward an amendment stating that any addition to the list of eligible countries to which we could sell these armaments, each time an addition was proposed by the government, that matter would have to be referred to the standing committee on external affairs where the minister would have to go and justify the addition of this new country for the sale of arms. The committee would discuss it and vote on it and then send that back to the House.
This would put this very important matter, i.e. the sale of arms to other countries, not only in the hands of the back room of the cabinet but also into a committee of Parliament where it could be reviewed.
I recognize that the government has the majority on parliamentary committees and in this House so if it really wanted to ram through the sale of arms to a certain country it would be able to do so. Nevertheless, the Canadian public would see what is happening, and the government would have to come to justify the sale of arms to this new country or other new countries.
My amendment to that effect was defeated in committee, and tonight the amendment of the member for Victoria which was similar was also defeated in this House.
It is difficult to believe that the world, and this government, should show so much outrage at the sale of arms during the Iraq-Kuwait war, and they have forgotten about it so quickly. As a matter of fact, in the speech given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in London during that war, he pointed out that 28 western northern countries sold arms to both sides. What an obscenity. Of the countries that were not involved in the conflict, 28 of them sold arms to both sides and kept that war going for nine years, and a million people were killed.
They were not Canadians, Americans, French, British, or Russians. They were young Iranians and young Iraqis. They were human beings and these countries made profits, made money, out of selling arms to both sides. I must say that Canada was not one of those 28 countries. We did not sell to either side.
The fact of the matter is that the arms trade is out of control. One does not bring it to a stop, one does not make speeches to the CSCE, as the Secretary of State did today, it seems.
You do not make those speeches and then support a bill at home providing for a greater sale of armaments.
The government did not accept the improvements to the bill which we suggested. It did not accept the amendments we suggested, so we will vote against it again at third reading.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to contribute to this debate on Bill C-6 that will authorize the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons. It is the height of hypocrisy to hear the government say those kinds of things to Canadians at a time when they are outraged by what is happening, particularly in the Gulf region. In January and February, we heard the Prime Minister denounce the arms trade around the world. A few weeks later, the same government members come before the House of Commons and want to contribute to the arms race themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Canada would accept to militarize its economy today. The reasons given by the Minister for International Trade are not valid. They say they want to make the military industry in Canada more profitable and, for that, we have to export more arms.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a minister coming to tell this House that to prevent the exporting of arms is not normal. He did say that it was an odd provision of the Criminal Code.
After recent events, I cannot believe that this government, who tried to come across as uncompromising, will join the list of countries who participate fully and freely in the arms race. If Canadians were consulted on this legislation, they would not accept their government authorizing the selling of arms, specially behind everybody's back, because after this House has voted tonight, there will be no more control by Parliament. From now on, it will be External Affairs officers together with National Defence officers and Cabinet ministers who will decide where, when and how we will sell arms. I do not understand why there is no parliamentary control on a matter of such importance, Mr. Speaker.
June 19, 1991

Government Orders
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace talked about his amendments that we supported, but we cannot accept the fact that we are giving a blank cheque to this government to sell arms all over the world. We just have to look at recent events, not only around the world, but in the province of Quebec. Everybody wants a stricter control of arms. Everywhere, people want to restrain this epidemic of violence. Today, the government wants us to believe there will be a stricter control of firearms. We know how the government is. We know what lobby is putting pressure on them, Mr. Speaker. The legislation before the House is certainly the product of the defense industry's lobby. This industry successfully lobbied the Conservatives who now put cost effectiveness before human dignity.
I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker, when I hear these people say, as they did even today, that they are willing to sell arms to some countries, which have no democratic principles and-no respect whatsoever for human rights and for the fundamental values Canadians and Quebecers all share, especially where peace is concerned. If there is one thing our conscience dictates to all of us, it is our quest for peace on earth.
Canadians are always sad to see their government sell its soul in order to sell arms.
Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented, and only a Conservative government would introduce such a piece of legislation.


An hon. member:: Eleven per cent in the polls.


Jean-C. Lapierre: No wonder they are so low in the polls. Their policies go against the best interests of Canadians, but especially against their consciences. Today, they gave us the most striking example of that.
First, they followed blindly all military decisions made by the Americans and then they were ordered by somebody to impose this kind of bill to this House.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will fight this bill tooth and nail. It is too bad this government does not have more of a conscience.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: According to an order made Tuesday, March 18, 1991, it is my duty to interrupt all proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the exporting, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons.

The question is on the motion standing in the name of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division.
Anderson	(Division No. 36)
 YEAS Members Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bernier
Bjornson	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Boyer	Browes
Cardiff	Casey
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Yellowhead)	Cole
Cooper	Corbeil
Cote	Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)	Della Noce
Dick	Dobbie
Dorin	Edwards
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Fontaine
Fontana	Fretz
Friesen	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hudon	Jacques
James	Jelinek

June 19, 1991
Government Orders
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid	Monteith
Oberle	O'Kurley
Plourde	Porter
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Sobeski
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Turner (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle	Vien
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard	Worthy-92
 NAYS Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benjamin	Black
Blaikie	Brewin
Catterall	Dingwall
Edmonston	Funk
Gagliano	Gerin
Grey (Beaver River)	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Hunter
Kindy	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lapierre	Laporte
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lee
MacWilliam	Manley
Mifflin	Milliken
Mitchell	Pagtakhan
Prud'homme	Riis
Robinson	Rocheleau
Stupich Whittaker-39	Taylor


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bellemare	Clifford
Corbett	Hughes
Mac Au lay	Nault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
George Albert Proud: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: I would gladly have allowed the senior member of this House, my friend, Mr. Gray, the
hon. member for Windsor West, to say a few words, but since he is temporarily absent from the House, it is my pleasure to thank first of all the pages who will be leaving us.
I will not look at them, because I think we are all very sad to see them go.

It is a custom that at the very end, someone gets up. It is too bad somebody else did not do it. These young people are our hope for the Canada of tomorrow we wish to see.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


George Albert Proud: I sometimes stay longer in politics because when I see these young people who will be the Canada of tomorrow, I think there is hope.
There is one thing which I hope-I say it in English only-that they have understood. There are, in this House, many different kinds of members of Parliament. There are some who are very devoted to other opinions than mine. I think there is hope that these young people may communicate to their friends and parents that there is a hope for Canada as long as we accept-

-the difference that exists. They have seen it today during this debate. And vive la difference!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Finally, I would like to thank all my hon. colleagues for their cooperation and indulgence. I also thank the clerks and all the staff.

I present to all the members best wishes for good holidays and good work in your ridings.
It being 11.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 18, 1991-

-the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 1991, at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 21, 1991